[Typhus]

I'm looking over what I know about the rules of 6E, and I think I finally see one element that's throwing me off.

The degree of "distance" in the abstraction of the rules of reality seems to be variable between different parts of the game.  Here's what I mean.

I'm using the phrase "distance" as the metaphor for the degree of abstraction being implemented around the mechanics.  Let's assume that "ground zero" is the 5E scale.  It's pretty granular, every little thing in the environment or on your gear directly modifies a dice pool, and most factors in the world are defined (wind, light, recoil, qualities of weaponry etc.).  Everything has a tangible effect.  This degree of distinction also feels consistent throughout the rule set, from combat, to magic, to the matrix.  The reader begins to intuitively understand the "scale" at work here: "Even small details matter and should affect the probability of success.  Here's every example we could think up of how so and how much".

To simplify all this down in the mechanics, you have to get up above it and be able to say "well, generally speaking, if a and b are true then c should be the impact on outcome".  To get there, a lot of the details have to be abstracted and the whole alphabet of circumstances gets rolled up into 'A', and/or accounted for with 'B'.  Think of it like floating up above a fight, and not being able to see the details any more.  You'll see when a person falls down, and when they jump behind cover, and other basics, but you're too far up to see where a bullet hit or even really how many specific meters there are between two targets.  That's what I mean by "distance".

6E seems to have a pretty high distance when it comes to combat.  For example, it barely matters that you are wearing armor, ranges are very generalized, and the net impact of most differences is only minimally felt during the dice tests, because none of these factor in to what you roll.  They only affect one possible outcome (Edge gain). 

All that abstraction is to resolve the issue of an attack hitting the target or not.  However, then when the damage does hit, suddenly certain types of details do matter, and those details live at a lower (more granular) depth.  The one example I can point to is Bone Lacing, which has the direct and dramatic (strongly granular) effect of +3 to Body stats when resisting damage. Objectively (and by using the "ground zero layer" metrics of past editions), armor is far superior in effect to resisting damage than bone lacing, strictly by comparison.  Yet in 6E armor is abstracted to where it matters almost not at all, but Bone Lacing retains its strongly felt impact to the character's survivability.  The depth of scale is inconsistent here. 

Similarly with vehicle combat, which takes speed into consideration in a way that impacts dice pools, yet otherwise, the act of making attacks then flits back up into the territory of "close enough".  Its the equivalent of saying, "okay so you two are shooting at each other, but no one cares about any specifics involved (expect for speed which is insanely relevant), so all variables are reduced to a potential minor benefit if you happen to meet one of these criteria.  So, you hit each other and now a few specifics matter again, but only some.  Would you like to augment your results with some arbitrary dice manipulation instead?" 

In practice, this seems to impact the intuitiveness of the system, which also affects the suspension of disbelief. It can lead to a sense of incoherence in the rules.  If there is a consistent logic to the scale, it would be nice to hear that discussed. At the moment, it seems to zoom in and out wherever the end results find better traction, regardless of the impact that may have to the play experience.  Such things also make it challenging for GMs to intuit what should be a dice pool effect vs an AR/DR effect vs a DV change vs a Threshold modifier, etc.   

I'm not trying to make any assertions about what is 'better' here, just trying to make sense of the design in places it feels unclear to me so far.  Thanks for any thoughts you can offer here.

[Shinobi Killfist]

I don’t know what to say other than yeah that seems to be true.

Want to run across a narrow beam your GM calls for a gymnastics test.  When determining the threshold they will take into account all the things that might effect it. It’s really narrow, you are running not slow walking or crawling, it’s raining, there is high wind and you are afraid of heights.


Combat +1 edge. It’s not a intuitive shift. Though it’s not hard to remember either.

[adzling]

Highly abstracted systems inherently lose connection to reality and common sense.

That’s what your encountering.

Enjoy 6e!

[Xenon]

I kinda like the basic idea behind the new range mechanic.
- A pistol get more useful at closer range than a sniper rifle while a pistol can't even hit targets at all at ranges where sniper rifles start to get really good. I like.
....while in 5th edition a Sniper rifle was always better than a pistol. Even in CQB. The only disadvantage would be that it is fully illegal to use and that it big and hard to smuggle.

I am also not too concerned about the basic idea behind the armor change.
- Since (almost) everyone use armor anyway you might as well calculate an average decent good soak value and just reduce all damage values with it directly. I kinda like it actually (but I also don't really like dice pools that are 20+ dice).
Sure, it might get a bit skewed for targets that don't use armor at all (or targets that use super heavy mil spec armor - which isn't in the rules yet), but for the average leather, vest, coat or jacket it will probably work out fine. A lot more fine than most people seem to think right now. In my mind a shadowrunner is not really dressed up in a powered full body. He is walking around with an armored jacked and not even a helmet. In this edition you can totally do it.


No, I am mostly concerned about if tactical advantages (+1 Edge) will be 'enough' of a benefit/drawback mechanic. Will the net result be that you will kill target faster if you use a pistol at melee range or will it still be overall better to use the sniper rifle? Yes you will probably not gain a tactical advantage by using a sniper rifle in QCB, you might even give the opposition a tactical advantage, but maybe it will still be worth it (I guess it will boil down to if higher AV is statistically worth giving up in favor of a tactical advantage or not).

I am concerned that it will not really feel like you gain an actual tactical advantage over your opponent by using a pistol at QCB rather than a sniper rifle (since for example re-rolling one dice will often not compensate for 2-3 higher DV).

I am concerned that giving the opposition a tactical advantage by being nekkid will not really feel like you are at a huge disadvantage (that they get to re-roll one dice because you have very low defense rating might actually have a very little impact on how much actual extra damage you take).


Maybe the more expansive edge alternatives will more than make up for it. I hope so :-)

[Moonshine Fox]

I'm not sure how many game systems you've played, but this is actually a pretty common thing in most of them. Different aspects of the game zoom into the details to different degrees of complexity, and then quickly zoom back out for other aspects of the game. Some games, such as D&D or the FFG version of Star Wars, favor the more zoomed out ruleset while games such as older hackmaster or Aftermath (which I never actually played because holy hell that was needlessly complex).

The real key in a game design is figuring out which parts need zoomed in, and how far. This is something that can change from roll to roll. You also have to take into account the majority of the audience. As several games have found out to their dismay (such as the aformentioned Aftermath), the more complex you make a game out of the box, the smaller your audience is. It is also easier to design for a more simple rule set to start, and then add in all sorts of options to make things more granular, or design the more complex rules like a module that can be easily left out if the players don't want to mess with it. It's a very tough balance to achieve and virtually no-one gets it completely right, which is why optional rules in splatbooks and house-rules exist. Not counting Shadowrun, some of my own personal picks for ones that managed to do it pretty darn good are Deadlands: The Wasted West by Pinnicle games, Dark Heresy (especially 2.0), and Star Wars Edge of the Empire, both from Fantasy Flight Games.

Time will tell of Shadowrun 6th will be in the good range or if it strayed too far afield. Something like that is one of those things that can really only be determined by repeated testing rather then just reading the paper.

@Adzling
Yes, we get it, you don't like 6th edition in any way, shape, or form. An abstract system does not "inherently" lose common sense or reality (Mutants and Masterminds 3rd edition power making), just as being complex does not "inherently" add either of those traits (I'm looking at you Rifts with your weird obliterating finger guns).

[Moonshine Fox]

I kinda like the basic idea behind the new range mechanic.
- A pistol get more useful at closer range than a sniper rifle while a pistol can't even hit targets at all at ranges where sniper rifles start to get really good. I like.
....while in 5th edition a Sniper rifle was always better than a pistol. Even in CQB. The only disadvantage would be that it is fully illegal to use and that it big and hard to smuggle.

Oh Ghost yes! That was something that bugged me to no end in 5th with all forms of longarm, to the point I house ruled it as a player want to do 'point blank sniping' since he munchkin/maxed himself with it.

[penllawen]

I am concerned that giving the opposition a tactical advantage by being nekkid will not really feel like you are at a huge disadvantage (that they get to re-roll one dice because you have very low defense rating might actually have a very little impact on how much actual extra damage you take).

I share your concern, broadly. But I don't think it's quite as bad as you say.

Firstly, you get to choose which dice to re-roll, after the roll has happened. So you can either pick one of your misses, and get a 1/3 chance of turning it into a hit; or you can pick an opponent's hit, and get a 2/3 chance of turning it into a miss. That's not bad! Those are good odds of getting an extra box of damage for your one point of Edge.

Secondly, the naked-or-armoured over/under might well be two points of Edge, not one. I'm not sure what the common armour values are but it seems quite possible that depending on how you're dressed you can swing from gaining a point of Edge (fully kitted up) to giving your opponent a point of Edge (naked). That's a bigger effect than "I do or do not gain a point."

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I kinda like the basic idea behind the new range mechanic.
- A pistol get more useful at closer range than a sniper rifle while a pistol can't even hit targets at all at ranges where sniper rifles start to get really good. I like.
....while in 5th edition a Sniper rifle was always better than a pistol. Even in CQB. The only disadvantage would be that it is fully illegal to use and that it big and hard to smuggle.

Oh Ghost yes! That was something that bugged me to no end in 5th with all forms of longarm, to the point I house ruled it as a player want to do 'point blank sniping' since he munchkin/maxed himself with it.

I always wanted to impose a penalty on firearms in melee equal to their concealability penalty.  Or something like it.

Alas, I play SRM and can't just go and willy nilly house rule stuff I don't like.

I'm excited about longarms sucking in close quarters in 6WE.

[penllawen]

I always wanted to impose a penalty on firearms in melee equal to their concealability penalty.  Or something like it.
...
I'm excited about longarms sucking in close quarters in 6WE.

Same. In 5e, I have an escalating dice pool modifier for weapons in CQC: -2 for SMGs, carbines, and sawn-offs; -4 for shotguns and rifles; -6 for sniper rifles and heavy weapons. Not having that in 5e seems like an obviously broken thing to me.

[Michael Chandra]

You let your opponents get close enough for that to matter? I just shot them through walls.

But yeah, I like how some weapons have poor AR in close ranges. The only possible houserule I see there is 'if AR - (Armor Boost + Cover) is 0 or less, the attack automatically fails'. More math (though only in rare cases) and it means that if you want to Extreme with an Assault Rifle, you'd better pull out every AR-boost you can get.

And we can complain about realism vs non-realism all we want, but the final questions should simply be: Is it playable, and is it fun?

[Xenon]

I share your concern, broadly. But I don't think it's quite as bad as you say.

Firstly...

Secondly...

I guess the point I was trying to make was that the systems they put in place look good to me. That the advantages and drawbacks might or might not be enough (or that they are too much!). I don't actually think advantages and drawbacks are inherently 'bad' per se. I am personally one of the people that are looking forward to this system. It am pretty sure it will resolve a lot faster than looking up different situational modifiers spread out all over the book (and since you can choose when to apply your advantage it also empower the player in a cool way).

....just that since I have not play tested it myself I don't know yet how it will actually turn out, both balance wise from a strict mechanical point of view but also if gaining an advantage or giving an advantage away to the opposition 'feels' like it matter enough (or if it will feel like it matters too much).


Just want to add that you also make an excellent point that I think a lot of people seem to forget; It is not only about trying to gain a tactical advantage over your opposition. You are also actively trying to block the opposition from gaining a tactical advantage over you. If you wish to be successful at that then you need to have better tactics, gear, and ware than your opposition (or at the very least roughly the same).

Not having that in 5e seems like an obviously broken thing to me.

To be fair, one of the freelancers working on the combat chapter reviled a few years back on this very forum that there originally actually was a written [optional] rule about this (based on the concealabilty table), but that it got cut out of before the book went into printing.

You let your opponents get close enough for that to matter?

With movement rules favoring melee as heavy as they do in SR5 it tend to be hard to prevent them from getting close if they wish to.

Or are you shooting them through wall from an off-site location...?

And we can complain about realism vs non-realism all we want, but the final questions should simply be: Is it playable, and is it fun?

Fully agree. I can't wait to try them out for real :-)

I have always been very focused on Matrix rules and this edition seem to have by far the best balance of realism and abstraction while still being super fast to resolve. Super hyped about that.

[Shinobi Killfist]

And we can complain about realism vs non-realism all we want, but the final questions should simply be: Is it playable, and is it fun?

Disagree. Playable and fun is all that matters in a board game. A rpg needs more. Does it help tell a good story, is it satisfying, is there some depth to it so you don’t get bored once you’ve masters the basics.

[FastJack]

And we can complain about realism vs non-realism all we want, but the final questions should simply be: Is it playable, and is it fun?

Disagree. Playable and fun is all that matters in a board game. A rpg needs more. Does it help tell a good story, is it satisfying, is there some depth to it so you don’t get bored once you’ve masters the basics.

I really feel that that could have gone without saying, since the very definition of a role-playing game is that you're telling a story. If you're playing something that calls itself an RPG and doesn't have elements of telling a story, it's not an RPG.

[Shinobi Killfist]

And we can complain about realism vs non-realism all we want, but the final questions should simply be: Is it playable, and is it fun?

Disagree. Playable and fun is all that matters in a board game. A rpg needs more. Does it help tell a good story, is it satisfying, is there some depth to it so you don’t get bored once you’ve masters the basics.

I really feel that that could have gone without saying, since the very definition of a role-playing game is that you're telling a story. If you're playing something that calls itself an RPG and doesn't have elements of telling a story, it's not an RPG.

There is a difference between a game telling a story and rules that support telling the story. If in the game worked a paladin is a holy warrior with divine power and your rules do nothing to reflect that it impedes telling the paladins story.

[Michael Chandra]

And we can complain about realism vs non-realism all we want, but the final questions should simply be: Is it playable, and is it fun?

Disagree. Playable and fun is all that matters in a board game. A rpg needs more. Does it help tell a good story, is it satisfying, is there some depth to it so you don’t get bored once you’ve masters the basics.

I really feel that that could have gone without saying, since the very definition of a role-playing game is that you're telling a story. If you're playing something that calls itself an RPG and doesn't have elements of telling a story, it's not an RPG.

Exactly. That's covered under the combination of playable and fun within the context of a tabletop rpg.