[penllawen]

It never ceases to amaze me how Nth Edition goes from being hated and despised, to being beloved and adored as soon as (N + 1)th Edition is released.

How did that thinking work out for D&D 4e or Cyberpunk v3.0?

Change aversion is certainly a thing. So are releases that are just simply bad. It's not so easy to tell the difference, based on early fan reaction. Time will tell.

If you are so dead set against the new rules, why are you still posting about them? They are not for you, no one's trying to change your mind, but you are still trying to change other people's minds. It's time to follow Elsa's advice and let it go and let people that want to play the new edition, play it. I mean there's a core group of posters that don't like the new edition, continue to be very vocal about not liking the new edition, are constantly trying to change people's minds about the new edition, and yet you still have this forum thread that was created to show how broken Edge is in the new system, yet 52% think none of the examples presented are broken.

I know of no better way to understand an RPG system than taking it to pieces and seeing how it works in extremis. I enjoy thinking about system design that way, and I thought others might too.

But you're the mod. My approach isn't welcome here. Message received.

[FastJack]

Go ahead and tinker away at system design. There are plenty of threads where people are doing just that.

The point I'm making is that there is nothing in this thread that is constructive (ToS #7). The posts have been mostly about how some people don't like Edge, and (in their opinion) the game would be better without it. Constructive posts would be showing house rules on how to modify or remove the mechanic from your game while still maintaining the benefits/penalties the system puts in place.

[Lormyr]

I know! The ones that talk about how much the game sucks and how they aren't going to play it are posting about how they can break the system they aren't going to use. I mean, you can call it edge begging, but only if you're going to play Sixth Edition.

Some of us will be running and playing SR6 for Missions, even though we are not fond of it in its current state. I am sure there are other demographics of people who will be using it without fondness as well.

The point I'm making is that there is nothing in this thread that is constructive (ToS #7). The posts have been mostly about how some people don't like Edge, and (in their opinion) the game would be better without it. Constructive posts would be showing house rules on how to modify or remove the mechanic from your game while still maintaining the benefits/penalties the system puts in place.

I have to disagree. Constructive conversation doesn't have to be just about house rules, because house rules will not help some of us (again, Missions). I personally think that most anything that falls along the lines of 1). I don't like X, 2). This is why, and 3). I think Y would be a better implementation because is constructive. Voicing criticism is pretty much the only way to have change/errata/edits/ect. considered by the powers that be.

[penllawen]

The point I'm making is that there is nothing in this thread that is constructive (ToS #7). The posts have been mostly about how some people don't like Edge, and (in their opinion) the game would be better without it. Constructive posts would be showing house rules on how to modify or remove the mechanic from your game while still maintaining the benefits/penalties the system puts in place.

Asking people what they think of things is a pretty key part of proposing useful changes, I'd have thought.

Consider the results of the poll. A lot of people don't think saying "I need Edge so I'm gonna do something moderately to very inconsequential to get it" counts as "edge abuse." I think that's counter to the spirit of the CRB's wording - so that's interesting. A slim majority of people are leaning towards being very lenient here. Perhaps that suggests the wording of the "edge abuse" rule in the CRB misses the mark for many players.

Now consider the spread of responses. It's very broad. There's no strongly preferred approach amongst poll responders. That's interesting too. It suggests this is quite a subjective issue. GMs playing with groups of strangers should be prepared for different players to have quite different perspectives on how they are going to earn Edge.

Those are just two constructive things that came out of this thread.

[Michael Chandra]

The point I'm making is that there is nothing in this thread that is constructive (ToS #7). The posts have been mostly about how some people don't like Edge, and (in their opinion) the game would be better without it.

Meanwhile, if we look at the poll:
- 24 people voted
- Of these, 11 voted none of the cases are abuse
- Another 8 voted it depends
- 5 voted for specific cases
- Of which 2 people voted for every case, including hacking a guard's gun, being edge abuse

So that's 2 disgruntled edge-haters, 3 people that consider some cases edge abuse, 8 people that believe it depends on circumstances, and out of 22 sincere voters, 50% don't consider these cases edge abuse. So I think the poll itself helped prove a point.

[PatrolDeer]

Consider the results of the poll. A lot of people don't think saying "I need Edge so I'm gonna do something moderately to very inconsequential to get it" counts as "edge abuse." I think that's counter to the spirit of the CRB's wording - so that's interesting. A slim majority of people are leaning towards being very lenient here. Perhaps that suggests the wording of the "edge abuse" rule in the CRB misses the mark for many players.

Now consider the spread of responses. It's very broad. There's no strongly preferred approach amongst poll responders. That's interesting too. It suggests this is quite a subjective issue. GMs playing with groups of strangers should be prepared for different players to have quite different perspectives on how they are going to earn Edge.

Those are just two constructive things that came out of this thread.

Common issue in quantitative research methods such as poll is the wording of the question and context. Here the wording of the first question, specifically "need" can be viewed as not so clear. Also, what you refer to as "inconsequential" is arguably a subjective perspective, because other GM's can view it as being quite influential.

If we would rephrase the question to: "I want to attack the grunts, so I hack the lights in order to gain edge." Does that still capture the players original intent ? If yes, is that still an abuse ? Does reduced vision create negative consequences for those grunts in a follow up attack ? I am imagining a situation in which I am on a street, the lights go dark and 1,5 second later a cybered up mofo charges me. He can see me, I can't see drek. To me it is consequential.

Your second point is good, GM's playing with group of strangers should be prepared, perhaps sit down before the game and go through a checklist such as what is edge abuse for you.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I don't know if a pre-game like that is viable for SRM/convention play, since time is at a premium.  You could of course make it a topic to address in a home game's Session Zero, however.

What *I'd* do if I were GMing SRM/convention and potential edge abuse is coming up, I'd just say so. "Ok let me interrupt you for a sec... if you do X, I will invoke the Edge Abuse rule and you won't get edge for that. You can do something similar, but you'll have to change your idea up somewhat to make it relevant to the Shadowrun's success if you want to gain Edge from doing it..."

[PatrolDeer]

I don't know if a pre-game like that is viable for SRM/convention play, since time is at a premium.  You could of course make it a topic to address in a home game's Session Zero, however.

I haven't play at a convention, but are 5 minute icebreakers rare at conventions ? Like hey what's up my name is, and there the GM could introduce his take on edge abuse, something similar to how Poker dealer addresses each player at the table. Big Blind, Small Blind, cash in, ...  here we go ladies and gents.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I don't know if a pre-game like that is viable for SRM/convention play, since time is at a premium.  You could of course make it a topic to address in a home game's Session Zero, however.

I haven't play at a convention, but are 5 minute icebreakers rare at conventions ? Like hey what's up my name is, and there the GM could introduce his take on edge abuse, something similar to how Poker dealer addresses each player at the table. Big Blind, Small Blind, cash in, ...  here we go ladies and gents.

If everyone shows up early, sure that's something that can be done.  Thing is, you can't presume it.  Also: that time is already spoken for at the beginning of a time block for, as you said, personal and character introductions, GM going over character sheets, and so on.  Adding "one more thing" doesn't always work- there's already "pre game" stuff that's already on the camel's back...

[Ghost Rigger]

I honestly don't know what else to say to everyone that doesn't like the changes. They are not changing back, they don't care that you don't like the changes because they are looking at a new demographic to sell to and want to be successful.

Oh, you won't be singing that tune for very long. The people who don't like Shadowrun to begin with aren't going to be interested in 6e just because of the changes made, and by large the existing playerbase isn't adopting 6e outside of missions play (see: the Emerald Grid just imploding in on itself because they're not switching to 6e and don't know what they're going to do now that 5e modules aren't being produced anymore). The only danger here is new players having 6e as their first exposure to Shadowrun, which could convince them that this is what Shadowrun is supposed to be (which is bad because it sets 6e as the new standard going forward), or worse turn them off Shadowrun entirely (which is bad because the hobby always needs new blood). 6e is inevitably going to crash and burn; it needs to crash and burn hard so that the devs learn to not repeat this mistake and to minimize the number of new players that are affected by this BS.

So if I understand correctly, you're main point is that they've changed mechanics integral to what makes Shadowrun what it has historically been, yes?  And this is why the result is something that can only be recognized as Shadowrun by someone who has never played the game?

Easy.  In that case, I have the solution to your problem.  Lean in close so the mods can't hear.  *whisper*  (The thing they changed was Shadowrun "for people who just don't like Shadowrun" already, and has been for 12 years...so surely it must not be much of a travesty for a new one to come out.)

There, problem solved.  Now we can all go back to actually enjoying our hobbies how we like.

You might have a point if the difference between 5e and 6e wasn't far more dramatic and far more fundamental than any other edition change in Shadowrun. I would dare say that 1e and 5e have more in common than any edition has with 6e. Honestly, it would've been a far better move to sell 6e as Anarchy 2e: no need to stick to traditions, no old fanbase to be upset by changes, complete freedom to experiment with new and different mechanics, if it does well then you have 2 lines of Shadowrun that sell well and if it doesn't at least you didn't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I don't want to derail the discussion by comparing 6we to 4e, but the latter absolutely was a massive shift from SR1-3.  Both 6we and 4e have some massive meta/rules changes from prior editions, but 6we doesn't have massive in-universe changes... where 4e brought us Technomancers (while taking away Deckers...), Wireless Everything, Shamans and Hermetics are the same thing now, and etc...

[Lormyr]

The thing is I believe there are some simple changes that can be made that would both keep within the spirit of the things they were aiming for with their design as well as smooth over much of the ruffled feathers of the folk that don't like the new direction.

Make strength relevant to melee damage/combat, make armor directly relevant to resisting damage (for those still insist it already is relevant to resisting damage), give riggers some much needed love, and refine the edge system so that the wide divide that is the discretion gap is no longer necessary and smooth over the gain vs. spend issues.

Do that and I'd wager most folk would be fairly content at that point, game wise. Company wise, get it together and stop shipping product riddled with editing errors.

[CigarSmoker]

I posted a Houserule regarding "Edge abuse" and i am really really rarely using Houserules ever. But this one seems necessary.

Other than that a few examples how a player can "abuse" the edge system (see it more as "funny" no GM lightning bolts needed ^^)

- return of the good old "rat bag fighter" in D&D you could - for a time fine with rules - use Whirldwind attack and Great Cleave feats together with a bag full of rats (or flies, frogs whatever) when the fighter encountered a tough opponent he opened the bag and killed the rats using Whirldwind attack, the attack hit the opponent once, each rat died and produced a "cleave" extra attack on the opponent. (this does not work anymore for a long time now with many rule changes in any edition involving those feats)
now back to Shadowrun: any char could carry a bag full of rats/flies/mice, mages attack them with Manabolts for free Edge, Trolls just beat them to death and so on

- a tough Troll/Ork/Street Sam can just let the groups hacker slap him in the face (lets say a melee attack with 5 dice + 1 DV stun damage, but one or two points of Edge as reward ...)

obivously you can wrap this extreme scenarios into role playing "the Troll panicks and the hacker has to slap him a few times ..."

GM describes a fly in the room "my mage is disgusted and fires a Manabolt on the fly"

so thats why i houseruled the Edge healings to only work once per injury. And i just "refresh" Edge more often so that theres no need to get overly creative ...