[Lormyr]

So glare gives penalties but range doesn’t.  If some situational modifiers have penalties what’s the benefit of the edge system. It doesn’t sound easier to me.

Many status effects still give a dice pool penalty to various pools, such as blinded, immobilized, ect. As to your second question, I wish I had an answer.

[Marcus]

We already knew there were other penalty sources in 6e (Wound Penalties were the first example). Further it doesn't seem likely 6e is  significantly more simple then 5e.  Where we had pretty well identified and could with some good effort have cleared up much of the system issues in 5e probably with another anniversary release. We will now have wait and watch the errata process all over. If the hot fix makes anything clear, it's that there a lot work to be done in that area.  Never mind splat books.

The thing that makes me more nervous is what I keep hear about the GM section. Apparently it went down to 14 pages from 40, and reportedly it lacks both basic definitions, and meaningful examples.

[Lormyr]

Further it doesn't seem likely 6e is  significantly more simple then 5e.

For what it is worth, I would personally say that attaining a firm grasp of the rules (mostly due to matrix) in 5e was an 8.5/10 difficulty. I find 6e to be closer to a 6.5/10.

We will now have wait and watch the errata process all over. If the hot fix makes anything clear, it's that there a lot work to be done in that area.  Never mind splat books.

I concur.

The thing that makes me more nervous is what I keep hear about the GM section. Apparently it went down to 14 pages from 40, and reportedly it lacks both basic definitions, and meaningful examples.

14 page count is accurate, but I actually like this write up better than 5e. My favorite thing about it is the new reputation system, which basically replaces street cred/notoriety/public awareness. There are very few examples, but the writing is fairly clear.

Unlike the character creation process, which lacks vital explanations and clear english.

[Shinobi Killfist]

We already knew there were other penalty sources in 6e (Wound Penalties were the first example). Further it doesn't seem likely 6e is  significantly more simple then 5e.  Where we had pretty well identified and could with some good effort have cleared up much of the system issues in 5e probably with another anniversary release. We will now have wait and watch the errata process all over. If the hot fix makes anything clear, it's that there a lot work to be done in that area.  Never mind splat books.

The thing that makes me more nervous is what I keep hear about the GM section. Apparently it went down to 14 pages from 40, and reportedly it lacks both basic definitions, and meaningful examples.

Yeah we knew about wound penalties, and maybe they see glare as a similar thing as not as a environmental penalty but a status effect. But X is edge, Y is penalty and edge, z is just penalty seems harder to keep track or make quick no reference rulings on than just edge or just penalties, its just less intuitive sounding to me.  Overall the system may be smoother and easier, but this part doesn't seem to be to me.

[steelybran]

Yes, it requires some eyeballing on the GMs part to come to this conclusion. But that´s hardly so bad compared to sifting through the books for modifiers that, when stacked up, keeps everyone from doing stuff altogether.

And this is the biggest fallacy when combined with the pitch that this edition (generic, not Sixth World specific) is needed for new customers.

Counting on experienced and qualified GMs to make the right call to make a system work is lazy and / or incompetent game design.  For clarity, this isn't the same as expecting house rules / judgement calls.  This is requiring them to make the system work.

I'll give two examples of what I mean.  First, a concrete example from Shadowrun 5e.

[Sense] Removal spell, Street Grimoire page 112.
    The effect of the spell is a -1 penalty to Perception checks per Net Hit using the targeted sense.
What happens if you hit a target with Sight Removal in a gunfight?  It is left up to the GM.  I've actually been in a game where a GM ruled it had no effect, because the target wasn't using Perception, and the spell didn't list any other effects.  Needless to say, that game didn't last long.

Now, I'm sure that several regulars around here will want to stroke their ego's, and others, while saying that the spell shouldn't need more clarity and that the GM was [insert derogatory remark here].

What this example doesn't take into account is that not all GMs are experienced.  This should be at the forefront of the designers mind when one reason an edition is pitched is "attracting new blood."  These GMs need extra handholding.

In the case of [Sense] Removal, it should have read -1 penalty per Net Hit to all tests relying on the targeted sense.
That would have prevented the problem.



Now for the less concrete example.

Game design is kind of like writing recipes for publication.
Sure, experienced cooks / chefs will make their own modifications.  That is a given.

That doesn't mean you leave out any of the ingredients because you expect some users will make their own choices.
You provide all of the ingredients, and if you are actually trying to sell to inexperienced cooks, you even go the extra step of pointing out common substitutions and other changes that can be made.
You trust that when the user is ready - if ever, they will make the changes they want to make the recipe their own.

That would make the spell broken, though.  The goal of it is to debuff a person's perception, not blind them.  Why would anyone worth their salt not have 2-3 mages around them at all times with that spell?

In order to make it do that, the spell would have to come with a VERY high cost.   It was only drain of F - 3; throw that and sustain it on the enemy sniper? 

I would simply rename the spell "Dull Sense" so to prevent picking up fine details, instead of "Remove Sense".  Instead of trying to make the name of the spell dictate all its actions.  I mean, Glue Strip doesn't specifically state that the glue has to be in a strip.

[kyoto kid]

Yes this kind of breaks down if your PC is in fact a 50 year old out of shape person with terrible physical stats across the board. There are valid archetypes you could be going for where that'd fit, and of course you might find such a PC stuck fighting a professional combatant like a ganger, mob soldier, etc.  But you won't find that happening often, not unless you're an idiot of a player who refuses to keep a clearly non-combatant kind of runner out of close combat.  Anyway, the point I want to make on this contingency is rules don't inherently need to address exceptions to the norm.  "Ok, your runner lacks a Juicer's Strength?  And simultaneously also lacks a Ninja's agility? Fine, your DV is penalized."   Or, if you're reluctant to impose non-explicitly stated penalties (i.e. "house rules") you can work within what's explicitly provided and decree that a fat, out of shape would-be-melee-combatant just automatically is giving away circumstantial edge to everyone he swings at.

So what you're basically saying is that the system falls apart when and you think that can be written off because it's an "exception to the norm". Have you forgotten that extractions, AKA "go kidnap this non-combatant", is one of the major run archetypes? And that is to say nothing of any other scenarios where a non-combatant will fight out of panic or desperation. Why shouldn't the system be built to handle a fat nerd being forced to knife-fight a SAS commando?

An agile elven noble who is a master duelist with a rapier is just as equally deadly as a bulked up troll merc who has mastered his use of an axe.

All that was represented in previous editions by both strength and net hits contributing to melee damage; both the raw force and how you apply it matters. By removing strength from melee damage, 6e does away with the importance of raw force.

...thank you that is what I was getting at. In just about every RPG I've played, strength (or in the case with WotC's "finesse" weapons, dexterity) figured into melee weapon damage, be it as a bonus or flat base. 

It basically comes down to why bother with melee weapons (save for the monowhip and for adepts, a weapon focus [do you really want to punch that fire, toxic, or radiation spirit with your bare hands?]) when bare fists and bone augmentations can do more damage?

I was going to give another analogy but why bother, suspension of disbelief seems to be the accepted mechanic in this case.

Looks as if it's time for the "Kid" to sheath the Katana, holster the 6 guns, shoulder the rifle, and ride off into the sunset on this one.

[mcv]

Anyway you look at this I feel we are stuck with 6th for awhile,

I'm not. I'm just starting with 5th in the middle of the 4th edition period. I have no reason at all to move to 6th if it's not good.

[tenchi2a]

Anyway you look at this I feel we are stuck with 6th for awhile,

I'm not. I'm just stating with 5th in the middle of the 4th edition period. I have no reason at all to move to 6th if it's not good.

I was not saying you had to play 6th.
I was saying that this is what CGL is going to support for now.
I am still using 5th in 2035 myself and will continue to advance thru the years with 5th.
But until CGL decides that 6th edition was a bad idea that's what they will support.
And the only way they will get that messages is if 6th is unsuccessful.
So keep voting with your wallet. 

[mcv]

I was not saying you had to play 6th.
I was saying that this is what CGL is going to support for now.
I am still using 5th in 2035 myself and will continue to advance thru the years with 5th.
But until CGL decides that 6th edition was a bad idea that's what they will support.
And the only way they will get that messages is if 6th is unsuccessful.
So keep voting with your wallet. 

True, but at the same time, I'm spending plenty of money on 4th edition setting and adventure books, and 5th edition rulebooks.

There's just such an incredible amount of Shadowrun content that we can survive for decades on what there already is. I realise this could be taken as an argument for the publisher to abandon it, because their new content has to compete with their older content, but I think I'm still happy they do keep it alive.

And who knows? I might eventually switch to 6th anyway. At the moment there's just no reason for me to do that, though. I would have been more eager if 6th had been a bugfix release for 5th edition: better written, fix some of the less successful ideas of 5th, rebalance a few things, but for the most part keep everything the same. Had they done that, I'd have bought it immediately. There's plenty about 5th that could use a fix, but 6th sounds like it completely redesigns things that I don't consider broken. (Of course it's possible that I change my mind about that.)

[BeCareful]

Yeah, I was hoping for a 5.5, 30th Anniversary Edition as well. I do like looking up the old modules, and would like to run an Alternate History with some of them for 5th. I'd also like to try 3rd, since I haven't done that before.