[adzling]

i've played srun since 1e, spent thousands of dollars on it and when you count supporting media and paraphenalia likely closer to low tens.

6e is demonstrably horrific and catalyst is also a demonstrably horrific company in all aspects including design, production, customer care and management.

while you might like 6e there's no rational counter argument to be made regarding catalyst.

if they lost the license and another company picked it up and went back to what differentiates and makes srun great i would be back in a heartbeat

until then i am continuing with 5e until out table switches to cyberpunk soon, at which point the IP will be dead to me (after @30 years) until a new licensee comes along, if ever.

[Jack Hooligan]

For what it's worth, I've enjoyed the SR setting for over 30years...and have never played the RPG. I played the 90s SNES game as well as the TCG. Bought the DMZ box as I was a budding minis gamer. Even picked up a few Duels figures. I have bought many sourcebooks over the decades and still hang onto my pristine core 2e hardcopy.

But it hasn't been until Anarchy's come out that I've actually decided to try running a real RPG in the setting. I'll be giving it a go for the first time this summer. I'll probably just use Zoom though since the game is so light. just throwing up a few background images will suffice. I trust the players to be honest about their rolls. We're all grown adults.

So, I do thank Catalyst for rules light version of the game.

[markelphoenix]

i've played srun since 1e, spent thousands of dollars on it and when you count supporting media and paraphenalia likely closer to low tens.

6e is demonstrably horrific and catalyst is also a demonstrably horrific company in all aspects including design, production, customer care and management.

while you might like 6e there's no rational counter argument to be made regarding catalyst.

if they lost the license and another company picked it up and went back to what differentiates and makes srun great i would be back in a heartbeat

until then i am continuing with 5e until out table switches to cyberpunk soon, at which point the IP will be dead to me (after @30 years) until a new licensee comes along, if ever.

See, while my feelings on matter are not quite this strong, seeing the original state 6e came out in and the seemingly slow movement on further developing 6e (time it took to get errata out, splat books, over all design seeming to be multi-directional [i.e. off top of my head, lets get rid of modifiers to dice pools by having edge be an abstraction to simplify and expedite turns!!!!....btw, there are still several modifiers to dice pools.]) I totally get the frustration and sentiment.

I've been searching across multiple online P&P sites for SR6 game, and I mostly see SR5 and earlier. When game first came out, SR6 was popping up everywhere, including live streams and actual plays. Today, I find streams that canceled their 6e run due to them not enjoying given the state it's currently in. On six separate days over past three weeks, I've looked on Roll20, forums, and even a few SR discord groups....no takers for SR6 game. This is from a nerd who loves the setting since SR2, I can't even fathom what it would be like being new to the series and trying to find any semblance of an online play presence.

As someone who loves the setting and most of the general ideas behind the mechanics, it's disheartening to see what appears to be extreme disregard for the IP. Hobbes synopsis on the low cost to return on investment of the license adds a little bit of clarity in regards to how they're able to get away with it...when it comes down to it, it's cheap...so they don't have to do well to make any return on their investment given how little they invest into the IP.

[Marcus]

If the stans keep blindly trashing SR6 so badly that CGL gives up on Shadowrun, do you really think any company with enough cash and clout to get it from Topps and put out quality content, will dare burn their fingers on it? I highly doubt it. There's no way there's a decent future for Shadowrun if the stans destroy CGL.

Blindly? 6e looked bad in its earliest previews, and it only got worse as we learned more. From the release to now nothing has changed and it's still just bad. In case it's unclear pretty layouts aren't what folk buy books for. The "Stans" are sick of a bad product. Fix the system, playtest it and follow the advice returned, update and then release the new core. This isn't mysterious it's how TTRPGs are made these days. The fan base is there, give'em a product that's actually related to the IP we all love and isn't horrible and everyone will be happy.
 
It's ok to admit mistakes were made. It's actually the reasonable and responsible thing to do.

[penllawen]

Anyway, if CGL fails at Shadowrun, it will die. There is no way another company would be able to convince Topps while willing and capable of offering enough money to them. So I guess you want Shadowrun to end. 

If the stans keep blindly trashing SR6 so badly that CGL gives up on Shadowrun, do you really think any company with enough cash and clout to get it from Topps and put out quality content, will dare burn their fingers on it? I highly doubt it. There's no way there's a decent future for Shadowrun if the stans destroy CGL.

Emotional blackmail? Really? If the state of 6e defence has now descended into “this game is bad” / “ok but you must keep buying it for the sake of the brand”, then 6e is in a very poor place indeed.

Catalyst isn’t running a charity. It’s running a business. It wants to sell me things. If it doesn’t make things I want to buy, I’m not going to buy them anyway out of some amorphous fear of Shadowrun “dying” or being “destroyed”. (Personally,  I haven’t spent any thing on Shadowrun since 6e shipped, and I do not intend to do so. I don’t like it. I’m not going to buy things I don’t like.)

And anyway: what exactly are we propping up, here? What has Catalyst done for Shadowrun, in the big picture? 5e is (IMO) the best version of Shadowrun to play, but that’s not because it’s obviously the best on its own merits. It’s more of a the-devil-you-know thing. It has few genuinely new ideas in it. Mechanically, it’s an evolutionary descendent of 4e (and 6e is just another evolutionary descendent of 4e.) There are no big fixes for the big problems, like MagicRun. Catalyst’s ambition does not extend that far. It’s just... rearranging the furniture in the same house. The one exception is Anarchy, which had good ideas but was hopelessly underbaked.

At least FanPro had some balls. 4e totally reworked core game mechanics and modernised the setting in (IMO) important ways. Now that’s a set of changes worthy of being called a new edition.

Metaplot wise, we’ve had nothing but the same-ol’-same-ol’ for decades: bodysnatchers, a localised post-apocalyptic zone, a full-on war, the AIs are evil. It’s all cover versions of FASA’s greatest hits, usually Bug City. Again, I see little ambition here, beyond making money from do-overs of the same six splatbooks every 7-10 years.

I don’t understand why defending Catalyst is a hill anyone would want to die on.

[Annoch]

If the stans keep blindly trashing SR6 so badly that CGL gives up on Shadowrun, do you really think any company with enough cash and clout to get it from Topps and put out quality content, will dare burn their fingers on it? I highly doubt it. There's no way there's a decent future for Shadowrun if the stans destroy CGL.

"Stan": A crazed or obsessed fan. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Stan

"You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means"  - Inigo Montoya

[Marcus]

If the stans keep blindly trashing SR6 so badly that CGL gives up on Shadowrun, do you really think any company with enough cash and clout to get it from Topps and put out quality content, will dare burn their fingers on it? I highly doubt it. There's no way there's a decent future for Shadowrun if the stans destroy CGL.

"Stan": A crazed or obsessed fan. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Stan

"You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means"  - Inigo Montoya

Ahh well good to know. I guess I should have reported that post after all.