[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Or, to flip it around, it places more emphasis on being skilled with the weapon rather then just happening to be the most roided rager in the room, since unless you know what you're doing you're likely to hit someone with the flat of the blade or misjudge the position needed for a good slice leaving only painful, but otherwise superficial bruises and lacerations.

And professional baseball players have never had steroid scandals because the power (damage) behind swinging a bat has nothing to do with strength....

Gimme a break.

As anyone who has any true understanding of physical combat will tell you, strength, speed, coordination, and skill all play a part in how much damage can be brought to bear.  With simplification being a main goal of 6e, we can't expect anything to come close to accurately incorporate all of those things, the least that can be done is if Agility and Skill are being used to attack, Strength should play a part in damage.

...so according to the  6e rules, being in my 60s, out of shape with maybe no where near the strength I used to have, let alone that of say, Mark McGuire in his prime (particularly when he was on the juice), but still knowing how to swing a bat from my younger days in the game and still having that "eye", I would be able to belt a home run as hard and as far he could.

Yeah, doesn't make sense.

Hyperbole aside.... neither 5e nor 6e has rules for determining how far you can slug a baseball with a swing.  Either system, the GM is making up how to mechanically figure that answer... assuming the answer isn't just made up arbitrarily anyway.

You don't HAVE to make static weapon DVs into more than it what it is.  6e obviously isn't saying that strength has nothing to do with how far you can hit a baseball.  My point is neither is a static DV mechanic.  You can chose to link the two and have a bad time, or you can take the rules for what they are build on that framework to have a good time.  In my perspective, posts like this are cases of people choosing to have a bad time and falsely laying external blame for it. Obviously, YMMV.

[Rift_0f_Bladz]

You'll like the new system for that. Wonder if your group would see it as a challenge.

Not really, we like crunchy systems, why we are also not picking up Pathfinder2 and have not switched over to D&D5. We like, even with its faults, 3.X system, its compatibility with Pathfinder, and have figured out work around for major issues. We have done the same with ShadowRun 5ed. Don't like the overly streamlining of combat, stupidly weird "new edge", Armor being truely worthless, Str only used with Unarmed, loss of Combat Passes, etc. Only possible thing we might steal is the new Matrix.

Also, Catalyst has burned me with failure to address issues with editing, lack feedback for errors, and releasing errata for books 2+ years old. So, basically I am not giving them a lot more money to replace the books that I have and have figured work around to make the system work. Also, in this day and age closed playtest are pretty much not cool, but that could because Paizo spoiled me with Public Playtests. Granted, I don't care for Pathfinder2 as well, but at least I saw the basic system before I had to shell out money only to find out I do not like it.

Sorry, for the kinda long rant. I am just miffed that the two of the rule sets I love are are moving towards the simpler rule systems that are all the rage now days. I enjoy crunchy games, both in rules and tactics. This, is not one of those systems.

[Lormyr]

You can chose to link the two and have a bad time, or you can take the rules for what they are build on that framework to have a good time.  In my perspective, posts like this are cases of people choosing to have a bad time and falsely laying external blame for it. Obviously, YMMV.

While you do have a point to a certain extent, I would say falsely laying external blame isn't as accurate. Those people (myself included) that think certain design decisions were nonsensical have just a valid perspective as those that are cool taking it as it is.

I enjoy crunchy games, both in rules and tactics. This, is not one of those systems

SR6 is still fairly crunchy, just not comparably to SR5. We'll see how things progress once material from new books gets added in.

SR5, Pathfinder, Star Wars saga edition, and Conan 2nd are my gaming bread and butter too, so I feel your overall pain. Pathfinder 2 is such a disappointment.

[Michael Chandra]

You'll like the new system for that. Wonder if your group would see it as a challenge.

Not really, we like crunchy systems,

I was talking about Public Awareness, but if your mind is made, your mind is made.

Those people (myself included) that think certain design decisions were nonsensical have just a valid perspective as those that are cool taking it as it is.

"I don't like design decision X, because of reason Y" is a valid perspective, just like "I like it due to reason Z". "The design decision is nonsensical" is not. That's an undeserved attack on the people that worked hard with playtesters to work this out. It's that toxicity that's gatekeeping all the newbies away.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

While you do have a point to a certain extent, I would say falsely laying external blame isn't as accurate. Those people (myself included) that think certain design decisions were nonsensical have just a valid perspective as those that are cool taking it as it is.

I can dig it.

And for the record, lest my tolerance for static melee weapon DVs be mistaken for a love for them... if I were magically able to change things about 6e some sort of "fix" for this would be on my short list of things to do.  If I were allowed only one change, that might even be it.

Of course the devil would be in the details about what the change would be. The strength of divergent opinions in this thread alone suggest there'd STILL be bellyaching about that fix itself instead of the absence of a fix. 

Besides, an inherent advantage of a slimmer rules system over a more bloated rules system is you can more easily add to the bones than streamline the bloat.

[Ghost Rigger]

Arbitrarily capping this ressource at 2 points per round sure does, though 

This is actually a huge part of the "armor does nothing" conversation. If armor always contributed edge to attacks, then while we would still be lamenting the loss of soak dice, no one could say "armor does nothing". Instead, I can concoct a billion and one likely scenarios where a player gets two edge before they get shot at, hold them up, point at them and scream "ARMOR DOES NOTHING" like a coked-up baboon until my larynx bursts.

Hyperbole aside.... neither 5e nor 6e has rules for determining how far you can slug a baseball with a swing.  Either system, the GM is making up how to mechanically figure that answer... assuming the answer isn't just made up arbitrarily anyway.

And yet, assuming a sensible GM, we all know that whatever solution the GM comes up with, it will be largely based on the character's Strength, and possibly the qualities of the bat and measure of skill as well. We know this because there is precedent for it, both in the game (grenade throwing distance is determined by Strength) and in reality (stronger=hits ball harder=ball goes farther). This is the problem with several mechanical changes in 6e: some mechanics now have basis in neither reality nor previous editions of the game. We can debate forever about to what degree one strength plays into the damage done when you shank someone with a rusty screwdriver and how that would be most accurately represented by in-game mechanics, but we know that it does play some role, and that's not being represented at all by the 6e mechanics. This is inherently irksome for a number of people, not "choosing to have a bad time and falsely laying external blame for it".

[Shinobi Killfist]

Heck it not contributing to melee damage is detached from its own rules not just reality or older rules since unarmed does tie in directly. It would at least be more internally consistent if unarmed had a flat 1 damage or something. So weird for like a troll with bone lacing to do less damage due to having bone lacing, or a knife whatever.

As an aside for the ball hitting example. Even if there are no rules for that there are rules for things like attacking objects. Same scenario but instead of base ball it’s a lumberjack with a axe and a tree or a construction worker with a sledge and a brick wall.

There may be game design reasons for it. But, it’s far enough off of how people expect things to work it will cause a disconnect for many.

[Lormyr]

And for the record, lest my tolerance for static melee weapon DVs be mistaken for a love for them... if I were magically able to change things about 6e some sort of "fix" for this would be on my short list of things to do.  If I were allowed only one change, that might even be it.

That's legit.

Personally, I like that they scaled numbers back, just not the exact way they went about it or the side effects doing it the way they did had.

Of course the devil would be in the details about what the change would be. The strength of divergent opinions in this thread alone suggest there'd STILL be bellyaching about that fix itself instead of the absence of a fix.

That will always be the case because of differing preferences.

Heck it not contributing to melee damage is detached from its own rules not just reality or older rules since unarmed does tie in directly.

Right?

[Rift_0f_Bladz]

At Lormyr- Maybe we should fine the old geezers table to cry about our lost systems of a bygone age!!

At Michael Chandra- Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding. Nah, mostly it was due to having a massive gun battle/sword fight on stage during a live show. Only afterwards did our crew learn it was a combination of publicity stunt for the preformer, setup by their manager, and way for the Triads to get ride of excess worthless foot soldiers. Made for some later interesting jobs though.

Edit for clarity

[adzling]

"I don't like design decision X, because of reason Y" is a valid perspective, just like "I like it due to reason Z". "The design decision is nonsensical" is not. That's an undeserved attack on the people that worked hard with playtesters to work this out. It's that toxicity that's gatekeeping all the newbies away.

1). working hard does not make you immune to criticism for building a poor product.
2). having core elements like armor, strength and weapons not function as one would expect is an issue worthy of criticism. Especially when there is no good reason for it to be that way except "we had to make it fit the edge mechanic".
3). Criticism is not toxicity.
4). Current customers are people too, and to toss away their concerns despite the fact they were the core customers for the previous edition and bought all the published books is, to put it bluntly, doltish. Few companies could survive if they purposely set out to tell their existing customers "get lost, we don't care wtf you think."

[tenchi2a]

"I don't like design decision X, because of reason Y" is a valid perspective, just like "I like it due to reason Z". "The design decision is nonsensical" is not. That's an undeserved attack on the people that worked hard with playtesters to work this out. It's that toxicity that's gatekeeping all the newbies away.

1). working hard does not make you immune to criticism for building a poor product.
2). having core elements like armor, strength and weapons not function as one would expect is an issue worthy of criticism. Especially when there is no good reason for it to be that way except "we had to make it fit the edge mechanic".
3). Criticism is not toxicity.
4). Current customers are people too, and to toss away their concerns because despite the fact they were the core customers for the previous edition and bought all the published books is, to up it bluntly, doltish. Few companies could survive if they purposely set out to tell their existing customers "get lost, we don't care wtf you think."

+1

1. Especially when you keep saying how hard you worked and what you can up with doesn't meet expectations.
People start wondering what you worked so hard on.

2. "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley" in action

3. Typical response to criticism in this day and age.
If you call it toxic you can ignore it,  is the thought.

4. Typical business plan these days.
For some reason companies have got it through there head that new customers are more important then returning customer.
While both are import, returning customer are the base you build off not the ones you throw away to get the new ones.

[Rift_0f_Bladz]

"I don't like design decision X, because of reason Y" is a valid perspective, just like "I like it due to reason Z". "The design decision is nonsensical" is not. That's an undeserved attack on the people that worked hard with playtesters to work this out. It's that toxicity that's gatekeeping all the newbies away.

1). working hard does not make you immune to criticism for building a poor product.
2). having core elements like armor, strength and weapons not function as one would expect is an issue worthy of criticism. Especially when there is no good reason for it to be that way except "we had to make it fit the edge mechanic".
3). Criticism is not toxicity.
4). Current customers are people too, and to toss away their concerns because despite the fact they were the core customers for the previous edition and bought all the published books is, to up it bluntly, doltish. Few companies could survive if they purposely set out to tell their existing customers "get lost, we don't care wtf you think."

+1

1. Especially when you keep saying how hard you worked and what you can up with doesn't meet expectations.
People start wondering what you worked so hard on.

2. "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley" in action

3. Typical response to criticism in this day and age.
If you call it toxic you can ignore it,  is the thought.

4. Typical business plan these days.
For some reason companies have got it through there head that new customers are more important then returning customer.
While both are import, returning customer are the base you build off not the ones you throw away to get the new ones.

+2

One for each of you!!

[FastJack]

I guess I just don't understand the need for the toxicity and gatekeeping. The only thing you are doing by trying to convince everyone that "6th edition is the worst and you shouldn't buy it" is actually convincing them not to buy it. Do you think that if SR6 doesn't sell, Catalyst will go back to 5E? Or try to create a 7E? If 6E doesn't sell, the most likely thing to happen is that they will stop producing Shadowrun. They aren't a large company and, if one of their production lines dries up, they will refocus on other things like BattleTech or DragonFire. And if Catalyst doesn't produce Shadowrun, then Topps will consider leasing the license to someone else. The only other company I can think of that would be interested is the new FASA corp.

And boy, if they buy it, expect them to REALLY change the game to match Earthdawn.

[adzling]

?
This makes me think you haven’t been listening.
But then I’m sure you’d say the same thing about me?

To be clear I think that people whose gaming preference is similar to mine will likely not enjoy 6e.

Moreover I think that catalyst missed a huge opportunity for improvement over 5e in many aspects of the game that could have brought in new players through simplification and streamlining while retaining the appeal for players such as myself.

That’s a huge disappointment for someone as committed to srun as I am (1990 to now).

That’s all.

I am sure many players with tastes very different from mine will enjoy 6e and that’s ok. That doesn’t make them bad or dumb people. They just have a difference preference to me and that’s ok.

None of that changes the fact that I find 6e horrific for all the reasons o have stated previously.

That’s not toxic, that’s a die hard fan having a sad.

[tenchi2a]

I guess I just don't understand the need for the toxicity and gatekeeping. The only thing you are doing by trying to convince everyone that "6th edition is the worst and you shouldn't buy it" is actually convincing them not to buy it. Do you think that if SR6 doesn't sell, Catalyst will go back to 5E? Or try to create a 7E? If 6E doesn't sell, the most likely thing to happen is that they will stop producing Shadowrun. They aren't a large company and, if one of their production lines dries up, they will refocus on other things like BattleTech or DragonFire. And if Catalyst doesn't produce Shadowrun, then Topps will consider leasing the license to someone else. The only other company I can think of that would be interested is the new FASA corp.

And boy, if they buy it, expect them to REALLY change the game to match Earthdawn.

And there is a reverse side to each of these statements.

Toxicity is a two way street and I have seen it on both sides of this argument.
1. The idea that if you don't think the game is good you are being toxic is as good as saying " If you don't agree with me you are wrong"
2. I have made multiple attempts to propose optional/house rules to fix issues I found with the game and have either been ignored, told there is nothing to fix it works fine, or that was proposed to CGL during play-testing and it was rejected.
3. So if no one is willing to discuss it is that any less toxic to the community see below.

If it doesn't sell well they will drop the line and FASA corp may get it.
1. This argument assumes that there is only one choice, love the game or lose it.
2. Is it also as likely that if you drive away the core fan-base and don't get the influx of new players you are hoping for that the game will not sell well thus leading to the outcome you mentioned?
3. Who's to say FASA corp get it would be a bad thing. I own Earthdawn in all its versions and don't see much difference in the new edition. I would assume it would be more likely that they would either revert to the last version to sell well (5th in your example of 6th failing) or revert to 3rd which from my knowledge was the best selling version.

Overall the idea of voicing an opinion on what you feel is wrong with the game, shows the writes that others may not agree with their ideas.
It may not stop them from going forward (as they may be to far along), but it may give them ideas to work with in books like Run Faster /Shadowrun Companion where they can provide optional rules to address the issues officially. I for one can say if this was done I may try it out, but if a "this is how it is live with it or leave" attitude is kept then I will do just that.
I am in no way against companies looking for new players to keep making money, but both my business education and personal beliefs warn against do it without care for your current customer.