[Jayde Moon]

What I don't appreciate is comments telling CGL to stop production and sell off the IP.

Again: did I say that anywhere? Did anyone say it in this thread?

Honest question:

Did you say anything to this effect in any previous post?

[FastJack]

What I don't appreciate is comments telling CGL to stop production and sell off the IP.

Again: did I say that anywhere? Did anyone say it in this thread?

Honest question:

Did you say anything to this effect in any previous post?

My apologies Penllawen, I should have noted that others have said it in other threads, but I can see how it would be attributed to you in this thread. You made no such claims, and I inadvertently lumped you with those that did.

[tenchi2a]

You know it's amazing that FastJack and Michael Chandra where showing the Drivetru numbers as proof of how well the game was doing when the numbers worked for their narrative and now they mean nothing and it not proof of anything when they don't

[FastJack]

Meh... At the time, I was surprised to see it doing much better than I had hoped. As for ratings/reviews, I trust them as much as any other rating/review system. Do I still think it's a good game? Yes, I do. And I'd think that even if the sales had tanked. It's a rules setting I LIKE and that's all that matters. If I wanted to play follow the leader, I'd be playing a lot more D&D and Call of Cthulhu instead.

[penllawen]

I wonder how well 6e would have done as 'Advanced Anarchy.'

Ehhh, I'm not convinced by this meme. I know before 6e was released a lot of the interviews with Hardy heavily featured the word "streamline", and I think the community got hold of the wrong end of that and thought 6e would be some sort of Anarchy-like thing. But I don't think this holds up to scrutiny, once you read the 6e book. Sure, there's plenty of places where the knottiest bits of 5e have been hacked back (the action economy and the Matrix are the most successful examples to my mind.) But when you dig in and examine the changes line by line, they're actually very measured -- they add up to a lot, but they've been applied judiciously.

Or to put it another way: 6e is certainly streamlined but I don't think it's simplified as such, if you see what I mean. There's still a big old gap between 6e and narrative systems like Anarchy.

My apologies Penllawen, I should have noted that others have said it in other threads, but I can see how it would be attributed to you in this thread. You made no such claims, and I inadvertently lumped you with those that did.

Thank you.

Honest question:

Did you say anything to this effect in any previous post?

No, I don't believe I have, even in the heat of the moment. If only because there's a very large gap between "Catalyst drops the licence" and "someone else gives us an edition of Shadowrun featuring perfect fluff, Goldilocks crunch, heralding world peace, and the ability to whiten your teeth while you sleep." In that gap are all sorts of horrorshow things like "Topps shelves the licence for a decade" or "they sell it to EA and we get a microtransaction-riddled half-baked computer game." I don't like those odds.

We're well OT now but I'll set out my stall to clear the air, if you will indulge me.

I'm not as salty about Catalyst as many. For a start, 5e is my favourite edition of Shadowrun [1]. Sure, it's not perfect, but no RPG system is. The bits I personally don't like are surface bits easily houseruled; underneath, it has great bones that work for the games I want to run.

Unfortunately 6e does not have bones that work for me or my table, for example, because of the Edge system. I'm afraid I really don't care for it, and it's so deeply embedded that it's not easy to houserule it into a place where I would care for it. But although I can talk at length for my reasons why, I'm not salty about this. Plenty of people like it. I'm not saying it's bad design, I'm merely saying it's not for me. I don't want to criticise a games company for writing something that's not for me and I don't want to criticise others for liking something I don't. TTRPGs are very personal games, and people's reaction to TTRPG systems is very personal too, and my opinion isn't worth more than anyone else's. (It's worth considerably less than many people's.)

What I am salty about, however, is the pretty poor state that 6e shipped in. We had a ~10 page errata doc, covering 30-40 items, for a physical book that was on sale at GenCon for $50/100/200. Since then, there's been at least 15 things the Errata Team have publicly confirmed they are looking at. Many of these changes appear to go somewhat beyond what I would consider classical errata (typos, wording clarifications, layout issues) and well into rebalancing or broader rules changes. I cannot imagine how awkward it's going to be to cross reference two lengthy errata docs and try and use those physical books as anything other than ornaments. I think it's mildly scandalous the book shipped in that state, especially in expensive limited editions; I think Catalyst majorly dropped the ball there; and I am pretty dismayed that people paid money for it.

On a similar note, I am also salty about the details in SR6 that appear to make no sense, like the maths around ritual magic, or the car handling stuff (see recent threads here for exhaustive details.) I think it speaks to a lack of either time or attention to detail in the editing process. And I think an attention to detail is critical in the editing process of a system that's written primarily by a group of freelancers working somewhat independently, because those freelancers cannot be responsible for system cohesion -- for making sure something in section A doesn't conflict with something else in section B. I think there's a fair bit of that in the 6e CRB, and it makes me sad, because after all the (entirely justified IMO) criticism of 5e for muddled editing [2] I'd hoped it'd be the thing Catalyst really concentrated on getting right.

6e feels, to me, like a solid draft of a document that needed a bit more time in the oven. Perhaps the errata process will get it there, and I hope it does because I don't want it to suck and I don't want it to fail. But that's cold comfort to anyone with a physical book from GenCon. I feel sorry for those folks.

[1] Important caveat: I barely played 3e and never touched 4e, so I'm really just comparing 2e and 5e here.
[2] Some examples of what I mean: the full set of rules for what a smartgun does, or the rules for how a spirit rolls a defence test. Off the top of my head, I think both are spread over at least four chapters in the book.

Edit - typos

[dezmont]

Ehhh, I'm not convinced by this meme. I know before 6e was released a lot of the interviews with Hardy heavily featured the word "streamline", and I think the community got hold of the wrong end of that and thought 6e would be some sort of Anarchy-like thing. But I don't think this holds up to scrutiny, once you read the 6e book. Sure, there's plenty of places where the knottiest bits of 5e have been hacked back (the action economy and the Matrix are the most successful examples to my mind.) But when you dig in and examine the changes line by line, they're actually very measured -- they add up to a lot, but they've been applied judiciously
[/quote]

I am not talking about if it actually is a successor to Anarchy. It obviously isn't. I am kinda in pure marketer mind right now. I think 6e would have been viewed more kindly if it was its own thing. Sorta like how people were really soft on Anarchy despite it sorta missing the point of the narrative based mechanics it was using and mixing up rules lite and narrative system into sorta a slurry that lacked the high points of either.

And for the record I also think 5e is the best edition of SR. 4e had such core problems with its base rules (ex: Autofire, the way combat resolution as a whole worked) while 5e, despite having a lot of 'content' problems (Like OP options), had really solid core rules. Part of why I am iffy on 6e is that it seems like they fixed content problems at the cost of the integrity of the core rules, which sorta like fixing your broken windshield wiper by gutting some coolant tubes from the engine. You can fix most of the subjective problems of 5e with houserules (not that you should HAVE to) but I am not sure where to begin with 6e because a lot of the problems seem to be baked deep. That may be unfamiliarity with the system speaking of course, there probably IS a solution to the core issues with things like attack and defense rating, soak vs dodge, and the issues with how the magic priority works, but the way the game launched and how the buzz formed around it means people aren't going to be digging into it to find these solutions, while they did with 5e. So I am not saying its hopeless and should be canned, it is just that we aren't going to have a situation where the community finds all these issues with the systems because its unlikely most people into systems thinking are going to dig right now, and as much as people like to kinda rag on minmaxery optimizer types I suspect it has become apparent how vital those types are to actually create a healthy RPG community.

This thread is the first I have heard about official course correcting and an awareness that something needs to change. It is a very good thing to hear, especially as a lot of 6e's 'problems' are really more like minor issues worsened by an ongoing PR crisis ^[1] because there is an actively negative amount of goodwill. When things are going well and feel like things are going in a good direction, people are willing to overlook problems or mistakes. That is why SR6, which at worst is just a pretty medicore RPG book, is getting dragged in reviews while Anarchy, which was... lets face it pretty not good despite being a good idea, is doing fine and dandy in terms of reviews. Despite the flaws of Anarchy being more fundemental and worse, people are looking at 6e in a way harsher light because the 'stakes' (as much as one could say there are stakes here) are higher and when your already grumbly something fundementally not that impressive being slid your way isn't going to make you smile due to it being technically adequate.

One interesting thing is that despite 4e being a fully supported line, I PROBABLY would play 6e over 4e just going off core systems. Yet I suspect a lot of people would say they like 4e better and think its better than 6e, even though with the benefit of hindsight due to the improvements 5e made 4e feels borderline unplayable if you try to take fun PC concepts from 5e and port them to 4e.

This is why I think "Anarchy 2e" was an interesting concept: While its clear there are things to not be impressed about and that it is not just hysteria (thinking such is literally why the truism 'the customer is always right' exists: They may not be correct but your not supposed to argue against the invalidity of their expectations because, as a business, that is on you for creating them), even if you hate 6e its more a minor regression than actually the worst thing ever. Yet despite there being way less impressive things out there, 6e is getting dragged way more than even what you would expect from an edition update.

A lot of people saying Cata should lose the license probably don't even really get the ramifications of that. Cata doesn't OWN the license, they license it. In theory if someone who actually cared and thought they could do better and that it would be worth it to do better existed, they would snatch it from Cata, assuming that Topps would be willing to do so or there isn't some sort of contractual obligation to continue offering it to Cata first. Anyone who would swoop in after Cata would in all likelyhood care way less and would just pick it up because they see it as a guaranteed market as long as they put in the minimal effort. It probably would NOT be a good thing for the game for that to happen. I fully UNDERSTAND why people feel that way, it just isn't, outside the fantasy of the scenario, actually going to end up as a good thing in all likelyhood.

_{[1] I am a communications grad student. Take that statement with the grains of salt you would take with a lawyer saying you need a lawyer, in that I bias towards inflating the brand aspect of a product's importance.}

[penllawen]

I am not talking about if it actually is a successor to Anarchy. It obviously isn't. I am kinda in pure marketer mind right now. I think 6e would have been viewed more kindly if it was its own thing. Sorta like how people were really soft on Anarchy despite it sorta missing the point of the narrative based mechanics it was using and mixing up rules lite and narrative system into sorta a slurry that lacked the high points of either.

Oh, I see what you mean. Maybe? But you can't have it both ways. Anarchy has this cushion effect where it very clearly wasn't normal Shadowrun, so if you don't like it you don't feel threatened by it; it's not gonna replace the thing you do like. That dampens the knee-jerk reaction a bit.

6e, on the other hand, is explicitly the replacement for 5e. But if 6e was marketed as its own thing instead, isn't there a risk it ships DOA? People look at it, grunt, and keep playing 5e. And now Catalyst has to make hard decisions about where to put limited time: into 5e stuff, or into "6e" stuff? That's not an enviable position to be in.

You can fix most of the subjective problems of 5e with houserules (not that you should HAVE to)

Well, I don't mind that so much. Take how strong mages are, for example. I certainly think mages could do with some nerfs around buffing spells and spirit strength. But that's stylistic; other tables might like to have mages that strong. I think it's valid to ship an RPG where these sorts of decisions are tweakable by each table.

A good in-universe Shadowrun example is game tone. You can find fluff that veers from gritty and real, to dark satire, to hopeless dystopia, to near-hopeful punky rebellion, to existential horror. To my mind, this heady mix is a feature, not a bug. Each table can navigate this space and find a tone, or mix of tones, that suits it.

but the way the game launched and how the buzz formed around it means people aren't going to be digging into it to find these solutions, while they did with 5e. So I am not saying its hopeless and should be canned, it is just that we aren't going to have a situation where the community finds all these issues with the systems because its unlikely most people into systems thinking are going to dig right now, and as much as people like to kinda rag on minmaxery optimizer types I suspect it has become apparent how vital those types are to actually create a healthy RPG community.

I think this is a really good point.

One interesting thing is that despite 4e being a fully supported line, I PROBABLY would play 6e over 4e just going off core systems. Yet I suspect a lot of people would say they like 4e better and think its better than 6e, even though with the benefit of hindsight due to the improvements 5e made 4e feels borderline unplayable if you try to take fun PC concepts from 5e and port them to 4e.

There's a lot of rose-tinted glasses, too, of course. It's almost impossible to fully separate "4e the system" from "4e the thing I was playing when I had all those great times with my friends." It's why I maintain such fondness for 2e, although when I flip through the book now there's plenty of stuff in there that makes me suck air past my teeth in shock/horror.

A lot of people saying Cata should lose the license probably don't even really get the ramifications of that. Cata doesn't OWN the license, they license it. In theory if someone who actually cared and thought they could do better and that it would be worth it to do better existed, they would snatch it from Cata, assuming that Topps would be willing to do so or there isn't some sort of contractual obligation to continue offering it to Cata first. Anyone who would swoop in after Cata would in all likelyhood care way less and would just pick it up because they see it as a guaranteed market as long as they put in the minimal effort. It probably would NOT be a good thing for the game for that to happen. I fully UNDERSTAND why people feel that way, it just isn't, outside the fantasy of the scenario, actually going to end up as a good thing in all likelyhood.

All of this. I totally agree.

_{[1] I am a communications grad student. Take that statement with the grains of salt you would take with a lawyer saying you need a lawyer, in that I bias towards inflating the brand aspect of a product's importance.}

[Finstersang]

The biggest problem with 6th Edition is the shoddy editing and the obviously rushed completion. There´s a paragraph of Flamethrower rules, but no Flamethrowers, for crying out loud! I feel kinda bad for the devs who managed to get their shit together (f.i. Banshee, whoever pushed for actual status effects) or the people who would have gotten their shit together if they had been given more time or of their tables and paragraphs hadn´t been eaten by the editing gremlins.

And seriously, a lot of the grief about the Edge mechanic could have been avoided as well if someone had taken the time to skim over all the rules and Edge-Generating and Edge-denying Effects and and hit the team with an "Alright folks, we really should decide if Edge is still supposed to be a Fate-Point-style deus-ex-machina mechanic or our new system to model modifiers." Because then someone might have realized that putting lots and lots of arbitrary caps and limit on it and gating common special moves behind Edge expenditures might not be the best idea. Hell, there´s even contention right now if Critters, Drones and Hosts can earn Edge! Can´t wait for the official Errata statement that says that they can´t, which would be that last nail in the coffin of that once beautiful idea. Because yes, I really like the idea behind the new Edge mechanics. But the final implementation has just sooo many faults: "Hey kids, don´t wanna care about armor, recoil, range and all the other "realism" mumbojumbo that´s been rolled into Attack and Defense Ratings? Just shoot out of cover with an imaging Scope!"

I feel like there´s some heavy weights on the shoulders of the devs for the Combat supplement. It´s not uncommon for the first supplements to fix some design flaws after community feedback - and be it just by offering a bunch of "alternative" rules. If the devs read the signs right, there should be at least some kind of acknowledgement for problems like strengthless melee weapons, the 2-Edge-per-round cap or goofed-up items like APDS or Flechettes (Why is there even a (fl) denotation behind the damage codes of Sliverguns or Frag Grenades if there are no Flechette rules?).

But I fear that there is already a lot of repression going on: Never back down, never give in to any complaints by those snotty customers, they are all just "haters" and "grognards" anyways. If you don´t fix it, you don´t have to admitt its broken.

[Michael Chandra]

I agree, we should be focusing on righting the ship and getting this corrected. I know the Errata team is hard at work on these issues right now.

Yup, they're working hard behind the scenes. Doesn't prevent people from making assumptions of what the outcome of that process will be and bashing everything in advance. =_=

Mind you, I got like two dozen houserules ready depending on how errata go. But I'd rather first see the actual results.

[penllawen]

Yup, they're working hard behind the scenes. Doesn't prevent people from making assumptions of what the outcome of that process will be and bashing everything in advance. =_=

The book's been out for five weeks. "Bashing" it is not "in advance" of anything, even if we overlook the use of the term "bashing" to dismiss a whole lot of stuff that I'd characterise as "constructive feedback."

As for bashing the errata process... I don't think anyone is doing that. Can you point to any examples?

And sure, having a broad errata process is good. Not needing one would be better, though. The mere fact the errata team is so busy is itself an indictment of the 6e CRB.

Finally let me add that posts like this, attacking and dismissing out of hand people's well-considered criticisms, are just as responsible for the semi-toxic atmosphere around 6e as the posts that are "bashing" it.

[Lormyr]

God damn people, some of you came down awfully hard on Penllawen. He's been verbally critical of some elements of 6e, but I personally can't recall him being non-constructive in that criticism. I'm going to go on a real talk tangent here, and I'll start with this:

First, I get that a lot of people are some combination of have worked very hard on the new edition, are proud of their work, want it to be well received, and are frustrated by the non-constructive negativity and the constructive criticism. It's making folks sensitive. If you have become sensitive, no big, it happens to all of us. You need to take a moment to step back and re-harden though because the wear is showing on some of you.

Second, the only way (and I mean the only damn way) that anyone improves at anything is by being challenged. Constructive criticism (which I define as any criticism that includes what they do not like, why they do not like it, and thoughts for improvement) is good for you. Embrace it.

Third, the vast majority of this comes down to personal taste. For Catalyst the "right" answer is work they can be proud of that earns them money. For the fans the "right" answer is a game that is fun for them to play and makes sense to them.

Specific no-holds barred responses that need to be said:

What is the purpose of sharing the data? When you release data, you are trying to prove a theory, correct?

While I think that is often the case, it doesn't have to be. Sometimes data can be shown to initiate a point of discussion, which is what I believe Penllawen intended. I very much read his point as "Here is some limited but interesting data about reviews on 6e, what do you guys think?", not "Look at how shit this game is doing, here is the data that says so.".

In this case, your theory is that Shadowrun 6E isn't any good and people should stop purchasing it so that Catalyst Game Labs stops production and sells off the IP to people that "know how to make the game". Correct?

I didn't get that from anything he posted at all. . .

I'll happily tackle that question with my own personal answer, though. I have been a strong critic of 6e here (with some praise, but minor in comparison), so for the official record:

1). 6e is ok. I do not think it is garbage, but I also think several things could have been handled significantly better. On the game mechanics side this includes strength and melee, armor and soak, the really lopsided priority chart, humans and special points, some attacks not having defense tests, explosives damage and aoe radius, rigger issues, missed opportunities to reign in magic (foci and spirits in particular), and the core edge system being a poorly balanced feature, requirement, and limitation.

Most of that stuff comes down to personal taste issues, with no right or wrong answer. Some of it, though, is absolutely poor design.

2). On the editing, playtesting, and publishing side of things that could have been handled significantly better though, it speaks for itself. The ball was dropped. Period. That doesn't mean we can't recover, and I hope we do. I am just calling it like I see it.

3). Do I personally want Catalyst to stop production and sell the IP? I want Catalyst to improve, and if they do, I want them to prosper for their effort. If they cannot improve, or can but refuse, then perhaps it would be best for the fans and the IP (if not the company themselves) if the IP did fall into the hands of someone whom would treat it better.

For the most part, this is not a reflection upon the authors and freelancers at all, and more on the business practices of the shot callers of the company. No one is perfect, and I wouldn't demand that of anyone, but I am going to list just a few of the companies business practices that could be improved upon:

- Loren Coleman is still at least somewhat involved with the company after embezzling roughly three quarters of a million dollars from it, perhaps even still  of co-founder/manager/ect. status and influence (I do not know his exact role other than being involved enough to have directed the GenCon panel for the company). If that doesn't tell you what sort of integrity to expect then I don't know what does. If you are not familiar with this incident, look it up. Good read.

- Now this was before my time with Shadowrun, and I hope that all of the authors have since been paid, but as of 2010 there was a significant number of freelance authors that still had not been paid by Catalyst for their work on 4e. That is a more than 2 year delay on wages. Again, this is easy to find info from a simple google search. More good read.

- From 5e in 2014 to now (the time frame of my personal experience) the editing on the books has been absolutely dreadful.

Now even if I do not agree with some of the author's and freelancer's opinions/work, I do believe that most of them at least care about the the product and the IP. I honestly cannot say I believe the same of Catalyst, though. The above problems are not the result of how something that is cared for is treated.

If they manage to turn things around and treat the IP, the product, the people who write for them to make the game possible, and the consumers with some manner of respect, then I'll be the first to say they improved from their challenges. If they continue on as is (editing and publishing) or was (past issues), and do not grow and improve, then I do believe the IP will be better off in the hands of a company that does.

Once again, I want to differentiate between the authors/freelancers, the Missions team, forum moderating team, and the actual Catalyst decision makers, because I know they are (mostly) very different people.

I'm not as salty about Catalyst as many. For a start, 5e is my favourite edition of Shadowrun [1]. Sure, it's not perfect, but no RPG system is.

What I am salty about, however, is the pretty poor state that 6e shipped in. We had a ~10 page errata doc, covering 30-40 items, for a physical book that was on sale at GenCon for $50/100/200. Since then, there's been at least 15 things the Errata Team have publicly confirmed they are looking at.

I wanted to highlight there two things, because they are very separate, but often mistakenly lumped together.

The first mostly comes down to gaming preferences. Being passionate about that is great, discussing and debating is great, but being actually mad about personal tastes is silly and doesn't help anyone.

The later though is worth being mad about. It speaks directly to how the company views and respects both it's product and consumer.

[Finstersang]

Yup, they're working hard behind the scenes. Doesn't prevent people from making assumptions of what the outcome of that process will be and bashing everything in advance. =_=

The book's been out for five weeks. "Bashing" it is not "in advance" of anything, even if we overlook the use of the term "bashing" to dismiss a whole lot of stuff that I'd characterise as "constructive feedback."

As for bashing the errata process... I don't think anyone is doing that. Can you point to any examples?

I think Chandra´s referring specifically to my half-serious fear that the Errata might further gut the Edge mechanic by officially making Drones, hosts and other types of opposition officially unable to get Edge. Should have voiced that differently: I know that this is likely not what the actual errata team is pushing for.

But as I understand, any official errata still needs some kind of "blessings" from the devs. And if they are still on fence about what Edge is actually supposed to be in 6th Edition, I wouldn´t be too surprised if someone blurbs out a well-timed "Well, why should they earn Edge? They don´t have an Edge Attribute  " during a meeting and then this becomes the official Errata.

Or that bomb gets casually dropped 2-3 years in the future when Rigger 6.0 comes out. Wouldn´t surprise me either, given Rigger 5.0 casually dropping an additional limitation on Autosoft ratings 

[penllawen]

I think Chandra´s referring specifically to my half-serious fear that the Errata might further gut the Edge mechanic by officially making Drones, hosts and other types of opposition officially unable to get Edge.

Oh, fair enough, I sort-of see what he means then (but I don't agree with how he said it.)

[penllawen]

God damn people, some of you came down awfully hard on Penllawen. He's been verbally critical of some elements of 6e, but I personally can't recall him being non-constructive in that criticism.

Thank you. I have indeed attempted to always remain constructive -- which is sometimes not so easy in the face of a quite dismissive attitude in responses to threads offering criticism.

While I think that is often the case, it doesn't have to be. Sometimes data can be shown to initiate a point of discussion, which is what I believe Penllawen intended. I very much read his point as "Here is some limited but interesting data about reviews on 6e, what do you guys think?", not "Look at how shit this game is doing, here is the data that says so.".

Pretty much this, yes. With an additional touch of "heads up, this is an early warning that the grumblings about 6e might be snowballing to the point where it has real commercial impact."

[Lormyr]

I think the game will need at least another 6 months of sales, play, and to witness the quality of editing in the forthcoming books before I can formulate my own opinion on commercial impact.

One of the reasons that I take both early sales and early reviews with a grain of salt is because nerds impulse buy like crazy. I have hundreds of nerd friends, and of them, I am the only nerd that does not have shelves full of stuff I bought before I even played or read it.

One thing I am happy of this time around is the very pro-active errata process. I don't know which part of the body is to thank for that, but even if I do not agree with the results at least knowing it is taking place shows improvement.

Edit: Now if we could just learn to do that before sending to print...one small victory at a time!