[adzling]

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.

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

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Despite 6w's streamlining, it's still not a cooperative storytelling game in the manner of Anarchy.

[Marcus]

Okay so you simply decided not to tell us you were using a completely different definition of what a glitch is. Check.

Not telling you would imply dishonesty, when you asked I did answer. Also I have put forward this argument before, almost right after the first live-stream came out, and this point didn't come up then.   

My apologize to anyone who was confused by this. My intention has always been to be honest and transparent.

Clearly one of my points is invalid due to a bad assumption. I been wrong before will and I will be wrong again. That fact doesn't change my over all point and frankly the confusion just supports it. We have no factual basis for making a determination on 6e. I don't in anyway mean to be rude when saying that. We didn't learn about 6e from detailed specifically system releases, or well defined play examples. We have a handful of non-specific big picture articles, some clearly questionable live streams, and the QSR that reportedly has a tenuous connection with those in 6e CRB.

I'd just like to take a moment to thank Lormyr and Hobbes, you both have truly fair and honest voices through this whole process. It's y'all example that gets me to sign on everyday.


 

[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.

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

I was considering it for a bit, but didn't have a game going on. With the new edition, I figure I may be able to get new players into the game.

[adzling]

Despite 6w's streamlining, it's still not a cooperative storytelling game in the manner of Anarchy.

is cooperative storytelling different from a narrative game?

[Serbitar]

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.

Ahem sorry. What? I am sorry. What? Are you just forbidding people to post statistical evidence? Statistical facts ARE facts. Facts are NOT oppinion. You know, science.

Are you really saying what I think you are? But its right there.

So you are really saying that dice do not care about statistics because they are random? And that you can not argue using statistics? Do you also believe in Fake News?

Damn.

[adzling]

Again

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.

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

I was considering it for a bit, but didn't have a game going on. With the new edition, I figure I may be able to get new players into the game.

thanks, that pretty much makes sense.

so any idea why catalyst wouldn't develop anarchy to be the alt, rules lite version and retain the depth of play in the main version?

that would seem to satisfy both gamer types.

[Marcus]

Despite 6w's streamlining, it's still not a cooperative storytelling game in the manner of Anarchy.

is cooperative storytelling different from a narrative game?

 A matter of degrees I guess? I'm really not sure. Fate vs Scion 2nd? Both are Narrative and Collaborative. Scion 2 just has a lot more complex rules then fate. Or maybe Fate vs Accelerated Fate? How many rules can we strip off this concept?
 

[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.

Ahem sorry. What? I am sorry. What? Are you just forbidding people to post statistical evidence? Statistical facts ARE facts. Facts are NOT oppinion. You know, science.

Are you really saying what I think you are? But its right there.

So you are really saying that dice do not care about statistics because they are random? And that you can not argue using statistics? Do you also believe in Fake News?

Damn.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

Statistics are facts, yes. But the use of statistics can back up any argument, as long as you spend the time to show the statistics how you want them to verify your outlook.

[Michael Chandra]

In the end, numbers showing the odds of causing a glitch with the new Edge move isn't that relevant, since people still like taking risks. Or not. And you may spend 1 Edge to force a reroll on the opponent's side, or save up and go for that sure-win yourself with turning a 4 into a 5. The argument 'the bigger the dicepool, the bigger the glitch chance' might be based on wrong intel and can be countered with numbers, but the feeling people have to the actual odds and the willingness to roll the dice, is not something this math can cover.

I can say as fact 'glitch chances lower with bigger dicepools', but I can't say 'the odds are too poor'. I CAN say that I personally don't like the odds so likely would never use this move, but that's an opinion, not a fact. And even then they are odds. Just because 5 hits on 6 Spirit dice was rare, didn't make it less of a risk and painful event when it happened and then the mage got the bad luck of 1 hit on 21 (thanks to a reroll) dice. So I do agree that statistics aren't everything. There's a reason I tend to focus on '1/X for A to happen, 1/Y for B' when discussing numbers: To put a face to the odds. And even then, those numbers don't need to be here.

Look, I like calculating 'what's better: spending 3 Edge on forcing the enemy to reroll 3 hits or spending 4 Edge to reroll 8 of my failures'. I calculated the break-even point between Exploding and Rerolling with a simple math-formula. I created a spreadsheet to determine how much a Limit I needed at what dicepool counts when being risk-averse (<1/10 chance of losing hits). And the actual numbers are VERY useful when it comes to Drain-debates. But FastJack DOES have half a point: I can calculate all the stats, give exact odds as 100% legit facts, but even then those facts can merely support an opinion, they can't turn an opinion into a fact. In the end, the thing that matters is 'how much of a risk am I willing to accept/take'. The only thing the math is supposed to do, is help you base your opinion on the right numbers. But they don't define it.

[Katanarchist]

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

I’m not a fan of the Cue System. At least, I didn’t enjoy its implementation in the Valiant Comics RPG, and I’m not inclined to give it a second chance. Yes, I could play a different rules hacked version of the setting — the Genesys system apparently has one, and I quite enjoy that system — but seeing as Catalyst is producing a new edition which so far seems to be catering to my tastes, why wouldn’t I give it a shot?

And, turnabout being fair play, seeing as you presumably already have an iteration of the game suited to your table — I’m making an assumption based on how upset you seem to be that Catalyst is moving away from that style — why not just keep playing the game you already enjoy?

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Yeah, spending edge to make the NPC reroll successes is a 2/3 chance of negating a hit per die.  That's not mechanically bad odds... no "trap" there. 2in 3 chance to negate an opposing hit is in effect a 2 in 3 chance of increasing your own hits against that total. 

It's also about the most effective way to to manipulate your soak roll as each die is 2/3 chance to negate a box of damage! And depending on your dodge roll, you can potentially make it a 100% soak by changing a hit to an outright miss.

[adzling]

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

I’m not a fan of the Cue System. At least, I didn’t enjoy its implementation in the Valiant Comics RPG, and I’m not inclined to give it a second chance. Yes, I could play a different rules hacked version of the setting — the Genesys system apparently has one, and I quite enjoy that system — but seeing as Catalyst is producing a new edition which so far seems to be catering to my tastes, why wouldn’t I give it a shot?

And, turnabout being fair play, seeing as you presumably already have an iteration of the game suited to your table — I’m making an assumption based on how upset you seem to be that Catalyst is moving away from that style — why not just keep playing the game you already enjoy?

thanks I was trying to determine if there was a perceived difference between Anarchy and 6e and why someone would choose 6e over Anarchy.

Your question is totally fair and accurate, our table will stick with a modified version of 5e.

[Katanarchist]

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

Under no definition are numerical modifiers to die rolls a, “nod towards realism.”

RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I just found something quoteworthy for my sig.