Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => General Discussion => Topic started by: markelphoenix on <09-16-19/2041:30>
-
Sad news, they've given up on 6e and are canceling their show :-\ They do go over the problem points that lead them to this decision:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn1cYgG0bQw&fbclid=IwAR1K-AwMn1EedyJXm6n3q-IRPVEhijgDWKciiqjz1ref-4URmvXtjFv_OsU
-
No one should have to suffer through 6e. Also it's a good video, check it out.
-
I find some of their critiques are fair, but others seem very...nit picky.
-
It is a shame they did not enjoy the new edition. I thought maybe 2-3 of their complaints were pretty nit-picky, but I think overall their observations seemed pretty fair. Shadowrun could use some positive visibility right now, and a 2 hour vid, reasonably presented, about how 6E let their group down is not it.
-
It is a shame they did not enjoy the new edition. I thought maybe 2-3 of their complaints were pretty nit-picky, but I think overall their observations seemed pretty fair. Shadowrun could use some positive visibility right now, and a 2 hour vid, reasonably presented, about how 6E let their group down is not it.
Don't disagree. I am firmly of the belief that those who support this edition (I for one like the bones of it and plan to continue GMing it, in spite of it's current significant flaws), we should be very receptive to constructive criticism so that we as a community can either:
1) Provide a community House Rule pool of 'Community Fixes', similar to how gaming communities will create 'Community Patches' for video games.
2) Be consistent in our communications, whether they are at conferences, Mission Plays, or any engagements with any of the Freelancers or full time contributors.
-
1) Provide a community House Rule pool of 'Community Fixes', similar to how gaming communities will create 'Community Patches' for video games.
2) Be consistent in our communications, whether they are at conferences, Mission Plays, or any engagements with any of the Freelancers or full time contributors.
1: We shouldn't have to do that, the system shouldn't be as deeply flawed as it is.
2: They don't care, otherwise 5e would have been well edited and we wouldn't be in this situation.
-
1) Provide a community House Rule pool of 'Community Fixes', similar to how gaming communities will create 'Community Patches' for video games.
2) Be consistent in our communications, whether they are at conferences, Mission Plays, or any engagements with any of the Freelancers or full time contributors.
1: We shouldn't have to do that, the system shouldn't be as deeply flawed as it is.
2: They don't care, otherwise 5e would have been well edited and we wouldn't be in this situation.
This is not a debate on the virtues of what was done. I am pretty sure we all agreed Catalyst Games has done a miss service to Shadowrun 5e and 6e, especially when you compare it to how D&D 5e and Pathfinder 2e, how they play tested, got feed back, and iterated.
What we are debating, is how best as a community, for those of us that love Shadowrun and don't plan to abandon it, help make it a better experience for those who choose to continue supporting the setting that they love.
-
Just finished listening. Overall a largely fair critique. The majority of their issues are the same ones that the majority of those who have been outspoken have criticized.
-
1) Provide a community House Rule pool of 'Community Fixes', similar to how gaming communities will create 'Community Patches' for video games.
2) Be consistent in our communications, whether they are at conferences, Mission Plays, or any engagements with any of the Freelancers or full time contributors.
1: We shouldn't have to do that, the system shouldn't be as deeply flawed as it is.
2: They don't care, otherwise 5e would have been well edited and we wouldn't be in this situation.
There is a point where the best thing is to recognize that unconditional love isn't loving something more, it is loving something in an unhealthy way.
While I have enormous attachment to SRun we should remember this is a commercial transaction, not a friendly relationship. While the people working on the line undoubtedly love the game, they are trying to make something to sell for money as the primary goal. That means that continuing to support them by consuming the product and trying to fix it ad-hoc after is the opposite of productive.
Like things have been bad for a long time and active choices were made to ignore that. People can talk about reddit being toxic all they want, but reddit IS currently the largest SR community. So while it is inarguable that many redditors have chosen to define their love of SR in part via a toxic 'I love to hate those guys' mindset with Catalyst, it is critical to internalize that this is currently the majority opinion of the line. I have seen the numbers for the facebook group, the official forms, and reddit. Reddit is 10 times larger than anywhere else in terms of unique users.
The refusal to recognize this fact, to hide away from the truth of where SR is as a game and where Cata is as a company, is why we are where we are now. You may not LIKE the fact that toxic users have become your core users. But pretending that there hasn't already been a massive amount of feedback on how unhappy people are with the direction of the game and very SPECIFIC feedback on what issues people see as the core issues that are making people unhappy.
Which was NOT over-complexity, which we can see from the video isn't even solved by 6e. 6e trying to simplify was a response to a new social trend caused by freaking Stranger Things of all things, where RPGs are now really 'in' and thus you want to make your game really accessible to cater to people who are RPG curious and were pushed over the edge by how genuinely stranger things captures the joy of RPGs. Its fine if YOU wanted the game to be simpler, and I think a simpler edition of SR as a core edition could work fine even among hardcore fans, but the core issues that the userbase cared about: Product quality, editing, role balance, and thematic issues, were not at all pushed as a priority for this edition.
There have been entire books written online about what could be done to fix SR. To make the game better and more in line with what people want. Lets not pretend that Cata just needs fan based direction to help the game recover, that has been an ongoing thing, that has been pretty overtly ongoing after Howling Shadows, which yes was a really toxic backlash that was not healthy and not productive, but should have been a HUGE red flag that there was a major disconnect between top end decision makers and what the fans actually wanted.
-
It's more fair than unfair... there are indeed issues that still need love from the errata team even after the hotfix was published. But I still can't help but imagine they somehow just failed to grok the system and therefore they still aren't giving a fully fair assessment of the edition.
For example:
They all agreed there wasn't sufficient opportunity for mages to gain edge? Seriously? Spending reagents gives you free edge when summoning spirits. Throwing spells at opponents generates (or gives) edge. Even just throwing buffs around (say, Invisibility) gives circumstantial edge to your teammates... who can then keep it or maybe kick you back some edge in thanks.
And of course the math the GM cited about armor and what 1 point of edge is worth: a quarter of 1 die? Uhhh... yeah they made perfectly clear they didn't like the Edge system but when they demonstrate they don't even understand the Edge system I have to question that their opinion is rooted in valid bases.
-
It is fair to say that you don't like the edge system when you don't understand it. The edge system, the more I think about it and play with it trying to fix it, really shows itself to be a terrible idea and mechanic. You can not understand something and still find it awful. I am not saying this as an edition grognard, it just... objectively is a bad design.
It doesn't reduce complexity at all. It is, in fact, probably the best way to make an RPG painfully obtuse to play. You have replaced the rather simple interaction of 'roll less dice when things are harder' with 'compare an extra set of numbers on EVERY attack, do a math problem, and use this to charge an alternate resource, which you THEN use EITHER to modify dicerolls OR to do a unique set of one off actions. AND based on GM adjuration sometimes you get this for free based on how the GM feels about what decisions you made up till then. Also your fighting the fact this doesn't thematically represent something immediately happening which is a known red flag of mechanics due to it harming conveyance."
The underpinning of the edition is a mechanic that should have been cut pretty much the second it was tested. It is one of the most gamey things I have ever witnessed in an RPG, it feels like it was ripped from an obtuse but fun bigbox boardgame game like Dune or Twilight Imperium than an RPG. It sounds like something a mainstream comedy would use to make fun of how it feels like to play an RPG if your not familiar with them.
"After you make your attack roll compare your conviction stat to their Resolution score to see if you generate virtue points which you can trade in for heroic declarations later!" Snorts, pushes their taped together glasses up their face, reveals their buck teeth.
There is a reason those jokes deliberately avoid using thematic concepts and deliberately make things abstract; it makes things more confusing when mechanics representing literal actions contain totally abstract elements. People who don't play these games and use them as a punchline understand that. It shouldn't show up in a core design, it should be showing up in a Big Bang Theory episode.
Also, as they pointed out, the rules are... insanely poorly edited and actively fight against comprehension. The fact that people who are playing roleplaying games for a living couldn't wrap their mind around it isn't justification to point out they lack the knowledge to criticize it. It is the most damning criticism of all.
-
I'm kinda curious what points people found were a little too nit pickey.
I mean, they hit on every single issue raised on these forums that were aggressively defended against (and in some cases shouted down).
They hit on every single issue I have with the system, as well as all of the reviewers and users that I have listened to / read (small sample size - doesn't mean anything by itself).
If I didn't know any better, I would say it looks like the critics had a clue of what they were talking about.
And as of writing this, the biggest counter point is that the professional RPGers couldn't grasp the simplified system enough to... I dunno, make the opinion worthwhile?
Can anyone link me to any reviews (text or video) where people raved about 6th? Do they even exist?
-
I thought the part where they went on about a single spell could wipe out the universe was very nit picky and over the top. Obviously that's broken, assuming they understood the rules right (I don't have 6E, so I don't know). But it's an easy and obvious fix. It's the kind of thing you put in the errata needed thread and give a brief mention, not the kind of thing you act like is a big issue with the system.
The ammo conversation was also nit picky. Really nit picky. Missing ammo? Definitely an errata issue, sure. Complaining that different weapons have their own ammo listed? Not a big deal, omae.
I haven't seen anyone rave about 6E, although I have seen a couple generally positive reviews on Reddit. They have been few, but there have been a couple. By my recollection, they were overwhelmingly told the system is drek and they didn't actually have fun.
-
There's mistakes in 6e that need fixing, but with a lot of them you can make a judgement call right now and they don't break the game. There's a few abuses possible, but the book is very clear that the GM can put their foot down. When someone spotted the lack of Amp-Up restriction, we immediately ended up discussing valid ways to restrict it over here.
Also, the book is very clear that the GM should play WITH the players. From what I'm told, this GM considers themselves the opponent of the players instead. So that's a shame, really. Also a shame that apparently they like making mountains out of molehills, and poisoned their own well by going 'I don't like the Edge system so going to bash it' without understanding or trying it properly first. (A single point of Edge can be worth 2/3 hit aka 2 dice in an opposed test, by forcing the opponent to reroll a die.)
Also: I needed what, half a dozen judgement calls when 5e came out, just to make Rigger playable in SRM? :-\ My wife still doesn't like Shadowrun due to how long it took before we finally received proper clarity on Rigger stats. SR6 immediately settled that.
Anyway, I would love to help with community fixes, but with some things I know part of what's going on behind the curtain and with others I just know that something's going on. All combined, I have to wait until errata are out, and I really hope Hardy tells us soon how that's coming along. Once we have either 'sorry, it will take X months due to editing process' or we actually get the things, I am ready to go wild. 8)
-
I just finished listening to the video and I found them rather even handed with their assessment. Having looked at a friends copy of the rules in preparation for running a game, I can say I agree with a lot of their points.
I'm not an adversarial GM, but even I have to admit that it makes it too easy to kill a player without trying. When you have to play with kid gloves just so the player's have a fighting chance on a standard run it isn't a sound development process.
As for the editing, there are places where it's almost impossible to tell what the developers meant, and what they assumed the players would carry over from previous editions. Again not sound development. I know this isn't just my issue because we have a thread on this board to fix it.
Also it seems that in their haste to simplify they only made things more complex. The video pointed out a good dozen instances, which I will save you the headache of listening too.
All in all my group took a good long look at 6th and decided on a pass until these issues are addressed. And given Catalysts history that may be a long time.
-
Throwing spells at opponents generates (or gives) edge.
Unless both I and my entire playtest group missed it, we were very surprised to learn that only combat spells have an edge generation mechanic (AR vs. DR). Came up when Sovereign used Control Thoughts and we struggled to find the formula for it, because there isn't one. We found that disappointing, as there are plenty of hostile and opposed spells that aren't in the combat school.
There's mistakes in 6e that need fixing, but with a lot of them you can make a judgement call right now and they don't break the game. There's a few abuses possible, but the book is very clear that the GM can put their foot down.
Your point that some solutions are very simple is valid. The reverse point that the system and editing should be balanced, clean, sensical and not require additional solutions/houserules is difficult (I would say impossible) to dispute though.
-
it's clear that 6e has been horribly misconceived.
Dezzmont's point about the edge mechanic feeling like it was stripped from a board game is dead on, i made that point myself a while back.
It's clear it doesn't even work to address the core goal of "simplification".
Nice to see Michael Chandra bashing the integrity of the roll4it casters after they presented a very fair and calmly presented case for why 6e fails, hard, and hence why they are putting srun down even though they love the setting.
folks can try to bash the messengers like myself and the largest shadowrun community on the internet and now these roll4it videocasters but it won't change the fact that 6e is, to put it mildly, rather poor
-
it's clear that 6e has been horribly misconceived.
Dezzmont's point about the edge mechanic feeling like it was stripped from a board game is dead on, i made that point myself a while back.
It's clear it doesn't even work to address the core goal of "simplification".
Nice to see Michael Chandra bashing the integrity of the roll4it casters after they presented a very fair and calmly presented case for why 6e fails, hard, and hence why they are putting srun down even though they love the setting.
folks can try to bash the messengers like myself and the largest shadowrun community on the internet and now these roll4it videocasters but it won't change the fact that 6e is, to put it mildly, rather poor
The roll4it-video really should be an eye-opener. But apparently, it´s itchy to open your eyes when your head is buried in sand ::)
(I don´t think that Chandra deserves all that criticism, though, just because he dares to defend SR6 on some issues. It´s a valid point that no system runs without some GM eyeballing. There is a certain threshold for each table/GM on how flawed the rules can be before they put the game aside completely. And this threshold has been exceeded for an awfull lot of players, and by far not just "CGL haters". For me personally, this threshold is pretty high, and that´s why I´m still here. That shouldn´t be the benchmark, though.)
-
1) Provide a community House Rule pool of 'Community Fixes', similar to how gaming communities will create 'Community Patches' for video games.
2) Be consistent in our communications, whether they are at conferences, Mission Plays, or any engagements with any of the Freelancers or full time contributors.
1: We shouldn't have to do that, the system shouldn't be as deeply flawed as it is.
2: They don't care, otherwise 5e would have been well edited and we wouldn't be in this situation.
1: Providing stuff like a community House Rule/homebrew pool surely is a good idea if you´re willing to expand a game. Apart from that, I´m with KatoHarts here.
Also, this
There have been entire books written online about what could be done to fix SR. To make the game better and more in line with what people want. Lets not pretend that Cata just needs fan based direction to help the game recover, that has been an ongoing thing, that has been pretty overtly ongoing after Howling Shadows, which yes was a really toxic backlash that was not healthy and not productive, but should have been a HUGE red flag that there was a major disconnect between top end decision makers and what the fans actually wanted.
is just painfully true. At good days, it feels like screaming at a wall of NDA. At bad days, it feels like the best suggestions here are only used to determine the exact opposite of what the playerbase wants. I wouldn´t have been too surprised if Chandras warning in another thread (can´t remember which...) that erroneously assumed that houserule suggestesions can´t be turned into RAW due to copyright issues was actually true.
2. That´s one thing I´m not so sure about. I rather think that the Edition was horribly, horribly rushed. There was playtesting, but few of the complaints led to actual changes (which, I dunno - is the whole point of playtesting?!). Banshee´s work on the Matrix section is a good example that some devs really cared. And even the editors can only do so much if the production is rushed and the team´s management is insufficient. If you want to point fingers, look one level higher. This fish definetely stinks from the head.
-
It´s a valid point that no system runs without some GM eyeballing. There is a certain threshold for each table/GM on how flawed the rules can be before they put the game aside completely.
This raises the question: who is ultimately responsible for the Missions FAQ? And I wonder how they feel about 6e?
Perhaps I am wrong, but even if we assume the more outright errors and omissions are changed up in errata, it seems to me that there's a lot of difficult calls for GMs to make in 6e; for example, exactly what constitutes Edge abuse has a lot of gray areas. (Citation for this assertion: the number of times people here respond to discussion of loopholes with "sure, but the GM would stop you from doing that.")
Navigating and negotiating GM fiat can be fine at a home table with regular players, but it must be a lot of work to establish some semblance of consistency across a loose network of GMs running living campaigns with players who expect a modicum of consistency.
-
Banshee´s work on the Matrix section is a good example that some devs really cared. And even the editors can only do so much if the production is rushed and the team´s management is insufficient. If you want to point fingers, look one level higher. This fish definetely stinks from the head.
This is one of the "issues" raised by Roll4It that made be double-take with incredulity: according to them, the Matrix section was one of, if not THE, worst section of the rules.
This raises the question: who is ultimately responsible for the Missions FAQ? And I wonder how they feel about 6e?
The SRM Lead is in charge of that, and while I can't speak for that person everything I've seen suggests enthusiasm for the new edition.
-
Banshee´s work on the Matrix section is a good example that some devs really cared. And even the editors can only do so much if the production is rushed and the team´s management is insufficient. If you want to point fingers, look one level higher. This fish definetely stinks from the head.
This is one of the "issues" raised by Roll4It that made be double-take with incredulity: according to them, the Matrix section was one of, if not THE, worst section of the rules.
Agreed, that´s way too harsh. Compared to previous Editions, this was a big step in the right direction. However, you can see the rush even in that section - stuff like the borked-up PAN limitations, ambiguities about ASDF reconfiguration, the questions if hosts can earn and use Edge...
Banshee did the best with the time and space given, but it obviously could have been much better with more time added to wrap everything up.
-
Banshee's work is among the best the book/system has to offer. That said, even with the significant improvement he provided, I personally think it could still stand for a few less steps in the process of "I successfully do the matrix thing".
-
I thought the part where they went on about a single spell could wipe out the universe was very nit picky and over the top. Obviously that's broken, assuming they understood the rules right (I don't have 6E, so I don't know). But it's an easy and obvious fix. It's the kind of thing you put in the errata needed thread and give a brief mention, not the kind of thing you act like is a big issue with the system.
The ammo conversation was also nit picky. Really nit picky. Missing ammo? Definitely an errata issue, sure. Complaining that different weapons have their own ammo listed? Not a big deal, omae.
Thanks for sharing GuardDuty.
I understand what you are saying, however I don't share the same opinion - and here is why:
(This isn't to say "you are wrong," but to explain why our opinions do not mesh.)
If Sixth World was mechanically tight, I mean so tight that - regardless of how you enjoyed it - you couldn't fault the mechanics[1], if Roll4It had spent ~10 minutes harping on these two things combined... I'd be right there with you.
(In that scenario) It would be like "they did everything else right, and you are harping on these two easy to fix errors..." Yeah that would be bitchy.
[1] I mean so tight you couldn't even slip a piece of paper through the gaps in the mechanics.
As I took it, Roll4It spent ~1:55 discussing everything that makes 6th unusable for them, and on top of it Catalyst missed these two easy fixes.
I took it as presented as an example of how rushed / poorly edited the core book was.
Now, I may be giving Roll4It too much credit... I'll concede any arguments toward that point.
This is why I don't consider these examples too nit pickey.
-
I've been following the role4it channel to help prep me for GMing 6th. I GMed 5e briefly.
My takeaways from their comments that I hope would be processed as constructive feedback to help improve things in the future:
-The built-in Archetype templates: It would be nice if each of them showed the character creation choices that lead to building those characters. It sounds like some of the Archetypes have a few bugs in them that break or exceed char gen rules. It also sounds like that has been a running issue with past editions as well. As a fresh GM looking to help fresh players start up quickly it would be nice if I could just hand one of the Archetypes to a new player so they could run with it, without having to worry about it being imbalanced or overpowered. Would also be nice as examples of the char gen process.
-Would be nice in future books if the mathematical benefit of an item/rule was very clearly called out in a consistent, quickly parsable way. I find it a big time sync to read a paragraph or two to get the +X to Y info I'm looking for.
In contrast to roll4it's option, I know I'm the minority here in saying I'm pro the new Edge system. Here is why:
It was really easy for people to forget some of the various +1's from gear in 5th. With the 6e edge system, everything you can do with it fits on a couple of pages which is easier for the group to help each other with since they share a common benefit. In the 5th Ed's +X benefit from gear, most players wouldn't be aware of what other players gear can do. 6e edge as a replacement makes it easier for the playgroup to self-audit what their options are.
-
I completely agree the archetypes should list their build info. My brother analysed 5e chats and proposed fixes for them, once we have a few more errata on SR6 I intend to do the same.
As for the Edge system, I really like it and so did my tables. Real easy to get into.
-
It is a shame they did not enjoy the new edition. I thought maybe 2-3 of their complaints were pretty nit-picky, but I think overall their observations seemed pretty fair. Shadowrun could use some positive visibility right now, and a 2 hour vid, reasonably presented, about how 6E let their group down is not it.
Hard to get positive visibility on a product which can be most charitably described at this point as 'troublingly flawed on a basic level'. I am very disappointed that anyone thought this system was ready for publication in the state it is in.
-
On the whole feedback vs unconditional support for Tribe CGL thing. Like my drill sergeant used to say: pain is weakness leaving the body. Growth is an anti-fragile process, and the inability to handle negative feedback is an inability to grow. Hell, patient satisfaction has a negative correlation with positive patient outcome. Social approval is intended to be predicated on completion of an ordeal that produced growth. Defaulting to approval regardless of what they've done is like shooting them up with heroin for basically the same reasons why morphine isn't addictive or a problem for someone in pain but will turn a healthy person's brain upside down.
If CGL can't handle negative feedback, then CGL is incapable of producing a quality product. If users can't handle giving negative feedback, then a CGL capable of producing a quality product can't produce a quality. The only user feedback I ever considered "bad" when I did software development was user apathy or users clearly telling me what they thought I wanted to hear.
Agreement is a tool of manipulation, disagreement is a tool of improvement. Manipulation can be toxic, but improvement not so much.
-
When people liking any part of SR6 or disagreeing about how big a thing a flaw is, is painted as 'unconditional support' and 'defaulting to approval', all in an effort to discard their opinions as irrelevant, that is purely manipulative toxic behaviour.
-
When people liking any part of SR6 or disagreeing about how big a thing a flaw is, is painted as 'unconditional support' and 'defaulting to approval', all in an effort to discard their opinions as irrelevant, that is purely manipulative toxic behaviour.
Of the folks being vocal on these forums precious few are doing that. The considerable majority are more focused on discussion that involves preferences, suggestions, constructive criticism, and paths forward.
-
When people liking any part of SR6 or disagreeing about how big a thing a flaw is, is painted as 'unconditional support' and 'defaulting to approval', all in an effort to discard their opinions as irrelevant, that is purely manipulative toxic behaviour.
To expand on this: There are flaws in SR6. There are rules missing, or unclear. There's decisions made that not everyone agrees with. That all is a given. So yes, we should point out things that are missing, wrong or unclear. But with things 1 considers unclear, maybe a dozen others all see the right meaning, and then the question isn't 'is this unclear' but 'why is it unclear to you specifically'. So then, knowing how 'apologists' read it is relevant because it helps figure out how well a section is written. We've had debates where I read something as X, and someone else (occasionally an 'apologist') as Y, and it can end up as 'no, it's clearly X due to Z' but also as 'I think it's X but I see how you would get to Y, so definitely something for the errata'.
And when things are missing or in error in 1 place, maybe the 'apologist' figured out how it should go based on some parts of the rules, which is why they consider it a minor bump instead of a big problem, so then too their input matters.
And when it comes to demanding change: Demanding change based on misunderstandings isn't helpful, it poisons the well. One must strive to first understand the rules, before demanding they're changed. Claiming Edge is a quarter of a die, would be the perfect example of not understanding. An SR6 Edge Point is worth 1/4 of an SR5 Edge point if you look at only the SR5 uses that made it to SR6, but you get Edge way faster in SR6 so there's no direct comparing. And in any opposed test, Edge usually is worth 2 dice: The 2/3 chance of costing your opponent a hit by forcing them to reroll.
Meanwhile, demanding change based on a personal conviction is exactly the point where the opinions of 'apologists' also matter. If only the side that disagrees is allowed to voice their opinion, it becomes impossible to properly vet how well-accepted a mechanic is. We're not the British Government, only sending counters to 1 side. This is supposed to be discourse, not discord. A well of negativity that doesn't allow input from others, is as bad as the claimed wells of positivities would be if they truly existed.
So no, I disagree with the statement that agreement is manipulation while disagreement can do nothing wrong.
-
When people liking any part of SR6 or disagreeing about how big a thing a flaw is, is painted as 'unconditional support' and 'defaulting to approval', all in an effort to discard their opinions as irrelevant, that is purely manipulative toxic behaviour.
To expand on this: There are flaws in SR6. There are rules missing, or unclear. There's decisions made that not everyone agrees with. That all is a given. So yes, we should point out things that are missing, wrong or unclear. But with things 1 considers unclear, maybe a dozen others all see the right meaning, and then the question isn't 'is this unclear' but 'why is it unclear to you specifically'. So then, knowing how 'apologists' read it is relevant because it helps figure out how well a section is written. We've had debates where I read something as X, and someone else (occasionally an 'apologist') as Y, and it can end up as 'no, it's clearly X due to Z' but also as 'I think it's X but I see how you would get to Y, so definitely something for the errata'.
And when things are missing or in error in 1 place, maybe the 'apologist' figured out how it should go based on some parts of the rules, which is why they consider it a minor bump instead of a big problem, so then too their input matters.
And when it comes to demanding change: Demanding change based on misunderstandings isn't helpful, it poisons the well. One must strive to first understand the rules, before demanding they're changed. Claiming Edge is a quarter of a die, would be the perfect example of not understanding. An SR6 Edge Point is worth 1/4 of an SR5 Edge point if you look at only the SR5 uses that made it to SR6, but you get Edge way faster in SR6 so there's no direct comparing. And in any opposed test, Edge usually is worth 2 dice: The 2/3 chance of costing your opponent a hit by forcing them to reroll.
Meanwhile, demanding change based on a personal conviction is exactly the point where the opinions of 'apologists' also matter. If only the side that disagrees is allowed to voice their opinion, it becomes impossible to properly vet how well-accepted a mechanic is. We're not the British Government, only sending counters to 1 side. This is supposed to be discourse, not discord. A well of negativity that doesn't allow input from others, is as bad as the claimed wells of positivities would be if they truly existed.
So no, I disagree with the statement that agreement is manipulation while disagreement can do nothing wrong.
I'll be blunt with you. Errata can't fix basic bad design, and your appeal to populism doesn't change the flaws of the product.
The problems with 6e's base systems aren't going to be fixed in post, because they require a fundamental rework that is more on the scope of a '30A' version than simple errata.
-
When people liking any part of SR6 or disagreeing about how big a thing a flaw is, is painted as 'unconditional support' and 'defaulting to approval', all in an effort to discard their opinions as irrelevant, that is purely manipulative toxic behaviour.
Ah, good ol´ tribalism. How far we´ve come as a species ::)
Seriously, I know what you mean. But honestly, fixating on the toxicity of a discussion or certain structures of argumentation can sometimes be a little bit (self-)manipulative in its own regards. It quickly delves (intentionally or not) into these deflective meta-discussions and forum feuds about who´s misrepresenting whom, who´s poisoning the well, who´s and whom´s side...
This is nothing I specially address at you, Chandra. Or even just at this forum. It´s a general observation about many other recent discussions as well. Remember when the internet "discovered" the strawman fallacy a few years ago and suddenly everyone was accusing each other of strawmanning back and forth, up to a point where obvious satirical depictions of opposing viewpoints were called out for it? Notice how this neither helped the discussions at hand nor helped to eradicate the unforgivable sin of strawman arguments? It´s good to recognize manipulative argumentation, fallacies, "toxicity" and whatnot, but it´s not always the best choice to call it out if you want to stay on topic. If you can recognize it, others will often recognize it as well.
-
Regarding a community house rules collection, I feel like that just exacerbates the underlying problem. As I see it, the system as it exists today is very fragile, if you can even call it a system -- it has different logic in play in different sections. It's not something you can houserule your way out of, nor just errata your way out of. Everything you "fix" breaks something else. Every fix I've seen proposed has this result. You can't pull out Edge and AR/DR you have rewrite the whole combat system. You can't just add more modifiers, you break the Edge system. You can't shuffle thresholds very far, you break something else, etc etc. I say this because I've tried to "fix it" and this is what happens, every time. The enormity of it quickly outweighs any enthusiasm my inner rules nerd might have. Moreover, I shouldn't need to do that.
I'm not saying the concepts couldn't work, and I've never meant to imply that with my advocating for a rewrite. However, this book is at beta stage at best. It's just too wobbly to work with. With it's current state, any given fix creates a need to adjust something else. Strength in the damage calcs is good example. It seems easy, but then you try it and not so much. Then what of armor? Well now you have to adjust damage again. Etc Etc. The endeavor quickly balloons out past something you can reasonably propose to be a simple thing. A community collection of fixes, while interesting and perhaps informative in the longer haul, would seem to just generate a larger proportion of "unfixes" for each proposed "fix", leaving tables even more vexed than they are today. I feel like it would be destabilizing as a general outcome more than helping. The underlying issues are too large.
-
I kind of regret sharing the link now...
-
Growth is an anti-fragile process, and the inability to handle negative feedback is an inability to grow. Hell, patient satisfaction has a negative correlation with positive patient outcome. Social approval is intended to be predicated on completion of an ordeal that produced growth. Defaulting to approval regardless of what they've done is like shooting them up with heroin for basically the same reasons why morphine isn't addictive or a problem for someone in pain but will turn a healthy person's brain upside down.
If CGL can't handle negative feedback, then CGL is incapable of producing a quality product. If users can't handle giving negative feedback, then a CGL capable of producing a quality product can't produce a quality. The only user feedback I ever considered "bad" when I did software development was user apathy or users clearly telling me what they thought I wanted to hear.
Hit the nail on the head right here. You need to divorce critique of the work from critique of the developer, the brand, or even the company. However, comma, you need to be able to accept all feedback, positive or negative- I disagree with you on some points. Positive feedback is harmful when you are testing something to confirm your bias or current hypothesis, but it should not be ignored. Ideally, you are always testing in such a way that you can disprove your current hypothesis, or at least are testing for multiple hypotheses- in this case, the hypothesis of a game designer would be "X is fun" or "X is a fair1 mechanic."
The fact that people have mixed subjective opinions of things like edge is significant and should be noted. Ignoring the positive feedback and only taking the negative may make edge better for those who disliked it, but by ignoring the positive feedback, you may have created a mechanic that is disliked by the people who once liked it. It's hard to balance ideas between groups of people with different tastes.
You've probably heard "three sustains, three improves" or "three ups, three downs." And that's partially true for objective things. For more subjective things, especially creative works, I've found that the vast majority of the time, if someone tells you that something isn't working for them or that they dislike it, they're correct. It is nigh impossible to have an incorrect subjective opinion unless it's based on a misunderstanding of the facts. (Even then, the problem is likely with how you worded or explained the game rule rather than the rule itself). However, comma, if someone tells you how to fix it, they're usually wrong.
For example, take the new way armor is handled: A lot of people don't like it. The common "fix" is that you should just go back to 5E's way. This likely would not actually fix it. A better way is to ask follow-up questions and dig deeper to find the why- do people dislike it because it's more lethal? Did the corresponding damage code changes make combat slower? Do people find high body, low armor unrealistic for soaking bullets as opposed to low body, high armor? etc. I'm probably either preaching to the choir or saying a bunch of things people won't understand or will disagree with.
My point is, you should divorce critique of the work from critique of the creator, and similarly, you should divorce critique from the person giving the critique. Objective aspects of the critiquer can be OK to include (Has this person played an RPG before? Have they played Shadowrun before? Etc), since you want to make sure you're getting critique from all parts of the audience. Subjective aspects are pretty much useless, and detrimental when paired with their critique (Is this person a good GM? Do they use the "right" type of cyberpunk when playing? Etc)
1: Not to be confused with balanced or symmetric. Fairness in gaming is a whole other blob of lobsters.
I kind of regret sharing the link now...
Don't be- these sorts of discussions can be productive so long as people keep their personal feelings and vendettas out of things. It's kind of a pain to sift through all the sniping of other users, the creators, etc, but there is good discussion here. And if you hadn't shared it, someone else would have.
-
I kind of regret sharing the link now...
Naw, it´s cool man. Apart from some nitpicky stuff like the Ammo complaints (I would even call that an improvement, if it weren´t for APDS and Flechettes being utter shit now...), they hit the nail the on the head on almost every issue.
I hope it hurts the right people at the right places. Probably wishfull thinking, though...
-
I kind of regret sharing the link now...
Naw, it´s cool man. Apart from some nitpicky stuff like the Ammo complaints (I would even call that an improvement, if it weren´t for APDS and Flechettes being utter shit now...), they hit the nail the on the head on almost every issue.
I hope it hurts the right people at the right places. Probably wishfull thinking, though...
Given this is the second edition in a row that has been majorly fragged up, one would think that CGL might catch on that the people they have in charge of the line don't have the faintest idea of how to build and publish an RPG.
-
I kind of regret sharing the link now...
Don't be- these sorts of discussions can be productive so long as people keep their personal feelings and vendettas out of things. It's kind of a pain to sift through all the sniping of other users, the creators, etc, but there is good discussion here. And if you hadn't shared it, someone else would have.
Completely agree with this, @MP. Someone else would have posted it anyway. It's been a hot discussion topic on Facebook and on Discord, which is why I even know about it to begin with.
Unfortunately I don't know exactly what rules they got wrong, otherwise I'd love to analyse why they got them wrong (I understand why people got toxins completely wrong, even though I seem to have parsed it right myself, which was a mistake another podcast apparently made), but any time I could spend watching that video I'd rather spend watching Netflix or playing boardgames.
-
I kind of regret sharing the link now...
Don't be- these sorts of discussions can be productive so long as people keep their personal feelings and vendettas out of things. It's kind of a pain to sift through all the sniping of other users, the creators, etc, but there is good discussion here. And if you hadn't shared it, someone else would have.
Completely agree with this, @MP. Someone else would have posted it anyway. It's been a hot discussion topic on Facebook and on Discord, which is why I even know about it to begin with.
Unfortunately I don't know exactly what rules they got wrong, otherwise I'd love to analyse why they got them wrong (I understand why people got toxins completely wrong, even though I seem to have parsed it right myself, which was a mistake another podcast apparently made), but any time I could spend watching that video I'd rather spend watching Netflix or playing boardgames.
I would highly recommend actually watching the video!
Obviously they did to some extent, but a huge part of game design is conveyance: The game using its mechanics and layout and thematics to sort of teach you how to play them without having to come out and tell you how to play them. A biiiiiiiiiig issue with new edge is that the fact it is an abstract mechanic taking the place of a literal one breaks a major 'rule' of conveyance.
Those rules are, of course, guidelines. You can have abstract mechanics in a game that is pseudo-simulationist, like SR is... and does! Old edge was an abstract mechanic too wearing a weird rubber suit that looked like a simulationist mechanic to help you 'grok' it faster. It just is that when you violate those rules of conveyance its ideal to shore it up elsewhere: Old edge was purely abstract, but had fluffy concepts behind it that scanned to how we view the world on the abstract level already, and its usage was mostly rather simple.
If 6e has any objectively existant flaw its the failure of conveyance of its concepts and how to have fun playing it, so looking for where those break down and shoring them up is important. Even if 100% of the information in the video was wrong (and its not) it would still do anyone who actually cares about 6e well to understand these criticisms because it likely means that there is a conveyance failure.
For example, for the obviously wrong part of how mages can't get edge, it may be wise to place more emphasis on how mages can get edge by attaching conceptual weight to their interaction with reagents: Bringing it down from an abstract concept and creating a clear, concrete reason why mages get edge for doing it that the mage character in universe is partially aware of, so it becomes really clear how you do it: Spending reagents something something blessing of spirits something something, for example. Without changing any rules and instead creating more thematic focus on the act of spending reagents to generate edge, you make the rules... better. Point out that mages who successfully use combat magic not only harm their enemies but revitalize themselves as the act of destruction 'aligns their essence' or whatever. Just as old edge was dressed up in thematic language to cover its abstract behind, new edge could be as well, at least in areas like magic, because you can make the generation of edge less an abstract 'momentum' based benefit and more a concrete knowable side effect: The spirit gave you good fortune, frying that dude has your mana all jumping for joy, ect.
While I personally think 6e's edge is fundamentally just not a good mechanic and struggle how to imagine to fix the problems it causes for the entire system, a really low hanging fruit to at least make it way less aggravating is, wherever possible, make any method that gives you edge have a concrete example of what the edge actually is. I probably would not have come to this conclusion as strongly as I did without watching that video, and I agree with the video! Imagine what you could do as someone who actually LIKES edge and wants to make people understand how cool you think it is with the information in it?
Now to get into the sensitive stuff. Let me preface with a gross butchering of not even a quote but a concept by PBS's Mike Rugnetta: Someone pointing out a fallacy in good faith is them being concerned you are not arguing to the best of your ability, and are hurting your argument. I also want to emphasize that disagreeing with someone isn't an excuse for being a jerk, and that people can be pretty grody towards people who like 6e. And, of course, I want to emphasize I am no saint, and have, in fact, participated in toxic fan culture in the pass, which colors my perspective because I know the mindset that leads one there and empathize with it, but also that may make people guarded around me.
This contributes to the tribalism problem. You, accidently or not, seemed to indicate you don't think a criticism is legitimate without even having listened to it. While the phrase "I don't know exactly what they got wrong" could just be discussing the errors others are talking about, it has pretty overt negative connotations and one has to admit that even if it wasn't the intent it can easily be read as you thinking the criticism is just overtly 'wrong' and thus that it shouldn't hold weight, rather than you being concerned about correcting specific parts of the criticism without dismissing it.
Like intent doesn't... really matter when you are trying to persuasively defend a position, which you have chosen to do in regards to your enjoyment of and appreciation for 6e and your desire to defend it and refute claims that is bad and correct the issue and say its really good!
The optics on that make it seem like that evidence based arguments do not matter to you. I am sure they do, I remember that you went to quite the lengths to talk about how weird and gamey recoil felt in 5e on Shadowrun Universe, and I know you feel the discourse is overwhelmingly toxic, but it bears repeating that a big reason a lot of the discourse is toxic is many people feel 'forced out' of these forums. It isn't your job to walk on eggshells around other people but if you like 6e and want people to come to see the strengths you see in it, it is important to avoid coming across like you are dismissing its faults out of hand, even if you are not doing that.
And, finally, do feel free to not engage with stuff that doesn't make you happy. A big problem with toxic fan culture in the first place is the inability to walk away from experiences that are not enriching and it really IS good to say "I would rather play boardgames than submerge myself in negativity." If you aren't feeling it, it isn't your job to wade into it!
-
That's true. If you're on the internet talking about games, you aren't playing games. People commenting on forums aren't going to fix games, only the developers can do that. Current business practices make it tricky to have discussions with decision makers, due to NDAs and all that. Toxicity also makes it harder for a developer or freelancer to even want to engage with the community, which is an issue that's been around since 2010.
-
I think my boss would kill me if I played Shadowrun during breaktimes. 8) And unfortunately playing a tabletop involving gunfights in the train will also get me in trouble.
-
It´s worth watching, especially for the things they "got wrong".
F.i. they keep going on and on how 1 Edge is "just one die to the test". Which is only true if you only use the default Edge option blindly, and only on your own failed dice. The option to reroll hits of the opposition is obviously stronger than that, and the fact that you can often choose when you want to use Edge and for what Effect makes it even more powerfull. 1 Edge = 1 Die is just wrong. But why does it keep popping up?
Likewise, that one dude in the bottom right (the "Professor") somehow never managed to earn Edge, because he seemingly never realized that combat Spells have an AR, that you can earn Edge by using Reagents etc. And apparently, the players had to argue for their situatianal Edge gain and often "forgot" that. So, no Edge from the GM. They run dry and only use the few pieces of Edge they earn from AR/DR for measly rerolls of their own failed dice (hence the "it´s only one die" sentiment). If you play it out like that, the whole premise of the Edge system goes up in smoke.
They obviously weren´t sold on the Edge system and thus, never truly embraced its potential. Maybe they never really wanted that part of the game to work and (consciously or not) sabotaged themselfes on that. You can see that the GM really wasn´t happy with it, and his playstyle seemed to be a bottleneck here [1]. But I also think that the book frames Edge the wrong way. As a GM, you get a lot of "be carefull, don´t give out too many" and "remember, there´s this godawfull limit of 2 Edge per Combat round. Can´t have too much fun here ;)", as if situational Edge is some kind of rare blessing that GMs should be as pinchpenny as possible about. On the other hand, rewarding players for clever choices is often downplayed. And GM Edge (i.e. the GM having his own Edge pool to fill up for poor/risky choices of the players) isn´t a thing RAW, which is a huge missed opportunity IMO.
[1] Kinda weird that they also complained about the 2-Edge-limit, though. They probably picked that up in the forums, because with that playstyle, they would have rarely encounter that problem in the field.
-
It is fair to say that you don't like the edge system when you don't understand it. The edge system, the more I think about it and play with it trying to fix it, really shows itself to be a terrible idea and mechanic. You can not understand something and still find it awful. I am not saying this as an edition grognard, it just... objectively is a bad design.
It doesn't reduce complexity at all. It is, in fact, probably the best way to make an RPG painfully obtuse to play. You have replaced the rather simple interaction of 'roll less dice when things are harder' with 'compare an extra set of numbers on EVERY attack, do a math problem, and use this to charge an alternate resource, which you THEN use EITHER to modify dicerolls OR to do a unique set of one off actions. AND based on GM adjuration sometimes you get this for free based on how the GM feels about what decisions you made up till then. Also your fighting the fact this doesn't thematically represent something immediately happening which is a known red flag of mechanics due to it harming conveyance."
The underpinning of the edition is a mechanic that should have been cut pretty much the second it was tested. It is one of the most gamey things I have ever witnessed in an RPG, it feels like it was ripped from an obtuse but fun bigbox boardgame game like Dune or Twilight Imperium than an RPG. It sounds like something a mainstream comedy would use to make fun of how it feels like to play an RPG if your not familiar with them.
"After you make your attack roll compare your conviction stat to their Resolution score to see if you generate virtue points which you can trade in for heroic declarations later!" Snorts, pushes their taped together glasses up their face, reveals their buck teeth.
There is a reason those jokes deliberately avoid using thematic concepts and deliberately make things abstract; it makes things more confusing when mechanics representing literal actions contain totally abstract elements. People who don't play these games and use them as a punchline understand that. It shouldn't show up in a core design, it should be showing up in a Big Bang Theory episode.
Also, as they pointed out, the rules are... insanely poorly edited and actively fight against comprehension. The fact that people who are playing roleplaying games for a living couldn't wrap their mind around it isn't justification to point out they lack the knowledge to criticize it. It is the most damning criticism of all.
Ultimately, it's a system that tries to be like the hip narrative systems with their meta-currencies, while also trying to be crunchy and simulationist, like SR always were. It just didn't work out, IMO and yes, it's too gamey for me too. I'd choose floating modifiers every day of the week over it.
-
Ultimately, it's a system that tries to be like the hip narrative systems with their meta-currencies, while also trying to be crunchy and simulationist, like SR always were. It just didn't work out, IMO and yes, it's too gamey for me too. I'd choose floating modifiers every day of the week over it.
I fails (or rather: is prone to fail. Because this problem is highly dependend on the GM!) because it´s stuck between the chairs: Sometimes it´s the new way to model modifiers and mechanical perks, sometimes it´s supposed to be a narrative meta-currency, and sometimes it´s still treated like it´s some kind of emergency fate-point-style mechanic that needs arbitrary restrictions for balancing or some shit (https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/948461489829381285/EE2D7901CBA0114CF1E9010205E8E36216D6DDEF/).
I don´t mind SR turning into a "hip narrative system". The thing is, it doesn´t really happen RAW. It rather levels gameplay depth due to arbitrary restrictions.
-
Ultimately, it's a system that tries to be like the hip narrative systems with their meta-currencies, while also trying to be crunchy and simulationist, like SR always were. It just didn't work out, IMO and yes, it's too gamey for me too. I'd choose floating modifiers every day of the week over it.
I fails (or rather: is prone to fail. Because this problem is highly dependend on the GM) because it´s stuck between the chairs: Sometimes it´s the new way to model modifiers and mechanical perks, sometimes it´s supposed to be a narrative meta-currency, and sometimes it´s still treated like it´s some kind of emergency fate-point-style mechanic that needs arbitrary restrictions for balancing or some shit (https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/948461489829381285/EE2D7901CBA0114CF1E9010205E8E36216D6DDEF/).
I don´t mind SR turning into a "hip narrative system". The thing is, it doesn´t really happen RAW. It rather levels gameplay depth due to arbitrary restrictions.
I do mind (or would). There's Anarchy for that, for the people who like that style. Make an Anarchy 2e, if there's a market for it. In the core game, yeah you're right, the new system falls between the chairs and doesn't do either well, but I wouldn't like the game to go into that direction in the future. The 6e edge system is too much for me already, alongside with some of the "streamlining", but all that were talked to death. Ultimately, it seems like a lot of people have the same issues with 6e.
-
It is fair to say that you don't like the edge system when you don't understand it.
More than fair. The things I don’t like about it are all things I knew I didn’t like from the earliest news we had, well before the book was released publicly. If a given Edge point is worth 1/4 of a die or 1/3 of a die or 2/3 of a die, that doesn’t change how I feel about it, because the things I dislike most are broad things and are not rooted in fine details. I think this applies to the people in the video, too. They don’t like the entire Edge system. They quote specific things they don’t like, and some of those things have some incorrect details. But rebutting those details doesn’t rebut the fact that they dislike the whole thing.
-
Honestly, as much as I don't like the Edge system, it's the basic mathematical problems that bug me more.
Stuff like the difference in value between character creation and advancement for skills and attributes is a clear and unequivocal designer oversight that can only really happen if the people writing the game are either not checking the systems against each other, or do not have sufficient grasp of the math behind their own game to catch that they've created a huge optimization problem.
-
It is fair to say that you don't like the edge system when you don't understand it.
More than fair. The things I don’t like about it are all things I knew I didn’t like from the earliest news we had, well before the book was released publicly. If a given Edge point is worth 1/4 of a die or 1/3 of a die or 2/3 of a die, that doesn’t change how I feel about it, because the things I dislike most are broad things and are not rooted in fine details. I think this applies to the people in the video, too. They don’t like the entire Edge system. They quote specific things they don’t like, and some of those things have some incorrect details. But rebutting those details doesn’t rebut the fact that they dislike the whole thing.
No, but getting details wrong plants the seed of doubt that they might dislike it for no good reason.
I watched the video. I felt obligated to even, to make sure they hadn't kicked over any rocks I hadn't already seen kicked over. And sure enough, they had a litany of complaints about detailed rules problems. I'm well aware they could have gone much longer than they did listing off broken or conflicting rules. I'm very aware. However, the bulk of the video was stressing their opinion of the edge system. However, as far as I'm concerned, that opinion is severely undermined by expressing a faulty understanding of how the mechanic even works. Between only ever discussing the "Reroll a die" edge boost and repeated complaints about there being an overwhelming number of ways to spend edge, I truly suspect they only ever used edge in 6we to reroll dice. Their own dice, at that. They didn't even get how edge works in previous editions right. No, Mr GM, edge in 5e wasn't a logarithmic "X edge means you reroll X dice X number of times".
And honestly, if you don't grok Edge in 6we, you can't grok the system itself. Because yes, the one thing they WERE right about Edge is that its tentacles go into every aspect of the game.
-
No, Mr GM, edge in 5e wasn't a logarithmic "X edge means you reroll X dice X number of times".
Uuuuuhhhh?! ???
-
I like how people have gone so far off the deep end that their only defense "against" the video is that Roll4It talked about the rules wrong....
Sad.
First off, I haven't watched them play any of their Twilight Sins game. And I don't discount the fact they could have screwed up the rules during play.
That being said, there is a big difference from discussing a rule incorrectly in a debrief style session after you've gotten out of a system you don't like than when you are actually playing it.
In my experience (both personal and observational) people don't give half a shit if they talk about a rule correctly when they don't like it - regardless if they played it correctly or not.
Next, (dis)like of a rule does not have to be objective. In fact, the opposite is true.
If you need an example, I dislike the Song of Ice and Fire RPG, and will choose almost any other system if given the option. It isn't that the system is bad (there are a few mechanical issues, but most people will probably not encounter them), I simply don't like it and can't really enjoy it.
Finally, if you couldn't tell, they didn't go into this video with any kind of detailed notes (or even the Core Book open as a reference). If you can't cut them some slack for not nailing the details right in a conversation, you might need to double check you meds.
-
I'll be blunt with you. Errata can't fix basic bad design, and your appeal to populism doesn't change the flaws of the product.
The problems with 6e's base systems aren't going to be fixed in post, because they require a fundamental rework that is more on the scope of a '30A' version than simple errata.
Come on now! Give 'em a chance with the errata.
We were told, repeatedly, that they have an errata system in place and that the errata team had access to the Core Book prior to release.
So, give CGL a couple of weeks to put out the first wave of errata before you judge their ability to fix the system.
Er... Nevermind.
Give 'em a month after release and then there will be the first wave of errata!
Um... Maybe not...
Hey, we can hope that within the first three months they will put out something? Perhaps?
I mean, CGL wouldn't string us along for another edition... Would they? ;)
Note: This isn't any commentary on the errata team. This is about CGL getting their drek together. I'd wager that the errata team had a couple dozen (at least) submissions at the time the "hotfix" was released. And still we wait for anything from CGL....
-
as an ex-errata team member i am going to stand up for their work.
what gets reviewed, approved and published is not up to them.
and they were hard at work well before the book was released.
any current lack of errata is down to the line developer, pure and simple.
heck we had reams of 5e errata ready to be reviewed that we couldn't get any attention for (because it turns out 6e was already deep into development and the line manager was overwhelmed/ couldn't give a crap about 5e).
also FYI the errata team CANNOT fix borked mechanics, it's all about typos and incorrectly worded stuff for the most part.
the only rules edits permitted are very minor and around the edges and only in response to something that was omitted or clearly incorrectly worded, most often.
-
I like how people have gone so far off the deep end that their only defense "against" the video is that Roll4It talked about the rules wrong....
Sad.
I'm going to go ahead and assume that's directed at me. If not, mea culpa.
To reiterate what I JUST said: they do have completely valid gripes. And to reiterate another thing I just said, I could make a longer list than they did. So I'm not "defending against" the video by any stretch.
What my post was directed at was the video's crucial argument is NOT the broken things, but that they simply didn't like the edge system. And I'm not saying there's any problem with that. In fact, they're completely right in that if you don't like the Edge system, then there really is no reason to play 6we as house-ruling around it involves so many 2nd and 3rd order ripples that you may as well just play something else instead. What I was and am saying is that when your argument is opinion, your opinion is undermined when you get the details wrong that support your opinion.
-
If you hate SR6 so much in advance that you're unwilling to even learn the rules while running a podcast on it, I do indeed question the sincerity of the attempt. It's a very bad way of poisoning the well.
I believe I've said it before: there's plenty of things to want improved or fixed and reasons to make demands of Catalyst without making up arguments for the sake of it, or exaggerating the flaws just to try to drive the point home.
-
If you hate SR6 so much in advance that you're unwilling to even learn the rules while running a podcast on it, I do indeed question the sincerity of the attempt. It's a very bad way of poisoning the well.
Yeah they got the book three months in advance and had to start by houseruling it. Try actually watching the video and you'll see they were sincere and you know if they were just anti 6e it would have been far harsher.
-
If you hate SR6 so much in advance that you're unwilling to even learn the rules while running a podcast on it, I do indeed question the sincerity of the attempt. It's a very bad way of poisoning the well.
1). Did any of them state they hated SR6 prior to running it in that podcast? If so I missed that part, but I am happy to be enlightened.
2). Even trimmed down and simplified, SR6 is a staggering amount of rules. Judging strictly from this podcast alone (this is the only time I have heard of these people) I do not believe it is fair to say they were unwilling to learn the rules. They had a reasonable handle on them, a better handle than some of the freelancers did in the pre-release podcasts, and I am willing to wager that few groups who play shadowrun have a fully correct grasp of the rules. It's a lot of material to retain.
3). They offered constructive criticism, that was largely fair. Yes, they had a few things wrong. No, I do not agree with some of their criticism (notably on the matrix). They were not aggressive or cruel in their criticism, so saying they poisoned the well is rather unfair. Saying some of their information was mistaken would be the fair statement.
I believe I've said it before: there's plenty of things to want improved or fixed and reasons to make demands of Catalyst without making up arguments for the sake of it, or exaggerating the flaws just to try to drive the point home.
You know that to any reasonable person their is a substantial difference between stating something you believe to be accurate that is unfortunately erroneous and maliciously making shit up, right? Now if they were doing the later I'll happily apologize and chastise them, but did anyone else seriously get that impression besides Michael?
The constant cries of toxicity are getting just as fucking old as the actual toxicity.
-
1). Did any of them state they hated SR6 prior to running it in that podcast? If so I missed that part,
They were specifically excited for a streamlined version of shadowrun so the opposite of that.
-
Smh.
-
If you hate SR6 so much in advance that you're unwilling to even learn the rules while running a podcast on it, I do indeed question the sincerity of the attempt. It's a very bad way of poisoning the well.
I believe I've said it before: there's plenty of things to want improved or fixed and reasons to make demands of Catalyst without making up arguments for the sake of it, or exaggerating the flaws just to try to drive the point home.
Wait Chandra you're critical of folks who don't like 6e? Well I am shocked. Who would have guessed? lol I hate to break to y'all but as good Errata team might be it isn't going to able fix that mess they call a CRB. Sure maybe they can fix the typos If they are allowed, and maybe they get what was just missed in there. But that's not gonna make it go. 6e is too flawed. Getting it playable is going to require a large scale re-write of major sections, and even then it won't be what was described. To many random modifier and weirdness got put in. You wanna try releasing 6.5? Good Luck. The reality is that errata is gonna drop, and 6e still isn't going to work.
-
6e is too flawed. Getting it playable is going to require a large scale re-write of major sections, and even then it won't be what was described. To many random modifier and weirdness got put in. You wanna try releasing 6.5? Good Luck. The reality is that errata is gonna drop, and 6e still isn't going to work.
preach brother
-
Even trimmed down and simplified, SR6 is a staggering amount of rules.
This hits on a salient point that factors in to why 6E struggles so much. The world of SR is complex. It has been in any edition. The more complex you make the world, the harder it is to describe it with the rules, and the more rules you need to do so. SR has a tall order in front of it no matter how you do it.
5E must be the absolutely most complex game world I have ever seen of SR or any game, and it needed all those rules and all that fluff in the main book to explain it make it run. One issue for 6 is that it is still describing the *same world as 5*, so it's just as complex a game world, but now you have an artificial cap on how much you can explain and how many rules you can have.
Cutting word count but not concepts was always asking for double the trouble. You have to simplify the world you are describing, which 6 does not do. It simplifies rules, and descriptions, but not the world. If you want a slimmer book, you'll have to make sacrifices. Take out alchemy and enchanting. Take out technomancers. Take out rituals. Move those to splatbooks. Give the real core stuff the proper treatment. Then whatever a rule doesn't cover, the fluff can help you intuit. It's spread too thin right now.
This is just one reason why errata alone cannot fix 6e. Certain concepts have to give way to make this viable. Page count would be a good start.
-
The world of SR is complex. It has been in any edition. The more complex you make the world, the harder it is to describe it with the rules, and the more rules you need to do so. SR has a tall order in front of it no matter how you do it.
5E must be the absolutely most complex game world I have ever seen of SR or any game, and it needed all those rules and all that fluff in the main book to explain it make it run. One issue for 6 is that it is still describing the *same world as 5*, so it's just as complex a game world, but now you have an artificial cap on how much you can explain and how many rules you can have.
Cutting word count but not concepts was always asking for double the trouble. You have to simplify the world you are describing, which 6 does not do. It simplifies rules, and descriptions, but not the world. If you want a slimmer book, you'll have to make sacrifices. Take out alchemy and enchanting. Take out technomancers. Take out rituals. Move those to splatbooks. Give the real core stuff the proper treatment. Then whatever a rule doesn't cover, the fluff can help you intuit. It's spread too thin right now.
this is a very good point, nicely made Typhus.
Srun is more complex than most other RPGs due to the three intersecting worlds of meat, matrix and astral.
I think folks are often attracted to Shadowrun because of the detail and nuance in the world, especially after coming from D&D 5e and it's hack/slash mindset.
6e just doesn't do the world of Shadowrun justice, it's more of a Men in Black simulator with all the surface glitz and lack of depth that goes along with it.
-
Regarding a community house rules collection, I feel like that just exacerbates the underlying problem. As I see it, the system as it exists today is very fragile, if you can even call it a system -- it has different logic in play in different sections. It's not something you can houserule your way out of, nor just errata your way out of. Everything you "fix" breaks something else. Every fix I've seen proposed has this result. You can't pull out Edge and AR/DR you have rewrite the whole combat system. You can't just add more modifiers, you break the Edge system. You can't shuffle thresholds very far, you break something else, etc etc. I say this because I've tried to "fix it" and this is what happens, every time. The enormity of it quickly outweighs any enthusiasm my inner rules nerd might have. Moreover, I shouldn't need to do that.
I'm not saying the concepts couldn't work, and I've never meant to imply that with my advocating for a rewrite. However, this book is at beta stage at best. It's just too wobbly to work with. With it's current state, any given fix creates a need to adjust something else. Strength in the damage calcs is good example. It seems easy, but then you try it and not so much. Then what of armor? Well now you have to adjust damage again. Etc Etc. The endeavor quickly balloons out past something you can reasonably propose to be a simple thing. A community collection of fixes, while interesting and perhaps informative in the longer haul, would seem to just generate a larger proportion of "unfixes" for each proposed "fix", leaving tables even more vexed than they are today. I feel like it would be destabilizing as a general outcome more than helping. The underlying issues are too large.
The issues I have with the idea of a community house rules "database":
1. I play in a Pathfinder game. The only "house rule" we use is deciding which books to use. We don't need to go to a website and find the accumulated rules of hundreds to thousands of other players.
2. House rules should enhance the game, not "fix" it. Mods to Skyrim didn't "fix" the game - it was pretty damned fun as is. They improved it / changed the experience.
Catalyst could have found NO SHORTAGE of people willing to play test the game outside of their staff. I can assure you, if you had showed up at several game conventions with drafts alone you could have heard a lot of feedback. Not to mention taking the Paizo route, and releasing their rule system in PDF for free during playtesting.
I barely played before 5th edition (I think I played a single 4th edition game), but was always fascinated by the setting. I loved that first session I was in. My wife and I made 5th edition characters and we constantly play at conventions because there are no local games.
The idea of going to conventions and being in a "play 6th or don't play at all" is unappealing, especially considering that the Edge mechanic is the exact kind of thing that will drive both of us nuts.
-
@steelybran: They HAD a lot of playtesters outside their staff. That doesn't guarantee protection against change blindness unfortunately.
-
.
Cutting word count but not concepts was always asking for double the trouble. You have to simplify the world you are describing, which 6 does not do. It simplifies rules, and descriptions, but not the world. If you want a slimmer book, you'll have to make sacrifices. Take out alchemy and enchanting. Take out technomancers. Take out rituals. Move those to splatbooks. Give the real core stuff the proper treatment. Then whatever a rule doesn't cover, the fluff can help you intuit. It's spread too thin right now.
This reminds me of something I was pondering the other day. Both the 5e and 6e books contain at least several subsystems - technomancers and initiation - that used to be in splatbooks in older editions (well, otaku did, anyway.) There’s probably more like that that I’m overlooking right now. But over time, there’s a one-way migration of content from expansions into the CRB, because no-one wants to be the guy telling the grognards “we have to leave this out this time.” So the CRB grows and grows, at least in terms of concepts it covers.
And I think you’re right, that capping the page count but not the concept count does it no favours. Citation: the tiny, sad, abbreviated rigger section. Poor riggers.
But maybe 6e should have moved things back into splatbooks, maybe that was a missed opportunity. I (personally) would have preferred a minimal but elegant base expanded in a set of splatbooks to... whatever 6e is.
-
@steelybran: They HAD a lot of playtesters outside their staff. That doesn't guarantee protection against change blindness unfortunately.
Sorry, I should have stated open playtesting.
-
@steelybran: They HAD a lot of playtesters outside their staff. That doesn't guarantee protection against change blindness unfortunately.
You keep saying “change blindnesss” like it’s a defence for bad editing, like it’s an unfortunate but unstoppable event, beyond anyone’s control, just one of those things that happens. Rather than a very clear cut case of the editing process simply being done poorly. I’m sure there are RPG books have no such errors, and others that have a few but manage to keep it at a tolerable level.
-
From what I hear, they had a large group of testers and even conducted polls. Some of the new parts of the system even came from suggestions. A larger-scale test I do not think Catalyst could have handled logistics-wise, especially when you look at the people that would have shouted down a lot of the changes entirely, which would have made it very hard to actually improve the system. So I understand the ideal, but I do not find it a plausible scenario.
-
Sorry, I should have stated open playtesting.
I think the current state of the 6e ruleset would have made a decent public open playtest release.
-
42 playtesters with notable overlap ((Rules team also playtested, etc.))
-
If you hate SR6 so much in advance that you're unwilling to even learn the rules while running a podcast on it, I do indeed question the sincerity of the attempt. It's a very bad way of poisoning the well.
I believe I've said it before: there's plenty of things to want improved or fixed and reasons to make demands of Catalyst without making up arguments for the sake of it, or exaggerating the flaws just to try to drive the point home.
Wait Chandra you're critical of folks who don't like 6e? Well I am shocked. Who would have guessed? lol I hate to break to y'all but as good Errata team might be it isn't going to able fix that mess they call a CRB. Sure maybe they can fix the typos If they are allowed, and maybe they get what was just missed in there. But that's not gonna make it go. 6e is too flawed. Getting it playable is going to require a large scale re-write of major sections, and even then it won't be what was described. To many random modifier and weirdness got put in. You wanna try releasing 6.5? Good Luck. The reality is that errata is gonna drop, and 6e still isn't going to work.
Yup. Errata can't fix core mechanical issues. Scope's too big. They could take care of the slew of misprints and unclear descriptions, but that would, again, rely on someone at CGL being invested in those errata getting published.
-
42 playtesters with notable overlap ((Rules team also playtested, etc.))
That is a very small number of playtesters.
-
42 playtesters with notable overlap ((Rules team also playtested, etc.))
That is a very small number of playtesters.
I don't know what a standard number would be, but for reference SR3 had 83 playtesters listed in the credits.
-
I think the current state of the 6e ruleset would have made a decent public open playtest release.
So true. This would have been a win for CGL if it was like an open beta the way Pathfinder 2 was. Paizo even sold that book. People would have been so happy to have the more open door, the goodwill would have been helped out immensely. I take the point they had no mechanism to leverage the feedback, but they lean on free work for everything else. Tell me there wouldn't have been community volunteers to help analyze and compile data. I would love to have helped with that for the low price of a free book. I have over a dozen folks who would playtest it on tap. Most of them know nothing of Shadowrun so they make a great test group for whether something works or not.
This thing that happened? This was a hot mess. An avoidable one at that. Fear of the audience here is palpable. Not without cause, sure, but you can face and fix it or stay hidden under the blankets. What I get most from this edition is a sense of a lack of care. Of burnout and handwaving. "Argle bargle" says volumes, even though I'm sure it was not intended to be nearly so emblematic.
All I can hope for is that the blowback is loud enough to serve as a wake up call to genuinely do better here and make the internal changes that so clearly, desperately need to be made. This is a self-destructive model for all concerned.
-
From what I hear, they had a large group of testers and even conducted polls. Some of the new parts of the system even came from suggestions. A larger-scale test I do not think Catalyst could have handled logistics-wise, especially when you look at the people that would have shouted down a lot of the changes entirely, which would have made it very hard to actually improve the system. So I understand the ideal, but I do not find it a plausible scenario.
42 is not a large group for a game as complex as shadowrun
yes some new parts of the system came from suggestions, that doesn't mean those suggestions were the right ones to use OR they were executed on well.
i can't speak for others but i can tell you I did want changes/ revisions from 5e to make the borked subsystems (matrix/ rigging) playable, simplify things and reign in magicrun. If the changes that Catalyst proposed did not address those issues then yes of course I would have complained.
I don't agree with your assessment that Catalyst could not have made a public playtest work, there's all kinds of ways Catalyst could have made it work.
-
42 playtesters with notable overlap ((Rules team also playtested, etc.))
That is all that are listed in the credits, I alone had 12 players who did not get credit, so who really know what the total number ended up being... but I also agree there would have been a huge benefit to having one more round of playtesting that was more open.
-
42 playtesters with notable overlap ((Rules team also playtested, etc.))
That is all that are listed in the credits, I alone had 12 players who did not get credit, so who really know what the total number ended up being... but I also agree there would have been a huge benefit to having one more round of playtesting that was more open.
Must have been sacrificed to the page count god.
-
42 playtesters with notable overlap ((Rules team also playtested, etc.))
That is all that are listed in the credits, I alone had 12 players who did not get credit, so who really know what the total number ended up being... but I also agree there would have been a huge benefit to having one more round of playtesting that was more open.
I hate to say it, but even if every playtester had multiple groups totaling to 12 players each, that's still only 506 people. I would be really interested to know how many total sessions were played using the rules at each phase of rules revisions, especially how many were run using the rules that made it to print.
-
"Only" 506 people...exactly how many people do you expect playtest these things? As I said, I don't know what would be considered standard, but I would have thought 500 to be extremely excessive...
-
"Only" 506 people...exactly how many people do you expect playtest these things? As I said, I don't know what would be considered standard, but I would have thought 500 to be extremely excessive...
cough pathfinder 2e cough
-
"Only" 506 people...exactly how many people do you expect playtest these things? As I said, I don't know what would be considered standard, but I would have thought 500 to be extremely excessive...
cough pathfinder 2e cough
Paizo has about 100 employees, two RPGs (which use the same base rules), and one card game. Catalyst Game Labs has about 35 employees and produces Shadowrun, Shadowrun Anarchy, Shadowrun Crossfire, BattleTech, Mechwarrior, Leviathans, Dragonfire, Cosmic Patrol, Valiant, and a myriad of tabletop board games.
-
"Only" 506 people...exactly how many people do you expect playtest these things? As I said, I don't know what would be considered standard, but I would have thought 500 to be extremely excessive...
cough pathfinder 2e cough
Paizo has about 100 employees, two RPGs (which use the same base rules), and one card game. Catalyst Game Labs has about 35 employees and produces Shadowrun, Shadowrun Anarchy, Shadowrun Crossfire, BattleTech, Mechwarrior, Leviathans, Dragonfire, Cosmic Patrol, Valiant, and a myriad of tabletop board games.
How many employees does the Lancer crew have?
-
Well its weird.
SR is actually a transmedia powerhouse because its this highly valuable IP with a history longer than most people currently PLAYING RPGs. Its up there with Traveller in that sense. It has that DEEP LORE going for it that means its very hard to just replace shadowrun with another product of the same genre.
However, Pathfinder is run like a Brand, with a capitol B. Catalyst Game Labs definitely is playing catchup on that front, despite the fact Shadowrun is a Cultural Thing, and is only now really starting to try to mine its setting for other game designs. If I HAD to guess, that is in response to Pathfinder really figuring out how to make an RPG line more than an RPG line for the first time (D&D definitely was a cultural icon but mostly was about how much you liked D&D and were reskins of other Hasbro games like Clue, while pathfinder has like 6 different boardgames despite being only some odd 10 years old), and probably seeing how succesful the Android setting, the 3rd big competing cyberpunk setting to enter the arena for gaming, doing EXTREMELY well as a card game (until they lost/gave up the license, the story is unclear), 3 different board games, and FFGs official cyberpunk setting overall.
So the employee count may not be suited to SR's needs right now as a burgeoning trans-media product (And I think SR has a LOT of strength for that. I literally have tinkered with an Urban Brawl wargame using a stripped down 5e rules set and low powered characters you draft), forget about Catalyst game lab's overall needs, but it does make sense why despite Pazio having less on its plate it has lots of employees.
However, while curating consumer feedback IS definitely a job far less trivial than what most people might thing (It basically is a Quantitative Researching job, which actually does require at least some specialist knowledge, I have a minor in research in fact and am going for a postgrad degree to get better at it!), it scales extremely well once you have someone who knows what they are doing (Like me! Just saying~) in that sifting through data, surveys, and feedback is as easy to do with 506 people as your entire customer base. This is why despite having way more employees than Shadowrun has working on it (lets not count freelancers because this is beyond the scope of their work and this inability to handle large scale products is a clear flaw in the freelancer system), Pazio probably had roughly the same number of people collecting data as Shadowrun did for its playtests, or only slightly more. The primary difference probably is that was that one person's entire job during the playtest period, or at least a major part of it, while CGL had to shove it onto someone else's plate, and they may not have known fully how to do Qualitative research (again, not because they are dumb, but because its deceptively tricky and is, again, something people generally get a degree in!).
-
Paizo has about 100 employees, two RPGs (which use the same base rules), and one card game. Catalyst Game Labs has about 35 employees and produces Shadowrun, Shadowrun Anarchy, Shadowrun Crossfire, BattleTech, Mechwarrior, Leviathans, Dragonfire, Cosmic Patrol, Valiant, and a myriad of tabletop board games.
Is this supposed to make us feel more forgiving of Catalyst's missteps? It makes me wonder what on earth they're doing, being spread so thin. We have been told SR6e is selling very well. It's had two big, successful Kickstarters in recent times. Why doesn't it have more people?
-
Well its weird.
SR is actually a transmedia powerhouse because its this highly valuable IP with a history longer than most people currently PLAYING RPGs. Its up there with Traveller in that sense. It has that DEEP LORE going for it that means its very hard to just replace shadowrun with another product of the same genre.
However, Pathfinder is run like a Brand, with a capitol B. Catalyst Game Labs definitely is playing catchup on that front, despite the fact Shadowrun is a Cultural Thing, and is only now really starting to try to mine its setting for other game designs. If I HAD to guess, that is in response to Pathfinder really figuring out how to make an RPG line more than an RPG line for the first time (D&D definitely was a cultural icon but mostly was about how much you liked D&D and were reskins of other Hasbro games like Clue, while pathfinder has like 6 different boardgames despite being only some odd 10 years old), and probably seeing how succesful the Android setting, the 3rd big competing cyberpunk setting to enter the arena for gaming, doing EXTREMELY well as a card game (until they lost/gave up the license, the story is unclear), 3 different board games, and FFGs official cyberpunk setting overall.
So the employee count may not be suited to SR's needs right now as a burgeoning trans-media product (And I think SR has a LOT of strength for that. I literally have tinkered with an Urban Brawl wargame using a stripped down 5e rules set and low powered characters you draft), forget about Catalyst game lab's overall needs, but it does make sense why despite Pazio having less on its plate it has lots of employees.
However, while curating consumer feedback IS definitely a job far less trivial than what most people might thing (It basically is a Quantitative Researching job, which actually does require at least some specialist knowledge, I have a minor in research in fact and am going for a postgrad degree to get better at it!), it scales extremely well once you have someone who knows what they are doing (Like me! Just saying~) in that sifting through data, surveys, and feedback is as easy to do with 506 people as your entire customer base. This is why despite having way more employees than Shadowrun has working on it (lets not count freelancers because this is beyond the scope of their work and this inability to handle large scale products is a clear flaw in the freelancer system), Pazio probably had roughly the same number of people collecting data as Shadowrun did for its playtests, or only slightly more. The primary difference probably is that was that one person's entire job during the playtest period, or at least a major part of it, while CGL had to shove it onto someone else's plate, and they may not have known fully how to do Qualitative research (again, not because they are dumb, but because its deceptively tricky and is, again, something people generally get a degree in!).
That's the thing. Shadowrun isn't really a transmedia brand. Everything people liked about SR Returns was set in the 2050's, and done by people who wrote those earlier works with FASA.
The one game set in the CGL-era SR setting? Flopped. Never made it out of beta because the devs ran out of money and there wasn't enough support to make more of it.
CGL has, on the whole, produced a net loss to Shadowrun's marketability as a property with 5e and 6e. Being organizationally unable to manage a serious playtest, on top of lacking sufficiently skilled game designers to catch basic issues in the mathematical models that underpin their system is both inexcusable and par for the course.
-
Hey @wraith: Can I just say there's a Big Bad in my campaign right now called Wraith who used to be a technomancer but was merged with an AI so he's now literally a ghost in the machine? So your username and bio is hitting very close to home for me!
-
Paizo has about 100 employees, two RPGs (which use the same base rules), and one card game. Catalyst Game Labs has about 35 employees and produces Shadowrun, Shadowrun Anarchy, Shadowrun Crossfire, BattleTech, Mechwarrior, Leviathans, Dragonfire, Cosmic Patrol, Valiant, and a myriad of tabletop board games.
Is this supposed to make us feel more forgiving of Catalyst's missteps? It makes me wonder what on earth they're doing, being spread so thin. We have been told SR6e is selling very well. It's had two big, successful Kickstarters in recent times. Why doesn't it have more people?
Catalyst is made of people from FanPro and fans who scrounged up their own personal capital to purchase the license so BattleTech and Shadowrun didn't die when FanPro went under. In that regard, they are very similar to Paizo. However, Paizo had started out in 2002 as the magazine publishing arm for Dungeons & Dragons (producing Dungeon and Dragon magazines) until 2007. Whereas Catalyst was formed of designers and such, Paizo was formed by publishers, two very different business outlooks.
-
Take out alchemy and enchanting. Take out technomancers. Take out rituals. Move those to splatbooks. Give the real core stuff the proper treatment. Then whatever a rule doesn't cover, the fluff can help you intuit. It's spread too thin right now.
Word. I mean, I can understand Technomancers. Not everyone like them, but they are considered Archetypes since 4th and 5th Edition and some players might have been bummed out if they would have been cut.
But I highly doubt that anyone would have missed Enchanting and Ritual spellcasting, especially in their current state. That would have been just right for a supplement that takes time to properly introduce and elaborate these concepts and come up with some fresh ideas and mechanics instead of this piss-weak, stale, gimmicky bullshit. I can´t even blame the "writers" of these sections, as there is almost no new writing, just Copy&Paste from 5th Edition with some haphazard tweaks. Putting that shit back in the book was already a mistake.
Oh, but we have a whole page and examples for Flamethrowers. One of them even uses the wild die mechanic that was seemingly forgotten halfway between.
There are no flamethrowers in the gear section. But hey, it´s something ::)
-
Catalyst is made of people from FanPro and fans who scrounged up their own personal capital to purchase the license so BattleTech and Shadowrun didn't die when FanPro went under.
I am aware of Catalyst’s humble origins, and in 2007 when this happened it would have been a good reason to cut them some slack... but that was 12 years ago. Today, Catalyst is a professional games firm, publishing games it wants people to buy. That makes it fair game for critical appraisal - which is what 6e is getting.
Also: as long back as 2010, Catalyst was rich enough that the founder accidentally spend three quarters of a million dollars from the company accounts and nobody noticed for a year. It just raised $2.5m on a Kickstarter. I don’t think it’s poor, or deserving of any pity or special treatment for being small.
In that regard, they are very similar to Paizo. However, Paizo had started out in 2002 as the magazine publishing arm for Dungeons & Dragons (producing Dungeon and Dragon magazines) until 2007. Whereas Catalyst was formed of designers and such, Paizo was formed by publishers, two very different business outlooks.
This sounds backwards. Let’s go back to this for a moment:
Paizo has about 100 employees, two RPGs (which use the same base rules), and one card game. Catalyst Game Labs has about 35 employees and produces Shadowrun, Shadowrun Anarchy, Shadowrun Crossfire, BattleTech, Mechwarrior, Leviathans, Dragonfire, Cosmic Patrol, Valiant, and a myriad of tabletop board games.
Surely with those numbers of people, the business models here are: Pazio is designing games, Catalyst is publishing them (and paying freelancers to do the designing.) Catalyst has too few people to actually be building games.
-
I am aware of Catalyst’s humble origins, and in 2007 when this happened it would have been a good reason to cut them some slack... but that was 12 years ago. Today, Catalyst is a professional games firm, publishing games it wants people to buy. That makes it fair game for critical appraisal - which is what 6e is getting.
Also: as long back as 2010, Catalyst was rich enough that the founder accidentally spend three quarters of a million dollars from the company accounts and nobody noticed for a year. It just raised $2.5m on a Kickstarter. I don’t think it’s poor, or deserving of any pity or special treatment for being small.
This. We are past the point of poor quality control of this magnitude being excusable. Some errors? Perfectly acceptable. 10 full pages of errata launched with the public release of the book itself, with additional errata necessary down the road? That is a really tough sell man, imo the company should demand better of itself, and so should the fans.
-
the fish rots from the head.
what are they gonna do, cut their own head off?
Catalyst will not recover, it will always be like this (or worse).
-
what are they gonna do, cut their own head off?
Ideally?
They elect to improve, or we (fans) vote with our wallets and stop buying. Companies are usually only as responsible as the people that make their existence possible force them to be.
I honestly haven't encountered this a lot in the gaming business, and not knowing any of these people personally, I can only speculate what the issue is. All I can say for certain is that if I personally held the reigns for something I actually cared for I certainly would not have allowed it go down like this.
Edit: For note I am referring specifically to quality control of the printed product, not necessarily the game mechanics. Though that is also an issue, it's a lesser one compared to the quality control due to differences in opinion being valid.
-
Critical appraisal that turns toxic. Fish rotting from the head, so we should fire Line Developers. Vote with the wallets and don't buy the game. Whatever gets you guys through this. I know I'm done with the drama. I'm supporting the game so we can get more books and more game. The routes you're taking lead to Catalyst looking at Shadowrun as not profitable, expecting them to pour money into something that won't make them money, or try to sell an IP that is not profitable to another company. Good luck with that.
-
Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to.
-
Can you at least see how uninspiring a counter-argument that is, FJ?
“This sucks.”
“It’s better than nothing.”
-
"Shut up, consume product."
-
Can you at least see how uninspiring a counter-argument that is, FJ?
“This sucks.”
“It’s better than nothing.”
I tried being inspiring and people called me delusional and a corporate mouthpiece.
It is better than nothing, since I don't see anyone here producing a game and publishing it. If it really and truly sucks, go out and design one that doesn't.
-
Because the consumption of an RPG costs time and money it can, in fact, be worse than nothing.
The argument that one should not critique something because one cannot or will not make their own replacement is fairly obviously fallacious, because it attacks the very idea of critical discernment. You can literally apply it in any context.
"I don't like how [politician] is running things..." "Well its better than NO politician running things and I don't see you running for president!"
Or to go to the absolutely cliche resturant metaphor, saying that a resturant is bad and the food is all dry and obviously reheated isn't invalidated or countered by "I don't see you opening a resturant."
Like... yeah... obviously I am not. If I was an RPG designer or amazing chef or whatever I wouldn't be in the position to buy this product... criticism is mostly valuable to the people who are forced to choose from a field of competing products or who want to recievr a high quality service when they CAN'T just wave a magic wand and change things by doing it themselves.
-
If it really and truly sucks, go out and design one that doesn't.
I already have a job, so I guess I’ll just have to settle for not buying any 6e stuff instead.
-
I absolutely love how you all keep putting the line in my mouth that I'm saying you shouldn't critique something after I say time and time again how I want you to express your opinions on these forums without fear of reprisal. Please, keep saying that.
-
Critical appraisal that turns toxic. Fish rotting from the head, so we should fire Line Developers. Vote with the wallets and don't buy the game. Whatever gets you guys through this. I know I'm done with the drama. I'm supporting the game so we can get more books and more game. The routes you're taking lead to Catalyst looking at Shadowrun as not profitable, expecting them to pour money into something that won't make them money, or try to sell an IP that is not profitable to another company. Good luck with that.
It is always fun to see when someone hits the Stockholm Syndrome fueled victim blaming.
"The rules aren't good because y'all didn't support them! It is your own fault that the system isn't as good as it could be! CGL loves me! I know they do!"
Classic.
-
On
Critical appraisal that turns toxic. Fish rotting from the head, so we should fire Line Developers. Vote with the wallets and don't buy the game. Whatever gets you guys through this. I know I'm done with the drama. I'm supporting the game so we can get more books and more game. The routes you're taking lead to Catalyst looking at Shadowrun as not profitable, expecting them to pour money into something that won't make them money, or try to sell an IP that is not profitable to another company. Good luck with that.
It is always fun to see when someone hits the Stockholm Syndrome fueled victim blaming.
"The rules aren't good because y'all didn't support them! It is your own fault that the system isn't as good as it could be! CGL loves me! I know they do!"
Classic.
Once again, continue with how I'm delusional. I'm sure that makes your toxic comments feel justified.
-
look whatever your feelings about fastjacks comments you have to respect him as a mod, imho.
He does a difficult job on these boards, pretty much single-handed, for free.
In my experience he's a pretty fair moderator, giving folks a lot of leeway on their posts here.
So please just keep that in mind, when you react to stuff he's posting.
-
Once again, continue with how I'm delusional. I'm sure that makes your toxic comments feel justified.
Weren't you going to stop commenting on these forums because customers told you you were too toxic for them to keep visiting these forums?
-
No one put a line in your mouth... You literally said people should stop complaining because you feel that unconditional support is important to prevent the license from changing because 6e is better than the likely nothing another company would make, and if we don't like it we should make our own rpgs.
I get your in a bad position right now swatting down bad behavior and thus may have come across as overly dismissive, but in those two posts you essentially DID say one cannot criticize the game even if they are accurate for the combined reasons of fear of harm to the line (which may be true but I think its overstated massively) and because you can't just go and do better to prove it.
That may not have been your intent, but that is the actual ultimate conclusion your argument has: stop complaining and just deal because you lack the access to resources and a platform to make a great rpg.
-
Once again, continue with how I'm delusional. I'm sure that makes your toxic comments feel justified.
Weren't you going to stop commenting on these forums because customers told you you were too toxic for them to keep visiting these forums?
No, I was going to stop because those that don't like 6E were claiming I was persecuting them. look whatever your feelings about fastjacks comments you have to respect him as a mod, imho.
He does a difficult job on these boards, pretty much single-handed, for free.
In my experience he's a pretty fair moderator, giving folks a lot of leeway on their posts here.
So please just keep that in mind, when you react to stuff he's posting.
Thanks adz. I try. But when dealing with the toxicity of some of the posters, it's getting very difficult, which is why I have to walk away more and more.
-
Ow. At the crux of this, everyone wants to salvage a bad situation. Whether it's through refusing to support a thing that had a troubled production, or not wanting to see a thing they loved die or languish.
As for me, I probably won't get any of the rule books, but I may spring for one of the setting/plot books. Still, it's a painful situation, no matter how you slice it, so I don't want to make it worse by aggravating anyone.
-
No one put a line in your mouth... You literally said people should stop complaining because you feel that unconditional support is important to prevent the license from changing because 6e is better than the likely nothing another company would make, and if we don't like it we should make our own rpgs.
I get your in a bad position right now swatting down bad behavior and thus may have come across as overly dismissive, but in those two posts you essentially DID say one cannot criticize the game even if they are accurate for the combined reasons of fear of harm to the line (which may be true but I think its overstated massively) and because you can't just go and do better to prove it.
That may not have been your intent, but that is the actual ultimate conclusion your argument has: stop complaining and just deal because you lack the access to resources and a platform to make a great rpg.
I am so tired of all of this. As I said before, I tried the positive route. I asked people to be productive. Started up the house rules thread. Support threads that discuss the rules in detail, including how they are broken and what we could do as a community to get them fixed.
But, people only hear what they want to hear. You see me as a delusional corporate hack that only spouts whatever CGL tells me, even though it has been said time and again, I DO. NOT. WORK. FOR. CGL. I am a volunteer, which means I've put more time and energy into this game than leaving a review on DriveThruRPG. I don't care if you want to support this game or not, but I do care when your comments are so toxic that new players do not feel comfortable discussing the new thing they are trying to get into. You are literally chasing customers away from the game. YOU.
Here's how it works: You can be a positive, productive member of the forums. You can do that AND not like the current rules. You do that by being productive (Terms Of Service, rule #7) and playing nice (Terms Of Service, rule #1). When 6E first starting coming out, I was making sure those rules were being enforced because people were coming on the boards and just saying "6E Sucks!" without anything constructive to say. I was a bit more lax after the release, because their was a lot of frustration with the production value, the release schedule, and the overall response to the new release. I'm working with the other moderators to see if there's something we can do about getting this place less toxic without just deleting posts and warning/banning forum members.
I commented a bit today because I wanted to be on the forums and not just kill spammers for you guys. If, as ISP implies, I'm not welcome here, then I'll head out and start moderating without interacting.
-
You gotta do what you gotta do. Even still (even if it doesn't sound like it), you will be missed.
Also, I'm still enthused by the influx of new people. Thanks to the house rules/change blindness/workaround threads, they have non-angry places to get their questions answered.
-
FastJack - We get where you are coming from.
At the end of the day, we want a game that is fun to sit down at the table and play. The setting is great - there's no real reason to alter the setting, just to continue expanding on it.
I'm certainly willing to give 6E a chance. I won't be able to really sit down and play it until the first convention we make it to. I'm hoping that gives the person who runs the games a lot of opportunity to help us grasp it quickly and resume playing. I'm hoping to have 5E and 6E versions of my character, just in case. I'm pretty invested and want to see their story play out.
People should have a place to voice their concerns and issues, but they shouldn't actively scare away new players either. Hopefully we can all figure out the best processes for it.
-
I don't care if you want to support this game or not, but I do care when your comments are so toxic that new players do not feel comfortable discussing the new thing they are trying to get into. You are literally chasing customers away from the game. YOU.
I've never told anyone not to play Shadowrun. I've suggested to a few folks they ignore 6e and get 5e, though. I fear that if they read 6e in its current state, they'll find the broken stuff, bin it off, and never come back. I think recommending 6e to people is a good way to chase them away, honestly.
-
"Only" 506 people...exactly how many people do you expect playtest these things? As I said, I don't know what would be considered standard, but I would have thought 500 to be extremely excessive...
In my mind, not really. That was some fast math to say if every playtester had 12 people who were uncredited, which is probably not the case. Considering they said there was some overlap, it would probably be in the 150-200 range, which is still relatively small for such a major overhaul of the system.
To compare, Privateer Press (ttg company of ~25 people) has a Community Integrated Development (CID) forum that has 1,127 active members, 99% of whom are unpaid volunteers. They flow changes in the beta stage to the forums usually 4-6 months prior to release and let them run for 2-4 weeks to gather data. The changes could be anything from new models, to revised rules, to game mechanic overhauls. That system is run by 4-5 people.
I bring this up because in my mind, this is a prime example of a small company getting their player base involved in the design process in a very good way. It lets players' voices be heard, lets them see how their interaction can change the game, it gets people psyched about new releases, and/or gets them buying old models that may not have seen play for a while. But most of all IMO, it shows people that they have plans and are making continual positive progress, which keeps the good will flowing.
-
Critical appraisal that turns toxic. Fish rotting from the head, so we should fire Line Developers. Vote with the wallets and don't buy the game. Whatever gets you guys through this. I know I'm done with the drama. I'm supporting the game so we can get more books and more game. The routes you're taking lead to Catalyst looking at Shadowrun as not profitable, expecting them to pour money into something that won't make them money, or try to sell an IP that is not profitable to another company. Good luck with that.
For what it is worth, I personally do not have any problem with your or anyone else's view of 6e or Catalyst. Folks are allowed to have different perspectives, and having differences doesn't make anyone toxic. Neither is telling a company you would like them to improve, and offering suggestions for ways to do that.
I have no desire to see Shadowrun die - it is my favorite setting. I also don't have a desire to see Catalyst fail. My sole concern is the integrity of the game and product. By that logic, I literally have no concern for whom possesses the IP, so long as that company respects and takes care of it.
Additionally, just like none of the critics should stop posting, neither should you man. All sides of the perspective are valid. If there is anyone you can't stand interacting with just block their ass. It's a simple solution that will save you some headache and probably help alleviate some of the stress that is causing you to feel like you shouldn't post. Win win I think.
Edit: That vote with the wallet comment was specifically towards the terrible editing process and quality control. It had no bearing on the actual game or mechanics of 6e. That's an entirely separate issue for me.
-
Critical appraisal that turns toxic. Fish rotting from the head, so we should fire Line Developers. Vote with the wallets and don't buy the game. Whatever gets you guys through this. I know I'm done with the drama. I'm supporting the game so we can get more books and more game. The routes you're taking lead to Catalyst looking at Shadowrun as not profitable, expecting them to pour money into something that won't make them money, or try to sell an IP that is not profitable to another company. Good luck with that.
For what it is worth, I personally do not have any problem with your or anyone else's view of 6e or Catalyst. Folks are allowed to have different perspectives, and having differences doesn't make anyone toxic. Neither is telling a company you would like them to improve, and offering suggestions for ways to do that.
I have no desire to see Shadowrun die - it is my favorite setting. I also don't have a desire to see Catalyst fail. My sole concern is the integrity of the game and product. By that logic, I literally have no concern for whom possesses the IP, so long as that company respects and takes care of it.
Additionally, just like none of the critics should stop posting, neither should you man. All sides of the perspective are valid. If there is anyone you can't stand interacting with just block their ass. It's a simple solution that will save you some headache and probably help alleviate some of the stress that is causing you to feel like you shouldn't post. Win win I think.
Edit: That vote with the wallet comment was specifically towards the terrible editing process and quality control. It had no bearing on the actual game or mechanics of 6e. That's an entirely separate issue for me.
LOL, Because I'm moderator, I *have* to keep my block list empty.
-
Well that is highly unfortunate. I would suggest just ignoring them then, but I know how difficult that is to do. Sorry dude.
-
My personal moderation style is to just delete low effort insult posts (1-2 sentence stuff someone wrote in a minute. Longer stuff, even if toxic, can't be dealt with so casually) and a PM wrist slap.
It is pretty clear people are way to comfortable just akedly insulting people. While I get the worry about seeming neutral and the desire to leave these up to not seem overbearing I don't think any value is lost if the ONLY goal of a post is inflammatory and contains no greater argument. Like bigfer posts can be toxic too, but you don't need to put much thought into deleting posts that are NOTHING but people trying to pick a fight and insult people as bootlickers or cults or a mob or whatever.
Also, beware of transference! It is easy to imagine everyone who has a similar viewpoint to be using the same tactics and using the same tone, and misapply arguments from one person to another. I did it in this thread myself on review, and am sorry about that!
-
Critical appraisal that turns toxic. Fish rotting from the head, so we should fire Line Developers. Vote with the wallets and don't buy the game. Whatever gets you guys through this. I know I'm done with the drama. I'm supporting the game so we can get more books and more game. The routes you're taking lead to Catalyst looking at Shadowrun as not profitable, expecting them to pour money into something that won't make them money, or try to sell an IP that is not profitable to another company. Good luck with that.
What else do you expect us to think, as fans, FJ? We have no control over the company, and it is very obvious that something is wrong with the process of generating Shadowrun content given the declining quality of the works being published. I'm not even talking the subjective stuff like 'I don't like this mechanic', I'm talking about the outright editing mistakes, copy/paste errors, and basic mathematical problems that lead to massive errata before most of the public even has the game in hand.
At the end of the day, the Line Dev, and those working directly with him, are responsible for the quality of the content published on the line. Jason Hardy's been in that position for a decade now. I don't think it's outrageous for customers to expect not having large amounts of novice mistakes in the content he's signing off on.
-
I kind of regret sharing the link now...
Don't, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for introducing this group of roleplayers to me; I probably would never have known about their videos otherwise. Additionally, the video solidified some of the things I was working over in my head. It took me a couple days to watch it all, but other than a couple items where I think they misremembered something they were talking about (more than likely because they didn't have the rules in front of them to reference, it seemed to me) most of their points were issues my group had as well. We grasped how the new edge mechanic worked well enough, we just didn't particularly care for it, and like they said in the video: If you don't like the edge mechanic, you will not like 6th edition, because it's intertwined with everything.
I ran the adventure in the beginner's boxed set and for the first session we went over the basic rules and studied the edge mechanics and the actions they could take with it. After I was sure everyone had a decent grasp of the basics, we had a pre-fight fight between a randomly picked ganger from the adventure, and a character played by the most experienced player in the group, and went through that as a safety check to make sure we were doing things right. We discovered we had missed a step, corrected it during combat, and then started the adventure. We just didn't like the system the way it was set up, in addition to the various reported errors in the boxed set (which I had been warned about on the forums here, so I had a copy of the main rulebook nearby for reference). We double and triple-checked rules in the boxed set with the main rulebook, just to be safe, and made sure everyone was helping each other as much as possible with their turns so that no one was overlooking important items.
We just weren't happy with the system. They got through the initial part of the adventure, and then elected to walk away rather than continue on. To be honest, as a GM that was a bit disheartening for me; it's the first time I've ran a game where we didn't at least finish the adventure (the one TPK I've had as a GM in a different game doesn't count; it technically ended when the last character died). The adventure book had suggestions for dealing with characters who might try to leave, but honestly I wasn't going to force my players to play something none of us were enjoying. There are too many things currently that just don't make sense to us (not as in we can't understand the rules, we understand them just fine, but more along the lines of "Why was it done like this?").
For example one of the things that they touched upon in that video was the fact that their combat character (Havoc?) could have assaulted a facility wearing just a bikini and mechanically it works just as well as wearing armor, and they weren't wrong. When I first read the official posts talking about mechanics, and some posters calling out problems, I thought it was just the standard edition change jitters. I was wrong. I felt that (pre-con) it was way too early to make such decisions, but I was wrong. Lesson learned. Additionally there are so many, many editing mistakes and errors that were visible to me, and I'm not even familiar with previous versions of Shadowrun; why were things that seemed to be from previous editions but no longer exist being referenced?
Don't get me wrong, I love the Shadowrun setting and one way or another I will carry on with it, but for now I'll be stepping back from it for a bit. I have a bunch of other game systems' beginner boxes to run my group through, and that should give Catalyst time to get things straightened out. When the official release of the main rulebook happens, I'll see what people are saying and more importantly I'll go over the updated copy of my PDF and see if there have been enough changes to entice my group to give it a second try. If not there are other options available like using the setting with other game systems (The Sprawl, Carbon 2185 (when it comes out), IZ 3.0 (when it comes out), etc.). Alternately one of my players suggested trying to go with 3rd Edition Shadowrun; this has the added benefit for me, if I can acquire the books, of allowing me to experience all those great stories from the past (the Universal Brotherhood, the Renraku Arcology, etc.). One way or another my players are going to be dealing with the bugs, whether I use a different system and just use the upcoming campaign and sourcebook as references, or whether I run the original adventures/campaign (assuming I can get them).
As a note for Fastjack: As one of the new players (well, GM) to Shadowrun please know that nothing anyone has said here chased me away from 6th Edition; this was a mutual agreement by my group that it (the new edition) doesn't work for us. For what it's worth, you have my sympathies; gamers are a very passionate and vocal group of people, and sometimes I imagine dealing with that must feel like trying to put out a forest fire with a hand towel.
-
At the end of the day no one is happy with the situation we have.
I think Fastjack does a great job at a totally thankless and trying task in this moment. Believe me I would have loved for 6e to have been good or even mostly acceptable, every version of SR is and has been flawed, everyone has to deiced for themselves where or if they draw the line. Singularity you did the right thing in starting the post, the feedback they gave isn't perfect but it's fair as is your feedback. What was said was what folks liked and what they didn't. It's not one sided, and it's drawn from first hand experience with the system. There isn't a more fair review method then that. For those who are like me and are frustrated with 6e believe me I feel you. I have not been shy in my criticism of 6e. But to include toxic personal attacks is going to far. The thing we don't like is 6e not those whom choose to support it. The playtest question is irrelevant at this point, the only question that matters is what happens going forward. What's done is done they aren't going to walk this release back, if you look at the pdf price of 19.99 they did that for a reason and they clearly know it's flawed. To me the only realistic ways forward is vote with your wallet and/or sit and see if the errata team can pull off some kind of major miracle. I can't sugar coat this having now seen the text, I don't think it's possible, but there clearly are some people who like it, and I wish them all the joy it can bring them.
-
because they didn't have the rules in front of them to reference, it seemed to me
For example one of the things that they touched upon in that video was the fact that their combat character (Havoc?) could have assaulted a facility wearing just a bikini and mechanically it works just as well as wearing armor, and they weren't wrong. When I first read the official posts talking about mechanics, and some posters calling out problems, I thought it was just the standard edition change jitters. I was wrong.
In my country we have a saying which goes: "You can't teach an old horse new tricks"
As new GM which never had any experiences with previous editions, I really like this system. As a person who also works in an industry which is heavily depending on new product development. I absolutely understand what is happening and I am calm with my CRB, even if it is missing things or it's unclear. 20 fraggin bucks.
I watch that video and I observed a couple of things. The GM was in my opinion biased and influenced players which otherwise seemed moderate with their critique. I am so glad that I found videos and podcasts from Shadowcasters network.
Overall, it reminds me "resistance to change". They mentioned themselves that they played circa 300 session of 4th and 5th and they promised themselves that they won't ever playe Shadowrun again. So do they hate on 6th or they hate on Shadowrun in general?
Resistance to change seems quite common among players coming from previous editions and I understand, but everything is a trade-off. If CGL decided that 5e is too complicated to attract new players ( Me and my group is the case) and they cut off a lot of mechanics which were accumulating through out years of new editions, they faced a decision - or we will get new players and piss off old players, or we will keep old players happy and won't attract new players.
Thanks to amazing support from the errata and demo team around this forum as well as active members, I was able to grasp the underlying concepts and I can't wait to play 6E with my group.
Finally, I would like to give you, Singularity, big big props on how well you orchestrated your players and your group learning process to get into the new system. I, for certain took inspiration from you and will use this for my group as well. I would like to tell you that I feel that you shouldn't give up on the system. Take some rest, wait for new erratas to go on-line a re-visit it.
EDIT: reduced rant and passive aggression
-
...forced myself to watch that video... ...GM is a prime toxic shaman... ...toxic... ...toxicity... ...Hate... ...hate...
...pure hate... ...toxic players...
...hate... ...hate...
Woah there buddy. You seem firmly rooted in the Dark Side yourself.
While you're swinging your righteous paint brush around so widely, you might want to look in the mirror when you are Detecting Evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm) so that you can see how strong your own aura is.
Like, dislike, love, and hate are all perfectly valid opinions of Sixth World - or anything for that matter. And contrary to popular opinion, hate is not automatically H8te! and toxic.
-
...forced myself to watch that video... ...GM is a prime toxic shaman... ...toxic... ...toxicity... ...Hate... ...hate...
...pure hate... ...toxic players...
...hate... ...hate...
Woah there buddy. You seem firmly rooted in the Dark Side yourself.
While you're swinging your righteous paint brush around so widely, you might want to look in the mirror when you are Detecting Evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm) so that you can see how strong your own aura is.
Like, dislike, love, and hate are all perfectly valid opinions of Sixth World - or anything for that matter. And contrary to popular opinion, hate is not automatically H8te! and toxic.
Thanks for picking out 4 words out of the whole context.
My point was that very little constructive criticism was made by authors of that video and the underlying message was - This is bad, we didn't like Shadowrun 5e and now we don't like Shadowrun 6e.
I went on a rant, you are right, but it was a righteous rant to defend Shadowrun and a disappointed rant, that instead of looking for positives, people just go nuts with how they don't like this and that. If you followed that video, they gave some minor praise of, we like the skill tree, the combat was okay and smooth. From there on, they went on a full killing spree of how things are bad and offered very little to balance the scale, or explain to the new viewer what is going on. A new player in my group posted that video and he seemed discouraged by it. If you have audience which follows you and you might be a role model for people who want to pick up that game, you should be objective. That group was totally biased and even if some members were moderate, the GM went on and on and on about how bad it is.
Finally, you have a point that I should adjust my language in future posts and be more clear. I took it quite personally, as I really like this system and I don't see it inherently flawed. Again I will repeat that thanks to awesome people around I got some valuable insights on rules I didn't understand.
-
If you followed that video, they gave some minor praise of, we like the skill tree, the combat was okay and smooth. From there on, they went on a full killing spree of how things are bad and offered very little to balance the scale, or explain to the new viewer what is going on. A new player in my group posted that video and he seemed discouraged by it. If you have audience which follows you and you might be a role model for people who want to pick up that game, you should be objective. That group was totally biased and even if some members were moderate, the GM went on and on and on about how bad it is.
you know they *might* hold those opinions because they have spent a lot of time playing shadowrun and after attempting playing the new 6e edition they determined they don't like it for all the reasons they state.
could 6e really be as bad as they said it is?
yes, yes it could.
could players who have been playing shadowrun for a long while be able to more accurately assess it's many, many shortcomings compared to someone coming to it without any experience or knowledge?
yes, yes they could.
-
you know they *might* hold those opinions because they have spent a lot of time playing shadowrun and after attempting playing the new 6e edition they determined they don't like it for all the reasons they state.
could 6e really be as bad as they said it is?
yes, yes it could.
could players who have been playing shadowrun for a long while be able to more accurately assess it's many, many shortcomings compared to someone coming to it without any experience or knowledge?
yes, yes they could.
This.
But that said, to Patroldeer's defense, there is nothing wrong with liking the new system dude. If it works for you and/or your group, by all means, run with it for as long as that remains the case.
I do not believe that the roll4it group was particularly constructive with their criticism (in the sense that while they explained what they did not like and why they did not offer as many suggestions for improvement), but their evaluation was still quite fair and rather far from toxic imo.
-
...
Finally, I would like to give you, Singularity, big big props on how well you orchestrated your players and your group learning process to get into the new system. I, for certain took inspiration from you and will use this for my group as well. I would like to tell you that I feel that you shouldn't give up on the system. Take some rest, wait for new erratas to go on-line a re-visit it.
I think you are misunderstanding my comment regarding combat, and for the record I do understand real combat quite well, thank you. It wasn't about hitting, protection, or anything else; rather it was about the fact that with the new system all armor does is maybe give a point of edge, and there are so many other ways to get edge that a point from armor is largely irrelevant, hence you can wear whatever you want and it doesn't really matter. With the edge gain limit (which I personally think all tables need to house-rule away or at least modify) most characters should easily hit the cap without even considering armor.
I have the PDF of the main rulebook from Drivethrurpg, so I'll be able to keep tabs on updates but frankly I don't see the changes being made in the future that my group would want to bring us back to the system (and quite frankly Catalyst shouldn't be trying to cater to us anyway; they made the system they have now, so they should focus on doing what they can to smooth it out). With all the books and fiction I've read since joining here to try and catch up on the lore, I absolutely do love the setting of Shadowrun. With that in mind I've been picking up the books for a previous edition that was liked by some of the players in my group and we're going to run that instead. I still plan on picking up the sourcebook and campaign that is slated for release, as even if we don't use the 6th Edition itself I do have a campaign idea that can still use the frame of those books.
-
... that instead of looking for positives, people just go nuts with how they don't like this and that. If you followed that video, they gave some minor praise of, we like the skill tree, the combat was okay and smooth. From there on, they went on a full killing spree of how things are bad and offered very little to balance the scale, or explain to the new viewer what is going on. A new player in my group posted that video and he seemed discouraged by it. If you have audience which follows you and you might be a role model for people who want to pick up that game, you should be objective. That group was totally biased and even if some members were moderate, the GM went on and on and on about how bad it is.
There are positives to the new system to be sure; for example I liked that the new priority table allows you to select the race you want to play at any priority (I'm a huge fan of allowing players to play want they want without penalizing them severely or locking choices away because they would be terrible). I have to disagree with you on them being biased however; they had serious issues with the system from the prologue episodes, and it continued on. Their 6E videos were to showcase the new system via their campaign, and as they have stated they didn't feel right about continuing on because they had been trying to fix the problems and what they were playing was becoming a hybridization of the new system with the previous system. There is nothing wrong with liking the new system. There is also nothing wrong with not liking the new system and going to do something else.
-
I went on a rant, you are right, but it was a righteous rant to defend Shadowrun and a disappointed rant, that instead of looking for positives, people just go nuts with how they don't like this and that. If you followed that video, they gave some minor praise of, we like the skill tree, the combat was okay and smooth. From there on, they went on a full killing spree of how things are bad and offered very little to balance the scale, or explain to the new viewer what is going on.
And why should Roll4It look for positives just to satisfy you?
For that matter, why should they try balancing the scale when presenting their audience with the reasons for why their show is ending? There is also the chance that the linked video was intended as a report to CGL, after a fashion, however if Roll4It got the 6th Core Book early I would think they have more direct ways of letting Catalyst know their feelings on the system.
Look, you like Sixth World. That is cool. Enjoy it.
You don't like, some might say hate. the Roll4It video. That is cool too. You don't have to like it, or even agree with it.
The problem is when you are judging (and unfairly I might add) the people of the video and not just their opinion - all based on a misconception of what the video is presented as - you are crossing the line.
-
But that said, to Patroldeer's defense, there is nothing wrong with liking the new system dude. If it works for you and/or your group, by all means, run with it for as long as that remains the case.
yes, you're 100% correct lormyr.
on a separate note: sorry i'm really trying to quit this forum
-
There is nothing wrong with liking the new system. There is also nothing wrong with not liking the new system and going to do something else.
That is absolutely correct. It's only when acts out of like or dislike go too far, that things become a problem. As such, I really like the way you expressed your dislike, even though of course I always consider it a shame if someone doesn't like the new edition. And I hope that once they resolve the quality problems with 6w and there are some new adventures out, maybe in the future y'all give it another shot and end up liking it. But if it remains not your thing, or you end up not giving it a new shot, then that too is fine and I wish y'all the best.
-
That is absolutely correct. It's only when acts out of like or dislike go too far, that things become a problem. As such, I really like the way you expressed your dislike, even though of course I always consider it a shame if someone doesn't like the new edition. And I hope that once they resolve the quality problems with 6w and there are some new adventures out, maybe in the future y'all give it another shot and end up liking it. But if it remains not your thing, or you end up not giving it a new shot, then that too is fine and I wish y'all the best.
To be clear: I am not giving up on Shadowrun entirely, so it's not like I'm completely walking away from it. With all of the reading I have done, I've fallen in love with the setting. I do have a lot of lore/fiction to catch up on still (so, soooo much lore and fiction! >.< ), and I'm actually excited to have an opportunity to play those old campaigns that I heard so much about. I will also still be popping around in here, especially the lore archives as I start running games. We may very well give 6th another shot in the future as well, or we may not; I don't foresee many of the issues my group had changing too much. Still, I'll be stomping around in the Shadowrun universe for some time to come, one way or another! ;D
-
I did notice while playing against Beginner Box enemies that DR of players has little impact, perhaps a few new adventures will give a better impression. I am eagerly awaiting 30 Nights, though you probably can manage that quite well in SR5 instead. A year from now I will have forgotten too many SR5 rules to help rulewise, but will still eagerly see you around in Lore and GM topics!
-
Actually, we've settled on 3rd edition collectively as a group. I can still find decent deals for the books on eBay and Amazon, so I've started ordering those. I will also be picking up the two bug books for 6th; initially for the lore and ideas in them, but if my group should change its mind on 6th I think I have a neat way to transition from 3rd to 6th for the players.
-
On a separate note: sorry i'm really trying to quit this forum
I think you should stop trying to quit and continue voicing your opinion, but that is just one bro's opinion!
-
I think you are misunderstanding my comment regarding combat, and for the record I do understand real combat quite well, thank you.
By no means I mean to insult you, or aim that comment specifically against you as a person. I have red the comment again and deleted that particular section, as it it was a rant due to accumulated frustration with overall negative views of 6e. I apologise. :(
And why should Roll4It look for positives just to satisfy you?
For that matter, why should they try balancing the scale when presenting their audience with the reasons for why their show is ending?
The problem is when you are judging (and unfairly I might add) the people of the video and not just their opinion - all based on a misconception of what the video is presented as - you are crossing the line.
My perspective is that if someone played 400 games of previous editions and than played maybe 10 games of a new edition, which (from my reading around this forum) is vastly different, acknowledge the fact before yourself and your audience that you might be biased and might not grasped the designers intention. From what I saw and heard, that was not the case.
Second, having a strong voice and critique is absolutely fine. But I felt that the GM also crossed the line as he was creating overall negative atmosphere and that (again from my perspective) brought members of the group along, which prevented constructive critique. The comment section below can demonstrate how the overall tone of the video easily spread the same bias towards its viewers, which is not what I would expect from experienced GM. If I am not mistaken, that video has over 12000 views. So 1200 people got the message that 6E is terrible and possibly won't even try for themselves.
Therefore I voiced my opinion against such attitude, but I do agree that my previous reaction was over the top and was a result of accumulated frustration. I apologise for the excessive language, I did edit my initial post.
If I insulted anyone, I apologise. :-X
-
Coming form someone who dipped his toe in starting in 2nd, right before 3rd came out, I actually like what they're trying to do with 6th. Are there flaws? Oh yeah! Can errata and splat books smooth out these flaws? I personally believe so!
Another thing, was in prior edition, I seldom used the Priority System. Usually did Karma Buy. So will be interesting to see how they handle Physical Adepts, Mages, Technomancers, and the like, with Karma Gen and Lifestyle Systems (which, based on No Future, has been strongly hinted we will have a Lifestyle char gen in upcoming book).
On a note about edge, I agree the +2 max per phase is....unreasonable, imo. Rather than House Rule or Errata it, I am actually hoping they take opportunity to add qualities around Edge Gain Maximums. Imagine a quality like thus:
No Need For Luck When You Got Skill:
Max Edge that can be held at any one time Reduced by 1 (regardless of Edge stat)
Max Edge gained per phase reduced by 1
All Attributes Gain +2
All Skills Gain +2, if a skill ins untrained instead it becomes trained
Can only be taken after attribute points and skill points have been allocated
Then on the other end of the spectrum:
Lady Luck Don't Fail Me Now:
Max Edge that can be held at any one time increase by 2
Max Edge generate per phase increase by 2
Anytime your available edge equals 0, 2s and 3s count toward glitches
-
Yeah, there's still a lot of great setting stuff to read. I'd like to read 30 Nights, if only because, "Hey, finally something's set in Toronto!" Or I could buy it as a gift for my GM and say, "Please re-jigger this for whichever edition it is that we're playing now."
Similarly, now I'm interested in seeing what sort of stuff they did for their videos of previous editions.
-
I think you are misunderstanding my comment regarding combat, and for the record I do understand real combat quite well, thank you.
By no means I mean to insult you, or aim that comment specifically against you as a person. I have red the comment again and deleted that particular section, as it it was a rant due to accumulated frustration with overall negative views of 6e. I apologise. :(
Fair enough. I may not have been as clear as I should have been originally. If so, I apologize.
-
Fair enough. I may not have been as clear as I should have been originally. If so, I apologize.
You have been clear, no apology needed. I simply ventilated towards the video using your quote which ,in hindsight, has put you into the line of fire of my negative emotions aimed at authors of the video. I should have given you cover IV and bonus 2 edge. I hope it's fine now :-[
-
It's all cool here! ;D
-
I'm not sure what's the best thread to put this in, as it's inherently a BattleTech topic... but this appears to be the most topical thread at the moment for "They should have done playtesting differently" views.
CGL may (MAY!) have taken note of flaws in 6we's closed playtest and wanted to try out a beta playtest: the new BattleTech RPG Mechwarrior Destiny just dropped for closed beta. Of course there may be no correlation between the two as they're different brands, but maybe there is. CGL is at least TRYING a closed beta for a RPG this time around. Of course I can't help but notice that in these early hours/days, it appears to already have problems with reconciling what a "closed" beta is supposed to be, since it went out to KS backers of appropriate tiers without NDAs... but baby steps. Gotta learn to crawl before trying to run.
-
CGL may (MAY!) have taken note of flaws in 6we's closed playtest and wanted to try out a beta playtest: the new BattleTech RPG Mechwarrior Destiny just dropped for closed beta. Of course there may be no correlation between the two as they're different brands, but maybe there is. CGL is at least TRYING a closed beta for a RPG this time around. Of course I can't help but notice that in these early hours/days, it appears to already have problems with reconciling what a "closed" beta is supposed to be, since it went out to KS backers of appropriate tiers without NDAs... but baby steps. Gotta learn to crawl before trying to run.
Battletech has always been the favored child of Catalyst due to Randal Bill's love for the game whereas Shadowrun has always been the red-headed step-child.
That's why battletech got a $2.3million kickstarter lovingly doted over for what will end up being 2+ years while Shadowrun 6e was rushed out in 6-9 months on the cheap.
It's also why Battletech had a complete errata team for years and it took me (and others) complaining FOR years before they started one up for Sahdowrun.
There is no comparison, so please don't make it.
-
I think you are misunderstanding my comment regarding combat, and for the record I do understand real combat quite well, thank you.
By no means I mean to insult you, or aim that comment specifically against you as a person. I have red the comment again and deleted that particular section, as it it was a rant due to accumulated frustration with overall negative views of 6e. I apologise. :(
And why should Roll4It look for positives just to satisfy you?
For that matter, why should they try balancing the scale when presenting their audience with the reasons for why their show is ending?
The problem is when you are judging (and unfairly I might add) the people of the video and not just their opinion - all based on a misconception of what the video is presented as - you are crossing the line.
My perspective is that if someone played 400 games of previous editions and than played maybe 10 games of a new edition, which (from my reading around this forum) is vastly different, acknowledge the fact before yourself and your audience that you might be biased and might not grasped the designers intention. From what I saw and heard, that was not the case.
Second, having a strong voice and critique is absolutely fine. But I felt that the GM also crossed the line as he was creating overall negative atmosphere and that (again from my perspective) brought members of the group along, which prevented constructive critique. The comment section below can demonstrate how the overall tone of the video easily spread the same bias towards its viewers, which is not what I would expect from experienced GM. If I am not mistaken, that video has over 12000 views. So 1200 people got the message that 6E is terrible and possibly won't even try for themselves.
Therefore I voiced my opinion against such attitude, but I do agree that my previous reaction was over the top and was a result of accumulated frustration. I apologise for the excessive language, I did edit my initial post.
If I insulted anyone, I apologise. :-X
You are really, really making a terrible argument here.
If a new edition of a game requires that one have never played a prior edition for it to be enjoyable, then it is a bad game.
There is no such thing as a completely fresh perspective on the sixth edition of a 30 year old property that does nearly nothing to market itself to new gamers.
-
Also the argument is really bad because it is essentially saying that basically an argument against the very concept of critical thinking?
It is an objectively terrible standard to say one needs to thoroughly exhaust all opportunities for something to be good before it can be judged. That isn't a standard held in ANY rational context.
You don't need to read and playtest the entirety of Cthulhu-tech to understand it is a miserable, terrible, awfully designed game set in a misserable, terrible, unfun to explore world with no real redeeming qualities besides its abstract high concept it doesn't even lean into.
A vital aspect of being... a functioning human being is to be able to extrapolate greater concepts from a dataset smaller than 'an all encompassing knowledge of something.' If you play 10 sessions of SR, and not a single one is fun, you shouldn't continue going 'in case' its going to get better, just as you shouldn't watch a TV series through entirely 'in case' it gets better after the first 10 episodes were truly awful.
It doesn't matter if you watched the series that it was a sequel to, in most situations compulsively doing things you don't like out of the concern of missing out on something good is a literal an anxiety disorder (Literal as in 'you would actually be diagnosed'), not a rational way to critique things.
This is a fallacious argument, and probably one of the more damaging ones you can make, because saying a critique should not involve critical analysis or thought is not a misstep in logic so much as an attempt to invalidate the concept of criticism, discernment, and critical thought. It literally can be sumarized by this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ecgdwhc8gkw) little chestnut of a video. You are saying, quite literally, that one cannot ask questions, think through ramifications of choices, or analyze a pretty compelling dataset to come to a negative conclusion against a media product without consuming so much and taking so long that you are fully consuming 100% of all media presented to you.
The ENTIRE POINT of a review, of a critical analysis, IS to 'bias people' based on a snapshot of the important parts of that product. That is, quite literally, the job of a critic. The fact that this is going to drive fans away is not the fault of the critic except in a very basic, examined sense, especially when the critic is being consistent with a dominant trend of criticism and thus is merely just another voice saying the same thing. A good critic will present an argument for a particular take or analysis of a bit of media (sometimes as a review, sometimes to explore themes, motifs, style, technique, or its place in the culture, 'critics' don't just do reviews), and will provide enough supporting evidence to justify their opinion so that people can make up their own minds.
That is exactly what Roll4It did. You can point out why the evidence was faulty, why their examples shouldn't be expected to be accurate to most tables, or why they may be biased or having trouble, but saying 'You should not think critically about a product to draw conclusions about that product and share those conclusions' is...
Well it would be a very happy day for some Horrizon social media memetic engineer if they got that concept to go mainstream, as it is literally arguing for the lack of discernment and critical thought in what products to consume and purchase as a virtue, which means no product would ever need to make any attempt at quality because, under that worldview, quality is, essentially, irrelevant, as for someone to conclude something is low quality they already have had to pay for it, consume it, and probably buy the expansions and splats as well.
-
There is no such thing as a completely fresh perspective on the sixth edition of a 30 year old property that does nearly nothing to market itself to new gamers.
To be accurate, there have been 6 posts by different people on Reddit in just the last 5 days saying they are completely new to Shadowrun and asking about 6E.
-
Coming form someone who dipped his toe in starting in 2nd, right before 3rd came out, I actually like what they're trying to do with 6th. Are there flaws? Oh yeah! Can errata and splat books smooth out these flaws? I personally believe so!
Another thing, was in prior edition, I seldom used the Priority System. Usually did Karma Buy. So will be interesting to see how they handle Physical Adepts, Mages, Technomancers, and the like, with Karma Gen and Lifestyle Systems (which, based on No Future, has been strongly hinted we will have a Lifestyle char gen in upcoming book).
I really like Priority because I suffer intensively from choice paralysis, so a Priority character takes me probably less than 20% of the time a BP character in 4th took me. Karmagen would be worse, since I'd be finicky about EVERY SINGLE POINT, though the 6w skills will be easier to manage due to their number and karma cost. Also, I really like Life Modules, but only with a decent tool to pick them. When I made samples with them, I had to write some excel tools to support me for properly optimal characters.
As an asides, I should note that in 4th and 5th combined I have played only approximately 20 games and GMed a mere hundred games (SRM+Open Events and home campaign combined, 2:3 split), so far I'm at GMing 2 6w events (and another being GMed by my brother when I was unavailable), and right now I'm loving 6w. I do acknowledge quite a few flaws (fingers crossed for errata), and that it's not everyone's thing, but I really love it despite being a crunchy monster that loves SR5 as well. And one of the things I really like about it, is that this time I won't have to do all the math for my players, they'll actually be able to follow it themselves. A literal newbie to RPGing managed to pick up the new Edge system in his first fight, and ended up a lovely coldblooded Shadowrunner during that adventure, and I love seeing that. Now I have my fingers crossed I convince my wife to not just write but also play with me soon.
-
Also the argument is really bad because it is essentially saying that basically an argument against the very concept of critical thinking?
The ENTIRE POINT of a review, of a critical analysis, IS to 'bias people' based on a snapshot of the important parts of that product. That is, quite literally, the job of a critic.
Critical thinking, Oxford dictionary:
"the process of analysing information in an objective way, in order to make a judgement about it"
(‘Critical thinking—Definition; Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary’, n.d.)
Bias, Oxford dictionary:
"a strong feeling in favour of or against one group of people, or one side in an argument, often not based on fair judgement"
(‘Bias—Definition; Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary’, n.d.)
Universal Intellectual Standards:
Clarity - If a statement is unclear we cannot assess whether it is accurate or relevant.
Accuracy - Is it really true? A statement can be clear but not accurate.
Precision - “Jack is overweight”. Sure, one kilo or 20 kilo? but this is not precise enough?
Relevance - Is this relevant to the question? To the goal and the perspective of the paper?
Depth - Statements or solutions can be superficial for a complex issue.
Breadth - All relevant points-of-view need to be considered to address an issue effectively.
Logic - The way we bring together different thoughts needs to make sense.
Fairness - Are we open-minded, impartial and free of distorting biases and misconceptions?
(Elder & Paul, n.d.)
Toulmin method:
A claim is the assertion that authors would like to prove to their audience. It is, in other words, the main argument.
The grounds of an argument are the evidence and facts that help support the claim.
The warrant, which is either implied or stated explicitly, is the assumption that links the grounds to the claim.
Backing refers to any additional support of the warrant. In many cases, the warrant is implied, and therefore the backing provides support for the warrant by giving a specific example that justifies the warrant.
Qualifier shows that a claim may not be true in all circumstances. Words like “presumably,” “some,” and “many” help your audience understand that you know there are instances where your claim may not be correct.
The rebuttal is an acknowledgement of another valid view of the situation.
(Purdue, n.d.)
Re-read my previous post and realise that I raised my concern about how the critique was done, not about the critique itself. Also, you might find out that I did edit my post and reflected, that my statements were driven by accumulated frustration from overall negativity with which the new system is greeted.
Italics, underline and bold added by me to stress specific points of the text.
References:
Bias—Definition; Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved 23 September 2019, from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/bias_1?q=bias
Critical thinking—Definition; Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved 23 September 2019, from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/critical-thinking?q=critical+thinking
Elder, L., & Paul, R. (n.d.). Universal Intellectual Standards. Retrieved 23 September 2019, from https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/universal-intellectual-standards/527
Purdue. (n.d.). Toulmin Argument // Purdue Writing Lab. Retrieved 23 September 2019, from Purdue Writing Lab website: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/historical_perspectives_on_argumentation/toulmin_argument.html
What is Critical Analysis, University of Bradford. (n.d.). Retrieved 23 September 2019, from https://www.bradford.ac.uk/academic-skills/media/academicskillsadvice/documents/workshops/criticalanalysis/What-is-Critical-Analysis-Booklet---Student.pdf
-
Also the argument is really bad because it is essentially saying that basically an argument against the very concept of critical thinking?
The ENTIRE POINT of a review, of a critical analysis, IS to 'bias people' based on a snapshot of the important parts of that product. That is, quite literally, the job of a critic.
Critical thinking, Oxford dictionary:
"the process of analysing information in an objective way, in order to make a judgement about it"
(‘Critical thinking—Definition; Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary’, n.d.)
Bias, Oxford dictionary:
"a strong feeling in favour of or against one group of people, or one side in an argument, often not based on fair judgement"
(‘Bias—Definition; Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary’, n.d.)
Universal Intellectual Standards:
Clarity - If a statement is unclear we cannot assess whether it is accurate or relevant.
Accuracy - Is it really true? A statement can be clear but not accurate.
Precision - “Jack is overweight”. Sure, one kilo or 20 kilo? but this is not precise enough?
Relevance - Is this relevant to the question? To the goal and the perspective of the paper?
Depth - Statements or solutions can be superficial for a complex issue.
Breadth - All relevant points-of-view need to be considered to address an issue effectively.
Logic - The way we bring together different thoughts needs to make sense.
Fairness - Are we open-minded, impartial and free of distorting biases and misconceptions?
(Elder & Paul, n.d.)
Toulmin method:
A claim is the assertion that authors would like to prove to their audience. It is, in other words, the main argument.
The grounds of an argument are the evidence and facts that help support the claim.
The warrant, which is either implied or stated explicitly, is the assumption that links the grounds to the claim.
Backing refers to any additional support of the warrant. In many cases, the warrant is implied, and therefore the backing provides support for the warrant by giving a specific example that justifies the warrant.
Qualifier shows that a claim may not be true in all circumstances. Words like “presumably,” “some,” and “many” help your audience understand that you know there are instances where your claim may not be correct.
The rebuttal is an acknowledgement of another valid view of the situation.
(Purdue, n.d.)
Re-read my previous post and realise that I raised my concern about how the critique was done, not about the critique itself. Also, you might find out that I did edit my post and reflected, that my statements were driven by accumulated frustration from overall negativity with which the new system is greeted.
Italics, underline and bold added by me to stress specific points of the text.
References:
Bias—Definition; Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved 23 September 2019, from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/bias_1?q=bias
Critical thinking—Definition; Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved 23 September 2019, from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/critical-thinking?q=critical+thinking
Elder, L., & Paul, R. (n.d.). Universal Intellectual Standards. Retrieved 23 September 2019, from https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/universal-intellectual-standards/527
Purdue. (n.d.). Toulmin Argument // Purdue Writing Lab. Retrieved 23 September 2019, from Purdue Writing Lab website: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/historical_perspectives_on_argumentation/toulmin_argument.html
What is Critical Analysis, University of Bradford. (n.d.). Retrieved 23 September 2019, from https://www.bradford.ac.uk/academic-skills/media/academicskillsadvice/documents/workshops/criticalanalysis/What-is-Critical-Analysis-Booklet---Student.pdf
This right here, I agree 100%. I have been very critical if this video in a few different places. Not because I am a huge supporter of 6WE (which I am obviously) and not because of what they said necessarily... but because of HOW they chose to say it.
-
Damn, I want to turn the Karma system back on the boards to give PD +500.
-
There is no such thing as a completely fresh perspective on the sixth edition of a 30 year old property that does nearly nothing to market itself to new gamers.
To be accurate, there have been 6 posts by different people on Reddit in just the last 5 days saying they are completely new to Shadowrun and asking about 6E.
Six posts. On a community with 30,849 subscribers, much less readers. Pardon me for a slight potential exaggeration.
I've been playing and GMing this game for over 20 years at this point, and I can say in all due honesty in the last 10 I've seen SR suggested to a new player by a game store once... and that was Anarchy, right at release.
Actually working with Actual Play groups is the biggest promotion of SR CGL's done in a decade. The Year of Shadowrun stuff around the 5e release was the closest thing to real promotion, and most of that was the SRR kickstarter throwing them a bone.
Edit to add: Hell, the website still calls out 20A as the current core book.
https://www.shadowruntabletop.com/products/e-books/
'The Core Rulebooks expand on the various aspects found in the 20th Anniversary Edition Rulebook, providing a plethora of options: more guns, vehicles, and drones; more cyberware, bioware and new nanotechnology; more magic and the metaplanes; new hacking tricks and sprites; more character options…a host of optional rules for any character type.'
-
Damn, I want to turn the Karma system back on the boards to give PD +500.
The forum is using Life Modules now, not karmagen.
-
There is no such thing as a completely fresh perspective on the sixth edition of a 30 year old property that does nearly nothing to market itself to new gamers.
To be accurate, there have been 6 posts by different people on Reddit in just the last 5 days saying they are completely new to Shadowrun and asking about 6E.
Six posts. On a community with 30,849 subscribers, much less readers. Pardon me for a slight potential exaggeration.
I've been playing and GMing this game for over 20 years at this point, and I can say in all due honesty in the last 10 I've seen SR suggested to a new player by a game store once... and that was Anarchy, right at release.
Actually working with Actual Play groups is the biggest promotion of SR CGL's done in a decade. The Year of Shadowrun stuff around the 5e release was the closest thing to real promotion, and most of that was the SRR kickstarter throwing them a bone.
Edit to add: Hell, the website still calls out 20A as the current core book.
https://www.shadowruntabletop.com/products/e-books/
'The Core Rulebooks expand on the various aspects found in the 20th Anniversary Edition Rulebook, providing a plethora of options: more guns, vehicles, and drones; more cyberware, bioware and new nanotechnology; more magic and the metaplanes; new hacking tricks and sprites; more character options…a host of optional rules for any character type.'
The new website is at ShadowrunSixthWorld.com (https://www.shadowrunsixthworld.com/), but I have to note they have no redirection on the old site to get there. But at least they are pointing to these forums from the old site. :D
-
6we has things that can be fairly criticized.
However, one thing that isn't a fair criticism is that it's not an outreach to gamers only familiar with games designed, oh...this century. Even if it were a FU to gamers who've played SR for 20-30 years (and it isn't) it's still fundamentally an attempt to make the game more palatable to modern gaming tastes.
-
6we has things that can be fairly criticized.
However, one thing that isn't a fair criticism is that it's not an outreach to gamers only familiar with games designed, oh...this century. Even if it were a FU to gamers who've played SR for 20-30 years (and it isn't) it's still fundamentally an attempt to make the game more palatable to modern gaming tastes.
I agree that it was an attempt to make the game more broadly available and less intimidating to mainstream gamers, and I highly doubt CGL was actively trying to give veteran players the shaft. I do, however, disagree with how they implemented the changes.
On the surface, the Edge system (which is the core mechanic of the game this time around) is a more streamlined way to account for modifiers in a given situation. But once you start looking at all the options that add/remove/influence Edge values and generation, its not really any more or less simple than just adding or subtracting dice from a pool, which in 5th could mostly be tallied up prior to the game starting (i.e. mods for guns or programs that assisted matrix actions).
But the thing that got me more than anything else was the fact that now my Edge could reach across the table and muck with my opponents dice, and vice versa. I absolutely despise games that trigger gotcha moments like that. It doesn't feel like I actually accomplished the thing I was trying to accomplish (like winning a thumb war by using your pointer finger), and it puts GMs in a spot where they have to walk a tightrope between letting players off easy (not using NPC Edge enough) and becoming overly adversarial (storing and spending NPC Edge too effectively).
Granted, those are just my current opinions, which may or may not change when the second errata drops.
-
There is no such thing as a completely fresh perspective on the sixth edition of a 30 year old property that does nearly nothing to market itself to new gamers.
To be accurate, there have been 6 posts by different people on Reddit in just the last 5 days saying they are completely new to Shadowrun and asking about 6E.
Six posts. On a community with 30,849 subscribers, much less readers. Pardon me for a slight potential exaggeration.
I've been playing and GMing this game for over 20 years at this point, and I can say in all due honesty in the last 10 I've seen SR suggested to a new player by a game store once... and that was Anarchy, right at release.
Actually working with Actual Play groups is the biggest promotion of SR CGL's done in a decade. The Year of Shadowrun stuff around the 5e release was the closest thing to real promotion, and most of that was the SRR kickstarter throwing them a bone.
Edit to add: Hell, the website still calls out 20A as the current core book.
https://www.shadowruntabletop.com/products/e-books/
'The Core Rulebooks expand on the various aspects found in the 20th Anniversary Edition Rulebook, providing a plethora of options: more guns, vehicles, and drones; more cyberware, bioware and new nanotechnology; more magic and the metaplanes; new hacking tricks and sprites; more character options…a host of optional rules for any character type.'
The new website is at ShadowrunSixthWorld.com (https://www.shadowrunsixthworld.com/), but I have to note they have no redirection on the old site to get there. But at least they are pointing to these forums from the old site. :D
Funny story about that:
"Need more info? Here’s what to look out for on both www.shadowrunsixthworld.com and www.shadowruntabletop.com, as well as the official Shadowrun and Catalyst Game Labs social media, and on the official Shadowrun forums over the next few weeks:
May 1: Initial Announcement
May 8: Product Overview
May 15: Developer Overview
May 22: Setting Overview/Fiction Announcement
May 29: Developer Q&A
June 5: Rigger Dossier
June 12: Shadowrun at Origins preview
More to follow"
The only place I can even find that new site mentioned on catalystgamelabs.com is a Randal Bills blog post from May.
I'm starting to think that CGL flatly doesn't -want- to promote their products, because they can't even manage a blog post every six months, much less updating links or website copy.
-
Re-read my previous post and realise that I raised my concern about how the critique was done, not about the critique itself. Also, you might find out that I did edit my post and reflected, that my statements were driven by accumulated frustration from overall negativity with which the new system is greeted.
Are you still misunderstanding and / or misrepresenting the purpose of the video?
It isn't a review[1].
It isn't titled as a review.
It isn't presented as a review.
The title is literally "Why We Aren't Playing Shadowrun 6th Edition Any More."
Under that premise, the fact they included any positives about the system was a kindness that wasn't required.
[1] I don't deny that there are likely people who are trying to pass it off as a critical review.
-
I agree that it was an attempt to make the game more broadly available and less intimidating to mainstream gamers, and I highly doubt CGL was actively trying to give veteran players the shaft. I do, however, disagree with how they implemented the changes.
I agree that was 6e’s goal, and I agree it is a noble goal. But I think 6e does a poor job at achieving it. There is too little coherency at the core of it. Edge is abstract and has too vague a link between cause and effect. Multiple subsystems have mechanics that are at odds with the narrative. Fundamental game balance issues from 5e have gone unaddressed.
These criticisms do not mean I disagree with the goals. I would have liked to see a genuinely streamlined and coherent system. But this ain’t it, chief.
-
Re-read my previous post and realise that I raised my concern about how the critique was done, not about the critique itself. Also, you might find out that I did edit my post and reflected, that my statements were driven by accumulated frustration from overall negativity with which the new system is greeted.
Are you still misunderstanding and / or misrepresenting the purpose of the video?
It isn't a review[1].
It isn't titled as a review.
It isn't presented as a review.
The title is literally "Why We Aren't Playing Shadowrun 6th Edition Any More."
Under that premise, the fact they included any positives about the system was a kindness that wasn't required.
[1] I don't deny that there are likely people who are trying to pass it off as a critical review.
Note also, that is the very definition of a tone argument. If you have factual disagreements with their assessment, PD, trot 'em out for discussion. Otherwise it starts to just look like sour grapes over someone committing the sin of not loving NERPS enough.
-
I agree that was 6e’s goal, and I agree it is a noble goal. But I think 6e does a poor job at achieving it. There is too little coherency at the core of it. Edge is abstract and has too vague a link between cause and effect. Multiple subsystems have mechanics that are at odds with the narrative. Fundamental game balance issues from 5e have gone unaddressed.
These criticisms do not mean I disagree with the goals. I would have liked to see a genuinely streamlined and coherent system. But this ain’t it, chief.
+1 to all of that.
I still have some hope that they pull it off, and 6th becomes something most all of the community can enjoy. But it needs a LOT of work to get there.
And I'll say it for the Nth time, CGL needs to show progress toward this goal. Not veiled messages from the tongue-tied Errata team (side note: I really feel bad for the Errata team. They should be able to poll the forums and have community chats to hash out proposed rules changes, not be bound and gagged by NDA). Hardy, or some other high level CGL staffer, needs to get out into the spotlight and start combating all the negative press this edition is getting. They need to show that CGL cares about the issues this edition has, and that they are putting forth real effort to fix it. And they need to be transparent about it.
-
6we has things that can be fairly criticized.
Even if it were a FU to gamers who've played SR for 20-30 years (and it isn't) it's still fundamentally an attempt to make the game more palatable to modern gaming tastes.
Stainless you know I love you ;-)
But sr6e is definitely a F.U. to the long time SRun players like myself who have been playing 20-30 years (30 years in my instance).
Why?
Because it tosses out all that shadowrun is based on (gritty, simulationist RPG) and replaces it with...oh man you know you don't want to get me started down this topic again...suffice to say a gamey boardgame mechanic that does not function to model the encounter space of srun in a reliable/ realistic manner.
the worst part about is it did not have to be this way.
they already had the "easier" shadowrun, called Anarchy. They could have built on that. But noooo they had to destroy the main property in their quest for noobs who were never the core audience of srun.
It's always been the "more adult" RPG with adult themes and deep crunch.
So yeah, Catalyst most definitely did make 6e a huge F.U. to the long time supporters of shadowrun who perhaps cared most about the game.
All for no gain.
-
Are you still misunderstanding and / or misrepresenting the purpose of the video?
It isn't a review[1].
It isn't titled as a review.
It isn't presented as a review.
The title is literally "Why We Aren't Playing Shadowrun 6th Edition Any More."
Under that premise, the fact they included any positives about the system was a kindness that wasn't required.
[1] I don't deny that there are likely people who are trying to pass it off as a critical review.
I never labelled that video as a review. I labelled the video as not constructive and biased. It was mentioned by the authors, they said themselves that they have a problem with Shadowrun in general, therefore the very name of the video can be questioned as irrelevant.
Note also, that is the very definition of a tone argument. If you have factual disagreements with their assessment, PD, trot 'em out for discussion. Otherwise it starts to just look like sour grapes over someone committing the sin of not loving NERPS enough.
If you are telling 12000 people something, make sure you have it right. Not a single mention " we reached out to CGL for a comment" - which according to you, is what I am supposed to do concerning factual disagreements with authors.
Tone argument, would apply if the argument was constructed accordingly to previously mentioned standards, which was not. In addition calling out tone argument on me is actually using tone argument by yourself.
-
If you are telling 12000 people something, make sure you have it right. Not a single mention " we reached out to CGL for a comment" - which according to you, is what I am supposed to do concerning factual disagreements with authors.
Tone argument, would apply if the argument was constructed accordingly to previously mentioned standards, which was not. In addition calling out tone argument on me is actually using tone argument by yourself.
It has become VERY clear over the past weeks that ANY disagreement with criticism of CGL will be branded 'fanboyism without reason', just so they can ignore anyone disagreeing with them 'because they're just apologists' so obviously no opinion matters if it doesn't consider all of SR6 a dumpster fire. Tone argument is the least of the debate sins here. Just to show you how far people are reaching, the very use of "6w" as a label for Shadowrun Sixth World has been called 'a dividing of the community', while constantly calling people apologists is perfectly alright of course. My only advice to you at this point would be the very last line of "Dearest creature in creation".
-
6we has things that can be fairly criticized.
Even if it were a FU to gamers who've played SR for 20-30 years (and it isn't) it's still fundamentally an attempt to make the game more palatable to modern gaming tastes.
Stainless you know I love you ;-)
But sr6e is definitely a F.U. to the long time SRun players like myself who have been playing 20-30 years (30 years in my instance).
Why?
Because it tosses out all that shadowrun is based on (gritty, simulationist RPG) and replaces it with...oh man you know you don't want to get me started down this topic again...suffice to say a gamey boardgame mechanic that does not function to model the encounter space of srun in a reliable/ realistic manner.
the worst part about is it did not have to be this way.
they already had the "easier" shadowrun, called Anarchy. They could have built on that. But noooo they had to destroy the main property in their quest for noobs who were never the core audience of srun.
It's always been the "more adult" RPG with adult themes and deep crunch.
So yeah, Catalyst most definitely did make 6e a huge F.U. to the long time supporters of shadowrun who perhaps cared most about the game.
All for no gain.
I agree with your sentiments, but I do question the notion that new players were never the "core audience". Even as far back as SRII CRB the developers acknowledged that a much greater number of new RPG players were purchasing and playing Shadowrun than they had intended, and the second edition was partially written to accommodate them specifically. Each edition since has at some level had the goal of being more streamlined/easier to understand/lowering the barrier for entry. I think it's been quite some time that "noobs" have been a firm part of the target audience.
I have no problem accepting the premise that they are in the minority of players, however.
-
I never labelled that video as a review. I labelled the video as not constructive and biased. It was mentioned by the authors, they said themselves that they have a problem with Shadowrun in general, therefore the very name of the video can be questioned as irrelevant.
I think you might need to rename your forum account to Mobius... You just twisted back into yourself and enter the realm of absurdity,
Let me see if I understand you:
If I was to write an article, or produce a video, titled "Why I hate Okra" (I really do), or "Why I'll never drive a Chevy Volt" (No idea why I picked the Volt... Just needed to put something in there)...
If I wasn't unbiased and constructive the title would be irrelevant?
Bwahhhahahhaaa! (https://giphy.com/gifs/jQmVFypWInKCc/html5)
Good luck finding your credibility again.
-
Are we done discussing the video? If so, let's get on to other topics and I'll lock this one since it's not serving any productive purpose.
-
I haven't even made it to the video in question yet. I'm still on part 1 of their first mission.
I guess one question I have is this: did people actually see their game sessions, or did they only watch the "Why we won't be playing 6th Edition" video?
Having watched the two prologue missions and half of the first part of the first mission, the GM does seem to have some bias against the new ruleset even from the get-go. And while it seems like they do make some mistakes, some of which would have been cleared up by errata from what I can gather, it seems to me like they suffer from change fatigue after just a few hours in.
I'm curious to see if they improve at all over the next several hours before they eventually call it quits. And, I do hope there are other streamers out there who will do 6th Edition, because I do find them quite entertaining to watch.
-
If you are telling 12000 people something, make sure you have it right. Not a single mention " we reached out to CGL for a comment" - which according to you, is what I am supposed to do concerning factual disagreements with authors.
Tone argument, would apply if the argument was constructed accordingly to previously mentioned standards, which was not. In addition calling out tone argument on me is actually using tone argument by yourself.
Why would they, or even why should they need to reach out to the publisher rather than judging the material as not fit for purpose as published?
They didn't decide this was in a state to send to print. That was CGL, struggling to have hardcopy for GenCon.
Having watched the two prologue missions and half of the first part of the first mission, the GM does seem to have some bias against the new ruleset even from the get-go. And while it seems like they do make some mistakes, some of which would have been cleared up by errata from what I can gather, it seems to me like they suffer from change fatigue after just a few hours in.
Check the dates. The early episodes were filmed before errata existed, and in part the errata came to be due to issues called out from watching live plays.
-
6we has things that can be fairly criticized.
However, one thing that isn't a fair criticism is that it's not an outreach to gamers only familiar with games designed, oh...this century. Even if it were a FU to gamers who've played SR for 20-30 years (and it isn't) it's still fundamentally an attempt to make the game more palatable to modern gaming tastes.
So to you, what part of it outreach to players who played SR for the last 20-30 years?
-
Are we done discussing the video? If so, let's get on to other topics and I'll lock this one since it's not serving any productive purpose.
Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to.
-
Are we done discussing the video? If so, let's get on to other topics and I'll lock this one since it's not serving any productive purpose.
Close it, discussion is not anymore about the video.
Summary; They tried 6e, concluded it was not for them, brought up the obvious errors (pre errata) ,balance issues and they didn't liked the Edge metagame, so they moved back to the previous version (forgetting that 5e was far from perfect in the beginning)
If they really wanted to be Streamers with influence in the Shadowrun scene, they would have put more effort in trying to make it work, 6e is here, and it is not going away soon.
-
If they really wanted to be Streamers with influence in the Shadowrun scene, they would have put more effort in trying to make it work, 6e is here, and it is not going away soon.
Roll4It is pulling down north of $5k/month on Patreon, so I suspect they’re doing alright.
Very dismayed at the amount of shooting-the-messenger in this thread. We’ve had a lot of people in the community, on forums and Reddit, express their feelings about 6e. We’ve had numerous very poor customer reviews on DriveThruRPG. We’ve had big streaming channels throw in the towel on 6e. I don’t know what it takes for people to start taking these issues seriously and not dismissing all the criticisms out of hand as being biased and worthless. I can only hope Catalyst’s staff are less blasé.