[Marcus]

For those who have a lot of chances to play 6e, I was curious:

How much work would it take to incorporate 5th Edition Armor/Weapon rules into the 6th Edition system?  I.E. - Take the armor and weapons tables and inject them into 6th edition, or would that be impossible without overhauling a huge chunk of the rule book (instead of just applying armor for soak and the old damage numbers for weapons)?

The easier way to do this, is take the features you like from 6e and move them back to 5e. If you like the simplified skill list great just use that in place of 5e skill list, you will have to make some choices concerning xp costs, but in the grand-scheme of things that's not very hard. Some section can be moved more easily then others. 

[Marcus]

What are people’s thoughts on developing a weapon mod/acc system that dovetail in with the Edge system?

The simplest solution I can think of along this line, is to make the net deference between DR and AR become a die pool bonus or penalty to the relevant attack pool. Doing this would mean AR and DR have a direct interface between the relevant ratings and relevant pool. (IE if your AR is 12 you opponents DR is 9, your gain 3 dice to your attack pool, or if your AR is 6 and your opponent's DR is 11 you take a -5 die penalty to your attack pool.) It would kill the argument that these Ratings have no relevant value.  I know that doesn't go well with high ranged stuff, but such is life. It's the simplest solution I can come up with and your going to be doing that math anyways so it's only adding one small step to the process.


More complex option include deriving values based upon AR and DR and modifying related pools. This could also done fairly cleanly, and wouldn't do much to change the factors. But it's not as simple as the one above.

[Marcus]

If you went with the above solution something else you could add would be to add strength or half str become as a AR bonus on melee weapons. This would solve the Pixie Troll melee weapon problem in a useful way.

Drop the per round edge limit and edge spending limit. If the game is going to be focused around edge then embrace it and stop killing the whole point of your blankity, blank system. Keep the edge attribute cap in place and make it so that any edge generated cannot spent until the next time the character goes or is attacked, those should be the only relevant limiting factors, attributes are supposed to mean something in 6e so there you go they are.  Sure things will get wild in the first turn. Guess what your playing SR. If stuff doesn't get nuts in the first turn you did it wrong. 

Fix the priority attribute and skill value, if your going to cost skills and attributes the same then just do it, I think it's totally weird to value them same but that's what your math says that  you want so let your crazy flag fly and go with it.

Actually write some useful training times and relevant costs. How much do you want a player to get better from one game session? 1 die? Half a die? 1/4 of die? Figure  out what you can sleep with at night put in a table and call it done. The point of a CRB is to be the arbiter of character advancement house ruling this can be fine but there needs to be useful base line. You already have skill and attribute rating caps in place trust them.

Fix the AoE rules so they are consistent between spells and explosives (IE Fix grenades so they use the same rules as spell AoE).

Next healing, make it out of combat and make it's difficulty scaled based upon how wounded the target was. (So health box before -1 is easier to heal the health box in over flow.) But keep it reasonable, yes this isn't D&D but dead character don't finish runs. We all want Characters to take damage and for that damage to be meaningful but make sure it's possible to keep them in the session so long as they have put some sort reason resources into it. Drop Edge healing.

Kill Mystic adept. That sacred cow as been problem in the system for far too long. Yes people will q-q, but you can point and say look we nerfed magicrun for reals. Make an optional rule to do it in the magic book as some sort of initiation/meta-magic option if you just can't live without it.

Take out the alchemy section and move it to it's own small book, and take some time to make it work. If you liked what was the end of 5e great use that, if you hate the idea of magic bullets great then make sure alchemy and weapons never mix.

That's the list i can think of I hope it helps.

[PatrolDeer]

The simplest solution I can think of along this line, is to make the net deference between DR and AR become a die pool bonus or penalty to the relevant attack pool.

If you went with the above solution something else you could add would be to add strength or half str become as a AR bonus on melee weapons. This would solve the Pixie Troll melee weapon problem in a useful way.
Drop the per round edge limit and edge spending limit. If the game is going to be focused around edge then embrace it and stop killing the whole point of your blankity, blank system.
Sure things will get wild in the first turn. Guess what your playing SR. If stuff doesn't get nuts in the first turn you did it wrong. 

A person can be super strong but if the person does not posses agility to land the hit, the person won't hit. Also, net hits generated by agility + (combat skill) represent the hit placement as they add to damage. I am not against some modification of melee damage after the hit.
Taking away edge cap on gain and spent and combining it with AR and DR adding or subtracting dice is nuts indeed. Especially if I will be able to than pre-edge with exploding 6's or post-edge and re-roll all my failures.

Just be aware, if you start adding situational Edge gains into gear you are creating the exact same problem that the Sixth World Edge system was supposed to fix.

Instead of tracking down all the little +1s and +2s that only apply in some situations and to some rolls you will be having to track down all the little Edge gains that can be gained under some situations and on some rolls.

You will be taking the "simplified" out of Sixth World.

True, creating more combat edge modifiers can be an overhaul. But some edge generators can engage characters which are not so good in combat to do stuff, or to feel that they are not neglected, when combat mages, adpets and street sams are doing all these cool actions. Covert ops, medics and other supportive characters can easily be in a situation, where they don't generate as much edge in combat, because their characters are not built for that.

Edge in my opinion expands on characters creativity to solve confrontation via clever thinking, teamwork, usage of environment, vision and situation in order to create tactical advantage, which is such a crucial part of confrontation.
Everyone, including non combat built characters can be engaged in a confrontation due to the edge system, allowing them to push their luck and tactical advantage even if some non-combat dice pools are lacking behind their combat centred team-mates, players have a chance to generate and manipulate their success thanks to edge without needing a dice roller.

Finally, pardon me if I am wrong, but + or - modifier adds or subtracts from a dice pool, while edge allows to manipulate current dice pool to a certain extent. That in my thinking is not the same. The cap, 2 per round makes it easy.
Better attack rating, yes, gain an edge, better vision, yes gain and edge, move on, no other modifiers apply.

[Marcus]

The simplest solution I can think of along this line, is to make the net deference between DR and AR become a die pool bonus or penalty to the relevant attack pool.

If you went with the above solution something else you could add would be to add strength or half str become as a AR bonus on melee weapons. This would solve the Pixie Troll melee weapon problem in a useful way.
Drop the per round edge limit and edge spending limit. If the game is going to be focused around edge then embrace it and stop killing the whole point of your blankity, blank system.
Sure things will get wild in the first turn. Guess what your playing SR. If stuff doesn't get nuts in the first turn you did it wrong. 

A person can be super strong but if the person does not posses agility to land the hit, the person won't hit. Also, net hits generated by agility + (combat skill) represent the hit placement as they add to damage. I am not against some modification of melee damage after the hit.
Taking away edge cap on gain and spent and combining it with AR and DR adding or subtracting dice is nuts indeed. Especially if I will be able to than pre-edge with exploding 6's or post-edge and re-roll all my failures.

And if we were talking rapiers or saber that might be relevant but we are talking combat axes and shotgun hammers. If you ever want 6e taken serious as Roll4it points out you have to solve the Pixie Troll problem. It's a systemic black eye as it stands, my solution is the simplest change 1/2 str and 3 to 1 conversation ratio is going to result in the lowest damage change possible. It also means it will actually merit people putting resources into AR and DR. As soon as the scope that killed Edge gain from DR was found, any argument that could be made about DR went out the window. Accept reality now, and you wont keep getting shutdown by the same arguments later.

Just be aware, if you start adding situational Edge gains into gear you are creating the exact same problem that the Sixth World Edge system was supposed to fix.

Instead of tracking down all the little +1s and +2s that only apply in some situations and to some rolls you will be having to track down all the little Edge gains that can be gained under some situations and on some rolls.

You will be taking the "simplified" out of Sixth World.

True, creating more combat edge modifiers can be an overhaul. But some edge generators can engage characters which are not so good in combat to do stuff, or to feel that they are not neglected, when combat mages, adpets and street sams are doing all these cool actions. Covert ops, medics and other supportive characters can easily be in a situation, where they don't generate as much edge in combat, because their characters are not built for that.

Edge in my opinion expands on characters creativity to solve confrontation via clever thinking, teamwork, usage of environment, vision and situation in order to create tactical advantage, which is such a crucial part of confrontation.
Everyone, including non combat built characters can be engaged in a confrontation due to the edge system, allowing them to push their luck and tactical advantage even if some non-combat dice pools are lacking behind their combat centred team-mates, players have a chance to generate and manipulate their success thanks to edge without needing a dice roller.

Finally, pardon me if I am wrong, but + or - modifier adds or subtracts from a dice pool, while edge allows to manipulate current dice pool to a certain extent. That in my thinking is not the same. The cap, 2 per round makes it easy.
Better attack rating, yes, gain an edge, better vision, yes gain and edge, move on, no other modifiers apply.

First you can call them edge modifier for the sake of saving face, but lets be clear these modify the attack pool directly. Edge alone does not constitute a direct modifier if you have 4 points of failure between you and something there is no direct interface. No one is going to take AR and DR seriously, and they won't until they have a direct influence the roll. 1 point of edge is too little to late. One can only effect 1 die and it better be the other guys die as if it your die you wasted the edge. Next 2 edge per is choking the whole point of your system, the Playtesters said so, and anyone who can follow what the system knows so as well. If you want 6e to be taken seriously by system folks then make changes outlined.

Along this line you should re-look at anything that is applies any weird misc penalty, change  them to a bonus to AR or DR of the side using them. This will allow you to hold too the claim that the only bonus or penalties are the edge system. Something would be a lot better if it was true.

Btw you need something similar for riggers as well. The Engineering clarification is nice, but as everyone on here has reported rigger in 6e is doa until they can meaningfully show the their advantages over putting a sam with max pilot skill in the car instead. Your fight the much higher utility of having another sam who can also do something else. It needs to be much better then 1 die per rating per pilot test and it has to be more then just when jumped in.

Embrace the fixes for what everyone has identified as major problems and 6e will be seen as accepting the community feed back and might be redeemable, stick to the epicly flawed raw that is the 6e system currently and it goes down as a joke in gaming circles.

Also stop with 6w nonsense. D&D next didn't work ether no one took it serous, it's 6e shadowrun, stop trying to divide community via language. We know it's 6e it's not gonna change.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Also stop with 6w nonsense. D&D next didn't work ether no one took it serous, it's 6e shadowrun, stop trying to divide community via language. We know it's 6e it's not gonna change.

Just because you have a favored nomenclature it doesn't mean anyone else who doesn't use your preferred language is using language to be divisive.

[Marcus]

Also stop with 6w nonsense. D&D next didn't work ether no one took it serous, it's 6e shadowrun, stop trying to divide community via language. We know it's 6e it's not gonna change.

Just because you have a favored nomenclature it doesn't mean anyone else who doesn't use your preferred language is using language to be divisive.

Who is using the term 6w SSDR? It's not the community at large.

The point is irrelevant, fix 6e.

[tequila]

the Tiffany Needler and the Ares Viper Slivergun (both of which have stats that suggest that Flechette Rounds should in fact increase the DV and not decrease

Yeah.  It looks like Flechette should be something like this:

DV: +1; AR: +2/-2/?

[Marcus]

What are people’s thoughts on developing a weapon mod/acc system that dovetail in with the Edge system?

The simplest solution I can think of along this line, is to make the net deference between DR and AR become a die pool bonus or penalty to the relevant attack pool. Doing this would mean AR and DR have a direct interface between the relevant ratings and relevant pool. (IE if your AR is 12 you opponents DR is 9, your gain 3 dice to your attack pool, or if your AR is 6 and your opponent's DR is 11 you take a -5 die penalty to your attack pool.) It would kill the argument that these Ratings have no relevant value.  I know that doesn't go well with high ranged stuff, but such is life. It's the simplest solution I can come up with and your going to be doing that math anyways so it's only adding one small step to the process.


More complex option include deriving values based upon AR and DR and modifying related pools. This could also done fairly cleanly, and wouldn't do much to change the factors. But it's not as simple as the one above.

If you went with the above solution something else you could add would be to add strength or half str become as a AR bonus on melee weapons. This would solve the Pixie Troll melee weapon problem in a useful way.

Drop the per round edge limit and edge spending limit. If the game is going to be focused around edge then embrace it and stop killing the whole point of your blankity, blank system. Keep the edge attribute cap in place and make it so that any edge generated cannot spent until the next time the character goes or is attacked, those should be the only relevant limiting factors, attributes are supposed to mean something in 6e so there you go they are.  Sure things will get wild in the first turn. Guess what your playing SR. If stuff doesn't get nuts in the first turn you did it wrong. 

Fix the priority attribute and skill value, if your going to cost skills and attributes the same then just do it, I think it's totally weird to value them same but that's what your math says that  you want so let your crazy flag fly and go with it.

Actually write some useful training times and relevant costs. How much do you want a player to get better from one game session? 1 die? Half a die? 1/4 of die? Figure  out what you can sleep with at night put in a table and call it done. The point of a CRB is to be the arbiter of character advancement house ruling this can be fine but there needs to be useful base line. You already have skill and attribute rating caps in place trust them.

Fix the AoE rules so they are consistent between spells and explosives (IE Fix grenades so they use the same rules as spell AoE).

Next healing, make it out of combat and make it's difficulty scaled based upon how wounded the target was. (So health box before -1 is easier to heal the health box in over flow.) But keep it reasonable, yes this isn't D&D but dead character don't finish runs. We all want Characters to take damage and for that damage to be meaningful but make sure it's possible to keep them in the session so long as they have put some sort reason resources into it. Drop Edge healing.

Kill Mystic adept. That sacred cow as been problem in the system for far too long. Yes people will q-q, but you can point and say look we nerfed magicrun for reals. Make an optional rule to do it in the magic book as some sort of initiation/meta-magic option if you just can't live without it.

Take out the alchemy section and move it to it's own small book, and take some time to make it work. If you liked what was the end of 5e great use that, if you hate the idea of magic bullets great then make sure alchemy and weapons never mix.

That's the list i can think of I hope it helps.

The simplest solution I can think of along this line, is to make the net deference between DR and AR become a die pool bonus or penalty to the relevant attack pool.

If you went with the above solution something else you could add would be to add strength or half str become as a AR bonus on melee weapons. This would solve the Pixie Troll melee weapon problem in a useful way.
Drop the per round edge limit and edge spending limit. If the game is going to be focused around edge then embrace it and stop killing the whole point of your blankity, blank system.
Sure things will get wild in the first turn. Guess what your playing SR. If stuff doesn't get nuts in the first turn you did it wrong. 

A person can be super strong but if the person does not posses agility to land the hit, the person won't hit. Also, net hits generated by agility + (combat skill) represent the hit placement as they add to damage. I am not against some modification of melee damage after the hit.
Taking away edge cap on gain and spent and combining it with AR and DR adding or subtracting dice is nuts indeed. Especially if I will be able to than pre-edge with exploding 6's or post-edge and re-roll all my failures.

And if we were talking rapiers or saber that might be relevant but we are talking combat axes and shotgun hammers. If you ever want 6e taken serious as Roll4it points out you have to solve the Pixie Troll problem. It's a systemic black eye as it stands, my solution is the simplest change 1/2 str and 3 to 1 conversation ratio is going to result in the lowest damage change possible. It also means it will actually merit people putting resources into AR and DR. As soon as the scope that killed Edge gain from DR was found, any argument that could be made about DR went out the window. Accept reality now, and you wont keep getting shutdown by the same arguments later.

Just be aware, if you start adding situational Edge gains into gear you are creating the exact same problem that the Sixth World Edge system was supposed to fix.

Instead of tracking down all the little +1s and +2s that only apply in some situations and to some rolls you will be having to track down all the little Edge gains that can be gained under some situations and on some rolls.

You will be taking the "simplified" out of Sixth World.

True, creating more combat edge modifiers can be an overhaul. But some edge generators can engage characters which are not so good in combat to do stuff, or to feel that they are not neglected, when combat mages, adpets and street sams are doing all these cool actions. Covert ops, medics and other supportive characters can easily be in a situation, where they don't generate as much edge in combat, because their characters are not built for that.

Edge in my opinion expands on characters creativity to solve confrontation via clever thinking, teamwork, usage of environment, vision and situation in order to create tactical advantage, which is such a crucial part of confrontation.
Everyone, including non combat built characters can be engaged in a confrontation due to the edge system, allowing them to push their luck and tactical advantage even if some non-combat dice pools are lacking behind their combat centred team-mates, players have a chance to generate and manipulate their success thanks to edge without needing a dice roller.

Finally, pardon me if I am wrong, but + or - modifier adds or subtracts from a dice pool, while edge allows to manipulate current dice pool to a certain extent. That in my thinking is not the same. The cap, 2 per round makes it easy.
Better attack rating, yes, gain an edge, better vision, yes gain and edge, move on, no other modifiers apply.

First you can call them edge modifier for the sake of saving face, but lets be clear these modify the attack pool directly. Edge alone does not constitute a direct modifier if you have 4 points of failure between you and something there is no direct interface. No one is going to take AR and DR seriously, and they won't until they have a direct influence the roll. 1 point of edge is too little to late. One can only effect 1 die and it better be the other guys die as if it your die you wasted the edge. Next 2 edge per is choking the whole point of your system, the Playtesters said so, and anyone who can follow what the system knows so as well. If you want 6e to be taken seriously by system folks then make changes outlined.

Along this line you should re-look at anything that is applies any weird misc penalty, change  them to a bonus to AR or DR of the side using them. This will allow you to hold too the claim that the only bonus or penalties are the edge system. Something would be a lot better if it was true.

Btw you need something similar for riggers as well. The Engineering clarification is nice, but as everyone on here has reported rigger in 6e is doa until they can meaningfully show the their advantages over putting a sam with max pilot skill in the car instead. Your fight the much higher utility of having another sam who can also do something else. It needs to be much better then 1 die per rating per pilot test and it has to be more then just when jumped in.

Embrace the fixes for what everyone has identified as major problems and 6e will be seen as accepting the community feed back and might be redeemable, stick to the epicly flawed raw that is the 6e system currently and it goes down as a joke in gaming circles.

Also stop with 6w nonsense. D&D next didn't work ether no one took it serous, it's 6e shadowrun, stop trying to divide community via language. We know it's 6e it's not gonna change.

Also stop with 6w nonsense. D&D next didn't work ether no one took it serous, it's 6e shadowrun, stop trying to divide community via language. We know it's 6e it's not gonna change.

Just because you have a favored nomenclature it doesn't mean anyone else who doesn't use your preferred language is using language to be divisive.

All that and this what you take issue with SSDR?

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Also stop with 6w nonsense. D&D next didn't work ether no one took it serous, it's 6e shadowrun, stop trying to divide community via language. We know it's 6e it's not gonna change.

Just because you have a favored nomenclature it doesn't mean anyone else who doesn't use your preferred language is using language to be divisive.

Who is using the term 6w SSDR? It's not the community at large.

The point is irrelevant, fix 6e.

It wasn't my point; I was responding to the point you made.  If noone's using that language, why bother complaining about people using it?  If there ARE people using it and you're dismissing them as not being part of the community at large, then it's not THEY who are being divisive but you.

As for fixing 6we: literally, that's being worked on.  Whether 6we could have or should have been published without need for lots of errata is besides the point.  Wishes and fishes and all, because it was published the way it is and noone has a time machine to go back and do it differently.  However, for whatever real or imagined faults CGL had in publishing it, they are working at making it better than it currently is.

[Marcus]

Also stop with 6w nonsense. D&D next didn't work ether no one took it serous, it's 6e shadowrun, stop trying to divide community via language. We know it's 6e it's not gonna change.

Just because you have a favored nomenclature it doesn't mean anyone else who doesn't use your preferred language is using language to be divisive.

Who is using the term 6w SSDR? It's not the community at large.

The point is irrelevant, fix 6e.

It wasn't my point; I was responding to the point you made.  If noone's using that language, why bother complaining about people using it?  If there ARE people using it and you're dismissing them as not being part of the community at large, then it's not THEY who are being divisive but you.

As for fixing 6we: literally, that's being worked on.  Whether 6we could have or should have been published without need for lots of errata is besides the point.  Wishes and fishes and all, because it was published the way it is and noone has a time machine to go back and do it differently.  However, for whatever real or imagined faults CGL had in publishing it, they are working at making it better than it currently is.

I asked you who used it, and you haven't answered.

As to the rest, yes 6e CRB was even worse then I had ever imagined it would be. But as you said we can't change the past. I'm putting forward my suggestions on what could be done, take'em or leave'em.

[Marcus]

As to separation I'm using the common language of the community. Those whom choose to use other language have divided themselves. 6e vs 6w. Last time I check w is not an e.

[AJCarrington]

What are people’s thoughts on developing a weapon mod/acc system that dovetail in with the Edge system?

First, I'm not here to rain on any ones parade.  If you are into this idea, and are having fun working it, then you go <insert pronoun of choice here>!

Just be aware, if you start adding situational Edge gains into gear you are creating the exact same problem that the Sixth World Edge system was supposed to fix.

Instead of tracking down all the little +1s and +2s that only apply in some situations and to some rolls you will be having to track down all the little Edge gains that can be gained under some situations and on some rolls.

You will be taking the "simplified" out of Sixth World.

Again, go for it if'n ya like it!

Fair point. In a perfect world, I’d take the time to come up with a system to model the weapons...but, I guess I could just play GURPS too I appreciate the efforts to simplify, but like the complexity of a more “simulation” feel. I’d like to have my cake and eat it too

[Serin_Marst]

the Tiffany Needler and the Ares Viper Slivergun (both of which have stats that suggest that Flechette Rounds should in fact increase the DV and not decrease

Yeah.  It looks like Flechette should be something like this:

DV: +1; AR: +2/-2/?

My hope was that flechette be something like: AR-2, add a wild die to the attack.  Hunters pick shot over slugs because it trades penetration for an overall easier shot to make.

[PatrolDeer]

In 5th, this was covered by the interaction between damage and armor rating. If the damage was less than your armor rating, then you had to resist stun damage instead of physical. This meant that wearing FBA allowed you to soak small arms as stun instead of chipping away at your physical health. The issue became skew characters that had jacked up BOD+armor pools of ~40 dice, and anything short of an assault cannon or rocket launcher was doing stun damage.

I was thinking about this and remembered one instance in the US, when a bunch of guys robbed a bank. What they did was that they put quite a few winter jackets underneath their bulletproof vests. That caused the effects of severely reduced shock, to the point, that they were able to stand their ground. They did utilise cover and helmets in addition to the armour, but the precedence stands. - Thanks for pointing this out!

Continuing with that train of thought. When a ballistic plate or kevlar stops a bullet, it deteoriorates and looses function, to put in a simple way, it gets destroyed.
How could we express this in game mechanics ? It can be assumed that armour does not cover the whole body, even with full body armour, there are vulnerable spots. I was thinking about a specific action, maybe a 3 Edge action, where you could do a one time bonus to soak from armour which than gets destroyed, or something in a similar fashion.
I do understand that the idea to add more bonuses is contradictory to what edge is trying to achieve and that is a valid point, but maybe going with an action instead of a bonus could be a way forward. There actually is a 5 edge "Create special effect" action and together with the possibility of giving 1 edge to a team member via spending 2 of your own, could add armour soak and doesn't demand to introduce a new mechanic because of it.

What do you think ?