[PMárk]

Thing is, I get the reasons why people might have issues with "you are not a 100% be-as-were-born human, thus, you're a Bad Person". I really do, especially in the current political and social shitstorm we're living in for years by now.

Still, I absolutely don't think asking the question of "at what point you start to be less of a human ("less" as in "different" not "worse, necessarily)" is a bad one. I think it's a profoundly important one. Not because it makes you bad, but because of the psychological consequences. That the consequences are good, or bad, is a highly philosophical debate, but regardless, it will have consequences and it's a major part of nearly every work dealing with transhumanism.

Saying "meh, you're just as you were, with 90% of yourself changed to machine and perfectly fine, you just can't use magic" is a big step back. It's not changing the undertones of the discussion (augmentations=bad), but just glosses over the conversation itself lazily.

[Michael Chandra]

Artwise: iirc there is a Sprawl Ops backer in there. Once I get home this weekend I should remember to check my cards to identify them.

Went through them and checked my cards:

Beginner Box Quickstart Rules:
p3: Rowan "Willow" Fairfax (Mage)
p12: Tinkerbell (Rigger)
p16: Paper Tiger (Rigger)

Beginner Box Adventure:
p11: Loki (Face)

Willow is featured with full-body artwork, making it likely she's a Street Legend Backer and is/will be featured in one of the novels.

[Moonshine Fox]

Saying "meh, you're just as you were, with 90% of yourself changed to machine and perfectly fine, you just can't use magic" is a big step back. It's not changing the undertones of the discussion (augmentations=bad), but just glosses over the conversation itself lazily.

I can't speak for 4th edition, but 3rd and back, the rules of interaction with a lot of chrome were not super hard set. They left it up to the GM to determine if you would have any social problems for your ware and what they would be. In 5th, you always had a penalty to social things, even if all you're ware was hidden and internal or if you were dealing with a unit of Desert War mercs who would look up to and respect you for your augmentation. I think leaving that sort of thing up to role-play and changing circumstance is better then a flat social penalty.

[Michael Chandra]

I mean what was it again in SR4, if your Essence was below 1 it was possible to get negative social qualities? That was about it?

And of course in SR5 iirc you lost 1 healing die per 2 (First Aid) or 1 (magic) Essence lost. SR6 sounds far more lethal with the THRESHOLD depending on Essence.

[Moonrunner]

Saying "meh, you're just as you were, with 90% of yourself changed to machine and perfectly fine, you just can't use magic" is a big step back. It's not changing the undertones of the discussion (augmentations=bad), but just glosses over the conversation itself lazily.

I can't speak for 4th edition, but 3rd and back, the rules of interaction with a lot of chrome were not super hard set. They left it up to the GM to determine if you would have any social problems for your ware and what they would be. In 5th, you always had a penalty to social things, even if all you're ware was hidden and internal or if you were dealing with a unit of Desert War mercs who would look up to and respect you for your augmentation. I think leaving that sort of thing up to role-play and changing circumstance is better then a flat social penalty.

The pre-3e way times 1,000.  I was just asking myself why does there need to be a damned rule for everything? Why not do the novel and unheard of thing and just roleplay these kinds of social issues? Make mine SR6.  I HAAAAAATED the rules crunch and mechanincs of Shadowrun until this edition.  My players always loved the setting but thought the rules blew chunks and as such, would not play.  I spent hundreds on 4e just to have them decide the rules sucked and not want to play anymore.  We have considered Anarchy but 6e is the first time in years we might actually try it again.

[Moonshine Fox]

Saying "meh, you're just as you were, with 90% of yourself changed to machine and perfectly fine, you just can't use magic" is a big step back. It's not changing the undertones of the discussion (augmentations=bad), but just glosses over the conversation itself lazily.

I can't speak for 4th edition, but 3rd and back, the rules of interaction with a lot of chrome were not super hard set. They left it up to the GM to determine if you would have any social problems for your ware and what they would be. In 5th, you always had a penalty to social things, even if all you're ware was hidden and internal or if you were dealing with a unit of Desert War mercs who would look up to and respect you for your augmentation. I think leaving that sort of thing up to role-play and changing circumstance is better then a flat social penalty.

The pre-3e way times 1,000.  I was just asking myself why does there need to be a damned rule for everything? Why not do the novel and unheard of thing and just roleplay these kinds of social issues? Make mine SR6.  I HAAAAAATED the rules crunch and mechanincs of Shadowrun until this edition.  My players always loved the setting but thought the rules blew chunks and as such, would not play.  I spent hundreds on 4e just to have them decide the rules sucked and not want to play anymore.  We have considered Anarchy but 6e is the first time in years we might actually try it again.

That's been some of my problem with 5th. As much as I like a lot of what was done with it and enjoyed my games, some of the rules crunch was way to heavy and didn't leave room for changing situations without breaking the rules. I went from 3rd ed to 5th and, while 3rd was pretty crunchy a lot of times it still left a lot of things loose for GMs to flex into their campaigns. My hope is that most of the simplified rules of 6th fall back to that mentality and let's in more types of players.