[adzling]

It’s a mechanic that fits in card or board game, where it’s all about screwing over others for fun. RPGs steal fun mechanics aren’t solid. Point and Nelson laugh is good in board games, not RPGs.

this pretty much describes 6e's core Edge mechanic.

it's a descent into boardgamery and a hard step away from a PnP RPG.

this is backed up by the npc "cards" and "edge tokens"

sad.

[Lormyr]

I'm not casting doubt on your quotes (they are legit as far as I am aware), I just don't share your belief that his mistaken understanding is anything more than accidental.

[Moonshine Fox]

It’s a mechanic that fits in card or board game, where it’s all about screwing over others for fun. RPGs steal fun mechanics aren’t solid. Point and Nelson laugh is good in board games, not RPGs.

this pretty much describes 6e's core Edge mechanic.

it's a descent into boardgamery and a hard step away from a PnP RPG.

this is backed up by the npc "cards" and "edge tokens"

sad.

So, it’s “Sad” if a pen and paper rpg uses things like *checks notes* reference cards and props?

[Moonshine Fox]

I'm not casting doubt on your quotes (they are legit as far as I am aware), I just don't share your belief that his mistaken understanding is anything more than accidental.

There’s been several times now that people have stated things as fact, when it’s found they haven’t had the rules and are just repeating streamers secondhand in a short game of ‘telephone’. The various uses of edge being often misrepresented or facts left out has eroded a lot of good will to mistakes that are more then a few posts lasting.

[Lormyr]

There’s been several times now that people have stated things as fact, when it’s found they haven’t had the rules and are just repeating streamers secondhand in a short game of ‘telephone’. The various uses of edge being often misrepresented or facts left out has eroded a lot of good will to mistakes that are more then a few posts lasting.

I get that, and got duped by the same streamer/QSR misinformation too (part of the reason I am now adamantly against it being handled as it was as outlined up thread). I just found the particular response to the particular person to be unfair given the context.

[FastJack]

Can we please stop using statistical models of random dice roles to be used as proof that one opinion or another is "fact"? This goes to both sides. You can trot out whatever stats you want to show why your opinion is correct, when it's still just your opinion.

The reason I state this is because every role is random and doesn't care about the statistics. If we played a game and knew that the dice would always be statistically accurate, the dice are no longer needed for the game.

[Katanarchist]

this pretty much describes 6e's core Edge mechanic.

it's a descent into boardgamery and a hard step away from a PnP RPG.

this is backed up by the npc "cards" and "edge tokens"

Cards make it easy to quickly reference stats, abilities, and spells without having to flip through pages of notes or rules books. Also, during initiative, you can arrange the cards in order, and it's really easy to keep track of things, or to shuffle the order around or remove cards as dictated by the actions of the various characters in combat. Tokens or dials are a convenient way to track any sort of in game economy, like hit points or mana.

As a cranky old man myself, I understand not being a fan of change, but I'm baffled that anyone would like at tools used to help the flow of the game, and start to cross their arms and shake their head.

Regarding the 6e approach to Edge, the only game I've played with a similar mechanic is Star Trek Adventures with its momentum and threat pools. And while, yes, it can be very gamey, it can also be a great tool to inspire player driven narrative approaches; it's all in the group and how they approach things. Just like every other mechanic.

Does the melee combat focused PC take an action to move and make an attack with her sword, killing the enemy NPC? Or does the street samurai charge forward, ducking and weaving through a hail of gun fire. feint right with her katana, then spin left with a two handed swing that decapitates the leader of the enemy gangers demanding an exorbitant price for safe passage through their territory?

Does every PC on their turn spend 2 Edge to transfer 1 Edge to the PC able to create a powerful area of affect attack? Or does the team of shadowrunners work in concert to position the corpsec goons they're in a fire fight with just right, so the team's mage can unleash a devastating fireball and quickly end the fight?

[Ghost Rigger]

Regarding the 6e approach to Edge, the only game I've played with a similar mechanic is Star Trek Adventures with its momentum and threat pools. And while, yes, it can be very gamey, it can also be a great tool to inspire player driven narrative approaches; it's all in the group and how they approach things. Just like every other mechanic.

Is that what we want though? Shadowrun has always been a very simulationist system, and if narrative systems are more to your taste there are plenty of other systems out there for you to play. Some of them even have Shadowrun hacks, so you're not even missing out on the setting by playing a different system.

[Katanarchist]

Is that what we want though?

Obviously I'm only able to speak for myself, but yeah, it's what I want. I've always thought the Shadowrun was amazing, but I've never been able to get a game to last for for than a handful of sessions because it's a lot. Especially as a GM who, at my age, probably has some combination of spouse, kids, job or jobs, social obligations, alcoholism, other hobbies, Netflix queue, etc.

More narrative, relatively rules light systems are what best suits the table that I play at, and they're the systems I prefer to run when I GM.

And that's me. As I said, I can only speak for myself. I get that other people aren't as sprung on the idea, and I sympathize. I get what it's like when a system you enjoy goes through some radical changes, and isn't the game for you anymore. You could not pay me to play D&D 4e, but I would never begrudge the people who did enjoy it or tell them they were having fun wrong.

[Banshee]

Is that what we want though?

Obviously I'm only able to speak for myself, but yeah, it's what I want. I've always thought the Shadowrun was amazing, but I've never been able to get a game to last for for than a handful of sessions because it's a lot. Especially as a GM who, at my age, probably has some combination of spouse, kids, job or jobs, social obligations, alcoholism, other hobbies, Netflix queue, etc.

More narrative, relatively rules light systems are what best suits the table that I play at, and they're the systems I prefer to run when I GM.

And that's me. As I said, I can only speak for myself. I get that other people aren't as sprung on the idea, and I sympathize. I get what it's like when a system you enjoy goes through some radical changes, and isn't the game for you anymore. You could not pay me to play D&D 4e, but I would never begrudge the people who did enjoy it or tell them they were having fun wrong.

Exactly ... but also important to remember (and I have said this several times in various threads) ... just because we "streamlined" and made things easier does not mean we made it "rules light", and just because we made a lot of "real world" modifiers abstract does not mean the game is now devoid of tactical choices. I will further say anyone who says otherwise is either over simplifying, doesn't understand, or doesn't know the new rules enough. Things are very different in many ways ... some will hate it some will love it ... but that doesn't mean it doesn't work ... it just means it doesn't match your play style.

[Ghost Rigger]

But you could just play another system with a Shadowrun hack. The Shadowrun system doesn't need to stop being a simulationist system for you to run the Shadowrun setting at your table.

[FastJack]

But you could just play another system with a Shadowrun hack. The Shadowrun system doesn't need to stop being a simulationist system for you to run the Shadowrun setting at your table.

Or, you could switch your game to a Shadowrun hack for your simulationist needs? I've never played the game for simulation purposes, which is why I also don't play video games like Call of Duty.

I'm sorry if that came off as harsh, but you figuratively just told everyone that doesn't agree with your style of play to play another game and pretend it's Shadowrun. That is the main thing I'm fighting against in these threads that we are NOT going to tell other players they are playing the game the wrong way and your way is the "right" way.

[Moonshine Fox]

Regarding the 6e approach to Edge, the only game I've played with a similar mechanic is Star Trek Adventures with its momentum and threat pools. And while, yes, it can be very gamey, it can also be a great tool to inspire player driven narrative approaches; it's all in the group and how they approach things. Just like every other mechanic.

Is that what we want though?

Judging by how the market is right now, the answer is yes. That's my own personal answer too.

Shadowrun has always been a very simulationist system,

Not really. 4th and 5th have been a hell of lot more rules heavy then 2nd and 3rd. Shadowrun gained it's notoriety because it was different then anything else out there. This new "cyber punk" genera had a game now, 2 games in fact! Shadowrun stood out from Cyberpunk 2020 because of the folding in of urban fantasy. It was more crunch heavy then D&D, even back then, but was still on par with some of the other games that existed at the time (such as the Storyteller system that SR resembles). But even that wouldn't have made Shadowrun stand out, that is all in one thing. Environment.

Few other games have gone as far in making the world stand out in such a vibrant and riveting way. Stories were told across rules examples, Shadowland posts that were sometimes just silly comments and digs at one another, posters who's names we saw again and again and got to know the stories and personalities of, people (who I'm sure some of the older players in here can attest) we were sad to hear about their deaths. Incredible art stood out from page after page, detailed drawings that captured the feel of High Tech-Low Life, of Soycafe and Sorcery, of dark and deadly alleyways with crazed orcs with cyberlimbs leaping through a window dragging a man by his head. That is Shadowrun.

To be frank, if people want a simulationist game right now there are literally hundreds on GoG and Steam just waiting for people to play. Such a wealth of good games like that didn't exist even a decade ago, much less 2+ decades. You sit down at a table with a group of friends and a pizza to tell a joint story. That's what a TTRPG is, a joint story told together. Simulation heavy rules can and have turned people away from that to other TTRPG games, which I suspect is why so many games are going for the 'simple but robust' style of rules.

[adzling]

IT will certainly be interesting to see how 6e is received by the greater community.

This board (and reddit) is mostly populated with die-hard shadowrun fans who are into the minutiae, myself included.

Heck I'm so dedicated to shadowrun that our table will continue to run a modified version of 5e rather than move to a new RPG or adopt the (imho) horrific 6e.

While I agree that 5e needs streamlining (and wholesale rules replacement for the matrix and rigging) 6e's turn away from an attempt to model an abstracted version of reality to "screw it, let's just make shit up" has left me stunned.

It wasn't needed and it wasn't wanted.

The old timers frustrated with 5e and the newcomers turned away by 5e all wanted the same thing afaik: reduction in "magicrun", streamlined rules that simplified character creation and combat and included a working matrix and rigging rules.

From what I know (most of which I cannot divulge due to NDA) 6e ain't that.

6e is the replacement of modifiers (and other nods towards realism) with gamism, designed to further pump the rule of cool in favor of everything else.

That may appeal to many folks, time will tell.

All I can say for sure is:
1). this ain't for our table
2). 6e could have achieved it's goals without destroying the connection to reality and appeal to the existing player base
3). it's still riddled with almost as many editing fails, errors and poorly defined mechanics as 5e.

So what exactly does 6e achieve?

We will see.

[adzling]

More narrative, relatively rules light systems are what best suits the table that I play at, and they're the systems I prefer to run when I GM.

And that's me. As I said, I can only speak for myself. I get that other people aren't as sprung on the idea, and I sympathize. I get what it's like when a system you enjoy goes through some radical changes, and isn't the game for you anymore. You could not pay me to play D&D 4e, but I would never begrudge the people who did enjoy it or tell them they were having fun wrong.

Why not play Anarchy then?
It seems like it would be more suitable to your tastes.