[Shadowhack]

I asked him on his Facebook page why he or members of his team don't come out more to defend the game. This was his response....

The main reasons I don't speak out are:

1) Internet kerfluffles are not always as large as they seem. Each internet channel--Reddit, forums, Facebook, Twitter--have their own constituencies, and none of them, as far as I have been able to tell, represent the player base at large. So it's not great for me to assume that because one channel, or many, have gone negative that I absolutely need to do something about it.

2) Even if I did do something about it, arguing about a creative work where people can form their own opinions rarely leads anywhere good. People are seldom talked into liking something they don't like, and arguments with the more vitriolic detractors don't go anywhere. The work, flawed as it might be, has to stand for itself. So we issued errata to make it as easy as possible for people to play the game. But directly engaging the critics tends to be time-consuming and mire people in a discussion that goes nowhere.

I have one book at the printers, another about to go on sale electronically, a third close to going to print, and another I need to try to get to print in just over a month. I trust players to decide for themselves whether they like them or not, and I have my hands full getting them out!

[ZeroSum]

Personally, I don't think anyone needs to "defend" anything.

What I do wish they would do is engage with the community more. The complete radio silence, at least officially, from Catalyst is, to me, not a good sign. Even a simple statement from official channels on these forums (pinned threads exist for a reason) along the lines of "Hey, we are working on errata, stay tuned" followed up by a weekly one-liner like "Yep, still working away on this" would go a long way in building goodwill and showing players that they are actively trying to improve, I think.

Banshee is, for lack of a better term, a shining light in the darkness that is the silence from Catalyst when it comes to engaging the player base, in that he regularly answers questions and clarifies what the intent behind certain rules were when they were written.

I don't need Catalyst to "defend" their works. I need them to show that they are listening to constructive feedback (and no, that does not include listening to people saying "YOU SUCK!") and providing timely errata and FAQ/Designer's Notes documents. They've put out one Errata document that resolved some of the issues with the CRB; they have a long way to go before I consider buying any 6th Edition books, personally, and just focusing on releasing new books is not the way to go. While I get that they are a business and they (and their writers) only get paid when they sell product, I also have to consider what I want to spend my money on based on the quality of the products that have already been released.

All that being said, once the next set of Errata is released, or if they release an FAQ before that (unlikely as it seems), I'll re-evaluate what I personally think of the quality of their product. If they just keep releasing new books without focusing on Errata for the existing one, well, then I have my own answer at least.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

If wishes were fishes and we all swam in riches: I'd like to see an errata process here similar to the BattleTech side of CGL where rules questions can be asked and formally answered, to include formal errata being issued along with that answer as necessary, right here on the forum.

[ZeroSum]

If wishes were fishes and we all swam in riches: I'd like to see an errata process here similar to the BattleTech side of CGL where rules questions can be asked and formally answered, to include formal errata being issued along with that answer as necessary, right here on the forum.

Heh, I like that. I'm partial to "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd have Christmas every day".

But yeah, Battletech is a great example of a developer actively engaging with the community. I've mentioned it in other threads, but Games Workshop in the recent couple of years really turned themselves around too, and are now releasing frequent errata documents per faction in the game, as well as two annual Big FAQ documents and an annual "Chapter Approved" document which is basically a super-compilation of core rules changes and points adjustments.

If Catalyst was able to approach the Battletech side for Shadowrun engagement I think that would be an incredible boost to the line as a whole.

[adzling]

If wishes were fishes and we all swam in riches: I'd like to see an errata process here similar to the BattleTech side of CGL where rules questions can be asked and formally answered, to include formal errata being issued along with that answer as necessary, right here on the forum.

I’ve been advocating for this since before we got the errata team going. So @4 years? After many years it became apparent it Ain’t gonna happen because Randall bills could give two shits about shadowrun.

[ZeroSum]

@adzling
I'm going to call you out on that. There's no reason for that kind of language, man...

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

If wishes were fishes and we all swam in riches: I'd like to see an errata process here similar to the BattleTech side of CGL where rules questions can be asked and formally answered, to include formal errata being issued along with that answer as necessary, right here on the forum.

I’ve been advocating for this since before we got the errata team going. So @4 years? After many years it became apparent it Ain’t gonna happen because Randall bills could give two shits about shadowrun.

It probably has something to do with the different nature of RPGs from Board Games.  Discrete, binary answers are much easier to come up with for board games where GMs aren't expected to have to use common sense to adjudicate things.  That's an implicit assumption in RPGs.  And the kinds of rules questions that RPGs generate can be more fuzzy in nature than those for a GM-less board game.

But that being said, yes we both would like to see the same thing.

[adzling]

@adzling
I'm going to call you out on that. There's no reason for that kind of language, man...

If only you knew my man, if only you knew.

[Kato]

This is my opinion on 6th edition. It is only an opinion.

I can understand the viewpoint of needing to allow people to form their own opinions on the work presented and not engaging on venues like social media platforms. However, I am firmly of the opinion that whoever is producing a product, regardless of the nature of that product, must learn to match consumer demands. I find this to be particularly true of RPG's, where there are a large number of alternative RPG products available in the market. Complicating that issue even more is the fact that players and GMs can home brew rules to match their desired game.

Defending their work may be a difficult thing for the producers of 6th edition to do, for any number of reasons. At the end of the day, however, they are in the business of selling books and gaming materials. If they are unwilling to address the issues that are being brought up by unhappy consumers of their product, then they will have to deal with the consequences. Perhaps there won't be any, maybe as they continue to pump out materials the criticism will slow or stop.

My personal opinion of the situation is that they were forced to push out an inferior product in an attempt to earn a profit. I don't believe that the tactic they are using, which is essentially the same profit they seemed to be using for 5th edition, will be successful. It is highly dependent on purchasing additional materials to address the issues with the initial printing and with the current costs associated with that, no only in terms of monetary value but also needing to read, absorb, and implement the additional content, I believe that they will not see a successful implementation.

Speaking for my group, we are declining to purchase any 6th edition materials and are home brewing our own Shadowrun system. We love the game setting and wish to continue to play it, but don't believe it is necessary to spend hundreds of dollars on purchasing new books and materials until some of the underlying fundamental issues with the game are addressed by the game producers.

[Reaver]

After reading his answer, I get his reasons behind it.

They have already released the product, it out there for people to like or hate. Trying to defend - heck, even engage about- the product, especially in this day and age, just invites more abuse.

No matter what he said, you know everyone else would just get inflamed that this wasn't addressed, or that wasn't fixed, or they used the wrong color, or how dare they release a hard cover book with sharp edges...

Look, i'll say it first: I have yet to even read a single official page of 6e yet.. I just don't have the time right now.

AND: I have no doubt at all that there is probably 10,000 and 1 things in the book that could have been done better. And (once I block out a lot of screeching here on the forums) I also see a lot of things they did do better... maybe things are moving in the right direction? Maybe not?

I'll give you all the same advice I give anyone else. Get off your ass, GO to the store, Pick up a physical copy, and READ some of it. You should know after 10 pages if you can handle the grammar, editing and spelling errors. As to rules working... well... that will depend on you I'm afraid. Some people just need a general feel for the rules to play, Some need the rules engraved in stone before they can.

[penllawen]

...or they used the wrong color, or how dare they release a hard cover book with sharp edges...
...(once I block out a lot of screeching here on the forums)...
... As to rules working... well... that will depend on you I'm afraid. Some people just need a general feel for the rules to play, Some need the rules engraved in stone before they can.

This is unfairly and rudely dismissive. A lot of people, not least of which our own Lormyr, have put serious effort into long, detailed dissections of 6e. They've taken it apart and calmly, carefully, and patiently explained the issues they've found lurking. To characterise this as "screeching" is completely unwarranted.

[Michael Chandra]

CGL has been burned before with Shadowrun when a publicized release date fell through. I'm guessing that plays a big role in them always keeping their cards close to their chest: Unless they have it at hand and know when they're going to release it, they're not giving out details.

That said, I think a monthly errata-news thingy would be useful.

As for on-forum Q&A: We had that with SR5, it fell through and I still extremely disagree with some of the answers. So YMMV.

Reaver does bring up a good point, which I tend to forget: Parsing rules can be tough for some. Just like math and memorisation can be, which is why I like some of the 6w changes: making it easier to play for those. For rule parsing, I really hope for a FAQ within half a year.

[penllawen]

Reaver does bring up a good point, which I tend to forget: Parsing rules can be tough for some.

Did you just suggest that the people who dislike 6e are merely too stupid to understand it correctly?

[GuardDuty]

Reaver does bring up a good point, which I tend to forget: Parsing rules can be tough for some.

Did you just suggest that the people who dislike 6e are merely too stupid to understand it correctly?

Oh, yes, the screeching characterization was completely unwarranted...

[tenchi2a]

So basically the response was.
They don't represent the fanbase, so I don't care what they think.
And I don't need to explain why we made the chooses we made, I'm to busy making money.
Then they wonder why they are losing respect within the fanbase.

I get that the new game was not made for me, and my players.
Truth be told I am most likely going to move back to 3rd if I ever start playing again, currently playing Wrath & Glory (WH40k RPG).
But to blow off any amount of players like that is not cool.