Shadowrun

Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: tenchi2a on <07-12-19/2023:19>

Title: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: tenchi2a on <07-12-19/2023:19>
OK, One of the main arguments seems to revolve around "reality" vs. "fantasy".
I think this is where the disconnect is happening.
The real argument is "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"

1st thru 5th had the power of "suspension of disbelief", because they may have been fantasy but they presented that fantasy in a logical way that the mechanics supported.

1. Both the guns and armor are sci-fi, but they fit the world as presented in a globally logical way. (guns do damage, armor reduces damage or makes the player harder to hit, and better armor provides better protection)

2. Trolls and pixies are fictional fantasy beings, but the mechanics give them form in the world and that form makes logical sense in the fantasy world as presented. (Trolls can soak more damage and due to their str inflict more physical damage with fists and melee, Pixies are small and harder to hit and can get into places that large PCs can't, but are weaker so they do less physical damage with fists and melee)

3. Modifiers effect everyone equally and answer the question of how does darkness effect my character or if I have night vision how does this negate that issues.
(a elf human sam (pistol total: 12) and a human rigger (pistol total: 6) are in a warehouse and one throws a smoke grenade, they both suffer a -6 blind fire penalty. So the Sam is at 6 and the rigger is at 0, the same still has a chance to hit but the rigger is out of luck)"suspension of disbelief"

The problem with 6th is it fails to do these thing and enters the "the uncanny valley" when it tries to explain the world.

1. Armor adds to your DV, and that is it, so if the AR is 12 and your armor+body provides a DV of 0-8 it provides the attacker with +1 edge and any any armor+body that provides a DV  16+ provides the Defender with +1 edge? So lets say you have a body of 3, what is the difference between not wearing armor and armor providing a value of 5.
The answer is nothing, so the PC's gain nothing for this armor and "suspension of disbelief" goes right out the window and it gets even worse when you take into account that if you are already 4 over the AR any more DV is just wasted and we enter "the uncanny valley". So what are players going to do, they are going to find a armor that either always gives them a +1 edge or barring that one that keeps the enemy form getting it, and if that is not possible (body of 2 and no armor that can effective stop them from giving edge) they are going to ignore armor altogether as it will do them no good."the uncanny valley"

2. This one is simple, if a pixies can swing an axe and be as effective as a troll we are already in "the uncanny valley".

3. Same scenario as above: In 6th edition since they are both effected by the same effect "it is a wash" so neither are effected, they both roll their pistol skill (12/6) as if their was nothing wrong? And the rigger has the full use of his pistol: 6. Again we enter "the uncanny valley".

All-in-all, 6th edition has made the head first leap into "the uncanny valley".
This is the major problem with 6th edition, and what people have been complaining about.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-12-19/2040:47>
Some rebuttals for argument's sake (and you clearly want to argue, so why not?)

1) Armor doesn't help like it used to:
Bullet proof vests don't help at all when you're shot in the leg.  Or the face.  In 5e wearing an armored vest somehow magically gives you full body protection.  Granted, 6e is using an "all over" DR, so this is still kind of the case, but the point remains that this is the same sort of magic that 5e employs.  Anyway, I find it well within my suspension of disbelief that the stereotypical armored jacket provides no protection at all if the attacker is reasonably able to make an aimed shot to a part of my body that's both important and not covered by a jacket.

Yes, armor took a HUGE nerf from 5e to 6e. We not only disagree as to whether this is a terrible thing, we also apparently disagree whether this change is within the bounds of reasonable suspension of disbelief.

2) Pixies can hit as hard as a Troll:
So what. 6e isn't the first game where you can leverage your dexterity/agility into being the relevant stat for determining damage. D&D/d20 has had finesse weapons and various feats/enchantments that allow you to substitute in dex bonuses in place of str bonuses.  That doesn't seem to have proven outside the realm of reasonable suspension of disbelief for those game systems.  In fact, I'd consider SR fortunate indeed to have a fraction of D&D's popularity. 

All 6e is doing that d20 doesn't is presume you don't have to expend any character options to sub in agility for strength when it comes to dishing melee damage.  Again on this you and I disagree quite a bit about what sorts of things lie within the bounds of reasonable suspension of disbelief.

3) this topic got a thread locked, so let's not lock this one too.

Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Marcus on <07-12-19/2047:49>
Some rebuttals for argument's sake (and you clearly want to argue, so why not?)

Discussion is the purpose of the forum SSDR. I fail to see how that post is in the wrong. T2A never called out anyone and nothing in that post was hostile or approaching EULA violation. So are feelings just running high after Combat thread?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-12-19/2049:49>
Some rebuttals for argument's sake (and you clearly want to argue, so why not?)

Discussion is the purpose of the forum SSDR. I fail to see how that post is in the wrong. T2A never called out anyone and nothing in that post was hostile or approaching EULA violation. So are feelings just running high after Combat thread?

I said "argue" in the sense of having a debate, not throwing verbal tantrums. You know, "arguing a position". 

Apologies if it appears I meant "verbal tantrum".  I didn't mean to say OP was in the wrong in any way.  Just arguing with him :)
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: FastJack on <07-12-19/2055:59>
Fair warning: I will be watching this thread like a hawk. A single wrong phrasing on either side will result in warnings.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Marcus on <07-12-19/2100:14>

So pretty clearly yes, feeling are running pretty high. I'd suggest coming back to it tomorrow. I don't disagree with your point T2A. The timing is just rough tonight.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: tenchi2a on <07-12-19/2101:25>
Some rebuttals for argument's sake (and you clearly want to argue, so why not?)

Discussion is the purpose of the forum SSDR. I fail to see how that post is in the wrong. T2A never called out anyone and nothing in that post was hostile or approaching EULA violation. So are feelings just running high after Combat thread?

Thank you

Some rebuttals for argument's sake (and you clearly want to argue, so why not?)

Discussion is the purpose of the forum SSDR. I fail to see how that post is in the wrong. T2A never called out anyone and nothing in that post was hostile or approaching EULA violation. So are feelings just running high after Combat thread?

I said "argue" in the sense of having a debate, not throwing verbal tantrums. You know, "arguing a position". 

Apologies if it appears I meant "verbal tantrum".  I didn't mean to say OP was in the wrong in any way.  Just arguing with him :)

Just to be clear I don't think you where "throwing verbal tantrums".
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: tenchi2a on <07-12-19/2103:26>

So pretty clearly yes, feeling are running pretty high. I'd suggest coming back to it tomorrow. I don't disagree with your point T2A. The timing is just rough tonight.

I was writing this for the combat thread before it closed, and did not want to lose it.  ;)

I understand feeling are running high and will comeback to this tomorrow.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Finstersang on <07-13-19/0725:31>
Man, I really don´t want to defend SR6 right now, because I just couldn´t help it, bought the QSR and got really turnt off by the shere amount of editing blunders. And mostly, the 2-Edge-per-round limit, which looks more and more like an (even somewhat understandable) editing/wording error that will likely be never ever corrected and haunt that edition from day one...

But these 3 common talking points need a little reality check on their own. I see some faults in SR6 as well (the most important one is mentioned right at the start), but these are not part of it, or at least not in they way they are commonly articulated. And since they a) are somewhat contestable and b) rooted in some fundamental disagreements about realism VS gameplay, they lead to these extremely lenghty, repetitive and salty debates that tend to overshadow more pressing (and thus, less contested) concerns. F.i. the 2-Edge-per-round blunder isn´t even a question of realism VS gaming: It´s pretty bad from both points of view.       
 
1. Armor and defense values
In your first example, the Armor simply isn´t high enough to offer that person an real advantage against a firearm at a certain range. At a less advantageous range or against a lower-caliber weapon or when using cover, its still worth wearing. And in the other way around, there´s only so much that (worn) Arm can really help. It´s more all-or-nothing than in previous editions, but is that really breaking suspension of disbelief? Especially when compared to the overblown importance of armor in SR5?

It´s also worth noting that it´s apparantly mostly worn armor that gets this treatment. Meanwhile, many supernatural and futuristic perks (spells, augmentations) still offer soak dice, greatly improving their value in comparison to "mundane" means of protection. This mechanically strengthens the core themes of Shadowrun.

2. Pixies, Trolls and Combat Axes

AFAIK, there are no Pixies in the Core rules, so there´s no way telling if a Pixie can even lift an Axe or any bigger Firearm in 6E. Pixies were always contested between Pink Mohawks, Rule Lawyers and Simulationists. Because apparently, you have to exlicitly spell out that a creature that´s only half a meter in size can´t effectively use heavy weaponry and can´t just rely on the player´s common sense here. Well, maybe CGL will do it this time once the corresponding supplements come out. Until then, can we please all take a step back and replace the pixie in this overused talking point with a strength 1 BTL junkie?

Now I´m not too much a fan of the decoupling of strength and melee weapons as well, at least to the extent I´ve heard to far. However, that´s coming less from a realism PoV and more from a gameplay/balancing PoV. It´s weird that Strength is apparently becoming such a dumbstat in 6E, with even things like sprinting becoming an Agility test. However, realism-wise, many melee Weapons and especially pointed weapons like knifes just really don´t rely on the strength. At best, you can use strength to overpower you opponent and force your weapon in their soft bits during a clinch (you know, that old knifefight cliche in movies...). From from what I´ve heard, Strength is still used to determine attack values of attacks with a weapon, so that little "Edge" you get from being a strong dude with a knife is still accounted for.

The suspension of disbelief is higher with bigger weapons like Combat Axes, agreed. A Pixie strength 1 BTL junkie that manages to lift one over his/her head mighty rely on gravity doing the rest and smash it down. But it´s obviously a lot less gracefull and easier to dodge, and strength being part of the AR is probably not enough to properly reflect that. However, we don´t know if there will be stuff like minimal strength to use certain weapons in 6E. And maybe, these kind of "heavy" melee weapons won´t even be used with Agility. 

Now for the part that grinds my gears the most about fixed damage values: Apparently, Unarmed Combat damage is Strength/2. That means that a Strength 10 Troll deals more Damage with his fists alone than with a club, a knife or a combat axe. That is obviously a really big problem both from a realism and a gameplay/balancing POV. Unless you bring in Adept Powers, Bone Lacing etc., being armed should always offer an advantage over being unarmed in melee. 

3. Two girls, one smoke grenade
I´m sorry, but isn´t this an argument for the exact opposite? In your example, the rigger with the default dice pool of 6 would be disproportionaly afffected by a flat dice pool modifier for the smoke. In fact, she wouldn´t even be able to shoot (or at least, hit) at all, since there are no dice left. How´s that realistic?

But more importantly (and I think that´s a key thing to clarify about the edge tossing): Who says that it´s a wash in this case just because both are standing in the smoke? When you defend against a Firearm, you try to keep your head down and try to break LOS. (You don´t really "dodge" bullets in SR, at least not without supernatural perks or aumentations. And even with them, your defense test against ranged attacks is less of a "dodge the bullet" test and more like a "spatial awareness and quick tactical decisions" test). Being in heavy smoke can be a bit of a hindrance when doing so, but it offers also some benefits (breaking LOS) and, most importantly, a shooter is obviously more disadvantaged by the smoke than the shootee defender. So, the defender get´s the edge in this case. case closed.

Things may look different when both are going into melee, if the attacker has thermographic vision etc. Yes, it requires some eyeballing on the GMs part to come to this conclusion. But that´s hardly so bad compared to sifting through the books for modifiers that, when stacked up, keeps everyone from doing stuff altogether.     
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-13-19/0908:09>
2) Pixies can hit as hard as a Troll:
So what. 6e isn't the first game where you can leverage your dexterity/agility into being the relevant stat for determining damage. D&D/d20 has had finesse weapons and various feats/enchantments that allow you to substitute in dex bonuses in place of str bonuses.  That doesn't seem to have proven outside the realm of reasonable suspension of disbelief for those game systems.  In fact, I'd consider SR fortunate indeed to have a fraction of D&D's popularity.

While I understand the general idea you are trying to convey, I still find this comparison to be a pretty false equivalency.

So in SR6, a troll with strength 14 and a combat axe does 5P, while a pixie with strength 1 and a combat axe does 5P.

1). In dnd (I'm going with 3.5 here since I am most familiar), big creatures almost always have more str than small/agile creatures have dex. Using the specific example, trolls have a 23 Str while pixies have an 18 Dex.

2). Assuming both get to use their preferred stat, you then have creature and weapon size to account for. That large trolls 2-handed axe deals 3d6 damage, but that tiny pixie's 2-handed axe deals 1d6. The final damage tally is 3d6+9 for the troll, and 1d6+6 for the pixie.

Comparing the decision to other popular RPGs still leaves the final equation immensely off.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-13-19/0922:30>
Also D&D is a totally different type of game. It doesn’t even attempt to be logical. It’s high fantasy where they are more interested in the build working than any in world consistency.

Characters routinely take blows from 6 ton dragons, giants whose swords are twice their size, orbital drops and walk away and then sleep it off.

Hey feel free to change shadowrun into that. I’ll just play d20 modern.

And even if you are not concerned with any of that  because agility must rule all. Strong people do
more damage in unarmed wtf?  Strength becomes a worthless stat, barely useful for even melee characters and only useful for unarmed characters. Just get rid of the stat if you don’t like to give strong people nice things.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Iron Serpent Prince on <07-13-19/0930:52>
Yes, it requires some eyeballing on the GMs part to come to this conclusion. But that´s hardly so bad compared to sifting through the books for modifiers that, when stacked up, keeps everyone from doing stuff altogether.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Now for the less concrete example.

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

That doesn't mean you leave out any of the ingredients because you expect some users will make their own choices.
You provide all of the ingredients, and if you are actually trying to sell to inexperienced cooks, you even go the extra step of pointing out common substitutions and other changes that can be made.
You trust that when the user is ready - if ever, they will make the changes they want to make the recipe their own.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-13-19/0934:59>
So in SR6, a troll with strength 14 and a combat axe does 5P, while a pixie with strength 1 and a combat axe does 5P.

This specific phenomenon gets a lot airing, and that's what I was referring to, specifically.  Is it less realistic than a hypothetical (Str/2)+X like it was in 5e?  Of course.  But again, so what. The operative word there is "Less", not "Realistic". Even in 5e what were arguably the most effective (certainly popular, at least) melee weapons, Shock gloves and Monofilament Whip, were already ignoring STR.  When it comes to game mechanics, I literally don't care if that feature in 6e is extended from 5e's most popular weapons to all weapons. It doesn't bother me the way it seems to bother other people who are so vocal about it.

Now don't get me wrong.  I still have my grievances with how 6e is doing armed melee combat. I absolutely am hoping for some errata to some other aspects of armed combat. Like you, I'll have to see what comes of the errata process. But rest assured the hypothetical case of an armed combatant with 1 STR is not something I'm concerned about.  (Spoiler: STR won't be viable as a dump stat for a melee weapon user anyway, so that's part of why I don't care about the 1 STR pixie "problem")
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Ghost Rigger on <07-13-19/0941:54>
This specific phenomenon gets a lot airing, and that's what I was referring to, specifically.  Is it less realistic than a hypothetical (Str/2)+X like it was in 5e?
It was STR+X, not (STR/2)+X. People won't take your defense of 6e seriously if you can't even get basic details right.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-13-19/0946:47>
This specific phenomenon gets a lot airing, and that's what I was referring to, specifically.  Is it less realistic than a hypothetical (Str/2)+X like it was in 5e?
It was STR+X, not (STR/2)+X. People won't take your defense of 6e seriously if you can't even get basic details right.

And clearly that sort of DV wouldn't work in 6e given the precedent of what other weapons, such as guns, have, neh?

Since you're not getting what I was saying:
"Is it less realistic than a hypothetical (Str/2)+X MORE like it was in 5e? You know, like EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE ARE PROPOSING (in other threads)"


And if you want to be real, let's be real:
Quote
People won't take your defense of 6e seriously if you can't even get basic details right.

"People", like you specifically, really don't appear to care what I'm saying. What you appear to actually care about is finding ways to disagree with what I say, and I daresay THAT is what makes these 6e threads so toxic.  I could say the sky is blue and you'll find a reason to say no it isn't.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-13-19/0957:53>
Of course it's not. It's always grey in Seattle.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-13-19/1015:55>
But again, so what. The operative word there is "Less", not "Realistic". Even in 5e what were arguably the most effective (certainly popular, at least) melee weapons, Shock gloves and Monofilament Whip, were already ignoring STR.  When it comes to game mechanics, I literally don't care if that feature in 6e is extended from 5e's most popular weapons to all weapons. It doesn't bother me the way it seems to bother other people who are so vocal about it.

And it is perfectly acceptable that it doesn't bother you. No one's playstyle is right or wrong. For me personally, I am not super concerned about "close to life realism", I am more concerned about "does it make sense for the relevant game mechanics?" realism. Shock gloves worked for me because it wasn't about the force of the blow so much as the volts of electricity being conducted into the victim, and monofilament whips not so much about force but about severing molecules it touches. Your sentiment is just not shared by many, at least of those whom have been vocal here to this point.

(Spoiler: STR won't be viable as a dump stat for a melee weapon user anyway, so that's part of why I don't care about the 1 STR pixie "problem")

Unless I overlooked something important it's only because of being grappled being terrible for life expectancy due to lost defense dice. Doesn't matter much if you are able to avoid being hit in the first place.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-13-19/1021:11>
As y'all might remember, in SR5 I had a significant list of possible houserules extracted from debates, even though I disagreed with some. Unfortunately, due to the vitriol tossed around in the SR6 debates, it's impossible to look at the reasonable discontent and talk about what kind of optional rules could make them feel more comfortable.

I hope that after launch we'll get a lot of discussions here that people can post their experiences into, so we can figure some things out. Clearly for some they do want tweaks, so then we can discuss what tweaks would still be balanced in their own way. But given the lack of info and too many angry shouts drowning out any reasonable objections, I can't find any motivation to try for the next two months. :-\
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-13-19/1025:35>
But again, so what. The operative word there is "Less", not "Realistic". Even in 5e what were arguably the most effective (certainly popular, at least) melee weapons, Shock gloves and Monofilament Whip, were already ignoring STR.  When it comes to game mechanics, I literally don't care if that feature in 6e is extended from 5e's most popular weapons to all weapons. It doesn't bother me the way it seems to bother other people who are so vocal about it.

And it is perfectly acceptable that it doesn't bother you. No one's playstyle is right or wrong. For me personally, I am not super concerned about "close to life realism", I am more concerned about "does it make sense for the relevant game mechanics?" realism. Shock gloves worked for me because it wasn't about the force of the blow so much as the volts of electricity being conducted into the victim, and monofilament whips not so much about force but about severing molecules it touches. Your sentiment is just not shared by many, at least of those whom have been vocal here to this point.

And arguably, just as monofilament whips are more about the inherent cutting power of mono-molecular chains, a combat axe can also be more about the balanced weight and (insert technobabble here) cutting edge/alloy of the head.  Yes, granted, seeing equivalency here is willfully picking a side to be on in the suspension of disbelief.  But consider if I'm CHOOSING a side to be on, it's a bridgeable gap (at least for me, since I bridged it...). As far as I'm concerned, if someone else is CHOOSING to not be able to reconcile that within their suspension of disbelief, well that's obviously a choice they're willfully making as well.

Quote
(Spoiler: STR won't be viable as a dump stat for a melee weapon user anyway, so that's part of why I don't care about the 1 STR pixie "problem")

Unless I overlooked something important it's only because of being grappled being terrible for life expectancy due to lost defense dice. Doesn't matter much if you are able to avoid being hit in the first place.

You overlooked something important.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-13-19/1028:19>
I'll admit, for me, seeing a massive bruiser like a troll murtalating everyone with a pool cue while the wired elf can barely knock someone out with one breaks suspension of disbelief for me. Doesn't bother me for movies, but for games, having only STR factor into melee just tastes bad. Muscles are more then just raw power. Speed, flexibility, reaction time, all play a roll in armed hand to hand. SR does a better job them most showing that, but it still falls short. Given same skill level, the bruiser troll and the wire elf should really be doing about similer damage with their improvised staves. The troll sure is relaying all his muscles power to knock people out, but the elf is using his muscles speed to apply force in the same way via basic physics (mass x acceleration).

Plus there's factoring in the material that the weapon is made out of. The above pool-ball-pokey-stick isn't going to be able to take the full force of the trolls strength. It'll snap with the first blow, only dealing damage up to the point it breaks. Any strength force beyond that is wasted for anything other then some scratches down the poor sods body. Personally I always felt melee weapons needed a range of strength that applied to them. A minimum to represent how strong you needed to be to even use the weapon effectively, up to a max were beyond you hit the point of weapon breakage/over-penetration. And that doesn't even take into account weapons that rely more on speed and precision then brute force to do their job. A rapier or whip would favor the wire elf more then the bruiser troll. Putting your fist in someones face does tend to make more use of raw muscle mass then weapon combat (though weapons should still tend to give advantage of some sort). Martial arts rules in a later combat book will probably shake that up too as so many of them rely more on precision then strength, or just turn your opponents strength into your weapon.

We have been told that, while strength isn't factoring into melee weapon damage, it's still used in hand-to-hand in other ways we haven't seen yet. Hopefully in a way that makes it's application more flexible and the various types of melee fightn' can be pulled to the fore rather then just bruisin.

Just my 2 nuyen from the other side of the valley.
Let me make my bean-pole stave-spinning wire-rider frag it!
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-13-19/1033:36>
But consider if I'm CHOOSING a side to be on, it's a bridgeable gap (at least for me, since I bridged it...). As far as I'm concerned, if someone else is CHOOSING to not be able to reconcile that within their suspension of disbelief, well that's obviously a choice they're willfully making as well.

You're not wrong. Preferences are preferences. Speaking for me personally, will it stop me from playing 6th? No. Do I think it's completely ridiculous and terrible game design? Absolutely.

Quote from: Stainless Steel Devil Rat
link=topic=29528.msg519019#msg519019 date=1563024899
You overlooked something important.

Chandra PM'd me what I missed. I am not sure I find it to be a huge deal, but it is certainly potentially inconvenient. It mostly just means that, mechanically, there is no reason to use a melee weapon other than unarmed ever to me.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-13-19/1040:21>
We have been told that, while strength isn't factoring into melee weapon damage, it's still used in hand-to-hand in other ways we haven't seen yet. Hopefully in a way that makes it's application more flexible and the various types of melee fightn' can be pulled to the fore rather then just bruisin.

Speaking from my personal perspective (one of a min/maxer):

1). Strength is barely useful for a weapon user, and then only to avoid one combat maneuver that will cost you a major action to remedy.

2). Strength is great if you plan to be a grapple junky, as the maneuver is quite good both in terms of debuff and crowd control.

3). Strength is great for unarmed builds, only if you plan to hyper specialize in it.

4). Adepts who hyper specialize are an exception to #1, and make #3 even more ridiculous.

A #1 adept will have a damage value of 11 with melee weapons, and eventually tons of attack dice due to improved ability and weapon foci. A #3 adept runs 2-3 more DV, but will lose out on the weapon foci attack dice. These figures are true to out of chargen to after your first few runs. It will just continue to increase as karma accrues.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-13-19/1041:04>
I am not sure I find it to be a huge deal, but it is certainly potentially inconvenient. It mostly just means that, mechanically, there is no reason to use a melee weapon other than unarmed ever to me.

If you're a big scary troll or cybered up big guy, yeah pretty much picking up a weapon just makes you less dangerous.  THAT is something I agree is problematic.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Hobbes on <07-13-19/1041:51>
(Spoiler: STR won't be viable as a dump stat for a melee weapon user anyway, so that's part of why I don't care about the 1 STR pixie "problem")

When does the NDA get lifted?   :P

I respectfully disagree.  I don't know that the mechanical difference between a Str 1 Katana user and a Str 4 Katana user is mechanically meaningful enough to scrounge up 3 stat points, at least *just* for what Strength does for a Weapon user.  Very possible I missed something somewhere though. 

In any case, in actual play Strength 1 Melee characters will be rare anyway so I do agree it's not going to be a real issue.  Strength Augments are cheap and physical characters will be using Strength for Athletics and "other stuff".  And most players don't like the idea of some noodle armed swordsman. 

Someone playing a character inspired by Arya or Hit-Girl may be okay with dumping Strength from a character perspective, but those characters will be uncommon.  Probably.

So I agree a Str 1 Pixie with an Axe isn't really a problem in actual play, but I disagree that weapon users get much use from a Strength investment.  Apparently I'm complicated this morning and would like to argue with someone I agree with. 
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-13-19/1054:11>
I respectfully disagree.  I don't know that the mechanical difference between a Str 1 Katana user and a Str 4 Katana user is mechanically meaningful enough to scrounge up 3 stat points, at least *just* for what Strength does for a Weapon user.  Very possible I missed something somewhere though.

This is where my perspective lands as well. Guns are so much better on anything but an adept, both for damage and range, that making a melee character other than a grappler, adept-weapon user, or troll/adept/troll adept unarmed user is simply strictly inferior.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Iron Serpent Prince on <07-13-19/1121:38>
I am not sure I find it to be a huge deal, but it is certainly potentially inconvenient. It mostly just means that, mechanically, there is no reason to use a melee weapon other than unarmed ever to me.

If you're a big scary troll or cybered up big guy, yeah pretty much picking up a weapon just makes you less dangerous.  THAT is something I agree is problematic.

My off the cuff idea would be that if the melee weapon damage is equal to or less than the Unarmed damage, used Unarmed +1.

It kind of flattens out the curve for weapons in the hands of a brute, so I am not certain it works well.  But at least it doesn't weaken the brute, and it shouldn't let the damage get out of hand compared to the other weapons in the game.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-13-19/1202:03>
it's clear the melee weapon damage codes are an unintended side-effect of having to crunch down the damage codes for all attacks.

with the lower damage codes the melee weapons wouldn't "fit" so they just removed strength from the equation.

it was done for no rational reason other than "gee it doesn't fit in with our new damage codes"

what should have happened is the damage codes for all weapons should have been adjusted to allow melee weapons to factor in strength.

but then that breaks the no armor part of the system.

etc.

essentially it feels like the game designers backed themselves into a corner mechanically then couldn't get out.

that's the definition of bad game design right there.

Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-13-19/1230:21>
it's clear the melee weapon damage codes are an unintended side-effect of having to crunch down the damage codes for all attacks.

with the lower damage codes the melee weapons wouldn't "fit" so they just removed strength from the equation.

it was done for no rational reason other than "gee it doesn't fit in with our new damage codes"

what should have happened is the damage codes for all weapons should have been adjusted to allow melee weapons to factor in strength.

but then that breaks the no armor part of the system.

etc.

essentially it feels like the game designers backed themselves into a corner mechanically then couldn't get out.

that's the definition of bad game design right there.

That’s my impression as well. Once they said armor doesn’t soak they backed themselves into a corner.

That being said just having strength as the dice pool stat would have solved a lot. As well as the dude above who said unarmed damage set a minimum damage for melee weapons.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-13-19/1238:26>
it's clear the melee weapon damage codes are an unintended side-effect of having to crunch down the damage codes for all attacks.

with the lower damage codes the melee weapons wouldn't "fit" so they just removed strength from the equation.

it was done for no rational reason other than "gee it doesn't fit in with our new damage codes"

what should have happened is the damage codes for all weapons should have been adjusted to allow melee weapons to factor in strength.

but then that breaks the no armor part of the system.

etc.

essentially it feels like the game designers backed themselves into a corner mechanically then couldn't get out.

that's the definition of bad game design right there.

Backed themselves into a corner and doubled down on the bad design instead of making a simple tweak of either strength + close combat for attack pools, or the type/size/damage of the melee weapon you can wield being based on strength score. Either solves the issue.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-13-19/1314:59>
I respectfully disagree.  I don't know that the mechanical difference between a Str 1 Katana user and a Str 4 Katana user is mechanically meaningful enough to scrounge up 3 stat points, at least *just* for what Strength does for a Weapon user.  Very possible I missed something somewhere though.

This is where my perspective lands as well. Guns are so much better on anything but an adept, both for damage and range, that making a melee character other than a grappler, adept-weapon user, or troll/adept/troll adept unarmed user is simply strictly inferior.

That doesn’t in itself bother me. Adepts imo lost their niche in 5e. I’m fine with adepts being the only way to compete with guns. Melee normally should be weaker but magic fists being able to bypass it is fine. But I do want the rules to make some degree of sense. When they don’t you tend to spend hours searching for rules that don’t exist. And imo is generally less fun.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-13-19/1323:18>
I'd say 'backed into a corner and doubled down on bad design' is a bit of a hostile label. They made a choice, we don't know the exact motives so phrasing that kind of attack on Catalyst is rather rude. If you want them to listen to your feedback as well, that kind of remarks don't help.

I think restricting certain melee (and ranged: machine guns and launchers) weapons based on Strength might be a neat idea, but again, I'm not discussing any houserules until this forum is past the toxic phase it's going through right now.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Katanarchist on <07-13-19/1351:33>
Assuming Qualities work similarly to previous editions, it seems simple enough to introduce a Quality that would allow a character to factor their Strength into the damage on melee attacks.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-13-19/1413:30>
Assuming Qualities work similarly to previous editions, it seems simple enough to introduce a Quality that would allow a character to factor their Strength into the damage on melee attacks.

They did that with alchemy in 5e. Using qualities as a patch. I have the same opinion with this. You shouldn’t have to pay to get things to work how they should work from default.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-13-19/1430:25>
I’m fine with adepts being the only way to compete with guns. Melee normally should be weaker

I find myself in the opposite camp on this one. Because guns/bows/ect. have the range/cover advantage I usually prefer melee to be slightly more dangerous to compensate for the fact that those characters have to be in the mix and fully exposed in my gaming.

I'd say 'backed into a corner and doubled down on bad design' is a bit of a hostile label.

Hostility wasn't intended, passionate disagreement was. Me feeling hostile would require a sense of personal offense, which is certainly not the case. I could have phrased that better.

Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-13-19/1446:30>
I don’t mind if melee potentially does slightly more damage than guns to compensate for lack of range. But I think overall it should be weaker unless you have a in universe gimmick that makes your melee super powered. Cyber gets some of that but I think adepts should be the true masters.  I want augmentation to wreck the magically active. So at best you break even with a pure adept.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: dezmont on <07-13-19/1522:05>
I think STRless melee could work though. I am in the same boat as 'it doesn't make sense that the average person did so pathetically little damage with melee weapons' when... you know... knives and swords will kill you super dead. Assuming some other melee benefit lands on traditionally strong melee options like having str, it is a good way to solve the problem where swords and clubs are tickle fights, when in the setting they absolutely are not meant to be. Like people say "Melee being bad is realistic" but even if that were true (it is not, there is a reason the marines will ensure you exit with blades 3), it isn't bad 'because it doesn't hurt. The standard assumption is if you get stabbed once you are going to get stabbed lots, and you are going to die. If someone has you at knife point and you are equally trained and auged to them it is super weird and not good that the optimal play is to laugh at them and draw your gun.

Not to mention that it is a huge part of the SR setting that melee IS, in fact, good, and it is good enough that most of the top millitary units of the world dedicate people exclusively to melee combat and muscle powered weapons like bows.

I think there is some 'uncanny valley' in some other mechanics mind. Armor not directly aiding in resisting damage is a big 'what?' and ironically the fact you can ad-hoc it into actually doing that by spending edge to recover health is an even bigger 'huh?' But that is common in most narrative mechanics, I think the reason edge feels weird (Again, noting I have not played with the new edge and this is all gut feel) is that 6e edge is less 'narrative' than other narrative mechanics, which makes a ton of sense because it exists to replace in universe non-narrative situational mods like armor, cover, or bad weather. So you are getting these points not as narrative beats like you might in other games, but specifically for X reason, so its weird when the transfer is... kiiiinda on point but kinda not. Like I buy how my armor helps me shoot back with extra precision more than I buy my armor 'protecting' me because it heals my wounds. I think an easy fix to that though would be using edge to get the chance to auto-buy soak hits rather than heal wounds. Like, yeah that is a really specific problem, but little weird details like that can and do make games weird and almost 'gross' to play.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-13-19/1624:22>
I don't mind STR being there for melee, but I'd also possibly want some way to represent a weapons speed then as a counter. You have a big guy swinging his axe around, he'll hit like a truck, but it takes a lot of effort to move mass like that at higher speeds. While my favorite go to of a skinny stave wielder (I blame the Jackie Chan movies and cartoon) can land several rapid strikes in the time between axe swings. Not much as much damage sure, but more overall blows, something that's not really represented in any of the SR systems. Not really sure how to go about it or if such is even fesable without adding more rolls/rules to bog down combat. Most over systems I know of that had weapon speed rules ended up ditching them after an edition or two.

I think the reason edge feels weird (Again, noting I have not played with the new edge and this is all gut feel) is that 6e edge is less 'narrative' than other narrative mechanics, which makes a ton of sense because it exists to replace in universe non-narrative situational mods like armor, cover, or bad weather.
(If I'm misinterpiting what you're saying I apologize).

I'd put forth that, while not inherently narrative in nature, the new edge rules could be explained in a vareying number of narrative ways. Take the X edge to reroll X dice. You're favorite chummer is getting shot and you want to make that not happen, so you spend some edge and make the attacker reroll those hits. Not narrative in itself, but you could narrate it in different ways depending on what you're playing. If you're a street sam, you put off a quick warning shot across his nose distracting him. If you're a hacker, a quick piece of viral code you've only half compiled. A mage could do a short lived hex. Or it could just be described as dumb luck. A single mechanic could have as many flavors as a luxuray soy-paste dispenser.

That said though, I agree that it's going to lead to some weird really making no sense moments. More open ended mechanics can be great, but that's the downside of them. A strong GM should be able to stop the worst of player abuse though. I do like the idea of buying auto-soak hits as opposed to healing. Basically the same effect, but it helps prevent potential abuse.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: FastJack on <07-13-19/1629:29>
Might the Edge mechanic feeling weird be because we've only been talking about it in Combat situations?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-13-19/1636:09>
Yeah weapon speed isnt a thing in games for the most part. It’s hard to get right. Realistically a combat axe would almost exclusively be a peak human or higher strength weapon because otherwise it would be clumsy slow attacks. Even if you are strong the top heavy aspect creates a powerful attack but it’s hard to recover from. The base AV might help reflect things like this. Like I’d of had the sword and katana do the same damage but the katana with a higher AV. The slashing effect would be in the same ballpark or damage but the katana is a more controlled weapon. The axe high damage low AV since it’s clumsy. Staff medium/low damage high AV.

But I’d say rapid strikes from a staff really is a reflection of strength. Outside the skill half virtually everything you do in a melee is represented by strength. Pushing past a block, speed, force it’s all strength. I guess if I was being pedantic based on how SR defines stats I’d say strength for the dice pool body for the base damage. Strength providing the acceleration body the mass for the force calculation.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-13-19/1642:11>
Might the Edge mechanic feeling weird be because we've only been talking about it in Combat situations?

Maybe. I think combat is where it will be at its weakest as I don’t think it will do a good job representing the situation you are in. That’s because generally I think situational modifiers are actually something that dramatically effect your ability to succeed or fail. Edge reflects more minor challenges imo. That might work better in social situations. Like your sin doesn’t come back as you on a routine traffic stop. Given how many sinless there are that’s not a huge situational modifier so a edge seems to work. But if I give 1 edge for the cop there what the fuck do I give the guard in a high security facility when you try to con your way out of it.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Iron Serpent Prince on <07-13-19/1654:40>
Might the Edge mechanic feeling weird be because we've only been talking about it in Combat situations?

It is certainly possible, but I think it is unlikely.

Out of Combat Edge interactions are just as possibly wonky, if not more so.

Let's take a mid-run Negotiation with a bartender (or whoever) where the PCs need to strike up a deal to get certain information.
The whole thing will need to be tracked in Combat Rounds so that everyone knows when their Edge gain Limit refreshes.
If it isn't tracked in Combat Rounds, the GM might be shortchanging the PCs ability to heal themselves during the talks.
[/sarcasm]
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: FastJack on <07-13-19/1733:04>
See, as a GM, I was always more apt to give a bonus modifier if the player described their actions in great detail, or made them sound very cinematic and added to the story. Too often everyone here is talking about modifiers as only being the ones from the book. Have none of you had a game where you got a modifier for good roleplaying?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-13-19/1736:51>
See, as a GM, I was always more apt to give a bonus modifier if the player described their actions in great detail, or made them sound very cinematic and added to the story. Too often everyone here is talking about modifiers as only being the ones from the book. Have none of you had a game where you got a modifier for good roleplaying?

Occasionally. But people are different some rip that stuff out left and right others are more restrained. It seems like rewarding someone for being a extrovert  and punishing introverts.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Marcus on <07-13-19/1738:54>
So yeah so some day at  a convention someone is going to sit down and want to make make a classic troll street sam, who packs a combat axe and I'm going to have to have explain to them, they want to max body and dump strength, and then they are gonna look at me like I'm crazy. It is basically inevitable that this will happen one day in the not so distant from now.  They have character build workshops at gencon, I hope those are for 5e. If not someone poor person is gonna have to explain this to crowed of cranky gamers several times, best of luck to whom ever gets that job.

Easy solution to this. You could make melee and ranged weapons go against different soak pools. Impact armor and Ballistic armor. Which could also have solved the armor problem right there. I know, I know that wouldn't be as simple. But it's ok to add a little complexity to save me from having to look that player in the eye and explain that strength outside punching grabbing folks has zero value.

Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-13-19/1808:44>
Yeah weapon speed isnt a thing in games for the most part. It’s hard to get right. Realistically a combat axe would almost exclusively be a peak human or higher strength weapon because otherwise it would be clumsy slow attacks. Even if you are strong the top heavy aspect creates a powerful attack but it’s hard to recover from. The base AV might help reflect things like this. Like I’d of had the sword and katana do the same damage but the katana with a higher AV. The slashing effect would be in the same ballpark or damage but the katana is a more controlled weapon. The axe high damage low AV since it’s clumsy. Staff medium/low damage high AV.

But I’d say rapid strikes from a staff really is a reflection of strength. Outside the skill half virtually everything you do in a melee is represented by strength. Pushing past a block, speed, force it’s all strength. I guess if I was being pedantic based on how SR defines stats I’d say strength for the dice pool body for the base damage. Strength providing the acceleration body the mass for the force calculation.

Where does that leave finesse style weapons though? Like or not, Strength has a set definition in most games, SR included of being raw power. Usually a second stat like Dexterity or Agility represents the speed you move. A person may not be able to lift more then 50 lbs, but they can move lighting quick, while the guy who can casually pick up 100 lbs may be slower moving. Making only strength, or strength plus body as the only melee characteristics you cut out sizable number of examples of melee combatants and combat styles.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-13-19/1813:11>
Might the Edge mechanic feeling weird be because we've only been talking about it in Combat situations?

That could very well be. It's ignoring the entire rest of the game and focusing only on the one part of play. Maybe that's because combat in the past took so long?

See, as a GM, I was always more apt to give a bonus modifier if the player described their actions in great detail, or made them sound very cinematic and added to the story. Too often everyone here is talking about modifiers as only being the ones from the book. Have none of you had a game where you got a modifier for good roleplaying?

All the time. And it wasn't just for RP. Coming up with good ideas, throwing out plans, anything that helps contribute to the overall joint story the GM is directing.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-13-19/1831:37>
Yeah weapon speed isnt a thing in games for the most part. It’s hard to get right. Realistically a combat axe would almost exclusively be a peak human or higher strength weapon because otherwise it would be clumsy slow attacks. Even if you are strong the top heavy aspect creates a powerful attack but it’s hard to recover from. The base AV might help reflect things like this. Like I’d of had the sword and katana do the same damage but the katana with a higher AV. The slashing effect would be in the same ballpark or damage but the katana is a more controlled weapon. The axe high damage low AV since it’s clumsy. Staff medium/low damage high AV.

But I’d say rapid strikes from a staff really is a reflection of strength. Outside the skill half virtually everything you do in a melee is represented by strength. Pushing past a block, speed, force it’s all strength. I guess if I was being pedantic based on how SR defines stats I’d say strength for the dice pool body for the base damage. Strength providing the acceleration body the mass for the force calculation.

Where does that leave finesse style weapons though? Like or not, Strength has a set definition in most games, SR included of being raw power. Usually a second stat like Dexterity or Agility represents the speed you move. A person may not be able to lift more then 50 lbs, but they can move lighting quick, while the guy who can casually pick up 100 lbs may be slower moving. Making only strength, or strength plus body as the only melee characteristics you cut out sizable number of examples of melee combatants and combat styles.

Strength is speed. Agility is more hand eye control and balance. Finesse weapons is a d&d construct for a class based system so a character whose class features are based around dex doesn’t get hosed. Shadowrun isn’t a game like that you elect and but individual skills and attributes you aren’t locked into a ability set. and with stats costing the same amount you should be spreading the skill love.

It should be if you want to be peak ranged combat go agility. Want to be peak melee go strength. Want both get decent in both. It’s a game design flaw as designed since 4e since agility is a far more useful stat yet costs the same. It’s just far more obvious of a flaw in 6e due to the melee damage issue.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: dezmont on <07-13-19/1839:08>
I think we are talking about edge in the context of combat because that is easily where the mechanic has made the most changes. Like edge changes to social scenes make them more dynamic for sure, but it isn't a total rework of a major archetype's main upshot in combat. Faces, probably, will be mostly the same in practice. Samurai will now be totally different and while that may be good or bad it definitely creates more anxiety and attention to how edge changes the combat scenes.

Edge in social scenes probably works great, as in social scenes a more abstract generic advantage sneaking up from a totally unrelated exchange makes sense. We kinda already have that already with mechanics like first impression. In combat Edge does clearly feel like a narrative mechanic (In that it gives you a totally non-specific benefit further down the line for you to seize control, in fact 5e edge was a narrative mechanic too, it just doesn't feel as much like one because the tone and style of SR makes it feel more mechanically important as a re-roll system, and changing that was a stated goal of 6e) but it is given in mechanical contexts. You don't get edge for narrative beats divorced from things that advantage or disadvantage you (Like someone stabbing you in your Leg Scar aspect ala Fate) but from interactions of specific, in universe things that always apply or are total GM adjudication but still always hypothetically apply. It is a narrative mechanic, but unlike most narrative mechanics where they aren't a 'law of physics' of the system but instead something someone has to deliberately create a window to 'score narrative points' in SR it happens automatically at the nitty gritty base level of every combat interaction. And this... gets weiiiird.

For example: If Edge is giving you an abstract future benefit somewhat divorced from the context in which you gained edge (Ex: being able to shoot better way down the line well after you got hit to gain edge from armor, or getting bonuses to defense after shooting a totally unrelated guy 4 turns ago) it raises the question: Why do people in universe wear armor?

Like I am not saying NPCs and characters are aware of mechanics, but mechanics serve as an underpinning law of physics that model in universe phenomina. When an NPC puts on armor, they aren't thinking 'this will get me edge to help in a counter attack.' They are thinking 'this will help protect me.' But, as written, Edge does not do that at all, it only indirectly does in a super weird way. So in universe I can accept NPCs wear it for protection, but it really gets weird because I know on an OOC level it in no way actually protects you.

This is why I think people got their Berwick Suits in a twist. In the context of combat, there is clearly something good with this idea (Dynamically gaining benefits or 'charges' used to spend over the course of every combat jives well with the intent to lengthen combat and creates escalation if you are doing well or a deterioration effect if you are not) but it could use like... 5 more minutes in the oven. For example, I get they don't want huge soak tanks anymore (I don't agree with it but I 100% understand why soak tanks can be hard for making this game accessible to GMs used to other systems where the concept of limited character invulnerability doesn't exist) and armor is a key component of soak tanks working (The difference between 'ware making you take 2-3 less DV but still take DV and taking NO dv is huuuuge), but maybe getting rid of soak ENTIRELY from armor was a mistake, or maybe not giving edge soak functions you can spend immediately was a mistake. Like I don't think it adds too much complexity to give armor 'pitty soak' like of a rating of 1-3, or giving it automatic DV reduction, and that would help a LOT with wrapping your head around armor from a verisimilitude standpoint. Divorcing myself from game balance issues (I am still very concerned about samurai PC but it could be that Samurai get the face treatment and basically become a role that naturally hybridizes or they get some other rad stuff) I still feel there is something... off about edge. They probably should have left a FEW situational mods in. A LITTLE soak. Ect.

That said I think while I adore 5e edge and think it actually is a really good mechanic (It is no accident many RPGs have a similar 'get X re-rolls anytime' resource to increase player agency) NuEdge is a decent framework to build on because in theory it can power things. I could totally see, for example, 'ware or gear that is 'edge powered' because it represents things you need to wait for the right moment to use. Murder armor, for example, would be a delightful armor to 'upgrade' coming into 6e by making its effect stronger and making it require edge. I think it is fair to say new edge is weird, but it definitely has merit (Again, looking at it pretending it will be 100% balanced which it obviously won't be because nothing ever is, but assuming it is balanced helps look at what it might do well or poorly if it works as intended). I can see new edge being interesting, but it definitely has... lets call it a weird aftertaste that may get REALLY distracting long term.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: tenchi2a on <07-13-19/1926:07>
On the Armor issues, I was thinking that having armor impose a threshold modifier would fix a lot of the problems.
Like;
Lined Coat, Armored Clothing : +2 to the Threshold
Armored Jacket: +3 to the Threshold
Full body armor: +4 to the Threshold

or if that's to high knock the values down by one each
 
So you just add this to the attack roll and armor has a value in combat.
It's not the overpowered 5th armor.
and it's not the nonexistent 6th armor.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Iron Serpent Prince on <07-13-19/1954:55>
See, as a GM, I was always more apt to give a bonus modifier if the player described their actions in great detail, or made them sound very cinematic and added to the story. Too often everyone here is talking about modifiers as only being the ones from the book. Have none of you had a game where you got a modifier for good roleplaying?

As a rule?  No.

Now, that is objectively a flat out lie.  If there exists some recording of my RP history, there will be examples that I have.  None of them come to mind though.  Part of this is because the modifier might not interact with the game directly (XP bonus).  Even if I restrict the examples to apples to apples type comparisons, nothing comes to mind because getting a +X or -Y to a roll isn't any more immersion breaking than rolling the dice in the first place.

Now, I will admit right up front that I have yet had the opportunity to actually use the 6e Edge system (I like the moniker NuEdge) in play, since we are talking about how the system feels based on what is released so far, the following has some merit - no matter how small.

In my head, this is how I picture NuEdge working in a Social interaction:
Player describes what they are doing / delivers their characters lines.
GM awards a point of NuEdge.
Player:  "Cool, cool!  Um...  What can I do with a point of Edge again?"  Sound of pages being flipped as the player looks up the possibilities.  "Oh, yeah.  Okay.  Maybe I should just save it?"
Other player:  "You won't be able to keep it, unless you are less than your Edge Attribute."
Player:  "Oh, yeah.  I guess I need to use it then, huh?"
The player then proceeds to figure out which effect will provide the most noticeable effect.
Followed by a bargaining period as the player and GM negotiate which effects can be applied to the situation.

At this point, even if I am right, it could very easily smooth out as people get used to it.

But as of right now, based on what has been revealed it feels like all of the chart look ups in Combat have been shifted to non-Combat scenarios.
Will it lessen the overall book lookup?  That remains to be seen.  I dunno yet.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Wolfman65 on <07-14-19/1056:50>
Just my two nuyen :
At the end of the day, if you're running the game, it's your creation, your world. You can elect whether or not to allow pixies at all, and make house rules to govern what they can pick up and use, etc. 
This really sounds like a "munchkin" player issue vs a suspension of disbelief issue. Find better players.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-14-19/1105:37>
... and make house rules to govern what they can pick up and use, etc. 
Hm...

'Cannot gain or use Edge when wielding a melee weapon with 8+ Close AR, or Rifles and bigger ranged weapons.'

and/or

'Any melee weapons with 8+ Close AR, and Rifles and bigger ranged weapons, will count as Unadapted Gear and thus make the Pixie suffer a -2 dice pool penalty on all actions involving that gear.'

with motive

'These weapons are too large to be properly adjusted to a Pixie's small stature.'

Yeah, I can work with that. Thanks for that tip! *notes them down for future*
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-14-19/1106:27>
Just my two nuyen :
At the end of the day, if you're running the game, it's your creation, your world. You can elect whether or not to allow pixies at all, and make house rules to govern what they can pick up and use, etc. 
This really sounds like a "munchkin" player issue vs a suspension of disbelief issue. Find better players.

At the extremes used to illustrate its a table issue. But human decker with a sword hits as hard as troll bruiser with a sword. That seems silly on its face. Without a beefy cyber arm or something on the decker.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: FastJack on <07-14-19/1430:49>
Just my two nuyen :
At the end of the day, if you're running the game, it's your creation, your world. You can elect whether or not to allow pixies at all, and make house rules to govern what they can pick up and use, etc. 
This really sounds like a "munchkin" player issue vs a suspension of disbelief issue. Find better players.

At the extremes used to illustrate its a table issue. But human decker with a sword hits as hard as troll bruiser with a sword. That seems silly on its face. Without a beefy cyber arm or something on the decker.
Kinda explains why Hollywood uses props instead of real swords in movies since it's so easy to hurt someone with one.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-14-19/1440:30>
Just my two nuyen :
At the end of the day, if you're running the game, it's your creation, your world. You can elect whether or not to allow pixies at all, and make house rules to govern what they can pick up and use, etc. 
This really sounds like a "munchkin" player issue vs a suspension of disbelief issue. Find better players.

At the extremes used to illustrate its a table issue. But human decker with a sword hits as hard as troll bruiser with a sword. That seems silly on its face. Without a beefy cyber arm or something on the decker.

Or, to flip it around, it places more emphasis on being skilled with the weapon rather then just happening to be the most roided rager in the room, since unless you know what you're doing you're likely to hit someone with the flat of the blade or misjudge the position needed for a good slice leaving only painful, but otherwise superficial bruises and lacerations.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-14-19/1450:40>
Just my two nuyen :
At the end of the day, if you're running the game, it's your creation, your world. You can elect whether or not to allow pixies at all, and make house rules to govern what they can pick up and use, etc. 
This really sounds like a "munchkin" player issue vs a suspension of disbelief issue. Find better players.

At the extremes used to illustrate its a table issue. But human decker with a sword hits as hard as troll bruiser with a sword. That seems silly on its face. Without a beefy cyber arm or something on the decker.

Or, to flip it around, it places more emphasis on being skilled with the weapon rather then just happening to be the most roided rager in the room, since unless you know what you're doing you're likely to hit someone with the flat of the blade or misjudge the position needed for a good slice leaving only painful, but otherwise superficial bruises and lacerations.

I’ve never been a fan of the attribute+skill system but that is what they have used since 4e where they equally value natural ability and skill. Just being strong or agile or whatever stat you want to use doesn’t mean you have any idea how to strike or parry. It’s why people go so nuts on having high stats they are fairly easy to max and get you a solid dice pool with minimal investment.

I wish defaulting was a bigger penalty and there was a limit too how much of your attribute you could bring to bare depending on your skill. But assuming you do connect you will maximize the damage done not just by skill and good form but the speed gained through strength.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: dezmont on <07-14-19/1530:05>

I’ve never been a fan of the attribute+skill system but that is what they have used since 4e where they equally value natural ability and skill. Just being strong or agile or whatever stat you want to use doesn’t mean you have any idea how to strike or parry. It’s why people go so nuts on having high stats they are fairly easy to max and get you a solid dice pool with minimal investment.

I wish defaulting was a bigger penalty and there was a limit too how much of your attribute you could bring to bare depending on your skill. But assuming you do connect you will maximize the damage done not just by skill and good form but the speed gained through strength.

Mechanics exist to tell a story, they set up the 'laws of physics' of the fiction and encourage people down certain paths.

Attribute focus in SR does a few important things that are subtly integral to how we play SR, and changing that without understanding the work that attributes do would probably be bad.

For one, it isn't an accident that pretty much every major archetype cares mostly about 1-2 attributes (Sam care a lot about agility due to its effects on combat, as well as moving around and stealth, and intuition to a lesser extent because they also are often CYBERNINJAS and perception is important in addition to its use in dodging and initiative, at least in 5e), faces pretty much exclusively care about charisma and thus can branch out to other roles really easy, deckers about logic+intuition, mages about their magic score, ect. This is why non-burnout adepts struggle: Roles are secretly entirely based around attributes that contain a bunch of synergistic skills (Being able to lie and disguise yourself has synergy, gymnastics and sneaking help each other because you can get to weird places and not be noticed sneaking about em, and both help shooting because ambushes HURT in SR, ect), and Adepts are defined by being bad at attributes, which would sorta like being 'bad at having a class' in D&D. They work, but they have to be way more narrow than everyone else and that is why there is such an intense pull towards attribute 'ware: Losing 1 magic to basically have a 'class' is very worth it.

Secondly, attributes help the themes of SR, which include the concept of transhumanism and the inherent unfair advantage transhumans would have. It is sorta a big conceit that someone who is able to literally buy raw talent to the point they pass normal human limitations (AKA push an attribute past their racial attribute max, which almost every PC ends up doing) can transform that difference of capabilities into them being transcendent at basically anything they do. It isn't actually unrealistic to assume someone who has motor control and spatial reasoning so sublime that it bypasses anything an existing human could achieve simply because they are just fundamentally good at getting the pointy end of an object from A to B regardless of the fact they haven't been in a fencing studio ever. The idea that a mundane, unaugmented human literally can't compete with an armored hyper-agile cybernetic monster who sees all of time in slow motion (which essentially makes them a super-intelligence regardless of their actual logic score!) in a domain they are even casually interested in learning about is sorta baked into the setting, it is why HTR exists and why corpsec focuses on being 'button pushers' turning on security systems, sounding alarms, tossing smoke, ect, rather than actually trying to down the samurai.

It is why the game system skews 'basic' actions to the point where it is assumed you are doing things that would be dumb for a modern, realistic human with 3 agility and 3 skill to do, like shooting a gun while literally not even aiming it, which the default SR attack assumes, which is why corpsec are 'bad shots' vs normal unauged human defenders; they actually aren't, having a 30% hit rate vs someone trying to avoid being shot when you aren't even trying to line up your sights at all is actually pretty darn good!

On to the topic of 'str to damage.' There is an... element of strength to damage in 'real life's mechanics' but in reality most weapons are designed to maximize harm while minimizing effort. Like it is 'in theme' for a crazy deadly cyborg to throw a knife or slash with one so hard they can rip through steel and bone, but when talking about the normal human STR range almost all of the damage being done with most edged weapons is the knife's work, not yours. And that knife is going to really mess you up as long as you aren't so weak you literally can't cut through flesh. Same with most blades. Clubs is a bit different but, again, most maces or hammers or clubs really are just trying to get to the speed where they break bones and once you get past that you aren't going to notice much more effect because you already mangled and broke the person you hit. Sure, maybe a crazy killer cyborg should be able to swing a hammer so hard it looks like their target was chopped in half by a meter thick axe, and you need some strength to get that mass moving, but even though blunt weapons ARE doing damage with the college level collision physics of 'speed x mass' or whatever the body does not care past a certain point that most humans already can hit pretty easily. Put another way, a katana can already be fatal wielded by an average joe on a body hit and on a good day literally bisect you. I know that katanas are sorta overhyped blades in real life but it is important to remember that getting slashed with a sword will already kill you super dead even without super strength, like the average person swinging one can sever someone's spine.

That said STR not adding to DV at all does definitely FEEL weird. Realistic does not mean 'a simulation of reality.' To bust out that overused 20 dollar word, despite str not applying to many melee weapons being a somewhat better simulation of reality than assuming a body builder is significantly more deadly with a knife than a couch potato, it isn't verisimilitudinous, it doesn't feel real. Hopefully stuff like str augs will add to DV in the same way how bone lacing still gives soak dice even though soak mostly went away, because it definitely does feel appropriate for super strength to make these weapons unrealistically traumatic. That or there is some other really major strength related benefit to fighting in close combat outside of DV.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Iron Serpent Prince on <07-14-19/1535:36>
Or, to flip it around, it places more emphasis on being skilled with the weapon rather then just happening to be the most roided rager in the room, since unless you know what you're doing you're likely to hit someone with the flat of the blade or misjudge the position needed for a good slice leaving only painful, but otherwise superficial bruises and lacerations.

And professional baseball players have never had steroid scandals because the power (damage) behind swinging a bat has nothing to do with strength....

Gimme a break.

As anyone who has any true understanding of physical combat will tell you, strength, speed, coordination, and skill all play a part in how much damage can be brought to bear.  With simplification being a main goal of 6e, we can't expect anything to come close to accurately incorporate all of those things, the least that can be done is if Agility and Skill are being used to attack, Strength should play a part in damage.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-14-19/1637:34>
Or, to flip it around, it places more emphasis on being skilled with the weapon rather then just happening to be the most roided rager in the room, since unless you know what you're doing you're likely to hit someone with the flat of the blade or misjudge the position needed for a good slice leaving only painful, but otherwise superficial bruises and lacerations.

And professional baseball players have never had steroid scandals because the power (damage) behind swinging a bat has nothing to do with strength....

Gimme a break.

As anyone who has any true understanding of physical combat will tell you, strength, speed, coordination, and skill all play a part in how much damage can be brought to bear.  With simplification being a main goal of 6e, we can't expect anything to come close to accurately incorporate all of those things, the least that can be done is if Agility and Skill are being used to attack, Strength should play a part in damage.

100% this.
Watch any martial videos on youtube (both martial artist / mma and actual medieaval style combat with weapons) and ALL the practioners will expound on the myth of the agile, slight combatant being powerful in combat.

Real ninjas weren't front line soldiers, those were samurai.
There was a reason for that.

Strength, agility, training, armor and weapons working together to make a deadly combatant.

6e tosses strength, armor and weapons entirely out the window, instead relying upon skill, agility and...bikinis.
The mechanics are actually designed to encourage outright silliness, for no real gain.

This is the definition of the Uncanny Valley experience the O.P. was talking about.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: tenchi2a on <07-14-19/1656:33>
Or, to flip it around, it places more emphasis on being skilled with the weapon rather then just happening to be the most roided rager in the room, since unless you know what you're doing you're likely to hit someone with the flat of the blade or misjudge the position needed for a good slice leaving only painful, but otherwise superficial bruises and lacerations.

And professional baseball players have never had steroid scandals because the power (damage) behind swinging a bat has nothing to do with strength....

Gimme a break.

As anyone who has any true understanding of physical combat will tell you, strength, speed, coordination, and skill all play a part in how much damage can be brought to bear.  With simplification being a main goal of 6e, we can't expect anything to come close to accurately incorporate all of those things, the least that can be done is if Agility and Skill are being used to attack, Strength should play a part in damage.

100% this.
Watch any martial videos on youtube (both martial artist / mma and actual medieaval style combat with weapons) and ALL the practioners will expound on the myth of the agile, slight combatant being powerful in combat.

Real ninjas weren't front line soldiers, those were samurai.
There was a reason for that.

Strength, agility, training, armor and weapons working together to make a deadly combatant.

6e tosses strength, armor and weapons entirely out the window, instead relying upon skill, agility and...bikinis.
The mechanics are actually designed to encourage outright silliness, for no real gain.

This is the definition of the Uncanny Valley experience the O.P. was talking about.
+1
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-14-19/1733:17>
Or, to flip it around, it places more emphasis on being skilled with the weapon rather then just happening to be the most roided rager in the room, since unless you know what you're doing you're likely to hit someone with the flat of the blade or misjudge the position needed for a good slice leaving only painful, but otherwise superficial bruises and lacerations.

And professional baseball players have never had steroid scandals because the power (damage) behind swinging a bat has nothing to do with strength....

Gimme a break.

As anyone who has any true understanding of physical combat will tell you, strength, speed, coordination, and skill all play a part in how much damage can be brought to bear.  With simplification being a main goal of 6e, we can't expect anything to come close to accurately incorporate all of those things, the least that can be done is if Agility and Skill are being used to attack, Strength should play a part in damage.

Yeah, hi, near a decade of hand-to-hand training here thank you involving several styles of unarmed and weapons combat. That is why only strength adding to weapon damage (and in fact strength mattering that much at all) pushes it into the uncanny valley beyond suspension of disbelief for me, I've dealt with that difference personally.

And for the other point, steroids greatly boost your bodies ability to build muscle yes, it's why athletes use them. The work-out regime you use is what determines how and what type of muscles are built. A baseball player taking steroids and a power lifter taking them are going to end up with different musculature. They also tend to make one more aggressive, a boon in a large number of different sporting events.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: dezmont on <07-14-19/1834:33>
Regardless of what you think is realistic (I want to note, again, for the record, that it is trivial for a healthy person to cut through bone with a medium weight blade and that strength matters more for overpowering people, breaking their guard, basically punishing your opponent for their low physical limit with knockdowns and throws rather than hitting with insane DVs, it isn't like samurai were bodybuilders and longbowmen were probably more jacked than knights, and don't get me started on how bows were not more deadly than swords, longbowmen were more like weird battlefield bullies who harassed others from an protected position hard to assault and if you tried they would beat you to death with hammers which is the REAL reason they were spooky, jacked peasant assholes were able to beat professional soldiers to death mostly with good tactics and a V formation that was hard to get in on) I think at the end of the day most people can agree that

A: 5e and 4e 'ticklefights' were dumb, because even an average or weak human stabbing you with a knife when you are unarmored should like... mess you up really bad.

and

B: Strength so far not having any effect on close combat is weird too because being strong in a fight IS a big advantage, even if it isn't actually super relevant to raw damage.

5e's martial arts system incorporating str vs physical limit was a SUPER realistic way to make str relevant without requiring everyone to be a troll bodybuilder: High str made it harder to knock you around and render helpless past your armor and soak, allowing you to toss people, trip them, or disarm them, which is a thing strength is important in, even in combat styles that utilize a lot of physics like Judo to make it way easier to ragdoll other people.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-14-19/1849:13>
On to the topic of 'str to damage.' There is an... element of strength to damage in 'real life's mechanics' but in reality most weapons are designed to maximize harm while minimizing effort. Like it is 'in theme' for a crazy deadly cyborg to throw a knife or slash with one so hard they can rip through steel and bone, but when talking about the normal human STR range almost all of the damage being done with most edged weapons is the knife's work, not yours. And that knife is going to really mess you up as long as you aren't so weak you literally can't cut through flesh. Same with most blades. Clubs is a bit different but, again, most maces or hammers or clubs really are just trying to get to the speed where they break bones and once you get past that you aren't going to notice much more effect because you already mangled and broke the person you hit. Sure, maybe a crazy killer cyborg should be able to swing a hammer so hard it looks like their target was chopped in half by a meter thick axe, and you need some strength to get that mass moving, but even though blunt weapons ARE doing damage with the college level collision physics of 'speed x mass' or whatever the body does not care past a certain point that most humans already can hit pretty easily. Put another way, a katana can already be fatal wielded by an average joe on a body hit and on a good day literally bisect you. I know that katanas are sorta overhyped blades in real life but it is important to remember that getting slashed with a sword will already kill you super dead even without super strength, like the average person swinging one can sever someone's spine.

That's a pretty good breakdown of my problems with melee in 5th (and 3rd really).

That said STR not adding to DV at all does definitely FEEL weird. Realistic does not mean 'a simulation of reality.' To bust out that overused 20 dollar word, despite str not applying to many melee weapons being a somewhat better simulation of reality than assuming a body builder is significantly more deadly with a knife than a couch potato, it isn't verisimilitudinous, it doesn't feel real. Hopefully stuff like str augs will add to DV in the same way how bone lacing still gives soak dice even though soak mostly went away, because it definitely does feel appropriate for super strength to make these weapons unrealistically traumatic. That or there is some other really major strength related benefit to fighting in close combat outside of DV.

In a sense, augmentation does give more melee damage, mostly via simple STR augmentation, but different from that is bone lacing directly adding to unarmed strikes. Maybe in 6th they'll add directly to melee damage of various forms, and that would lend to that feel of Johnny Public with STR 4 from his warehouse job, being rather different then the Ancient who got STR 4 by adding in vat grown slabs or powering up with magic.

B: Strength so far not having any effect on close combat is weird too because being strong in a fight IS a big advantage, even if it isn't actually super relevant to raw damage.

5e's martial arts system incorporating str vs physical limit was a SUPER realistic way to make str relevant without requiring everyone to be a troll bodybuilder: High str made it harder to knock you around and render helpless past your armor and soak, allowing you to toss people, trip them, or disarm them, which is a thing strength is important in, even in combat styles that utilize a lot of physics like Judo to make it way easier to ragdoll other people.

In all honestly it'll probably be something I'll forgot for a while at first, being so used to the current way. I didn't know about the martial arts system in 5th. None of my players went beyond basic melee outside of a wondrously used mono-whip so I never read up on it. Now I wish I had for my own characters.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: dezmont on <07-14-19/1912:32>
I gotcha covered (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s4RqCugSDuHiUaVUs8Dk491oasP4r-2U3GQs-JHq9Cg/edit) if you want to go so in depth with martial arts you become a fictional blackbelt. I wrote this in about half an hour during a finals week because someone asked me to 'explain' martial arts and realized I could never drink coffee again or I would be sucked directly into the speed force.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-14-19/2129:25>
I gotcha covered (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s4RqCugSDuHiUaVUs8Dk491oasP4r-2U3GQs-JHq9Cg/edit) if you want to go so in depth with martial arts you become a fictional blackbelt. I wrote this in about half an hour during a finals week because someone asked me to 'explain' martial arts and realized I could never drink coffee again or I would be sucked directly into the speed force.

I somewhat envy you. I can knock back a high-test energy drink and go right to sleep. Caffeine and I are apparently too good of friends.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Singularity on <07-14-19/2143:44>
I gotcha covered (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s4RqCugSDuHiUaVUs8Dk491oasP4r-2U3GQs-JHq9Cg/edit) if you want to go so in depth with martial arts you become a fictional blackbelt. I wrote this in about half an hour during a finals week because someone asked me to 'explain' martial arts and realized I could never drink coffee again or I would be sucked directly into the speed force.

I somewhat envy you. I can knock back a high-test energy drink and go right to sleep. Caffeine and I are apparently too good of friends.

"Hello darkness, my old friend?"  ;D
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: dezmont on <07-14-19/2149:21>
I gotcha covered (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s4RqCugSDuHiUaVUs8Dk491oasP4r-2U3GQs-JHq9Cg/edit) if you want to go so in depth with martial arts you become a fictional blackbelt. I wrote this in about half an hour during a finals week because someone asked me to 'explain' martial arts and realized I could never drink coffee again or I would be sucked directly into the speed force.

I somewhat envy you. I can knock back a high-test energy drink and go right to sleep. Caffeine and I are apparently too good of friends.

"Hello darkness, my old friend?"  ;D

"Hello Darkroast my old friend."

I have pretty bad insomnia already so coffee and me can't ever meet.

Also canine technically doesn't help (normal people) stay up. It just blocks the 'feel tired' chemical from hitting your brain, so if your already about to zonk out it can actually make you sleep.... better?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-14-19/2207:41>
I gotcha covered (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s4RqCugSDuHiUaVUs8Dk491oasP4r-2U3GQs-JHq9Cg/edit) if you want to go so in depth with martial arts you become a fictional blackbelt. I wrote this in about half an hour during a finals week because someone asked me to 'explain' martial arts and realized I could never drink coffee again or I would be sucked directly into the speed force.

I somewhat envy you. I can knock back a high-test energy drink and go right to sleep. Caffeine and I are apparently too good of friends.

"Hello darkness, my old friend?"  ;D

"Hello Darkroast my old friend."

I have pretty bad insomnia already so coffee and me can't ever meet.

Also canine technically doesn't help (normal people) stay up. It just blocks the 'feel tired' chemical from hitting your brain, so if your already about to zonk out it can actually make you sleep.... better?

Yup, blocks the sleepy neurotransmitters from bonding, making them wait in line till the caf leaves before they attack. It’s also a vasoconstrictive and can help reduce the pain of headaches, and increase the pain of cramping. (Hooray chemistry!)
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: BeCareful on <07-14-19/2329:32>
Okay, first of all, making TTRPGs more accessible is generally a good thing: new players can grok it without having to worry about gatekeeping, and keeping all the players engaged during it is fine and dandy. So is encouraging interaction with the setting. Considering it sounds, so far, like SR 6 is succeeding in what it set out to do, that sounds good to me.

My main worry about it is, part of the game's always been about careful planning and research. The fun of it, for me, is learning about what you're going to do, everyone forming a plan, and pulling it off in ways that'll let you deal with something that'd be insurmountable if you took it fairly and head-on.

So, with the driving concept being, "Do A Clever Thing = Get An Edge, Use It To Reroll A Failed Die," would this encourage more of a mentality of, "Let's just charge on in, get Edge by shooting at unarmoured salarymen, and use it to help deal with return fire!"?

Though, to be fair, I haven't even seen the QSR, and it isn't like nobody has taken that approach in previous editions.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-14-19/2333:38>
There is an explicit rule about Edge abuse.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: tenchi2a on <07-15-19/0334:12>
There is an explicit rule about Edge abuse.

It's funny you bring this up.
I was thinking that the Edge system reminder me of another game I ran, so I went looking through my game shelves.
I found what I was looking for, "Shatterzone" the little brother of "Torg" from West End Games, now from Precis Intermedia.
What I was remembering was the Master Deck.
Each PC got 2-5 cards from the deck depending on the number of PCs (1 PC:5 cards, 2-5 PCs: 3 cards, 6+ PCs: 2 cards) that they could use to alter the encounter flow or the game session in general.
Similarities:
1. Cards could be played to add +1-3 to the listed action roll.
2. A card could be used to take initiative, or effect the flow of the round in other ways
3. Cards could be used to negatively effect NPCs.
4. Card would refresh due to certain actions in the round. (one of the main issues with the system as players would forgo real actions to refresh cards)
5. If you had more or less cards then the above limits at the end of the encounter you reset back to the limit.

Now unlike SR6 there was no limit on number of cards gained per round and no upper limit on cards you could hold during an encounter.

But other then that it was strikingly similar.

Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Finstersang on <07-15-19/0831:59>
If Edge really stays limited at 2 points per combat round, the most common abuse of the system will look like this once the players have gotten the hang of it:

"Hmmm, that guy already got his 2 Edge in his own turn. That means that I don´t have to worry about range, cover and armor, and I can use the hardest-hitting Firing mode without any backdraw."
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: FastJack on <07-15-19/1029:43>
If Edge really stays limited at 2 points per combat round, the most common abuse of the system will look like this once the players have gotten the hang of it:

"Hmmm, that guy already got his 2 Edge in his own turn. That means that I don´t have to worry about range, cover and armor, and I can use the hardest-hitting Firing mode without any backdraw."
2 Edge gained per combat round. They don't have to spend it, extra Edge is gone after the encounter.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-15-19/1048:18>
True, but with that restriction you can indeed go 'this guy's already received 2 Edge this turn, let's go wild'. But then again, that also means your party sucks...
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-15-19/1058:54>
If Edge really stays limited at 2 points per combat round, the most common abuse of the system will look like this once the players have gotten the hang of it:

"Hmmm, that guy already got his 2 Edge in his own turn. That means that I don´t have to worry about range, cover and armor, and I can use the hardest-hitting Firing mode without any backdraw."

Let me preface the following with the knowledge that I am not much of a fan of the new edge system, primarily because I find it a little busy for the overall drab return.

That said, I personally can't think of a reason to ever not use the hardest hitting firing mode. +2 DV for you, +1 edge for them, but I am not convinced giving them an edge is a big deal. From a min/maxer perspective using a 1 point burn against your attack is unlikely to change the result by more than 1 DV, and if they planned to spend a large amount of edge in an attempt to drastically alter the outcome of the shot they were going to do that anyhow, and likely could without the one boost.

Because it it much harder to defend yourself in this edition than 5th, the new edge system really took the teeth out of trying to use it to protect your character. It's far more efficient to spend it making damn sure the thing you need dead dies rather than surviving the thing you need dead.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-15-19/1112:32>
Long live defensive actions. Definitely going to make good use of those with higher-PR enemies.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-15-19/1133:43>
Long live defensive actions. Definitely going to make good use of those with higher-PR enemies.

I expect Block and Dodge will get used a lot on fighting characters, though Full Defense is only likely to see the light of day when grossly outnumbered/outmatched or on characters with 4+ initiative dice.

It just makes melee characters even rougher.

- You are the most exposed character type.
- You need actions to move and defend yourself.
- If you move to get in range to attack you can't Avoid Incoming to get away from AoE (and a grenade will kill you, period).

Since "we" are apparently just unable to allow a defense test against non-spell AoE (good lord people why!?), the very least they could have done was allow Avoid Incoming to be used once per round even after previous movement not from that action.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-15-19/1205:20>
I’m pretty much banning grenades until I can come up with a house rule that makes them usable. I don’t know why they are so obsessed with them. Grenades doing more damage than a full auto 50cal hitting you with multiple net hits and that’s with the grenade landing  a few meters away. Apparently you are throwing mini nukes at people. No defense test but you can minor action to move away. To which I say what happens when they shoot the second grenade.

So at least melee characters won’t have to worry about saving a minor to deal with that in my game.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-15-19/1212:24>
I do not mind the huge damage rating as much as I mind characters not getting a defense test to avoid them. That is all of unbalanced, unfair, and unfun, none of which are traits I look for in my gaming.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-15-19/1237:42>
I do not mind the huge damage rating as much as I mind characters not getting a defense test to avoid them. That is all of unbalanced, unfair, and unfun, none of which are traits I look for in my gaming.

Both bother me. I don’t want pcs doing massive damage with 1 net hit. I don’t want the pcs to eat massive damage with 1 net hit. So even if a dodge was provided it’s too much. I’m assuming there is some threshold to land it like in 5e which will be fairly easily obtainable by small amounts of investment.

And yes not getting a defense test just isn’t fun, it also doesn’t make much sense  small amounts of distance from a grenade greatly increases your chance to not Only survive but come out unscathed.  That kind of distance that can be abstracted to standard defensive maneuvering. My instinct is to 1/2 the damage standard defense test and allow net hits to scale damage up like normal. If you miss the person takes 1/2 damage for the range bracket they are in from the explosion or hell just nothing. Grenades don’t hit everything in the blast.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-15-19/1254:31>
...I’m assuming there is some threshold to land it like in 5e...

You'll want to abandon that assumption.

EDIT:
As I said upthread: yes you can potentially suffer that first DV value, but you probably won't.  The 2nd and 3rd DV values are what's really relevant in a practical sense.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-15-19/1335:21>
It's all about scatter now. A grenade thrown from a competent thrower is highly unlikely to miss the intended target. The main target (and anyone within their arm's reach) will take 16, anyone within 3m of them 12, and anyone within 20m 8.

They are still dirt cheap too, so that character with at least 4 minor actions is pretty much guaranteed to kill the guy of their choice for 300 nuyen.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-15-19/1345:07>
Well, if you're close enough to be reliably on target, you're close enough to be blowing yourself up as well.  Generally you want to throw grenades a good ways AWAY from yourself :D
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-15-19/1353:10>
Note to self: Consider allowing Intercept with an Edge action to fire a grenade out of the hand when throwing.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-15-19/1359:12>
Well, if you're close enough to be reliably on target, you're close enough to be blowing yourself up as well.  Generally you want to throw grenades a good ways AWAY from yourself :D

Truth! But you can make a specialist out of chargen that will statistically break even on the scatter chart at medium range. 21 dice (11 agility, 7 athletics, 1 reflex recorder, 2 specialization) averages 7 hits vs. the 2d6 scatter average.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: BeCareful on <07-15-19/1403:17>
So, I'm glad there's a rule about Edge abuse, and even though I also don't know how grenades and avoiding them work in 6, I know how they work in 5. Here's hoping all the ways to deal with them will be in 6 Core (and it sounds as if they will be).

Anyway, a thing I read here once is that grenades (especially high-explosive ones), when brought up against the Barrier rules, can not only destroy nearly every cubicle in its blast radius, it can also blow apart cheap walls and even flooring.

So the question of, "Do you really want to cause indiscriminate property damage?" will cause people to pack flash-bangs instead. Or just save grenades for the Really Dangerous Stuff.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-15-19/1407:57>
yeah... if you want to hyperspecialize in grenade throwing, I don't see an issue.  Anything you can count on that many hits in OUGHT to work... but with grenades you're STILL gambling after hyperspecialization.

And it's a crazy thing to hyperspecialize in anyway... it's so situationally relevant.  It's not the sort of thing you can rely on anyway in "normal" circumstances.  Hello, chemsniffer rules.  Hello, Heat rules.  There are far more shadowrun-friendly tactics to hyperspecialize in.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-15-19/1425:11>
But are they as fun!? :p

I certainly wouldn't recommend it across the board, but having one such character would be a blast. Blast. . .get it. . .I kill myself.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-15-19/1428:00>
...I’m assuming there is some threshold to land it like in 5e...

You'll want to abandon that assumption.

EDIT:
As I said upthread: yes you can potentially suffer that first DV value, but you probably won't.  The 2nd and 3rd DV values are what's really relevant in a practical sense.

Even if it’s hard to get to a dice pool to counter the point blank effect 12 for close is just crazy. A heavy machine gun on full auto needs 3 net hits to get there. Grenade a few meters away, or 10 50 cal rounds center mass. Which is worse.

Seriously why does the design team thing grenades are the most dangerous weapon in the universe.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Iron Serpent Prince on <07-15-19/1429:39>
Anyway, a thing I read here once is that grenades (especially high-explosive ones), when brought up against the Barrier rules, can not only destroy nearly every cubicle in its blast radius, it can also blow apart cheap walls and even flooring.

So the question of, "Do you really want to cause indiscriminate property damage?" will cause people to pack flash-bangs instead. Or just save grenades for the Really Dangerous Stuff.

Don't count on that being a factor.

While all of the GMs I have ever played under (regardless of rules system) have, at the very least, a working knowledge of the rules the vast majority do not know drek about "the real world."

Bear in mind, must people get their knowledge from the movies (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsA-ZrGpR-Y) where kitchen cabinets are bulletproof.

Unless the 6e rules blattantly, and in plain language, declare that grenades cause catastrophic collateral damage, it will hardly be enforced.  I mean, I often come across GMs who swear that standard hollow "stick" build dryway walls stop bullets.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-15-19/1436:34>
...
Seriously why does the design team thing grenades are the most dangerous weapon in the universe.

It's not like Grenades' massive damage compared to guns is a new thing to 6e.

They were ridiculously OP in 5e.  If anything, they've been toned down since 5e.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-15-19/1438:36>
Well, if you're close enough to be reliably on target, you're close enough to be blowing yourself up as well.  Generally you want to throw grenades a good ways AWAY from yourself :D

Truth! But you can make a specialist out of chargen that will statistically break even on the scatter chart at medium range. 21 dice (11 agility, 7 athletics, 1 reflex recorder, 2 specialization) averages 7 hits vs. the 2d6 scatter average.
Average rolls meaning no scatter is not the same as average no scatter. :P 2d6 and 21 dice eh... 44% at scatter, average 1.3 scatter so that's average 3m when there's scatter? And 2/9 chance at 3+ scatter.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-15-19/1440:00>
...
Seriously why does the design team thing grenades are the most dangerous weapon in the universe.

It's not like Grenades' massive damage compared to guns is a new thing to 6e.

They were ridiculously OP in 5e.  If anything, they've been toned down since 5e.

Yeah it was terrible in 5e as well. I had hoped they’d have realized how bad it was by now.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: BeCareful on <07-15-19/1453:33>
Anyway, a thing I read here once is that grenades (especially high-explosive ones), when brought up against the Barrier rules, can not only destroy nearly every cubicle in its blast radius, it can also blow apart cheap walls and even flooring.

So the question of, "Do you really want to cause indiscriminate property damage?" will cause people to pack flash-bangs instead. Or just save grenades for the Really Dangerous Stuff.

Don't count on that being a factor.

While all of the GMs I have ever played under (regardless of rules system) have, at the very least, a working knowledge of the rules the vast majority do not know drek about "the real world."

Bear in mind, must people get their knowledge from the movies (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsA-ZrGpR-Y) where kitchen cabinets are bulletproof.

Unless the 6e rules blattantly, and in plain language, declare that grenades cause catastrophic collateral damage, it will hardly be enforced.  I mean, I often come across GMs who swear that standard hollow "stick" build dryway walls stop bullets.

Aw, really? I thought it was a popular tactic to share a micro-drone's feed/camera in your helmet/ ARO on a traced persona or something, and shoot your target through a wall. If you buy hits for barriers, the gunshot might do 2 or 3 less DV, but your target won't get a defense test!
I mean, it is easier, for simplicity's sake, to treat walls as indestructible unless you're intentionally trying to destroy one, but it's also more fun to show the destructive aftermath of these surprisingly dangerous explosives.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-15-19/1502:21>
They were ridiculously OP in 5e.  If anything, they've been toned down since 5e.

They were very manageable in 5e because armor was actually armor. While the damage might have been toned down it is irrelevant because soak capacity has been eliminated, not just toned down.

Average rolls meaning no scatter is not the same as average no scatter. :P 2d6 and 21 dice eh... 44% at scatter, average 1.3 scatter so that's average 3m when there's scatter? And 2/9 chance at 3+ scatter.

Sure. If that probability is not sufficient for someone though make an elf adept instead, net another 3-4ish dice, and it will make the auto kill more reliable. That's just out of chargen too, you have another 3 dice coming from athletics raises.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-15-19/1502:54>
I've done that tactic, and so have my players. And yeah, in SR5 walls easily came down inside offices and such. Not sure about SR6, would have to check the numbers.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Banshee on <07-15-19/1506:30>
Anyway, a thing I read here once is that grenades (especially high-explosive ones), when brought up against the Barrier rules, can not only destroy nearly every cubicle in its blast radius, it can also blow apart cheap walls and even flooring.

So the question of, "Do you really want to cause indiscriminate property damage?" will cause people to pack flash-bangs instead. Or just save grenades for the Really Dangerous Stuff.

Don't count on that being a factor.

While all of the GMs I have ever played under (regardless of rules system) have, at the very least, a working knowledge of the rules the vast majority do not know drek about "the real world."

Bear in mind, must people get their knowledge from the movies (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsA-ZrGpR-Y) where kitchen cabinets are bulletproof.

Unless the 6e rules blattantly, and in plain language, declare that grenades cause catastrophic collateral damage, it will hardly be enforced.  I mean, I often come across GMs who swear that standard hollow "stick" build dryway walls stop bullets.

total tangent ...

amen ... bugs me to no fraggin end when players want to try and break in somewhere using the HVAC duct or sewers, etc ... not fraggin possible!!!! on the flipside though I have used  my real world knowledge to break a few GM's when I have had the chance to play by bypassing a security door by going through the wall right next to it (just need them to look up the barrier ratings of a standard wall vs a security door)
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Hobbes on <07-15-19/1638:43>
Buildings, surprisingly fragile.  Ask any Sledgehammer. 
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-15-19/1654:42>
Shadowrun where 2ounces of explosive in a metal ball does more structural damage than 4 bricks of c4 carefully placed for maximum destruction.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Finstersang on <07-15-19/1655:43>
If Edge really stays limited at 2 points per combat round, the most common abuse of the system will look like this once the players have gotten the hang of it:

"Hmmm, that guy already got his 2 Edge in his own turn. That means that I don´t have to worry about range, cover and armor, and I can use the hardest-hitting Firing mode without any backdraw."
2 Edge gained per combat round. They don't have to spend it, extra Edge is gone after the encounter.

I´m not sure if a) you have misunderstood what I was talking to about or b) if your answer, (especially the amphasis on gaining) includes the official(?) solution to the problem I was pointing at.

Here´s a more detailed example, to make it perfectly clear:

So let´s assume the following scene. There´s a big firefight going on. Ronnie the Streetsam is going against 4+ members of a street gang, all armed with Machine Pistols. Because of his superiour reflexes, Ronnie goes first; and because of his clever use of tactical circumstances and gear and by picking the right target, he managed to earn 2 Edge on his attack, which he spend right away to increase his chance to hit (for the sake of brevity, Ronnie only has one attack in this instance).

Now the gangers shoot back, one after another. An lo an behold: Because Ronnie already earned two Edge, he can´t get any more Edge from these Attacks, until the end of the round. Which means that the gangers don´t have to worry about probably being in a disadvantageous position or at an unvavorable range or about the recoil thats modelled into the AR reduction for firing bursts. All these negative circumstances are only represented by potentially giving the target an Edge (instead of modifiers like in previous editions). If the target has already already earned 2 Edge for the round, they are completely ignored.

That 2-Edge-Limit is by far the biggest problem of the edge system interacting with combat, and TBH, I´m pretty bemused about how many people (and especially CGL employees) either don´t seem to understand this problem, have contradicting interpretations or think that this is something that´s not going to happen often enough to make a real difference. It will happen. It will happen a lot. 2 Edge is earned pretty quick in any moderately complex fight, given all the different perks and circumstances that can grant you Edge in your andyour opponents turn. And it´s going to happen even more once people understand and start to abuse it. It´s a gamebreaking flaw in the core mechanic of SR6. 

However, for the two possible solutions to this, both of which might actually be RAI all along:

And this last part is why I´m so eager about this issue. I´m almost 100% GM, I can always just houserule this myself. But in this case, it looks a lot like this bad rule isn´t even bad by design, but by accident.   
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-15-19/1705:31>
Now the gangers shoot back, one after another.

This is the flaw in your analysis.  Ronnie's only facing 1 attack if 4 gangers are all shooting at him.  It's a 5e assumption to resolve each ganger's attack separately.  As a reminder, this WAS demonstrated in the SCN actual play.  Even if the attacks are from dissimilar sources (in that case, Demon rats and Devil rats) if they're all on the same target they're all rolled into one combined attack.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-15-19/1715:50>
Now the gangers shoot back, one after another.

This is the flaw in your analysis.  Ronnie's only facing 1 attack if 4 gangers are all shooting at him.  It's a 5e assumption to resolve each ganger's attack separately.  As a reminder, this WAS demonstrated in the SCN actual play.  Even if the attacks are from dissimilar sources (in that case, Demon rats and Devil rats) if they're all on the same target they're all rolled into one combined attack.

I’m not sure that’s a flaw in his analysis. So the whole group ignores tactics and fires as one. The situation seems the same. And I assume they have to be pretty close. If the gangers had a technomancer and a mage somehow I don’t think you’d roll the technomancers attempt to hack his cyber into the dudes shooting away with uzis. Yeah instead of not gaining 4 edge for 4 separate attacks he doesn’t gain 1 for one combined attack but he still doesn’t get edge to represent the combat situation.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-15-19/1726:16>
I guess we just disagree then.

A) Missing out on 4 edge is indeed a bigger deal than missing out on 1 edge.  Now, it's possible that the wording will change for edge gain per action, but even if it doesn't...

B) If you already gained 2 edge on your own action, odds are good that you're outclassing the opposition.  You likely won't need that 1 edge you missed due to the edge gain cap.

C) You still have the capacity to infinitely deny edge. Ensuring the other guy(s) don't gain edge is usually at least as important as whether you gain it yourself. Let's face it.. usually when PCs face NPCs the NPCs are all in a case of use or lose on their edge.  They won't need to conserve edge expenditure for the "next scene".  Since they can spend it more freely, you're going to be concerned with preventing them from gaining any more of it.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-15-19/1737:36>
Well, if you're close enough to be reliably on target, you're close enough to be blowing yourself up as well.  Generally you want to throw grenades a good ways AWAY from yourself :D

M-203 I CHOOSE YOU!! *bloop*
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-15-19/1746:31>
Well, if you're close enough to be reliably on target, you're close enough to be blowing yourself up as well.  Generally you want to throw grenades a good ways AWAY from yourself :D

M-203 I CHOOSE YOU!! *bloop*

An inherently sensible solution to the "nuclear hand grenade" conundrum.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-15-19/1751:08>
Just get yourself an RG-6 and make your opponents team go away. Or get one of the belt fed MK-19 grenade launchers and make the opposing team, the building they're in, and the hill it's on go away. Because nothing succeeds like excess!
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-15-19/1754:35>
I guess we just disagree then.

A) Missing out on 4 edge is indeed a bigger deal than missing out on 1 edge.  Now, it's possible that the wording will change for edge gain per action, but even if it doesn't...

B) If you already gained 2 edge on your own action, odds are good that you're outclassing the opposition.  You likely won't need that 1 edge you missed due to the edge gain cap.

C) You still have the capacity to infinitely deny edge. Ensuring the other guy(s) don't gain edge is usually at least as important as whether you gain it yourself. Let's face it.. usually when PCs face NPCs the NPCs are all in a case of use or lose on their edge.  They won't need to conserve edge expenditure for the "next scene".  Since they can spend it more freely, you're going to be concerned with preventing them from gaining any more of it.

Yes 4 is bigger than 1. That doesn’t make the loss of one good.

Whether you outclass them or not the cap motivates narrative breaking displays on both sides.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-15-19/1758:22>
Whether you outclass them or not the cap motivates narrative breaking displays on both sides.

Yep, we still disagree.

Even if you're capped on edge gain, it's still always relevant to do what you can to ensure the other guys don't get theirs.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-15-19/1800:18>
Anyway, a thing I read here once is that grenades (especially high-explosive ones), when brought up against the Barrier rules, can not only destroy nearly every cubicle in its blast radius, it can also blow apart cheap walls and even flooring.

So the question of, "Do you really want to cause indiscriminate property damage?" will cause people to pack flash-bangs instead. Or just save grenades for the Really Dangerous Stuff.

Don't count on that being a factor.

While all of the GMs I have ever played under (regardless of rules system) have, at the very least, a working knowledge of the rules the vast majority do not know drek about "the real world."

Bear in mind, must people get their knowledge from the movies (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsA-ZrGpR-Y) where kitchen cabinets are bulletproof.

Unless the 6e rules blattantly, and in plain language, declare that grenades cause catastrophic collateral damage, it will hardly be enforced.  I mean, I often come across GMs who swear that standard hollow "stick" build dryway walls stop bullets.

total tangent ...

amen ... bugs me to no fraggin end when players want to try and break in somewhere using the HVAC duct or sewers, etc ... not fraggin possible!!!! on the flipside though I have used  my real world knowledge to break a few GM's when I have had the chance to play by bypassing a security door by going through the wall right next to it (just need them to look up the barrier ratings of a standard wall vs a security door)

One of the best disguises you can have going into a place is a hardhat, a high-vis vest, and a clipboard with papers. Act like you know where you're going and what your supposed to be doing and no-one will question you. Also, AR games. No joke a friend of mine does pen-testing on facilities and had a guard demand to know what he was doing when taking pictures of their keypads. Friend paused for a moment, the said 'It's all good, caught the pikachu', and the guard let him go without any more questions.

When in doubt, just bluff like hell!
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: FastJack on <07-15-19/1815:01>
I'm just pointing out that you gain Edge every round, up to a max of seven for the encounter. So, if the fight lasts longer than a round, unless they have beat you to a pulp in the first round and you glitched all the dice, you should be getting more edge in the next round (and the opponents won't ever gain any, since you have advantages).

Now, if you're going after professionals, and not go-gangers, Edge probably won't be as free-flowing, so it should be much more dramatic on the back and forth.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Finstersang on <07-15-19/1912:01>
No question, the grunt rules are a fine addition and yes, they help take off the Edge take the sting out of this problem (praise the mighty thesaurus...), but only in this specific situation with the gangers. With a diversified opposition, the problem is just as bad. Not to mention that it can also work the other way around. PCs usually don´t employ grunt rules, I assume ;) 

I guess we just disagree then.

A) Missing out on 4 edge is indeed a bigger deal than missing out on 1 edge.  Now, it's possible that the wording will change for edge gain per action, but even if it doesn't...

B) If you already gained 2 edge on your own action, odds are good that you're outclassing the opposition.  You likely won't need that 1 edge you missed due to the edge gain cap.

C) You still have the capacity to infinitely deny edge. Ensuring the other guy(s) don't gain edge is usually at least as important as whether you gain it yourself. Let's face it.. usually when PCs face NPCs the NPCs are all in a case of use or lose on their edge.  They won't need to conserve edge expenditure for the "next scene".  Since they can spend it more freely, you're going to be concerned with preventing them from gaining any more of it.

First, we´re talking about potentially 2 Edge, 1 from the AR-DR-Comparison and 1 from circumstances/gear etc. And that´s for each Action taken against the character in question. If the gangers, well, gang up for their attack, it´s "just" 2 Edge max., but if there are more attacking parties, many more Edge Tokens will fall victim to the cap.   

Second, it´s not just a question if it´s needed (and of course it is. I mean, this whole system revolves around egde), but what this lost point of Edge represents mechanically. It represents environmental conditions as well as the gear and perks to mitigate them. It represents range, armor, cover and recoil. It represents almost everything, safe for a few things that are still factored in through good ol´dice pool modfiers, like injuries. That´s all gone once that arbitrary cap is met. And while it´s true that you can still deny Edge: What is the point of f.i. choosing good armor and cover when you could have the same effect (no Edge for either side) with mediocre values?  Also what happens when both sides reach the limit? In this case, even Edge denial doesn´t work.   

It´s pretty much a Limit on gameplay depth. And despite that, it somehow doesn´t even make combat management easier, but slightly more complicated, because you have to keep an eye on the limit for every Edge pool over the course of the whole combat round.

I´ve heard some rationalisations why the problems coming from this rule (which likely wasn´t even conceived and playtested that way) are, sometimes, not so bad. But what good does it even do? What´s the actual purpose of this limit as it is right now?   
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Marcus on <07-15-19/2003:42>
I'm just pointing out that you gain Edge every round, up to a max of seven for the encounter. So, if the fight lasts longer than a round, unless they have beat you to a pulp in the first round and you glitched all the dice, you should be getting more edge in the next round (and the opponents won't ever gain any, since you have advantages).

Now, if you're going after professionals, and not go-gangers, Edge probably won't be as free-flowing, so it should be much more dramatic on the back and forth.

What? I though it was already said you could have more edge then your edge score it was simply that anything in excess would be lost at the beginning of the next encounter. Are you saying there is a still another hard cap on edge generation?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-15-19/2013:47>
There's the hard cap of 7, yes. If your EDG stat is less than 7 You can still go up to 7. If your EDG is 7 then you can't go over your EDG stat.

As for why TPTB made edge gains capped at 2/round instead of 2/action... I have no knowledge.  I assume it was perceived to be necessary to slow down edge replenishment.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-15-19/2038:45>
It´s pretty much a Limit on gameplay depth. And despite that, it somehow doesn´t even make combat management easier, but slightly more complicated, because you have to keep an eye on the limit for every Edge pool over the course of the whole combat round.

I´ve heard some rationalisations why the problems coming from this rule (which likely wasn´t even conceived and playtested that way) are, sometimes, not so bad. But what good does it even do? What´s the actual purpose of this limit as it is right now?

+1
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Marcus on <07-15-19/2203:14>
There's the hard cap of 7, yes. If your EDG stat is less than 7 You can still go up to 7. If your EDG is 7 then you can't go over your EDG stat.

As for why TPTB made edge gains capped at 2/round instead of 2/action... I have no knowledge.  I assume it was perceived to be necessary to slow down edge replenishment.

So no kidding if your combat runs 4 turns you will no longer generate edge? Are you serious? They are betting this whole edition on a system that stops working in turn 4? Further the 2/action to 2/round is actually intended? Even knowing that is not what was play testers wanted or said worked?

Man every time I think 6e isn't that bad something new is released, and we reach new depths.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-15-19/2220:43>
There's the hard cap of 7, yes. If your EDG stat is less than 7 You can still go up to 7. If your EDG is 7 then you can't go over your EDG stat.

As for why TPTB made edge gains capped at 2/round instead of 2/action... I have no knowledge.  I assume it was perceived to be necessary to slow down edge replenishment.

So no kidding if your combat runs 4 turns you will no longer generate edge? Are you serious? They are betting this whole edition on a system that stops working in turn 4? Further the 2/action to 2/round is actually intended? Even knowing that is not what was play testers wanted or said worked?

Man every time I think 6e isn't that bad something new is released, and we reach new depths.

No, the cap is 7 edge held at once, not 7 edge earned in total over the course of an encounter. So long as you keep spending edge, you can keep earning back up to the hard cap.

Given the complaints about how "abusive" edge actions are, I'd have thought you'd have welcomed a ceiling on how much edge you're allowed to have at once. 7 edge is a perfect value to prevent healing 2 boxes of physical damage at once, for example.  Imagine what'd it'd be like dropping 16-20 edge at once.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: FastJack on <07-15-19/2329:16>
This is all listed in the QSR of the Beginner Box Set.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Marcus on <07-16-19/0107:02>
No, the cap is 7 edge held at once, not 7 edge earned in total over the course of an encounter. So long as you keep spending edge, you can keep earning back up to the hard cap.

Given the complaints about how "abusive" edge actions are, I'd have thought you'd have welcomed a ceiling on how much edge you're allowed to have at once. 7 edge is a perfect value to prevent healing 2 boxes of physical damage at once, for example.  Imagine what'd it'd be like dropping 16-20 edge at once.

I said many of them are bad, and what I said is true.

I'll go over the list again for those new to the conversation.

From the earliest announcements of 6e's it's been clear we haven't been dealing with an honest presentation of the edition.  We are told one thing and then it's another. The QSR aren't actually consistent with the core rules. We should believe the play testers but then the system they used isn't the one being shipped out.  There is no trust. We see mechanics that have been constant for every edition of the game just totally discarded as an over reactions to flaws from the previous edition.  When questioned about over reactions the devs come back and say, no it's not an over reaction or a mistake by us it's just mistaken view of small number of vocal fans. So without a factual basis how can we make a rational decision?

As to using 20 edge at once for it to have happened then a player would have had to generated 13 edge at minimum. That's 7 Rounds of edge generation. If you're in a combat that last that long and you have built up that much edge why wouldn't we want them to use that much edge? Does the spender completely healing themselves using edge or another options some how strike you as reality breaking? Welcome to the Valley.

Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-16-19/0123:46>
No, the cap is 7 edge held at once, not 7 edge earned in total over the course of an encounter. So long as you keep spending edge, you can keep earning back up to the hard cap.
I do want to houserule that if you go past 7 Edge, you must immediately spend it or it gets lost, rather than never getting past 7. That way there's some proper value to a 7-Edge stat compared to Edge 5.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Finstersang on <07-16-19/0526:25>
No, the cap is 7 edge held at once, not 7 edge earned in total over the course of an encounter. So long as you keep spending edge, you can keep earning back up to the hard cap.

Given the complaints about how "abusive" edge actions are, I'd have thought you'd have welcomed a ceiling on how much edge you're allowed to have at once. 7 edge is a perfect value to prevent healing 2 boxes of physical damage at once, for example.  Imagine what'd it'd be like dropping 16-20 edge at once.

I said many of them are bad, and what I said is true.

I'll go over the list again for those new to the conversation.
  • 1 Edge to Re-roll one failure is a trap. 67% of the time that will be a wasted point. It's a bad option to give players.


I´ll stop right here, because this is assumption is really worth talking about.

First of all: While the Cap of 2 Edge per round is an absolutely catastrophic design decision/editing error/editing error that´s sold as a design decision (see my arguments above), there´s absolutely nothing wrong with limiting Edge pools to 7. It´s an incentive to spend Edge instead of putting in the bank forever to unload it en masse in situations that are totally removed from the situations that helped you earn them. Unlike the limit of 2 Edge per round, you will almost never lose an Edge Token because of the limit of 7 in total, as long as you keep spending your Edge. Even if you play a (norm-)human Edgelord that starts the battle with 7 Edge, you can just spend a couple of Edge tokens right away, f.i. to increase your initiative.     
     
Now: How valuable is one Edge Token? Just like you, Marcus, I really wasn´t a big fan of the system when I first saw the list of effects that was circulating online. Some of the more expensive Edge uses looked interesting, but especially the default "1 Edge to reroll one die" option looks very measly. Mathematically, it´s equivalent to just +1 die, and even a little bit worse.

Then the QSR came out and I couldn´t help but have a peak at the mess. Call it morbid curiosity  :P And what can I say, there really is a lot of issues with the QSR, but one thing surprised me: It´s explicitly stated that this "default" option can also be used to reroll an opponent´s die in an opposed test. Yes, including rolled hits. And that makes a huge difference.


So, when played right, the default option is about 2 dice worth. Sometimes, you can´t play it that way (f.i. for threshold tests), so it´s more like 1,8 dice in reality. It´s hard to put an acurate price tag on the "choice" aspect, but I´d say it´s roughly 1,4826102. So there it is: In total, one point of Edge equals 3,2826102 worth of dice pool modifiers  ;D

OK, jokes aside. IMO, the individual uses of Edges are worth much more than one might think at a first glance or from a purely statistical perspective. The big flaw with the Edge system is the limit of 2 Edge per round.   

     
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Banshee on <07-16-19/0757:26>
Anyway, a thing I read here once is that grenades (especially high-explosive ones), when brought up against the Barrier rules, can not only destroy nearly every cubicle in its blast radius, it can also blow apart cheap walls and even flooring.

So the question of, "Do you really want to cause indiscriminate property damage?" will cause people to pack flash-bangs instead. Or just save grenades for the Really Dangerous Stuff.

Don't count on that being a factor.

While all of the GMs I have ever played under (regardless of rules system) have, at the very least, a working knowledge of the rules the vast majority do not know drek about "the real world."

Bear in mind, must people get their knowledge from the movies (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsA-ZrGpR-Y) where kitchen cabinets are bulletproof.

Unless the 6e rules blattantly, and in plain language, declare that grenades cause catastrophic collateral damage, it will hardly be enforced.  I mean, I often come across GMs who swear that standard hollow "stick" build dryway walls stop bullets.

total tangent ...

amen ... bugs me to no fraggin end when players want to try and break in somewhere using the HVAC duct or sewers, etc ... not fraggin possible!!!! on the flipside though I have used  my real world knowledge to break a few GM's when I have had the chance to play by bypassing a security door by going through the wall right next to it (just need them to look up the barrier ratings of a standard wall vs a security door)

One of the best disguises you can have going into a place is a hardhat, a high-vis vest, and a clipboard with papers. Act like you know where you're going and what your supposed to be doing and no-one will question you. Also, AR games. No joke a friend of mine does pen-testing on facilities and had a guard demand to know what he was doing when taking pictures of their keypads. Friend paused for a moment, the said 'It's all good, caught the pikachu', and the guard let him go without any more questions.

When in doubt, just bluff like hell!

absolutely,  I have walked onto many job sites that were "under the control" of the competition and walked around talking to contractors and taking pics just because they all assumed I belonged there just because I was wearing my hard hat and high vis vest (with logos of the competition I might add)
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Katanarchist on <07-16-19/0926:17>
• 1 and 2 are glitch is also bad, that means the larger the pool the higher glitch chance. Glitching isn't heroic and winning by an enemy glitch isn't any better.
What does that have to do with Shadowrun?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-16-19/1002:33>
11 dice: 1/8 glitch chance with glitch with twos. 13: 1/10. Seems like the glitch chance doesn't get bigger with a bigger dicepool even when that Edge Boost is used.

Edit: Ripped some data from my Accuracy table, since hitting a TN equal to >pool/2 and hitting a glitch with 1s and 2s counting for glitches are the same.
1 dice: 1/3.00 chance to glitch
2 dice: 1/9.00 chance to glitch
3 dice: 1/3.86 chance to glitch
4 dice: 1/9.00 chance to glitch
5 dice: 1/4.76 chance to glitch
6 dice: 1/9.99 chance to glitch
7 dice: 1/5.77 chance to glitch
8 dice: 1/11.37 chance to glitch
9 dice: 1/6.90 chance to glitch
10 dice: 1/13.06 chance to glitch
11 dice: 1/8.19 chance to glitch
12 dice: 1/15.05 chance to glitch
13 dice: 1/9.66 chance to glitch
14 dice: 1/17.36 chance to glitch
15 dice: 1/11.33 chance to glitch
16 dice: 1/20.02 chance to glitch
17 dice: 1/13.25 chance to glitch
18 dice: 1/23.07 chance to glitch
19 dice: 1/15.44 chance to glitch
20 dice: 1/26.57 chance to glitch
21 dice: 1/17.95 chance to glitch

So as you can see, for odd amounts the glitch chance lessens and for even amounts as well. Just don't compare odd amounts to even amounts.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Marcus on <07-16-19/1016:51>

I´ll stop right here, because this is assumption is really worth talking about.

Just for the record that's not an assumption. It's a statement of fact. There may be other uses that are better. But this is stated use, and it's bad.


First of all: While the Cap of 2 Edge per round is an absolutely catastrophic design decision/editing error/editing error that´s sold as a design decision (see my arguments above), there´s absolutely nothing wrong with limiting Edge pools to 7. It´s an incentive to spend Edge instead of putting in the bank forever to unload it en masse in situations that are totally removed from the situations that helped you earn them. Unlike the limit of 2 Edge per round, you will almost never lose an Edge Token because of the limit of 7 in total, as long as you keep spending your Edge. Even if you play a (norm-)human Edgelord that starts the battle with 7 Edge, you can just spend a couple of Edge tokens right away, f.i. to increase your initiative.     
     
Now: How valuable is one Edge Token? Just like you, Marcus, I really wasn´t a big fan of the system when I first saw the list of effects that was circulating online. Some of the more expensive Edge uses looked interesting, but especially the default "1 Edge to reroll one die" option looks very measly. Mathematically, it´s equivalent to just +1 die, and even a little bit worse.

Then the QSR came out and I couldn´t help but have a peak at the mess. Call it morbid curiosity  :P And what can I say, there really is a lot of issues with the QSR, but one thing surprised me: It´s explicitly stated that this "default" option can also be used to reroll an opponent´s die in an opposed test. Yes, including rolled hits. And that makes a huge difference.

  • First, let´s look at this strictly mathematically: On average, you have 1 Hit per 3 dice, so rerolling a hit means that it´s more or less equivalent to 3 a -3 dice pool modifier. But wait, your opponent could score another hit on the reroll, so there´s a 1/3 chance that your Edge use is in vain after all. So in total, using this option to reroll a hit is about 2 dice worth. Not bad for the "default" option that doesn´t require you to safe up more than one Edge. And that´s not to speak about stuff like glitches or rerolling wild dice!
  • Second, you can choose if and when you want to use Edge. If your opponent didn´t get enough hits to hit (or dodge) anyways, you can save up that Edge token for later.
  • Third, there´s all the other Edge options. Yes, many of them are highly situational or even "traps" when evaluated from a purely mathematical perspective. But it´s the choice and flexibility that makes them valuable. There´s a reason why experienced trading card players often favour cards that let them choose between 2 mediocre effects over cards with 1 stronger effect.

So, when played right, the default option is about 2 dice worth. Sometimes, you can´t play it that way (f.i. for threshold tests), so it´s more like 1,8 dice in reality. It´s hard to put an acurate price tag on the "choice" aspect, but I´d say it´s roughly 1,4826102. So there it is: In total, one point of Edge equals 3,2826102 worth of dice pool modifiers  ;D

OK, jokes aside. IMO, the individual uses of Edges are worth much more than one might think at a first glance or from a purely statistical perspective. The big flaw with the Edge system is the limit of 2 Edge per round.   


To be clear you agree that there are a variety of issue with 6e and as far as we know 2 edge per round appears to be as intended and that fact is problem? So from where I'm sitting that means you agree that what I'm saying is correct. We lack a true factual basis to make a reasonable decision concerning 6e.

• 1 and 2 are glitch is also bad, that means the larger the pool the higher glitch chance. Glitching isn't heroic and winning by an enemy glitch isn't any better.
What does that have to do with Shadowrun?

6e is set to be the next edition of Shadowrun. When you sit at the table to play 6e this may well happen at your table while you are playing Shadowrun. Sense the early days of Storyteller it's been widely understood that having this sort of mechanic is terrible game design, I can get into math of why, but I doubt it will interest you. If you care about Shadowrun, then seeing something that famously bad game design becoming a part of it should concern you.

11 dice: 1/8 glitch chance with glitch with twos. 13: 1/10. Seems like the glitch chance doesn't get bigger with a bigger dicepool even when that Edge Boost is used.

With the edge use active on a roll with an 18 die pool on Average you will get 6 Success and 6 Glitches, the odds of the Glitch option being the higher number is very good, and the higher your die pool the higher the chance that one of those two values will be higher then other only increases. In short when that edge option is used the higher the pool the higher the chance of Glitching.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-16-19/1033:03>
11 dice: 1/8 glitch chance with glitch with twos. 13: 1/10. Seems like the glitch chance doesn't get bigger with a bigger dicepool even when that Edge Boost is used.

With the edge use active on a roll with an 18 die pool on Average you will get 6 Success and 6 Glitches, the odds of the Glitch option being the higher number is very good, and the higher your die pool the higher the chance that one of those two values will be higher then other only increases. In short when that edge option is used the higher the pool the higher the chance of Glitching.
I strongly suggest you reread how Glitches work. 'The higher number' has nothing to do with it.

But this is stated use
Except that, as was already stated, the 'stated use' is that you reroll A die. Not one of yours. A die. Which means you can also go for 2/3 chance to cost your opponent a hit, which my players actually did. (They prefer the 2 Edge for turning a 4 into a 5 though, since that's a 100% certainty.)
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-16-19/1041:13>
No, the cap is 7 edge held at once, not 7 edge earned in total over the course of an encounter. So long as you keep spending edge, you can keep earning back up to the hard cap.

Given the complaints about how "abusive" edge actions are, I'd have thought you'd have welcomed a ceiling on how much edge you're allowed to have at once. 7 edge is a perfect value to prevent healing 2 boxes of physical damage at once, for example.  Imagine what'd it'd be like dropping 16-20 edge at once.

I said many of them are bad, and what I said is true.

I'll go over the list again for those new to the conversation.
  • 1 Edge to Re-roll one failure is a trap. 67% of the time that will be a wasted point. It's a bad option to give players.

Let’s go over the full list. First off, While you can’t use more than one edge effect at a time, the rules imply and the examples out right show that you can spend multiple edge to activate the same affect multiple times. I.e. spending one edge to re-roll one die is really spend X edge to reroll X dice..

But to the full list, not just a shortened one from the rigger dossier.

1 edge
Spend One edge to re-roll any one die from any roll.
Add +3 to your initiative roll.
Move up one stage in initiative order.

2 edge
Give one ally a single edge point.
Negate the use of an edge point.
Add a +1 to the role of any one die.

3 edge
Buy one automatic hit.
Heal one box of stun damage.

4 edge
Re-roll all failed dice for one roll.
Add your edge attribute as bonus dice to a roll, and 6’s explode.
Heal one box of physical damage.

5 edge
Target glitches on to us as well as ones.
Create special effect.

There are a lot of options, and that could lead to choice paralysis especially when the system is new. I have a feeling though that most players will settle into their preferred edge use and stick to that.[/list]

Edit: Apologies for the messiness, but editing at work is difficult.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Finstersang on <07-16-19/1043:48>
To be clear you agree that there are a variety of issue with 6e and as far as we know 2 edge per round appears to be as intended and that fact is problem? So from where I'm sitting that means you agree that what I'm saying is correct. We lack a true factual basis to make a reasonable decision concerning 6e.

I agree that there are a lot of problems, at least with the QSR rules.

I especially agree that the limit of 2 Edge per round (as opposed to per turn or even per action) is a terrible design choice IF it even is a design choice and not an error because someone somewhere down the line mixed up "turn" and "round" or misinterpreted some notes from the playtesting sessions. This damn limit is my number one concern (so far), and I already did multiple, lenghthy posts that detail why this rule, if it´s actually RAI, would wreck the whole premise of the Edge system.

However, I don´t agree with the notion that the Edge system as a whole is a bad idea and I don´t think that Edge is not powerfull enough to make an impact. Even when you just look at the "default" use for 1 point of Edge.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-16-19/1047:36>

There are a lot of options, and that could lead to choice paralysis especially when the system is new. I have a feeling though that most players will settle into their preferred edge use and stick to that.
In the end, whether you're Risk-Averse or willing to Risk It All plays a big roll, er role. You can reroll all your failures for 4 Edge, or turn 2 4s into 5s. You can use 2 Edge to make your opponent reroll for 1/9 chance of not losing a hit, or go for that certain bonus at average smaller benefit.

Meanwhile, Edge-passing is useful when you score more Edge than you need but another player definitely needs the boost. Initiative is useful for cutting off your enemies. So there's a lot of neat tactical options here.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Hobbes on <07-16-19/1052:43>

With the edge use active on a roll with an 18 die pool on Average you will get 6 Success and 6 Glitches, the odds of the Glitch option being the higher number is very good, and the higher your die pool the higher the chance that one of those two values will be higher then other only increases. In short when that edge option is used the higher the pool the higher the chance of Glitching.

It's weird for me to say this, but in this case the math doesn't really matter. 

The salient point is that this specific mechanic is an infamously, and hilariously terrible "Frag You" kind of mechanic that should have been left back in the '90s. 
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Katanarchist on <07-16-19/1056:06>
6e is set to be the next edition of Shadowrun. When you sit at the table....
I don't think you understood my question.

What does being "heroic" have to do with Shadowrun?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Marcus on <07-16-19/1056:35>
11 dice: 1/8 glitch chance with glitch with twos. 13: 1/10. Seems like the glitch chance doesn't get bigger with a bigger dicepool even when that Edge Boost is used.

With the edge use active on a roll with an 18 die pool on Average you will get 6 Success and 6 Glitches, the odds of the Glitch option being the higher number is very good, and the higher your die pool the higher the chance that one of those two values will be higher then other only increases. In short when that edge option is used the higher the pool the higher the chance of Glitching.
I strongly suggest you reread how Glitches work. 'The higher number' has nothing to do with it.

So long as the higher number is exceeds Glitch threshold, which it's still much more likely to do under the edge use the logic holds.

But this is stated use
Except that, as was already stated, the 'stated use' is that you reroll A die. Not one of yours. A die. Which means you can also go for 2/3 chance to cost your opponent a hit, which my players actually did. (They prefer the 2 Edge for turning a 4 into a 5 though, since that's a 100% certainty.)

The flaw in your logic is of course you won't always be making opposed rolls. Like when you're rolling soak for example.

To be clear you agree that there are a variety of issue with 6e and as far as we know 2 edge per round appears to be as intended and that fact is problem? So from where I'm sitting that means you agree that what I'm saying is correct. We lack a true factual basis to make a reasonable decision concerning 6e.

I agree that there are a lot of problems, at least with the QSR rules.

I especially agree that the limit of 2 Edge per round (as opposed to per turn or even per action) is a terrible design choice IF it even is a design choice and not an error because someone somewhere down the line mixed up "turn" and "round" or misinterpreted some notes from the playtesting sessions. This damn limit is my number one concern (so far), and I already did multiple, lenghthy posts that detail why this rule, if it´s actually RAI, would wreck the whole premise of the Edge system.

However, I don´t agree with the notion that the Edge system as a whole is a bad idea and I don´t think that Edge is not powerfull enough to make an impact. Even when you just look at the "default" use for 1 point of Edge.

I do think edge is bad system idea. But that is not at issue and it's not what I'm arguing. I said we had no factual basis to make rational choice about 6e, do you agree or disagree with that?

Fox were you addressing my argument? Or just restating?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-16-19/1058:37>
11 dice: 1/8 glitch chance with glitch with twos. 13: 1/10. Seems like the glitch chance doesn't get bigger with a bigger dicepool even when that Edge Boost is used.

With the edge use active on a roll with an 18 die pool on Average you will get 6 Success and 6 Glitches, the odds of the Glitch option being the higher number is very good, and the higher your die pool the higher the chance that one of those two values will be higher then other only increases. In short when that edge option is used the higher the pool the higher the chance of Glitching.
I strongly suggest you reread how Glitches work. 'The higher number' has nothing to do with it.

So long as the higher number is exceeds Glitch threshold, which it's still much more likely to do under the edge use the logic holds.


For the record: You are claiming that the chart with glitch-odds I posted is a lie?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Katanarchist on <07-16-19/1100:59>
You can reroll all your failures for 4 Edge, or turn 2 4s into 5s.
Sorry, are you saying that on a single roll, you can spend four Edge to add +1 to the results of two dice? Wouldn't that be two separate expenditures of Edge?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Marcus on <07-16-19/1104:11>
You asked:

• 1 and 2 are glitch is also bad, that means the larger the pool the higher glitch chance. Glitching isn't heroic and winning by an enemy glitch isn't any better.
What does that have to do with Shadowrun?

And I told you what my statement has to do with Shadowrun. You can choose to be heroic or not. If you're asking Heroism is very much part of Shadowrun. If you have question on that topic, i'd suggest reviewing the Hooding book. It's a good read. Heroic or not what I said is true. It's well known as terrible game design

11 dice: 1/8 glitch chance with glitch with twos. 13: 1/10. Seems like the glitch chance doesn't get bigger with a bigger dicepool even when that Edge Boost is used.

With the edge use active on a roll with an 18 die pool on Average you will get 6 Success and 6 Glitches, the odds of the Glitch option being the higher number is very good, and the higher your die pool the higher the chance that one of those two values will be higher then other only increases. In short when that edge option is used the higher the pool the higher the chance of Glitching.
I strongly suggest you reread how Glitches work. 'The higher number' has nothing to do with it.

So long as the higher number is exceeds Glitch threshold, which it's still much more likely to do under the edge use the logic holds.


For the record: You are claiming that the chart with glitch-odds I posted is a lie?
Are you saying you do not have an increased glitch chance when the 1 and 2 are glitches?

Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-16-19/1106:07>
You can reroll all your failures for 4 Edge, or turn 2 4s into 5s.
Sorry, are you saying that on a single roll, you can spend four Edge to add +1 to the results of two dice? Wouldn't that be two separate expenditures of Edge?
You're allowed to do the same Boost multiple times in one go. E.g. 2 Edge to reroll two of your own dice. Or spend 2 Edge to reroll two of your enemy's dice. Can't mix those two though.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-16-19/1111:31>
Are you saying you do not have an increased glitch chance when the 1 and 2 are glitches?
No. Because that wasn't what we were talking about.

What we WERE talking about is your statement: "the higher the pool the higher the chance of Glitching."

And I posted numbers to prove that is wrong. That every jump of 2 dice your glitch chance goes down even under this Edge use.

Again. Are you claiming my posted 'glitch chances if 1s and 2s both count' chart is fake news? Or do you acknowledge my evidence that your claim is erroneous?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-16-19/1117:49>
I agree that there are a lot of problems, at least with the QSR rules.

Man if I was a customer who purchased a beginners box with the QSR, then later found out how much of it was incorrect compared to the CRB, I'd be incredibly furious.

It's weird for me to say this, but in this case the math doesn't really matter. 

The salient point is that this specific mechanic is an infamously, and hilariously terrible "Frag You" kind of mechanic that should have been left back in the '90s.

This. Regardless of the exact math probability (again, I am not that guy) it creates, this sort of mechanic is pretty much only frustrating.

I don't think you understood my question.

What does being "heroic" have to do with Shadowrun?

It's a subjective question based entirely on play style. Objectively 5th edition had such actions listed as a way to regain Edge, so I would say that some amount of heroism is an assumed part of the game/setting.

Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-16-19/1120:10>
I agree that there are a lot of problems, at least with the QSR rules.

Man if I was a customer who purchased a beginners box with the QSR, then later found out how much of it was incorrect compared to the CRB, I'd be incredibly furious.
To be fair: They're QSR. They always had significant differences with CRB. Not just cutting things out, but also changing rules. I'd be more pissed the gear cards are wrong, and I really hope there will be actual printable digital replacements for those.

(By the way: The Edge action is Pre, so that makes it really risky given the expense... I'd rather Post make the enemy reroll a lot.)
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Katanarchist on <07-16-19/1124:20>
You can reroll all your failures for 4 Edge, or turn 2 4s into 5s.
Sorry, are you saying that on a single roll, you can spend four Edge to add +1 to the results of two dice? Wouldn't that be two separate expenditures of Edge?
You're allowed to do the same Boost multiple times in one go. E.g. 2 Edge to reroll two of your own dice. Or spend 2 Edge to reroll two of your enemy's dice. Can't mix those two though.
That is good to know, because it's not really clear from the QSR.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Finstersang on <07-16-19/1125:20>

With the edge use active on a roll with an 18 die pool on Average you will get 6 Success and 6 Glitches, the odds of the Glitch option being the higher number is very good, and the higher your die pool the higher the chance that one of those two values will be higher then other only increases. In short when that edge option is used the higher the pool the higher the chance of Glitching.

It's weird for me to say this, but in this case the math doesn't really matter. 

The salient point is that this specific mechanic is an infamously, and hilariously terrible "Frag You" kind of mechanic that should have been left back in the '90s.

I beg to differ on that as well. First: The math is wrong, as Marcus seems to be under the impression that a glitch is constituted by rolling more ones than hits. That is not the case, you (still) glitch when more than half of the dice rolled turn up as a one. The bigger the dice pool, the more ones are needed, and the lower the chance to glitch, generally speaking*. Getting hit with that Edge Action doesn´t change that.

Second: I seriously don´t get what´s so icky about this. Making others more prone to glitch is an interesting option for mischievous players (or GMs), especially from a narrative perspective. As a little quasi-houserule, I´d probably require the players to give a little description on how they plan to make their opposition slip up: "I try to subversively weave in some keywords about the murder case in my fast talk, and hope that the suspect accidentaly blurbs out something that only the real killer would know." Hell, if I really like the explanation, I might even lower the cost. With that price tag, you won´t see this Edge use very often anyways. It´s rather overpriced and risky, considering that it has to be declared before the roll.

Besides being overpriced: It´s a fun idea, honestly. As a reminder, glitches usually aren´t catastrophic, TPK failures. I can also see some qualities and perks that interact with this specific Egde use alone. F.i. the SR6 version of the trickster Mentor spirit might offer a discount on this Edge use... (it´s likely just the old bonus to con tests. But hey, maybe my houseruled version will work differently ;D)

*Side note: It´s true though that an even dice pool has a slightly higher chance to produce a glitch than an uneven one with one die less. It´s a tiny little flaw in the way Glitches work that mostly affects small dice pools. Fun fact: An observant player once pointed this out at my table, so I offered him the option to voluntarily reduce his even dice pool by one, if he´s really so anxious about glitching. He declined. And glitched :P
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Marcus on <07-16-19/1132:57>
Are you saying you do not have an increased glitch chance when the 1 and 2 are glitches?
No. Because that wasn't what we were talking about.

What we WERE talking about is your statement: "the higher the pool the higher the chance of Glitching."

And I posted numbers to prove that is wrong. That every jump of 2 dice your glitch chance goes down even under this Edge use.

Again. Are you claiming my posted 'glitch chances if 1s and 2s both count' chart is fake news? Or do you acknowledge my evidence that your claim is erroneous?

My understanding from the what discussed in the early podcasts was if your glitches exceed your success in 6e then you glitch. I don't have access to the 6 CRB, so it is in fact impossible for me to review the definition of glitch in it. Based upon my understanding what I'm saying is true.

Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-16-19/1152:55>
Okay so you simply decided not to tell us you were using a completely different definition of what a glitch is. Check.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-16-19/1154:59>

With the edge use active on a roll with an 18 die pool on Average you will get 6 Success and 6 Glitches, the odds of the Glitch option being the higher number is very good, and the higher your die pool the higher the chance that one of those two values will be higher then other only increases. In short when that edge option is used the higher the pool the higher the chance of Glitching.

It's weird for me to say this, but in this case the math doesn't really matter. 

The salient point is that this specific mechanic is an infamously, and hilariously terrible "Frag You" kind of mechanic that should have been left back in the '90s.

It’s a mechanic that fits in card or board game, where it’s all about screwing over others for fun. RPGs steal fun mechanics aren’t solid. Point and Nelson laugh is good in board games, not RPGs.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-16-19/1156:34>
Quote from: p2 QSR
GLITCHES
When more than half the results on a test are 1s, the
result is a glitch. A glitch means something goes wrong.
A glitch isn’t catastrophic, however. Think of glitches as
opportunities for gamemasters and players to narrate
how an action had an unexpected result, complication,
or embarrassment, even if it succeeded. In fact, it is possible
to succeed at a test by meeting the threshold and
still have a glitch. This would mean the player succeeds
in the task, but something unexpected also happened. It
is up to the gamemaster (or the player, if the gamemaster
allows) to describe what the complication is.
As for p44 of CRB: That's under NDA.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Iron Serpent Prince on <07-16-19/1211:19>
"Half the results," and not "half the dice?"

There is the point of confusion.

It is not too far out of the realm of possibility that people will interpret "results" to mean Hits and Glitches, with the rationalization that if they meant "dice," they would have written dice.

With that interpretation (and I am not claiming it is a correct interpretation) a roll with 1 Hit and 2 Glitches is a Glitch, regardless of the number of dice rolled.

Looks like the first job of the Errata team right there.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Finstersang on <07-16-19/1229:33>
"Half the results," and not "half the dice?"

There is the point of confusion.

It is not too far out of the realm of possibility that people will interpret "results" to mean Hits and Glitches, with the rationalization that if they meant "dice," they would have written dice.

With that interpretation (and I am not claiming it is a correct interpretation) a roll with 1 Hit and 2 Glitches is a Glitch, regardless of the number of dice rolled.

Looks like the first job of the Errata team right there.

Good point. It´s likely still meant to be the way it was before, but it can be misinterpreted, especially if you don´t know that.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Hobbes on <07-16-19/1230:41>

Second: I seriously don´t get what´s so icky about this.

Wheaton's first law, "Don't be a dick".  This mechanic is literally a pile of "Go be a Dick" tokens for the NPCs (as played by the GM).  It's bad.  Turning an astounding Player success into failure with a couple poker chips is absolutely a Dick move.  YMMV.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-16-19/1241:58>

Second: I seriously don´t get what´s so icky about this.

Wheaton's first law, "Don't be a dick".  This mechanic is literally a pile of "Go be a Dick" tokens for the NPCs (as played by the GM).  It's bad.  Turning an astounding Player success into failure with a couple poker chips is absolutely a Dick move.  YMMV.
Since according to QSR it's a pre-roll move, it's incredibly risky to pull against a player. I doubt I'd ever use this as GM.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-16-19/1244:01>
To be fair: They're QSR. They always had significant differences with CRB. Not just cutting things out, but also changing rules.

For historical reference, my only SR experience is with 5e onward.

Cutting stuff out? Possibly. Changing rules? Absolutely not. Inexcusable to me if you want to charge customers money for what essentially amounts to an irrelevant product. That is just my personal take, and that perception is immovably in place.

Okay so you simply decided not to tell us you were using a completely different definition of what a glitch is. Check.

While Marcus's impression was incorrect, that is a gross misrepresentation of what he said, which amounts to "according to his understanding".

Wheaton's first law, "Don't be a dick".  This mechanic is literally a pile of "Go be a Dick" tokens for the NPCs (as played by the GM).  It's bad.  Turning an astounding Player success into failure with a couple poker chips is absolutely a Dick move.  YMMV.

100%.

Even in the hands of responsible GM's it's still frustrating. In the hands of vindictive types (you've all had them as GM's before, they flourish at cons), I expect it to be used to ensure players (not characters, big difference) suffer.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-16-19/1252:06>
As for different rules, I don't see the problem since the Beginner Box is still a stand-alone product, and you can still use all of its non-rule materials in a full game.

While Marcus's impression was incorrect, that is a gross misrepresentation of what he said, which amounts to "according to his understanding".
When someone insists on continuing to argue based on a flawed understanding while completely aware he's the only one with that understanding, plus while ignoring attempts to figure out what his claims are based on, it's not my representation of their acts that I find relevant. And since once again my attempts to offer rule quotes and calculations have been spat on, I give on wasting my time on it.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-16-19/1257:49>
It’s a mechanic that fits in card or board game, where it’s all about screwing over others for fun. RPGs steal fun mechanics aren’t solid. Point and Nelson laugh is good in board games, not RPGs.

this pretty much describes 6e's core Edge mechanic.

it's a descent into boardgamery and a hard step away from a PnP RPG.

this is backed up by the npc "cards" and "edge tokens"

sad.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-16-19/1301:01>
I'm not casting doubt on your quotes (they are legit as far as I am aware), I just don't share your belief that his mistaken understanding is anything more than accidental.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-16-19/1330:58>
It’s a mechanic that fits in card or board game, where it’s all about screwing over others for fun. RPGs steal fun mechanics aren’t solid. Point and Nelson laugh is good in board games, not RPGs.

this pretty much describes 6e's core Edge mechanic.

it's a descent into boardgamery and a hard step away from a PnP RPG.

this is backed up by the npc "cards" and "edge tokens"

sad.

So, it’s “Sad” if a pen and paper rpg uses things like *checks notes* reference cards and props?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-16-19/1334:36>
I'm not casting doubt on your quotes (they are legit as far as I am aware), I just don't share your belief that his mistaken understanding is anything more than accidental.

There’s been several times now that people have stated things as fact, when it’s found they haven’t had the rules and are just repeating streamers secondhand in a short game of ‘telephone’. The various uses of edge being often misrepresented or facts left out has eroded a lot of good will to mistakes that are more then a few posts lasting.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-16-19/1357:09>
There’s been several times now that people have stated things as fact, when it’s found they haven’t had the rules and are just repeating streamers secondhand in a short game of ‘telephone’. The various uses of edge being often misrepresented or facts left out has eroded a lot of good will to mistakes that are more then a few posts lasting.

I get that, and got duped by the same streamer/QSR misinformation too (part of the reason I am now adamantly against it being handled as it was as outlined up thread). I just found the particular response to the particular person to be unfair given the context.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: FastJack on <07-16-19/1414:39>
Can we please stop using statistical models of random dice roles to be used as proof that one opinion or another is "fact"? This goes to both sides. You can trot out whatever stats you want to show why your opinion is correct, when it's still just your opinion.

The reason I state this is because every role is random and doesn't care about the statistics. If we played a game and knew that the dice would always be statistically accurate, the dice are no longer needed for the game.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Katanarchist on <07-16-19/1420:39>
this pretty much describes 6e's core Edge mechanic.

it's a descent into boardgamery and a hard step away from a PnP RPG.

this is backed up by the npc "cards" and "edge tokens"

Cards make it easy to quickly reference stats, abilities, and spells without having to flip through pages of notes or rules books. Also, during initiative, you can arrange the cards in order, and it's really easy to keep track of things, or to shuffle the order around or remove cards as dictated by the actions of the various characters in combat. Tokens or dials are a convenient way to track any sort of in game economy, like hit points or mana.

As a cranky old man myself, I understand not being a fan of change, but I'm baffled that anyone would like at tools used to help the flow of the game, and start to cross their arms and shake their head.

Regarding the 6e approach to Edge, the only game I've played with a similar mechanic is Star Trek Adventures with its momentum and threat pools. And while, yes, it can be very gamey, it can also be a great tool to inspire player driven narrative approaches; it's all in the group and how they approach things. Just like every other mechanic.

Does the melee combat focused PC take an action to move and make an attack with her sword, killing the enemy NPC? Or does the street samurai charge forward, ducking and weaving through a hail of gun fire. feint right with her katana, then spin left with a two handed swing that decapitates the leader of the enemy gangers demanding an exorbitant price for safe passage through their territory?

Does every PC on their turn spend 2 Edge to transfer 1 Edge to the PC able to create a powerful area of affect attack? Or does the team of shadowrunners work in concert to position the corpsec goons they're in a fire fight with just right, so the team's mage can unleash a devastating fireball and quickly end the fight?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Ghost Rigger on <07-16-19/1426:49>
Regarding the 6e approach to Edge, the only game I've played with a similar mechanic is Star Trek Adventures with its momentum and threat pools. And while, yes, it can be very gamey, it can also be a great tool to inspire player driven narrative approaches; it's all in the group and how they approach things. Just like every other mechanic.
Is that what we want though? Shadowrun has always been a very simulationist system, and if narrative systems are more to your taste there are plenty of other systems out there for you to play. Some of them even have Shadowrun hacks, so you're not even missing out on the setting by playing a different system.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Katanarchist on <07-16-19/1443:33>
Is that what we want though?
Obviously I'm only able to speak for myself, but yeah, it's what I want. I've always thought the Shadowrun was amazing, but I've never been able to get a game to last for for than a handful of sessions because it's a lot. Especially as a GM who, at my age, probably has some combination of spouse, kids, job or jobs, social obligations, alcoholism, other hobbies, Netflix queue, etc.

More narrative, relatively rules light systems are what best suits the table that I play at, and they're the systems I prefer to run when I GM.

And that's me. As I said, I can only speak for myself. I get that other people aren't as sprung on the idea, and I sympathize. I get what it's like when a system you enjoy goes through some radical changes, and isn't the game for you anymore. You could not pay me to play D&D 4e, but I would never begrudge the people who did enjoy it or tell them they were having fun wrong.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Banshee on <07-16-19/1553:42>
Is that what we want though?
Obviously I'm only able to speak for myself, but yeah, it's what I want. I've always thought the Shadowrun was amazing, but I've never been able to get a game to last for for than a handful of sessions because it's a lot. Especially as a GM who, at my age, probably has some combination of spouse, kids, job or jobs, social obligations, alcoholism, other hobbies, Netflix queue, etc.

More narrative, relatively rules light systems are what best suits the table that I play at, and they're the systems I prefer to run when I GM.

And that's me. As I said, I can only speak for myself. I get that other people aren't as sprung on the idea, and I sympathize. I get what it's like when a system you enjoy goes through some radical changes, and isn't the game for you anymore. You could not pay me to play D&D 4e, but I would never begrudge the people who did enjoy it or tell them they were having fun wrong.

Exactly ... but also important to remember (and I have said this several times in various threads) ... just because we "streamlined" and made things easier does not mean we made it "rules light", and just because we made a lot of "real world" modifiers abstract does not mean the game is now devoid of tactical choices. I will further say anyone who says otherwise is either over simplifying, doesn't understand, or doesn't know the new rules enough. Things are very different in many ways ... some will hate it some will love it ... but that doesn't mean it doesn't work ... it just means it doesn't match your play style.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Ghost Rigger on <07-16-19/1556:02>
But you could just play another system with a Shadowrun hack. The Shadowrun system doesn't need to stop being a simulationist system for you to run the Shadowrun setting at your table.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: FastJack on <07-16-19/1605:01>
But you could just play another system with a Shadowrun hack. The Shadowrun system doesn't need to stop being a simulationist system for you to run the Shadowrun setting at your table.
Or, you could switch your game to a Shadowrun hack for your simulationist needs? I've never played the game for simulation purposes, which is why I also don't play video games like Call of Duty.

I'm sorry if that came off as harsh, but you figuratively just told everyone that doesn't agree with your style of play to play another game and pretend it's Shadowrun. That is the main thing I'm fighting against in these threads that we are NOT going to tell other players they are playing the game the wrong way and your way is the "right" way.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-16-19/1639:26>
Regarding the 6e approach to Edge, the only game I've played with a similar mechanic is Star Trek Adventures with its momentum and threat pools. And while, yes, it can be very gamey, it can also be a great tool to inspire player driven narrative approaches; it's all in the group and how they approach things. Just like every other mechanic.
Is that what we want though?

Judging by how the market is right now, the answer is yes. That's my own personal answer too.

Quote
Shadowrun has always been a very simulationist system,

Not really. 4th and 5th have been a hell of lot more rules heavy then 2nd and 3rd. Shadowrun gained it's notoriety because it was different then anything else out there. This new "cyber punk" genera had a game now, 2 games in fact! Shadowrun stood out from Cyberpunk 2020 because of the folding in of urban fantasy. It was more crunch heavy then D&D, even back then, but was still on par with some of the other games that existed at the time (such as the Storyteller system that SR resembles). But even that wouldn't have made Shadowrun stand out, that is all in one thing. Environment.

Few other games have gone as far in making the world stand out in such a vibrant and riveting way. Stories were told across rules examples, Shadowland posts that were sometimes just silly comments and digs at one another, posters who's names we saw again and again and got to know the stories and personalities of, people (who I'm sure some of the older players in here can attest) we were sad to hear about their deaths. Incredible art stood out from page after page, detailed drawings that captured the feel of High Tech-Low Life, of Soycafe and Sorcery, of dark and deadly alleyways with crazed orcs with cyberlimbs leaping through a window dragging a man by his head. That is Shadowrun.

To be frank, if people want a simulationist game right now there are literally hundreds on GoG and Steam just waiting for people to play. Such a wealth of good games like that didn't exist even a decade ago, much less 2+ decades. You sit down at a table with a group of friends and a pizza to tell a joint story. That's what a TTRPG is, a joint story told together. Simulation heavy rules can and have turned people away from that to other TTRPG games, which I suspect is why so many games are going for the 'simple but robust' style of rules.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-16-19/1645:21>
IT will certainly be interesting to see how 6e is received by the greater community.

This board (and reddit) is mostly populated with die-hard shadowrun fans who are into the minutiae, myself included.

Heck I'm so dedicated to shadowrun that our table will continue to run a modified version of 5e rather than move to a new RPG or adopt the (imho) horrific 6e.

While I agree that 5e needs streamlining (and wholesale rules replacement for the matrix and rigging) 6e's turn away from an attempt to model an abstracted version of reality to "screw it, let's just make shit up" has left me stunned.

It wasn't needed and it wasn't wanted.

The old timers frustrated with 5e and the newcomers turned away by 5e all wanted the same thing afaik: reduction in "magicrun", streamlined rules that simplified character creation and combat and included a working matrix and rigging rules.

From what I know (most of which I cannot divulge due to NDA) 6e ain't that.

6e is the replacement of modifiers (and other nods towards realism) with gamism, designed to further pump the rule of cool in favor of everything else.

That may appeal to many folks, time will tell.

All I can say for sure is:
1). this ain't for our table
2). 6e could have achieved it's goals without destroying the connection to reality and appeal to the existing player base
3). it's still riddled with almost as many editing fails, errors and poorly defined mechanics as 5e.

So what exactly does 6e achieve?

We will see.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-16-19/1656:16>
More narrative, relatively rules light systems are what best suits the table that I play at, and they're the systems I prefer to run when I GM.

And that's me. As I said, I can only speak for myself. I get that other people aren't as sprung on the idea, and I sympathize. I get what it's like when a system you enjoy goes through some radical changes, and isn't the game for you anymore. You could not pay me to play D&D 4e, but I would never begrudge the people who did enjoy it or tell them they were having fun wrong.

Why not play Anarchy then?
It seems like it would be more suitable to your tastes.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-16-19/1656:58>
But you could just play another system with a Shadowrun hack. The Shadowrun system doesn't need to stop being a simulationist system for you to run the Shadowrun setting at your table.
Or, you could switch your game to a Shadowrun hack for your simulationist needs? I've never played the game for simulation purposes, which is why I also don't play video games like Call of Duty.

I'm sorry if that came off as harsh, but you figuratively just told everyone that doesn't agree with your style of play to play another game and pretend it's Shadowrun. That is the main thing I'm fighting against in these threads that we are NOT going to tell other players they are playing the game the wrong way and your way is the "right" way.

Why not play Anarchy then?
It seems like it would be more to your taste.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-16-19/1713:07>
Despite 6w's streamlining, it's still not a cooperative storytelling game in the manner of Anarchy.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Marcus on <07-16-19/1713:29>
Okay so you simply decided not to tell us you were using a completely different definition of what a glitch is. Check.

Not telling you would imply dishonesty, when you asked I did answer. Also I have put forward this argument before, almost right after the first live-stream came out, and this point didn't come up then.   

My apologize to anyone who was confused by this. My intention has always been to be honest and transparent.

Clearly one of my points is invalid due to a bad assumption. I been wrong before will and I will be wrong again. That fact doesn't change my over all point and frankly the confusion just supports it. We have no factual basis for making a determination on 6e. I don't in anyway mean to be rude when saying that. We didn't learn about 6e from detailed specifically system releases, or well defined play examples. We have a handful of non-specific big picture articles, some clearly questionable live streams, and the QSR that reportedly has a tenuous connection with those in 6e CRB.

I'd just like to take a moment to thank Lormyr and Hobbes, you both have truly fair and honest voices through this whole process. It's y'all example that gets me to sign on everyday.


 
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: FastJack on <07-16-19/1715:32>
But you could just play another system with a Shadowrun hack. The Shadowrun system doesn't need to stop being a simulationist system for you to run the Shadowrun setting at your table.
Or, you could switch your game to a Shadowrun hack for your simulationist needs? I've never played the game for simulation purposes, which is why I also don't play video games like Call of Duty.

I'm sorry if that came off as harsh, but you figuratively just told everyone that doesn't agree with your style of play to play another game and pretend it's Shadowrun. That is the main thing I'm fighting against in these threads that we are NOT going to tell other players they are playing the game the wrong way and your way is the "right" way.

Why not play Anarchy then?
It seems like it would be more to your taste.
I was considering it for a bit, but didn't have a game going on. With the new edition, I figure I may be able to get new players into the game.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-16-19/1715:44>
Despite 6w's streamlining, it's still not a cooperative storytelling game in the manner of Anarchy.

is cooperative storytelling different from a narrative game?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Serbitar on <07-16-19/1716:17>
Can we please stop using statistical models of random dice roles to be used as proof that one opinion or another is "fact"? This goes to both sides. You can trot out whatever stats you want to show why your opinion is correct, when it's still just your opinion.

The reason I state this is because every role is random and doesn't care about the statistics. If we played a game and knew that the dice would always be statistically accurate, the dice are no longer needed for the game.

Ahem sorry. What? I am sorry. What? Are you just forbidding people to post statistical evidence? Statistical facts ARE facts. Facts are NOT oppinion. You know, science.

Are you really saying what I think you are? But its right there.

So you are really saying that dice do not care about statistics because they are random? And that you can not argue using statistics? Do you also believe in Fake News?

Damn.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-16-19/1717:47>
Again
But you could just play another system with a Shadowrun hack. The Shadowrun system doesn't need to stop being a simulationist system for you to run the Shadowrun setting at your table.
Or, you could switch your game to a Shadowrun hack for your simulationist needs? I've never played the game for simulation purposes, which is why I also don't play video games like Call of Duty.

I'm sorry if that came off as harsh, but you figuratively just told everyone that doesn't agree with your style of play to play another game and pretend it's Shadowrun. That is the main thing I'm fighting against in these threads that we are NOT going to tell other players they are playing the game the wrong way and your way is the "right" way.

Why not play Anarchy then?
It seems like it would be more to your taste.
I was considering it for a bit, but didn't have a game going on. With the new edition, I figure I may be able to get new players into the game.

thanks, that pretty much makes sense.

so any idea why catalyst wouldn't develop anarchy to be the alt, rules lite version and retain the depth of play in the main version?

that would seem to satisfy both gamer types.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Marcus on <07-16-19/1722:30>
Despite 6w's streamlining, it's still not a cooperative storytelling game in the manner of Anarchy.

is cooperative storytelling different from a narrative game?

 A matter of degrees I guess? I'm really not sure. Fate vs Scion 2nd? Both are Narrative and Collaborative. Scion 2 just has a lot more complex rules then fate. Or maybe Fate vs Accelerated Fate? How many rules can we strip off this concept?
 
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: FastJack on <07-16-19/1722:55>
Can we please stop using statistical models of random dice roles to be used as proof that one opinion or another is "fact"? This goes to both sides. You can trot out whatever stats you want to show why your opinion is correct, when it's still just your opinion.

The reason I state this is because every role is random and doesn't care about the statistics. If we played a game and knew that the dice would always be statistically accurate, the dice are no longer needed for the game.

Ahem sorry. What? I am sorry. What? Are you just forbidding people to post statistical evidence? Statistical facts ARE facts. Facts are NOT oppinion. You know, science.

Are you really saying what I think you are? But its right there.

So you are really saying that dice do not care about statistics because they are random? And that you can not argue using statistics? Do you also believe in Fake News?

Damn.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

Statistics are facts, yes. But the use of statistics can back up any argument, as long as you spend the time to show the statistics how you want them to verify your outlook.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-16-19/1739:26>
In the end, numbers showing the odds of causing a glitch with the new Edge move isn't that relevant, since people still like taking risks. Or not. And you may spend 1 Edge to force a reroll on the opponent's side, or save up and go for that sure-win yourself with turning a 4 into a 5. The argument 'the bigger the dicepool, the bigger the glitch chance' might be based on wrong intel and can be countered with numbers, but the feeling people have to the actual odds and the willingness to roll the dice, is not something this math can cover.

I can say as fact 'glitch chances lower with bigger dicepools', but I can't say 'the odds are too poor'. I CAN say that I personally don't like the odds so likely would never use this move, but that's an opinion, not a fact. And even then they are odds. Just because 5 hits on 6 Spirit dice was rare, didn't make it less of a risk and painful event when it happened and then the mage got the bad luck of 1 hit on 21 (thanks to a reroll) dice. So I do agree that statistics aren't everything. There's a reason I tend to focus on '1/X for A to happen, 1/Y for B' when discussing numbers: To put a face to the odds. And even then, those numbers don't need to be here.

Look, I like calculating 'what's better: spending 3 Edge on forcing the enemy to reroll 3 hits or spending 4 Edge to reroll 8 of my failures'. I calculated the break-even point between Exploding and Rerolling with a simple math-formula. I created a spreadsheet to determine how much a Limit I needed at what dicepool counts when being risk-averse (<1/10 chance of losing hits). And the actual numbers are VERY useful when it comes to Drain-debates. But FastJack DOES have half a point: I can calculate all the stats, give exact odds as 100% legit facts, but even then those facts can merely support an opinion, they can't turn an opinion into a fact. In the end, the thing that matters is 'how much of a risk am I willing to accept/take'. The only thing the math is supposed to do, is help you base your opinion on the right numbers. But they don't define it.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Katanarchist on <07-16-19/1745:43>
Why not play Anarchy then?
It seems like it would be more suitable to your tastes.
I’m not a fan of the Cue System. At least, I didn’t enjoy its implementation in the Valiant Comics RPG, and I’m not inclined to give it a second chance. Yes, I could play a different rules hacked version of the setting — the Genesys system apparently has one, and I quite enjoy that system — but seeing as Catalyst is producing a new edition which so far seems to be catering to my tastes, why wouldn’t I give it a shot?

And, turnabout being fair play, seeing as you presumably already have an iteration of the game suited to your table — I’m making an assumption based on how upset you seem to be that Catalyst is moving away from that style — why not just keep playing the game you already enjoy?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-16-19/1746:33>
Yeah, spending edge to make the NPC reroll successes is a 2/3 chance of negating a hit per die.  That's not mechanically bad odds... no "trap" there. 2in 3 chance to negate an opposing hit is in effect a 2 in 3 chance of increasing your own hits against that total. 

It's also about the most effective way to to manipulate your soak roll as each die is 2/3 chance to negate a box of damage! And depending on your dodge roll, you can potentially make it a 100% soak by changing a hit to an outright miss.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-16-19/1801:41>
Why not play Anarchy then?
It seems like it would be more suitable to your tastes.
I’m not a fan of the Cue System. At least, I didn’t enjoy its implementation in the Valiant Comics RPG, and I’m not inclined to give it a second chance. Yes, I could play a different rules hacked version of the setting — the Genesys system apparently has one, and I quite enjoy that system — but seeing as Catalyst is producing a new edition which so far seems to be catering to my tastes, why wouldn’t I give it a shot?

And, turnabout being fair play, seeing as you presumably already have an iteration of the game suited to your table — I’m making an assumption based on how upset you seem to be that Catalyst is moving away from that style — why not just keep playing the game you already enjoy?

thanks I was trying to determine if there was a perceived difference between Anarchy and 6e and why someone would choose 6e over Anarchy.

Your question is totally fair and accurate, our table will stick with a modified version of 5e.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Katanarchist on <07-16-19/1807:19>
6e is the replacement of modifiers (and other nods towards realism) with games, designed to further pump the rule of cool in favor of everything else.

Under no definition are numerical modifiers to die rolls a, “nod towards realism.”

RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-16-19/1815:33>
I just found something quoteworthy for my sig.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-16-19/1838:24>
6e is the replacement of modifiers (and other nods towards realism) with games, designed to further pump the rule of cool in favor of everything else.

Under no definition are numerical modifiers to die rolls a, “nod towards realism.”

RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

When the replacement for those modifiers results in unrealistic outcomes that beggar belief then yes, they are absolutely related to realism.

See Strength not factoring into melee combat (but into unarmed?!?).
See wearing a bikini as effective at protecting you as wearing full combat armor.
See "if all things are equal then ignore penalties", a core conceit of the new edge mechanic that is inherently busted. It shows both a fundamental lack of understanding of probability and a lack of concern for tactical reasons that you might want to apply penalties to everyone on the battlefield.
And on and on throughout 6e.

I'm not sure why I have to repeat this over and over again when presented with the same fallacy but here goes 'cause I guess you missed it last dozen times?

While there are fantastical stuff in srun the world still works as our world does, broadly speaking.
Gravity, sunlight, concrete and muscle all have the same properties and functions as they do IRL.
When you expect your concrete to act like concrete but instead it acts like jello you're doing something dramatically wrong.
It beggar's belief and shuts down planning.
It results in inane situations that rupture the suspension of belief.

So while shadowrun has dragons, trolls and pixies we all still expect the dragon to be the strongest and the pixie to be the weakest with the troll somewhere in between and their actions in the world to reflect that.

6e does not do that, quite the opposite in fact.

It's the triumph of, to be frank, bullshit (relative advantage replacing actual situation), for no apparent gain.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Typhus on <07-16-19/1849:05>
So, one thing that seems like an straighforward houserule fix to the Strength issue to me is something like the following:
"If you STR is between this range, add +1"

So:
STR 1-3 +0
STR 4-6: +1
STR 7-9: +2
STR 10+: +3

Adjust to gameplay outcomes where you need to.

That and adding some fixed points of automatic Armor Soak seems like a reasonable solution to both issues.  No extra rolls needed.  Or if you want extra dice for soak, just base it on the armor DR modifier.  If 1:1 isn't workable, add or subtract points until works better.

Just a thought, and all without seeing how problematic the rest of the system is in similar ways.  Sometimes a fix isn't simple.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Finstersang on <07-16-19/1853:14>
First of all: Sorry FastJack, but when you want talk about the rules of a game system that includes dice rolls (or other forms of statistically predictable randomisation) then you´ll eventually have to dip your nose into statistics, expected values etc. once in a while. I´m not a fan of putting a kind of statistical "price tag" on everything (that´s what I tried to convey when I joked about one Edge token being exactly 3,2826102 worth of dice pool modifiers) or bringing Excel sheets of expected dice rolls to a session, but when you want really to evaluate if a certain modifier or perk is balanced and justified, you can´t just go "Awwww, who can really tell what the dice will come up? It´s all just by chance anyway".

Second:


Second: I seriously don´t get what´s so icky about this.

Wheaton's first law, "Don't be a dick".  This mechanic is literally a pile of "Go be a Dick" tokens for the NPCs (as played by the GM).  It's bad.  Turning an astounding Player success into failure with a couple poker chips is absolutely a Dick move.  YMMV.

We´re still talking about the Glitch thing here, right?

It´s a glitch, not a complete failure. In Shadowrun 4, 5 and apparantly 6 as well, glitches don´t mean that you catastrophically failed the test. In fact, you can both succeed and glitch at the same time. One (pretty stereotypical) example would be stabbing someone with a Knife and then losing the grip and dropping it. Or convincing the target of your con attempt of a lie, but you accidentally drop a little hint that you´re not honest which they later realize. Or you manage to climb a fence, but you leave a little strip of fabric that makes the guards suspicious. Mostly little complications. The kind of little slips and missteps where the heist movies get interesting. It´s usually not "Despite your 6 hits on the test, you totally miss the target with your shot. All your hits are gone and you hit 1D6 nearby orphan baby unicorns with your stray." In that light, the Glitch enabling Edge use even looks a bit too weak and risky for its cost IMO. I´d be surprised if I really see it that often in play.

And speaking as a 90% GM: If I´d really want to be a dick to my players (and why exactly would I want to do that?), I´d rather use my accumulated "GM Edge" for little spikes on Attack rolls or to just reroll hits on the player´s attack and defense tests (just as they would to "be a dick" towards my NPCs). That´s way more dickish than paying 5 Edge to increase the chance that a PC might suffer from some unforseen inconvienence.

(Or I just use the fact that I am - well - the GM? I control the size and strenght of the opposition. If I really want to fuck up my table, I don´t need to abuse that fancy new token mechanic.)   
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Iron Serpent Prince on <07-16-19/1927:34>
So, one thing that seems like an straighforward houserule fix to the Strength issue to me is something like the following:
"If you STR is between this range, add +1"

So:
STR 1-3 +0
STR 4-6: +1
STR 7-9: +2
STR 10+: +3

Adjust to gameplay outcomes where you need to.

I've put more thought into this that I really should...  I've ruled out variations of your proposal.

It adds an extra level of complexity (not inherently bad) without actually fixing the issue.  In your example, a 10 Strength Troll still does less damage with a knife (4) than unarmed (5).

The absolute simplest solution would be to change Unarmed Damage to 0 DV.  This would match the scale of weapon damages, as well as justify self proclaimed experts idea that Strength (https://www.fencing.net/3230/weight-training-for-the-competitive-fencer/) has no place (https://www.mensjournal.com/health-fitness/train-like-an-olympic-fencer/) in even Olympic Fencing (https://www.betterfencer.com/articles/fencing-exercises).

I don't like that, for many reasons.

The next simplest is if Melee Damage !> Unarmed Damage, use Unarmed + 1.

It has the drawback that it flattens the melee weapon damage curve for Trolls (I'm pretty sure a Troll would use Unarmed + 1 for every weapon), but it removes the absurdity of "Give the trogs knives!  It'll make them easier to fight!"

I can't do any better without getting my hands on the full set of weapon stats (including ranged) in order to get a better feel of how to tweak things.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-16-19/2007:06>
I think knives do 2 and are physical damage. I think you could set unarmed at 1 and it would work. Then make the dice pool strength. While almost all stats get play in melee and unarmed combat it pure simulationist game the most correlation to one stat imo would be strength. Not body building strength as some try to portray it but the speed stat for things like running its the explosive movement stat. Add a strength minimum for weapons to their dv-1.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Hobbes on <07-16-19/2038:47>

Statistics are facts, yes. But the use of statistics can back up any argument, as long as you spend the time to show the statistics how you want them to verify your outlook.

I don't think any bank will buy that if you bounce a check.  I would not recommend trying.

Math can be used to answer many questions definitively.  Even if you're comparing a range of outcomes, you can show Outcome A is more probable than Outcome B.  Certainly if that actually matters can be debated.  But Game designers need to be good at the numbers so they don't accidentally create a "Thunderbird and Wolverine" issue at tables. 

The classic Shadowrun example is 5th Edition Skills A trap.  You want a Jack of all trades/skill monkey type character, you would think skills A would be the best choice.  But it wasn't.  Yes the character was playable.  Yes the character had a lot of skills.  But Thunderbird was a Superhero, had a mask and tights, joined the X-men and everything.  Look how that turned out for him. 

Even if you're not a "Numbers" person you can tell when you're Thunderbird.  It's not normally a good thing.  Can you still play and have fun, absolutely.  It's also just as probable it creates an un-fun situation, for player and GM.  Unbalanced characters (high or low) are difficult to GM.   
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Katanarchist on <07-17-19/0255:46>
Under no definition are numerical modifiers to die rolls a, “nod towards realism.”

When the replacement for those modifiers results in unrealistic outcomes that beggar belief then yes, they are absolutely related to realism.

Hyperbole doesn't make what you're saying more true.

See Strength not factoring into melee combat (but into unarmed?!?).

I'll readily agree that is odd, but it's not related to the Edge system, which is what you're claiming is somehow less realistic than numerical modifiers to die rolls. It's simply the attribute+skill pairing they've chosen, I assume in order emphasize that using melee weapons in combat is more a matter of skill than brute force.

The real issue is that there isn't a single attribute which maps perfectly onto combat. Agility makes sense when you consider things like footwork and being able to move quickly enough to avoid blows, and Reaction makes sense for anticipating your opponents movements and strike at the right times, Strength obviously maps to pure power, and Body works for ignoring pain and simply outlasting your opponent when you're both gassed. And I'm not talking about just melee combat either; firing a gun, or drawing a bow requires strength too.

But then the questions arise of how do we map all these attributes into combat in a way that makes sense, and in what proportion, and how do we account for different fighting styles, so on and so forth.

Then we realize we're playing a game, and we don't want each combat turn to take 45 minutes as we roll to see how much lactic acid has built up in various muscle groups. We can just abstract it and say "This attribute is good enough."

Apparently the SR 6e devs decided that Agility was what worked best with what they wanted for melee combat. I assume they're leaning into the notion of the samurai being a skilful warrior.

See wearing a bikini as effective at protecting you as wearing full combat armor.

I don't see any bikinis in the QSR. What's their defense rating? What about a banana hammock?

What you're choosing to ignore about Edge generation is that allows the player options in how they want to narrate events. A player can spend Edge -- including that generated by having a high defense rating, which I have to assume your oft cited bikini does not have -- can be used to enhance your soak roll. Or the player could say that no, they're going to eat a bunch of damage while they rush forward and poor all that Edge into a killing blow.

A little bit of creativity goes a long way.

See "if all things are equal then ignore penalties", a core conceit of the new edge mechanic that is inherently busted. It shows both a fundamental lack of understanding of probability and a lack of concern for tactical reasons that you might want to apply penalties to everyone on the battlefield.

Sure, that's not particularly realistic. But it does speed up combat, and, speaking only for myself, anything which speeds up the flow of combat is a good thing.

I'm not sure why I have to repeat this over and over again when presented with the same fallacy but here goes 'cause I guess you missed it last dozen times?

What fallacy? That games have game mechanics? It's amazing that your argument isn't gaining much traction.

While there are fantastical stuff in srun the world still works as our world does, broadly speaking.
Gravity, sunlight, concrete and muscle all have the same properties and functions as they do IRL.
When you expect your concrete to act like concrete but instead it acts like jello you're doing something dramatically wrong.

Again, you seem to have access to information that I do not. This scenario where the rigger needs to roll vehicle control tests to avoid spinning out and spraying cherry flavoured concrete all over the place sounds pretty fun, though.

So while shadowrun has dragons, trolls and pixies we all still expect the dragon to be the strongest and the pixie to be the weakest with the troll somewhere in between and their actions in the world to reflect that.

6e does not do that, quite the opposite in fact.

Have you considered that maybe between 5e and 6e, pixies all got together and decided to get swole?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-17-19/0303:23>
Quote
pixie n. (vulgar) An elf. An elf poser.
I need to remind everyone that vulgar language is not allowed on the forum.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: dezmont on <07-17-19/0306:31>

All sorts of lovely things.


+1.....10000000

You can and 1000% should apply statistical models to game systems. To not do so is actively asinine, and any remotely compitent game designer is going to do so while developing their game to some extent or another. To do otherwise would make you a truly terrible designer.

I say this not to imply CGL designers don't do this and thus are bad designers. I am saying that I can say with 100% certainty they are evaluating the numbers at least to some extent, applying statistical models while they design the game, because the game functions. Not applying statistical models to an RPG while designing it or evaluating it is like throwing car parts together and hoping you made an engine. The fact you are thinking about systems at all means you are using system design, and thus are doing some level of statistical evaluation as an inevitable part of the process.

You don't randomly guess, you compare different combination of scenarios based on different expected paramiters and tweak things to make sense. The fact that the DV code for guns isn't 9000 vs an average soak roll of 3 is an example of this: A very simple statistical model shows this is a ridiculous design that leads to bad outcomes. It takes a lot less sophisticated a model to account for this than say... figuring out the optimal break points for samurai soak vs expected DV based on certain enemies while accounting for the fact that you are assuming the PC is spending for one sub-role like off-face or off-decker, but you are still applying some math. SR's designers probably did way more than this (For example, small grade weapons vs the average human do around 2-4 DV before net hits, meaning that corpsec firing at you gives you a nice cushon of shots taken before your taken out, while anything other than a min-maxed soak tank will take less but still generally take 1 DV at least from any attack that lands, which seems rather deliberate because making soak tanks take incidental damage more often was a pretty obvious goal) but the point remains that unless your throwing darts at a board to get your numbers you are planning around expected results in your system.

There is such a thing as 'white rooming' where your models fall apart due to failing to account for how the actual game is played (ex: a fight where everyone is in a featureless white room just mindlessly attacking each other standing still), and there is sometimes an assumption all models are 'white room' math, but this generally isn't the case as players are very good at evaluating their general assumed scenarios (Ex: A lot of charop in SR5 will assume 9 attack dice from the enemy and the enemy to be in cover when trying to made a 'mid tier' combatant and then also evaluate vs HTR because those are the two most common types of enemies, and if you are not a samurai you are not expected to go above and beyond that so outliers like physad LTs or Prime Runner rival samurai can be accounted for but not prioritized) and avoiding white room math. And, on top of that, white room math is an important step because it lets you evaluate the benefit of situational effects that might come about in a non-white room scenario both as a player (ex: "I know in a white room scenario I will hit and down this guy only 35% of the time before he pegs me and I am in trouble. I now can evaluate how much effort I need to make to even the odds with smoke, cover, positioning, and aid effects from my team") and as a designer trying to figure out the nominal advantage that non-white room elements need to reward a 'tricky' character over a straightforward one.

Does this mean that if something is statistically uneven or suboptimal it is garbage? Heck no! A good example is using 'pre-edge' in SR5 to make dice explode when you already roll a big pool and limit isn't relevant. In general this is a bad idea but it is thrilling and leads to exciting outcomes, so players do it, and it turns out fun because even though it doesn't actually benefit you as much as re-rolling failures, the outcomes it creates are still enjoyable and useful for the player. But even in those cases you need to care about models. Being sub-optimal is fine, but being so sub-optimal that the 'promise' the mechanic makes (Ex: "Pre-edging may make you roll like 20 successes, dooo iiiiit") is a lie, then you have a huge problem because the hypothetical person designing that system, rather than actually making things fun, pretended they were fun and tricked someone into not having fun! And if you are designing games that is pretty much the worst thing you can do! You just Truenamered them! You SR5 laser'd them! SR4 longarms'd someone! The worst thing that can happen in a game is a designer promises something will be fun via making the game whisper 'It will be great, trust me' and it turns out all that effort and anticipation is the equivalent of an advertisement to buy more chocolate powdered drink product, and that their awesome laser ranger can't actually damage devil rats with their gun, let alone bug spirits. If you pump that laser into a damage calculator (which statistically models your expected results and the range of results you can get) you will instantly see why it has no chance of doing any of the things it promises and that it only can get situationally worse, not better, and it is one of those imbalanced things that does no good to the game and because its lying about what it can do and you can very clearly see it can't do it, as a player you now know a designer messed up and as a designer you would know to seriously buff a laser's base DV to avoid that scenario.

It just is important to understand the raw statistics of your game because pretending they don't exist and saying 'lets see how it actually plays' is sorta like, again, building a car and saying 'lets not calculate how well it drives at all, lets put it together and set up the expensive assembly lines and send it to market and just give it a whirl."

Which leads to the "thunderbird" problem Hobbes mentioned. That car you just throw together might work fine but putter along... or may crash and explode! Power discrepancies between roles do not matter nearly as much as people imply they do when comparing them, play is resilient to that sorta thing... but it is brittle, all or nothing. Things are fine even if there are power imbalances until it is clear someone at the table isn't able to contribute because they are so ineffective their scenes 'have' to be stolen because them trying to have scenes ruins things for other people, or someone naturally can solve so many problems it just becomes about them, or when someone is set up to have a cool moment but... oops... they were a soak focused Adept in 5e who used unarmed as advertised in core and oh no they just constantly get knocked out in combat and never hurt anyone while the face is able to stay up and outfight them to save them (Real example from the first 5e game I ever ran! Sorry Knightmare! And sorry DeathSentence, who was the 'OP' one who got so uncomfortable with the power imbalance they quit shadowrun despite being the Op character!).

You could argue the models are missing something, or are incomplete, or incorrectly applied, but saying that models ALWAYS are incomplete and shouldn't be trusted because you can make them misleading is very silly because it sorta is an argument that a very major concept in game design... doesn't... exist? A common mistake is to mistake a logical process (Statistical modeling, min-maxing) with your end goal, on both sides. But in reality, a model is just a tool to think about something and evaluate outcomes, not some end goal, and models don't lie, they just tell the super exact truth, much like statistics, in that a model only can be 'misleading' when there is some assumption in the model that will not actually be true most of the time. When If you think a model is flawed in its assumptions, point out the specific error in the assumptions, rather than arguing against systems design is a flawed practice when it has been used on some level or another to make literally every game you like, because models are a super necessary logical tool that cannot be avoided.


Have you considered that maybe between 5e and 6e, pixies all got together and decided to get swole?

This is probably  the best thing ever written and is proof the internet was a good idea, warts and all.

Quote
pixie n. (vulgar) An elf. An elf poser.
I need to remind everyone that vulgar language is not allowed on the forum.

I spoke too soon...

It is 3 AM I can't be waking my neighbors screaming with laughter yall, cut it out!
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Serbitar on <07-17-19/0313:19>

Sure, that's not particularly realistic. But it does speed up combat, and, speaking only for myself, anything which speeds up the flow of combat is a good thing.
So a coin toss is a good thing? Heads = PCs win, Tails =  NPCs win?
Super fast. Not "realistic" in any way, but super fast. And, as a bonus, you can make the outcome plausible in any narrative way you want. Somehow like Edge.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Katanarchist on <07-17-19/0408:38>

Sure, that's not particularly realistic. But it does speed up combat, and, speaking only for myself, anything which speeds up the flow of combat is a good thing.
So a coin toss is a good thing? Heads = PCs win, Tails =  NPCs win?
Super fast. Not "realistic" in any way, but super fast. And, as a bonus, you can make the outcome plausible in any narrative way you want. Somehow like Edge.
I wouldn't be opposed to a coin toss, depending on whether or not there are mechanics to support it. Granted, I really do like dice, but that's a personal preference.

You're missing my point though; game mechanics are an abstraction, not a simulation of reality. Getting bogged down in the weeds of doing some simple equations isn't fun for me. If it is someone else's jam, cool, I would never suggest taking that away from them, but I'm excited that there appears to be a Shadowrun game on the horizon which does suit my particular tastes.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: dezmont on <07-17-19/0512:20>
More to the point if you could make game mechanics that do perfectly simulate reality you kinda are now an elder god because you invented a system that can be run on a machine as simple as a pen, paper, and dice, that can be contained in the universe that it simulates. Also, fair warning, a huuuuge wall of text incoming.

So like, a bit ambitious, but even simulating one specific minor aspect of reality really really well is too hard to do, and doing it well would be terrible. Like attributes in practice don't make sense: Your str and agility and reflexes should be linked by a very complex mathematical system that prevents them from getting to far to prevent someone from being agile but being unable to accelerate their body to be agile, and would need to account for like... your hydration level and how well you slept in addition to how much you did.

So pure simulation is out. You go for "realish" rather than "real." But every sacrifice of reality you make makes the simulation less realish, less verisimilitudinous (It will never be unfun to bust out that one!) and thus less appealing. An 'RPG' where you simulate reality isn't going to be fun because trying to interface with a mechanical system that can simulate even small parts of reality would fry your brain because a computer to do that would need to be bigger than the physical universe so forget you remembering a single rule in that system, but an 'RPG' where the 'game' is 'flip a coin, if heads, win!' is so simple that you also lose all agency.

In reality it becomes one of those weird 6d graphs that can't be represented in a 2d plane of what you prefer in terms of what compromises this terrible simulation of reality makes and what things are important to do well and what things are fun to focus on in a game perspective and what should be swiftly moved past, and it is heavily preference based until you move so far out on an axis that most people would agree it falls apart.

But that space a good RPG could be is pretty honking big: People enjoy and love systems like Hero System or Traveller's system where almost everything is laughably simple but then you as a team if you want to fund your space trading adventures need to calculate .0651% of 05% of your spaceship's 12 digit price and then compare that tally to the prices you can expect to make based on a string of 5 trade worlds you might hit up and the price multipliers based on a specific number at a specific place in the universal world profile code that changes places, and by the way that number is expressed in hexidecimal format. And by people, I mean me. I loooove that spreadsheet simulator trading where one minute your in a super simplified laser fight where one hit just probably knocks you out of the fight and the next your looming over the star chart with like 5 calculators seriously trying to run a space shipping company. Meanwhile, many people, including myself, enjoy very simple systems, like FATE, where things are abstract and not really nailed down and its mostly just about encouraging players to do interesting things than simulating reality.

So it is less 'Simple vs complex' and more 'does SR6 achieve its objectives well?' I think SR6's edge system looks like a narrative mechanic that was too afraid to be a real narrative mecahnic and accidently got turned upside down, abstracting the wrong end of the equation and ironically forcing the GM to care way way WAY more about fiddly nonsense in combat rather than way less (because players HAVE to know ahead of time about everything to make plans around edge, rather than edge freeing up the GM to play it by ear because the details only matter when the players spend a resource to invoke them, self balancing scenarios so that the GM can just say 'yeah sure' rather than policing what benefits people get), but I don't think its problem is that it is too simplifying.

It isn't like soak rolls (the biggest thing in combat edge replaces) and situational penalties (much smaller but still relevant and important to many people) are the main interesting things about SR combat outside of very specific scenarios like firing through cover, smoke, or sensor targeting, which are directly caused by NPC or PC action and would be modeled well by edge anyway (While say... rain is modeled super crazy poorly to the point it is distracting, but at least most players don't care about rain to the point they didn't apply the drizzle penalty in 5e unless it was a monsoon). Combat is still likely going to be pretty complex, because removing soak rolls doesn't actually matter that much because most players could just handle that on their own after the GM told them AP and figure out the damage in 5 seconds. This isn't as much an endorsement for SR6's edge being fine as much as saying 'its too simple' isn't a great way to judge it. It more comes down to if it actually accomplishes its goals or not and if it has any major accidental system casualties (I think everyone and their brother is worried about how the Street Samurai role will actually turn out because I can't imagine an edition of Sr doing well when the most iconic archetype is the bottom archetype) and is interesting to play with. You can evaluate that in part based on if its too braindead, creates too much for the GM to track, or creates bad system math, but it won't be a single axis, because RPG systems are really complex. See how mages went from kinda meh and riggers as god tier in 4e to mages being way too good because they changed like 3 things totally unrelated to magic and riggers going in the trash just because everyone finally got decent soak.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Serbitar on <07-17-19/0607:05>

Sure, that's not particularly realistic. But it does speed up combat, and, speaking only for myself, anything which speeds up the flow of combat is a good thing.
So a coin toss is a good thing? Heads = PCs win, Tails =  NPCs win?
Super fast. Not "realistic" in any way, but super fast. And, as a bonus, you can make the outcome plausible in any narrative way you want. Somehow like Edge.
I wouldn't be opposed to a coin toss, depending on whether or not there are mechanics to support it. Granted, I really do like dice, but that's a personal preference.

You're missing my point though; game mechanics are an abstraction, not a simulation of reality. Getting bogged down in the weeds of doing some simple equations isn't fun for me. If it is someone else's jam, cool, I would never suggest taking that away from them, but I'm excited that there appears to be a Shadowrun game on the horizon which does suit my particular tastes.

Are you getting the irony of your own post?
You say that you dont need simulation on the one hand and imply that a pure coin toss without mechanics would not be enough?
So you want simulation, and would maybe be upset if it was only a simple coin toss and give exactly the same arguments against a simple coin toss as other people in the thread are giving. You just want less simulation than others in the thread.

As you said it basically boils down to taste in the end. But then, why are you discussing here?

The problem we have here is twofold:
A) There is a taste issue between simulationist/gamist/narrativist here, which can not be discussed, because of taste.
B) But there is also a quality level here, that even if you want a simulationist/gamist/narrativist balance the rules apparently aim for (which makes people upset that aim for another), the rules are bad in a sense that there could be better rules that aim for the same spot but have less problems.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Katanarchist on <07-17-19/0736:41>
Are you getting the irony of your own post?

No, but I also know what irony means, so....

You say that you dont need simulation on the one hand and imply that a pure coin toss without mechanics would not be enough?
So you want simulation, and would maybe be upset if it was only a simple coin toss and give exactly the same arguments against a simple coin toss as other people in the thread are giving.

Are you trying to claim that because my tastes skew rules light and narrative, that I must therefor only like the most rules light and narrative game possible? I mean, yes that game is Fiasco, and it's brilliant -- and I should see if there are any Shadowrun-esque Playsets -- but at the same time, I would argue that you're propose a false binary. The complexity of RPG mechanics exist on a spectrum.

If someone wants to build a game around using a coin toss as a deciding factor, and it was well made, I'd play it. But I also believe that the core of good game design is that mechanics further the narrative. I've played a horror RPG where a Jenga tower is used to decide success or failure. I've played an RPG where your "character sheet" is a piece of paper with any six attributes you want written on it, and to play the game you tear off sections of the sheet using only the thumb and forefinger of each hand, and if your tear contains part of the word that is your attribute, you're successful.

You just want less simulation than others in the thread.

I mean, I wouldn't use the word simulation, because I think it's silly in the context of a pen & paper RPG, but other than that...yes? I don't think that was a secret.

As you said it basically boils down to taste in the end. But then, why are you discussing here?

Sorry, I must have missed the sign declaring, "You Must Prefer This Level Of Crunch To Ride This Shadowrun Forum."

B) But there is also a quality level here, that even if you want a simulationist/gamist/narrativist balance the rules apparently aim for (which makes people upset that aim for another), the rules are bad in a sense that there could be better rules that aim for the same spot but have less problems.

So the rules are bad because...they could be better? Every game could be better, that's what house rules are for. You're essentially saying, "This isn't the perfect Holy Grail of tabletop RPGs, and therefore it is trash." Certainly there's something to be said for having standards, but I'm also of the opinion that we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: FastJack on <07-17-19/0752:31>
Of the the love of...

PEOPLE.  I am not saying that statistical analysis is a bad thing. It most definitely should be used to design games, to see where the average rolls lie, making it easier to build rules around the dice rolls.

What I DO disagree with is using statistics to back up opinion. The statistics of a dice roll tell you what is theorized to be the most common occurrence, not that one way is better than the other. Does all the analysis show how the dice pools work and give you an idea of how Edge can be applied? Sure! Does that mean your belief that it's broken is correct? No. The designers used the same analysis and liked what they saw, so they used the rules as they are being written. If you don't like it, then houserule it.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Ghost Rigger on <07-17-19/0834:32>
But you could just play another system with a Shadowrun hack. The Shadowrun system doesn't need to stop being a simulationist system for you to run the Shadowrun setting at your table.
Or, you could switch your game to a Shadowrun hack for your simulationist needs?
Or I could stick with the current edition of Shadowrun, or play a previous edition of Shadowrun. Which brings us back to the core issue: why did the developers feel that Shadowrun needs to stop being a simulationist game?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Banshee on <07-17-19/0855:27>
But you could just play another system with a Shadowrun hack. The Shadowrun system doesn't need to stop being a simulationist system for you to run the Shadowrun setting at your table.
Or, you could switch your game to a Shadowrun hack for your simulationist needs?
Or I could stick with the current edition of Shadowrun, or play a previous edition of Shadowrun. Which brings us back to the core issue: why did the developers feel that Shadowrun needs to stop being a simulationist game?

you know I wasn't going to reply to this but it bugs me too much to let it go ...

This is the number one fallacy with the arguments one here, we did not make SR any less "simulationist" ... it is still VERY much a game about making the right tactical decisions at the right tactical moment. Are there things that could have been done better in my opinion... yes, and I have spoken on those before (I'm talking to you mister armor and strength) ... but that is one of the things you get when developing a game by committee, but that doesn't mean it is broken or useless and it doesn't mean it is any less "real" than it ever was ... it's just different.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-17-19/0914:41>
But you could just play another system with a Shadowrun hack. The Shadowrun system doesn't need to stop being a simulationist system for you to run the Shadowrun setting at your table.
Or, you could switch your game to a Shadowrun hack for your simulationist needs?
Or I could stick with the current edition of Shadowrun, or play a previous edition of Shadowrun. Which brings us back to the core issue: why did the developers feel that Shadowrun needs to stop being a simulationist game?

you know I wasn't going to reply to this but it bugs me too much to let it go ...

This is the number one fallacy with the arguments one here, we did not make SR any less "simulationist" ... it is still VERY much a game about making the right tactical decisions at the right tactical moment. Are there things that could have been done better in my opinion... yes, and I have spoken on those before (I'm talking to you mister armor and strength) ... but that is one of the things you get when developing a game by committee, but that doesn't mean it is broken or useless and it doesn't mean it is any less "real" than it ever was ... it's just different.

Unless you guys have done a terrible job explaining combat and edge for many people I suspect your statement won’t be accurate.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Banshee on <07-17-19/0922:10>
But you could just play another system with a Shadowrun hack. The Shadowrun system doesn't need to stop being a simulationist system for you to run the Shadowrun setting at your table.
Or, you could switch your game to a Shadowrun hack for your simulationist needs?
Or I could stick with the current edition of Shadowrun, or play a previous edition of Shadowrun. Which brings us back to the core issue: why did the developers feel that Shadowrun needs to stop being a simulationist game?

you know I wasn't going to reply to this but it bugs me too much to let it go ...

This is the number one fallacy with the arguments one here, we did not make SR any less "simulationist" ... it is still VERY much a game about making the right tactical decisions at the right tactical moment. Are there things that could have been done better in my opinion... yes, and I have spoken on those before (I'm talking to you mister armor and strength) ... but that is one of the things you get when developing a game by committee, but that doesn't mean it is broken or useless and it doesn't mean it is any less "real" than it ever was ... it's just different.

Unless you guys have done a terrible job explaining combat and edge for many people I suspect your statement won’t be accurate.

there is that too ... and just to throw this out there for clarification in case anyone wants or needs to direct a particular question at me for speaking up :) ... yes I was on the development team and worked on the overall core mechanics that everything is built around now but all I actually wrote was significant portions of the matrix and rigging chapters. I think things are explained pretty well overall, but that is most likely heavily influenced by my knowledge of what we intended it to be.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Iron Serpent Prince on <07-17-19/0949:51>
I think knives do 2 and are physical damage. I think you could set unarmed at 1 and it would work. Then make the dice pool strength. While almost all stats get play in melee and unarmed combat it pure simulationist game the most correlation to one stat imo would be strength. Not body building strength as some try to portray it but the speed stat for things like running its the explosive movement stat. Add a strength minimum for weapons to their dv-1.

I agree with you that Strength + Skill would be better for attack rolls in melee.  However, I am certain that is never going to be an official option because it violates "simplification."
Shadowrun Sixth World will have all attacks be Agility + Skill, just so there aren't any outliers.

I totally support it for a house rule though, for what little that is worth.  And if some table wants to get even more simulationist, maybe Strength + Agility to hit, with damage based off of Skill.  Although, that will likely take damage too far up the weapon scale.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-17-19/1012:11>
but all I actually wrote was significant portions of the matrix and rigging chapters.

Both of which I find to be considerable improvements from 5e, for what that is worth.

But you could just play another system with a Shadowrun hack. The Shadowrun system doesn't need to stop being a simulationist system for you to run the Shadowrun setting at your table.
Or, you could switch your game to a Shadowrun hack for your simulationist needs?
Or I could stick with the current edition of Shadowrun, or play a previous edition of Shadowrun. Which brings us back to the core issue: why did the developers feel that Shadowrun needs to stop being a simulationist game?
This is the number one fallacy with the arguments one here, we did not make SR any less "simulationist" ... it is still VERY much a game about making the right tactical decisions at the right tactical moment.

This is my take on the situation:

There is in fact a lot of combat options available, made available almost exclusively through action economy and Edge-fueled alterations. For the most part, actions are used to do everything from move and interact with objects to attack and provide defense (ranging from one minor action to defend against one attack to major actions to defend against all attacks for a round). For the most part, Edge mainly alters the potential outcome of actions, but is also used to allow some options to be enlisted.

Now as far as simulationist and how useful these tactical options are vs. just shooting the guy in the face? Situational, but that is also kind of the point of tactics to begin with.

Some people will simply not like the way those options are made available or handled, which is a perfectly fine preference. I am not a big fan of the new Edge system's impact on literally everything, nor how the specifics of that impact were decided.

For full disclosure, I think that overall 6e looks alright, with the following major exceptions:

1). Strength issues.
2). Armor issues.
3). Many defensive spells being useless or having redundant effects because of #2. For example, the spell combat sense adds to defense rating (not dice pools) and dice pools for surprise tests, while the armor spell adds to defense rating only. Why ever buy armor? (though they appear to stack affects you would never need both unless playing an armorless, body stat dumped character. related: as far as I can tell everything stacks except initiative, attribute augmentation past +4, and worn armor other than listed exceptions)
4). Still magicrun. High-level mage dice pools will demolish any opposition, in part because:
5). Foci are still completely nuts. For the love of God people, please limit the rating to something sane. Rating 6 should be major artifact level.
6). Still no defense test for non-spell AoE. Sigh...
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: KatoHearts on <07-17-19/1036:13>

3). Many defensive spells being useless or having redundant effects because of #2. For example, the spell combat sense adds to defense rating (not dice pools) and dice pools for surprise tests, while the armor spell adds to defense rating only. Why ever buy armor? (though they appear to stack affects you would never need both unless playing an armorless, body stat dumped character. related: as far as I can tell everything stacks except initiative, attribute augmentation past +4, and worn armor other than listed exceptions)

Armor spell adds net hits to body and defense rating in 6e, if the qsr is to be believed.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-17-19/1038:50>
Armor spell adds net hits to body and defense rating in 6e, if the qsr is to be believed.

It is not to be believed. See my frustration with qsr vs. crb up thread.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Ghost Rigger on <07-17-19/1041:15>
"For full disclosure, I think that overall 6e looks alright, with the following six major exceptions...."

Oh wow. Talk about being condemned by faint praise.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-17-19/1048:43>
"For full disclosure, I think that overall 6e looks alright, with the following six major exceptions...."

Oh wow. Talk about being condemned by faint praise.

Kindest personal opinion I can offer sadly.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-17-19/1109:54>
Under no definition are numerical modifiers to die rolls a, “nod towards realism.”

When the replacement for those modifiers results in unrealistic outcomes that beggar belief then yes, they are absolutely related to realism.

Hyperbole doesn't make what you're saying more true.

That wasn't hyperbole, that was an opinion grounded in a close reading of the available material.
Where are your counterpoints of factual analysis?

The rest of your post is just sarcasm and does not address the points I made.
So, congratulations on your attempted humor?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-17-19/1112:27>
Sounds like many defensive spells are just flat out worthless. I’m not sure it’s worth wasting 1,000 Nuyen in actual armor, using karma, sustaining it just for defense rating. But hey go go attribute boosts.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-17-19/1120:03>
Under no definition are numerical modifiers to die rolls a, “nod towards realism.”

When the replacement for those modifiers results in unrealistic outcomes that beggar belief then yes, they are absolutely related to realism.

Hyperbole doesn't make what you're saying more true.

That wasn't hyperbole, that was an opinion grounded in a close reading of the available material.
Where are your counterpoints of factual analysis?

The rest of your post is just sarcasm and does not address the points I made.
So, congratulations on your attempted humor?

My reading at least from what’s been released as well. The whole you are both in a bad situation so it’s a wash discussion showed there is a disconnect between my line of thought and some of the designers.

And again they could have catered to both groups with a simple idea that you have a base threshold to hit a target modified by the situation and the defense roll. Dice pools always remain the same, it’s still quick and easy. It would be the same chart you are referencing for edge, just include some base threshold modifiers as well.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-17-19/1158:54>
My reading at least from what’s been released as well. The whole you are both in a bad situation so it’s a wash discussion showed there is a disconnect between my line of thought and some of the designers.

And again they could have catered to both groups with a simple idea that you have a base threshold to hit a target modified by the situation and the defense roll. Dice pools always remain the same, it’s still quick and easy. It would be the same chart you are referencing for edge, just include some base threshold modifiers as well.

agree 100%
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-17-19/1238:16>
Well, for argument's sake... if 6W erred on the side of too much simplicity it's easy to house rule in whatever you feel the system needs.  I'd prefer an under-complex game to an over-complex game... it's much easier to add in spice to taste than to take it out.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-17-19/1252:38>
Well, for argument's sake... if 6W erred on the side of too much simplicity it's easy to house rule in whatever you feel the system needs.  I'd prefer an under-complex game to an over-complex game... it's much easier to add in spice to taste than to take it out.

I’m not seeing that it’s actually simplified much though. How is edge determination any easier than -6 dice for x. It’s look at chart, make judgment call tell player modifiers. Either -x dice or +1-2 edge.

What it sacrificed in my mind is verisimilitude.

That being said the one pass thing, decking, some
of the magic changed may be enough to get me to run it. Also a core reset is wanted by me anyways. I can’t keep up with all the books.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <07-17-19/1341:13>
Besides Lormyr's list of issues, which I agree with for the most part, there is one other thing that truely bothers me. Quoting adzling,
"3). it's still riddled with almost as many editing fails, errors and poorly defined mechanics as 5e."

That, that right there bugs me to know end. It is the main part of the main reason I only get PDFs from Catalyst. Other was the CRB started to  fall apart with in a month. The setting is amazing, but we constantly have to discuss what the hell something means and if this sentence or that is fluff or crunch. And then we rarely get official responses to questions and still lack errata for a large number of books. This does not make me want to spend money on a new edition, when I want Catalyst to finish editing stuff, as I understand it, we were told would happen.

That said, will probably steal rules for Matrix and Clarification ideas for Riggers in my home games, but otherwise use 5th. Cheers!

Edited for name correction.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-17-19/1349:19>
So far the errors appear to be much smaller in impact than vagueness rules in SR5 on average. And this time they've put an errata team on from the start, over two months ago. But we'll see in time how bad things end up.

Wish I could say more and help you be a bit optimistic, but I don't feel like getting banned and kicked out of the demo team so this is all I can say under NDA. =/ And that only because adzling already made statements about the quality.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-17-19/1354:55>
And to be honest I'm feeling rather uncomfortable as to how the debates begin to cover too much without knowing what is already fair game so I fear I'm just going to log off the forum for a while.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <07-17-19/1452:26>
Micheal thanks for the response, honestly. Don't go and get yourself into trouble over us. Also, honestly, there probably is not anything you could say to make me feel better about CGL or 6th Ed.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Katanarchist on <07-17-19/1815:49>
The rest of your post is just sarcasm and does not address the points I made.
So, congratulations on your attempted humor?

lol

But for real though, is there anything more Shadowrun than the image of a completely jacked pixie on the squat rack, wearing a t-shirt that reads, "I Eat Trolls For Breakfast Protein"? That's the reality I want to simulate.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-17-19/1852:10>
The rest of your post is just sarcasm and does not address the points I made.
So, congratulations on your attempted humor?

lol

But for real though, is there anything more Shadowrun than the image of a completely jacked pixie on the squat rack, wearing a t-shirt that reads, "I Eat Trolls For Breakfast Protein"? That's the reality I want to simulate.

All I can think about is this with that statement.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-17-19/1931:14>
The rest of your post is just sarcasm and does not address the points I made.
So, congratulations on your attempted humor?

lol

But for real though, is there anything more Shadowrun than the image of a completely jacked pixie on the squat rack, wearing a t-shirt that reads, "I Eat Trolls For Breakfast Protein"? That's the reality I want to simulate.

haha fair 'nuff.
it's clear your tastes trend considerably more Pink Mohawk than mine ;-)
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Finstersang on <07-18-19/1129:23>
Hot take: From the things I see so far, I don´t think that SR6´s Edge System is the "death of simulationism" or even sacrificing that much of it, apart from a handfull of very questionable decisions (most notably, that goddamn limit). And most of these issues can be fixed with relative ease (which still begs the question why these pitfalls have to be fixed by the players, tho. But that´s a thing for another post...)

There are two ways in which the Edge system can come in conflict with the idea of simulationism: Resolution and Correlation.

By Resolution, I mean the "granularity" at which different factors of the game world are represented. Obviously, the granularity that is familiar from previous editions gets overall rougher with the Edge system. Instead of determining and adding a load of Modifiers, everything boils down to the 3 dimensions of either you or your oposition or no one getting an Edge. In Combat, you do this twice, once with AR-DR (which includes stuff like range, armor, cover, armor pen, recoil) and once for other environmental modifiers. It´s simple, but it´s arguably pretty "Low-Res": It could be that you have 3 sources of advantage on your side, but you still get the same bonus as you would have gotten with just one of them. In these cases, the Edge system sacrifices a part of simulationism, no question.

However, you have two consider a bunch of other factors here: First, I don´t think that these situations will happen that often, partly because they cancel each other out and partly because there are still many factors that are represented by good old dice pool modifiers. And if they happen, the GM still has the authority to say "You know what? One Edge doesn´t really cut it in this case. I also add a dice pool modifier". Second, there´s diminish return. Picture yourself shooting in dim light, with added heavy smoke, at a target that´s in cover, all while your eyes are still burning from a tear gas shot you you received a minute ago. If you straight up stack all these modifiers and factors and add them to corresponding tests, it may sound realistic at first, until you realize that all of these modifiers have at least partially to do with how good you can see the target. The odds probably stack up so high against that you´d likely have a better chance if you were without all these modifiers, but firing with closed eyes. It´s a big problem when you try to factor everything in that might be relevant in a given situation, and High-Simulationist system often fall in this trap. Considering all this, the "low resulution" of the Edge system is maybe not as bad compared to what we had before.

For the record: Yes, I do think that the system could and should be more "high-res", if only to adequately represent all the fringe cases without too much GM caprice. F.i, instead of the 3 states "4 higher, 4 lower, about equal", I think that the AR-DR comparison could easily handle up to six states (10 lower, 10 higher, 4 lower, 4 higher, one higher, about equal). These could be used to determine other effects, f.i. if the attacker hits on a tie or if one of the sides can use Edge at all. The devs for the upcoming Combat book would do well to evaluate some of the ideas that are floating around for additional, more detailed combat rules. But I don´t think that SR6 is "OMG literally unplayable!" just because the Core rules are more lo-res than in previous Editions.

Second: Correlation. That´s where the Edge system gets really icky for some out here. That´s understandable as well, at least on a first glance. What do i mean by this? At the core, Edge is mostly a positive or negative (If you give it to your opposition) modifier. It´s hard to put an exact price tag on it, but most of its uses offer an effect that can be roughly translated into some kind of dice pool bonus.

However, you don´t have to use that bonus on the test for which is was granted, and that´s what´s raising eyebrows. I could get an Edge for my good armor and cover, but instead of using it to avoid damage, I use it on my counterattack. I could get an Edge for Hacking a Device with weak protection, but I later use it on my defense test. This leads to correlations that shouldn´t be there. Assuming that I can shoot better because I have an armored vest is ridiculous. It´s esoteric. It totally goes against simulationism.

Or does it? Because here´s the thing: Is it really more realistic to assume that there´s no correlation? Having armor and cover is good for defense, sure. But it also might give you the confidence to take the risk and aim just a little bit longer instead of trying to protect your ass.  And probably even to a degree where you defense advantage shifts into an offensive advantage. Same if it goes the other way around: If you get Edge by shooting from an advantageus position, but decide to use it on a later defense test, it can be perfectly explained by either the opposition being subtly cowed by your good firing position or by the notion that you have used your little advantage to get a better look of the battlefield. Yes, it´s often not that easy to explain the exact correlation between one specific source of Edge and the test where you actually use it. But in most cases, you can at least refer to motivational or perceptional aspects to rationalize it. Edge is an abstract ressource, but that doesn´t mean that it has no connection to reality.

Arbitrarily capping this ressource at 2 points per round sure does, though  ::)
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <07-18-19/1451:58>
adzling, I would say my group is extremely Pink Mohawk as well, but we also enjoy our crunch, considering we are all also Pathfinder/3.5 players, and to some extent optimizers for several of us.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-18-19/2125:49>
Yeah rift sorry if you felt stereotyped rift

There are so many different play styles and ways to define them ;-)
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: dalien on <07-18-19/2127:39>
I received the Starter box as well as a copy of the Core Rule book as a Demo agent. I read it objectively but did not say anything. I prepped some stuff and ran the Starter box with seasoned players who have been coming to my SR games for years and several editions.

 None of them liked it. I am just going to stick with other editions and maybe buy splatbooks for flavor or metaplot. I just do not care for anything that is coming in 6th ed.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <07-18-19/2215:24>
adzling no problem. We define Pink Mohawk more by how loud we are on runs: Explosives, ADPS, Heavy Armor, Etc. Not necessarily by Pixies using Combat Axes better than Trolls damage wise or bikinis soaking tank shots. Hell, our last game we all had public awareness of like 8-9 by the end of the campaign. Fun times.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-19-19/0221:54>
You'll like the new system for that. Wonder if your group would see it as a challenge.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: kyoto kid on <07-19-19/0402:07>
Or, to flip it around, it places more emphasis on being skilled with the weapon rather then just happening to be the most roided rager in the room, since unless you know what you're doing you're likely to hit someone with the flat of the blade or misjudge the position needed for a good slice leaving only painful, but otherwise superficial bruises and lacerations.

And professional baseball players have never had steroid scandals because the power (damage) behind swinging a bat has nothing to do with strength....

Gimme a break.

As anyone who has any true understanding of physical combat will tell you, strength, speed, coordination, and skill all play a part in how much damage can be brought to bear.  With simplification being a main goal of 6e, we can't expect anything to come close to accurately incorporate all of those things, the least that can be done is if Agility and Skill are being used to attack, Strength should play a part in damage.
...so according to the  6e rules, being in my 60s, out of shape with maybe no where near the strength I used to have, let alone that of say, Mark McGuire in his prime (particularly when he was on the juice), but still knowing how to swing a bat from my younger days in the game and still having that "eye", I would be able to belt a home run as hard and as far he could.

Yeah, doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-19-19/1455:57>
Or, to flip it around, it places more emphasis on being skilled with the weapon rather then just happening to be the most roided rager in the room, since unless you know what you're doing you're likely to hit someone with the flat of the blade or misjudge the position needed for a good slice leaving only painful, but otherwise superficial bruises and lacerations.

And professional baseball players have never had steroid scandals because the power (damage) behind swinging a bat has nothing to do with strength....

Gimme a break.

As anyone who has any true understanding of physical combat will tell you, strength, speed, coordination, and skill all play a part in how much damage can be brought to bear.  With simplification being a main goal of 6e, we can't expect anything to come close to accurately incorporate all of those things, the least that can be done is if Agility and Skill are being used to attack, Strength should play a part in damage.
...so according to the  6e rules, being in my 60s, out of shape with maybe no where near the strength I used to have, let alone that of say, Mark McGuire in his prime (particularly when he was on the juice), but still knowing how to swing a bat from my younger days in the game and still having that "eye", I would be able to belt a home run as hard and as far he could.

Yeah, doesn't make sense.

Hyperbole aside.... neither 5e nor 6e has rules for determining how far you can slug a baseball with a swing.  Either system, the GM is making up how to mechanically figure that answer... assuming the answer isn't just made up arbitrarily anyway.

You don't HAVE to make static weapon DVs into more than it what it is.  6e obviously isn't saying that strength has nothing to do with how far you can hit a baseball.  My point is neither is a static DV mechanic.  You can chose to link the two and have a bad time, or you can take the rules for what they are build on that framework to have a good time.  In my perspective, posts like this are cases of people choosing to have a bad time and falsely laying external blame for it. Obviously, YMMV.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <07-19-19/1507:55>
You'll like the new system for that. Wonder if your group would see it as a challenge.

Not really, we like crunchy systems, why we are also not picking up Pathfinder2 and have not switched over to D&D5. We like, even with its faults, 3.X system, its compatibility with Pathfinder, and have figured out work around for major issues. We have done the same with ShadowRun 5ed. Don't like the overly streamlining of combat, stupidly weird "new edge", Armor being truely worthless, Str only used with Unarmed, loss of Combat Passes, etc. Only possible thing we might steal is the new Matrix.

Also, Catalyst has burned me with failure to address issues with editing, lack feedback for errors, and releasing errata for books 2+ years old. So, basically I am not giving them a lot more money to replace the books that I have and have figured work around to make the system work. Also, in this day and age closed playtest are pretty much not cool, but that could because Paizo spoiled me with Public Playtests. Granted, I don't care for Pathfinder2 as well, but at least I saw the basic system before I had to shell out money only to find out I do not like it.

Sorry, for the kinda long rant. I am just miffed that the two of the rule sets I love are are moving towards the simpler rule systems that are all the rage now days. I enjoy crunchy games, both in rules and tactics. This, is not one of those systems.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-19-19/1554:10>
You can chose to link the two and have a bad time, or you can take the rules for what they are build on that framework to have a good time.  In my perspective, posts like this are cases of people choosing to have a bad time and falsely laying external blame for it. Obviously, YMMV.

While you do have a point to a certain extent, I would say falsely laying external blame isn't as accurate. Those people (myself included) that think certain design decisions were nonsensical have just a valid perspective as those that are cool taking it as it is.

I enjoy crunchy games, both in rules and tactics. This, is not one of those systems

SR6 is still fairly crunchy, just not comparably to SR5. We'll see how things progress once material from new books gets added in.

SR5, Pathfinder, Star Wars saga edition, and Conan 2nd are my gaming bread and butter too, so I feel your overall pain. Pathfinder 2 is such a disappointment.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-19-19/1613:07>
You'll like the new system for that. Wonder if your group would see it as a challenge.

Not really, we like crunchy systems,
I was talking about Public Awareness, but if your mind is made, your mind is made.

Those people (myself included) that think certain design decisions were nonsensical have just a valid perspective as those that are cool taking it as it is.
"I don't like design decision X, because of reason Y" is a valid perspective, just like "I like it due to reason Z". "The design decision is nonsensical" is not. That's an undeserved attack on the people that worked hard with playtesters to work this out. It's that toxicity that's gatekeeping all the newbies away.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-19-19/1617:50>
While you do have a point to a certain extent, I would say falsely laying external blame isn't as accurate. Those people (myself included) that think certain design decisions were nonsensical have just a valid perspective as those that are cool taking it as it is.

I can dig it.

And for the record, lest my tolerance for static melee weapon DVs be mistaken for a love for them... if I were magically able to change things about 6e some sort of "fix" for this would be on my short list of things to do.  If I were allowed only one change, that might even be it.

Of course the devil would be in the details about what the change would be. The strength of divergent opinions in this thread alone suggest there'd STILL be bellyaching about that fix itself instead of the absence of a fix. 

Besides, an inherent advantage of a slimmer rules system over a more bloated rules system is you can more easily add to the bones than streamline the bloat.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Ghost Rigger on <07-19-19/1642:51>
Arbitrarily capping this ressource at 2 points per round sure does, though  ::)
This is actually a huge part of the "armor does nothing" conversation. If armor always contributed edge to attacks, then while we would still be lamenting the loss of soak dice, no one could say "armor does nothing". Instead, I can concoct a billion and one likely scenarios where a player gets two edge before they get shot at, hold them up, point at them and scream "ARMOR DOES NOTHING" like a coked-up baboon until my larynx bursts.

Hyperbole aside.... neither 5e nor 6e has rules for determining how far you can slug a baseball with a swing.  Either system, the GM is making up how to mechanically figure that answer... assuming the answer isn't just made up arbitrarily anyway.
And yet, assuming a sensible GM, we all know that whatever solution the GM comes up with, it will be largely based on the character's Strength, and possibly the qualities of the bat and measure of skill as well. We know this because there is precedent for it, both in the game (grenade throwing distance is determined by Strength) and in reality (stronger=hits ball harder=ball goes farther). This is the problem with several mechanical changes in 6e: some mechanics now have basis in neither reality nor previous editions of the game. We can debate forever about to what degree one strength plays into the damage done when you shank someone with a rusty screwdriver and how that would be most accurately represented by in-game mechanics, but we know that it does play some role, and that's not being represented at all by the 6e mechanics. This is inherently irksome for a number of people, not "choosing to have a bad time and falsely laying external blame for it".
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-19-19/1700:10>
Heck it not contributing to melee damage is detached from its own rules not just reality or older rules since unarmed does tie in directly. It would at least be more internally consistent if unarmed had a flat 1 damage or something. So weird for like a troll with bone lacing to do less damage due to having bone lacing, or a knife whatever.

As an aside for the ball hitting example. Even if there are no rules for that there are rules for things like attacking objects. Same scenario but instead of base ball it’s a lumberjack with a axe and a tree or a construction worker with a sledge and a brick wall.

There may be game design reasons for it. But, it’s far enough off of how people expect things to work it will cause a disconnect for many.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-19-19/1713:20>
And for the record, lest my tolerance for static melee weapon DVs be mistaken for a love for them... if I were magically able to change things about 6e some sort of "fix" for this would be on my short list of things to do.  If I were allowed only one change, that might even be it.

That's legit.

Personally, I like that they scaled numbers back, just not the exact way they went about it or the side effects doing it the way they did had.

Of course the devil would be in the details about what the change would be. The strength of divergent opinions in this thread alone suggest there'd STILL be bellyaching about that fix itself instead of the absence of a fix.

That will always be the case because of differing preferences.

Heck it not contributing to melee damage is detached from its own rules not just reality or older rules since unarmed does tie in directly.

Right?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <07-19-19/1734:20>
At Lormyr- Maybe we should fine the old geezers table to cry about our lost systems of a bygone age!! :'(

At Michael Chandra- Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding. Nah, mostly it was due to having a massive gun battle/sword fight on stage during a live show. Only afterwards did our crew learn it was a combination of publicity stunt for the preformer, setup by their manager, and way for the Triads to get ride of excess worthless foot soldiers. Made for some later interesting jobs though.

Edit for clarity
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-19-19/1759:22>
"I don't like design decision X, because of reason Y" is a valid perspective, just like "I like it due to reason Z". "The design decision is nonsensical" is not. That's an undeserved attack on the people that worked hard with playtesters to work this out. It's that toxicity that's gatekeeping all the newbies away.

1). working hard does not make you immune to criticism for building a poor product.
2). having core elements like armor, strength and weapons not function as one would expect is an issue worthy of criticism. Especially when there is no good reason for it to be that way except "we had to make it fit the edge mechanic".
3). Criticism is not toxicity.
4). Current customers are people too, and to toss away their concerns despite the fact they were the core customers for the previous edition and bought all the published books is, to put it bluntly, doltish. Few companies could survive if they purposely set out to tell their existing customers "get lost, we don't care wtf you think."
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: tenchi2a on <07-19-19/1821:51>
"I don't like design decision X, because of reason Y" is a valid perspective, just like "I like it due to reason Z". "The design decision is nonsensical" is not. That's an undeserved attack on the people that worked hard with playtesters to work this out. It's that toxicity that's gatekeeping all the newbies away.

1). working hard does not make you immune to criticism for building a poor product.
2). having core elements like armor, strength and weapons not function as one would expect is an issue worthy of criticism. Especially when there is no good reason for it to be that way except "we had to make it fit the edge mechanic".
3). Criticism is not toxicity.
4). Current customers are people too, and to toss away their concerns because despite the fact they were the core customers for the previous edition and bought all the published books is, to up it bluntly, doltish. Few companies could survive if they purposely set out to tell their existing customers "get lost, we don't care wtf you think."

+1

1. Especially when you keep saying how hard you worked and what you can up with doesn't meet expectations.
People start wondering what you worked so hard on.

2. "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley" in action

3. Typical response to criticism in this day and age.
If you call it toxic you can ignore it,  is the thought.

4. Typical business plan these days.
For some reason companies have got it through there head that new customers are more important then returning customer.
While both are import, returning customer are the base you build off not the ones you throw away to get the new ones.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <07-19-19/1927:22>
"I don't like design decision X, because of reason Y" is a valid perspective, just like "I like it due to reason Z". "The design decision is nonsensical" is not. That's an undeserved attack on the people that worked hard with playtesters to work this out. It's that toxicity that's gatekeeping all the newbies away.

1). working hard does not make you immune to criticism for building a poor product.
2). having core elements like armor, strength and weapons not function as one would expect is an issue worthy of criticism. Especially when there is no good reason for it to be that way except "we had to make it fit the edge mechanic".
3). Criticism is not toxicity.
4). Current customers are people too, and to toss away their concerns because despite the fact they were the core customers for the previous edition and bought all the published books is, to up it bluntly, doltish. Few companies could survive if they purposely set out to tell their existing customers "get lost, we don't care wtf you think."

+1

1. Especially when you keep saying how hard you worked and what you can up with doesn't meet expectations.
People start wondering what you worked so hard on.

2. "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley" in action

3. Typical response to criticism in this day and age.
If you call it toxic you can ignore it,  is the thought.

4. Typical business plan these days.
For some reason companies have got it through there head that new customers are more important then returning customer.
While both are import, returning customer are the base you build off not the ones you throw away to get the new ones.

+2

One for each of you!!
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: FastJack on <07-19-19/2029:35>
I guess I just don't understand the need for the toxicity and gatekeeping. The only thing you are doing by trying to convince everyone that "6th edition is the worst and you shouldn't buy it" is actually convincing them not to buy it. Do you think that if SR6 doesn't sell, Catalyst will go back to 5E? Or try to create a 7E? If 6E doesn't sell, the most likely thing to happen is that they will stop producing Shadowrun. They aren't a large company and, if one of their production lines dries up, they will refocus on other things like BattleTech or DragonFire. And if Catalyst doesn't produce Shadowrun, then Topps will consider leasing the license to someone else. The only other company I can think of that would be interested is the new FASA corp.

And boy, if they buy it, expect them to REALLY change the game to match Earthdawn.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-19-19/2103:02>
?
This makes me think you haven’t been listening.
But then I’m sure you’d say the same thing about me?

To be clear I think that people whose gaming preference is similar to mine will likely not enjoy 6e.

Moreover I think that catalyst missed a huge opportunity for improvement over 5e in many aspects of the game that could have brought in new players through simplification and streamlining while retaining the appeal for players such as myself.

That’s a huge disappointment for someone as committed to srun as I am (1990 to now).

That’s all.

I am sure many players with tastes very different from mine will enjoy 6e and that’s ok. That doesn’t make them bad or dumb people. They just have a difference preference to me and that’s ok.

None of that changes the fact that I find 6e horrific for all the reasons o have stated previously.

That’s not toxic, that’s a die hard fan having a sad.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: tenchi2a on <07-19-19/2118:53>
I guess I just don't understand the need for the toxicity and gatekeeping. The only thing you are doing by trying to convince everyone that "6th edition is the worst and you shouldn't buy it" is actually convincing them not to buy it. Do you think that if SR6 doesn't sell, Catalyst will go back to 5E? Or try to create a 7E? If 6E doesn't sell, the most likely thing to happen is that they will stop producing Shadowrun. They aren't a large company and, if one of their production lines dries up, they will refocus on other things like BattleTech or DragonFire. And if Catalyst doesn't produce Shadowrun, then Topps will consider leasing the license to someone else. The only other company I can think of that would be interested is the new FASA corp.

And boy, if they buy it, expect them to REALLY change the game to match Earthdawn.

And there is a reverse side to each of these statements.

Toxicity is a two way street and I have seen it on both sides of this argument.
1. The idea that if you don't think the game is good you are being toxic is as good as saying " If you don't agree with me you are wrong"
2. I have made multiple attempts to propose optional/house rules to fix issues I found with the game and have either been ignored, told there is nothing to fix it works fine, or that was proposed to CGL during play-testing and it was rejected.
3. So if no one is willing to discuss it is that any less toxic to the community see below.

If it doesn't sell well they will drop the line and FASA corp may get it.
1. This argument assumes that there is only one choice, love the game or lose it.
2. Is it also as likely that if you drive away the core fan-base and don't get the influx of new players you are hoping for that the game will not sell well thus leading to the outcome you mentioned?
3. Who's to say FASA corp get it would be a bad thing. I own Earthdawn in all its versions and don't see much difference in the new edition. I would assume it would be more likely that they would either revert to the last version to sell well (5th in your example of 6th failing) or revert to 3rd which from my knowledge was the best selling version.

Overall the idea of voicing an opinion on what you feel is wrong with the game, shows the writes that others may not agree with their ideas.
It may not stop them from going forward (as they may be to far along), but it may give them ideas to work with in books like Run Faster /Shadowrun Companion where they can provide optional rules to address the issues officially. I for one can say if this was done I may try it out, but if a "this is how it is live with it or leave" attitude is kept then I will do just that.
I am in no way against companies looking for new players to keep making money, but both my business education and personal beliefs warn against do it without care for your current customer.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: FastJack on <07-19-19/2142:03>
You're both right, everyone is just expressing their opinion on the new edition and also that no-one is telling players not to buy the game.

It may be the incredibly uncomfortable heat wave amping up my exhaustion and getting tired of trying to defend my attitude of "give the game a shot". When I became a moderator here on the forums, it was because I was very active in the boards and tried my best from keeping this place from becoming like Dumpshock (or like they were, I haven't looked in a few years). When all I see is people that consistently stretch the line and bash developers of the game because they don't like the new product, I get upset.

You can have opinions, think a game sucks, whatever. But when you start questioning the skill, knowledge, and decision-making of developers, that's when you stop criticizing and start becoming a troll, man.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-19-19/2149:45>
...
3. So if no one is willing to discuss (house rules) is that any less toxic to the community see below.
...

On this specific point: Many of the proponents of 6WE are those that have seen the whole thing. Categorically, these are people who are bound by NDAs.  Furthermore, house rules are a touchy subject for NDAs as some people are also actively involved in errata'ing 6WE. Anything discussed here may very well be something that's also being proposed behind the shroud of public discussion.  Either way, what IS going on with potential errata is also NDA'd.

So, an echo chamber of like-minded opinions all in opposition to 6WE's new paradigms doesn't mean the pro-6WE people are ignoring you or refusing to engage with you on house rule ideas. In a couple weeks when the CRB should be "in the wild", not only will you have more context with which to work there shouldn't be NDAs gagging potential collaborators.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-19-19/2159:12>
You're both right, everyone is just expressing their opinion on the new edition and also that no-one is telling players not to buy the game.

It may be the incredibly uncomfortable heat wave amping up my exhaustion and getting tired of trying to defend my attitude of "give the game a shot". When I became a moderator here on the forums, it was because I was very active in the boards and tried my best from keeping this place from becoming like Dumpshock (or like they were, I haven't looked in a few years). When all I see is people that consistently stretch the line and bash developers of the game because they don't like the new product, I get upset.

You can have opinions, think a game sucks, whatever. But when you start questioning the skill, knowledge, and decision-making of developers, that's when you stop criticizing and start becoming a troll, man.

dude the last thing i want to do is demoralize you.
you keep the lights on here and there's no farking way i want this to turn into dumpshock.
im gonna sign off for a bit, i made my point.
gluck!
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: tenchi2a on <07-19-19/2204:40>
Another statement that I keep hearing is the game was exhaustively playtested, by whom was it playtested.
Having playtested many RPG/MMO/Computer game (Currently play testing a game expansion as we speak)/ and Boardgames I can say there is no such thing as exhaustively playtested. No closed playtest can fined all the problems or exploits in a game.
So who where your playtesters
1. The playtest should include players from every aspect of your core gaming community and not just like minded players to the writers.
2. All responses should be evaluated and not dismissed because they don't fit what you are going for, because this could indicate that what you are going for is not working.
Not say CGL did any of this, but a lot of the hearsay about the playtest seems to be upsetting.

I was also in on the open playtest done for D&D 5th edition and while I did not agree with everything they did, the results speak for themselves as D&D 5th edition has gone on to be a big hit with both the old and new players because the listened to their fans comments whither good or bad.

It also doesn't help that most of CGL promotions for the game consist of "we know you had problems with this mechanic so we got rid of it" "Edge".
Don't like the amount of mods "gone" "edge"
Armors to strong "gone" "edge"
To much damage from weapons "reduced""edge"
Edge not covering it well "edge"
They keep telling us what they got rid of and how edge now covers it, but don't tell us how edge is suppose to covers it.
Edge replaces armor; How, there is nothing in the edge charts that even remotely approximates armor and how does only ever getting 1 edge from it make sense?
Even if its not what was intended, it gives off the feeling that the game was gear to show off their baby the edge system.
I'm not saying this is the writers fault, as marketing departments can sometimes really sway opinions in the wrong direction.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: tenchi2a on <07-19-19/2206:39>
You're both right, everyone is just expressing their opinion on the new edition and also that no-one is telling players not to buy the game.

It may be the incredibly uncomfortable heat wave amping up my exhaustion and getting tired of trying to defend my attitude of "give the game a shot". When I became a moderator here on the forums, it was because I was very active in the boards and tried my best from keeping this place from becoming like Dumpshock (or like they were, I haven't looked in a few years). When all I see is people that consistently stretch the line and bash developers of the game because they don't like the new product, I get upset.

You can have opinions, think a game sucks, whatever. But when you start questioning the skill, knowledge, and decision-making of developers, that's when you stop criticizing and start becoming a troll, man.

I want to be crystal clear, nothing I ever say here is an attack on you or CGL personally.
You do a great job and have been more then far when we get out of line. 8)
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: dezmont on <07-19-19/2214:51>
You're both right, everyone is just expressing their opinion on the new edition and also that no-one is telling players not to buy the game.

It may be the incredibly uncomfortable heat wave amping up my exhaustion and getting tired of trying to defend my attitude of "give the game a shot". When I became a moderator here on the forums, it was because I was very active in the boards and tried my best from keeping this place from becoming like Dumpshock (or like they were, I haven't looked in a few years). When all I see is people that consistently stretch the line and bash developers of the game because they don't like the new product, I get upset.


I get this feel. Basically is my story with Reddit and Reddit is REALLY on fire right now because there is an (untrue) perception you can just flip every table and scream all ya want. I had to take a break (And am hiding out here to some extent in fact as I ease back in to whipping my billy club about as internet police).


You can have opinions, think a game sucks, whatever. But when you start questioning the skill, knowledge, and decision-making of developers, that's when you stop criticizing and start becoming a troll, man.

I disagree, especially with the last one of questioning decision making, because a vital part of criticism of art and media is being able to understand the author. Like death of the author is kiiiinda a thing but you also need to try to understand who the person is making choices and why to get a greater context.

Or, to put it another way, you gotta take credits for the Ls as well as the Ws. Especially because often getting inside the designer's head can help you understand why a mistake was understandable. For example, magicrun is a super common criticism of 5e, but magicrun didn't come about because of super terrible choices made for no reason, when you look at what 4e was like and the things that cause magicrun (The fact that 'ware got massively downgraded which made the relative advantage of sustained spells go from 'a joke compared to my emotitoy and weird software suite giving me +10' to 'Yeah I absolutey gotta have that', combat got significantly less lethal for soak tanks, autofire changed to make hitting easier but dying harder, defense tests... existed) were all good changes that needed to happen and it came about somewhat out of left field, and combined with thematic concepts that are foundational to SR but aged extremely poorly (mainly the idea that body modification and prothestetics are pushed by 'morally pure' mage NPCs who can kinda be viewed as genetically superior as making you less human... which is... yikes!) make it seem like there was absolutely no love for mundane PCs, when in actuality mundanes benefited a lot from many of SR5's rules changes (For example not having to be an optimized limb build sam to survive an AR burst shot is super nice in making 'ware's versatility a valid upshot because now you don't need to spend ALL your essence on cyberlimbs) and it just so happens a few rogue rules totally unrealted to magic sorta accidently pushed the mage's power level crazy high.

Of course there is a line between between an intense critical analysis that can get personally uncomfortable but is something you have to accept will happen in order for fair evaluation of your work to exist (Something hurting your feelings does not necessarily make it invalid or unacceptable) and the weird internet rage feedback loop vomiting hot takes and anger all over someone way disproportionate to the 'crime' and utterly unrelated to the work of the artist that is like legitimately concerning for our societies ability to function. Having been part of that loop (And at least feeling like they pulled themselves out) it does really worry me how many people are angry because they LIKE being angry as opposed to people asking the sincere question of 'what were they thinking?'

In the magicrun example some people try to push a narrative that the designers just love magic soooo much and want everyone to be mages and really just want 'wared PCs to go away. This trollish attitude where there is an attempt to blame some moral failing of a game designer, rather than the fact mechanical systems are INSANELY complex and its super hard to see every outcome of every rule interaction and every bit of lore that has been about longer than most people who are playing SR have been doesn't come from people questioning the designer's intent, it comes from the opposite, a fundamentally unsympathetic place where people imagine others are making choices purely to spite them, be mean, and make things worse rather than just like... trying their best.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Jareth Valar on <07-19-19/2219:41>
OK, I've lurked these posts for long enough. Time to chime in.

As for working hard on something...you can spend hundreds of hours polishing a turd (it IS possible BTW) and looking at the shiny brown results think "Who wouldn't buy this? We've slaved for hours over this, of course people will want it!"....in the end, people will only see a shiny turd someone wasted hours polishing and scratching their heads wondering why the polisher is so upset people don't like it..."

As for Toxicity. Very true there are some very bitter and vocal haters, however the venom drips both ways as been seen. Most of what has been turning me off the the forums in general is all of the "toxic supporters" of 6E. Like mentioned before the "if you don't like it and don't appreciate what we went through to do it....you're wrong!" crowd.

Personally, from what has been presented so far, I'm not likely to purchase straight away. I will see what the core rules have to offer, but I don't like what I see so far. Which, for the record, no one has to jusrify WHY. I don't like shell fish, don't have to explain why, just don't.  I also hate paisley. Won't buy it. It may be the most comfortable perfect fit piece of wear in the world, but I'll never even consider it based on what I SEE at the moment.

6th Edition might be a perfectly playable and enjoyable system. And for those that think so, beautiful. ENJOY, the world needs more gamers. I think many are upset because of the perceived "star peg into round hole" feel the rules have as presented so far. Heck, even a square peg would have preferred, though was hoping for a few more sides myself (better fit/less drastic a change)

To me, I like mostly crunchy systems, but not Grape Nuts crunchy (there have been systems I have stayed away from because of that..ChartMaster RoleMaster for one, Stalking the Night Fantastic for another (the ability to die from hydro-static shock from a graze to your pinkey after 3 different charts to deal with damage...nope) and a few others. I also stay away from FATE and the like, not for me or mine. Tried all of the above plus over a hundred others over the years.

I feel that rules (yes, I said the "R" word) should provide the skeletal framework for the world. Set certain parameters and benchmarks that the players (and GM) can glance at for levels of expectation, whether or not the game goes beyond those if irrelevant They still provide a reference to show what is expected and normally available in the world as a whole.  6E to me, again from what has been given light so far, to be building it's framework from Ooblech, really firm and solid during some key points and way to runny fluid otherwise.  Not a solid framework IMHO.

Now to my biggest complaint about this whole discussion... the defense of "Now the GM can just....." That has been a thing since the beginnings of tabletop role-playing. The GM has ALWAYS had that option, ALWAYS will. That is NO defense. To me it's about as intelligent as "am too, am not, am too, am not, am too........"

As for the "if we don't buy it, it might go away" thing. If (and I do mean IF, since I don't have the core rules I don't know, but the QSR have NOT impressed me) it sucks for my table, should I still support the company that is producing it so they can put out more of something I don't think is worth it? Never going to happen.  If sales are down and they don't try to analyze why and try and find a solution (whatever that may be) then why bother at all?

Personally, I'm going to try and stay away from the coulda/shoulda/woulda conversations. What's been done is done. Now, the only thing to do will be how to fix what is perceived to be broken on an individual level and let the company know we are dissatisfied, how we are dissatisfied and why we are dissatisfied in a way that they will hopefully listen, NOT crankily bitch and moan nonconstructively.  For those trying to be constructive, kudos. For those defending 6E with the understanding that others may not see what you do, double kudo's. For all of the others on both sides, well.......Not trying to get myself banned, so "have a nice life"

End result, I'll post more when I have read the core rules, until then good luck trying to convince the internet you are right.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: FastJack on <07-19-19/2230:45>
Thanks to you all, I do like to hear the opinions on the game, and going into depth on them helps both old and new player understand where the opinions are coming from.

Dez/Jareth: Regarding the decision-making and criticizing, I agree that you should be able to point out a bad decision and ask "WTF"? My concern is when people start saying things like CGL can't make ANY good decisions.

Adz/T2A: Thanks guys, it's good to hear once in a while that other appreciate you.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: dezmont on <07-19-19/2313:28>

Dez/Jareth: Regarding the decision-making and criticizing, I agree that you should be able to point out a bad decision and ask "WTF"? My concern is when people start saying things like CGL can't make ANY good decisions.

I don't care about CGL. I say this boldly on CGL's own forums that you are a soulless LLC and not a person, and I shake my fist at ye!

Caring about people in CGL is different, of course. People's wellbeings and emotions matter quite a lot.

From the perspective of PR and public image, it is well understood tanking your rep is way easier than building it up. Say what you want about modern CGL, but it is... sorta inarguable their history is not spotless. And it doesn't matter if you start doing better because reputations, especially of companies and brands, are about consistency. It doesn't really matter, from a consumer perspective, that CGL can make good choices, if the perception is that they are not consistent.

This is why, despite editing being an issue in literally every RPG book I have ever read, people enjoy sniping at CGL with it. Things that others get away with become corporate sins (heh) when you do them if you have developed a reputation relating to them. So it doesn't super matter if Forbidden Arcana did a great job of managing to bridge old with new and preserve the way things used to be without ruining the new status quo for anyone who liked it, people are going to look at the mistakes the company keeps making because it indicates a non-commitment to improvement.

And that gets SUPER UGLY when like... some people, like freelancers or lead designers or line developers sorta are 'avatars' of the company and become collateral damage absorbing hate over patterns they didn't start and are trying to end. But at the same time, corporations don't exactly deserve the benefit of the doubt and its... super weird how individual personalities get tangled up in that.

And I have no doubt CGL is unaware of this, brands are literally only a value add for a product because they create a reputation, it is why PR and marketing is such a huge field. It has not gone unnoticed to me that CGL has focused a LOT on personality based marketing, with freelancers often representing their works instead of CGL in places like Reddit and the decision to announce 6e with the well liked Shadowcasters Network (who also include a freelancer who has positive ties with the company) rather than doing it themselves. These are actually pretty good choices, but also have the side effect of exposing people who are not PR professionals to really intense public attention, which is really rough, especially because on the flip flop of them sometimes accidently or deliberately becoming martyrs for CGL I have no doubt in my mind these personalities feel INTENSE pride in getting to represent their work and get attention for it so it isn't like CGL is just abusing them.

It is actually really funny how often we talk about CGL as an entity with feelings, it was actually one of my first research projects and was what got me noticed by the head of my college's graduate program to examine how social media blurs the line of what a corporation is and confuses us into almost viewing them as people, because a corporation can both position itself as a person like entity and because they can push key members of the corporation forward as almost 'avatars' of the corporation when needed before retracting them, like a creepy corporate possession spirit hive mind.

I think about this kinda stuff a lot, it is why I chose to study this stuff, as my friends say only partially ironically: 'Real life is a Cyberpunk.' Social media is a huge intellectual, moral, and emotional quagmire none of us can escape from which has ramifications to how we interact as humans that position it both as possibly one of the greatest existential threats to our ability to rationally view and interact with the world while also an insanely potent social good. And it sometimes really pays to step back and really look at what is going on, be it a company like Wendy's putting on a creepy human mask to gain sympathy and esteem because now people have the perception of a freaking fast food company as a being they interact with who is funny and clever and is willing to use their cutting wit to make observations about the world and involve you in the joke in order to sell you fast food burgers, or people getting absolutely drenched in what amounts to internet harassment campaigns that literally spontaneously form with no individual human effort or attention and self organize organically thinly defending itself as discourse about corporations, consumer rights, whatever.

Basically the resonance is real and its creating gestalt consciousnesses able to interact on the individual level and probably is going to kill us all, is what I am saying. Which I personally hope is the next 6e metaplot!
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <07-19-19/2350:23>

Dez/Jareth: Regarding the decision-making and criticizing, I agree that you should be able to point out a bad decision and ask "WTF"? My concern is when people start saying things like CGL can't make ANY good decisions.
Wall of smart and well thought out text

Damn, awesome analysis.

At FastJack Hey, glad you keep us from becoming a dumpster fire like other famous/infamous web forums. But, that said, I will still be strongly opinionated about how CGL has handled 5th. We still lack errata for old books and keep getting sold new ones with, at times, massive errors. Maybe this is due to my experience with Paizo overall being better at errata and responding with fixes. Not to say their forum is nicer, it is not. Honestly, it is a hell of a lot meaner/trollier than here. The other honest criticism is open playtests are better for a new system than closed. I don't like Pathfinder 2 for several reasons, but they did fix a bunch of dumbass rules thanks to the open playtests. Resonance and consumables being one big example. Now, I promise to try my damnedest not to directly criticize the actual writers, and if I do, please call me out and ban-hammer the drek out of me if need be.

Again, thanks for not letting this place become a dumpster fire of the internet.

Edited for clarity.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: tenchi2a on <07-20-19/0016:53>
I also need to bring up two things that I have noticed on this thread.

1. please stop the reality vs. fantasy debates, the whole point of this thread was to get away from that tired argument as it has no Bering on a RPG from either side.
Looking at the name of the tread you can fine the better argument.
Arguments like this caused the locking of the combat thread.

2. Not to insult any of the fans of 6th edition, but continually informing people that the game ran well at your table or flows well for your group is in no way reassuring when you keep badmouthing 5th edition. This shows you did not like 5th and think this edition is better, not that people who like 5th will enjoy it because you do.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-20-19/1309:47>
2. Not to insult any of the fans of 6th edition, but continually informing people that the game ran well at your table or flows well for your group is in no way reassuring when you keep badmouthing 5th edition. This shows you did not like 5th and think this edition is better, not that people who like 5th will enjoy it because you do.

I would say the main difference between the two, is that we know all of 5th ed's rules. We've been playing them for years now where 6th edition we only have the quick start (and let's be honest, we know how those don't line up to full rules) and a few hints and rumors otherwise. We don't even have a core yet. There's a difference between pointing out known flaws of a well work system vs potential flaws of a system not even deployed yet. That said one can criticize that little bit we've seen of the not-yet-deployed system without crossing the line into being a badmouthing hater, a line that thankfully few have crossed here.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-20-19/1427:55>
I love 5e. But I see 6e solve >90% of the problems I had with 5e, and no longer force me to do all the math for most of my players. If that counts as badmouthing and I'm not supposed to answer questions about how well SR6 plays, fine.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-20-19/1500:02>
Let me clarify a bit: At my home game I know what houserules I need to circumvent vagueness. I love math and crunch and I can handle SR5 just fine. But not all my players can, and at open events I'm restricted. I can't advertise SR5 as well as I want to, and the crunch gets in the way of some of my players. If I can convince them to give Shadowrun another shot in SR6, then I love that. So it's not that I dislike SR5 and think everyone should quit it. But I believe SR6 is what the franchise needs.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: tenchi2a on <07-20-19/2225:39>
Let me clarify a bit: At my home game I know what houserules I need to circumvent vagueness. I love math and crunch and I can handle SR5 just fine. But not all my players can, and at open events I'm restricted. I can't advertise SR5 as well as I want to, and the crunch gets in the way of some of my players. If I can convince them to give Shadowrun another shot in SR6, then I love that. So it's not that I dislike SR5 and think everyone should quit it. But I believe SR6 is what the franchise needs.

I guess one of the reasons I feel so strongly about this is I have already gone through this with one of my other favorite games (legends of the five rings) and watched the new company destroy everything that I liked about it in the name of getting new players and for lack of a better name social justice.
examples:
Resetting the story to;
Add a more female heavy story line
Add a lesbian love story
Get rid of all the fan inputs to the original story

Change the game mechanics to;
Add custom dice
Simplify the rules to draw in new players
Add a narrative dice mechanic (Strife)
and like edge making it a intricate part of the system that is near impossible to remove.
effectively making the game a shell of its former self.

And this trend towards streamlining for new customer reminds me of the open d20 craze from a few years back, where every game had to have or become an open d20 game to get new customers.
And the end results where most companies dropping the d20 version with very few new customer for the effort.

Just so it is clear, I hate D&D in all its forms, probably because my intro into RPGs came from games like (in order) Top Secret, Mechwarrior, and Shadowrun, Pendragon, Legend of the Five Rings. So I never liked; level systems, fix defense, hit points without loss effect, etc. The reason this is important is that the switch to open d20 changed the game involved so much that they stopped being anything other then a d20 knockoff of their setting, thus becoming what I hated.

That is what I am seeing now with the streamlining craze, games becoming shells of what they once where to join the bandwagon. Most of the game I play are due to the mechanics and how they fit the setting, streamlining has a tendency to destroy this in an attempt to draw in new players with simple rule.
If a company has to draw in players by proudly announcing they rulebook is only 300 pages then something is wrong.
Truth be told if you removed most of the pictures, stories, extras from the 5th corebook you could get really close to 300 pages without changing the rules so page count is not the reason. This leaves only one option, you are trying to attract players who want to play a simple game.
And that IMHO is not what Shadowrun has ever been about.

My dearest hope is that 6th edition is not CGL jumping on streamlining bandwagon to get new customer, and is truly them trying to improve the game.
But in the current RPG environment where company after company is jumping on every new flash-in-the-pan idea or gimmick my hope is small.

Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Katanarchist on <07-21-19/0338:00>
I guess one of the reasons I feel so strongly about this is I have already gone through this with one of my other favorite games (legends of the five rings) and watched the new company destroy everything that I liked about it in the name of getting new players and for lack of a better name social justice.
examples:
Resetting the story to;
Add a more female heavy story line
Add a lesbian love story

The idea of someone complaining about more inclusive representation in on a forum devoted to a cyberpunk game with explicit themes of fighting against oppression is absolutely precious.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: dezmont on <07-21-19/0433:31>
The idea of someone complaining about more inclusive representation in on a forum devoted to a cyberpunk game with explicit themes of fighting against oppression is absolutely precious.

Every so often some Ancap Libretarian finds their way into the shadowrun subreddit and reacts with shock and horror that people reading shadowrun take away that corporations being able to write their own rules is... bad!


While I don't think FFG has done terribly well with L5R, these two complaints as someone who has played in L5R Koteis and palled around in the circles they drew people for the Winter Court games from, the main sin of FFG was reducing the importance of the Mantis, and more importantly, my precious Fox clan. Their main non-joking sin is not realizing how important faction identity is in L5R's balance as a cardgame and how huge a turnoff it is that they seriously don't care that some factions are more supported than others. Netrunner, a 'dead' game currently has more fans than L5R playing online and talking about the card game.

L5R always had LGBT love in it (In fact in universe it is often seen as more ideal than heterosexual love because it does not create as much a risk to one's duty because you can't have illegitimate heirs, and while there are debates to be had about that representation the fact that 'lgbt people exist in Rokugan' is a silly hottake to have) and a few major NPCs were in same sex relationships. Like if you even remotely examine L5R's take on sexuality it is super obviously commenting on how L5R's view of love and marriage is very unhealthy and that all that repression is not... good? Which is why some of the more interesting NPCs are gay (like the scorpion in one of the pre-made adventure modules who is a total badass, patrons a business, helps you out if you ask him for info, and will flat out laugh in your face for being so dense if you ask him why he does't have a wife because its totally an open secret he loves other men and he was not required to marry as part of his duties) Also, LGBT people exist and them showing up in media about people isn't pandering, it is just reflecting the fact humanity is a diverse species, not to mention that RPG players tend to be extremely pro LGBT due to the average RPG player's background, be it social outcast who empathizes or drama nerd.

Trying to flip the bird to 'the SJWs' is also downright dumb business because it turns out at least in this industry being biggoted against LGBT people doesn't make you in some sort of silent majority. It is very much the minority to the point that it was a huge news item in the RPG industry that White Wolf, one of the largest RPG publishers, will essentially no longer exist because fan backlash over their constant attempts at right wing edgyness killed any good will they had with their core consumers.

As for reverting the timeline: Reverting the timeline made sense because L5R had gotten downright wacky. once the GOD OF EVIL had a Godzilla fight with the Hindu god of destruction to save all of Rokugan. Things got way to complex and too weird and moved very far away from anything coherent the emperor was married to a literal shadow hag incarnation of evil but openly and no one thought he was evil and ughhhhghyhghghghghghhgh.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: tenchi2a on <07-21-19/0435:34>
I guess one of the reasons I feel so strongly about this is I have already gone through this with one of my other favorite games (legends of the five rings) and watched the new company destroy everything that I liked about it in the name of getting new players and for lack of a better name social justice.
examples:
Resetting the story to;
Add a more female heavy story line
Add a lesbian love story

The idea of someone complaining about more inclusive representation in on a forum devoted to a cyberpunk game with explicit themes of fighting against oppression is absolutely precious.

I was not complaining about more inclusive representation as the old story line had plenty of inclusive representation I was complaining about them throwing away 20+ years of cooperative storylines (AEG/players) to tell almost the same story over again with the major changes being changing the Clan leadership to be mostly female and to change a major story arc to lesbian love story. Just to be clear I have nothing against there be a same sex relationship if it makes sense to the story, but they shoehorned it in to an already existing story arc that now makes no sense since it originally revolve around an out of wedlock son to a married woman and how the birth father was forced to kill him during the a coup forcing the mother to seek revenge on her sons killer, her lover.
Turning this into a same sex relationship kind of kills this whole story arc for no other reason as to add a same sex relationship as they are running the current version, last I looked, almost beat for beat the same as the old one.

And besides that my main issues was with the new mechanics not the story. For example, some brilliant game designer not thinking that perception or investigation where important skills to add to a game that is mostly played as a magistrate group.  The carbon copy story with the above stated changes just added fuel to the fire.
Also I have quite a few friends in the LGBT community one of them being in my L5R group and even she said FFG went to far with these changes.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: tenchi2a on <07-21-19/0441:27>
The idea of someone complaining about more inclusive representation in on a forum devoted to a cyberpunk game with explicit themes of fighting against oppression is absolutely precious.

Every so often some Ancap Libretarian finds their way into the shadowrun subreddit and reacts with shock and horror that people reading shadowrun take away that corporations being able to write their own rules is... bad!


While I don't think FFG has done terribly well with L5R, these two complaints as someone who has played in L5R Koteis and palled around in the circles they drew people for the Winter Court games from, the main sin of FFG was reducing the importance of the Mantis, and more importantly, my precious Fox clan. Their main non-joking sin is not realizing how important faction identity is in L5R's balance as a cardgame and how huge a turnoff it is that they seriously don't care that some factions are more supported than others. Netrunner, a 'dead' game currently has more fans than L5R playing online and talking about the card game.

L5R always had LGBT love in it (In fact in universe it is often seen as more ideal than heterosexual love because it does not create as much a risk to one's duty because you can't have illegitimate heirs, and while there are debates to be had about that representation the fact that 'lgbt people exist in Rokugan' is a silly hottake to have) and a few major NPCs were in same sex relationships. Like if you even remotely examine L5R's take on sexuality it is super obviously commenting on how L5R's view of love and marriage is very unhealthy and that all that repression is not... good? Which is why some of the more interesting NPCs are gay (like the scorpion in one of the pre-made adventure modules who is a total badass, patrons a business, helps you out if you ask him for info, and will flat out laugh in your face for being so dense if you ask him why he does't have a wife because its totally an open secret he loves other men and he was not required to marry as part of his duties) Also, LGBT people exist and them showing up in media about people isn't pandering, it is just reflecting the fact humanity is a diverse species, not to mention that RPG players tend to be extremely pro LGBT due to the average RPG player's background, be it social outcast who empathizes or drama nerd.

Trying to flip the bird to 'the SJWs' is also downright dumb business because it turns out at least in this industry being biggoted against LGBT people doesn't make you in some sort of silent majority. It is very much the minority to the point that it was a huge news item in the RPG industry that White Wolf, one of the largest RPG publishers, will essentially no longer exist because fan backlash over their constant attempts at right wing edgyness killed any good will they had with their core consumers.

As for reverting the timeline: Reverting the timeline made sense because L5R had gotten downright wacky. once the GOD OF EVIL had a Godzilla fight with the Hindu god of destruction to save all of Rokugan. Things got way to complex and too weird and moved very far away from anything coherent the emperor was married to a literal shadow hag incarnation of evil but openly and no one thought he was evil and ughhhhghyhghghghghghhgh.

its not resetting the storyline that is the issues.
its resetting it to tell almost the same story over just to add these changes.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: tenchi2a on <07-21-19/0602:20>
Issues with L5R 5th edition (FFG)
1. Turning a skill list of 43 skills mostly generic weapon skills (ex: sword(kenjutsu), heavy weapon, etc.) into 5 overly generic skill groups ex: all weapons now one skill group called Martial skill.
2. Mad lib/ one-form-column-A one-from-column-B character creation.
3. Weapon breakage rules that favor armor a lot.
4. Custom dice
5. Forced progressive Strife system that forces you to fail rolls on purpose or gain strife that you must lose honor to get rid of, or if you are one of the lucky clans burn off using your abilities.
6. Complete disregard for established Rokugan social customs to push their stories.
7. One designer that learned L5R over a weekend (his own words) as one of the two lead designers. And the other who (by her own words) plays the game as a Japanese simulator and wanted to bring L5R in line with that vision. To be clear on this Rokugan is not Japan and the FRPG/AEG developers always stated that they intended it not to be Japan.
Almost forgot:
7. attributes replaced by approaches, or do you use the skill thoughtfully, passionately, calmly, etc.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Serbitar on <07-21-19/0716:24>
You can have opinions, think a game sucks, whatever. But when you start questioning the skill, knowledge, and decision-making of developers, that's when you stop criticizing and start becoming a troll, man.

Why? Is there no universe in which a developer can have not enough skill, knowledge and has bad decision making?
nd you are a Troll If you claim this is possible?

Strange.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Katanarchist on <07-21-19/0747:32>
Every so often some Ancap Libretarian finds their way into the shadowrun subreddit and reacts with shock and horror that people reading shadowrun take away that corporations being able to write their own rules is... bad!

LFG to Play Elite Private Security Team Hired to Protect Corp Assets - GM Accepts Bitcoin as Payment
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: FastJack on <07-21-19/1009:01>
Okay, if you want to discuss the changes to L5R, please move that discussion to another thread under the General Gaming (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?board=5.0) boards.

You can have opinions, think a game sucks, whatever. But when you start questioning the skill, knowledge, and decision-making of developers, that's when you stop criticizing and start becoming a troll, man.

Why? Is there no universe in which a developer can have not enough skill, knowledge and has bad decision making?
nd you are a Troll If you claim this is possible?

Strange.
I am not claiming that. However, I *am* claiming that if you attack individuals, you are in breach of the forum's Terms of Service (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=12.0), which you agreed to when you registered an account. Rule #1 is play nice and attacking individuals, even if they are not on the forums, will result in warnings and bannings, as other members can attest to (except some that decided a permanent ban was worth their personal "opinions").
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-21-19/1042:00>
Let me clarify a bit: At my home game I know what houserules I need to circumvent vagueness. I love math and crunch and I can handle SR5 just fine. But not all my players can, and at open events I'm restricted. I can't advertise SR5 as well as I want to, and the crunch gets in the way of some of my players. If I can convince them to give Shadowrun another shot in SR6, then I love that. So it's not that I dislike SR5 and think everyone should quit it. But I believe SR6 is what the franchise needs.
That is what I am seeing now with the streamlining craze, games becoming shells of what they once where to join the bandwagon. Most of the game I play are due to the mechanics and how they fit the setting, streamlining has a tendency to destroy this in an attempt to draw in new players with simple rule.
If a company has to draw in players by proudly announcing they rulebook is only 300 pages then something is wrong.
Truth be told if you removed most of the pictures, stories, extras from the 5th corebook you could get really close to 300 pages without changing the rules so page count is not the reason. This leaves only one option, you are trying to attract players who want to play a simple game.
And that IMHO is not what Shadowrun has ever been about.

So you want to remove all the flavor and fluff from the core rulebook that gives you a picture of the world and setting that you're about to play? How does that help anyone outside of those of us who've been playing for years? A CRB needs to also impart an image of the world/setting it's for, otherwise players have no clue what's this world about. And for comparison, with pictures and stories and "extras" (whatever that is since all that's left is crunch and typeset), the 3rd edition rulebook was 330 pages. 4th edition was 349. 5th edition was 478. Notice the difference?

As for streamlined rules, you can make something streamlined but still highly robust. In fact, making the core parts of a rule more streamlined allow you to add in ever more complexity and player choices then by something that's already highly complex and new entries will have to account for dozens of other rules. For a real world example of over complexity, a Rube Goldberg machine.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: tenchi2a on <07-21-19/1154:39>
Let me clarify a bit: At my home game I know what houserules I need to circumvent vagueness. I love math and crunch and I can handle SR5 just fine. But not all my players can, and at open events I'm restricted. I can't advertise SR5 as well as I want to, and the crunch gets in the way of some of my players. If I can convince them to give Shadowrun another shot in SR6, then I love that. So it's not that I dislike SR5 and think everyone should quit it. But I believe SR6 is what the franchise needs.
That is what I am seeing now with the streamlining craze, games becoming shells of what they once where to join the bandwagon. Most of the game I play are due to the mechanics and how they fit the setting, streamlining has a tendency to destroy this in an attempt to draw in new players with simple rule.
If a company has to draw in players by proudly announcing they rulebook is only 300 pages then something is wrong.
Truth be told if you removed most of the pictures, stories, extras from the 5th corebook you could get really close to 300 pages without changing the rules so page count is not the reason. This leaves only one option, you are trying to attract players who want to play a simple game.
And that IMHO is not what Shadowrun has ever been about.

So you want to remove all the flavor and fluff from the core rulebook that gives you a picture of the world and setting that you're about to play? How does that help anyone outside of those of us who've been playing for years? A CRB needs to also impart an image of the world/setting it's for, otherwise players have no clue what's this world about. And for comparison, with pictures and stories and "extras" (whatever that is since all that's left is crunch and typeset), the 3rd edition rulebook was 330 pages. 4th edition was 349. 5th edition was 478. Notice the difference?

As for streamlined rules, you can make something streamlined but still highly robust. In fact, making the core parts of a rule more streamlined allow you to add in ever more complexity and player choices then by something that's already highly complex and new entries will have to account for dozens of other rules. For a real world example of over complexity, a Rube Goldberg machine.

You totally missed the point of what I was saying.
A lot of people where claiming the page count reduction was to reduce the cost of the book. I was showing here how much (not saying unwelcome or unneeded) space was used for non rule related page count in the corebook. And that this was all a marketing tactic to show less pages equal easier game to learn for new players. (not say it is just what this kind of marketing is usually meant to imply.
And while I am all for a history section and a round rundown to set the stage for the setting and show the game in action the every chapter stories ranging for 3 to 6 pages long feel to me as page count padding to up the price of the book, I would even bet that in that 300 pages they wasted upwards of 100 pages on that alone as is normal for RPG books nowadays.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: incrdbil on <07-25-19/2311:56>

...

Personally, from what has been presented so far, I'm not likely to purchase straight away. I will see what the core rules have to offer, but I don't like what I see so far. Which, for the record, no one has to justify WHY. I don't like shell fish, don't have to explain why, just don't.  I also hate paisley. Won't buy it. It may be the most comfortable perfect fit piece of wear in the world, but I'll never even consider it based on what I SEE at the moment.

6th Edition might be a perfectly playable and enjoyable system. And for those that think so, beautiful. ENJOY, the world needs more gamers. I think many are upset because of the perceived "star peg into round hole" feel the rules have as presented so far. Heck, even a square peg would have preferred, though was hoping for a few more sides myself (better fit/less drastic a change)
...

As for the "if we don't buy it, it might go away" thing. If (and I do mean IF, since I don't have the core rules I don't know, but the QSR have NOT impressed me) it sucks for my table, should I still support the company that is producing it so they can put out more of something I don't think is worth it? Never going to happen.  If sales are down and they don't try to analyze why and try and find a solution (whatever that may be) then why bother at all?
...
Personally, I'm going to try and stay away from the coulda/shoulda/woulda conversations. What's been done is done. Now, the only thing to do will be how to fix what is perceived to be broken on an individual level and let the company know we are dissatisfied, how we are dissatisfied and why we are dissatisfied in a way that they will hopefully listen, NOT crankily bitch and moan nonconstructively.

I appreciate your thoughts and experience, which are in line with mine. In the end, no matter if I never adopt the rules, there will be plenty of material I could utilize for 5th. But I don't want that to be confused with support for continuing where 6e is heading in the future. So maybe that will influence what I do get as well. in the meantime, I hope that communication opens up so whatever lessons learned from the new edition are learned quickly and positively effect decisions made in the future.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: kyoto kid on <07-28-19/0348:21>
Or, to flip it around, it places more emphasis on being skilled with the weapon rather then just happening to be the most roided rager in the room, since unless you know what you're doing you're likely to hit someone with the flat of the blade or misjudge the position needed for a good slice leaving only painful, but otherwise superficial bruises and lacerations.

And professional baseball players have never had steroid scandals because the power (damage) behind swinging a bat has nothing to do with strength....

Gimme a break.

As anyone who has any true understanding of physical combat will tell you, strength, speed, coordination, and skill all play a part in how much damage can be brought to bear.  With simplification being a main goal of 6e, we can't expect anything to come close to accurately incorporate all of those things, the least that can be done is if Agility and Skill are being used to attack, Strength should play a part in damage.
...so according to the  6e rules, being in my 60s, out of shape with maybe no where near the strength I used to have, let alone that of say, Mark McGuire in his prime (particularly when he was on the juice), but still knowing how to swing a bat from my younger days in the game and still having that "eye", I would be able to belt a home run as hard and as far he could.

Yeah, doesn't make sense.

Hyperbole aside.... neither 5e nor 6e has rules for determining how far you can slug a baseball with a swing.  Either system, the GM is making up how to mechanically figure that answer... assuming the answer isn't just made up arbitrarily anyway.

You don't HAVE to make static weapon DVs into more than it what it is.  6e obviously isn't saying that strength has nothing to do with how far you can hit a baseball.  My point is neither is a static DV mechanic.  You can chose to link the two and have a bad time, or you can take the rules for what they are build on that framework to have a good time.  In my perspective, posts like this are cases of people choosing to have a bad time and falsely laying external blame for it. Obviously, YMMV.
...elaborating on Iron Serpent's post, what I am getting at is you need a faster more powerful swing to hit a ball further, which means more strength, which in turn translates to bat speed.  Therefore damage from melee weapons would be affected by strength.

OK now take  that same bat, use it as a melee weapon and it becomes terribly gimped in Mr. McGuire's hands as no matter how much strength (speed) he put behind it, he'd do the same amount amount of damage old broken down I would.  With his full strength swing, he'd likely crush opponents head in, while I might break a cheekbone and nose as well as knock out a few teeth.

That is the analogy I was working at.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-28-19/0846:28>
OTOH, SR has never been a "Universal Simulator" kind of game, and 6WE is not attempting to be one either.  In 6WE, you play a Shadowrunner.  You get in fights with people like gangers, mob soldiers, cops, and security guards.  50 year old out of shape former little-leaguers aren't part of the calculus (for the combat system, at least).

It doesn't matter if someone like "real world us" lacks the physical strength to replicate the damage someone like a Mark McGuire could do with a baseball bat.  In the RPG, the presumption is if a PC or NPC lacks raw power, they instead make up for it with speed and quickness.  The presumption is if you're employing a melee weapon, then you know HOW to employ the melee weapon to maximum effectiveness given your own physical capabilities.

Yes this kind of breaks down if your PC is in fact a 50 year old out of shape person with terrible physical stats across the board. There are valid archetypes you could be going for where that'd fit, and of course you might find such a PC stuck fighting a professional combatant like a ganger, mob soldier, etc.  But you won't find that happening often, not unless you're an idiot of a player who refuses to keep a clearly non-combatant kind of runner out of close combat.  Anyway, the point I want to make on this contingency is rules don't inherently need to address exceptions to the norm.  "Ok, your runner lacks a Juicer's Strength?  And simultaneously also lacks a Ninja's agility? Fine, your DV is penalized."   Or, if you're reluctant to impose non-explicitly stated penalties (i.e. "house rules") you can work within what's explicitly provided and decree that a fat, out of shape would-be-melee-combatant just automatically is giving away circumstantial edge to everyone he swings at.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-28-19/1003:05>
Oy vey, are we back on this. SSDR is dead on that all games tend to abstract when it comes to damage in ways we simply accept, even if they don’t always make much sense.

In your example, all you are arguing is that, in a vacuum were only the total force applied to the bat is measured, that old’n’busted can’t match new’hotness. And you’d be right. Such things however don’t exist in a vacuum and the force applied to the motion of the bat is but one small fragment of the overall physics equation that is hitting a baseball. Other parts of that needing to be taken into account:

The force (speed) applied to the throw of the ball.
Then spin applied to the ball in flight.
The angle of travel of the ball.
The angle of motion of the bat.
The place on the bat the ball impacts.
The place on the ball the bat impacts (two different things).

All of the various parts will interact to ultimately determine where the ball ends up, and what damage the ball does to the bat. This is why there are so many different types of pitch, as each one changes up the pitchers variables forcing the batter to change his variables to achieve the same result. Misjudge a single aspect of the whole equation, and you get a result different than what you intended. And all of that completely ignores that weapons evolved to amplify different aspects of our force to allow people to match each other more on their skill with their weapons rather then just how much they can bench.

An agile elven noble who is a master duelist with a rapier is just as equally deadly as a bulked up troll merc who has mastered his use of an axe.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Ghost Rigger on <07-28-19/1101:02>
Yes this kind of breaks down if your PC is in fact a 50 year old out of shape person with terrible physical stats across the board. There are valid archetypes you could be going for where that'd fit, and of course you might find such a PC stuck fighting a professional combatant like a ganger, mob soldier, etc.  But you won't find that happening often, not unless you're an idiot of a player who refuses to keep a clearly non-combatant kind of runner out of close combat.  Anyway, the point I want to make on this contingency is rules don't inherently need to address exceptions to the norm.  "Ok, your runner lacks a Juicer's Strength?  And simultaneously also lacks a Ninja's agility? Fine, your DV is penalized."   Or, if you're reluctant to impose non-explicitly stated penalties (i.e. "house rules") you can work within what's explicitly provided and decree that a fat, out of shape would-be-melee-combatant just automatically is giving away circumstantial edge to everyone he swings at.
So what you're basically saying is that the system falls apart when and you think that can be written off because it's an "exception to the norm". Have you forgotten that extractions, AKA "go kidnap this non-combatant", is one of the major run archetypes? And that is to say nothing of any other scenarios where a non-combatant will fight out of panic or desperation. Why shouldn't the system be built to handle a fat nerd being forced to knife-fight a SAS commando?

An agile elven noble who is a master duelist with a rapier is just as equally deadly as a bulked up troll merc who has mastered his use of an axe.
All that was represented in previous editions by both strength and net hits contributing to melee damage; both the raw force and how you apply it matters. By removing strength from melee damage, 6e does away with the importance of raw force.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-28-19/1117:38>
Why shouldn't the system be built to handle a fat nerd being forced to knife-fight a SAS commando?

Because no version of Shadowrun ever WAS designed to model a fat nerd knife fighting a SAS commando. So, I don't care that DVs are assuming that the wielder is some sort of professional combatant.

Honestly, why even bother rolling dice in these kinds of scenarios.  It's like rolling dice to see whether an apple falls when you let go of it.  Everyone knows the Shadowrunner is going to do anything and everything he wants to do to the fat nerdy corp scientist that's been targeted for extraction.  When it comes to whether or not the Shadowrunner/SAS commando can beat the bodyguard in a knife fight... THAT's what's actually important rather than whether a professional combatant can subdue an untrained noncombatant.

So if the fat nerdy unwilling extractee grabs a baseball bat or other object... really the variable is can you disarm him without hurting him rather than can you beat him. In rules/meta speak, the NPC is going to be spending edge anyway if the GM is actually trying to make the NPC put up any kind of actual threat, and don't try to say that pre or post edging a roll in 5e didn't mean more than pretty much every other factor combined.  Its not new to 6WE that an edge expenditure will eclipse a weapon DV that assumes competency when being used by the incompetent. If the fat nerdy scientist actually manages to hit and subsequently whacks you with the DV of a trained professional, it was clearly dumb luck and it's the first (and probably last) time in that NPC's life anything of the sort ever happens.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Ghost Rigger on <07-28-19/1125:06>
Why shouldn't the system be built to handle a fat nerd being forced to knife-fight a SAS commando?
Because the system isn't designed to model a fat nerd knife fighting a SAS commando.
Nice job dodging the question. Why shouldn't it be designed to model a fat nerd knife-fighting a SAS commando?

Quote
Again, no edition of Shadowrun ever WAS.
I dunno, I feel previous editions modeled it adequately.

Quote
Honestly, why even bother rolling the dice.  It's like rolling dice to see whether an apple falls when you let go of it.  Everyone knows the Shadowrunner is going to do anything and everything he wants to do to the fat nerdy corp scientist that's been targeted for extraction.  When it comes to whether or not the Shadowrunner/SAS commando can beat the bodyguard in a knife fight... THAT's what's actually important rather than whether a professional combatant can subdue an untrained noncombatant.
And what happens when the fat nerd in question is the team's decker? Does automatically get taken out with no rolls, with no chance to struggle just long enough for the streetsam to run to him and save his fat ass?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-28-19/1128:11>
I expect the fat nerd in 6e will have a 2 agility and no combat skills so it shouldnt be hard for a runner to grab them.

There are issues with this ill outright say it’s bad design, I don’t think this is it though.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-28-19/1146:02>


An agile elven noble who is a master duelist with a rapier is just as equally deadly as a bulked up troll merc who has mastered his use of an axe.
All that was represented in previous editions by both strength and net hits contributing to melee damage; both the raw force and how you apply it matters. By removing strength from melee damage, 6e does away with the importance of raw force.

Or to look at it from the other side, it places the emphasis more heavily on the skill of the person using a weapon, which is more accurate to what happens in a fight. A scrawny 10 year old who is highly trained in a combat skill can easily take down a giant bruiser who's not as skilled. I had the bruises to prove it.

Or to put it yet another way "It ain't what you got, it's how you use it." Being jacked won't help you one bit if you don't know how to fight, you're more libel to break your own hand when you punch someone.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-28-19/1200:07>
skills already affect your chance to hit.

strength affects how much damage you do when you connect.

or to put it another way:

why do we use weapons in the first place?
clearly because they do more damage than when you punch someone.
so why would someone do more damage with their fist than a sword?
the only answer can be because the game is busted in this area.
otherwise folks wouldn't use weapons, they would just punch people....

I'd say the history of warfare and combat shows just how dumb the argument of "strength shouldn't effect weapon damage" is.

this is clearly a case of simplification damaging the game for no net benefit.

which is just maddening tbh, it did not have to be this way.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Ghost Rigger on <07-28-19/1200:49>
Or to look at it from the other side, it places the emphasis more heavily on the skill of the person using a weapon, which is more accurate to what happens in a fight. A scrawny 10 year old who is highly trained in a combat skill can easily take down a giant bruiser who's not as skilled. I had the bruises to prove it.

Or to put it yet another way "It ain't what you got, it's how you use it." Being jacked won't help you one bit if you don't know how to fight, you're more libel to break your own hand when you punch someone.
But the way it's implemented introduces the problem that between two equally skilled opponents, one being much stronger than the other doesn't matter.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-28-19/1203:35>
[quote author=Ghost Rigger link=topic=29528.msg520371#msg520371
But the way it's implemented introduces the problem that between two equally skilled opponents, one being much stronger than the other doesn't matter.
[/quote]

i have yet to hear an argument that makes any sense as to why Conan swinging a greatsword should do the same damage as erkle swinging a greatsword.

clearly it's bogus.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-28-19/1209:34>
this is clearly a case of simplification damaging the game for no net benefit.

I like some of the simplification they did. This particular issue just happens to be one that I am passionately opposed to because it is so far divorced from both logic and expectation.

But the way it's implemented introduces the problem that between two equally skilled opponents, one being much stronger than the other doesn't matter.

Bingo.

Besides that, while I agree that skill is the most prominent factor in real life, it is not the only deciding factor by a long shot.

Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-28-19/1221:17>
this is clearly a case of simplification damaging the game for no net benefit.

I like some of the simplification they did. This particular issue just happens to be one that I am passionately opposed to because it is so far divorced from both logic and expectation.

Agreed, simplification / streamlining was required.

My issue is the same as yours; this is clearly not a rational choice nor a good choice.

I would lay money that it was borne of being backed into a corner mechanics-wise.

When you give up on rational outcomes in favor of rule of cool you end up MiB land.

Welcome to 6e.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-28-19/1233:02>
Why shouldn't (Shadowrun) be designed to model a fat nerd knife-fighting a SAS commando..I feel previous editions modeled it adequately.

Because Shadowrun is a game where you play Shadowrunners doing Shadowruns.  In-universe, there are firefighters putting out fires. Athletes playing sports. DocWagon medics treating sick kiddos in urgent care clinics. Wageslaves working soul-crushing corp jobs. The rules aren't designed to cover any of these types of characters or activities, even though you might temporarily get involved in them for a single mission. Or even as a heavily modified, non-shadowrunner type of campaign.

The combat ability of a fat nerd is simply not relevant in a game about shadowrunners performing shadowruns. Allowing them the same DV when using weapons is well within the suspension of disbelief, imo. Especially since Edge is an even bigger X factor anyway than "professional vs non-professional" weapon familiarity.

Quote
And what happens when the fat nerd in question is the team's decker?

The decker never is the fat nerd.  Even if the decker is fat, nerdy, and has identical physical attributes and skills, the "pedestrian" fat nerd is still not a professional shadowrunner.  Even if they have identical stats, any shadowruner categorically a different thing thing than any NPC, to say nothing of a noncombatant NPC. Even while lacking the stats and technical skill of a Sammie, Deckers have a familiarity with how to "do" Shadowrun related activities that are not necessarily also true for NPC fat nerdy types.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Marcus on <07-28-19/1241:27>
Is there a point to this? We all know and have established despite the protests of the pro faction. That the str change is terrible. So is this going somewhere or are you just wanting to see how many posts SSDR will make against it?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-28-19/1242:56>
Even if the decker is fat, nerdy, and has identical physical attributes and skills, the "pedestrian" fat nerd is still not a professional shadowrunner.  Even if they have identical stats, any shadowruner categorically a different thing thing than any NPC, to say nothing of a noncombatant NPC. Even while lacking the stats and technical skill of a Sammie, Deckers have a familiarity with how to "do" Shadowrun related activities that are not necessarily also true for NPC fat nerdy types.

In fairness, the fat nerd vs. commando is just as extreme as the fully augmented troll vs. paraplegic pixie issue. So that aside, I have trouble getting behind your perspective, because attributes and skills are what is used to reflect one's capability in this system. So if the shadowrunner nerd has physical attributes of 2 and no melee, and the pedestrian nerd has the same, I will need you to help explain to me how there is any real difference between the commando electing to execute either (it would not be a fight).
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-28-19/1258:30>
It's hard to argue with physics.

That's why you will not see a rational argument in support of not factoring str into melee.

Heck even if you ignore strength and just consider the additional mass of a larger/stronger persons arm/body you would know that their blows would impart more damage.

In fact 6e knows this and factors strength into unarmed.

Which makes it even more hilarious to see folks arguing it makes sense to not factor it into armed combat.

The same irrational and poorly constructed arguments they use to support this ("skill not strength") also applies to unarmed....

Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-28-19/1305:17>


An agile elven noble who is a master duelist with a rapier is just as equally deadly as a bulked up troll merc who has mastered his use of an axe.
All that was represented in previous editions by both strength and net hits contributing to melee damage; both the raw force and how you apply it matters. By removing strength from melee damage, 6e does away with the importance of raw force.

Or to look at it from the other side, it places the emphasis more heavily on the skill of the person using a weapon, which is more accurate to what happens in a fight. A scrawny 10 year old who is highly trained in a combat skill can easily take down a giant bruiser who's not as skilled. I had the bruises to prove it.

Or to put it yet another way "It ain't what you got, it's how you use it." Being jacked won't help you one bit if you don't know how to fight, you're more libel to break your own hand when you punch someone.

That’s what skill dice are for. To represent skill. Though I’m not sure I agree with your premise. Generally if a person has you on strength to any significant degree you don’t have to just be better than them. But a lot better than them. As much as I love the 3 ninjas movies they aren’t particularly realistic.


Simplification that would have actually worked here is flip the stats. Agility adds to attack value. Strength is your dice pool. Give unarmed a base damage of 1.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-28-19/1310:41>
In fairness, the fat nerd vs. commando is just as extreme as the fully augmented troll vs. paraplegic pixie issue. So that aside, I have trouble getting behind your perspective, because attributes and skills are what is used to reflect one's capability in this system. So if the shadowrunner nerd has physical attributes of 2 and no melee, and the pedestrian nerd has the same, I will need you to help explain to me how there is any real difference between the commando electing to execute either (it would not be a fight).

It's ultimately a derivative on the "game rules handle PCs and NPCs differently" phenomenon.

The shadowrunners with all 1s for physical stats and no Close Combat skill still has in-universe advantage over pedestrians/fat nerds/whatever-term-you-want-to-use that also have those same stats in that they ARE SHADOWRUNNERS. Even without the ability or skill of the adept or Sammie, at the very least they have experience of seeing how to properly use a weapon as opposed to the "how they do it in the movies" education the NPC non-combatant has.

Is there a point to this?

To be fair, sometimes I wonder.  I participate because I have what's in many cases a delusion that people who see something in 6WE they don't like want to hear about another way to look at the problem that might make the issue seem less severe/important.

Like, case in point today: been trying to say on the topic of DVs presuming competence leaves corners where the INcompetent might reasonably try to engage in combat... the incompetent will likely be spending Edge (or else they won't even be hitting anyway and DV is moot on a miss) and Edge expenditures count for more than that DV presumption. Ergo: those corners being uncovered by the rules aren't that "big of a deal".  Of course, YMMV.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: tenchi2a on <07-28-19/1316:18>


An agile elven noble who is a master duelist with a rapier is just as equally deadly as a bulked up troll merc who has mastered his use of an axe.
All that was represented in previous editions by both strength and net hits contributing to melee damage; both the raw force and how you apply it matters. By removing strength from melee damage, 6e does away with the importance of raw force.

Or to look at it from the other side, it places the emphasis more heavily on the skill of the person using a weapon, which is more accurate to what happens in a fight. A scrawny 10 year old who is highly trained in a combat skill can easily take down a giant bruiser who's not as skilled. I had the bruises to prove it.

Or to put it yet another way "It ain't what you got, it's how you use it." Being jacked won't help you one bit if you don't know how to fight, you're more libel to break your own hand when you punch someone.

That is a load.
Any trained fighter will tell you that An untrained fighter is a wild card and not to be taken lightly at all.
Trained fighting is a "dance" and realizes on on trained patterns and movement.
When dealing with an untrained fighter these patterns and movement are not present so it forces the trained fighter to be on their toes and react more then attack looking for the opening that will come for the others lack of training.
My point is this is not a slam-dunk and many well trained combats have fallen for the trap of underestimating an untrained opponent
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-28-19/1318:45>
I will need you to help explain to me how there is any real difference between the commando electing to execute either (it would not be a fight).

I mean, there's more then just a dozen levels of any of the given stats in the world. Even with people having the same stat mechanicly would be rather different outside the dice.

why do we use weapons in the first place?

Because they expand the range of people who can serve as a soldier and still be able to easily kill his target given the variations of battlefield conditions and opponent weaponry. Once weapons had rendered otherwise sub-standard people into effective killers with the application of some modest training with the implement in question, the shift came of making weapons that took less time to train in the use of, allowing one to quickly raise larger armies with the bare training in weapons needed to be a deadly force no matter their background of origin.

If you want to know where strength is most used in a melee fight, it's in the maneuvering a weapon, which relates to the accuracy of your hit and ability to deflect attacks from hitting you. It will also help if you need to do a hard block, which is generally not a good idea to do as that's a good way to break your weapon. Trying to power-smash someone with a weapon, while looking cool, will largely just leave you off balance and exposed from over-committing, and my possibly break your weapon or get it stuck in whatever it does hit.

As I believe Dezmont said, it's gonna feel weird. We've been conditioned by games for several decades now that STR is the be all end all of melee and no other consideration matters. I don't think in the long run it's going to be that much of an issue in game outside of extreme examples.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-28-19/1319:31>
We've had separate grunt rules for npcs for a while now. An npc with identical stats is more restricted than a pc. Only the special people get their own proper statblocks with full pc-like condition monitor and individual edge stat.

A civvy has 0 Edge and will run at the first box of damage. An entire group of professional gangers is barely superior and will have just a few points of Edge for the entire group. We know grunts are inferior. John Doe is nothing compared to John Smith.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-28-19/1322:46>


An agile elven noble who is a master duelist with a rapier is just as equally deadly as a bulked up troll merc who has mastered his use of an axe.
All that was represented in previous editions by both strength and net hits contributing to melee damage; both the raw force and how you apply it matters. By removing strength from melee damage, 6e does away with the importance of raw force.

Or to look at it from the other side, it places the emphasis more heavily on the skill of the person using a weapon, which is more accurate to what happens in a fight. A scrawny 10 year old who is highly trained in a combat skill can easily take down a giant bruiser who's not as skilled. I had the bruises to prove it.

Or to put it yet another way "It ain't what you got, it's how you use it." Being jacked won't help you one bit if you don't know how to fight, you're more libel to break your own hand when you punch someone.

That is a load.
Any trained fighter will tell you that An untrained fighter is a wild card and not to be taken lightly at all.
Trained fighting is a "dance" and realizes on on trained patterns and movement.
When dealing with an untrained fighter these patterns and movement are not present so it forces the trained fighter to be on their toes and react more then attack looking for the opening that will come for the others lack of training.
My point is this is not a slam-dunk and many well trained combats have fallen for the trap of underestimating an untrained opponent

Yes, I am more then aware of this as I am a trained fighter. An untrained one can be dangerous, if they land the 'lucky blow' as has been pointed out in example already in the last few posts. Such a lucky blow is likely to happen exactly once as they will make the mistake of putting their all into the attack and leaving themselves off-balance and completely exposed for a counter attack. If they are attacking with a weapon, it is also quite likely they won't be holding it right, therefor lessening the effect of their assault, or if unarmed, hurt or break their own hand because they don't know how to throw a punch in a way and at such a place as to not do so.

The "dance" of fighting is the complex equation of physics, which despite what was said earlier, has a rather large number of variables besides just 'F'. There is also: a, ΣF, m, vf and so on.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-28-19/1326:42>
I think people are mistaking exaggeration for effect and corner cases. Exaggerated examples are being used to illustrate a core issue. It’s not extreme case only it’s a sliding scale.  People will bump into this routinely. And in a world where superhumans
Interact with regular humans even the extremes will occur frequently.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-28-19/1333:54>

Because they expand the range of people who can serve as a soldier and still be able to easily kill his target given the variations of battlefield conditions and opponent weaponry. Once weapons had rendered otherwise sub-standard people into effective killers with the application of some modest training with the implement in question, the shift came of making weapons that took less time to train in the use of, allowing one to quickly raise larger armies with the bare training in weapons needed to be a deadly force no matter their background of origin.

that's a complete non-sequitar and a great example of attempting to rationalize away how the universe works.

if your example was true then the highly skilled folks would abandon weapons and use their fists, relegating weapons to the low-skilled peasants.

clearly that's B.S.

please stop, it just looks silly.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-28-19/1341:40>


An agile elven noble who is a master duelist with a rapier is just as equally deadly as a bulked up troll merc who has mastered his use of an axe.
All that was represented in previous editions by both strength and net hits contributing to melee damage; both the raw force and how you apply it matters. By removing strength from melee damage, 6e does away with the importance of raw force.

Or to look at it from the other side, it places the emphasis more heavily on the skill of the person using a weapon, which is more accurate to what happens in a fight. A scrawny 10 year old who is highly trained in a combat skill can easily take down a giant bruiser who's not as skilled. I had the bruises to prove it.

Or to put it yet another way "It ain't what you got, it's how you use it." Being jacked won't help you one bit if you don't know how to fight, you're more libel to break your own hand when you punch someone.

That’s what skill dice are for. To represent skill. Though I’m not sure I agree with your premise. Generally if a person has you on strength to any significant degree you don’t have to just be better than them. But a lot better than them. As much as I love the 3 ninjas movies they aren’t particularly realistic.

Simplification that would have actually worked here is flip the stats. Agility adds to attack value. Strength is your dice pool. Give unarmed a base damage of 1.

Kinda, the problem is that every weapon and fighting style have a different relation to just how useful power is to them over motion. Some like hammers or karate do owe more to power, while ones like the rapier or Jiu Jitsu use it very little. I wasn't joking about the scrawny 10 year old throwing my giant bruiser self around, he was high ranked in jiu jitsu and turned my every attempt at a hit into a lock or throw with a few simple turns of wrist and leg. Learned a lot from him and his father who was teaching the class.

Flipping the two and setting unarmed damage does sound like a pretty solid idea. Definitely good for houserule territory.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-28-19/1350:51>

Because they expand the range of people who can serve as a soldier and still be able to easily kill his target given the variations of battlefield conditions and opponent weaponry. Once weapons had rendered otherwise sub-standard people into effective killers with the application of some modest training with the implement in question, the shift came of making weapons that took less time to train in the use of, allowing one to quickly raise larger armies with the bare training in weapons needed to be a deadly force no matter their background of origin.
if your example was true then the highly skilled folks would abandon weapons and use their fists, relegating weapons to the low-skilled peasants.

Rrrrriiiiggghht. Someone with years of training in a weapon is better then someone with a few weeks of training.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-28-19/1358:54>
The shadowrunners with all 1s for physical stats and no Close Combat skill still has in-universe advantage over pedestrians/fat nerds/whatever-term-you-want-to-use that also have those same stats in that they ARE SHADOWRUNNERS.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. For me, in order for that character to have an advantage over the guy with a 0 skill, he'd need a 1.

I mean, there's more then just a dozen levels of any of the given stats in the world. Even with people having the same stat mechanicly would be rather different outside the dice.

Of course. Flavor, story, experience, and all that. But in order that "more" to make a mechanical difference, it would need to be reflected mechanically with a different value. Your unarmed close combat 4 is krav maga, his unarmed close combat 4 is lethwei. Other guys close combat 3 (insert here) is not equal to the other 2 guys 4 under any circumstances because he has a 3.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-28-19/1405:03>
The shadowrunners with all 1s for physical stats and no Close Combat skill still has in-universe advantage over pedestrians/fat nerds/whatever-term-you-want-to-use that also have those same stats in that they ARE SHADOWRUNNERS.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. For me, in order for that character to have an advantage over the guy with a 0 skill, he'd need a 1.

Well like I said upthread, I don't think it's out of bounds to say that the Shadowrunner with poor stats and low/no skill at least uses the proper form and technique as seen from the example of colleagues, teammates, and competent opposition so as to "earn" the DV that presumes competence... should they miraculously manage to even hit in the first place.  Comic Book Guy NPC who does not benefit from familiarity with actual experts can reasonably be given a DV penalty where you wouldn't do the same for a PC runner.  And/or say that the NPC is giving away situational edge due to his non-professional manner of attacking.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: tenchi2a on <07-28-19/1419:00>
The facts remain that the same person using a sword is always going to do more damage then with his punch.
The rule do not reflect this so they are badly written.
There is no justification for this, it was a decision made by the writes to fit into this badly written combat system.
While I agree that DEX (hand-eye coordination) is a factor in landing a blow and to an extent hitting a vital area.
Most if not all melee weapons gain cutting/hitting/piercing power from the strength of the user, to say otherwise is to buck suspension of disbelief to defend a decision made for purely system related reasons.
From what I can get from the information having weapons use STR brakes the new low damage system they are using to get rid of the Armor adding to soak issues.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Marcus on <07-28-19/1425:23>
Apparently some are not convinced so maybe this is going somewhere.

Look Weapons function as a component of a system. A castle was a weapon system just as much as Missile is today. It's not a coincidence that every basic military training begins with strength and conditioning train.  Strength matters, speed matters, endurance matters, skills with arms matters. But 5 barely trained guys will beat 1 well trained guy, thus we have armies.

How hard you hit someone with something does matter, and strength directly effects that. I have fenced and practice various martial arts just like plenty others on here. In fencing speed is great but strength is important to, sure every fencer can give you the it take less the 1lb pressure on a point line. However when it comes to a beat, if you want it to work better be strong enough to move their arm.  You want that parry to work, mechanical advantage is very helpful a weaker person can block a stronger one, but if they are enough stronger they will still hit. I've seen it plenty of times. Saying strength has no application is wrong, just as wrong as saying strength is everything to melee.

It's fairly obvious these changes were made b/c cause they painted themselves into a corner on damage codes. You can't argue they don't think str matters b/c unarmed is str based. Thus we are left with ridiculous system reality of a str 9 troll picking up a great axe and suddenly doing less damage then when he punches someone.  If that doesn't bug you then there is just no helping you, cause you ether just won't admit it and/or you're going to blindly follow the system regardless of what is said.

Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Ghost Rigger on <07-28-19/1432:18>
Kinda, the problem is that every weapon and fighting style have a different relation to just how useful power is to them over motion. Some like hammers or karate do owe more to power, while ones like the rapier or Jiu Jitsu use it very little. I wasn't joking about the scrawny 10 year old throwing my giant bruiser self around, he was high ranked in jiu jitsu and turned my every attempt at a hit into a lock or throw with a few simple turns of wrist and leg. Learned a lot from him and his father who was teaching the class.

Flipping the two and setting unarmed damage does sound like a pretty solid idea. Definitely good for houserule territory.
Did that ten year old also break each of your limbs, then shatter your skull with a single punch? Because this discussion is about damage, not grappling.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-28-19/1446:39>
...You can't argue they don't think str matters b/c unarmed is str based. Thus we are left with ridiculous system reality of a str 9 troll picking up a great axe and suddenly doing less damage then when he punches someone.  If that doesn't bug you then there is just no helping you, cause you ether just won't admit it and/or you're going to blindly follow the system regardless of what is said.

Well, yes I do agree that there's a problem with doing less damage with an ostensibly lethal melee weapon than without one via an unarmed attack.  Granted, you have to have superhuman strength for that to be an issue... but since superhuman strength is so easy to achieve for a character yes I agree this is a real problem in the rules since it imo reasonably goes from being an uncovered corner case to being legit problem.  Should your DV go down because you picked up a weapon? On that, yeah I agree there's an issue.  I'm a lot less vocal on that aspect because what I might be able to add to the conversation is not something I can talk about publicly.  So I've been trying to avoid that angle entirely.

That's a related concept, but still distinct from what I HAVE been defending: fixed weapon DVs that don't reflect disparate physical capabilities.  I'm fine with fixed weapon DVs because
1) STR was already marginalized in 5e melee combat... if you were a melee specialist you had little reason to use anything other than a Monofilament Whip and/or Stun Gloves.
2) If you are willingly engaging in close combat, odds are excellent that you meant to do it and you built your character for it.  If you didn't build for close combat (say, you're a fat nerdy decker) you're probably attempting something OTHER than close combat with a nearby enemy.  Like, oh, running away?  Bricking drek? Anything BUT trying to take him on in a knife fight really...
3) If you have drek for strength, you probably don't have drek for Agility. Which in broad strokes, is "just as good" for causing meaningful damage. What you lack in power, you gain in hitting something vital.  It's good enough for RPG purposes. anyway.  (The assumption works less well on things unlikely to suffer "critical damage" like barriers, but still I'm fine with the idea in the name of streamlining.  YMMV. If so, go ahead and give a DV penalty to someone trying to use a weapon to chop through an armored bulkhead with 1 strength.  It's well within the spirit of the rules.)
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-28-19/1503:10>
Apparently some are not convinced so maybe this is going somewhere.

Look Weapons function as a component of a system. A castle was a weapon system just as much as Missile is today. It's not a coincidence that every basic military training begins with strength and conditioning train.  Strength matters, speed matters, endurance matters, skills with arms matters. But 5 barely trained guys will beat 1 well trained guy, thus we have armies.

How hard you hit someone with something does matter, and strength directly effects that. I have fenced and practice various martial arts just like plenty others on here. In fencing speed is great but strength is important to, sure every fencer can give you the it take less the 1lb pressure on a point line. However when it comes to a beat, if you want it to work better be strong enough to move their arm.  You want that parry to work, mechanical advantage is very helpful a weaker person can block a stronger one, but if they are enough stronger they will still hit. I've seen it plenty of times. Saying strength has no application is wrong, just as wrong as saying strength is everything to melee.

It's fairly obvious these changes were made b/c cause they painted themselves into a corner on damage codes. You can't argue they don't think str matters b/c unarmed is str based. Thus we are left with ridiculous system reality of a str 9 troll picking up a great axe and suddenly doing less damage then when he punches someone.  If that doesn't bug you then there is just no helping you, cause you ether just won't admit it and/or you're going to blindly follow the system regardless of what is said.

I’d add in a 8 stat system strength isn’t just weight lifting, it covers a range of concepts including speed. It’s why running was linked to it. It’s not just your bench press. It’s your explosive action stat. Want to get your fist to face faster so their block doesn’t get there in time. That’s strength.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <07-28-19/1517:55>
Apparently some are not convinced so maybe this is going somewhere.

Look Weapons function as a component of a system. A castle was a weapon system just as much as Missile is today. It's not a coincidence that every basic military training begins with strength and conditioning train.  Strength matters, speed matters, endurance matters, skills with arms matters. But 5 barely trained guys will beat 1 well trained guy, thus we have armies.

How hard you hit someone with something does matter, and strength directly effects that. I have fenced and practice various martial arts just like plenty others on here. In fencing speed is great but strength is important to, sure every fencer can give you the it take less the 1lb pressure on a point line. However when it comes to a beat, if you want it to work better be strong enough to move their arm.  You want that parry to work, mechanical advantage is very helpful a weaker person can block a stronger one, but if they are enough stronger they will still hit. I've seen it plenty of times. Saying strength has no application is wrong, just as wrong as saying strength is everything to melee.

It's fairly obvious these changes were made b/c cause they painted themselves into a corner on damage codes. You can't argue they don't think str matters b/c unarmed is str based. Thus we are left with ridiculous system reality of a str 9 troll picking up a great axe and suddenly doing less damage then when he punches someone.  If that doesn't bug you then there is just no helping you, cause you ether just won't admit it and/or you're going to blindly follow the system regardless of what is said.

Hey there fellow fencer. For almost 3 years now have been doing HEMA and learning German Longsword. And, ironically it takes less Str than most would imagine, because it is a two-handed weapon that ways ~3lbs. Rapiers, hell even lighter sabers, are actually harder to use, because all their weight is in one hand, 1-3 lbs depending on the weapon. Anyways, yeah no system deals with actual melee fights well, but having any unarmed build do more damage with their fist than a knife is weird must less when they use something that does require even more Str to use effectively, like a combat axe. Sorry, that is crap. Hell, SSDR also agreed this is a borked rule. That is all everyone else has been saying. It is a bad rule.

Either have fixed DV for unarmed based on Metatype augmented by adept powers and ware or just run melee of off Str for dice pools with the monowhip being a exception, because exotic weapon. This is what ShadowRun Returns does and it works great actually.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-28-19/1528:22>
“ It's good enough for RPG purposes”

This is the actual discussion we should be having as it’s clear you can’t argue against physics.

My repose to “its good enough” is “no freaking way, not even close”

Why?

It’s inconsistent internally within 6e itself due to unarmed.
What’s worse is it did not have to be this way.
We can all envisage fixes for this.
So why did they stick with this clearly borked rule that doesn’t even match the rest of combat in 6e?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-28-19/1540:35>
Well, honest to god realism isn't what we should want, either.

Something I read once about game design that stuck with me is an old quote from L5R RPG game writers... iirc it was a discussion about how the 1st edition was designed.  The game designers, being game geeks with more rule of cool knowledge than actual practical martial arts knowledge, commissioned a real life kendo instructor try to give them a baseline idea of how much damage a skilled samurai could dish out in a 3 second turn (which is a notable coincidence with SR combat, btw).  They learned it wasn't a question of how lethal the damage someone might suffer in 3 seconds, but how many times over a skilled swordsman could kill a foe.  They had to figure what was a playable rules mechanic and let realism take a back seat to playability. I'll look for this source and link it if I can find it... it was a remarkable read. In my case it was one of those things you read 20+ years ago and still remember.

Regardless... the direction 6WE is going is clearly away from one-turn eliminations that were (generally, barring insane soak pools) easier to accomplish in 5e.  Realism is fundamentally going to be fighting uphill here.  The proper location of a "happy middle ground" is inherently opinion based, and you can't convince someone of an opinion.  Not on the internet, anyway :D
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-28-19/1546:39>
I've one-shotted multiple foes in 1 turn in L5R before. But my best kill-count was throwing a bench that threw a whole bunch back into a very painful barrier.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-28-19/1601:16>
Well, honest to god realism isn't what we should want, either.

Something I read once about game design that stuck with me is an old quote from L5R RPG game writers... iirc it was a discussion about how the 1st edition was designed.  The game designers, being game geeks with more rule of cool knowledge than actual practical martial arts knowledge, commissioned a real life kendo instructor try to give them a baseline idea of how much damage a skilled samurai could dish out in a 3 second turn (which is a notable coincidence with SR combat, btw).  They learned it wasn't a question of how lethal the damage someone might suffer in 3 seconds, but how many times over a skilled swordsman could kill a foe.  They had to figure what was a playable rules mechanic and let realism take a back seat to playability. I'll look for this source and link it if I can find it... it was a remarkable read. In my case it was one of those things you read 20+ years ago and still remember.

If you could that would be awesome as I'd also like to read it.

Since the topic of baseball was brought up earlier and realistic physics is being bandied about, here's something on the physics of hitting a baseball. This level of equation and figuring shouldn't come anywhere near a game that you want played by anyone outside of the math and physics departments of a college. https://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/physics-of-hitting-a-baseball.html
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Iron Serpent Prince on <07-28-19/1605:56>
This level of equation and figuring shouldn't come anywhere near a game that you want played by anyone outside of the math and physics departments of a college.

Good thing no one brought up that straw man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) besides you.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Marcus on <07-28-19/1648:16>
Adzling isn't advocating realism, he's asking where is the acceptable medium between simplification for game purposes and what breaks our collective suspension of disbelief. I think we all are prepared to agree we are not going to have anything super simulationist. But we also aren't ok with a 9 str troll doing less damage with a great axe then their fists. Some where between those points there is a line that is "It's Good Enough for RPG purposes." Consistence is a real issue when the system isn't consistent it makes you stop and be like what?

Fixed damage is a thing we have seen for a long time, shock sticks, mono-whips, Guns are all fixed damage.  But something really strong with a melee weapon should do more damage something really weak with the same melee weapon. So find a way to make that true without breaking the system. Str divided by something, weapon damage + a modifier based upon a range strengths. Or make a weapons not strength related. Mono-whip, shocks sticks, plasma cutters, maybe a chain sword? Certainly no one would blink about not adding strength to the first 3, maybe not so much the 4th. I'm just saying the issue we are having is going to get amplified when thousands of copies of the CRB get opened after gen con. Having an answer would be good.

   
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-28-19/1652:15>
Thank you Marcus.

If I was advocating for full realism I’d be asking you guys to play Phoenix Command.

I did not, and I am not.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Marcus on <07-28-19/1702:26>
It could literally be as simple as due to a wave of something in popular culture or some humanitarian backlash against combat axes and katanas in the new 80, everyone has switched to designer shock sticks. Make 3 slightly different shock stick to give players some choice and your problem is solved. 

It doesn't have to be this complex thing it just has to be "Good Enough for RPG Purposes."

Happy to Help Adzling!
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-28-19/1840:21>
I find melee damage unreasonable not only due to the divorce from strength, but also because unarmed aside guns do significantly more damage. Combat axe is DV5, and monofilament whip is DV6 on the melee side. RPK HMG is DV6 and panther assault canon DV7 on the ranged side, but that is also before ammo and firing mode are taken into consideration. Best non-unarmed melee vs. best ranged is a DV difference of 3 in favor of ranged.

For me, that knowledge by itself invalidates any reasoning of needing to tone it all back for the new system's mechanics and to remove armor soak, ect. First of all, melee is always harder in games. It leaves you more exposed, takes more resources to do (move and attack), ect. From a game balance perspective it should have something to make it at least as attractive as ranged, and in my opinion more so.

So in our present situation it takes more resources to use, does less damage, and is divorced from our expectations and logic in regards to the strength portion specifically. If it were me, my change would be simple. Melee damage is half strength plus weapon bonus. Weapon bonuses would come in three categories. First is small weapons that just change the damage to lethal from stun (knives, clubs, ect.). Second is one handed weapons that add +1 and lethal to value. Third two-handed that add +2 and lethal. At best that would make DV9 on a troll with 14 strength, on par with top tier ranged.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Marcus on <07-28-19/1957:03>
From risk reward stand point, making melee damage lower then ranged is not a good idea. But without more knowledge of how both can or cannot be boosted I don't think i can make a compelling case on the issue. But I agree ranged should not out damage melee, as melee is rendered pointless if that choices is made.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-28-19/2127:16>
Total anecdote and all, but I just did an informal "trying the rules out" mini-game for the first time tonight.  I played a 3 strength covert ops elfy ninja thing wielding a humble combat knife.  I wanted to play a decidedly non-big melee type to get a feel for what you can do if you're NOT a big bad troll.

Without some prior personal hands on play experience, I hadn't grokked how important judicious edge use really is.  The DVs were almost besides the point in our combats.  Yes, we played full-blown shadowrunners taking on low-threat halloweener scrubs, but my pixie had little difficulty eliminating NPCs with one DV 3P attack each.  Went three for three on one-shot-one-kills.  It absolutely can be less about the raw DV value than how your spend your Edge (and how often you can generate it to fuel more of those expenditures).
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Marcus on <07-29-19/0121:03>
Total anecdote and all, but I just did an informal "trying the rules out" mini-game for the first time tonight.  I played a 3 strength covert ops elfy ninja thing wielding a humble combat knife.  I wanted to play a decidedly non-big melee type to get a feel for what you can do if you're NOT a big bad troll.

Without some prior personal hands on play experience, I hadn't grokked how important judicious edge use really is.  The DVs were almost besides the point in our combats.  Yes, we played full-blown shadowrunners taking on low-threat halloweener scrubs, but my pixie had little difficulty eliminating NPCs with one DV 3P attack each.  Went three for three on one-shot-one-kills.  It absolutely can be less about the raw DV value than how your spend your Edge (and how often you can generate it to fuel more of those expenditures).

I'm glad you enjoyed it. If you go again and fight something higher threat then some Halloweeners I'd be interested to hear more about that. Just to be clear you said Pixie. Were you referring to your elf as a Pixie or did you play a pixie? Beyond that I'm more interested to hear what you thinking on Adzling argument. What are your thoughts on It's Good Enough for RPG Purposes? I'd also be interested Fox's and Bladz thoughts on it.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-29-19/0147:04>
Total anecdote and all, but I just did an informal "trying the rules out" mini-game for the first time tonight.  I played a 3 strength covert ops elfy ninja thing wielding a humble combat knife.  I wanted to play a decidedly non-big melee type to get a feel for what you can do if you're NOT a big bad troll.
So jealous that it was outside my timezone... :<
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-29-19/0158:33>
Sorry, yeah I meant pixie as a slang term for elf.

As for my thoughts on Adzling's point... I think we both recognize we've just got different perspectives and likes/dislikes.  But, specifically, I presume you mean you're curious about my thoughts on this:

“ It's good enough for RPG purposes”

This is the actual discussion we should be having as it’s clear you can’t argue against physics.

My repose to “its good enough” is “no freaking way, not even close”

Why?

It’s inconsistent internally within 6e itself due to unarmed.
What’s worse is it did not have to be this way.
We can all envisage fixes for this.
So why did they stick with this clearly borked rule that doesn’t even match the rest of combat in 6e?

Taking as read that I DO indeed think static weapon DVs are "good enough for RPG purposes"... I simply don't know the answers as to why the rules got written the way they did.  I'm not a fan of having reasonably-attainable Unarmed DVs that are higher than melee weapon DVs, but like I said in light of my very brief "playtest" I had earlier tonight my concerns are diminished somewhat. I mean, you can build a scarily ridiculous unarmed DV but does it truly matter if a scrawny elf is taking people out with 3DVs as well?

Net hits (i.e. skill) and edge effects simply count for so much more than DV does, that altering DVs by a number or two up or down pales in relative importance.  Possibly, that's what was also felt by the thorough playtesters/designers as well.  In theory, lots of things could be done to make weapon and unarmed damage less abstract.  No dispute.  But the theory could easily get in the way of the practice... and I don't think making damage "more realistic" is necessarily worth the trouble.  A) 3P or 4P DVs, for example, are really in the end not so different anyway, so who cares if for all the effort put in a 3P becomes a 4P.  B) Adding complexity for realism's sake isn't something I agree is necessarily a good thing.  I still think that high strength unarmed DVs are "off" in comparison to weapon DVs.. but what I think should be done about it (if anything) is something I'm not comfortable discussing publicly.  I will say that I'm slightly less concerned though than I was before the playtest.  I don't *like* a big troll being less dangerous with a combat axe than without, but what should be done about it is elusive.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Katanarchist on <07-29-19/0402:08>
Out of curiosity, SSDR, for your playtest, was your game using the 2 Edge Gain per round limit?

I ask because you say Edge had such a high impact on making your character effective, and I'm wondering about the amount of Edge generated vs. the amount spent to make your character competent in that manner.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: tenchi2a on <07-29-19/0535:16>
Well, honest to god realism isn't what we should want, either.

Something I read once about game design that stuck with me is an old quote from L5R RPG game writers... iirc it was a discussion about how the 1st edition was designed.  The game designers, being game geeks with more rule of cool knowledge than actual practical martial arts knowledge, commissioned a real life kendo instructor try to give them a baseline idea of how much damage a skilled samurai could dish out in a 3 second turn (which is a notable coincidence with SR combat, btw).  They learned it wasn't a question of how lethal the damage someone might suffer in 3 seconds, but how many times over a skilled swordsman could kill a foe.  They had to figure what was a playable rules mechanic and let realism take a back seat to playability. I'll look for this source and link it if I can find it... it was a remarkable read. In my case it was one of those things you read 20+ years ago and still remember.

Regardless... the direction 6WE is going is clearly away from one-turn eliminations that were (generally, barring insane soak pools) easier to accomplish in 5e.  Realism is fundamentally going to be fighting uphill here.  The proper location of a "happy middle ground" is inherently opinion based, and you can't convince someone of an opinion.  Not on the internet, anyway :D

This is a misquote of the conversation. (been playing L5R since it released) I believe it was in one of the first few "Imperial Heralds".
The question was how many hits would it take him to kill his opponent, and the answer was one.
So the writers dialed back that to around two to three hits to up survivability with the idea once down most Samurai would end their attack due to Bushido.
As this didn't work since few players played Bushido right and "no rule survives contact with the players"
An optional rule called the "cinematic combat system" was presented first in the "Imperial Heralds" then in the "GM's Survival Guide" changing the wound multiplier from x2 to x3-x5 depending on your game level that majorly increased the wound points a PC had.
Later versions of the game would adopted a scaled down version of this rule only applying the higher mod to first the down level then to the first level.
As the "cinematic combat system" was seen as to extreme in the opposite direction for the setting.

I bring this up because this show the progression of a system trying to find the "sweet spot" between reality and dumb.
To me most of what has been done here with 6th is implementing the "cinematic combat system" which was an overreaction to the lethalness of the L5R combat system.
Which would be fine if it was the first edition (like with L5R) and not the 6th edition of the game.
Everything I have seen so far for this edition has been an overreaction to issues within the 5th edition which is someways (Armor) was an overreaction to issues with the 4th edition. All and all CGL does not seem capable of sitting down to correct issues they seem to want to as Adzling is fond of saying"throw the baby out with the bath water".
It would not be as bad if this was not the second time they did it (5th and now 6th) making it a pattern.
If from what I got from the armor thread all if not most of my complaints were intentional on CGL part and from what I read would have been even more over the top if they had not failed work in practice. (no soak rolls at all) Then I have to say this game is no longer for me. Which is a shame since I have bee playing and supporting it for over 24 years.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Finstersang on <07-29-19/0828:04>
Sorry, yeah I meant pixie as a slang term for elf.

As for my thoughts on Adzling's point... I think we both recognize we've just got different perspectives and likes/dislikes.  But, specifically, I presume you mean you're curious about my thoughts on this:

“ It's good enough for RPG purposes”

This is the actual discussion we should be having as it’s clear you can’t argue against physics.

My repose to “its good enough” is “no freaking way, not even close”

Why?

It’s inconsistent internally within 6e itself due to unarmed.
What’s worse is it did not have to be this way.
We can all envisage fixes for this.
So why did they stick with this clearly borked rule that doesn’t even match the rest of combat in 6e?

Taking as read that I DO indeed think static weapon DVs are "good enough for RPG purposes"... I simply don't know the answers as to why the rules got written the way they did.  I'm not a fan of having reasonably-attainable Unarmed DVs that are higher than melee weapon DVs, but like I said in light of my very brief "playtest" I had earlier tonight my concerns are diminished somewhat. I mean, you can build a scarily ridiculous unarmed DV but does it truly matter if a scrawny elf is taking people out with 3DVs as well?

That´s what I think as well. The real problem here is not that some wimp/elf/pixie can be somewhat dangerous with a melee weapon.  It´s the internal inconsistency with the way unarmed Damage is calculated, and the fact that unarmed Damage can apparently be stacked higher than any melee weapon damage. If a Troll with Strength 10+ pulls out a Combat Knife or collapsible Baton or Cyberspurs, that should make him more dangerous. Or at least not less.

This is not going to make SR6 "OMG literally unplayable" (unlike that commie 2-Edge-per-Turn-limit  :P) for me, but it´s definitely an issue that should be adressed. If not by some form of Errata, then at least in the following combat supplement.

(I´m already thinking about a bunch of ways to rectify this issue, but I´ll wait until I have a look at the full ruleset. Apparently, there might be at least some aspects of melee weapons where strength matters which are still under NDA. I suspected it would be AR calculation, but in the QSR, these are all fixed for melee weapons...)
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <07-29-19/0953:44>
@SSDR Cool, glad you enjoyed it, honestly.

@Marcus If it work for them awesome, my group is sticking with 5th and might steal bits and pieces from the New stuff, like possibly Matrix stuff. Otherwise, I am not really impressed overall with CGL's lets jump on the D&D5e simple and gimmicky bandwagon. Honestly, more I hear about the new Edge System and how Everything is tided to it, makes me sad. And then they nuetered the system with weird limits on how much is earned how you can spend it. Granted, am glad for a few things, better movement rules and possibly hell of a lot better Matrix system. What little of the character creation stuff I have seen before that thread was eaten by dissonance was not gel'n with me, honestly. This edition, I am pretty sure, I am just going to skip.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-29-19/1047:25>
Out of curiosity, SSDR, for your playtest, was your game using the 2 Edge Gain per round limit?

I ask because you say Edge had such a high impact on making your character effective, and I'm wondering about the amount of Edge generated vs. the amount spent to make your character competent in that manner.

Yes, cap on 2 per round.

The character I tested had 3 edge (the temptation to put some special attribute points in elfy stats was too great to resist). I was able to frontload some edge during the sneaking around before fighting via cyberware and qualities. Rather than rerolling dice or buying hits I was spending edge on some melee options to go for those one-shot eliminations. They're cheap enough I was almost treading water on the edge total.. almost but not quite indefinitely sustainable.  The more significant cost to using these options is the opportunity cost.. since I spent edge in those kinds of ways I couldn't manipulate the dice rolls.  So I gambled on not needing any rerolls or needing to force the NPCs to reroll.  With 16 dice pool (9 agility, 7 skill including augmentations and specialization) against low threat level opposition, in this small sample size I didn't need rerolls anyway.  Obviously the outcomes I described did involve multiple factors that were in my favor, and the same kind of results can't be taken for granted against Red Samurai or such.

The other participants were CDT agents who have had early access for a little while now as well, and as far as I know this was the first time any of us had the chance to actually roll dice in the system rather than mentally theorycraft. The GM, who has been interested in the 6WE threads here on the forum even though he's probably wiser than me because he doesn't say anything in them, came to express an opinion that people can't both complain that armor doesn't do enough and that edge is too powerful. (one of my eliminations was on a 1 edge cost option)

Aside from edge: my character didn't have any wired reflexes or similar, so I was sitting on 1 major and 2 minors. My chameleon suit was great for helping to sneak around but less great for stopping bullets (even by 6WE standards) and with a typically elfy body stat I really couldn't afford having to roll to soak any damage. I was gambling on one-hit eliminations, and that turned out to work but you don't know before you roll. I felt I had to save minor actions for defensive use "just in case", really limiting my options compared to the more wired sammy types. That's a good thing on two counts I think: game design is indeed rewarding initiative-jackers despite 1 pass per round, and I did in fact need to dodge an attack when a looney with a chainsaw came from around a corner! I would not have wanted to try to soak that.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-29-19/1135:42>
I’m curious as to what you mean by eliminate them from the fight. 3dv would require a minimum of 7 net hits to kill a enemy and that’s assuming they soaked nothing. Maybe you were effectively invisible the entire fight with the chameleon suit so they had no defense test but without buckets of edge being used I don’t see 7 hits happening routinely with a 16 die pool.

Now if by eliminate you are referring to they drop out of the fight early due to a low professional rating I can see it as the needed net hits would drop significantly. Or there is some crazy edge move that doubles damage or something at a low cost. I guess we get to see in a few days.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-29-19/1200:31>
Yes, I mean eliminate by filling the condition monitor.

Now granted, the instance where I spent a small number of edge to do that, it was an ability that in effect gave me a bonus to DV, which I then combined with a lucky roll (remember: small sample size).  Base DV plus the boost plus 5 net hits - the soak was a happy circumstance where it worked out to be a one-shot.

In other cases I used another option which costs more, but is brutal in its effectiveness. GM was already thinking it needs a nerf just from my using it twice (but again: small sample size). I haven't seen it discussed anywhere so I'm not going to give details, but basically it's analogous to those times in the movies where the hero just snaps a sentry's neck or slits his throat in one cool move. I built a ninja-type, so of course I was gonna try out ninja drek.

There are things you can do with edge that are melee only, blades only, etc. Things like these that can be done in close combat but not with a gun give a reason to do close combat, even if the melee DVs are bad compared to guns' DVs.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Katanarchist on <07-29-19/1206:10>
Neat! Thanks for the info.

Much like Fintersang, one of my big concerns is the per round cap on Edge gain. Obviously I want to kick the tires myself, but it's interesting to see a perspective that maybe it's working as intended.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-29-19/1208:54>
I tell you what, if you're able to gain 5+ edge per round, it'll become a Superhero RPG.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-29-19/1220:59>
I mean going '+2 edge per action max, 1 edge expenditure per action max' is fine as houserule, but it will indeed be the cinematic dramatic fighting style in comparison. That's the point where I walk into a crowd of enemies, dual-wielding assault rifles, and spray them down while evading every attack thrown at me. 8)
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Xenon on <07-29-19/1223:59>
There are some iconic archetypes in the Shadowrun universe (found in lore, books, illustrations etc).

One of them being an agile elf adept wielding a magical katana. Very hard to build a viable one in SR5. In SR6 they seem to be viable, even if you only have a strength of 3-4. I like this. I think we will see a lot of highly successful 'ninjas' in SR6.

Another is the street samurai. Perhaps primary using an assault rifle, but still have a katana for close encounters. By looking at the pictures (just Google Street samurai katana) most of them seem to be human or elf, not a Troll with super strength. In SR5 points in katana would mostly be useless and game mechanic wise it would often be better to just continue using his assault rifle. In SR6 it seem as if he would gain a tactical advantage switching to his katana. I like this. I think we will see a lot of street samurai using close combat as a close encounter option, even with mediocre strength ratings.

A third archetype is the big troll. Having super strength. Hitting through brick walls with his bare fists. Also this will be possible with SR6.

You have a few corner cases where things get strange.

Street samurai width cybernetic arms punching through brick wall with his cyber fists. Not clear how strong or how weak cyberlimbs will be in 6th edition. All I seen so far is that they start out at strength 2, but if they stay at strength 2 and a punch from a metallic cyberarm only have a base DV of 1 then i think it will feel strange. Hopefully you can boost them higher than that. Time will tell.

A big troll with super strength dealing more damage with his fists than if he were to wield a katana. But will this *really* be a problem? Why use a katana when your fists deal auto cannon damage? Hulk doesn't wield a katana, he just smash things with his fists. It is possible that the disconnect will be too big for people to handle, but I actually don't think it will be that big of a thing. I need to read the full rules and actually play the game before I can tell for sure.

Another corner case is the physically weak character (such as strength 1) dealing as much damage width a huge zweihander or claymore as someone strong enough to properly wield it (such as strength 4 or 5). I think I would have bigger issues with this case. I think maybe there might be some game mechanic that I don't fully know about. Maybe some weapons have some sort of minimal strength requirement; Knife 1,  Katana 3, Claymore 5, Medium Machine Gun 7, Heavy Machine Gun 9? Time will tell....
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-29-19/1234:35>
I tell you what, if you're able to gain 5+ edge per round, it'll become a Superhero RPG.

And if you cap at 2 situational modifiers stop representing what they are supposed to represent far too often.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Katanarchist on <07-29-19/1246:41>
I tell you what, if you're able to gain 5+ edge per round, it'll become a Superhero RPG.

Well, there's a reason my avatar is cyberpunk Spider-Man.... ;)
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Ghost Rigger on <07-29-19/1250:42>
This is not going to make SR6 "OMG literally unplayable" (unlike that commie 2-Edge-per-Turn-limit  :P) for me, but it´s definitely an issue that should be adressed. If not by some form of Errata, then at least in the following combat supplement.
"Commie" implies that it appears to work on paper and fails in practice because of the flawed nature of the humans practicing it, plus/minus sabotage from rival capitalist governments. This seems to fall apart on paper.

I tell you what, if you're able to gain 5+ edge per round, it'll become a Superhero RPG.
I have to disagree, and not just because Shadowrunners aren't terribly heroic.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: penllawen on <07-29-19/1303:51>
I tell you what, if you're able to gain 5+ edge per round, it'll become a Superhero RPG.

And if you cap at 2 situational modifiers stop representing what they are supposed to represent far too often.
I'm currently favouring the middle ground: you can only bank 2 Edge per round, but excess Edge you earn isn't immediately lost but can be used in (and only in) the action you earn it. I hope that this removes the "clipping" effect of the maximum Edge gain, where armour and tactics start to feel useless, but still means it takes effort and time to "save up" the big Edge numbers you need for the more devastating uses.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-29-19/1352:17>
The edge issue vs. armor/other changed this is one of the major conundrums. Left as is at 2 edge gain max per round, a number of options from armor to spell resistance are arguably worthless. Allow more edge gain per round, and I fully agree with SSD that it will get entirely out of hand instantly.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-29-19/1403:17>
The edge issue vs. armor/other changed this is one of the major conundrums. Left as is at 2 edge gain max per round, a number of options from armor to spell resistance are arguably worthless. Allow more edge gain per round, and I fully agree with SSD that it will get entirely out of hand instantly.
It’s almost like banking everything on a magic system rarely works.

Everything I’ve seen so far tells me edge would have been a great supplement to a armor soak/situational modifier system but does not seem to do a great job almost entirely replacing it.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-29-19/1405:43>
It’s almost like banking everything on a magic system rarely works.

Everything I’ve seen so far tells me edge would have been a great supplement to a armor soak/situational modifier system but does not seem to do a great job almost entirely replacing it.

I couldn't tell you if the chicken or the egg came first there, just that the nest is a mess after.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Banshee on <07-29-19/1408:24>
It’s almost like banking everything on a magic system rarely works.

Everything I’ve seen so far tells me edge would have been a great supplement to a armor soak/situational modifier system but does not seem to do a great job almost entirely replacing it.

I couldn't tell you if the chicken or the egg came first there, just that the nest is a mess after.

not that it changes anything at this point, but I can tell you that the mechanic I proposed that eventually mutated into the current Edge system predates the armor removal and was never intended to replace it what so ever ... also there is several degrees of evolution between
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Hobbes on <07-29-19/1418:04>
I tell you what, if you're able to gain 5+ edge per round, it'll become a Superhero RPG.

One for some kind of tactical advantage, One for high AV vs DV, One for bringing the GM cookies.  Edge gain seems kind of self limiting except for oddball cases of lots of low AV attacks vs a high DV defender or whatever.

I suppose once enough supplements are printed with Qualities and Gear a PC may have two or three applicable things to generate Edge per action.  But out of the core book I wouldn't think many players are significantly inconvenienced by the Two Edge per turn limit.  May just be me though.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-29-19/1420:00>
not that it changes anything at this point, but I can tell you that the mechanic I proposed that eventually mutated into the current Edge system predates the armor removal and was never intended to replace it what so ever ... also there is several degrees of evolution between

The commentary is still useful for understanding, so it's appreciated.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-29-19/1427:22>
I tell you what, if you're able to gain 5+ edge per round, it'll become a Superhero RPG.

One for some kind of tactical advantage, One for high AV vs DV, One for bringing the GM cookies.  Edge gain seems kind of self limiting except for oddball cases of lots of low AV attacks vs a high DV defender or whatever.

I suppose once enough supplements are printed with Qualities and Gear a PC may have two or three applicable things to generate Edge per action.  But out of the core book I wouldn't think many players are significantly inconvenienced by the Two Edge per turn limit.  May just be me though.
Riggers.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-29-19/1436:51>
I tell you what, if you're able to gain 5+ edge per round, it'll become a Superhero RPG.

One for some kind of tactical advantage, One for high AV vs DV, One for bringing the GM cookies.  Edge gain seems kind of self limiting except for oddball cases of lots of low AV attacks vs a high DV defender or whatever.

I suppose once enough supplements are printed with Qualities and Gear a PC may have two or three applicable things to generate Edge per action.  But out of the core book I wouldn't think many players are significantly inconvenienced by the Two Edge per turn limit.  May just be me though.

Per turn maybe. Per round I think probably fairly often.

Also it just lacks granularity. Either multiple situational modifiers could apply or the severity of a modifier but it’s always just one edge. Like I’d probably grant a edge for defense is the target was small but toaster on wheels small is different than a fly small but both would be one edge in the fictional example. Weirdly the moving fly might be easier to hit than a non resisting moving fly as I’d probably make that a damn hard shot like threshold 3 or 4. Moving it might have 6 dice to dodge and get 1 edge.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Finstersang on <07-29-19/1456:45>
The edge issue vs. armor/other changed this is one of the major conundrums. Left as is at 2 edge gain max per round, a number of options from armor to spell resistance are arguably worthless. Allow more edge gain per round, and I fully agree with SSD that it will get entirely out of hand instantly.

The second part is only a systematic issue for tanky characters that strategize on getting attacked a lot, though. And even in this case, "getting out of hand" merely means that Tanky McTrollface has the option to bank the Edge he gets for armor, cover and beneficial circumstances for his own counterattacks instead of using it defensively. While this kind of "bait-and-punish"-playstyle may look a bit cheesy and "gamey" at a first glance, it is:


And if that´s still to "messy", what about that other alternative to the 2-Edge-cap that is often discussed: There is a Limit of 2 per round, but it only applies to edge tokens that are saved for later actions. With this, no amount of Edge really goes to waste, but you are often forced to use it on the test where you earned it.   
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Hobbes on <07-29-19/1507:53>
I tell you what, if you're able to gain 5+ edge per round, it'll become a Superhero RPG.

One for some kind of tactical advantage, One for high AV vs DV, One for bringing the GM cookies.  Edge gain seems kind of self limiting except for oddball cases of lots of low AV attacks vs a high DV defender or whatever.

I suppose once enough supplements are printed with Qualities and Gear a PC may have two or three applicable things to generate Edge per action.  But out of the core book I wouldn't think many players are significantly inconvenienced by the Two Edge per turn limit.  May just be me though.
Riggers.

Get one Edge per Vehicle test if they have a Control Rig, sure.  That's one per turn.  If there is a Vehicle test that can be done as a minor action, I guess that would be an issue.  If whatever they're doing "Has an advantage" that's two, same as everyone else.  Third from doing it again because VR initiative...?   
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-29-19/1518:09>
Remember that Vehicle Skill test is an SR5 term which includes Gunnery, and the Rigger chapter makes clear it's any jumped in test with the vehicle/drone that gets a Rig bonus. So Engineering for firing counts, aka 1 Edge from the Rig, 1 from AR-DR, 1 from having a tactical Edge, limit.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Finstersang on <07-29-19/1525:00>
I mean going '+2 edge per action max, 1 edge expenditure per action max' is fine as houserule, but it will indeed be the cinematic dramatic fighting style in comparison. That's the point where I walk into a crowd of enemies, dual-wielding assault rifles, and spray them down while evading every attack thrown at me. 8)

Yeah, but all of that is only (somewhat...) possible if you come well prepared and armored, use the environment to your advantage, split up your opposition to avoid getting ganged up on...

I think that conceptional dissonance the problem here: Edge is getting rebranded as a general gameplay mechanic that encompasses a vast array of perks, gear options and situational modifiers, emphasizes strategy and rewards planning BUT THEN there just has to be this arbitrary (and quite strict) limit put on it, as if it´s still that kind of overpowered cinematic/superhero/luck/fatepoint-mechanic it has been in the previous Editions.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Ghost Rigger on <07-29-19/1619:17>
Remember that Vehicle Skill test is an SR5 term which includes Gunnery, and the Rigger chapter makes clear it's any jumped in test with the vehicle/drone that gets a Rig bonus. So Engineering for firing counts, aka 1 Edge from the Rig, 1 from AR-DR, 1 from having a tactical Edge, limit.
But wait, there's more! Let's assume this nebulously defined tactical advantage has nothing to do with visual impairment (for instance, a surprise attack); then on top of all that we could be attacking an opponent with no sensors or vision augments in pitch darkness while having ultrasound, thermographic vision and lowlight vision ourselves, allowing us to earn another edge point. For a truly extreme example, the target could also be doused in gasoline while we are conveniently attacking with a flamethrower, earning a fifth edge point. And all this is just one action; if the target (should they survive) or their friends fire back, 3 more edge could potentially be earned per dodge from the control rig, the AR-DR and visibility issues.

The limit of 2 edge per round is ridiculous.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-29-19/1630:43>
The edge issue vs. armor/other changed this is one of the major conundrums. Left as is at 2 edge gain max per round, a number of options from armor to spell resistance are arguably worthless. Allow more edge gain per round, and I fully agree with SSD that it will get entirely out of hand instantly.

herein lies one of my major issues with the new system.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Xenon on <07-29-19/1641:55>
Two observations:

1. So you bank 2 edge and use the rest on the actions where you earned them. Or am I missing something here...?

2. Gaining an edge seem to just be half the equation. The other half seen to be to deny the oppression from gaining one. Even if you can't bank more edge you can still prevent the opposition from gaining one.

Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <07-29-19/1653:46>
The second part is only a systematic issue for tanky characters that strategize on getting attacked a lot, though.

While that would likely be the most common case, it is not the only one. My concern with raising the 2/round limit is less about defense use, or more about a collective offense collecting edge, and then passing it along to their allies so on their turns they roast the opposition's face off.

Quick example would be a boss man, his right hand, and the 2 groups of grunts. Grunts pass one to boss each, right hand passes one to boss, boss generates two on his turn and has 5 free points to spend. That example is hardly the worse possible situation either.

  • a.) still more realistic than a system where the amount of factors and perks that are allowed to play a role is arbitrarily limited based on a 3-second increment.

I don't have a strong opinion on this one other than to say game balance is more important than realism for me personally (not to say that setting realistic isn't a concern, because it is).

  • b.) quite fun to play out. And fun is important, right? RIGHT? ::)

Absolutely. And there is no right or wrong fun, just preference. I personally would have more fun with a more traditional approach to armor and strength, but I appreciate your meaning.

  • d.) counterable by properly employing grunt rules.

Only potentially. See my first response.

And if that´s still to "messy", what about that other alternative to the 2-Edge-cap that is often discussed: There is a Limit of 2 per round, but it only applies to edge tokens that are saved for later actions.

Again, doesn't really help the aforementioned bad guy gang up edge roast.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Finstersang on <07-29-19/1657:29>
Two observations:

1. So you bank 2 edge and use the rest on the actions where you earned them. Or am I missing something here...?

2. Gaining an edge seem to just be half the equation. The other half seen to be to deny the oppression from gaining one. Even if you can't bank more edge you can still prevent the opposition from gaining one.

1. Yes, that´s the idea here. You would be able to get as much as you "rightfully earned" as long  as you spend it right on the action (offense, defense, soak...) where you earned it, but you can max. save 2 for other Actions or for the upcoming round.

2. That´s true, but it´s arguably quite a loss in verisimilitude (great, now I´m using that word too :P) when having a clear advantage on your side suddenly yields the same result as a draw.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Finstersang on <07-29-19/1727:32>
This is not going to make SR6 "OMG literally unplayable" (unlike that commie 2-Edge-per-Turn-limit  :P) for me, but it´s definitely an issue that should be adressed. If not by some form of Errata, then at least in the following combat supplement.
"Commie" implies that it appears to work on paper and fails in practice because of the flawed nature of the humans practicing it, plus/minus sabotage from rival capitalist governments. This seems to fall apart on paper.

Hey, but you get the idea on why I call it the "commie" limit ;D

TBH, it´s a really fitting moniker: The whole thing is motivated by some vague idea of bringing "balance" and "equality" to the table, which it achieves by a) ignoring huge parts of reality and b) giving everyone less of the of the fun stuff on average. Truly a very communist rule :P   

Now I can´t help but assign the other 2 houserules their political counterpart:

2 Edge per round, but it´s only limiting amount of Edge that can be saved for later: Social Democrat

2 Edge per Turn (Variants: 2 Edge per Action, no Limits at all): Anarcho Capitalism
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-29-19/1754:04>
Total anecdote and all, but I just did an informal "trying the rules out" mini-game for the first time tonight.  I played a 3 strength covert ops elfy ninja thing wielding a humble combat knife.  I wanted to play a decidedly non-big melee type to get a feel for what you can do if you're NOT a big bad troll.

Without some prior personal hands on play experience, I hadn't grokked how important judicious edge use really is.  The DVs were almost besides the point in our combats.  Yes, we played full-blown shadowrunners taking on low-threat halloweener scrubs, but my pixie had little difficulty eliminating NPCs with one DV 3P attack each.  Went three for three on one-shot-one-kills.  It absolutely can be less about the raw DV value than how your spend your Edge (and how often you can generate it to fuel more of those expenditures).

I'm glad you enjoyed it. If you go again and fight something higher threat then some Halloweeners I'd be interested to hear more about that. Just to be clear you said Pixie. Were you referring to your elf as a Pixie or did you play a pixie? Beyond that I'm more interested to hear what you thinking on Adzling argument. What are your thoughts on It's Good Enough for RPG Purposes? I'd also be interested Fox's and Bladz thoughts on it.

My thoughts on the phrase "Good Enough For _____". Problem is there's two different ways to take this phrase. One is that the person/group/corp puts out something that barely passes muster, leaving it to their fanbase to either just suck it, or because they know the fans will mod it till they fix the problems so don't bother doing it themselves. This seems to result largely due to a company either having a loyal fan-base who will still buy their stuff even with problems, or they have a monopoly and people don't have much if any choice. I don't know Catalyst as a company, and while I could easily picture someone higher up who only cares about sales numbers making such a call, the actual people who put in the work building this upcoming edition I can't see having played that way and would find such a claim insulting.

The other way addresses the issue of scope creep by declaring that a particular point is "good enough" or the project risks getting deeper and deeper into ever expanding detail and either falls behind schedule and risks floundering, or becomes mystifyingly complex making it hard for a chunk of your intended player base to understand. For an example, most RPG systems have three stats representing the physical body, strength for raw power, agility/dexterity for speed, flexibility, and coordination, and body/constitution for stamina and endurance. They will call that 'Good Enough', and in all honesty, it is. It still doesn't address the various nuances and balances in each of those stats, but such starts getting into far to much detail that your average player will probably neither care about, nor really need to use over the more simplified trio. A much harder target to hit and you will never please all the people who are wanting to play your game, though I'm thinking 6th world may have gotten it pretty well on target. We'll be able to tell better with the full rules in front of us and a few games under our belt to see how it plays beyond the paper.

TL/DR: The phrase good enough for can be used in both positive and negative ways, but I feel 6th is more on the positive side. I do however reserve the right to change my mind after I've gotten experience with it.

Also, yes I find the difference between melee weapon damage being fixed and unarmed being str/2 (personally I feel it should have been body since the weapon you're attacking with is your own slab of meat). However without knowing anything beyond that fragment of information I'm not willing to call it broken or the system a lost cause. Snap judgment declarations without the full facts are never a good thing.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Hobbes on <07-29-19/1758:09>
Snap judgment declarations without the full facts are never a good thing.

I'm not sure you get the internet.   :P
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <07-29-19/1800:34>
Snap judgment declarations without the full facts are never a good thing.

I'm not sure you get the internet.   :P

LoL! Don't I know it!
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-29-19/1836:26>
After the first playtests by the podcasters were released I came out publicly and said that the edge mechanic is not going to in any way represent reality or what happens IRL due to many factors.

Everything that has come out since, in these and other discussions, has only further reinforced that point.

IMHO it's a cheap, shallow, gamist mechanic that substitutes relative advantage in place for what actually is happening.

One can now see from SSDR's playtest that it in no way represents the combat space in any meaningful way and it degrades as the situation gets more complex (more smoke, running, positional advantage etc). This is clear because the amount of relative advantage is capped at a threshold well below that of the modifiers typically encountered in many fights add up to...never mind that fact that it ALSO has to factor in armor and other stuff that I am constrained by the NDA to not reveal.

Replacing realism with relativism results in the asinine "fight in blizzard/windstorm/fire/smoke" scenario whereby no one ends up affected by what should be a choice-limiting scenario.

It's gonna get worse as more of this comes out and more people with any significant experience use the system.

This is because, imho, relative advantage is an inherently flawed mechanic that cannot represent what's going on in combat with any degree of accuracy, authority or consistency.

Sure it may be fun, at first.

But when you quickly realize that you can no longer reliably predict the outcomes of your actions because "who knows if i'm going to earn or lose edge or not" the entire premise of shadowrun turns to crap.

How do you determine if your plan has a chance to succeed when you cannot even vaguely assess the chance of success?

Welcome to relative advantage...

HOWEVER there is a possibility that this brings in many, many new players who don't care about that stuff and just want to roll dice at each other without having to think much or simply don't have the depth of experience to understand the inherent flaws in the system and how it impacts a game built on planning detailed actions in advance.

6e lost me when I realized that.
Time will tell if the new players it brings in feel the same way once the shine wears off immediate fun.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-29-19/1920:19>
Yeah my group liked 5e d&d at first but the more we bumped into it’s disconnect  from reality for gamism the less we liked it. And that’s d&d which I think has a much higher tolerance for gamism. 

My hope is well be fine with 6e Sr long enough for the combat book to come out and for that or bring it back a bit.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: FastJack on <07-29-19/1931:01>
We can now see from SSDR's playtest that it in no way represents the combat space in any meaningful way and it degrades as the situation gets more complex (more smoke, running, positional advantage etc). This is clear because the amount of relative advantage is capped at a threshold well below that of the modifiers typically encountered in many fights add up to...never mind that fact that it ALSO has to factor in armor and other stuff that I am constrained by the NDA to not reveal.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Stop using "we". "We" implies that we now are in agreement with your assessment. When speaking of your opinions on the rules, please use "I". You're able to stick with "I" elsewhere in your post.

I'm sorry, it just irks me when using "we" when stating opinions, because you are then saying "we" share your opinion.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-29-19/1938:51>
I think my commentary is pretty clear and my use of the single occurrence of “we” fits with common usage, but for you my friend I will edit to use the impersonal third person pronoun of “one” as in “one can clearly see”.

Edited to replace the single use of the word "we" for "one".
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: FastJack on <07-29-19/1941:22>
I think my commentary is pretty clear and my use of “we” fits with common usage but for you my friend I will edit to use the impersonal third person pronoun of “one” as in “one can clearly see”.
Thank you.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Typhus on <07-29-19/1947:12>
Quote
HOWEVER there is a possibility that this brings in many, many new players who don't care about that stuff and just want to roll dice at each other without having to think much or simply don't have the depth of experience to understand the inherent flaws in the system and how it impacts a game built on planning detailed actions in advance.

I think this is getting at what my gut feeling is shaping up to be at the moment, which is that this is definitely a "beer and pretzels" version of Shadowrun that I can teach easily to the game group I currently have.  It brisk and approachable.  However, it trades that for the ability to have a satisfying campaign with a group of players who also tend to prefer Pathfinder over 5E D&D.  For one night, one-shot missions, sure.  Nobody will be that invested in the mechanics, and if the GM can keep his commentary down on the matter, many people will have a fun time. Stats nerds, power gamers, and SR vets will be the most likely to complain, if anyone does, I would guess.

Character advancement worries me a bit, since a lot of spells, qualities and gear will center around manipulation of the Edge mechanic, or the AR/DR ratio.  Neither element feels very satisfying to me as a veteran player, not like something I get excited to improve.  It feels more like expanding a menu of choices around how I can earn a metacurrency to do dice tricks, not necessarily to feel like my *character* did something inherently cool because of my build choices. 

Granted, my expectations are all set from prior editions.  I'm sure a lot of the things I don't find rewarding won't be noticed by brand new players with no basis for comparison.  I'm definitely in no rush to jump into 6E, even though it checks a lot of boxes for me in other areas.  Edge and AR/DR are the things I keep coming back to that is making it less appealing.  I'll be interested to hear what the buzz becomes when people get the rules in hand.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <07-29-19/1952:45>
I suspect that your conclusions will be the most likely situation Typhus.

Time will tell.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Typhus on <07-29-19/2121:06>
May we both be wrong. I miss playing Shadowrun.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Marcus on <07-29-19/2134:41>
Trying to predict what the fan base at large is going to like or dislike is generally a waste of time.

The Gaming community atlarge is more diverse then ever and I have no idea what they will think.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: kyoto kid on <07-29-19/2143:07>
Quote
HOWEVER there is a possibility that this brings in many, many new players who don't care about that stuff and just want to roll dice at each other without having to think much or simply don't have the depth of experience to understand the inherent flaws in the system and how it impacts a game built on planning detailed actions in advance.

I think this is getting at what my gut feeling is shaping up to be at the moment, which is that this is definitely a "beer and pretzels" version of Shadowrun that I can teach easily to the game group I currently have.  It brisk and approachable.  However, it trades that for the ability to have a satisfying campaign with a group of players who also tend to prefer Pathfinder over 5E D&D.  For one night, one-shot missions, sure.  Nobody will be that invested in the mechanics, and if the GM can keep his commentary down on the matter, many people will have a fun time. Stats nerds, power gamers, and SR vets will be the most likely to complain, if anyone does, I would guess.

Character advancement worries me a bit, since a lot of spells, qualities and gear will center around manipulation of the Edge mechanic, or the AR/DR ratio.  Neither element feels very satisfying to me as a veteran player, not like something I get excited to improve.  It feels more like expanding a menu of choices around how I can earn a metacurrency to do dice tricks, not necessarily to feel like my *character* did something inherently cool because of my build choices. 

Granted, my expectations are all set from prior editions.  I'm sure a lot of the things I don't find rewarding won't be noticed by brand new players with no basis for comparison.  I'm definitely in no rush to jump into 6E, even though it checks a lot of boxes for me in other areas.  Edge and AR/DR are the things I keep coming back to that is making it less appealing.  I'll be interested to hear what the buzz becomes when people get the rules in hand.
...same here.  I'll give it a look when the Core Rules PDF hits DrivethroughRPG.  For now though, my group seems to be set with 5E.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Mirikon on <07-30-19/0826:51>
Agreed. This looks like a 'training wheels' edition, that you can use to introduce someone to the setting, and then shift over to something like 5E or 4E. Like how D&D 5E is best used as training wheels for D&D 3.X.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Ghost Rigger on <07-30-19/0846:18>
Why would you ever want to play the bloated, poorly balanced mess that is 3.5? Play 5e for beer and pretzels night, and 2e for when you want to get in-depth about your dungeon crawling. Or maybe play a system that isn't goddamned D&D. I've been playing Savage Worlds Adventure Edition recently, and I find it runs as a good pulp action system while still being easy to learn and run.

That's an aside, though. The question at hand is how much of a beer and pretzels game does the current player base want Shadowrun to be? I personally find that 5e is plenty beer and pretzels when you run it Pink Mohawk.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <07-30-19/1701:32>
Agreed. This looks like a 'training wheels' edition, that you can use to introduce someone to the setting, and then shift over to something like 5E or 4E. Like how D&D 5E is best used as training wheels for D&D 3.X.

Lol, I love this and will probably steal it as my new tag line!!

As to Ghost Rigger. 3.5 was a poor balanced mess, but at least it killed the dumbass upside down AC bullshit of previous editions. Pathfinder, while also flawed fixed a decent amount of the issues. Personally, I have found Starfinder to be the best modern d20 system, streamlined without overly gamist feel. Starship combat needs some love though.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Ghost Rigger on <07-30-19/1714:58>
Have you tried any edition of Mutants&Masterminds? I've personally found it's the best of the d20 systems.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <07-30-19/1718:12>
No, I have not, partly because I own either in PDF or hard copy almost all of Paizo Pathfinder stuff and a truck load of 3.X stuff. Love that Pathfinder was compatible. Would probably try it at some point.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <07-30-19/1723:59>
Have you tried any edition of Mutants&Masterminds? I've personally found it's the best of the d20 systems.

It’s like Hero system with a non clunky game mechanic. I love it.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Marcus on <07-30-19/2352:57>
I'm planning on waiting on 6e until at-least the first errata pass is complete before considering it again.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-30-19/2357:03>
You're not the only one hoping errata comes fast and efficient!
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-31-19/0018:13>
You're not the only one hoping errata comes fast and efficient!
Yeah, fortuna- *red dot appears* :-X
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Typhus on <07-31-19/0101:03>
OK, is it weird I'm more interested in what's going to get said after the NDA lifts than to read the rules themselves?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Michael Chandra on <07-31-19/0110:05>
The errata-process itself will no doubt always remain under NDA, especially since some 'maybe this should be X' might turn into optional rules in splat-books instead. But there is an active errata process. Keyword active. And that's all I can share, really. :-X
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <07-31-19/1247:47>
Keyword active.

Will believe that when it actually comes out. We have members that were actively trying to get out errata for 5th. Looks like to me CGL was to busy making 6th to finish getting out the old erratas that were ready, except for CGL stamp of approval. Hell, at this point I don't give a drek if it looks like the older errata, just please get it out. Sorry, CGL has basically burned me to much.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Hobbes on <07-31-19/1348:16>
Have you tried any edition of Mutants&Masterminds? I've personally found it's the best of the d20 systems.

It’s like Hero system with a non clunky game mechanic. I love it.

Check out Prowlers and Paragons.  Superheroes and lots of D6s.  Solid mechanics, easy character building.  Easily my favorite Superhero RPG that I never get to play.   :P
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: mcv on <08-01-19/0839:58>
2) Pixies can hit as hard as a Troll:
So what. 6e isn't the first game where you can leverage your dexterity/agility into being the relevant stat for determining damage. D&D/d20 has had finesse weapons and various feats/enchantments that allow you to substitute in dex bonuses in place of str bonuses.  That doesn't seem to have proven outside the realm of reasonable suspension of disbelief for those game systems.  In fact, I'd consider SR fortunate indeed to have a fraction of D&D's popularity. 
The fact that D&D does this doesn't automatically make it a good idea. That in D&D Strength often adds to to hit, and in some cases Dex adds to damage, is one of my biggest problems with the system. Having different stats do the same thing (especially in D&D4) makes the difference between different stats increasingly meaningless. I would prefer Strength to be the only stat that ever adds to damage in D&D, and not having Strength add to damage in Shadowrun risks making Strength a pointless stat to invest in.

I have no real opinion on SR6 because I haven't read the rules yet, but I do agree with the OP's point that things should make sense. If armor doesn't help your survivability, then what's the point of armor? If being strong doesn't help you to do more damage, then what's the point in being strong?
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Mirikon on <08-01-19/0849:18>
Why would you ever want to play the bloated, poorly balanced mess that is 3.5? Play 5e for beer and pretzels night, and 2e for when you want to get in-depth about your dungeon crawling. Or maybe play a system that isn't goddamned D&D. I've been playing Savage Worlds Adventure Edition recently, and I find it runs as a good pulp action system while still being easy to learn and run.

That's an aside, though. The question at hand is how much of a beer and pretzels game does the current player base want Shadowrun to be? I personally find that 5e is plenty beer and pretzels when you run it Pink Mohawk.

For the same reasons I play systems like Champions/HERO System, Mutants & Masterminds, GURPS, and BESM. For the same reason I think SR4A is infinitely better than SR5. I like character creation and customization. I like having the options to do anything I want, if I can find the points for it. I like being able to customize gear, customize spells, customize whatever I'm doing and come up with something new and unique and tell a story about it. I want to get in under the hood, and turn my Roadmaster into a poor man's APC. I want to create an AI Street Samurai. I want to create a Troll Mage. I want to go wild.

If I wanted a 'beer and pretzels' game, I'd just bust out Cards Against Humanity or Munchkin. I want deep customization, and the ability to craft a story that I can call my own, not fitting into one of three slots, almost identical to a few dozen others of my 'class'.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Mirikon on <08-01-19/0852:05>
Have you tried any edition of Mutants&Masterminds? I've personally found it's the best of the d20 systems.
Depends on what you're going for. If you're going for a free-wheeling, comic book experience, like Hulk fighting Abomination in Manhattan, then M&M is your jam. If you want a gritty, tactical experience, that feels more like D&D, you want Champions.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: FastJack on <08-01-19/0912:01>
Have you tried any edition of Mutants&Masterminds? I've personally found it's the best of the d20 systems.
Depends on what you're going for. If you're going for a free-wheeling, comic book experience, like Hulk fighting Abomination in Manhattan, then M&M is your jam. If you want a gritty, tactical experience, that feels more like D&D, you want Champions.
The only thing I'll add about M&M (and I love the game), don't go into it thinking about "leveling up". This is a game that is based on a Power Level, so you can design characters that are Street Level (Punisher, The Question) to middle-level (Runaways, Teen Titans) to top-tier (Avengers, JLA). The system works best if you're stay off the idea of making your heroes more powerful and focus on the storylines like the comics that inspired the game.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: FastJack on <08-01-19/0917:13>
Dang it! Got myself in the trap too...

Let's keep this on topic, if you want to talk Superhero RPGs, message me and I can split the discussion off into another thread.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Ghost Rigger on <08-01-19/1323:25>
For the same reasons I play systems like Champions/HERO System, Mutants & Masterminds, GURPS, and BESM. For the same reason I think SR4A is infinitely better than SR5. I like character creation and customization. I like having the options to do anything I want, if I can find the points for it. I like being able to customize gear, customize spells, customize whatever I'm doing and come up with something new and unique and tell a story about it. I want to get in under the hood, and turn my Roadmaster into a poor man's APC. I want to create an AI Street Samurai. I want to create a Troll Mage. I want to go wild.

If I wanted a 'beer and pretzels' game, I'd just bust out Cards Against Humanity or Munchkin. I want deep customization, and the ability to craft a story that I can call my own, not fitting into one of three slots, almost identical to a few dozen others of my 'class'.
See, but I don't think any edition of D&D does customization well. Yes, 3.5 had a whole slew of classes, feats, races, gear mods and all that, but they aren't equal. Some options are so bad as to be considered traps, and among the good options some are clearly better than others with no drawbacks or tradeoffs. Having a lot of choices doesn't mean anything when only a handful of them are viable. 5e is at least honest about giving you a small number of viable options. And if I'm to speak beyond just personal preference, it's probably better for the TTRPG industry for modern D&D to be as it is. It's the most well known outside of nerd hobby communities and often babby's first system, so it should be something that doesn't drive people away with complexity and an endless sea of content bloat to navigate, but still deep enough to retain interest. And all that is before I say anything about Caster Edition.

This talk about other systems is an aside, but it's a useful lens to look at 6e criticisms at. For instance, what I just said about it being a good thing that 5e is relatively simple? That doesn't apply here. Shadowrun has always been the deep end of the pool, and I don't see any reason that should change.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <08-02-19/2159:32>
Shadowrun has always been the deep end of the pool, and I don't see any reason that should change.

It just did, 6e has been released.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Ghost Rigger on <08-03-19/0919:37>
Which is the issue at hand here. Shadowrun has always been the deep end of the pool, we appreciate it for being the deep end of the pool, and now the devs have seen fit to make it the kiddie pool.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: adzling on <08-03-19/1007:48>
Yup, our table is sticking with 5e
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: mcv on <08-03-19/1327:07>
(Warning! Long and rambling. For the final point, jump to the last paragraph. The rest is just explanation of the jargon I'm using.)

I think the OP's issue about suspension of disbelief vs the uncanny valley might be related to the concept of "verisimilitude". In RPGs, verisimilitude refers to the idea that decisions you make, make sense from the character's perspective in the game world. A game world that may contain cyberware, spirits, magic, etc.

For example, using a skill you've got, casting a spell, wearing armour, shooting a gun, those are things your character does and understands. But what about using Edge? Does the character choose to apply Edge to a roll? I don't think so. It's more of a meta-mechanic. It's not something inside the game world, but it's something that supports dramatic moments in play. (That's not entirely true; in Shadowrun, Edge and karma might actually be real things in the game world, just not things the character consciously controls.)

This gets back a bit to an old-fashioned distinction about different approaches to RPGs: simulationst, gamist and narrativist approaches. Simulationism is about simulating the game world in whatever detail you need, like making meatspace, magic and the matrix feel and behave differently. Gamism is about things like balance and playability, overcoming obstacles, doing the things that are core to the game and getting rewarded for that; it doesn't have to be realistic, as long as it's fun. Narrativism is about the story you're creating, and to what extent do the players have control over that beyond the choices that their character makes? This includes meta-currency like fate-points in Fate, or Edge in SR.

Obviously every RPG needs all of these to some extent; the distinction is in where you find the balance. Shadowrun has always been strongly on the simulationist end, and rather complex as a result. D&D has always been more gamist, with its levels and classes that don't really represent anything concrete in the game world. D&D4 took it further, and had abilities work in a way that was very balanced, but made little sense in the game world: you could make a special attack once a day, with no clear in-world reason you couldn't use it again. When it feels like something that should be under the control of the character, but is inexplicably limited due to balance reasons, that hurts versimilitude. You cannot do a thing that you normally can do, simply because you've done it once before on the same day. That makes no sense.

Pathfinder is also clearly guilty of that. I'll forgive D&D and Pathfinder for the way magic spells work, because, after all, it's magic. There are tons of in-world explanations that people have made up to explain that. But plenty of classes have non-magical abilities that they can still only use once a day, and that's kinda weird. Or abilities that do something that doesn't sound like the character is doing it.

An interesting counter example is Earthdawn, where classes (disciplines) and levels (circles) do represent something real in-game, and where the karma you spend to boost your chances is also a real in-game magical currency.

Anyway, to finally get back to the point: when wearing better armor doesn't improve your survivability, that hurts versimilitude. When instead, it boosts an intangible meta-game currency, that feels weird. (And if you see Edge as something magical that does exist in-game, it's even weirder.) It moves the game out of its simulationist corner towards a more abstract gamist/narrativist style of play. That's not necessarily bad (D&D has been quite successful with it), but I can understand it feels different from what people are used to from Shadowrun.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <08-03-19/1359:48>
I’d say even the edge system could work for more simulationists a if designed different.

1. Don’t put limits on edge gain or spending.
2. Have edge uses tied directly to things they are representing.
3. Have edge gain happen whether or not there is a relative difference.


Like take armor it only goes to edge gain effectively. Okay but have a 1 edge thing be if you gain a edge from armor you can spend one edge so your armor rating is added to your soak pool. This actually would make sense certain levels of protection just get blown through without slowing the bullet down.

Poor visibility target gains one edge. Have a 1 edge thing be gain one auto success on your defense tests against all enemies effected by the visibility.

Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Sendaz on <08-03-19/1508:13>

Like take armor it only goes to edge gain effectively. Okay but have a 1 edge thing be if you gain a edge from armor you can spend one edge so your armor rating is added to your soak pool. This actually would make sense certain levels of protection just get blown through without slowing the bullet down.

Poor visibility target gains one edge. Have a 1 edge thing be gain one auto success on your defense tests against all enemies effected by the visibility.
They do have a little bit of this, so there is some precedence..
If you look at the Rigger Dossier on Emu they have this in two spots:
Flare Compensation
Character gains bonus Edge in glare environment if their opponent doesn’t possess a similar enhancement.

And
Juryrigger
When performing a Juryrigging test, character gains a bonus point of Edge that must be used on that test, or it is lost.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <08-03-19/1546:59>
Yeah they have edge gains for things like having flare comp I’m glare.

The thing is it should be the reverse and they need specific edge expenditures not just gains for those circumstances. Basically flare comp should stop the enemy from getting edge gain. And then there should be ways to spend that edge that reflect shooting at you is more difficult.

If I throw down a flash pack it’s harder to shoot me. So I should gain a edge when people try to shoot me whether or not I have flare comp but if they have flare comp I wouldn’t gain the edge because it’s not harder for them to shoot me. And there should be specific ways to spend my edge that show it’s harder to shoot me like auto hits on my defense test.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: tenchi2a on <08-03-19/2019:54>
Well we know that the current version of the edge system was not what was originally proposed.
It was going to be a bonus system that worked with the mod system, but somewhere alone the way, after the original proponent left the group it was changed to become the core mechanic to the system.
We also know that the designers wanted to remove soak from the game altogether.

It is plain to see they where going for a Shadowrun/D&D fusion to cash in on the popularity of 5th edition.
But it seems to be suffering from all the issues of D&D 4th edition,
1. Strange playtesting issues.
2. Move away for the core fan base to try and pull in new players from another playstyle.
3. Silent Devs and overly protective players singing its praises.
4. Major backlash from core fans
5. Needing errata right off the presses.

So that aside, I see this going only a few ways.
1. The D&D 4th ed. way, with CGL putting out a whole lotta low print run supplements to squeeze as much out of this before
    a) then dropping shadowrun for good, Or
    b) pulling a 5th ed with open playtesting
2. Trying to plug the wholes in the system and go from there.
    a) finding a way to make it work, Or
    b) then dropping shadowrun for good, Or
    c) pulling a 5th ed with open playtesting

3. They could get enough old and new players to make it profitable.

The changes to the game where not a mistake, they where a chose by the designers, so the only way for them to see it as an issues is for the game not to sell well.
So that's what me and my players are going to do, not buy anything from the line. If enough players vote with their wallets they may get the idea, orI could be wrong and it just me and my group that don't like it and it does well.

Anyway you look at this I feel we are stuck with 6th for awhile, so I'll keep watching but I don't see any reason to stick around and keep arguing as for now I don't think anything will be changes for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Xenon on <08-03-19/2306:23>
If I throw down a flash pack it’s harder to shoot me.
Being blinded by glare give you a negative dice pool modifier (similar to SR5).
If you are using low light then you get even more blinded by the glare.
If you are using flare compensation then you get less blinded.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <08-03-19/2349:34>
So glare gives penalties but range doesn’t.  If some situational modifiers have penalties what’s the benefit of the edge system. It doesn’t sound easier to me.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <08-04-19/0756:08>
So glare gives penalties but range doesn’t.  If some situational modifiers have penalties what’s the benefit of the edge system. It doesn’t sound easier to me.

Many status effects still give a dice pool penalty to various pools, such as blinded, immobilized, ect. As to your second question, I wish I had an answer.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Marcus on <08-04-19/0953:54>
We already knew there were other penalty sources in 6e (Wound Penalties were the first example). Further it doesn't seem likely 6e is  significantly more simple then 5e.  Where we had pretty well identified and could with some good effort have cleared up much of the system issues in 5e probably with another anniversary release. We will now have wait and watch the errata process all over. If the hot fix makes anything clear, it's that there a lot work to be done in that area.  Never mind splat books.

The thing that makes me more nervous is what I keep hear about the GM section. Apparently it went down to 14 pages from 40, and reportedly it lacks both basic definitions, and meaningful examples.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Lormyr on <08-04-19/1007:45>
Further it doesn't seem likely 6e is  significantly more simple then 5e.

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

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

I concur.

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

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

Unlike the character creation process, which lacks vital explanations and clear english.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <08-04-19/1212:55>
We already knew there were other penalty sources in 6e (Wound Penalties were the first example). Further it doesn't seem likely 6e is  significantly more simple then 5e.  Where we had pretty well identified and could with some good effort have cleared up much of the system issues in 5e probably with another anniversary release. We will now have wait and watch the errata process all over. If the hot fix makes anything clear, it's that there a lot work to be done in that area.  Never mind splat books.

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

Yeah we knew about wound penalties, and maybe they see glare as a similar thing as not as a environmental penalty but a status effect. But X is edge, Y is penalty and edge, z is just penalty seems harder to keep track or make quick no reference rulings on than just edge or just penalties, its just less intuitive sounding to me.  Overall the system may be smoother and easier, but this part doesn't seem to be to me.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: steelybran on <08-05-19/2040:28>
Yes, it requires some eyeballing on the GMs part to come to this conclusion. But that´s hardly so bad compared to sifting through the books for modifiers that, when stacked up, keeps everyone from doing stuff altogether.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Now for the less concrete example.

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

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

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

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

I would simply rename the spell "Dull Sense" so to prevent picking up fine details, instead of "Remove Sense".  Instead of trying to make the name of the spell dictate all its actions.  I mean, Glue Strip doesn't specifically state that the glue has to be in a strip.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: kyoto kid on <08-05-19/2251:09>
Yes this kind of breaks down if your PC is in fact a 50 year old out of shape person with terrible physical stats across the board. There are valid archetypes you could be going for where that'd fit, and of course you might find such a PC stuck fighting a professional combatant like a ganger, mob soldier, etc.  But you won't find that happening often, not unless you're an idiot of a player who refuses to keep a clearly non-combatant kind of runner out of close combat.  Anyway, the point I want to make on this contingency is rules don't inherently need to address exceptions to the norm.  "Ok, your runner lacks a Juicer's Strength?  And simultaneously also lacks a Ninja's agility? Fine, your DV is penalized."   Or, if you're reluctant to impose non-explicitly stated penalties (i.e. "house rules") you can work within what's explicitly provided and decree that a fat, out of shape would-be-melee-combatant just automatically is giving away circumstantial edge to everyone he swings at.
So what you're basically saying is that the system falls apart when and you think that can be written off because it's an "exception to the norm". Have you forgotten that extractions, AKA "go kidnap this non-combatant", is one of the major run archetypes? And that is to say nothing of any other scenarios where a non-combatant will fight out of panic or desperation. Why shouldn't the system be built to handle a fat nerd being forced to knife-fight a SAS commando?

An agile elven noble who is a master duelist with a rapier is just as equally deadly as a bulked up troll merc who has mastered his use of an axe.
All that was represented in previous editions by both strength and net hits contributing to melee damage; both the raw force and how you apply it matters. By removing strength from melee damage, 6e does away with the importance of raw force.

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

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

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

Looks as if it's time for the "Kid" to sheath the Katana, holster the 6 guns, shoulder the rifle, and ride off into the sunset on this one.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: mcv on <08-07-19/0729:44>
Anyway you look at this I feel we are stuck with 6th for awhile,
I'm not. I'm just starting with 5th in the middle of the 4th edition period. I have no reason at all to move to 6th if it's not good.
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: tenchi2a on <08-07-19/0922:21>
Anyway you look at this I feel we are stuck with 6th for awhile,
I'm not. I'm just stating with 5th in the middle of the 4th edition period. I have no reason at all to move to 6th if it's not good.

I was not saying you had to play 6th.
I was saying that this is what CGL is going to support for now.
I am still using 5th in 2035 myself and will continue to advance thru the years with 5th.
But until CGL decides that 6th edition was a bad idea that's what they will support.
And the only way they will get that messages is if 6th is unsuccessful.
So keep voting with your wallet.  ;)
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: mcv on <08-08-19/1146:08>
I was not saying you had to play 6th.
I was saying that this is what CGL is going to support for now.
I am still using 5th in 2035 myself and will continue to advance thru the years with 5th.
But until CGL decides that 6th edition was a bad idea that's what they will support.
And the only way they will get that messages is if 6th is unsuccessful.
So keep voting with your wallet.  ;)
True, but at the same time, I'm spending plenty of money on 4th edition setting and adventure books, and 5th edition rulebooks.

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

And who knows? I might eventually switch to 6th anyway. At the moment there's just no reason for me to do that, though. I would have been more eager if 6th had been a bugfix release for 5th edition: better written, fix some of the less successful ideas of 5th, rebalance a few things, but for the most part keep everything the same. Had they done that, I'd have bought it immediately. There's plenty about 5th that could use a fix, but 6th sounds like it completely redesigns things that I don't consider broken. (Of course it's possible that I change my mind about that.)
Title: Re: My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"
Post by: BeCareful on <08-08-19/2219:37>
Yeah, I was hoping for a 5.5, 30th Anniversary Edition as well. I do like looking up the old modules, and would like to run an Alternate History with some of them for 5th. I'd also like to try 3rd, since I haven't done that before.