[Lormyr]

Throwing spells at opponents generates (or gives) edge.

Unless both I and my entire playtest group missed it, we were very surprised to learn that only combat spells have an edge generation mechanic (AR vs. DR). Came up when Sovereign used Control Thoughts and we struggled to find the formula for it, because there isn't one. We found that disappointing, as there are plenty of hostile and opposed spells that aren't in the combat school.

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.

Your point that some solutions are very simple is valid. The reverse point that the system and editing should be balanced, clean, sensical and not require additional solutions/houserules is difficult (I would say impossible) to dispute though.

[adzling]

it's clear that 6e has been horribly misconceived.

Dezzmont's point about the edge mechanic feeling like it was stripped from a board game is dead on, i made that point myself a while back.

It's clear it doesn't even work to address the core goal of "simplification".

Nice to see Michael Chandra bashing the integrity of the roll4it casters after they presented a very fair and calmly presented case for why 6e fails, hard, and hence why they are putting srun down even though they love the setting.

folks can try to bash the messengers like myself and the largest shadowrun community on the internet and now these roll4it videocasters but it won't change the fact that 6e is, to put it mildly, rather poor

[Finstersang]

it's clear that 6e has been horribly misconceived.

Dezzmont's point about the edge mechanic feeling like it was stripped from a board game is dead on, i made that point myself a while back.

It's clear it doesn't even work to address the core goal of "simplification".

Nice to see Michael Chandra bashing the integrity of the roll4it casters after they presented a very fair and calmly presented case for why 6e fails, hard, and hence why they are putting srun down even though they love the setting.

folks can try to bash the messengers like myself and the largest shadowrun community on the internet and now these roll4it videocasters but it won't change the fact that 6e is, to put it mildly, rather poor

The roll4it-video really should be an eye-opener. But apparently, it´s itchy to open your eyes when your head is buried in sand 

(I don´t think that Chandra deserves all that criticism, though, just because he dares to defend SR6 on some issues. It´s a valid point that no system runs without some GM eyeballing. There is a certain threshold for each table/GM on how flawed the rules can be before they put the game aside completely. And this threshold has been exceeded for an awfull lot of players, and by far not just "CGL haters". For me personally, this threshold is pretty high, and that´s why I´m still here. That shouldn´t be the benchmark, though.)

[Finstersang]

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.

1: Providing stuff like a community House Rule/homebrew pool surely is a good idea if you´re willing to expand a game. Apart from that, I´m with KatoHarts here.

Also, this

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.

is just painfully true. At good days, it feels like screaming at a wall of NDA. At bad days, it feels like the best suggestions here are only used to determine the exact opposite of what the playerbase wants. I wouldn´t have been too surprised if Chandras warning in another thread (can´t remember which...) that erroneously assumed that houserule suggestesions can´t be turned into RAW due to copyright issues was actually true.

2. That´s one thing I´m not so sure about. I rather think that the Edition was horribly, horribly rushed. There was playtesting, but few of the complaints led to actual changes (which, I dunno - is the whole point of playtesting?!).  Banshee´s work on the Matrix section is a good example that some devs really cared. And even the editors can only do so much if the production is rushed and the team´s management is insufficient. If you want to point fingers, look one level higher. This fish definetely stinks from the head.

[penllawen]

It´s a valid point that no system runs without some GM eyeballing. There is a certain threshold for each table/GM on how flawed the rules can be before they put the game aside completely.

This raises the question: who is ultimately responsible for the Missions FAQ? And I wonder how they feel about 6e?

Perhaps I am wrong, but even if we assume the more outright errors and omissions are changed up in errata, it seems to me that there's a lot of difficult calls for GMs to make in 6e; for example, exactly what constitutes Edge abuse has a lot of gray areas. (Citation for this assertion: the number of times people here respond to discussion of loopholes with "sure, but the GM would stop you from doing that.")

Navigating and negotiating GM fiat can be fine at a home table with regular players, but it must be a lot of work to establish some semblance of consistency across a loose network of GMs running living campaigns with players who expect a modicum of consistency.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Banshee´s work on the Matrix section is a good example that some devs really cared. And even the editors can only do so much if the production is rushed and the team´s management is insufficient. If you want to point fingers, look one level higher. This fish definetely stinks from the head.

This is one of the "issues" raised by Roll4It that made be double-take with incredulity: according to them, the Matrix section was one of, if not THE, worst section of the rules.

This raises the question: who is ultimately responsible for the Missions FAQ? And I wonder how they feel about 6e?

The SRM Lead is in charge of that, and while I can't speak for that person everything I've seen suggests enthusiasm for the new edition.

[Finstersang]

Banshee´s work on the Matrix section is a good example that some devs really cared. And even the editors can only do so much if the production is rushed and the team´s management is insufficient. If you want to point fingers, look one level higher. This fish definetely stinks from the head.

This is one of the "issues" raised by Roll4It that made be double-take with incredulity: according to them, the Matrix section was one of, if not THE, worst section of the rules.

Agreed, that´s way too harsh. Compared to previous Editions, this was a big step in the right direction. However, you can see the rush even in that section - stuff like the borked-up PAN limitations, ambiguities about ASDF reconfiguration, the questions if hosts can earn and use Edge...

Banshee did the best with the time and space given, but it obviously could have been much better with more time added to wrap everything up.

[Lormyr]

Banshee's work is among the best the book/system has to offer. That said, even with the significant improvement he provided, I personally think it could still stand for a few less steps in the process of "I successfully do the matrix thing".

[Iron Serpent Prince]

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.

Thanks for sharing GuardDuty.

I understand what you are saying, however I don't share the same opinion - and here is why:
(This isn't to say "you are wrong," but to explain why our opinions do not mesh.)

If Sixth World was mechanically tight, I mean so tight that - regardless of how you enjoyed it - you couldn't fault the mechanics^[1], if Roll4It had spent ~10 minutes harping on these two things combined...  I'd be right there with you.
(In that scenario)  It would be like "they did everything else right, and you are harping on these two easy to fix errors..."  Yeah that would be bitchy.

[1]  I mean so tight you couldn't even slip a piece of paper through the gaps in the mechanics.

As I took it, Roll4It spent ~1:55 discussing everything that makes 6th unusable for them, and on top of it Catalyst missed these two easy fixes.
I took it as presented as an example of how rushed / poorly edited the core book was.

Now, I may be giving Roll4It too much credit...  I'll concede any arguments toward that point.

This is why I don't consider these examples too nit pickey.

[paw9000]

I've been following the role4it channel to help prep me for GMing 6th.  I GMed 5e briefly. 

My takeaways from their comments that I hope would be processed as constructive feedback to help improve things in the future:
-The built-in Archetype templates: It would be nice if each of them showed the character creation choices that lead to building those characters.  It sounds like some of the Archetypes have a few bugs in them that break or exceed char gen rules.  It also sounds like that has been a running issue with past editions as well.  As a fresh GM looking to help fresh players start up quickly it would be nice if I could just hand one of the Archetypes to a new player so they could run with it, without having to worry about it being imbalanced or overpowered.  Would also be nice as examples of the char gen process.
-Would be nice in future books if the mathematical benefit of an item/rule was very clearly called out in a consistent, quickly parsable way.  I find it a big time sync to read a paragraph or two to get the +X to Y info I'm looking for.

In contrast to roll4it's option, I know I'm the minority here in saying I'm pro the new Edge system.  Here is why:
It was really easy for people to forget some of the various +1's from gear in 5th.  With the 6e edge system, everything you can do with it fits on a couple of pages which is easier for the group to help each other with since they share a common benefit.  In the 5th Ed's +X benefit from gear, most players wouldn't be aware of what other players gear can do.  6e edge as a replacement makes it easier for the playgroup to self-audit what their options are. 

[Michael Chandra]

I completely agree the archetypes should list their build info. My brother analysed 5e chats and proposed fixes for them, once we have a few more errata on SR6 I intend to do the same.

As for the Edge system, I really like it and so did my tables. Real easy to get into.

[wraith]

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.

Hard to get positive visibility on a product which can be most charitably described at this point as 'troublingly flawed on a basic level'.  I am very disappointed that anyone thought this system was ready for publication in the state it is in.

[Cyclomatic]

On the whole feedback vs unconditional support for Tribe CGL thing.  Like my drill sergeant used to say: pain is weakness leaving the body.  Growth is an anti-fragile process, and the inability to handle negative feedback is an inability to grow.  Hell, patient satisfaction has a negative correlation with positive patient outcome.  Social approval is intended to be predicated on completion of an ordeal that produced growth.  Defaulting to approval regardless of what they've done is like shooting them up with heroin for basically the same reasons why morphine isn't addictive or a problem for someone in pain but will turn a healthy person's brain upside down.

If CGL can't handle negative feedback, then CGL is incapable of producing a quality product.  If users can't handle giving negative feedback, then a CGL capable of producing a quality product can't produce a quality.  The only user feedback I ever considered "bad" when I did software development was user apathy or users clearly telling me what they thought I wanted to hear.

Agreement is a tool of manipulation, disagreement is a tool of improvement.  Manipulation can be toxic, but improvement not so much.

[Michael Chandra]

When people liking any part of SR6 or disagreeing about how big a thing a flaw is, is painted as 'unconditional support' and 'defaulting to approval', all in an effort to discard their opinions as irrelevant, that is purely manipulative toxic behaviour.

[Lormyr]

When people liking any part of SR6 or disagreeing about how big a thing a flaw is, is painted as 'unconditional support' and 'defaulting to approval', all in an effort to discard their opinions as irrelevant, that is purely manipulative toxic behaviour.

Of the folks being vocal on these forums precious few are doing that. The considerable majority are more focused on discussion that involves preferences, suggestions, constructive criticism, and paths forward.