[adzling]

6e is the replacement of modifiers (and other nods towards realism) with games, designed to further pump the rule of cool in favor of everything else.

Under no definition are numerical modifiers to die rolls a, “nod towards realism.”

RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

When the replacement for those modifiers results in unrealistic outcomes that beggar belief then yes, they are absolutely related to realism.

See Strength not factoring into melee combat (but into unarmed?!?).
See wearing a bikini as effective at protecting you as wearing full combat armor.
See "if all things are equal then ignore penalties", a core conceit of the new edge mechanic that is inherently busted. It shows both a fundamental lack of understanding of probability and a lack of concern for tactical reasons that you might want to apply penalties to everyone on the battlefield.
And on and on throughout 6e.

I'm not sure why I have to repeat this over and over again when presented with the same fallacy but here goes 'cause I guess you missed it last dozen times?

While there are fantastical stuff in srun the world still works as our world does, broadly speaking.
Gravity, sunlight, concrete and muscle all have the same properties and functions as they do IRL.
When you expect your concrete to act like concrete but instead it acts like jello you're doing something dramatically wrong.
It beggar's belief and shuts down planning.
It results in inane situations that rupture the suspension of belief.

So while shadowrun has dragons, trolls and pixies we all still expect the dragon to be the strongest and the pixie to be the weakest with the troll somewhere in between and their actions in the world to reflect that.

6e does not do that, quite the opposite in fact.

It's the triumph of, to be frank, bullshit (relative advantage replacing actual situation), for no apparent gain.

[Typhus]

So, one thing that seems like an straighforward houserule fix to the Strength issue to me is something like the following:
"If you STR is between this range, add +1"

So:
STR 1-3 +0
STR 4-6: +1
STR 7-9: +2
STR 10+: +3

Adjust to gameplay outcomes where you need to.

That and adding some fixed points of automatic Armor Soak seems like a reasonable solution to both issues.  No extra rolls needed.  Or if you want extra dice for soak, just base it on the armor DR modifier.  If 1:1 isn't workable, add or subtract points until works better.

Just a thought, and all without seeing how problematic the rest of the system is in similar ways.  Sometimes a fix isn't simple.

[Finstersang]

First of all: Sorry FastJack, but when you want talk about the rules of a game system that includes dice rolls (or other forms of statistically predictable randomisation) then you´ll eventually have to dip your nose into statistics, expected values etc. once in a while. I´m not a fan of putting a kind of statistical "price tag" on everything (that´s what I tried to convey when I joked about one Edge token being exactly 3,2826102 worth of dice pool modifiers) or bringing Excel sheets of expected dice rolls to a session, but when you want really to evaluate if a certain modifier or perk is balanced and justified, you can´t just go "Awwww, who can really tell what the dice will come up? It´s all just by chance anyway".

Second:

Second: I seriously don´t get what´s so icky about this.

Wheaton's first law, "Don't be a dick".  This mechanic is literally a pile of "Go be a Dick" tokens for the NPCs (as played by the GM).  It's bad.  Turning an astounding Player success into failure with a couple poker chips is absolutely a Dick move.  YMMV.

We´re still talking about the Glitch thing here, right?

It´s a glitch, not a complete failure. In Shadowrun 4, 5 and apparantly 6 as well, glitches don´t mean that you catastrophically failed the test. In fact, you can both succeed and glitch at the same time. One (pretty stereotypical) example would be stabbing someone with a Knife and then losing the grip and dropping it. Or convincing the target of your con attempt of a lie, but you accidentally drop a little hint that you´re not honest which they later realize. Or you manage to climb a fence, but you leave a little strip of fabric that makes the guards suspicious. Mostly little complications. The kind of little slips and missteps where the heist movies get interesting. It´s usually not "Despite your 6 hits on the test, you totally miss the target with your shot. All your hits are gone and you hit 1D6 nearby orphan baby unicorns with your stray." In that light, the Glitch enabling Edge use even looks a bit too weak and risky for its cost IMO. I´d be surprised if I really see it that often in play.

And speaking as a 90% GM: If I´d really want to be a dick to my players (and why exactly would I want to do that?), I´d rather use my accumulated "GM Edge" for little spikes on Attack rolls or to just reroll hits on the player´s attack and defense tests (just as they would to "be a dick" towards my NPCs). That´s way more dickish than paying 5 Edge to increase the chance that a PC might suffer from some unforseen inconvienence.

(Or I just use the fact that I am - well - the GM? I control the size and strenght of the opposition. If I really want to fuck up my table, I don´t need to abuse that fancy new token mechanic.)   

[Iron Serpent Prince]

So, one thing that seems like an straighforward houserule fix to the Strength issue to me is something like the following:
"If you STR is between this range, add +1"

So:
STR 1-3 +0
STR 4-6: +1
STR 7-9: +2
STR 10+: +3

Adjust to gameplay outcomes where you need to.

I've put more thought into this that I really should...  I've ruled out variations of your proposal.

It adds an extra level of complexity (not inherently bad) without actually fixing the issue.  In your example, a 10 Strength Troll still does less damage with a knife (4) than unarmed (5).

The absolute simplest solution would be to change Unarmed Damage to 0 DV.  This would match the scale of weapon damages, as well as justify self proclaimed experts idea that Strength has no place in even Olympic Fencing.

I don't like that, for many reasons.

The next simplest is if Melee Damage !> Unarmed Damage, use Unarmed + 1.

It has the drawback that it flattens the melee weapon damage curve for Trolls (I'm pretty sure a Troll would use Unarmed + 1 for every weapon), but it removes the absurdity of "Give the trogs knives!  It'll make them easier to fight!"

I can't do any better without getting my hands on the full set of weapon stats (including ranged) in order to get a better feel of how to tweak things.

[Shinobi Killfist]

I think knives do 2 and are physical damage. I think you could set unarmed at 1 and it would work. Then make the dice pool strength. While almost all stats get play in melee and unarmed combat it pure simulationist game the most correlation to one stat imo would be strength. Not body building strength as some try to portray it but the speed stat for things like running its the explosive movement stat. Add a strength minimum for weapons to their dv-1.

[Hobbes]

Statistics are facts, yes. But the use of statistics can back up any argument, as long as you spend the time to show the statistics how you want them to verify your outlook.

I don't think any bank will buy that if you bounce a check.  I would not recommend trying.

Math can be used to answer many questions definitively.  Even if you're comparing a range of outcomes, you can show Outcome A is more probable than Outcome B.  Certainly if that actually matters can be debated.  But Game designers need to be good at the numbers so they don't accidentally create a "Thunderbird and Wolverine" issue at tables. 

The classic Shadowrun example is 5th Edition Skills A trap.  You want a Jack of all trades/skill monkey type character, you would think skills A would be the best choice.  But it wasn't.  Yes the character was playable.  Yes the character had a lot of skills.  But Thunderbird was a Superhero, had a mask and tights, joined the X-men and everything.  Look how that turned out for him. 

Even if you're not a "Numbers" person you can tell when you're Thunderbird.  It's not normally a good thing.  Can you still play and have fun, absolutely.  It's also just as probable it creates an un-fun situation, for player and GM.  Unbalanced characters (high or low) are difficult to GM.   

[Katanarchist]

Under no definition are numerical modifiers to die rolls a, “nod towards realism.”

When the replacement for those modifiers results in unrealistic outcomes that beggar belief then yes, they are absolutely related to realism.

Hyperbole doesn't make what you're saying more true.

See Strength not factoring into melee combat (but into unarmed?!?).

I'll readily agree that is odd, but it's not related to the Edge system, which is what you're claiming is somehow less realistic than numerical modifiers to die rolls. It's simply the attribute+skill pairing they've chosen, I assume in order emphasize that using melee weapons in combat is more a matter of skill than brute force.

The real issue is that there isn't a single attribute which maps perfectly onto combat. Agility makes sense when you consider things like footwork and being able to move quickly enough to avoid blows, and Reaction makes sense for anticipating your opponents movements and strike at the right times, Strength obviously maps to pure power, and Body works for ignoring pain and simply outlasting your opponent when you're both gassed. And I'm not talking about just melee combat either; firing a gun, or drawing a bow requires strength too.

But then the questions arise of how do we map all these attributes into combat in a way that makes sense, and in what proportion, and how do we account for different fighting styles, so on and so forth.

Then we realize we're playing a game, and we don't want each combat turn to take 45 minutes as we roll to see how much lactic acid has built up in various muscle groups. We can just abstract it and say "This attribute is good enough."

Apparently the SR 6e devs decided that Agility was what worked best with what they wanted for melee combat. I assume they're leaning into the notion of the samurai being a skilful warrior.

See wearing a bikini as effective at protecting you as wearing full combat armor.

I don't see any bikinis in the QSR. What's their defense rating? What about a banana hammock?

What you're choosing to ignore about Edge generation is that allows the player options in how they want to narrate events. A player can spend Edge -- including that generated by having a high defense rating, which I have to assume your oft cited bikini does not have -- can be used to enhance your soak roll. Or the player could say that no, they're going to eat a bunch of damage while they rush forward and poor all that Edge into a killing blow.

A little bit of creativity goes a long way.

See "if all things are equal then ignore penalties", a core conceit of the new edge mechanic that is inherently busted. It shows both a fundamental lack of understanding of probability and a lack of concern for tactical reasons that you might want to apply penalties to everyone on the battlefield.

Sure, that's not particularly realistic. But it does speed up combat, and, speaking only for myself, anything which speeds up the flow of combat is a good thing.

I'm not sure why I have to repeat this over and over again when presented with the same fallacy but here goes 'cause I guess you missed it last dozen times?

What fallacy? That games have game mechanics? It's amazing that your argument isn't gaining much traction.

While there are fantastical stuff in srun the world still works as our world does, broadly speaking.
Gravity, sunlight, concrete and muscle all have the same properties and functions as they do IRL.
When you expect your concrete to act like concrete but instead it acts like jello you're doing something dramatically wrong.

Again, you seem to have access to information that I do not. This scenario where the rigger needs to roll vehicle control tests to avoid spinning out and spraying cherry flavoured concrete all over the place sounds pretty fun, though.

So while shadowrun has dragons, trolls and pixies we all still expect the dragon to be the strongest and the pixie to be the weakest with the troll somewhere in between and their actions in the world to reflect that.

6e does not do that, quite the opposite in fact.

Have you considered that maybe between 5e and 6e, pixies all got together and decided to get swole?

[Michael Chandra]

pixie n. (vulgar) An elf. An elf poser.

I need to remind everyone that vulgar language is not allowed on the forum.

[dezmont]

All sorts of lovely things.

+1.....10000000

You can and 1000% should apply statistical models to game systems. To not do so is actively asinine, and any remotely compitent game designer is going to do so while developing their game to some extent or another. To do otherwise would make you a truly terrible designer.

I say this not to imply CGL designers don't do this and thus are bad designers. I am saying that I can say with 100% certainty they are evaluating the numbers at least to some extent, applying statistical models while they design the game, because the game functions. Not applying statistical models to an RPG while designing it or evaluating it is like throwing car parts together and hoping you made an engine. The fact you are thinking about systems at all means you are using system design, and thus are doing some level of statistical evaluation as an inevitable part of the process.

You don't randomly guess, you compare different combination of scenarios based on different expected paramiters and tweak things to make sense. The fact that the DV code for guns isn't 9000 vs an average soak roll of 3 is an example of this: A very simple statistical model shows this is a ridiculous design that leads to bad outcomes. It takes a lot less sophisticated a model to account for this than say... figuring out the optimal break points for samurai soak vs expected DV based on certain enemies while accounting for the fact that you are assuming the PC is spending for one sub-role like off-face or off-decker, but you are still applying some math. SR's designers probably did way more than this (For example, small grade weapons vs the average human do around 2-4 DV before net hits, meaning that corpsec firing at you gives you a nice cushon of shots taken before your taken out, while anything other than a min-maxed soak tank will take less but still generally take 1 DV at least from any attack that lands, which seems rather deliberate because making soak tanks take incidental damage more often was a pretty obvious goal) but the point remains that unless your throwing darts at a board to get your numbers you are planning around expected results in your system.

There is such a thing as 'white rooming' where your models fall apart due to failing to account for how the actual game is played (ex: a fight where everyone is in a featureless white room just mindlessly attacking each other standing still), and there is sometimes an assumption all models are 'white room' math, but this generally isn't the case as players are very good at evaluating their general assumed scenarios (Ex: A lot of charop in SR5 will assume 9 attack dice from the enemy and the enemy to be in cover when trying to made a 'mid tier' combatant and then also evaluate vs HTR because those are the two most common types of enemies, and if you are not a samurai you are not expected to go above and beyond that so outliers like physad LTs or Prime Runner rival samurai can be accounted for but not prioritized) and avoiding white room math. And, on top of that, white room math is an important step because it lets you evaluate the benefit of situational effects that might come about in a non-white room scenario both as a player (ex: "I know in a white room scenario I will hit and down this guy only 35% of the time before he pegs me and I am in trouble. I now can evaluate how much effort I need to make to even the odds with smoke, cover, positioning, and aid effects from my team") and as a designer trying to figure out the nominal advantage that non-white room elements need to reward a 'tricky' character over a straightforward one.

Does this mean that if something is statistically uneven or suboptimal it is garbage? Heck no! A good example is using 'pre-edge' in SR5 to make dice explode when you already roll a big pool and limit isn't relevant. In general this is a bad idea but it is thrilling and leads to exciting outcomes, so players do it, and it turns out fun because even though it doesn't actually benefit you as much as re-rolling failures, the outcomes it creates are still enjoyable and useful for the player. But even in those cases you need to care about models. Being sub-optimal is fine, but being so sub-optimal that the 'promise' the mechanic makes (Ex: "Pre-edging may make you roll like 20 successes, dooo iiiiit") is a lie, then you have a huge problem because the hypothetical person designing that system, rather than actually making things fun, pretended they were fun and tricked someone into not having fun! And if you are designing games that is pretty much the worst thing you can do! You just Truenamered them! You SR5 laser'd them! SR4 longarms'd someone! The worst thing that can happen in a game is a designer promises something will be fun via making the game whisper 'It will be great, trust me' and it turns out all that effort and anticipation is the equivalent of an advertisement to buy more chocolate powdered drink product, and that their awesome laser ranger can't actually damage devil rats with their gun, let alone bug spirits. If you pump that laser into a damage calculator (which statistically models your expected results and the range of results you can get) you will instantly see why it has no chance of doing any of the things it promises and that it only can get situationally worse, not better, and it is one of those imbalanced things that does no good to the game and because its lying about what it can do and you can very clearly see it can't do it, as a player you now know a designer messed up and as a designer you would know to seriously buff a laser's base DV to avoid that scenario.

It just is important to understand the raw statistics of your game because pretending they don't exist and saying 'lets see how it actually plays' is sorta like, again, building a car and saying 'lets not calculate how well it drives at all, lets put it together and set up the expensive assembly lines and send it to market and just give it a whirl."

Which leads to the "thunderbird" problem Hobbes mentioned. That car you just throw together might work fine but putter along... or may crash and explode! Power discrepancies between roles do not matter nearly as much as people imply they do when comparing them, play is resilient to that sorta thing... but it is brittle, all or nothing. Things are fine even if there are power imbalances until it is clear someone at the table isn't able to contribute because they are so ineffective their scenes 'have' to be stolen because them trying to have scenes ruins things for other people, or someone naturally can solve so many problems it just becomes about them, or when someone is set up to have a cool moment but... oops... they were a soak focused Adept in 5e who used unarmed as advertised in core and oh no they just constantly get knocked out in combat and never hurt anyone while the face is able to stay up and outfight them to save them (Real example from the first 5e game I ever ran! Sorry Knightmare! And sorry DeathSentence, who was the 'OP' one who got so uncomfortable with the power imbalance they quit shadowrun despite being the Op character!).

You could argue the models are missing something, or are incomplete, or incorrectly applied, but saying that models ALWAYS are incomplete and shouldn't be trusted because you can make them misleading is very silly because it sorta is an argument that a very major concept in game design... doesn't... exist? A common mistake is to mistake a logical process (Statistical modeling, min-maxing) with your end goal, on both sides. But in reality, a model is just a tool to think about something and evaluate outcomes, not some end goal, and models don't lie, they just tell the super exact truth, much like statistics, in that a model only can be 'misleading' when there is some assumption in the model that will not actually be true most of the time. When If you think a model is flawed in its assumptions, point out the specific error in the assumptions, rather than arguing against systems design is a flawed practice when it has been used on some level or another to make literally every game you like, because models are a super necessary logical tool that cannot be avoided.

Have you considered that maybe between 5e and 6e, pixies all got together and decided to get swole?

This is probably  the best thing ever written and is proof the internet was a good idea, warts and all.

pixie n. (vulgar) An elf. An elf poser.

I need to remind everyone that vulgar language is not allowed on the forum.

I spoke too soon...

It is 3 AM I can't be waking my neighbors screaming with laughter yall, cut it out!

[Serbitar]

Sure, that's not particularly realistic. But it does speed up combat, and, speaking only for myself, anything which speeds up the flow of combat is a good thing.

So a coin toss is a good thing? Heads = PCs win, Tails =  NPCs win?
Super fast. Not "realistic" in any way, but super fast. And, as a bonus, you can make the outcome plausible in any narrative way you want. Somehow like Edge.

[Katanarchist]

Sure, that's not particularly realistic. But it does speed up combat, and, speaking only for myself, anything which speeds up the flow of combat is a good thing.

So a coin toss is a good thing? Heads = PCs win, Tails =  NPCs win?
Super fast. Not "realistic" in any way, but super fast. And, as a bonus, you can make the outcome plausible in any narrative way you want. Somehow like Edge.

I wouldn't be opposed to a coin toss, depending on whether or not there are mechanics to support it. Granted, I really do like dice, but that's a personal preference.

You're missing my point though; game mechanics are an abstraction, not a simulation of reality. Getting bogged down in the weeds of doing some simple equations isn't fun for me. If it is someone else's jam, cool, I would never suggest taking that away from them, but I'm excited that there appears to be a Shadowrun game on the horizon which does suit my particular tastes.

[dezmont]

More to the point if you could make game mechanics that do perfectly simulate reality you kinda are now an elder god because you invented a system that can be run on a machine as simple as a pen, paper, and dice, that can be contained in the universe that it simulates. Also, fair warning, a huuuuge wall of text incoming.

So like, a bit ambitious, but even simulating one specific minor aspect of reality really really well is too hard to do, and doing it well would be terrible. Like attributes in practice don't make sense: Your str and agility and reflexes should be linked by a very complex mathematical system that prevents them from getting to far to prevent someone from being agile but being unable to accelerate their body to be agile, and would need to account for like... your hydration level and how well you slept in addition to how much you did.

So pure simulation is out. You go for "realish" rather than "real." But every sacrifice of reality you make makes the simulation less realish, less verisimilitudinous (It will never be unfun to bust out that one!) and thus less appealing. An 'RPG' where you simulate reality isn't going to be fun because trying to interface with a mechanical system that can simulate even small parts of reality would fry your brain because a computer to do that would need to be bigger than the physical universe so forget you remembering a single rule in that system, but an 'RPG' where the 'game' is 'flip a coin, if heads, win!' is so simple that you also lose all agency.

In reality it becomes one of those weird 6d graphs that can't be represented in a 2d plane of what you prefer in terms of what compromises this terrible simulation of reality makes and what things are important to do well and what things are fun to focus on in a game perspective and what should be swiftly moved past, and it is heavily preference based until you move so far out on an axis that most people would agree it falls apart.

But that space a good RPG could be is pretty honking big: People enjoy and love systems like Hero System or Traveller's system where almost everything is laughably simple but then you as a team if you want to fund your space trading adventures need to calculate .0651% of 05% of your spaceship's 12 digit price and then compare that tally to the prices you can expect to make based on a string of 5 trade worlds you might hit up and the price multipliers based on a specific number at a specific place in the universal world profile code that changes places, and by the way that number is expressed in hexidecimal format. And by people, I mean me. I loooove that spreadsheet simulator trading where one minute your in a super simplified laser fight where one hit just probably knocks you out of the fight and the next your looming over the star chart with like 5 calculators seriously trying to run a space shipping company. Meanwhile, many people, including myself, enjoy very simple systems, like FATE, where things are abstract and not really nailed down and its mostly just about encouraging players to do interesting things than simulating reality.

So it is less 'Simple vs complex' and more 'does SR6 achieve its objectives well?' I think SR6's edge system looks like a narrative mechanic that was too afraid to be a real narrative mecahnic and accidently got turned upside down, abstracting the wrong end of the equation and ironically forcing the GM to care way way WAY more about fiddly nonsense in combat rather than way less (because players HAVE to know ahead of time about everything to make plans around edge, rather than edge freeing up the GM to play it by ear because the details only matter when the players spend a resource to invoke them, self balancing scenarios so that the GM can just say 'yeah sure' rather than policing what benefits people get), but I don't think its problem is that it is too simplifying.

It isn't like soak rolls (the biggest thing in combat edge replaces) and situational penalties (much smaller but still relevant and important to many people) are the main interesting things about SR combat outside of very specific scenarios like firing through cover, smoke, or sensor targeting, which are directly caused by NPC or PC action and would be modeled well by edge anyway (While say... rain is modeled super crazy poorly to the point it is distracting, but at least most players don't care about rain to the point they didn't apply the drizzle penalty in 5e unless it was a monsoon). Combat is still likely going to be pretty complex, because removing soak rolls doesn't actually matter that much because most players could just handle that on their own after the GM told them AP and figure out the damage in 5 seconds. This isn't as much an endorsement for SR6's edge being fine as much as saying 'its too simple' isn't a great way to judge it. It more comes down to if it actually accomplishes its goals or not and if it has any major accidental system casualties (I think everyone and their brother is worried about how the Street Samurai role will actually turn out because I can't imagine an edition of Sr doing well when the most iconic archetype is the bottom archetype) and is interesting to play with. You can evaluate that in part based on if its too braindead, creates too much for the GM to track, or creates bad system math, but it won't be a single axis, because RPG systems are really complex. See how mages went from kinda meh and riggers as god tier in 4e to mages being way too good because they changed like 3 things totally unrelated to magic and riggers going in the trash just because everyone finally got decent soak.

[Serbitar]

Sure, that's not particularly realistic. But it does speed up combat, and, speaking only for myself, anything which speeds up the flow of combat is a good thing.

So a coin toss is a good thing? Heads = PCs win, Tails =  NPCs win?
Super fast. Not "realistic" in any way, but super fast. And, as a bonus, you can make the outcome plausible in any narrative way you want. Somehow like Edge.

I wouldn't be opposed to a coin toss, depending on whether or not there are mechanics to support it. Granted, I really do like dice, but that's a personal preference.

You're missing my point though; game mechanics are an abstraction, not a simulation of reality. Getting bogged down in the weeds of doing some simple equations isn't fun for me. If it is someone else's jam, cool, I would never suggest taking that away from them, but I'm excited that there appears to be a Shadowrun game on the horizon which does suit my particular tastes.

Are you getting the irony of your own post?
You say that you dont need simulation on the one hand and imply that a pure coin toss without mechanics would not be enough?
So you want simulation, and would maybe be upset if it was only a simple coin toss and give exactly the same arguments against a simple coin toss as other people in the thread are giving. You just want less simulation than others in the thread.

As you said it basically boils down to taste in the end. But then, why are you discussing here?

The problem we have here is twofold:
A) There is a taste issue between simulationist/gamist/narrativist here, which can not be discussed, because of taste.
B) But there is also a quality level here, that even if you want a simulationist/gamist/narrativist balance the rules apparently aim for (which makes people upset that aim for another), the rules are bad in a sense that there could be better rules that aim for the same spot but have less problems.

[Katanarchist]

Are you getting the irony of your own post?

No, but I also know what irony means, so....

You say that you dont need simulation on the one hand and imply that a pure coin toss without mechanics would not be enough?
So you want simulation, and would maybe be upset if it was only a simple coin toss and give exactly the same arguments against a simple coin toss as other people in the thread are giving.

Are you trying to claim that because my tastes skew rules light and narrative, that I must therefor only like the most rules light and narrative game possible? I mean, yes that game is Fiasco, and it's brilliant -- and I should see if there are any Shadowrun-esque Playsets -- but at the same time, I would argue that you're propose a false binary. The complexity of RPG mechanics exist on a spectrum.

If someone wants to build a game around using a coin toss as a deciding factor, and it was well made, I'd play it. But I also believe that the core of good game design is that mechanics further the narrative. I've played a horror RPG where a Jenga tower is used to decide success or failure. I've played an RPG where your "character sheet" is a piece of paper with any six attributes you want written on it, and to play the game you tear off sections of the sheet using only the thumb and forefinger of each hand, and if your tear contains part of the word that is your attribute, you're successful.

You just want less simulation than others in the thread.

I mean, I wouldn't use the word simulation, because I think it's silly in the context of a pen & paper RPG, but other than that...yes? I don't think that was a secret.

As you said it basically boils down to taste in the end. But then, why are you discussing here?

Sorry, I must have missed the sign declaring, "You Must Prefer This Level Of Crunch To Ride This Shadowrun Forum."

B) But there is also a quality level here, that even if you want a simulationist/gamist/narrativist balance the rules apparently aim for (which makes people upset that aim for another), the rules are bad in a sense that there could be better rules that aim for the same spot but have less problems.

So the rules are bad because...they could be better? Every game could be better, that's what house rules are for. You're essentially saying, "This isn't the perfect Holy Grail of tabletop RPGs, and therefore it is trash." Certainly there's something to be said for having standards, but I'm also of the opinion that we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good.

[FastJack]

Of the the love of...

PEOPLE.  I am not saying that statistical analysis is a bad thing. It most definitely should be used to design games, to see where the average rolls lie, making it easier to build rules around the dice rolls.

What I DO disagree with is using statistics to back up opinion. The statistics of a dice roll tell you what is theorized to be the most common occurrence, not that one way is better than the other. Does all the analysis show how the dice pools work and give you an idea of how Edge can be applied? Sure! Does that mean your belief that it's broken is correct? No. The designers used the same analysis and liked what they saw, so they used the rules as they are being written. If you don't like it, then houserule it.