[markelphoenix]

Sad news, they've given up on 6e and are canceling their show They do go over the problem points that lead them to this decision:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn1cYgG0bQw&fbclid=IwAR1K-AwMn1EedyJXm6n3q-IRPVEhijgDWKciiqjz1ref-4URmvXtjFv_OsU

[KatoHearts]

No one should have to suffer through 6e. Also it's a good video, check it out.

[markelphoenix]

I find some of their critiques are fair, but others seem very...nit picky.

[GuardDuty]

It is a shame they did not enjoy the new edition.  I thought maybe 2-3 of their complaints were pretty nit-picky, but I think overall their observations seemed pretty fair.  Shadowrun could use some positive visibility right now, and a 2 hour vid, reasonably presented, about how 6E let their group down is not it.

[markelphoenix]

It is a shame they did not enjoy the new edition.  I thought maybe 2-3 of their complaints were pretty nit-picky, but I think overall their observations seemed pretty fair.  Shadowrun could use some positive visibility right now, and a 2 hour vid, reasonably presented, about how 6E let their group down is not it.

Don't disagree. I am firmly of the belief that those who support this edition (I for one like the bones of it and plan to continue GMing it, in spite of it's current significant flaws), we should be very receptive to constructive criticism so that we as a community can either:
1) Provide a community House Rule pool of 'Community Fixes', similar to how gaming communities will create 'Community Patches' for video games.
2) Be consistent in our communications, whether they are at conferences, Mission Plays, or any engagements with any of the Freelancers or full time contributors.

[KatoHearts]

1) Provide a community House Rule pool of 'Community Fixes', similar to how gaming communities will create 'Community Patches' for video games.
2) Be consistent in our communications, whether they are at conferences, Mission Plays, or any engagements with any of the Freelancers or full time contributors.

1: We shouldn't have to do that, the system shouldn't be as deeply flawed as it is.
2: They don't care, otherwise 5e would have been well edited and we wouldn't be in this situation.

[markelphoenix]

1) Provide a community House Rule pool of 'Community Fixes', similar to how gaming communities will create 'Community Patches' for video games.
2) Be consistent in our communications, whether they are at conferences, Mission Plays, or any engagements with any of the Freelancers or full time contributors.

1: We shouldn't have to do that, the system shouldn't be as deeply flawed as it is.
2: They don't care, otherwise 5e would have been well edited and we wouldn't be in this situation.

This is not a debate on the virtues of what was done. I am pretty sure we all agreed Catalyst Games has done a miss service to Shadowrun 5e and 6e, especially when you compare it to how D&D 5e and Pathfinder 2e, how they play tested, got feed back, and iterated.

What we are debating, is how best as a community, for those of us that love Shadowrun and don't plan to abandon it, help make it a better experience for those who choose to continue supporting the setting that they love.

[Lormyr]

Just finished listening. Overall a largely fair critique. The majority of their issues are the same ones that the majority of those who have been outspoken have criticized.

[dezmont]

1) Provide a community House Rule pool of 'Community Fixes', similar to how gaming communities will create 'Community Patches' for video games.
2) Be consistent in our communications, whether they are at conferences, Mission Plays, or any engagements with any of the Freelancers or full time contributors.

1: We shouldn't have to do that, the system shouldn't be as deeply flawed as it is.
2: They don't care, otherwise 5e would have been well edited and we wouldn't be in this situation.

There is a point where the best thing is to recognize that unconditional love isn't loving something more, it is loving something in an unhealthy way.

While I have enormous attachment to SRun we should remember this is a commercial transaction, not a friendly relationship. While the people working on the line undoubtedly love the game, they are trying to make something to sell for money as the primary goal. That means that continuing to support them by consuming the product and trying to fix it ad-hoc after is the opposite of productive.

Like things have been bad for a long time and active choices were made to ignore that. People can talk about reddit being toxic all they want, but reddit IS currently the largest SR community. So while it is inarguable that many redditors have chosen to define their love of SR in part via a toxic 'I love to hate those guys' mindset with Catalyst, it is critical to internalize that this is currently the majority opinion of the line. I have seen the numbers for the facebook group, the official forms, and reddit. Reddit is 10 times larger than anywhere else in terms of unique users.

The refusal to recognize this fact, to hide away from the truth of where SR is as a game and where Cata is as a company, is why we are where we are now. You may not LIKE the fact that toxic users have become your core users. But pretending that there hasn't already been a massive amount of feedback on how unhappy people are with the direction of the game and very SPECIFIC feedback on what issues people see as the core issues that are making people unhappy.

Which was NOT over-complexity, which we can see from the video isn't even solved by 6e. 6e trying to simplify was a response to a new social trend caused by freaking Stranger Things of all things, where RPGs are now really 'in' and thus you want to make your game really accessible to cater to people who are RPG curious and were pushed over the edge by how genuinely stranger things captures the joy of RPGs. Its fine if YOU wanted the game to be simpler, and I think a simpler edition of SR as a core edition could work fine even among hardcore fans, but the core issues that the userbase cared about: Product quality, editing, role balance, and thematic issues, were not at all pushed as a priority for this edition.

There have been entire books written online about what could be done to fix SR. To make the game better and more in line with what people want. Lets not pretend that Cata just needs fan based direction to help the game recover, that has been an ongoing thing, that has been pretty overtly ongoing after Howling Shadows, which yes was a really toxic backlash that was not healthy and not productive, but should have been a HUGE red flag that there was a major disconnect between top end decision makers and what the fans actually wanted.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

It's more fair than unfair... there are indeed issues that still need love from the errata team even after the hotfix was published.  But I still can't help but imagine they somehow just failed to grok the system and therefore they still aren't giving a fully fair assessment of the edition.

For example:
They all agreed there wasn't sufficient opportunity for mages to gain edge?  Seriously? Spending reagents gives you free edge when summoning spirits.  Throwing spells at opponents generates (or gives) edge.  Even just throwing buffs around (say, Invisibility) gives circumstantial edge to your teammates... who can then keep it or maybe kick you back some edge in thanks.

And of course the math the GM cited about armor and what 1 point of edge is worth: a quarter of 1 die?  Uhhh... yeah they made perfectly clear they didn't like the Edge system but when they demonstrate they don't even understand the Edge system I have to question that their opinion is rooted in valid bases.

[dezmont]

It is fair to say that you don't like the edge system when you don't understand it. The edge system, the more I think about it and play with it trying to fix it, really shows itself to be a terrible idea and mechanic. You can not understand something and still find it awful. I am not saying this as an edition grognard, it just... objectively is a bad design.

It doesn't reduce complexity at all. It is, in fact, probably the best way to make an RPG painfully obtuse to play. You have replaced the rather simple interaction of 'roll less dice when things are harder' with 'compare an extra set of numbers on EVERY attack, do a math problem, and use this to charge an alternate resource, which you THEN use EITHER to modify dicerolls OR to do a unique set of one off actions. AND based on GM adjuration sometimes you get this for free based on how the GM feels about what decisions you made up till then. Also your fighting the fact this doesn't thematically represent something immediately happening which is a known red flag of mechanics due to it harming conveyance."

The underpinning of the edition is a mechanic that should have been cut pretty much the second it was tested. It is one of the most gamey things I have ever witnessed in an RPG, it feels like it was ripped from an obtuse but fun bigbox boardgame game like Dune or Twilight Imperium than an RPG. It sounds like something a mainstream comedy would use to make fun of how it feels like to play an RPG if your not familiar with them.

"After you make your attack roll compare your conviction stat to their Resolution score to see if you generate virtue points which you can trade in for heroic declarations later!" Snorts, pushes their taped together glasses up their face, reveals their buck teeth.

There is a reason those jokes deliberately avoid using thematic concepts and deliberately make things abstract; it makes things more confusing when mechanics representing literal actions contain totally abstract elements. People who don't play these games and use them as a punchline understand that. It shouldn't show up in a core design, it should be showing up in a Big Bang Theory episode.

Also, as they pointed out, the rules are... insanely poorly edited and actively fight against comprehension. The fact that people who are playing roleplaying games for a living couldn't wrap their mind around it isn't justification to point out they lack the knowledge to criticize it. It is the most damning criticism of all.

[Iron Serpent Prince]

I'm kinda curious what points people found were a little too nit pickey.

I mean, they hit on every single issue raised on these forums that were aggressively defended against (and in some cases shouted down).
They hit on every single issue I have with the system, as well as all of the reviewers and users that I have listened to / read (small sample size - doesn't mean anything by itself).

If I didn't know any better, I would say it looks like the critics had a clue of what they were talking about.

And as of writing this, the biggest counter point is that the professional RPGers couldn't grasp the simplified system enough to...  I dunno, make the opinion worthwhile?

Can anyone link me to any reviews (text or video) where people raved about 6th?  Do they even exist?

[GuardDuty]

I thought the part where they went on about a single spell could wipe out the universe was very nit picky and over the top.  Obviously that's broken, assuming they understood the rules right (I don't have 6E, so I don't know).  But it's an easy and obvious fix.  It's the kind of thing you put in the errata needed thread and give a brief mention, not the kind of thing you act like is a big issue with the system.

The ammo conversation was also nit picky.  Really nit picky.  Missing ammo?  Definitely an errata issue, sure.  Complaining that different weapons have their own ammo listed?  Not a big deal, omae.

I haven't seen anyone rave about 6E, although I have seen a couple generally positive reviews on Reddit.  They have been few, but there have been a couple.  By my recollection, they were overwhelmingly told the system is drek and they didn't actually have fun. 

[Michael Chandra]

There's mistakes in 6e that need fixing, but with a lot of them you can make a judgement call right now and they don't break the game. There's a few abuses possible, but the book is very clear that the GM can put their foot down. When someone spotted the lack of Amp-Up restriction, we immediately ended up discussing valid ways to restrict it over here.

Also, the book is very clear that the GM should play WITH the players. From what I'm told, this GM considers themselves the opponent of the players instead. So that's a shame, really. Also a shame that apparently they like making mountains out of molehills, and poisoned their own well by going 'I don't like the Edge system so going to bash it' without understanding or trying it properly first. (A single point of Edge can be worth 2/3 hit aka 2 dice in an opposed test, by forcing the opponent to reroll a die.)

Also: I needed what, half a dozen judgement calls when 5e came out, just to make Rigger playable in SRM? My wife still doesn't like Shadowrun due to how long it took before we finally received proper clarity on Rigger stats. SR6 immediately settled that.

Anyway, I would love to help with community fixes, but with some things I know part of what's going on behind the curtain and with others I just know that something's going on. All combined, I have to wait until errata are out, and I really hope Hardy tells us soon how that's coming along. Once we have either 'sorry, it will take X months due to editing process' or we actually get the things, I am ready to go wild.

[Kesendeja]

I just finished listening to the video and I found them rather even handed with their assessment. Having looked at a friends copy of the rules in preparation for running a game, I can say I agree with a lot of their points.

I'm not an adversarial GM, but even I have to admit that it makes it too easy to kill a player without trying. When you have to play with kid gloves just so the player's have a fighting chance on a standard run it isn't a sound development process.

As for the editing, there are places where it's almost impossible to tell what the developers meant, and what they assumed the players would carry over from previous editions. Again not sound development. I know this isn't just my issue because we have a thread on this board to fix it.

Also it seems that in their haste to simplify they only made things more complex. The video pointed out a good dozen instances, which I will save you the headache of listening too.

All in all my group took a good long look at 6th and decided on a pass until these issues are addressed. And given Catalysts history that may be a long time.