Hot take: From the things I see so far, I donīt think that SR6īs Edge System is the "death of simulationism" or even sacrificing that much of it, apart from a handfull of very questionable decisions (most notably, that
goddamn limit). And most of these issues can be fixed with relative ease (which still begs the question why these pitfalls have to be fixed by the players, tho. But thatīs a thing for another post...)
There are two ways in which the Edge system can come in conflict with the idea of simulationism: Resolution and Correlation.
By
Resolution, I mean the "granularity" at which different factors of the game world are represented. Obviously, the granularity that is familiar from previous editions gets overall rougher with the Edge system. Instead of determining and adding a load of Modifiers, everything boils down to the 3 dimensions of either you or your oposition or no one getting an Edge. In Combat, you do this twice, once with AR-DR (which includes stuff like range, armor, cover, armor pen, recoil) and once for other environmental modifiers. Itīs simple, but itīs arguably pretty "Low-Res": It could be that you have 3 sources of advantage on your side, but you still get the same bonus as you would have gotten with just one of them. In these cases, the Edge system sacrifices a part of simulationism, no question.
However, you have two consider a bunch of other factors here: First, I donīt think that these situations will happen that often, partly because they cancel each other out and partly because there are still many factors that are represented by good old dice pool modifiers. And if they happen, the GM still has the authority to say "You know what? One Edge doesnīt really cut it in this case. I also add a dice pool modifier". Second, thereīs diminish return. Picture yourself shooting in dim light, with added heavy smoke, at a target thatīs in cover, all while your eyes are still burning from a tear gas shot you you received a minute ago. If you straight up stack all these modifiers and factors and add them to corresponding tests, it may sound realistic at first, until you realize that all of these modifiers have at least partially to do with how good you can see the target. The odds probably stack up so high against that youīd likely have a better chance if you were without all these modifiers, but firing with closed eyes. Itīs a big problem when you try to factor everything in that might be relevant in a given situation, and High-Simulationist system often fall in this trap. Considering all this, the "low resulution" of the Edge system is maybe not as bad compared to what we had before.
For the record: Yes, I
do think that the system could and should be more "high-res", if only to adequately represent all the fringe cases without too much GM caprice. F.i, instead of the 3 states "4 higher, 4 lower, about equal", I think that the AR-DR comparison could easily handle up to six states (10 lower, 10 higher, 4 lower, 4 higher, one higher, about equal). These could be used to determine other effects, f.i. if the attacker hits on a tie or if one of the sides can use Edge at all. The devs for the upcoming Combat book would do well to evaluate some of the ideas that are floating around for additional, more detailed combat rules. But I donīt think that SR6 is "OMG literally unplayable!" just because the Core rules are more lo-res than in previous Editions.
Second:
Correlation. Thatīs where the Edge system gets really icky for some out here. Thatīs understandable as well, at least on a first glance. What do i mean by this? At the core, Edge is mostly a positive or negative (If you give it to your opposition) modifier. Itīs hard to put an exact price tag on it, but most of its uses offer an effect that can be roughly translated into some kind of dice pool bonus.
However, you donīt
have to use that bonus on the test for which is was granted, and thatīs whatīs raising eyebrows. I could get an Edge for my good armor and cover, but instead of using it to avoid damage, I use it on my counterattack. I could get an Edge for Hacking a Device with weak protection, but I later use it on my defense test. This leads to
correlations that shouldnīt be there. Assuming that I can shoot better because I have an armored vest is
ridiculous. Itīs esoteric. It totally goes against simulationism.
Or does it? Because hereīs the thing: Is it really more realistic to assume that thereīs no correlation? Having armor and cover is good for defense, sure. But it also might give you the confidence to take the risk and aim just a little bit longer instead of trying to protect your ass. And
probably even to a degree where you defense advantage shifts into an offensive advantage. Same if it goes the other way around: If you get Edge by shooting from an advantageus position, but decide to use it on a later defense test, it can be perfectly explained by either the opposition being subtly cowed by your good firing position
or by the notion that you have used your little advantage to get a better look of the battlefield. Yes, itīs often not that easy to explain the exact correlation between one specific source of Edge and the test where you actually use it. But in most cases, you can at least refer to motivational or perceptional aspects to rationalize it. Edge is an abstract ressource, but that doesnīt mean that it has no connection to reality.
Arbitrarily capping this ressource at 2 points per round sure does, though
