Shadowrun

Shadowrun General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hephaestus on (23:27:03/07-10-19)

Title: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Hephaestus on (23:27:03/07-10-19)
Any word? I'm not seeing it up yet.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: FastJack on (08:19:29/07-11-19)
Up now. Combat in SR6 (https://www.shadowrunsixthworld.com/2019/07/combat-creation-with-shadowrun-writer-scott-schletz/?fbclid=IwAR3PhM5zB18S3jvaebsytjJ2N-oUDoJYpkIA1z-uNBmk5-JcHE0BqCyWE1w)
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Serbitar on (08:57:54/07-11-19)
Why is it harder to sum up modifiers for Attack and Defense dice rolls (SR1-5) than summing up Attack and Defense rating (S6)?
I dont really get what replacing modifiers with rating makes faster. You still have to calculate two numbers that can be affected by a large value of possible effects.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Iron Serpent Prince on (09:08:32/07-11-19)
Attack and Defense Ratings are presented as being (mostly) static.  You calculate them once, probably prior to the session, and they don't really change the whole game.  Or, if they do, they are changed in downtime when you upgrade Attributes or change gear.

As an example, your Attack Rating is based on your weapon (at least for ranged combat) and won't change as long as you don't change weapons.  Once you add Armor to Body, your Defense Rating won't change as long as your Body doesn't change.  Etc..
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Serbitar on (09:31:03/07-11-19)
So the following does not affect attack rating?

- wind
- distance to target
- lighting
- rain/smoke
- that you are running or not
- cover

Traditional dice pools for a task (attack values, soak pools and so on) are also largely static and can be calculated up front (and you have to do this for the attack and defense rating system also, so you have to calculate pool and rating. which is more not less). The point in situational modifiers is, that they are situational. Either Attack and Defense rating neglect situational modifiers, then you could just use the old system and ignore those modifers, or they have the same problem (meaning that you now have to calculate modifiers for Attack Rating instead for dice pool). In both cases you added calculating Attack and Defense Rating on top of what you did before.
There is absolutely no benefit. You could just use traditional pools and ignore situational modifiers (if the Attack Rating/Defsense Rating does so, I dont know. If it doesnt, well then you also gained nothing).

Old:

calculate pool (static)
calculate situational modifiers to pool (optional, if you want to streamline)

New:

calculate pool (static)
calculate rating (static)
calculate situational modifiers to rating(optional, if you want to streamline)

New is more complicated and has less game effect (see discussiona bout armor and such).


Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: FastJack on (09:49:03/07-11-19)
You know, I'm a mathematician. Got a bachelor's in straight mathematics. I love MS Excel and number crunching all day.

That being said, I appreciate these changes. It seems like everyone is skimming the article instead of reading the article.

Why is it harder to sum up modifiers for Attack and Defense dice rolls (SR1-5) than summing up Attack and Defense rating (S6)?
I dont really get what replacing modifiers with rating makes faster. You still have to calculate two numbers that can be affected by a large value of possible effects.

Adding up Attack and Defense dice roll modifiers is the player and DM spending 5-15 minutes on their turn adding together all the modifiers that tells them what their chances are for firing a bullet in three seconds. Attack and Defense rating are already figured out at the beginning of the game and doesn't require the combat round to stop to figure out the roll.

So the following does not affect attack rating?

- wind
- distance to target
- lighting
- rain/smoke
- that you are running or not
- cover

Traditional dice pools for a task (attack values, soak pools and so on) are also largely static and can be calculated up front (and you have to do this for the attack and defense rating system also, so you have to calculate pool and rating. which is more not less). The point in situational modifiers is, that they are situational. Either Attack and Defense rating neglect situational modifiers, then you could just use the old system and ignore those modifers, or they have the same problem (meaning that you now have to calculate modifiers for Attack Rating instead for dice pool). In both cases you added calculating Attack and Defense Rating on top of what you did before.
There is absolutely no benefit. You could just use traditional pools and ignore situational modifiers (if the Attack Rating/Defsense Rating does so, I dont know. If it doesnt, well then you also gained nothing).

Old:

calculate pool (static)
calculate situational modifiers to pool (optional, if you want to streamline)

New:

calculate pool (static)
calculate rating (static)
calculate situational modifiers to rating(optional, if you want to streamline)

New is more complicated and has less game effect (see discussiona bout armor and such).
Wind, distance, lighting, rain/smoke, running, cover - affects both attacker and defender. -X to attacker, +X to defender, so you spent twenty minutes to figure out that your five hits rolled counts as five hits against the defender.

The dice pools are not static for an entire session. Currently, they are static for an encounter (unless you move inside/outside, a spell is cast limiting sight/cover/etc., you're in a vehicle... ), so you have to figure everything out in the beginning, adding a half hour for all the players to "get ready". The new rules have it figured out when you sit down at the table. If you're running 3-4 encounters, that's two hours you get back for play.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (10:10:05/07-11-19)
Iím sure it will be marginally quicker due to the modifiers but depth it lost for that small increase. The new initiative system will speed things up but despite their claims I suspect at the loss of the speed freaks shining in combat.

They in fact mentioned one of my theories on why people wonít bother with high levels of wired reflexes. Leaving minors unused.

Here is the math you get 1 major and 1 minor. 1 more minor per initiative dice. Letís say you go for wired 2. You now have 4 minors and 1 major. Now you could potentially do 2 majors but odds are you are going to need at least 1 minor. So really you have 1 major and you will get 4 minors. Most likely you wonít use all 4 so why did you dump 3 essence  and crap tons of cash into it.  And if there isnít a burning need for 3 as opposed to 2 what exactly did you gain from it. Go go street sams.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Michael Chandra on (10:15:28/07-11-19)
- distance to target: There are 5 ranges, each weapon has an Attack Rating (or not) for each range
- cover: Bonus to Defense Rating
These two directly go into AR-DR, and the difference is only used to determine Edge-or-no-Edge. No changes to dicepools, just you/no/enemy.

- wind
- lighting
- rain/smoke
- that you are running or not
GM decides to give parties with an edge an Edge point. Again no need for detailed numbers, just see if either/both/neither side gets an Edge for having an edge.

Edit: I should note that you don't calculate your Attack Rating in combat. Nor does your Defense Rating change, except for the Cover-part. So these numbers are actually on your character sheet in advance, all you do is check which of the numbers you have to use.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (11:03:06/07-11-19)
THIS is why 6e's combat streamlining was needed:

Quote
In the end, we came up with a system that kept my groupís hacker and mage happily sitting at the table and waiting for their next turn instead of whipping out phones or checking out or going to pick up pizza, while also making the street sam feel like she still ruled combat in the shadows.

Combat in 5e ate so much time to resolve.  And if you didn't score the same kind of initiative as an initiative munchkin, literally hours of the game were off limits to you over the course of a session.  Physically leaving the table, even leaving the entire FLGS to go get stuffers, absolutely went on during 5e combats. That's awful and the game had to change.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (11:03:32/07-11-19)
Adding up Attack and Defense dice roll modifiers is the player and DM spending 5-15 minutes on their turn adding together all the modifiers that tells them what their chances are for firing a bullet in three seconds.

5-15 minutes??!
What?
Are you nuts?
At most you're looking at vision, movement and / or distance penalties.
Movement penalties are fixed, so you either get it or you don't.
AR's change with range so that was not "simplified away" but actually made more complex because now EACH weapon has it's own AR varying differently at range rather than a fixed range modifier.
At most it would take you about 60 seconds to look up your vision penalties.

Geeze if that's the basis of the change from modifiers to AR and DRs then no wonder 6e is so....nuts.

It's clear that 6e has swapped any semblance of reality for gamey mechanics that aren't even that much simpler than before (see new edge mechanic and constant GM edge-begging).
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Finstersang on (11:05:03/07-11-19)
My 2 cents on the most important changes:

Attack and Defense Ratings, Edge

Initiative and Action Economy

Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (11:23:40/07-11-19)
...
  • So yes. Edge is actually a cool and fun system. Until some genius decides to put a GODDAMN LIMIT ON IT FOR THE WHOLE GODDAMN COMBAT ROUND. Because now, once you hit that ceiling (and that ceiling is pretty damn low, considering all the different ways in which you can earn Edge), nothing of the above matters anymore. Superiour Gear? Tactical Choices? Armor? Cover? Distance? All down the drain until the next combat round. Thatīs the problem with Edge. One sentence that flips it all upside down.
...

This kind of gets me head-scratching, too. Apparently, it was playtested as being a cap on 2 edge per action, but its final form becomes 2 edge per round.  Not sure what the catalyst there was.
However, since everyone only gets one pass (and another reason that hasn't been publicly teased/spoiled yet) you'll generally only face 1 attack per round anyway... so in effect your armor being useless because you've already hit your Edge cap for the round shouldn't be happening all that often.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Serbitar on (11:33:56/07-11-19)
You know, I'm a mathematician. Got a bachelor's in straight mathematics. I love MS Excel and number crunching all day.

Nice. I got a PHD in physics and code for a living. So what?

Quote
That being said, I appreciate these changes. It seems like everyone is skimming the article instead of reading the article.

No, I am talking about explicit points, which bother me, I am not looking at others.

Quote
Wind, distance, lighting, rain/smoke, running, cover - affects both attacker and defender. -X to attacker, +X to defender, so you spent twenty minutes to figure out that your five hits rolled counts as five hits against the defender.
Math batchelor? -X for attacker and +X for defender does not cancel out, they result in a cumulative 2X difference. But the modifiers you mention (Wind, distance, lighting, rain/smoke, running, cover)  is never calculated both for attacker and defender. So I think your point is problematic alltogether.

Quote
The dice pools are not static for an entire session. Currently, they are static for an encounter (unless you move inside/outside, a spell is cast limiting sight/cover/etc., you're in a vehicle... ), so you have to figure everything out in the beginning, adding a half hour for all the players to "get ready". The new rules have it figured out when you sit down at the table. If you're running 3-4 encounters, that's two hours you get back for play.

The same is exactly true for dice pool modifiers. Please give a reason why calculating modifiers for dice pool is slower than calculating modifiers for attack/defense rating? Did you read my post?
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Serbitar on (11:38:54/07-11-19)
- distance to target: There are 5 ranges, each weapon has an Attack Rating (or not) for each range
- cover: Bonus to Defense Rating
These two directly go into AR-DR, and the difference is only used to determine Edge-or-no-Edge. No changes to dicepools, just you/no/enemy.

- wind
- lighting
- rain/smoke
- that you are running or not
GM decides to give parties with an edge an Edge point. Again no need for detailed numbers, just see if either/both/neither side gets an Edge for having an edge.

Edit: I should note that you don't calculate your Attack Rating in combat. Nor does your Defense Rating change, except for the Cover-part. So these numbers are actually on your character sheet in advance, all you do is check which of the numbers you have to use.

You DO calculate it, if it changes with distance. Calculating and looking it up from a table that gives various conditions (like distance) are the same thing.
So you basically simplify modifers, Could have done that with dice pools also. Edge is just used to give it a better spin (which is OK if you like the mechanic).
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Serbitar on (11:50:02/07-11-19)
To give some points on the other improvements:

Dice rolling every turn for initiative was always a bad idea, and is the biggest improvement flow wise (other systems had that for a while, so no biggie here).

More actions for combat monsters is good, but not new. SR4 style action phases would have been better IMHO though.

Saying that it is not a problem to waste minor actions because your next turn is just arround the corner is mixing worlds. You cant excuse poor balancing (you paid for the actions wtih money and essence) with good game flow (yeah, i will act again in just 2 real life minutes instead of 5, because of sped up combat). You need both, and both are very different dimensions.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: FastJack on (13:28:48/07-11-19)
A ) Timing - I'm going from experience running the games at GenCon with new players. Yes, it's much easier for us because we've been playing a while, just like BT Old Guard don't need to know the tables to figure how many missiles hit and where. You sit a new player down and give him a table of modifiers, it's going to take them a while to process what affects them. By then, they are disinterested in the game and you've lost a sale.

B ) I've only seen the Box Set yet, so I don't know all the details on what. Thanks to Chandra for explaining the Edge use more regarding the modifiers.

C ) Serbitar - I'm letting it slide on the Flamebaiting and not giving you an official warning. If you had said the same thing to any other poster, you'd get a warning. Just remember if you disagree with someone on the boards, you can still respond nicely.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (13:44:59/07-11-19)
Adding up Attack and Defense dice roll modifiers is the player and DM spending 5-15 minutes on their turn adding together all the modifiers that tells them what their chances are for firing a bullet in three seconds.

5-15 minutes??!
What?
Are you nuts?
At most you're looking at vision, movement and / or distance penalties.
Movement penalties are fixed, so you either get it or you don't.
AR's change with range so that was not "simplified away" but actually made more complex because now EACH weapon has it's own AR varying differently at range rather than a fixed range modifier.
At most it would take you about 60 seconds to look up your vision penalties.

Geeze if that's the basis of the change from modifiers to AR and DRs then no wonder 6e is so....nuts.

It jives with my 5e experience.

Yes, it takes a looong time to resolve stuff because of the amount of page flipping and rule hunting.
Maybe you've got range penalties memorized.  What about the increments? Gotta verify if 50 meters is the top of one band or the bottom of the next.  And it's different per class of firearm.

ok, maybe you've got THAT memorized too.  Or you have a GM screen/cheat sheet with that info handy and it's relatively quick to resolve. Even if it only takes say 5 seconds to verify, over the course of a single combat pass that can be a minute right there.  Stuff adds up.  It really does.

And that's the easy stuff, that you know both A) has a modifier and B) where to find it.  Stuff invariably comes up where you're not sure if you remember it's covered by the rules or if the GM will just have to wing it.  Obviously, every second spent hunting for something that doesn't exist is a wasted second, when the GM ultimately just makes something up anyway. For example: in "this one fight this one time" I was the GM, and I was convinced I read somewhere that when you spend a Take Aim action to reset your recoil counter, you don't gain any other benefit from that Take Aim.  When I informed the players of this, they unanimously agreed they never heard of such a thing (which they always do, even when they know damn well otherwise) so we consult the books.  I can't find it, after however much time I spent before realizing we're wasting way too much time, and I just decide to ignore it and move on.  Time sunk over a very piddling detail. In this case, a detail that doesn't even exist anymore in 6e (recoil).

And then there's the stuff that absolutely is covered, but isn't relevant most of the time.  Maybe this game has a decker who wants to do combat bricking. Usually noone bothers because of the shit action economy, but today the player doesn't care.  Trying it anyway.  Time to break out another chapter of the book entirely.  Look up matrix spotting rules, because that's never been satisfactorily explained anway. GM's gotta now decide how the matrix security is arranged, because NPC PANs have never, ever been codified (that I've ever seen, anyhow). Etc etc etc.

Maybe the magician is trying out new drek today.  How does critter power X interact with this combat?  Flip to a new chapter. Review a critter power entry.  Think.  Rule.  Oh, never mind that answer, let's go with this spell instead.  Break out another splatbook entirely.  Etc. etc.


Combat goes super, super, super slow in 5e.  Granted some of that stuff is edition agnostic (invoking seldom used rules, splatbooks) but 6e streamlines where it can, and I think that's a BIG help.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Serbitar on (14:14:24/07-11-19)
I have nothing against streamlining, especially removing meaningless or useless modifiers. A modifier should alsways be meaningfull. If it is however, removing it means removing choices and tactical depth, though. There is no way arround it. If a combat system is too simple and does not offer any meaningfull choices its just dice rolling. Of course there is a sweet spot between speed, complexity and choice, and this spot is different for everybody.

@Fastjack: You could have answered my question, though.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (14:16:42/07-11-19)
I have nothing against streamlining, especially removing meaningless or useless modifiers. A modifier should alsways be meaningfull. If it is however, removing it means removing choices and tactical depth, though. There is no way arround it. If a combat system is too simple and does not offer any meaningfull choices its just dice rolling. Of course there is a sweet spot between speed, complexity and choice, and this spot is different for everybody.

agree 100%
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (14:22:10/07-11-19)
Well the rub is that meaningless modifiers aren't just in the eye of the beholder, they're sometimes objectively more relevant some times than other times.  Like the oft-cited low-light vision enhancement in a dark alleyway.  If both sides in that environment have it, it's functionally meaningless besides adding extra complexity to both sides' rolls.

Boiling down most (note that 6e doesn't ditch ALL) modifiers to GM fiat awarding one side or none a point of Edge is about as slick and streamlined as possible, and I still daresay fair.  Sure, you have to trust the GM to be fair about weighing your advantage of higher ground atop the dumpster counts for more or less than the Ork's ability to see clearly in the dark alley.  Having to rely on GM judgement is a price i'm not just willing but quite quick to agree to, in order to dispense with most combat modifiers.  Boil several minutes of page flipping down to what might be uncharitably described as GM whim/fiat?  Yes, please!
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (14:22:25/07-11-19)
It jives with my 5e experience.

Yes, it takes a looong time to resolve stuff because of the amount of page flipping and rule hunting.
Maybe you've got range penalties memorized.  What about the increments? Gotta verify if 50 meters is the top of one band or the bottom of the next.  And it's different per class of firearm.

ok, maybe you've got THAT memorized too.  Or you have a GM screen/cheat sheet with that info handy and it's relatively quick to resolve. Even if it only takes say 5 seconds to verify, over the course of a single combat pass that can be a minute right there.  Stuff adds up.  It really does.

And that's the easy stuff, that you know both A) has a modifier and B) where to find it.  Stuff invariably comes up where you're not sure if you remember it's covered by the rules or if the GM will just have to wing it.  Obviously, every second spent hunting for something that doesn't exist is a wasted second, when the GM ultimately just makes something up anyway. For example: in "this one fight this one time" I was the GM, and I was convinced I read somewhere that when you spend a Take Aim action to reset your recoil counter, you don't gain any other benefit from that Take Aim.  When I informed the players of this, they unanimously agreed they never heard of such a thing (which they always do, even when they know damn well otherwise) so we consult the books.  I can't find it, after however much time I spent before realizing we're wasting way too much time, and I just decide to ignore it and move on.  Time sunk over a very piddling detail. In this case, a detail that doesn't even exist anymore in 6e (recoil).

And then there's the stuff that absolutely is covered, but isn't relevant most of the time.  Maybe this game has a decker who wants to do combat bricking. Usually noone bothers because of the shit action economy, but today the player doesn't care.  Trying it anyway.  Time to break out another chapter of the book entirely.  Look up matrix spotting rules, because that's never been satisfactorily explained anway. GM's gotta now decide how the matrix security is arranged, because NPC PANs have never, ever been codified (that I've ever seen, anyhow). Etc etc etc.

Maybe the magician is trying out new drek today.  How does critter power X interact with this combat?  Flip to a new chapter. Review a critter power entry.  Think.  Rule.  Oh, never mind that answer, let's go with this spell instead.  Break out another splatbook entirely.  Etc. etc.

Combat goes super, super, super slow in 5e.  Granted some of that stuff is edition agnostic (invoking seldom used rules, splatbooks) but 6e streamlines where it can, and I think that's a BIG help.

much of what you describe above are not modifiers but just the problem with rules that have to cover magic, tech and matrix worlds.

the complexity of 6e's edge mechanic vs. 5e's modifiers seems very similar to me, but without the semblance of reality.
i mean in 6e EACH WEAPON has variable AR that changes with each range category.
that means you cannot simply "know" that short range for weapon x is y, so if it's over apply this modifier.
now you have to look up each weapon to understand how it will effect the edge mechanic.
to top it off cover modifiers are not removed, so that's a wash from the old system.
so why remove some modifiers, but not others (see cover), why remove range modifiers and replace them with ARs that vary by range and by EACH specific weapon (not even weapon category)?
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (14:26:03/07-11-19)
Stainless how is any of that improved by 6e. If you donít know the rule you still need to look it up. So if the decker is trying something new he is still looking it up. The modifiers going away but potentially granting edge I assume still means you are looking up charts to see if this grants edge and if your ware cancels the enemy from getting edge etc. it may be a bit simplified so a bit quicker but looking up is looking up. And the timing of that has less to do with the rules but the editing/organization of the book.

Unrelated but  Iíd expect there are a lot of ways to simplify modifiers without removing them and replacing it with edge.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (14:30:48/07-11-19)
Stainless how is any of that improved by 6e. If you donít know the rule you still need to look it up. So if the decker is trying something new he is still looking it up. The modifiers going away but potentially granting edge I assume still means you are looking up charts to see if this grants edge and if your ware cancels the enemy from getting edge etc. it may be a bit simplified so a bit quicker but looking up is looking up. And the timing of that has less to do with the rules but the editing/organization of the book.

Unrelated but  Iíd expect there are a lot of ways to simplify modifiers without removing them and replacing it with edge.

As I said, certain problems are indeed edition agnostic.  I.E. not all of 5e's problems are because 5e is the way it is.

But, 6e is a new paradigm. No longer is it a question of identifying and codifying all the circumstances, and rolling a dice pool modified by that net amount.  6e is a game of "your dice pool for the most part goes unmodified, but the GM decides at any given interaction who has circumstantial advantage over the other, if anyone".  Obviously the former takes way more time to impliment than the latter, even in a best case scenario where all the modifiers are right there handy.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Serbitar on (14:36:00/07-11-19)
Well the rub is that meaningless modifiers aren't just in the eye of the beholder, they're sometimes objectively more relevant some times than other times.  Like the oft-cited low-light vision enhancement in a dark alleyway.  If both sides in that environment have it, it's functionally meaningless besides adding extra complexity to both sides' rolls.

Boiling down most (note that 6e doesn't ditch ALL) modifiers to GM fiat awarding one side or none a point of Edge is about as slick and streamlined as possible, and I still daresay fair.  Sure, you have to trust the GM to be fair about weighing your advantage of higher ground atop the dumpster counts for more or less than the Ork's ability to see clearly in the dark alley.  Having to rely on GM judgement is a price i'm not just willing but quite quick to agree to, in order to dispense with most combat modifiers.  Boil several minutes of page flipping down to what might be uncharitably described as GM whim/fiat?  Yes, please!

I dont disagree with that. But you dont need Edge for that. You could (if you wanted, that is up to the goal of streamlining) do the same thing with some extra dice for the roll instead. Streamlining can be done without the gamey Edge system. Edge  adds more complexity and gives not much benefit in additional options (and adds MUCH abuse potential like the healing stuff). Its just the "new and hip" system that SR6 uses to differentiate it from other systems and editions (and sells it as necessary for streamlining).

With the very gamist Edge system SR6 just alienated a lot of more simulationist oriented gamers (in an even worse way than SR5 did with shoehorned wireless boni and limits).

TLDR:

SR6 Edge = Gamist
SR6 Edge is not required nor helps streamlining, removing most modifers does
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (14:44:53/07-11-19)
I'm not prepared to agree with the premise that Edge stuff is abusive in 6e.

You HAVE played 5e, right?  1 edge to ignore limits AND add dice AND impose the rule of 6?  or even better: post-edging and rerolling ALL failures?  Entire swathes of the book become moot when you just spend a measly 1 point of your edge pool.

Sure you can do a lot more with edge in 6e... but those two (I daresay problematic) applications of edge are either moot (no Limits anymore to ignore) or solved (costs a lot more than 1 edge for those effects now). I don't even see healing as being a problematic expenditure of edge. Why is it any less realistic to "walk it off a bit" than to remove boxes via magic? Or via a medkit?  If you spend edge to remove damage, it's akin to the pain receding somewhat/revealing that the wound wasn't really as bad as it looked at first/whatever.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Serbitar on (14:47:03/07-11-19)
I'm not prepared to agree with the premise that Edge stuff is abusive in 6e.


The fact alone that you will have to prevent players from doing menail tasks to generate Edge and heal with it answers the question. That is wrong on so many levels. If you do not find this poblematic we do not have a common enough ground for any discussion.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (14:51:12/07-11-19)
I'm not prepared to agree with the premise that Edge stuff is abusive in 6e.


The fact alone that you will have to prevent players from doing menail tasks to generate Edge and heal with it answers the question. That is wrong on so many levels. If you do not find this poblematic we do not have a common enough ground for any discussion.

I don't follow your logic here.

You have a problem with 6e preventing menial tasks from accumulating edge which could have then be spent on healing?  or that you fear there won't be such a restriction?  Because... SCN finally bothered to reveal it and I feel like I can comment on that.. there IS such a rule in place.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (14:58:08/07-11-19)
Healing 1 box in itself I can say itís walking it off. Repeated use healing from a near mortal wound to healthy is a stretch.

If the goal was to mostly keep the dice pool the same which yes speeds up play. Modifiers could have been thresholds modifiers. With edge along with it. Edge maybe covering minor changes and larger effects being a threshold change.

The 2 people in a wind storm example bothered me. Yes they are equally screwed but itís still a hard shot. And if neither gets edge that is not reflected at all.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (15:05:38/07-11-19)
Yes two snipers shooting at each other across the barrens during a hurricane should be less accurate than two snipers shooting at each other across the barrens during clear weather.

But that's apples to oranges.

When the two snipers are shooting at each other during the hurricane, who cares what they "could have done" if the hurricane weren't there.  It IS there.  Rolling the same dice pool in both cases is a non sequitur as to who's going to outperform who while the hurricane either is or is not raging.

How they would have performed without the hurricane is only relevant in the event another sniper is simultaneously involved who isn't affected by the hurricane.  And if so, then it's a no brainer as to who gets the Edge.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Serbitar on (15:14:14/07-11-19)
I'm not prepared to agree with the premise that Edge stuff is abusive in 6e.


The fact alone that you will have to prevent players from doing menail tasks to generate Edge and heal with it answers the question. That is wrong on so many levels. If you do not find this poblematic we do not have a common enough ground for any discussion.

I don't follow your logic here.

You have a problem with 6e preventing menial tasks from accumulating edge which could have then be spent on healing?  or that you fear there won't be such a restriction?  Because... SCN finally bothered to reveal it and I feel like I can comment on that.. there IS such a rule in place.

I have  a problem with the existance of healing by edge and the stupid (house?) rules that are required to keep the consequences in check. Thats extremely unelegant rules design par excellence.
And of course all the other gamist edge abuse possibilities (have already been discussed in different threads).
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (15:16:00/07-11-19)
When the two snipers are shooting at each other during the hurricane, who cares what they "could have done" if the hurricane weren't there.  It IS there.  Rolling the same dice pool in both cases is a non sequitur as to who's going to outperform who while the hurricane either is or is not raging.

How they would have performed without the hurricane is only relevant in the event another sniper is simultaneously involved who isn't affected by the hurricane.  And if so, then it's a no brainer as to who gets the Edge.

With all due respect Stainless you're totally offbase here.

This perfectly illustrates WHY replacing modifiers based in reality for edge mechanics abstracted from reality is nuts.

In the above example the snipers should either miss most of the time, forcing an extension to the combat OR they should change their plan to avoid the windage and use a different weapon / close the distance to avoid the wind penalties.

That's a concrete example of what happens when you descend so far into abstraction that the real world no longer matters and the game becomes completely divorced from reality.

That's horrible as it makes much of what a RPG is meaningless, moving it over to boardgame territory where you do x to achieve y with no connection to anything in the real world.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (15:55:17/07-11-19)
Too add to adzlings post which I agree with 1000%. 

Letís say itís not combat. Itís chicago in the middle of winter and oh you are in a blizzard. Your mark has fled into a construction site and skuttles across a exposed beam. You are deciding whether to follow him. Would you say well you both are in a blizzard so you both roll your normal test and the threshold is still one because it sucks for both of you?  If the answer is yes he could be a ninja and I could be middle aged clumsy fat man aka me, and Iíd still have a solid chance of following him with no problem which obviously effects my decision making process. If the answer is no, why is this different than combat?


If the difficult isnít more difficult how does that reflect in the narrative. If it has no effect why am I bothering to tell you itís a blizzard in a brutal Chicago winter. How rewarding is it when there is no difficulty modifier? If the situation only effects things through edge why donít I always just roll my highest pool, who cares if hand to hand would suck for my kicking specialist in a ice rink Iíll just kick heís in the same boat.

Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Michael Chandra on (16:04:55/07-11-19)
I still need to try a more intense combat situation, since last saturday my players were in cover and sniped through hacking and rigging, but combat felt rather fluent. I hope to have a two-directional fight next time, but it's definitely faster to not have to memorise the detailed modifiers. And not having to reroll the Initiative every time.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (16:18:45/07-11-19)
I still need to try a more intense combat situation, since last saturday my players were in cover and sniped through hacking and rigging, but combat felt rather fluent. I hope to have a two-directional fight next time, but it's definitely faster to not have to memorise the detailed modifiers. And not having to reroll the Initiative every time.

faster, sure.

better, not by a long shot (pun intended).

it's really sad because streamlining 5e could have resulted in a system both faster AND better.

6e smacks of the line developer burning his hand on the complexity of 5e and overreacting without any clear idea of what was wrong with 5e beyond "complexity".

What resulted was the inanity of 6e (see bikini vs. combat armor, null effect from a blizzard if both parties are in the blizzard, melee weapons that do less damage than unarmed, melee weapons that do the same damage in the hands of a pixie vs. a troll, etc, etc, etc).

Sad indeed.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (16:25:34/07-11-19)

With all due respect Stainless you're totally offbase here.

This perfectly illustrates WHY replacing modifiers based in reality for edge mechanics abstracted from reality is nuts.

In the above example the snipers should either miss most of the time, forcing an extension to the combat OR they should change their plan to avoid the windage and use a different weapon / close the distance to avoid the wind penalties.

That's a concrete example of what happens when you descend so far into abstraction that the real world no longer matters and the game becomes completely divorced from reality.

That's horrible as it makes much of what a RPG is meaningless, moving it over to boardgame territory where you do x to achieve y with no connection to anything in the real world.

Well it's true that I'm missing why it's important that your dice pool be smaller with the hurricane than without.

In what way is it relevant how accurate the sniper would have been if there was no hurricane?
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Serbitar on (16:31:01/07-11-19)
As it was written:

Shooting becomes impossible, forcing the combatants to do something else (or at least taking much more time, which is important most of the time), as they would do in reality. Forcing them to make decisions instead of just rolling dice till someone wins. See my and Adzlings explanation above.
Modifiers enforces choices. Removing them removes choice and feels irreal.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (16:37:20/07-11-19)
Well it's true that I'm missing why it's important that your dice pool be smaller with the hurricane than without.
In what way is it relevant how accurate the sniper would have been if there was no hurricane?

Serbitar's post above says it perfectly.

the TL:DR is that if you only track relative advantage you negate effects that affect both parties and that results in stupid, hilarious, idiotic situations where two snipers running in a blizzard through a forest have the same chance to hit each other as two snipers standing still in a calm, well-lit desert.

This is exactly the outcome I noted in my very first posts about 6e.

6e IS the poster child for a complete detachment from realistic outcomes in favor of the rule of cool.

welcome to shadowrun 6e, MiB edition.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (16:38:15/07-11-19)
On the flipside of realism, how much FUN is it to deal with a diminished dice pool that renders the sniper a smaller dice pool?

I think we all get it.  6e is less simulationist.  The disagreement we seem to have is whether fun is more important than realistic accuracy. Opinions aren't wrong, they're opinions.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (16:41:19/07-11-19)
On the flipside of realism, how much FUN is it to deal with a diminished dice pool that renders the sniper a smaller dice pool?

I think we all get it.  6e is less simulationist.  The disagreement we seem to have is whether fun is more important than realistic accuracy. Opinions aren't wrong, they're opinions.

ok so now you get it, awesome.

look there's nothing wrong with the different playstyles, they can both be fun and many people enjoy both.

the issue I have is that BOTH should be possible with a well designed game where streamlining is based on reality.

the introduction of the 6e edge mechanic renders this impossible, making rule of cool the only way to play srun 6e and saying sayonara to all black trenchcoat type players such as myself and our table.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (16:51:10/07-11-19)
the introduction of the 6e edge mechanic renders this impossible, making rule of cool the only way to play srun 6e and saying sayonara to all black trenchcoat type players such as myself and our table.

I respect a difference of opinion, but I think this part is just unfounded. If streamlining crunch negatively affects either playstyle more than the other, its the Pink Mohawkers who have to play more Black Trench coat now without all the numbercrunching and the loss of 5e's soak pools.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: FastJack on (16:51:52/07-11-19)
I have nothing against streamlining, especially removing meaningless or useless modifiers. A modifier should alsways be meaningfull. If it is however, removing it means removing choices and tactical depth, though. There is no way arround it. If a combat system is too simple and does not offer any meaningfull choices its just dice rolling. Of course there is a sweet spot between speed, complexity and choice, and this spot is different for everybody.

@Fastjack: You could have answered my question, though.

Your right, I didn't. Because I don't need to. You feel that there isn't any gain to the new rules, I feel the new rules are a welcome change to the game that will make it easier for new players to pick it up. Just because we disagree doesn't mean I have to waste my time talking to you when you won't change your mind. Feel free to say how you feel about the new rules, I won't (and haven't) moderated opinions until they turn to personal attacks.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Marcus on (16:54:25/07-11-19)
If you have been in a hurricane. You know right off no one is going to be engaging in a sniper duel in middle of it in the first place. But taking shelter from high wind, torrential rain and they chaos they spawn will keep anyone busy.

But the the biggest issue here is. Even if the edge system is as fantastic as purposed by some on here. Iím not saying I agree, You know I support Adzling on this. But given that at the moment edge generation is crippled by the change to rate of generations, odds are itís going to be an unqualified disaster under its current raw implementation. What is going to be done to prevent that?

Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (16:55:34/07-11-19)
On the flipside of realism, how much FUN is it to deal with a diminished dice pool that renders the sniper a smaller dice pool?

I think we all get it.  6e is less simulationist.  The disagreement we seem to have is whether fun is more important than realistic accuracy. Opinions aren't wrong, they're opinions.

Diminishing dice pools arenít the only way to show difficulty. Even in a narrative system harder tasks are supposed to be harder. If it does t actually show difficulty itís doing a poor job telling the narrative of it being a difficult task.

But even if you use them Iíd say far more fun than a system that does not reflect difficulty. Speed is great in a system but if hard things arenít hard any fun you have is shallow and meaningless. People donít appreciate things by and large if itís just handed to them.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (17:14:30/07-11-19)

Diminishing dice pools arenít the only way to show difficulty. Even in a narrative system harder tasks are supposed to be harder. If it does t actually show difficulty itís doing a poor job telling the narrative of it being a difficult task.

But it's NOT harder under the metric that 6e uses, that's the rub.  That's really the rub. If snipers A and B are suffering equally(or near enough to equally), THAT is what matters.

You're comparing a shot through a hurricane to a shot that's not through a hurricane.  It's a purely academic and functionally meaningless exercise.  The 6e paradigm is to compare sniper A's shot to sniper B's shot.  Not sniper A's shot to sniper A's shot under hypothetically different circumstances.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (17:16:06/07-11-19)
Speed is great in a system but if hard things arenít hard any fun you have is shallow and meaningless. People donít appreciate things by and large if itís just handed to them.

again, perfectly said Shinobi.

this is the core of my issue with 6e, it beggars belief
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Serbitar on (17:18:24/07-11-19)
On the flipside of realism, how much FUN is it to deal with a diminished dice pool that renders the sniper a smaller dice pool?

I think we all get it.  6e is less simulationist.  The disagreement we seem to have is whether fun is more important than realistic accuracy. Opinions aren't wrong, they're opinions.

Less simulationist (modifiers) and mor gamist (edge). Fun can aslo result from more accuracy (and thus more choices and consequences), it need not be in competition to that. So we do not disagree about fun, we disagree what IS fun. Apart from that, agreed.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (17:19:06/07-11-19)
If streamlining crunch negatively affects either playstyle more than the other, its the Pink Mohawkers who have to play more Black Trench coat now without all the numbercrunching and the loss of 5e's soak pools.

huh? sorry this makes no sense to me, perhaps it's a definition thing?

to me pink mohawk means RULE OF COOL trumps REALITY whereas black trenchcoat means REALITY trumps RULE OF COOL.

with the above definitions it should be clear what i mean when i say "6e is for Pink Mohawk players and tells the black trench players to get lost".
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (17:37:14/07-11-19)

Diminishing dice pools arenít the only way to show difficulty. Even in a narrative system harder tasks are supposed to be harder. If it does t actually show difficulty itís doing a poor job telling the narrative of it being a difficult task.

But it's NOT harder under the metric that 6e uses, that's the rub.  That's really the rub. If snipers A and B are suffering equally(or near enough to equally), THAT is what matters.

You're comparing a shot through a hurricane to a shot that's not through a hurricane.  It's a purely academic and functionally meaningless exercise.  The 6e paradigm is to compare sniper A's shot to sniper B's shot.  Not sniper A's shot to sniper A's shot under hypothetically different circumstances.

Iím not sure how else to explain it but things should be difficult in their own right. Not just comparatively to your opposition.

In this hypothetical hurricane you should be rarely hitting when you do itís probably a grazing hit. Him being in the same boat should mean he misses often as well not you both pop head shots left and right.

Letís say I want to lift object x itís really heavy so should be hard to lift. I also want to lift object y and itís pretty lite. Theoretically it might be a different threshold to lift each item based on my strength/body in 5e I need 8 hits for x and only 1 for y. You are basically saying why does it matter that one object is heavier you only need 1 hit for both of them.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (17:45:18/07-11-19)
In 5e, trying to hit a marksman's target during a hurricane would be reflected by dice pool penalties and possibly by an increased threshold.  If the target were instead an opposing sniper, the mechanics change and you go from a success test to an opposed test.  The mechanics change for completely meta reasons.

In 6e, if you're trying to hit a bull's eye and trying to hit an opposing sniper again the mechanics change for completely meta reasons.  For the success test, sure there'll probably be GM-invented penalties to the dice pool and/or an increased threshold.  But for the opposed test, the edge mechanic kicks in instead.

It's not inherently better or worse than 5e... both cases have completely meta reasons for the mechanics themselves suddenly changing for no in-universe reason.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (17:49:34/07-11-19)
Except one meta reason reflects difficulty one doesnít. The rules can help set the story and setting. If difficulty vanishes on opposed tests it changes the setting and story.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (17:58:08/07-11-19)
Except one meta reason reflects difficulty one doesnít. The rules can help set the story and setting. If difficulty vanishes on opposed tests it changes the setting and story.

this 100%

hence my comment that 6e is now all MiB where rule of cool trumps any semblance of reality.

make no mistake 5e was NOT a combat reality simulator (see the old Phoenix Command for what that looked like) but it had some connection to reality with a nice dose of rule of cool via edge.

6e completely tosses out any semblance of reality replacing it ALL with rule of cool.

If you like that then 6e is for you. No judgement everyone get's their kicks in different ways.

If you don't then 6e is going to drive you nuts in very short order as all kinds of ridiculous stuff that ruins immersion starts happening on a routine basis.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Moonshine Fox on (18:10:13/07-11-19)
You all saying that because dice pool modifiers "don't exist" (which isn't true, there's just less of them) that you can't make things "more difficult". Y'all do realize there's the whole Threshold thing right? Like, it's even laid out in the QSR. Sniper trying to shoot through a hurricane, Attribute + Skill (5) roll to do it. Want to try and follow that ninja across an icy beam? He rolls Agility + Athletics (2) while you roll Agility + Athletics (4). This isn't even a new thing, thresholds have existed for several editions.

As for the whole "losing "realism"" thing, I may get in trouble for saying it but, tough drek. "Realism" is for when I go to the day job. The game is when I want to be a chromed up weirdo who gets paid to have questionable and loose morals. There are plenty of players, probably a majority of them judging by the trends in gaming, who favor simpler more streamlined rules that they can then modify in a way best for their table. Removing base hardware level rules from a numbers heavy game is far harder then adding software level patches to a more streamlined rule set to add in the complexity you want.

4th edition D&D was simulationist and rules heavy, while 5th edition is simplified and streamlined. Player base has expanded. 7th edition Warhammer 40k had MASSIVE rules complexity bloat that put a Plague Marine's belly to shame. 8th is streamlined and introduced newer even simpler ways to build armies. Player base has grown significantly and a lot of older players are returning to both game and hobby. A lot of us gamers are old, and have families and lives, we don't want to waste hours of what game time we get looking up charts of numbers to figure stuff out.

And yes, Shadowrun has always veered more to the Pink Mohawk side of the spectrum. There's drive-by-fireballings by elven gangers and dragons who became President. You want to claim that 6th is destroying your black trench coat style play, while I way the slight tongue-in-cheek humor loss with 5th (and maybe 4th I don't know on that one) was what destroyed the game for me. So I guess we can both just be disappointed in an edition and play the one we like.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (18:31:35/07-11-19)
As for the whole "losing "realism"" thing, I may get in trouble for saying it but, tough drek. "Realism" is for when I go to the day job.

No one's saying what you like is wrong (see repeated denials of same from all involved).
What we're saying is that 6e does not look like it has room for our kind of fun in the way that 5e does.
A better built system could support both playstyles.
Moreover 6e seems redundant given the existence of Anarchy.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (18:44:07/07-11-19)
Fox that is literally what Iíve been asking for. A threshold system for opposed tests. But their blog/post whatever itís called,  today explaining combat said as long as both sides are penalized itís just a wash and there is no edge, dice pool changes, threshold modifiers etc.  and Iíve seen nothing to indicate a threshold modifying system for combat at all yet. Against the environment sure, combat not yet.

Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Iron Serpent Prince on (18:45:30/07-11-19)
You're comparing a shot through a hurricane to a shot that's not through a hurricane.  It's a purely academic and functionally meaningless exercise.

And here is where you are failing to see what is being said.

Allow me to simplify (read: streamline ;) ) the example a bit.

Instead of two snipers in a hurricane, let's use two opposing forces (can be anything (really) having a gunfight in a warehouse.
The terrain effects both sides equally.
- In 6e, this results in no change in the rules.
- In 5e, there might be situational modifiers applied to both sides.

Now, the fear - and I will say it: the possibly unfounded fear - is that when you introduce something into the combat that affects both sides equally, 6e won't reflect that.

In the warehouse example, what happens when someone "drops smoke" either through a smoke grenade, spell, spirit power, whatever?
- In 6e, as long as neither side has Thermographic vision:  Nothing changes.  At all.  In spite of their being...  Well, situations that equally blinding both sides would be beneficial, in 6e there isn't any change to how the game plays.
- In 5e, both sides get Blind Fire penalties (if neither side has Thermo) allowing your side an easier time withdrawing - or even advancing to a better position.

So comparing shots in and out of a hurricane doesn't have to be academic at all.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (19:14:53/07-11-19)
As a aside. I donít think anyone is asking for realism. It is a setting with magic, cyber etc. what some people are asking for it for it to make sense in the context of the setting.

The setting presumedly gravity works the same there as here. While we donít need accurate per second tracking of distance falling, a system that said no matter how far you fall it takes 2 combat turns to hit the ground would have streamlined the falling rules to where they donít make sense anymore.

If my threshold to shoot a man sized target in a hurricane is 5. but once it is an opposed test the threshold is generated by 6 dice when shooting at a normal person trying not to get shot the issue isnít realism. it is that it no longer makes internal sense in the setting. It should be 5+hits scored by the rando trying not to get shot. As that makes internal consistent sense in the setting.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Moonshine Fox on (19:30:48/07-11-19)
As for the whole "losing "realism"" thing, I may get in trouble for saying it but, tough drek. "Realism" is for when I go to the day job.

No one's saying what you like is wrong (see repeated denials of same from all involved).
What we're saying is that 6e does not look like it has room for our kind of fun in the way that 5e does.
A better built system could support both playstyles.
Moreover 6e seems redundant given the existence of Anarchy.

Maybe I'm the only one who feels that way, but it sure seems like that's what you're saying despite denials. You keep talking about how your style of play is lost, and have been dismissive to the point of rudeness when others of us talk about how we like what we're seeing and how it can improve our table, or when games with other players have left people overall positive.

Even just from the quick start rules I can see a lot of ways to make things very black trench when I want to. I'm sure there'll be even more things I can find once I get my paws on a CRB.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Moonshine Fox on (19:36:25/07-11-19)
Fox that is literally what Iíve been asking for. A threshold system for opposed tests. But their blog/post whatever itís called,  today explaining combat said as long as both sides are penalized itís just a wash and there is no edge, dice pool changes, threshold modifiers etc.  and Iíve seen nothing to indicate a threshold modifying system for combat at all yet. Against the environment sure, combat not yet.

All right, the QSR doesn't outright say that thresholds are (or can) be present on opposed rolls like I was thinking it did. I can see them having left it out of there, but otherwise it makes too much sense to not have that. Granted in the example used I'd just rule that neither can take the shot, modifiers be fragged.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (19:46:11/07-11-19)
Fox that is literally what Iíve been asking for. A threshold system for opposed tests. But their blog/post whatever itís called,  today explaining combat said as long as both sides are penalized itís just a wash and there is no edge, dice pool changes, threshold modifiers etc.  and Iíve seen nothing to indicate a threshold modifying system for combat at all yet. Against the environment sure, combat not yet.

All right, the QSR doesn't outright say that thresholds are (or can) be present on opposed rolls like I was thinking it did. I can see them having left it out of there, but otherwise it makes too much sense to not have that. Granted in the example used I'd just rule that neither can take the shot, modifiers be fragged.

Sure the example was absurdist exaggeration but plenty of other basic penalties could get lost. I think the example in the post where itís a wash was like fog or rain.

I donít think Iíd have a hard time house ruling it but I think itís clear from what they have said that it would be a Blake rule and is not core.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: duckman on (19:51:28/07-11-19)
I don't know how comfortable people are with house rules so I kinda have to ask this of the people concerned about the "realism" argument.  We've had multiple examples including characters running across an icy beam (ok, this is going to require the GM to create a threshold so no problem) and the shooters in a blizzard or even the shooters in a warehouse where someone has dropped smoke...

First, I am coming at this from the perspective of someone who *expects* a GM to be adding modifiers based on his/her perception of the situation so even if you want to call it house ruling, I am comfortable expecting a GM to say "you're going to lose a (hit/die) on this test."  Second, I respect the idea that you want to reward making choices that impact play or reflect awareness of the setting and the impact it should be having (i.e. stop trying to shoot through the blizzard and close or do something else to be more effective).

To that end, I fully expect to see penalties either in the form of dice pool penalties or thresholds applied to these situations.  I'm not sure what the concern about it is unless you are really voicing a concern that it really is up to the GM to set those penalties and you cannot rules-lawyer around them because they really are GM fiat.  This *does* lead to the situation where a person who jumps from GM to GM (typical for con-goers for example) doesn't have a good idea what to expect from one GM to another and I totally get that.  Given that the rules allow a GM to apply thresholds and I fully expect a GM to dole out penalties at will, is there something aside from the consistency issue that causes problems here?
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (19:54:35/07-11-19)
A lot of people play missions so they are kind of stuck with raw and canít house rule things. And house rules are a bit finicky in that itís not like you play tested them so it can take a while to get it to work.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (19:55:22/07-11-19)
Maybe I'm the only one who feels that way, but it sure seems like that's what you're saying despite denials. You keep talking about how your style of play is lost, and have been dismissive to the point of rudeness when others of us talk about how we like what we're seeing and how it can improve our table, or when games with other players have left people overall positive.

Even just from the quick start rules I can see a lot of ways to make things very black trench when I want to. I'm sure there'll be even more things I can find once I get my paws on a CRB.

If you review my posts you will find (i hope) that I have repeatedly said that 6e should work great for Pink Mohawk / MiB style of play and that's fine for those who like it.
Personally I hate it, and I have expressed why.
I am 100% confident that 6e is wholly unsuited to Black Trenchcoat style of play and I am very disappointed by that.
I am expressing my disappointment and noting what those points of needless crapness are.

I AM NOT judging you for having a different playstyle than me, period.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Hephaestus on (22:53:46/07-11-19)
So, the main split seems to be realistic/simulation-ist/black trench coat style gameplay versus the fantastical/game-ist/pink mohawk style gameplay. And both sides have made some valid points.

One the one hand, we are debating a game that has taken pretty much every major sci-fi and fantasy trope there is, thrown them in a blender with corporate espionage, and poured it all over a dystopian near-future. It makes it hard to say that "reality" is an important factor.

On the other hand, playing a game where difficultly is hand-waived into a generic pool of "+1 advantage" can cheapen the experience for people. And the farther away you go from reality, the harder it is to identify with actions you are taking as a character, and the harder it is to care about the results. And a lot of the time, once players stop caring, they stop playing.

The thing that has stuck out to me, though, is the seeming lack of relativism in the new edition. I get that some modifiers were melted down to streamline gameplay, but it seems that they have been watered down a bit too much.

Take the sniper duel example. The 5th ed path is that both would receive a crap-ton of penalties, to the point that they would need to edge a roll to be able to hit at all. The 6th ed path is that it's a wash on the dice, and both would roll their respective pools because they are at similar disadvantages. In this situation, the 5th ed path seems more logical because both snipers have the same relative disadvantages to deal with. This also extends to things like melee damage. I understand that the devs wanted to streamline weapon stats, but a pixie should not be able to swing a bat like a troll (unless they got some serious mojo).

It doesn't matter how realistic or abstract you make a game, if there is no clear and consistent way to guage the relative difficulty of things like combat, then the experience will feel hollow. And from what has been said so far, it looks like the entire burden of consistency has been dumped on the GM. So they have to abstract with little support from the rules, and the response from a lot of people is to just house rule things. But if you're just going to house rule everything, then why even bother with a new edition?
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: tenchi2a on (23:16:37/07-11-19)
So, the main split seems to be realistic/simulation-ist/black trench coat style gameplay versus the fantastical/game-ist/pink mohawk style gameplay. And both sides have made some valid points.

One the one hand, we are debating a game that has taken pretty much every major sci-fi and fantasy trope there is, thrown them in a blender with corporate espionage, and poured it all over a dystopian near-future. It makes it hard to say that "reality" is an important factor.

On the other hand, playing a game where difficultly is hand-waived into a generic pool of "+1 advantage" can cheapen the experience for people. And the farther away you go from reality, the harder it is to identify with actions you are taking as a character, and the harder it is to care about the results. And a lot of the time, once players stop caring, they stop playing.

The thing that has stuck out to me, though, is the seeming lack of relativism in the new edition. I get that some modifiers were melted down to streamline gameplay, but it seems that they have been watered down a bit too much.

Take the sniper duel example. The 5th ed path is that both would receive a crap-ton of penalties, to the point that they would need to edge a roll to be able to hit at all. The 6th ed path is that it's a wash on the dice, and both would roll their respective pools because they are at similar disadvantages. In this situation, the 5th ed path seems more logical because both snipers have the same relative disadvantages to deal with. This also extends to things like melee damage. I understand that the devs wanted to streamline weapon stats, but a pixie should not be able to swing a bat like a troll (unless they got some serious mojo).

It doesn't matter how realistic or abstract you make a game, if there is no clear and consistent way to guage the relative difficulty of things like combat, then the experience will feel hollow. And from what has been said so far, it looks like the entire burden of consistency has been dumped on the GM. So they have to abstract with little support from the rules, and the response from a lot of people is to just house rule things. But if you're just going to house rule everything, then why even bother with a new edition?
+1
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: tenchi2a on (23:34:39/07-11-19)
After doing a write-up of the combat system for 3rd it dawned on me.
IMHO, They seem to be trying to pull a D&D 5th edition and revert back to a more popular streamlined version of a previous edition. (streamlined 3rd in the D&D case)
Here they seem to be trying for a 3rd edition fallback, but streamlined it way to much and lost all the bite in the 3rd system.
I could be wrong but this seems to be the case to me.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Marcus on (23:35:44/07-11-19)
Shadowrun has been designed and described as more realistic, it's original conceits included no Teleportation, no Resurrection, and no magic regeneration so saying reality isn't relevant is totally against one of the primary tenets of the SR setting. Which was intended to not be high fantasy.

Further calling the new Edge system gamiest is drastic miss-use of the term. As revealed so far the Edge system is arbitrary and static, both very not gamiest concepts. Why aren't the edge use limits linked to something? Why is it solo? Most system added to this sort of thing are linked the team mechanic as whole not to character specifically. Why generate a system that totally core to this edition and say it replaces all penalties when it really doesn't. Wound penalties are still in the system. Why make something so core to the system then implement flaws that completely negate it?  A penalty to could be understandable, but to totally negate it is a really huge step. Is there any other flaws in the game negate a core stat totally?
 
And no one has responded to my earlier question, I guess, everyone on the pro side is just ok with it going out with a huge error in the edge generation limit rules? Really? 

So for all those reason I don't think 6e is promising for ether pink Mohawk or MiB. I don't think it's promising as a version of SR. I think the best option right now is pause and pass it back for another play test pass and make sure what goes out the door is what is actually intended.

I know that's not going to happen, but to me it's the best option for everyone.

Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: tenchi2a on (23:44:25/07-11-19)
Shadowrun has been designed and described as more realistic, it's original conceits included no Teleportation, no Resurrection, and no magic regeneration so saying reality isn't relevant is totally against one of the primary tenets of the SR setting. Which was intended to not be high fantasy.

Further calling the new Edge system gamiest is drastic miss-use of the term. As revealed so far the Edge system is arbitrary and static, both very not gamiest concepts. Why aren't the edge use limits linked to something? Why is it solo? Most system added to this sort of thing are linked the team mechanic as whole not to character specifically. Why generate a system that totally core to this edition and say it replaces all penalties when it really doesn't. Wound penalties are still in the system. Why make something so core to the system then implement flaws that completely negate it?  A penalty to could be understandable, but to totally negate it is a really huge step. Is there any other flaws in the game negate a core stat totally?
 
And no one has responded to my earlier question, I guess, everyone on the pro side is just ok with it going out with a huge error in the edge generation limit rules? Really? 

So for all those reason I don't think 6e is promising for ether pink Mohawk or MiB. I don't think it's promising as a version of SR. I think the best option right now is pause and pass it back for another play test pass and make sure what goes out the door is what is actually intended.

I know that's not going to happen, but to me it's the best option for everyone.

+1
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: FastJack on (00:32:51/07-12-19)
Fox that is literally what Iíve been asking for. A threshold system for opposed tests. But their blog/post whatever itís called,  today explaining combat said as long as both sides are penalized itís just a wash and there is no edge, dice pool changes, threshold modifiers etc.  and Iíve seen nothing to indicate a threshold modifying system for combat at all yet. Against the environment sure, combat not yet.

Quote from: Quick Start Rules, Beginner Box Set, p. 5
Opposed Tests

In an Opposed test, another character, object, device, or entity is actively (or passively) resisting your efforts, so you must exceed their effort to succeed. In an Opposed test, two parties (usually the player as PC vs. the gamemaster as NPC or object) roll dice pools and compare the number of hits. The one with the most hits wins. The difference between the higher number of hits and the lower number of hits are the net hits in these tests, and they are often applied to the action in some wayófor example, in combat, net hits from the attacker are added to the Damage Value of their attack.

(Emphasis mine) I'm not sure if this is exactly what you meant by thresholds modifying system for combat, but net hits do add to damage. On the same page, the Threshold Guidelines for Simple test are also given, from 1-7 and using shooting at a person as an example.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (00:51:15/07-12-19)
Fox that is literally what Iíve been asking for. A threshold system for opposed tests. But their blog/post whatever itís called,  today explaining combat said as long as both sides are penalized itís just a wash and there is no edge, dice pool changes, threshold modifiers etc.  and Iíve seen nothing to indicate a threshold modifying system for combat at all yet. Against the environment sure, combat not yet.

Quote from: Quick Start Rules, Beginner Box Set, p. 5
Opposed Tests

In an Opposed test, another character, object, device, or entity is actively (or passively) resisting your efforts, so you must exceed their effort to succeed. In an Opposed test, two parties (usually the player as PC vs. the gamemaster as NPC or object) roll dice pools and compare the number of hits. The one with the most hits wins. The difference between the higher number of hits and the lower number of hits are the net hits in these tests, and they are often applied to the action in some wayófor example, in combat, net hits from the attacker are added to the Damage Value of their attack.

(Emphasis mine) I'm not sure if this is exactly what you meant by thresholds modifying system for combat, but net hits do add to damage. On the same page, the Threshold Guidelines for Simple test are also given, from 1-7 and using shooting at a person as an example.

So Iím saying letís say I have 6 dice on my defense test because unlike the box set examples Iím not captain America with perfect stats   I get 2 hits on my defense test. Effectively the threshold to hit me is 2. A threshold difficulty system would say the threshold to hit you is increased by x in these circumstances. Like poor visibility maybe Iíd need 3 hits to hit you instead of the two. Your diecpool would never change but youíd potentially miss or lose net hits because itís a harder shot.

The real play things and comments from people on this board to the blog thing have stated that doesnít happen that itís pretty much just edge outside a couple specific dice pool modifiers like wounds. That thresholds are used only for non opposed tests. Itís my opinion that edge on its own. doesnít do a good job of reflecting the inherent difficulty of certain attacks. Like long range, poor visibility etc. it can reflect more minor shifts in difficulty but not large ones.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (03:10:13/07-12-19)
So much of the issues with edge seem to not come from whether it's 'realistic' or not (because systems with narrative permissions can be as real or fantastical as the GM running it wants to be) but with how much it's scrunched a whole load of factors into one place.

Which isn't really the poor edge system's fault so much as the designers apparently just hating armour being useful to soak.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Michael Chandra on (03:24:55/07-12-19)
the designers apparently just hating armour being useful to soak.
Or, y'know, most playtesters liking the new system. Since as we know, and is confirmed in the blog, they tested a LOT of things.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (03:30:13/07-12-19)
I mean, I fully believe it functions better than 5e because *gestures at 5e*.

Just, for as much as I actually like the idea of compressing all the niche factors down into fungible currency for runners to be cool with, a lot of the way edge hangs off the system is just weird.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Marcus on (03:33:22/07-12-19)
So much of the issues with edge seem to not come from whether it's 'realistic' or not (because systems with narrative permissions can be as real or fantastical as the GM running it wants to be) but with how much it's scrunched a whole load of factors into one place.

Which isn't really the poor edge system's fault so much as the designers apparently just hating armour being useful to soak.

The mass combination of factors is really more the Attack and Defense rating choice stacked on top the decision to (As you point out) not have armor add any kind of soak.

The edge system's issues is more of a laundry list of problems, the pro side doesn't seem to have particular interest or possibly capability to address those problems. What happens, happens. All we can do is ask the question and pray it gets addressed.
 
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Banshee on (07:56:55/07-12-19)
You're comparing a shot through a hurricane to a shot that's not through a hurricane.  It's a purely academic and functionally meaningless exercise.

And here is where you are failing to see what is being said.

Allow me to simplify (read: streamline ;) ) the example a bit.

Instead of two snipers in a hurricane, let's use two opposing forces (can be anything (really) having a gunfight in a warehouse.
The terrain effects both sides equally.
- In 6e, this results in no change in the rules.
- In 5e, there might be situational modifiers applied to both sides.

Now, the fear - and I will say it: the possibly unfounded fear - is that when you introduce something into the combat that affects both sides equally, 6e won't reflect that.

In the warehouse example, what happens when someone "drops smoke" either through a smoke grenade, spell, spirit power, whatever?
- In 6e, as long as neither side has Thermographic vision:  Nothing changes.  At all.  In spite of their being...  Well, situations that equally blinding both sides would be beneficial, in 6e there isn't any change to how the game plays.
- In 5e, both sides get Blind Fire penalties (if neither side has Thermo) allowing your side an easier time withdrawing - or even advancing to a better position.

So comparing shots in and out of a hurricane doesn't have to be academic at all.

now this is an example I would like to chime in on ...
In 6E how you would handle the above situation would depend on how you want to use the situation to your advantage. If both side are still just want to shoot it out with each other then yeah it's a wash and doesn't matter ... but if Side A that dropped the smoke (or whatever) is then wanting to use the "cover" to tactically move or withdraw, and the Side B can't perceive, then Side A has the advantage and earned Edge as they move

At least that is the intention of how the system should be used
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Iron Serpent Prince on (08:09:57/07-12-19)
I don't think you are helping your cause there Banshee.

If the combat is going down and everyone is having their base chance to hit each other, then someone puts up a smoke screen between them...  And no one has a harder time hitting their targets?

That is the point that is sticking in some peoples craw.

With the new modular spell crafting, a mage can blanket an entire city block in darkness.  As long as no combatants have Low Light Vision, nothing changes at all.
A different mage fills the battlefield with buffeting winds, and no shots are more difficult.

Physics.
What is it good for.
Absolutely nothing.
Say it again.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Banshee on (08:27:07/07-12-19)
I don't think you are helping your cause there Banshee.

If the combat is going down and everyone is having their base chance to hit each other, then someone puts up a smoke screen between them...  And no one has a harder time hitting their targets?

That is the point that is sticking in some peoples craw.

With the new modular spell crafting, a mage can blanket an entire city block in darkness.  As long as no combatants have Low Light Vision, nothing changes at all.
A different mage fills the battlefield with buffeting winds, and no shots are more difficult.

Physics.
What is it good for.
Absolutely nothing.
Say it again.

But THAT is not the point I was trying to argue or make in anyway

However, while it it is not realistic (I do agree on that point) what overall impact does it have on the game? If everyone is taking the same penalties on combat roles, what does that do to effect the outcome? If the probability curve is merely shifted but the chances of success stay the same on both side of the equation (just reduced due to environmental modifiers) then all it does is prolong the encounter because it takes longer before Side A or Side B finally scores the critical hit that shifts the advantage and therefore "wins" the fight. But if Side A chooses to use the environment in a way that does change the advantage to their benefit then they earn Edge which can then be spent to modify their chances of success and therefore increase the chance that they come out on top (or escape if that is the intent). Which brings the point back around to "it's all in how you use the situation".
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: FastJack on (08:29:05/07-12-19)
Fox that is literally what Iíve been asking for. A threshold system for opposed tests. But their blog/post whatever itís called,  today explaining combat said as long as both sides are penalized itís just a wash and there is no edge, dice pool changes, threshold modifiers etc.  and Iíve seen nothing to indicate a threshold modifying system for combat at all yet. Against the environment sure, combat not yet.

Quote from: Quick Start Rules, Beginner Box Set, p. 5
Opposed Tests

In an Opposed test, another character, object, device, or entity is actively (or passively) resisting your efforts, so you must exceed their effort to succeed. In an Opposed test, two parties (usually the player as PC vs. the gamemaster as NPC or object) roll dice pools and compare the number of hits. The one with the most hits wins. The difference between the higher number of hits and the lower number of hits are the net hits in these tests, and they are often applied to the action in some wayófor example, in combat, net hits from the attacker are added to the Damage Value of their attack.

(Emphasis mine) I'm not sure if this is exactly what you meant by thresholds modifying system for combat, but net hits do add to damage. On the same page, the Threshold Guidelines for Simple test are also given, from 1-7 and using shooting at a person as an example.

So Iím saying letís say I have 6 dice on my defense test because unlike the box set examples Iím not captain America with perfect stats   I get 2 hits on my defense test. Effectively the threshold to hit me is 2. A threshold difficulty system would say the threshold to hit you is increased by x in these circumstances. Like poor visibility maybe Iíd need 3 hits to hit you instead of the two. Your diecpool would never change but youíd potentially miss or lose net hits because itís a harder shot.

The real play things and comments from people on this board to the blog thing have stated that doesnít happen that itís pretty much just edge outside a couple specific dice pool modifiers like wounds. That thresholds are used only for non opposed tests. Itís my opinion that edge on its own. doesnít do a good job of reflecting the inherent difficulty of certain attacks. Like long range, poor visibility etc. it can reflect more minor shifts in difficulty but not large ones.
And in the new system (if I'm reading/hearing things correctly), instead of needing three hits, you get a point of edge. And you can then spend that edge immediately to force the attacker to re-roll one of his hits or you can re-roll one of your misses. If you have enough advantage to gain two edge, you spend two to have them re-roll two of their hits, re-roll two of your misses, or add +1 to a four your rolled, changing it to a hit.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: FastJack on (08:32:21/07-12-19)
I don't think you are helping your cause there Banshee.

If the combat is going down and everyone is having their base chance to hit each other, then someone puts up a smoke screen between them...  And no one has a harder time hitting their targets?

That is the point that is sticking in some peoples craw.

With the new modular spell crafting, a mage can blanket an entire city block in darkness.  As long as no combatants have Low Light Vision, nothing changes at all.
A different mage fills the battlefield with buffeting winds, and no shots are more difficult.

Physics.
What is it good for.
Absolutely nothing.
Say it again.
OR

You don't blanket the city in darkness, you cast a globe of darkness over the sniperóbang! gain an edge.
Instead of filling the area with buffeting winds, ask the air spirit to just bug the other teamóbang! gain an edge.

Just because you can launch nukes, doesn't mean it's the best option.

Edit: Also, were you blanketing a city in darkness or filling a battlefield with winds in 5E? How'd that work out? Everyone get the same modifiers?
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (08:49:34/07-12-19)
I don't think you are helping your cause there Banshee.

If the combat is going down and everyone is having their base chance to hit each other, then someone puts up a smoke screen between them...  And no one has a harder time hitting their targets?

That is the point that is sticking in some peoples craw.

With the new modular spell crafting, a mage can blanket an entire city block in darkness.  As long as no combatants have Low Light Vision, nothing changes at all.
A different mage fills the battlefield with buffeting winds, and no shots are more difficult.

Physics.
What is it good for.
Absolutely nothing.
Say it again.

But THAT is not the point I was trying to argue or make in anyway

However, while it it is not realistic (I do agree on that point) what overall impact does it have on the game? If everyone is taking the same penalties on combat roles, what does that do to effect the outcome? If the probability curve is merely shifted but the chances of success stay the same on both side of the equation (just reduced due to environmental modifiers) then all it does is prolong the encounter because it takes longer before Side A or Side B finally scores the critical hit that shifts the advantage and therefore "wins" the fight. But if Side A chooses to use the environment in a way that does change the advantage to their benefit then they earn Edge which can then be spent to modify their chances of success and therefore increase the chance that they come out on top (or escape if that is the intent). Which brings the point back around to "it's all in how you use the situation".

If I have 15 dice and lose 6 to shoot people with 6 dice to defend and they have 8 dice and lose 6 to shoot people with 6 dice to defend trust me the situation has changed. Iím still likely to hit them they are likely to miss.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Banshee on (08:55:33/07-12-19)
I don't think you are helping your cause there Banshee.

If the combat is going down and everyone is having their base chance to hit each other, then someone puts up a smoke screen between them...  And no one has a harder time hitting their targets?

That is the point that is sticking in some peoples craw.

With the new modular spell crafting, a mage can blanket an entire city block in darkness.  As long as no combatants have Low Light Vision, nothing changes at all.
A different mage fills the battlefield with buffeting winds, and no shots are more difficult.

Physics.
What is it good for.
Absolutely nothing.
Say it again.

But THAT is not the point I was trying to argue or make in anyway

However, while it it is not realistic (I do agree on that point) what overall impact does it have on the game? If everyone is taking the same penalties on combat roles, what does that do to effect the outcome? If the probability curve is merely shifted but the chances of success stay the same on both side of the equation (just reduced due to environmental modifiers) then all it does is prolong the encounter because it takes longer before Side A or Side B finally scores the critical hit that shifts the advantage and therefore "wins" the fight. But if Side A chooses to use the environment in a way that does change the advantage to their benefit then they earn Edge which can then be spent to modify their chances of success and therefore increase the chance that they come out on top (or escape if that is the intent). Which brings the point back around to "it's all in how you use the situation".

If I have 15 dice and lose 6 to shoot people with 6 dice to defend and they have 8 dice and lose 6 to shoot people with 6 dice to defend trust me the situation has changed. Iím still likely to hit them they are likely to miss.

yes, but that is exactly what I am talking about all you did was shift the pools from 15 and 8 to 9 and 2 ... still has the same probability curve (a 7 dice difference in dice pools) it's just shifted to the left
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Iron Serpent Prince on (09:11:21/07-12-19)
If everyone is taking the same penalties on combat roles, what does that do to effect the outcome?

The same penalties does not equal the same effect.  Well, unless all the die pools are the same size.

If your character reduces the oppositions chance to hit from (an arbitrary) 25% to 10%, if you'll forgive me the clumsy math, you roughly double your characters chances of survival.
If at the same time you reduce your characters chance of scoring a hit from roughly 100% down to 85%, some would call that a good trade.
Your character misses roughly 1 in 5 shots for a doubled chance of survival.

Then again, your character used to put on armor to prevent damage....
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Banshee on (09:25:11/07-12-19)
If everyone is taking the same penalties on combat roles, what does that do to effect the outcome?

The same penalties does not equal the same effect.  Well, unless all the die pools are the same size.

If your character reduces the oppositions chance to hit from (an arbitrary) 25% to 10%, if you'll forgive me the clumsy math, you roughly double your characters chances of survival.
If at the same time you reduce your characters chance of scoring a hit from roughly 100% down to 85%, some would call that a good trade.
Your character misses roughly 1 in 5 shots for a doubled chance of survival.

Then again, your character used to put on armor to prevent damage....

yes, but everyone is missing what I am saying ... if all parties have their chances of success reduced by the same amount the overall effect is just shifting the whole range to the left. The difference in chances of success are the same so if you had a compared chance of success (for the encounter not individual action) of 75% (difference of 100 and 25) in scenario A, you also have then you still have a 75% (difference of 85 and 10) chance of success in scenario B. The only difference in A you can win in 2 or 3 actions while in B it takes you 5 or 6 actions

NOTE: yes this is using quick clumsy math but if you take them time to actually plot a probability curve you would see the same effect, and yes we went through several iterations of that study when developing the new system :)
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (09:31:00/07-12-19)
Personally I'd just up the base threshold of everyone's checks, which is how Infinity does opposed tests with difficulty, but I don't know if SR6 explicitly supports that.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (09:39:43/07-12-19)
Personally I'd just up the base threshold of everyone's checks, which is how Infinity does opposed tests with difficulty, but I don't know if SR6 explicitly supports that.

Thatís what Iíd do, I donít think SR6 supports that from what Iíve seen.  But itís how Iíll likely house rule it.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Banshee on (09:42:53/07-12-19)
Personally I'd just up the base threshold of everyone's checks, which is how Infinity does opposed tests with difficulty, but I don't know if SR6 explicitly supports that.

not any different than 5E in that regard ... in an opposed roll your "threshold" is set by your opponents roll, unopposed rolls have a threshold
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Iron Serpent Prince on (09:44:06/07-12-19)
If everyone is taking the same penalties on combat roles, what does that do to effect the outcome?

The same penalties does not equal the same effect.  Well, unless all the die pools are the same size.

If your character reduces the oppositions chance to hit from (an arbitrary) 25% to 10%, if you'll forgive me the clumsy math, you roughly double your characters chances of survival.
If at the same time you reduce your characters chance of scoring a hit from roughly 100% down to 85%, some would call that a good trade.
Your character misses roughly 1 in 5 shots for a doubled chance of survival.

Then again, your character used to put on armor to prevent damage....

yes, but everyone is missing what I am saying ... if all parties have their chances of success reduced by the same amount the overall effect is just shifting the whole range to the left. The difference in chances of success are the same so if you had a compared chance of success (for the encounter not individual action) of 75% (difference of 100 and 25) in scenario A, you also have then you still have a 75% (difference of 85 and 10) chance of success in scenario B. The only difference in A you can win in 2 or 3 actions while in B it takes you 5 or 6 actions

NOTE: yes this is using quick clumsy math but if you take them time to actually plot a probability curve you would see the same effect, and yes we went through several iterations of that study when developing the new system :)

Once again, chances of success do not equal the same effect.

Combat capable characters are generally built around 1 successful shot, one kill.  It varies of course.
PCs typically (in the games I play in) take 3, maybe 4 successful hits before being taken out.  Again, there is variation.

In scenario A, your character likely takes a hit.
In scenario B, your character likely doesn't take a hit.

Of course, that explains why 6e reportedly has increased the amount of healing available....
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Banshee on (09:53:26/07-12-19)
If everyone is taking the same penalties on combat roles, what does that do to effect the outcome?

The same penalties does not equal the same effect.  Well, unless all the die pools are the same size.

If your character reduces the oppositions chance to hit from (an arbitrary) 25% to 10%, if you'll forgive me the clumsy math, you roughly double your characters chances of survival.
If at the same time you reduce your characters chance of scoring a hit from roughly 100% down to 85%, some would call that a good trade.
Your character misses roughly 1 in 5 shots for a doubled chance of survival.

Then again, your character used to put on armor to prevent damage....

yes, but everyone is missing what I am saying ... if all parties have their chances of success reduced by the same amount the overall effect is just shifting the whole range to the left. The difference in chances of success are the same so if you had a compared chance of success (for the encounter not individual action) of 75% (difference of 100 and 25) in scenario A, you also have then you still have a 75% (difference of 85 and 10) chance of success in scenario B. The only difference in A you can win in 2 or 3 actions while in B it takes you 5 or 6 actions

NOTE: yes this is using quick clumsy math but if you take them time to actually plot a probability curve you would see the same effect, and yes we went through several iterations of that study when developing the new system :)

Once again, chances of success do not equal the same effect.

Combat capable characters are generally built around 1 successful shot, one kill.  It varies of course.
PCs typically (in the games I play in) take 3, maybe 4 successful hits before being taken out.  Again, there is variation.

In scenario A, your character likely takes a hit.
In scenario B, your character likely doesn't take a hit.

Of course, that explains why 6e reportedly has increased the amount of healing available....

That;s just it ... your chances of taking a hit don't change. If your dice pool is 7 dice higher than your opponents (which they are in both scenarios using your example) then you are still approximately 40% more likely to score more success than your opponent in either case. The only thing that changes is the the average and maximum amount of successes that both sides are able to get, but it is the same ratio.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Iron Serpent Prince on (10:01:49/07-12-19)
If your dice pool is 7 dice higher than your opponents (which they are in both scenarios using your example) then you are still approximately 40% more likely to score more success than your opponent in either case.

Ah!  You are assuming that the ratio of Attack Dice to Defense dice remains static between the two scenarios, just because the ratio of Attack dice to Attack dice remains static.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Banshee on (10:10:37/07-12-19)
If your dice pool is 7 dice higher than your opponents (which they are in both scenarios using your example) then you are still approximately 40% more likely to score more success than your opponent in either case.

Ah!  You are assuming that the ratio of Attack Dice to Defense dice remains static between the two scenarios, just because the ratio of Attack dice to Attack dice remains static.

yes, that's we are talking about here. the whole point of the edge advantage system relies on it being a wash when things are even on both side of the equation ... if one party is effected more than the other then someone has advantage and therefore earning an edge
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Iron Serpent Prince on (10:35:21/07-12-19)
If your dice pool is 7 dice higher than your opponents (which they are in both scenarios using your example) then you are still approximately 40% more likely to score more success than your opponent in either case.

Ah!  You are assuming that the ratio of Attack Dice to Defense dice remains static between the two scenarios, just because the ratio of Attack dice to Attack dice remains static.

yes, that's we are talking about here. the whole point of the edge advantage system relies on it being a wash when things are even on both side of the equation ... if one party is effected more than the other then someone has advantage and therefore earning an edge

And that is where it breaks down.

You are saying that if everyone takes a -6 Attack dice penalty, it is the same as if no one takes a -6 Attack dice penalty.

Except it isn't.  The Defense dice do not change in either scenario.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Finstersang on (10:42:59/07-12-19)
By far the biggest problem with the Edge mechanic is that 2 Edge Cap per round. However, that problem could be solved by adding just one sentence right behind the statement that Edge gain in combat is limited to 2 Edge per round:

"Edge that is spend right on the test/action where you earned it doesnīt count towards this limit".

That way, a) you donīt have that ridiculous culling effect where all the situational advantages, attack & defense ratings and edge-generating augmentations and perks suddenly donīt count anymore because you already hit the ceiling an b) thereīs an incentive to use Edge on the test where you actually earned it instead of banking it, which is more fitting from a more simulationist POV.

Maybe the Hardy boys (and girls, of course) are smart enough to listen to community feedback and the errata team this time and provide an official statement - or even  a "fix" - regarding this  ::) If not, at least I already know what my most important houserule will be...
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (10:49:12/07-12-19)
yeah im sorry Banshee and Fastjack but this is a critical flaw of the edge advantage system in 6e, it does not model actions / situations in anything approaching a reasonable way.

In the blizzard scenario it's crystal clear no one has any business being a sniper as its totally combat ineffective.

This should force a change in plan to something more reasonable.

This is a core conceit of almost all missions in shadowrun ("shit, plan A is hosed because we can't use approach X because of condition Y so instead we go to plan B").

Now you can toss that all out the window as nothing in 6e reflects actual reality of the combat space's conditions.

It's all just relative, and in being so loses all connection to what would happen with a group of combatants in a real world scenario.

When you lose that connection you can no longer plan effectively because every combat is the equivalent of a magical pony that no one understand where it came from or how it works.

I can totally see the situation right now:

GM: your recon of the meet shows a huge blizzard starting to cover the area, rendering all long range vision and targeting useless.
Sniper: hang on, that blizzard is natural right?
GM: yes
Sniper: well then it affects us and the opposition and was not caused by them correct?
GM: yes
Sniper: then it doesn't affect me! no edge is generated as it wasn't caused by either us or the opposition and so therefore i can snipe completely unaffected by the blizzard!
GM: ....

Sorry chaps but 6e's edge is a total disconnection from the world in which the game happens.
It replaces the entire reality of a GM generated playspace with relative advantage that renders it mostly irrelevant.

That's really sad as there were so many ways to build this system and make it simpler without trashing the core component of having the game reflect reality enough to make it feel meaningful and have things react rationally.

This is *far* down the rabbithole.

Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Marcus on (10:52:35/07-12-19)
I do think it's worth taking 1 sec to note this. Given the choice between forcing your opponent to re-roll a success vs you re-rolling a failure. The only worth while option there is forcing them to re-roll a success. You have 67% chance of them failing the re-roll vs 67% you wasted a point of edge on a re-roll. Now if conversion of a 4 to a 5 is an available choice for one edge that's a better then both those others, as you're looking at 100% chance of getting a success there.

So the whole equal odds canceling is not good, but it's clearly just isn't going to change these folks minds. To me the issue is under the Edge system, if your prep a position, and then enemy moves in. All you're going to get out of is a chance at a point of edge. When I say a chance what i mean is given how edge generation is capped, if you were already going to get 2 edge, then preparation and tactics will likely have no meaning. That's what I don't like. Building logic in 6e will dictate your character build to get 2 edge in any opposed roll scenario.  Even if you don't really want to build that way, it seems like you won't have a choice. If you're using the best weapon and armor possible given availability and resources, odds are that's one edge then it's a question of ware. So once you're at 2 there is zero point in doing anything else for tactical advantage. You can of course show up in a bikini and packing plastic spork as your weapon of choice with the ware and then act tactically hopefully to get that 2nd edge.

And while the play test generated edge in each opposed roll, that won't hold in the live version.  Making the system still less useful.

Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Banshee on (11:13:18/07-12-19)
By far the biggest problem with the Edge mechanic is that 2 Edge Cap per round. However, that problem could be solved by adding just one sentence right behind the statement that Edge gain in combat is limited to 2 Edge per round:

"Edge that is spend right on the test/action where you earned it doesnīt count towards this limit".

That way, a) you donīt have that ridiculous culling effect where all the situational advantages, attack & defense ratings and edge-generating augmentations and perks suddenly donīt count anymore because you already hit the ceiling an b) thereīs an incentive to use Edge on the test where you actually earned it instead of banking it, which is more fitting from a more simulationist POV.

Maybe the Hardy boys (and girls, of course) are smart enough to listen to community feedback and the errata team this time and provide an official statement - or even  a "fix" - regarding this  ::) If not, at least I already know what my most important houserule will be...

100% agree .. we have submitted changes to the Powers in Charge, so we shall see what his final decision will be. For what's worth regardless of what gets passed down my home game will be running based on edge gain is based on per action and not per round
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Hobbes on (11:14:48/07-12-19)
yes, but that is exactly what I am talking about all you did was shift the pools from 15 and 8 to 9 and 2 ... still has the same probability curve (a 7 dice difference in dice pools) it's just shifted to the left

I'm sorry, but that's wrong.  Iron Serpent Prince is correct. 

Sammie Samurai, 18 dice to shoot stuff, 13 dice for defense tests vs 5 PR 2ish Mooks with 10 Dice of Shooting and 8 dice Defense tests.  10 Dice vs 13 Dice is ... what about a 15% chance to hit?  18 Dice vs 8 is in the 90's I think.  -7 for Thermographic Smoke drops the Mooks to 3 Dice to hit vs Sammie's 13 Defense dice which is less than 1%.  And Sammie would be down to 11 dice vs 8 which is 60ish% chance to hit, with a 30ish% chance of bumping up one and a rapidly diminishing chance of multiple increases. 

That dramatically favors Sammie the Samurai, it doesn't just "...shift it to the left..."  If nothing changes Sammie Samurai could burn down Mooks for as long as the Ammo lasts. 

To say a universal penalty is a statistical wash for opposed tests is categorically wrong.  It's not how Game Theory works, its not how Probability works. 

I understand that White Board game theory isn't actual play, but to say that mathematically universal penalties don't change the outcome is incorrect.  Universal penalties favor higher dice pools in opposed tests, the larger the differential in opposed dice pools the more favored the outcome.  True story.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (11:14:55/07-12-19)
...once you're at 2 there is zero point in doing anything else for tactical advantage. You can of course show up in a bikini and packing plastic spork as your weapon of choice with the ware and then act tactically hopefully to get that 2nd edge...

yeah i really can't fathom how this made it through playtesting.

we've exposed all the game breaking inanity just in an internet thread of people talking about the game.

I would have to assume the playtesting was restricted to small number of people who have one particular playstyle that resulted in an echo chamber of approval.
I know that our table would have immediately uncovered the blizzard scenario and immediately stopped and said "thanks but this is so nuts this game doesn't work, back to the drawing board."
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Moonshine Fox on (11:20:30/07-12-19)
Personally I'd just up the base threshold of everyone's checks, which is how Infinity does opposed tests with difficulty, but I don't know if SR6 explicitly supports that.

Thatís what I plan to do too. QSR doesnít expressly is this is a thing, but it is somewhat implied to be able to be a thing from how I read it.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Banshee on (11:26:06/07-12-19)
yeah im sorry Banshee and Fastjack but this is a critical flaw of the edge advantage system in 6e, it does not model actions / situations in anything approaching a reasonable way.

In the blizzard scenario it's crystal clear no one has any business being a sniper as its totally combat ineffective.

This should force a change in plan to something more reasonable.

This is a core conceit of almost all missions in shadowrun ("shit, plan A is hosed because we can't use approach X because of condition Y so instead we go to plan B").

Now you can toss that all out the window as nothing in 6e reflects actual reality of the combat space's conditions.

It's all just relative, and in being so loses all connection to what would happen with a group of combatants in a real world scenario.

When you lose that connection you can no longer plan effectively because every combat is the equivalent of a magical pony that no one understand where it came from or how it works.

I can totally see the situation right now:

GM: your recon of the meet shows a huge blizzard starting to cover the area, rendering all long range vision and targeting useless.
Sniper: hang on, that blizzard is natural right?
GM: yes
Sniper: well then it affects us and the opposition and was not caused by them correct?
GM: yes
Sniper: then it doesn't affect me! no edge is generated as it wasn't caused by either us or the opposition and so therefore i can snipe completely unaffected by the blizzard!
GM: ....

Sorry chaps but 6e's edge is a total disconnection from the world in which the game happens.
It replaces the entire reality of a GM generated playspace with relative advantage that renders it mostly irrelevant.

That's really sad as there were so many ways to build this system and make it simpler without trashing the core component of having the game reflect reality enough to make it feel meaningful and have things react rationally.

This is *far* down the rabbithole.

that's just it though, are they both effected the same offensively yes, can hey both see just fine and etc yes ... but you are all glossing over some of the obvious stuff ... does the attacker have any way of mitigating the high winds? Is the defender effected by the winds? In this case I would assume both answers are no ... means the environmental advantage goes to the defender and he gets an edge point (same would apply when roles are reversed so you effectively just trade edge back and forth unless you change it up). It's all about who has the "tactical" advantage based on the action being taken. The fact that both attackers do not have their dice pool reduced does not statistically matter in the exchange, but how you make use of the situation to your advantage does.

also, while I do agree that the new edge system takes a lot of the punch out of the impact the previous modifiers provided but the the tactical choices are still there. So, yes while it is not nearly as in depth as a tactical simulation as it used to be it is still very viable to make effective use of tactics ... just in a different way and with different results.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (11:31:34/07-12-19)
By far the biggest problem with the Edge mechanic is that 2 Edge Cap per round. However, that problem could be solved by adding just one sentence right behind the statement that Edge gain in combat is limited to 2 Edge per round:

"Edge that is spend right on the test/action where you earned it doesnīt count towards this limit".

That way, a) you donīt have that ridiculous culling effect where all the situational advantages, attack & defense ratings and edge-generating augmentations and perks suddenly donīt count anymore because you already hit the ceiling an b) thereīs an incentive to use Edge on the test where you actually earned it instead of banking it, which is more fitting from a more simulationist POV.

Maybe the Hardy boys (and girls, of course) are smart enough to listen to community feedback and the errata team this time and provide an official statement - or even  a "fix" - regarding this  ::) If not, at least I already know what my most important houserule will be...

100% agree .. we have submitted changes to the Powers in Charge, so we shall see what his final decision will be. For what's worth regardless of what gets passed down my home game will be running based on edge gain is based on per action and not per round

Even 2 per action is too big of a limit if itís supposed to reflect actual differences in advantage. Heck one modifier should have the possibility for more than 2. Just under lighting poor lighting vs complete darkness should be a huge difference.

If it was you can only hold a net 2 per turn Iíd see that as fine. But if I have Thermo and you are blind firing I should score like 4 edge just for that each of my actions. If this is the core system to reflect advantage or difficulty in combat.

If you had in additional thresholds on top of the opposed test the core edge works as itís a supplement to a deeper system.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (11:33:44/07-12-19)
why would the defender not be affected by the blizzard?
of course they are.

you could make similar scenarios all day because that's how the real world works (combatants on a rough ocean where the boats are tipping violently, cars in traffic weaving erratically, etc).

when you reduce the world to relative advantage all of that gets removed, effectively being irrelevant because both sides are equally affected.

in 6e the outcome is, nothing changes.
your shot is just as likely to succeed as if you were lying prone in the desert with a clear sky.

the actual real world effect should instead be "damn your almost certainly going to miss OR geeze only a superhuman amazeballs person has a chance of hitting".

that's a core conceit of having a game world respond realistically to PCs actions.

now that's gone, and replaced with...ugh.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (11:37:06/07-12-19)
Personally I'd just up the base threshold of everyone's checks, which is how Infinity does opposed tests with difficulty, but I don't know if SR6 explicitly supports that.

not any different than 5E in that regard ... in an opposed roll your "threshold" is set by your opponents roll, unopposed rolls have a threshold

No, I mean specifically in Infinity both apply to opposed rolls: Each rolls against a difficulty and then the one with the most bonus momentum (read net hits) against their difficulty is the one that wins the opposed.

So it'd be like, Stat + Attribute [3] vs Stat + Attribute [1] for something like the attacker trying to take a shot in high winds. So even if both roll 4 hits the defender still wins by 3 because the threshold eats 3 of the attacker's hits.

But also like, in more narrative systems you can just say you can't shoot in a hurricane but that's kind of screwed by shadowrun's scale being everything from a rent a cop with a shitty gun to a guy whose whole body might as well be additional parts for his sniper rifle.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Moonshine Fox on (11:44:32/07-12-19)
In the blizzard scenario it's crystal clear no one has any business being a sniper as its totally combat ineffective.

You donít have to have dice pool penalties to do this. As GM you tell your player that the blizzard is strong enough he simply canít make a shot. End of story.

quote]

yeah i really can't fathom how this made it through playtesting.

we've exposed all the game breaking inanity just in an internet thread of people talking about the game.

Iím reminded of the old adage Ďdynamite on paperí. Some things look awesome till rubber meets the road, other things look like garbo till they hit the wild. As yet only the playtesters have done games with the full rules, all the rest of us wonít actually know for sure until weíve rolled a few pounds of dice. That applies as well to the few amongst us whoíve read the full rules but havenít run sessions with them.

Not liking what your seeing and raising concerns is one thing. Saying itís inane and broken and they all should have known better but they must have been too busy echoing each other is another thing entirely.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Finstersang on (11:45:06/07-12-19)
...once you're at 2 there is zero point in doing anything else for tactical advantage. You can of course show up in a bikini and packing plastic spork as your weapon of choice with the ware and then act tactically hopefully to get that 2nd edge...

yeah i really can't fathom how this made it through playtesting.


Well, from what I heard... It didntīt  :P

Apparently, what was actually playtested was 2 per turn (or even per action?), which makes a huge difference considering that you can get Edge because of your opponentīs actions as well. Hitting the limit in your own turn - thatīs not going to happen too often, agreed. But hitting the limit over the course of a whole combat turn, thatīs going to happen a lot, especially with "tanky" characters. And everytime you hit that limit and lose a point of Edge you would normally get, a simulationist kitten gets strangled. 

I suspect that this actually might be an errata question. Messing up turn and round is even a somewhat understandable mistake, especally when compared to other CGL blunders  ::)   
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (11:46:37/07-12-19)
Yeah the round/turn thing has to be a mistake.

Because the whole system goes from slightly weird to bizzaro town the instant it's not pretty quick to top up and make use of your edge.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Moonshine Fox on (11:47:38/07-12-19)
 And as for ďreal world combatď, what are your house rules to represent bleed out, or for shock. A lot of deaths from gunshots are the result of blood loss, which is why some people will die into a single 32, and others will take a full clip of 45 (or a railroad spike through the brain, weird but true story) and be OK.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (11:50:20/07-12-19)
And as for ďreal world combatď, what are your house rules to represent bleed out, or for shock. A lot of deaths from gunshots are the result of blood loss, which is why some people will die into a single 32, and others will take a full clip of 45 (or a railroad spike through the brain, weird but true story) and be OK.

TBH if I was looking for real feeling gunfights/urban hell I'd go with 2020 because that's still the game where getting shot always makes you flinch.

Shadowrun I more want camp nonsense, either of the overly serious black trenchcoat or The Fucking Most of a mohawk. So it's always bizzare to see people bringing up realism in relation to a game where the tech base, physics and near everything is off kilter from the real world as a setting.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (11:50:39/07-12-19)
Not liking what your seeing and raising concerns is one thing. Saying itís inane and broken and they all should have known better but they must have been too busy echoing each other is another thing entirely.

it's a reasonable response to a mechanic that clearly cannot even remotely reflect common real world scenarios and should have been easily uncovered during playtesting.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (11:51:44/07-12-19)
Not liking what your seeing and raising concerns is one thing. Saying itís inane and broken and they all should have known better but they must have been too busy echoing each other is another thing entirely.

it's a reasonable response to a mechanic that clearly cannot even remotely reflect common real world scenarios and should have been easily uncovered during playtesting.

Real world scenarios like a troll in an armoured leather jacket shooting fifty cal rounds from the hip with his smart linked sniper at a dragon?
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Hobbes on (12:00:40/07-12-19)
...(a 7 dice difference in dice pools)...

Apologies again, but that is the math error.  You can't simply compare the single bell curve of the difference in dice pools.  You need to compare the overlapping areas of 4 different pairs of Bell Curves, 8 total, and then compare the % change between the two scenarios. 

The bell curve of the difference in dice pools is absolutely not, in any way shape or form, an accurate representation of the probable outcomes of an opposed test.  To illustrate, using your Difference only model you have the same outcome of 0 v 1 as 15 dice v 16 dice.  0 v 1, the 0 will never win.  15 v 16 is slightly less than 50%.

I realize being told on the interwebs that you're wrong isn't ideal.  I do sincerely appreciate your time and energy being spent to respond, and the time you spent in creating the game.  Thank you, again for your time.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (12:01:28/07-12-19)
Any game system where you can dodge bullets is automatically de-prioritizing realism.

In 5e, where you can dodge bullets AND get bogged down in "realistic" modifiers is schizophrenic. 6e aims to remove that conflict 5e has with itself.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Michael Chandra on (12:03:44/07-12-19)
I still need to write a decent tool for analysing drain and services since it combines two rolls..

Anyway at anydice.com  12d{0,0,1}-10d {0,0,1} is a useful trick.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Finstersang on (12:04:51/07-12-19)
Iīm actually on the fence if my preferred Houserule/Errata/Official Fix for the "Only 2 Edge per round" BS would be turning it into "2 Edge per turn" (as it was apparently conceived and playtested) or by adding the "Edge thatīs spent on the Action that made you earn it doesnīt count for the Limit"-clause I suggested.

The latter is a bit more realistic (because of the incentive to use Edge right away instead of banking it) and would make sure that no earned point of Edge would really go to waste.

2 Edge per turn is a bit easier to manage and explain, and would allow for a "bait & punish"-playstyle for tanky characters - which TBH wouldnīt be entirely realistic, but pretty fun.       

Or just throw that Limit away alltogether...  ::)   
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (12:06:56/07-12-19)
Any game system where you can dodge bullets is automatically de-prioritizing realism.

In 5e, where you can dodge bullets AND get bogged down in "realistic" modifiers is schizophrenic. 6e aims to remove that conflict 5e has with itself.

Dodge bullets could just be like, a base line that modelled characters with combat experience vs not. Just vaguely modelling the idea that people with high X are moving properly and responding correctly in the way that minimizes horrible violence to their body when guns are involved.

And then only magic makes you actually good at dodging bullets.

But yeah, 5e's got this huge issue where it wants to realistically model everything in a very camp, silly setting and then it just sort of tears at every seam that creates by having really disparate and poorly laid out rules. It's frustrating.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: duckman on (12:14:48/07-12-19)
that's just it though, are they both effected the same offensively yes, can hey both see just fine and etc yes ... but you are all glossing over some of the obvious stuff ... does the attacker have any way of mitigating the high winds? Is the defender effected by the winds? In this case I would assume both answers are no ... means the environmental advantage goes to the defender and he gets an edge point (same would apply when roles are reversed so you effectively just trade edge back and forth unless you change it up). It's all about who has the "tactical" advantage based on the action being taken. The fact that both attackers do not have their dice pool reduced does not statistically matter in the exchange, but how you make use of the situation to your advantage does.

also, while I do agree that the new edge system takes a lot of the punch out of the impact the previous modifiers provided but the the tactical choices are still there. So, yes while it is not nearly as in depth as a tactical simulation as it used to be it is still very viable to make effective use of tactics ... just in a different way and with different results.

So there are two fundamental problems here...  The first is the interaction of probability...  Larger pools have larger deviation (i.e. they are wider) allowing for a player to get very hot or very cold...  15 dice expect 6 hits but they can get 15.  6 dice expect 2 hits.  Is that 33% as effective?  Now add in the effects of edge or buying successes.  You can do so much more with 15 dice than you can with 9 when you start adding +1 to a die or exploding 6s.  How much edge do I need to avoid getting hit if you have 6 dice?  What about if you have 15?

Then add in what those probabilities mean...  If I want to soak damage I have a pretty static dice pool.  Now I care a whole lot about reducing the number of successes you could have had by reducing your dice pool.  The amount of potential incoming damage matters a lot to all parties involved and it impacts how a party needs to be built to be effective.  Want to try running without healing?

And then let's talk about the tactical impacts of those probabilities...  If I am a mage running with a bunch of melee-focused street samurai is it possible for me give them cover while they close with a bunch of CorpSec with guns?  I create smoke or darkness...  If my side tries to shoot everyone has the same problem so nobody gets edge but if my side tries to close they have edge (but still get shot by big dice pools, see above)?  Why can't I make a tactical choice to shut down ranged combat?  Maybe I know that CorpSec doesn't carry 250 lbs of ammo the way my insane friend does...  I'm happy to drag combat out and see who runs out of ammo first...  No longer an option.  Ohhh, look...  That guys over there has white phosphorus rounds (or lightning or electricity or ice or...) and now I care a whole lot about not getting hit...

Tactically speaking, anything that I want to accomplish other than shooting someone is now a GM fiat or a house rule.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (12:28:36/07-12-19)
Any game system where you can dodge bullets is automatically de-prioritizing realism.

In 5e, where you can dodge bullets AND get bogged down in "realistic" modifiers is schizophrenic. 6e aims to remove that conflict 5e has with itself.

I never once viewed it as dodging bullets but as making yourself a harder target.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (12:38:07/07-12-19)
Any game system where you can dodge bullets is automatically de-prioritizing realism.

In 5e, where you can dodge bullets AND get bogged down in "realistic" modifiers is schizophrenic. 6e aims to remove that conflict 5e has with itself.

I never once viewed it as dodging bullets but as making yourself a harder target.

That's fine to do, but you need to recognize that that's doing mental gymnastics to accommodate the inherent disconnect with realism where the game allows you to literally dodge bullets.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Ghost Rigger on (12:43:45/07-12-19)
Nobody dodges bullets. In 5e, you dodge the barrel of the gun before the other guy pulls the trigger, just like in real life.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (12:47:52/07-12-19)
Nobody dodges bullets. In 5e, you dodge the barrel of the gun before the other guy pulls the trigger, just like in real life.

If that were the case, you'd have a penalty to shoot people at close range with something big like a rifle compared to something fast and easy like a SMG or better yet, a pistol.  Yet there isn't one in 5e.

Ironically, for all the bellyaching about how 6e is divorcing itself from reality, this IS reflected in 6e via the Attack Rating values.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (12:56:38/07-12-19)
Any game system where you can dodge bullets is automatically de-prioritizing realism.

In 5e, where you can dodge bullets AND get bogged down in "realistic" modifiers is schizophrenic. 6e aims to remove that conflict 5e has with itself.

I never once viewed it as dodging bullets but as making yourself a harder target.

That's fine to do, but you need to recognize that that's doing mental gymnastics to accommodate the inherent disconnect with realism where the game allows you to literally dodge bullets.

No I donít, because you arenít literally dodging bullets. You are rolling a defense test creating a threshold your opponent must exceed to hit you.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (13:02:46/07-12-19)
Any game system where you can dodge bullets is automatically de-prioritizing realism.

In 5e, where you can dodge bullets AND get bogged down in "realistic" modifiers is schizophrenic. 6e aims to remove that conflict 5e has with itself.

I never once viewed it as dodging bullets but as making yourself a harder target.

That's fine to do, but you need to recognize that that's doing mental gymnastics to accommodate the inherent disconnect with realism where the game allows you to literally dodge bullets.

No I donít, because you arenít literally dodging bullets. You are rolling a defense test creating a threshold your opponent must exceed to hit you.

This becomes very tenuous with adept skills that make you better at doging bullets and have forever being themed as 'what if the matrix but an elf'.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Marcus on (13:04:31/07-12-19)
2 Edge per turn is a bit easier to manage and explain, and would allow for a "bait & punish"-playstyle for tanky characters - which TBH wouldnīt be entirely realistic, but pretty fun.       

The spending edge to negate edge is a terrible idea.  It's internally self defeating.  It's going to make many player sit on edge. Which in turn means those players aren't going to enjoy it. Choices that cause option paralysis by generating a model where players are left to choose between playing not to lose instead of playing to win is an example of bad game design.  GM are going to have edge in superior amounts. Why? b/c NPC can always out numbered PCs, this means even if the PC have higher starting edge each NPC can generate edge and over all generate more. It's not hard to see this model come totally off the rails. Sure that may not be the intended design of the system, but GM choices are not always reasonable or in line the systems intent.

Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (13:14:29/07-12-19)
Any game system where you can dodge bullets is automatically de-prioritizing realism.

In 5e, where you can dodge bullets AND get bogged down in "realistic" modifiers is schizophrenic. 6e aims to remove that conflict 5e has with itself.

I never once viewed it as dodging bullets but as making yourself a harder target.

That's fine to do, but you need to recognize that that's doing mental gymnastics to accommodate the inherent disconnect with realism where the game allows you to literally dodge bullets.

No I donít, because you arenít literally dodging bullets. You are rolling a defense test creating a threshold your opponent must exceed to hit you.

This becomes very tenuous with adept skills that make you better at doging bullets and have forever being themed as 'what if the matrix but an elf'.

Adept skills were themed as seeing moments into the future so you are literally moving before the person shoots, aka not dodging a bullet but making yourself harder to hit.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (13:24:23/07-12-19)
Any game system where you can dodge bullets is automatically de-prioritizing realism.

In 5e, where you can dodge bullets AND get bogged down in "realistic" modifiers is schizophrenic. 6e aims to remove that conflict 5e has with itself.

I never once viewed it as dodging bullets but as making yourself a harder target.

That's fine to do, but you need to recognize that that's doing mental gymnastics to accommodate the inherent disconnect with realism where the game allows you to literally dodge bullets.

No I donít, because you arenít literally dodging bullets. You are rolling a defense test creating a threshold your opponent must exceed to hit you.

This becomes very tenuous with adept skills that make you better at doging bullets and have forever being themed as 'what if the matrix but an elf'.

Adept skills were themed as seeing moments into the future so you are literally moving before the person shoots, aka not dodging a bullet but making yourself harder to hit.

The line between "I can see into the future so I don't get hit" and "I dodged a bullet" is literally just an extra layer of description on the same core concept: People in Shadowrun can dodge bullets.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (13:29:12/07-12-19)
The line between "I can see into the future so I don't get hit" and "I dodged a bullet" is literally just an extra layer of description on the same core concept: People in Shadowrun can dodge bullets.

And it's been that way since 1st edition.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: sn0mm1s on (13:46:56/07-12-19)
Any game system where you can dodge bullets is automatically de-prioritizing realism.

In 5e, where you can dodge bullets AND get bogged down in "realistic" modifiers is schizophrenic. 6e aims to remove that conflict 5e has with itself.

I never once viewed it as dodging bullets but as making yourself a harder target.

That's fine to do, but you need to recognize that that's doing mental gymnastics to accommodate the inherent disconnect with realism where the game allows you to literally dodge bullets.

No I donít, because you arenít literally dodging bullets. You are rolling a defense test creating a threshold your opponent must exceed to hit you.

This becomes very tenuous with adept skills that make you better at doging bullets and have forever being themed as 'what if the matrix but an elf'.

Adept skills were themed as seeing moments into the future so you are literally moving before the person shoots, aka not dodging a bullet but making yourself harder to hit.

The line between "I can see into the future so I don't get hit" and "I dodged a bullet" is literally just an extra layer of description on the same core concept: People in Shadowrun can dodge bullets.

Yeah, I am not a huge fan of the level of abstraction that the new Edge system seems to imply (though I will obviously wait until the CRB is out to make a decision) *BUT* saying SR isn't about dodging/soaking bullets is disingenuous. IMO, with the way the system is set up, all that needs to be added is a threshold modifier that applies to *all* PCs/NPCs in opposed tests up to the discretion of the GM based on perceived difficulty. That eliminates the bazillion little modifiers and the Edge system would still be applicable and useful.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (13:55:37/07-12-19)
The line between "I can see into the future so I don't get hit" and "I dodged a bullet" is literally just an extra layer of description on the same core concept: People in Shadowrun can dodge bullets.

And it's been that way since 1st edition.


And thatís still not dodging bullets. Dodging bullets is shot has been fired you see it and move out of the way. Moving right before they shoot throwing off their shot is entirely different and is actually feasible. Erratic moving targets are hard to shoot. Is it an abstraction sure, all the rules are to some degree. But itís not supposed to represent actually dodging bullets.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (14:00:19/07-12-19)
The line between "I can see into the future so I don't get hit" and "I dodged a bullet" is literally just an extra layer of description on the same core concept: People in Shadowrun can dodge bullets.

And it's been that way since 1st edition.


And thatís still not dodging bullets. Dodging bullets is shot has been fired you see it and move out of the way. Moving right before they shoot throwing off their shot is entirely different and is actually feasible. Erratic moving targets are hard to shoot. Is it an abstraction sure, all the rules are to some degree. But itís not supposed to represent actually dodging bullets.

Look all the people talking about edge have taught me that if you use the word abstraction then you're playing a game for people who like Men in Black and not shadowrun.  ;)
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Hobbes on (14:08:22/07-12-19)

So there are two fundamental problems here...  The first is the interaction of probability...  Larger pools have larger deviation (i.e. they are wider) allowing for a player to get very hot or very cold...  15 dice expect 6 hits but they can get 15.  6 dice expect 2 hits.  Is that 33% as effective?  Now add in the effects of edge or buying successes.  You can do so much more with 15 dice than you can with 9 when you start adding +1 to a die or exploding 6s.  How much edge do I need to avoid getting hit if you have 6 dice?  What about if you have 15?

Then add in what those probabilities mean...  If I want to soak damage I have a pretty static dice pool.  Now I care a whole lot about reducing the number of successes you could have had by reducing your dice pool.  The amount of potential incoming damage matters a lot to all parties involved and it impacts how a party needs to be built to be effective.  Want to try running without healing?

And then let's talk about the tactical impacts of those probabilities...  If I am a mage running with a bunch of melee-focused street samurai is it possible for me give them cover while they close with a bunch of CorpSec with guns?  I create smoke or darkness...  If my side tries to shoot everyone has the same problem so nobody gets edge but if my side tries to close they have edge (but still get shot by big dice pools, see above)?  Why can't I make a tactical choice to shut down ranged combat?  Maybe I know that CorpSec doesn't carry 250 lbs of ammo the way my insane friend does...  I'm happy to drag combat out and see who runs out of ammo first...  No longer an option.  Ohhh, look...  That guys over there has white phosphorus rounds (or lightning or electricity or ice or...) and now I care a whole lot about not getting hit...

Tactically speaking, anything that I want to accomplish other than shooting someone is now a GM fiat or a house rule.

Quack.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (14:19:42/07-12-19)
that's just it though, are they both effected the same offensively yes, can hey both see just fine and etc yes ... but you are all glossing over some of the obvious stuff ... does the attacker have any way of mitigating the high winds? Is the defender effected by the winds? In this case I would assume both answers are no ... means the environmental advantage goes to the defender and he gets an edge point (same would apply when roles are reversed so you effectively just trade edge back and forth unless you change it up). It's all about who has the "tactical" advantage based on the action being taken. The fact that both attackers do not have their dice pool reduced does not statistically matter in the exchange, but how you make use of the situation to your advantage does.

also, while I do agree that the new edge system takes a lot of the punch out of the impact the previous modifiers provided but the the tactical choices are still there. So, yes while it is not nearly as in depth as a tactical simulation as it used to be it is still very viable to make effective use of tactics ... just in a different way and with different results.

So there are two fundamental problems here...  The first is the interaction of probability...  Larger pools have larger deviation (i.e. they are wider) allowing for a player to get very hot or very cold...  15 dice expect 6 hits but they can get 15.  6 dice expect 2 hits.  Is that 33% as effective?  Now add in the effects of edge or buying successes.  You can do so much more with 15 dice than you can with 9 when you start adding +1 to a die or exploding 6s.  How much edge do I need to avoid getting hit if you have 6 dice?  What about if you have 15?

Then add in what those probabilities mean...  If I want to soak damage I have a pretty static dice pool.  Now I care a whole lot about reducing the number of successes you could have had by reducing your dice pool.  The amount of potential incoming damage matters a lot to all parties involved and it impacts how a party needs to be built to be effective.  Want to try running without healing?

And then let's talk about the tactical impacts of those probabilities...  If I am a mage running with a bunch of melee-focused street samurai is it possible for me give them cover while they close with a bunch of CorpSec with guns?  I create smoke or darkness...  If my side tries to shoot everyone has the same problem so nobody gets edge but if my side tries to close they have edge (but still get shot by big dice pools, see above)?  Why can't I make a tactical choice to shut down ranged combat?  Maybe I know that CorpSec doesn't carry 250 lbs of ammo the way my insane friend does...  I'm happy to drag combat out and see who runs out of ammo first...  No longer an option.  Ohhh, look...  That guys over there has white phosphorus rounds (or lightning or electricity or ice or...) and now I care a whole lot about not getting hit...

Tactically speaking, anything that I want to accomplish other than shooting someone is now a GM fiat or a house rule.

excellent post exposing the core flaw of 6e's relative-advantage edge system replacing real world modifiers.

who cares what physics or actual hit probability is, that's all irrelevant now.
tactics based on the combat environment? that's out the window too
tactical choices having a real effect on outcomes? gone

man this is actually so much worse than i had first thought

and it didn't have to be this way

if only the playtesting had involved people with a strong enough knowledge of game mechanics to challenge the designers
if only they had taken the good parts of 5e, fixed the borked drek and streamlined the overly complicated bits
if only...
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (14:23:44/07-12-19)
Real world scenarios like a troll in an armoured leather jacket shooting fifty cal rounds from the hip with his smart linked sniper at a dragon?

it should be obvious but i'll just leave this here, again, cause you didn't see or read it the first time i guess
---
As a aside. I donít think anyone is asking for realism. It is a setting with magic, cyber etc. what some people are asking for is for it to make sense in the context of the setting.
The setting presumedly gravity works the same there as here. While we donít need accurate per second tracking of distance falling, a system that said no matter how far you fall it takes 2 combat turns to hit the ground would have streamlined the falling rules to where they donít make sense anymore.

No one's asking for Phoenix Command realism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Command) but having some semblance of, or connection to, reality is critically important.
Realistic inputs provide believable outputs.
Substituting fully-abstracted relative-advantage mechanics (see 6e's edge) results in the insanity folks are noting around this forum and elsewhere where outcomes bear little or no resemblance to what happens IRL.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Banshee on (14:32:13/07-12-19)

if only the playtesting had involved people with a strong enough knowledge of game mechanics to challenge the designers


this could not be farther from the truth if you tried
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (14:33:22/07-12-19)
Real world scenarios like a troll in an armoured leather jacket shooting fifty cal rounds from the hip with his smart linked sniper at a dragon?

it should be obvious but i'll just leave this here, again, cause you didn't see or read it the first time i guess
---
As a aside. I donít think anyone is asking for realism. It is a setting with magic, cyber etc. what some people are asking for is for it to make sense in the context of the setting.
The setting presumedly gravity works the same there as here. While we donít need accurate per second tracking of distance falling, a system that said no matter how far you fall it takes 2 combat turns to hit the ground would have streamlined the falling rules to where they donít make sense anymore.

No one's asking for Phoenix Command realism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Command) but having some semblance of, or connection to, reality is critically important.
Realistic inputs provide believable outputs.
Substituting fully-abstracted relative-advantage mechanics (see 6e's edge) results in the insanity folks are noting around this forum and elsewhere where outcomes bear little or no resemblance to what happens IRL.

Realism is a poor argument when your response is just "no but I wanted a 2 on the realism scale, not an 8.8"

If realism is a meaningless metric (because the whole setting is camp nonsense) with an arbitrary scale then throwing the word around like a snob insisting people are listening to the wrong music just makes you look silly and doesn't serve to actually communicate anything outside of "I don't like this and sensible, correct people wouldn't like this either! Nyea!"

And I say that as someone not overly enthused by 6th edition at all.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (14:43:28/07-12-19)
if the game does not reflect how things work irl at even a basic level then it's lost a critically important connection to telling stories grounded in meaning.

it becomes an abstract game more akin to a board game than an RPG.

that's ok, plenty of people enjoy that type of thing.

i dont.

im not judging YOU for enjoying that, I'm upset that the game has radically changed so I no longer enjoy it.

I just went and read the designer's notes on combat and here's the money shot that shows 6e is working exactly as intended by the designers:

"If weíre shooting and dodging in the same rainstorm, no one really has an advantage, so why toss modifiers on both sides that just shift dice pools in the same way?"

We've shown in this thread how this fallacy is incorrect and will negatively impact the game.
We've seen Banshee and Fastjack (you guys are fine people, no personal attack here) have reiterated this fallacy despite having it categorically shown by multiple people that it's just that, a fallacy.

The TL:DR here is that the game designers for 6e made a critical mistake when attempting simplification that will negatively impact gameplay by divorcing outcomes so far from reality that stuff just stops making sense.

That's sad, because it did not have to be this way. The goals of simplification and streamlining could have been achieved while still retaining the relation to reality. Instead, i'm 100% guessing here, the designers got distracted with the shiny advantage/ disadvantage mechanic without properly understanding the impact of it. Then they restricted play-testing to folks who did not know enough to challenge them. The outcome is a product that destroys any attempts at black trenchcoat play style, enshrining play based on a mostly meaningless advantage system.

I'm not judging anyone if they like 6e, I'm judging 6e.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (14:44:43/07-12-19)

if only the playtesting had involved people with a strong enough knowledge of game mechanics to challenge the designers


this could not be farther from the truth if you tried

I'll take your word Banshee cause I respect you.
I guess they were overruled then? (no need to answer that, I know you're tied by NDA).
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: duckman on (14:47:33/07-12-19)

if only the playtesting had involved people with a strong enough knowledge of game mechanics to challenge the designers


this could not be farther from the truth if you tried

Be that as it may, there are still a number of us looking at this and wondering how to make specific types of things matter.  My post gave a number of examples of essentially defensive play which seem to have been thrown out the window in the name of streamlining.  Refuting this one comment but saying nothing about the post that gave rise to the comment is not reassuring.

Does the system provide a mechanic for doing any of the things I suggested?  Getting the opponent to use up ammo on poor shots?  Defending myself from multiple attackers with effects I don't want to get hit by?  Shutting down ranged combat to enable my team to close?  Are *any* of these possible within the mechanics or am I reliant on a GM house-ruling a situation "reasonably" so that everyone is having fun?  In my gaming group I can count on that GM but I am blessed to be in a group with 150+ years of GMing experience at the table every Friday night.  I can't normally get that at a con event or in any random group and I am hoping that tactical play is not reliant on it.

(Heck, even if this kind of stuff is still behind an NDA, a statement that it has not all been swept away into the edge system, especially one that is limited to two edge per combat round, would be helpful.)
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: FastJack on (14:52:28/07-12-19)
I debated closing this thread for a bit, since the arguments are all circular and keep coming back to "I like/dislike the changes". But, there are some questions and nuggets of info here that are useful, if we can all keep our opinions and feelings to a minimum.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Katanarchist on (14:58:20/07-12-19)
And then let's talk about the tactical impacts of those probabilities...  If I am a mage running with a bunch of melee-focused street samurai is it possible for me give them cover while they close with a bunch of CorpSec with guns?  I create smoke or darkness...  If my side tries to shoot everyone has the same problem so nobody gets edge but if my side tries to close they have edge (but still get shot by big dice pools, see above)?  Why can't I make a tactical choice to shut down ranged combat?
I feel like I must be missing something here in your example.

What is it that's preventing the mage from creating a scenario where the street samurai can close the gap while taking relatively little fire? If the mage creates an area of darkness surrounding the corporate goons, enabling their buddies to get into position while corpsec fumbles around blind, then clearly they're not an equal footing. The runners would gain Edge as they combat roll past the hail of blindfire, and could spend that Edge to mitigate any damage they'd be taking. Once the katana crew is in position the mage drops the darkness, and then violence commences.

Right?
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (14:59:40/07-12-19)
I mean, mostly, as someone who isn't even that enthusiastic for 5th or 6th edition. I just find the realism arguments kind of a weird way to replace "I don't like the direction of new rules" in people's semantics.

There is no realistic ballistic model for a troll getting shot.

Because neither the troll, nor the gun I am shooting him with, are realistic objects.

So to argue a given rules change is bad because unrealistic is a nonsense notion. Shadowrun is a game of rules that construct a reality through establishing exactly how tough a troll is and how much damage the fictional firearm hitting his chest can do.

That these change from edition to edition definitely changes the tone but does not make a given edition more or less realistic. It just creates another set of expectations for what's 'real' in a very camp, silly setting.

Also I'm looking forwards to the leeway the 5 edge spend 'declare something plausible but lucky that happens' gives to actually liven combat up past "take the obvious best position and then shoot a bunch," for all people talk about the deep tactics being lost by crunching boring but predictable modifiers has on the system.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Banshee on (15:04:37/07-12-19)

if only the playtesting had involved people with a strong enough knowledge of game mechanics to challenge the designers


this could not be farther from the truth if you tried

Be that as it may, there are still a number of us looking at this and wondering how to make specific types of things matter.  My post gave a number of examples of essentially defensive play which seem to have been thrown out the window in the name of streamlining.  Refuting this one comment but saying nothing about the post that gave rise to the comment is not reassuring.

Does the system provide a mechanic for doing any of the things I suggested?  Getting the opponent to use up ammo on poor shots?  Defending myself from multiple attackers with effects I don't want to get hit by?  Shutting down ranged combat to enable my team to close?  Are *any* of these possible within the mechanics or am I reliant on a GM house-ruling a situation "reasonably" so that everyone is having fun?  In my gaming group I can count on that GM but I am blessed to be in a group with 150+ years of GMing experience at the table every Friday night.  I can't normally get that at a con event or in any random group and I am hoping that tactical play is not reliant on it.

(Heck, even if this kind of stuff is still behind an NDA, a statement that it has not all been swept away into the edge system, especially one that is limited to two edge per combat round, would be helpful.)

since this is unlocked now ... yes there are still many tactical options you can take to give yourself or your team the advantage ... MOSt of them but not all of them just boil down to your side being able to lock down one of the three potential options for edge gain during combat. There is no need to house rule anything, but it does require being able to explain or clearly show that what your doing does provide a tactical advantage. This may be a problem at some tables depending on experience and GM/play style, but I expect it should not be an issue for most.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Ghost Rigger on (15:05:54/07-12-19)
There is no realistic ballistic model for a troll getting shot.
Counterpoint: bears. And no, I'd the gun you're firing at him with is a realistic object, unless you're firing at him with a laser weapon or something.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (15:09:47/07-12-19)
There is no realistic ballistic model for a troll getting shot.
Counterpoint: bears. And no, I'd the gun you're firing at him with is a realistic object, unless you're firing at him with a laser weapon or something.

So, to be clear, the gun I am firing at a fictional troll which is made by a fictional manufacturer in an alternate timeline for earth were like a third of the population died due to a magical plague and also magic is real is a real object?

What is the performance of this real gun?
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Marcus on (15:12:36/07-12-19)
Well I put forward the best arguments I could think of on this. No one seems like they are going to change positions. Folks point of view are seem Hardened at this point. I look forward to continue in whatever the next thread is. Welcome to all our new posters. I hope you enjoy the forums.

Gen Con is rapidly approaching. I wish everyone all the best.

Off to food shopping.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Hobbes on (15:16:29/07-12-19)
And then let's talk about the tactical impacts of those probabilities...  If I am a mage running with a bunch of melee-focused street samurai is it possible for me give them cover while they close with a bunch of CorpSec with guns?  I create smoke or darkness...  If my side tries to shoot everyone has the same problem so nobody gets edge but if my side tries to close they have edge (but still get shot by big dice pools, see above)?  Why can't I make a tactical choice to shut down ranged combat?
I feel like I must be missing something here in your example.

What is it that's preventing the mage from creating a scenario where the street samurai can close the gap while taking relatively little fire? If the mage creates an area of darkness surrounding the corporate goons, enabling their buddies to get into position while corpsec fumbles around blind, then clearly they're not an equal footing. The runners would gain Edge as they combat roll past the hail of blindfire, and could spend that Edge to mitigate any damage they'd be taking. Once the katana crew is in position the mage drops the darkness, and then violence commences.

Right?

Mage and Decker are busted while sneaking into a warehouse.  Decker is fast, Corp guard is next fast, Mage is slow.  Nobody has thermo or low light, mage has Astral vision.

5th edition, Decker kills lights, Corp guard fires blindly, Mage zots guard.

6th edition, Decker kills lights, corp guard shoots at Mage and mage gets a point of Edge but otherwise needs to dodge or soak the incoming damage normally.  If the Mage lives, Mage zots guard.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Michael Chandra on (15:17:45/07-12-19)
I see a lot of 'well what about scenario X' questions but many of them weren't supported before to begin with or sound like extremely unlikely scenarios to begin with. And given how people stated that they managed to make SR5 playable with houserules, I don't see the point in acting as if needing houserules for special tables is a bad thing.

When did you ever make your enemies run out of ammo in SR5 to begin with, rather than taking them down too fast for even a single reload? Why is having multiple enemies something we care about when their hits/turn reduced in the new mook group system vs old reducing defense pool system? And why are we claiming the Playtesters were idiots?
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (15:19:21/07-12-19)
And then let's talk about the tactical impacts of those probabilities...  If I am a mage running with a bunch of melee-focused street samurai is it possible for me give them cover while they close with a bunch of CorpSec with guns?  I create smoke or darkness...  If my side tries to shoot everyone has the same problem so nobody gets edge but if my side tries to close they have edge (but still get shot by big dice pools, see above)?  Why can't I make a tactical choice to shut down ranged combat?
I feel like I must be missing something here in your example.

What is it that's preventing the mage from creating a scenario where the street samurai can close the gap while taking relatively little fire? If the mage creates an area of darkness surrounding the corporate goons, enabling their buddies to get into position while corpsec fumbles around blind, then clearly they're not an equal footing. The runners would gain Edge as they combat roll past the hail of blindfire, and could spend that Edge to mitigate any damage they'd be taking. Once the katana crew is in position the mage drops the darkness, and then violence commences.

Right?

Mage and Decker are busted while sneaking into a warehouse.  Decker is fast, Corp guard is next fast, Mage is slow.  Nobody has thermo or low light, mage has Astral vision.

5th edition, Decker kills lights, Corp guard fires blindly, Mage zots guard.

6th edition, Decker kills lights, corp guard shoots at Mage and mage gets a point of Edge but otherwise needs to dodge or soak the incoming damage normally.  If the Mage lives, Mage zots guard.

I mean, edge can literally enable "actually rather than just going out the lights explode when the decker touches them in the matrix because they're old pieces of shit and stuns the guards for a turn" as an option.

Which, both more stylish and requires less rolls of all the guards with hell modifiers failing to hit.

Edge is a wonky system but it's very weird to discredit something that can cause spouts of good luck to spring in your favour as "just one edge". It definitely can have impacts.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Ghost Rigger on (15:22:50/07-12-19)
So, to be clear, the gun I am firing at a fictional troll which is made by a fictional manufacturer in an alternate timeline for earth were like a third of the population died due to a magical plague and also magic is real is a real object?
A troll is just a creature and flesh, a bullet is just a bullet.

Quote
What is the performance of this real gun?
How am I supposed to answer that if you won't tell me which gun? Ah, but it doesn't matter, whatever you say I'll just point you to a comparable real gun.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (15:29:20/07-12-19)
So, to be clear, the gun I am firing at a fictional troll which is made by a fictional manufacturer in an alternate timeline for earth were like a third of the population died due to a magical plague and also magic is real is a real object?
A troll is just a creature and flesh, a bullet is just a bullet.

Quote
What is the performance of this real gun?
How am I supposed to answer that if you won't tell me which gun? Ah, but it doesn't matter, whatever you say I'll just point you to a comparable real gun.

I feel like you're very much yelling at trees in a forest: It does not matter which gun or which fictional creature you are firing at. The point is that Shadowrun is a thing of quite often absurd fiction and to present mechanics changes as being cause to pearl clutch about realism is both hilarious and sad.

Heck, even 2020 (famed for it's firefight rules and only having humans) has two different equally popular versions for how to resolve damage. Which one is more real? The answer is that it depends on the tone and reality you want to set for your game.

I mean hey, with soak being less of a factor trolls are now more of an embodiment of the bullet proof terror than they were in previous editions. Arguably you could posit 6th edition as the most 'realistic' version of shooting a troll with a gun Shadowrun has ever done by the parameters of their own fiction.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: duckman on (15:30:45/07-12-19)
Be that as it may, there are still a number of us looking at this and wondering how to make specific types of things matter.  My post gave a number of examples of essentially defensive play which seem to have been thrown out the window in the name of streamlining.  Refuting this one comment but saying nothing about the post that gave rise to the comment is not reassuring.

Does the system provide a mechanic for doing any of the things I suggested?  Getting the opponent to use up ammo on poor shots?  Defending myself from multiple attackers with effects I don't want to get hit by?  Shutting down ranged combat to enable my team to close?  Are *any* of these possible within the mechanics or am I reliant on a GM house-ruling a situation "reasonably" so that everyone is having fun?  In my gaming group I can count on that GM but I am blessed to be in a group with 150+ years of GMing experience at the table every Friday night.  I can't normally get that at a con event or in any random group and I am hoping that tactical play is not reliant on it.

(Heck, even if this kind of stuff is still behind an NDA, a statement that it has not all been swept away into the edge system, especially one that is limited to two edge per combat round, would be helpful.)

since this is unlocked now ... yes there are still many tactical options you can take to give yourself or your team the advantage ... MOSt of them but not all of them just boil down to your side being able to lock down one of the three potential options for edge gain during combat. There is no need to house rule anything, but it does require being able to explain or clearly show that what your doing does provide a tactical advantage. This may be a problem at some tables depending on experience and GM/play style, but I expect it should not be an issue for most.

@Banshee, I appreciate your taking time to address this and it is possible that we both agree here based on some other things you have said in this thread.

My concern is that statistically speaking 1 point of edge (if used immediately to reroll an opponent success) is a bit less than a 3-die penalty against a single attacker (or a group of Grunts).  With the limitation on gaining edge I am concerned that large scale tactical activity (anything intended to cover 3 attacks or more) is essentially still impossible as long as it is being covered by the edge mechanic.  That's not going to come up in every fight or anything but it does exemplify the kinds of fights that are the epic, memorable events in a campaign and so it is something that sticks out to me as an issue (and potentially one that could be solved or at least mitigated by going back to the 2-per-turn limit instead or the 2-per-round limit as discussed above).
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Hobbes on (15:36:57/07-12-19)
And then let's talk about the tactical impacts of those probabilities...  If I am a mage running with a bunch of melee-focused street samurai is it possible for me give them cover while they close with a bunch of CorpSec with guns?  I create smoke or darkness...  If my side tries to shoot everyone has the same problem so nobody gets edge but if my side tries to close they have edge (but still get shot by big dice pools, see above)?  Why can't I make a tactical choice to shut down ranged combat?
I feel like I must be missing something here in your example.

What is it that's preventing the mage from creating a scenario where the street samurai can close the gap while taking relatively little fire? If the mage creates an area of darkness surrounding the corporate goons, enabling their buddies to get into position while corpsec fumbles around blind, then clearly they're not an equal footing. The runners would gain Edge as they combat roll past the hail of blindfire, and could spend that Edge to mitigate any damage they'd be taking. Once the katana crew is in position the mage drops the darkness, and then violence commences.

Right?

Mage and Decker are busted while sneaking into a warehouse.  Decker is fast, Corp guard is next fast, Mage is slow.  Nobody has thermo or low light, mage has Astral vision.

5th edition, Decker kills lights, Corp guard fires blindly, Mage zots guard.

6th edition, Decker kills lights, corp guard shoots at Mage and mage gets a point of Edge but otherwise needs to dodge or soak the incoming damage normally.  If the Mage lives, Mage zots guard.

I mean, edge can literally enable "actually rather than just going out the lights explode when the decker touches them in the matrix because they're old pieces of shit and stuns the guards for a turn" as an option.

Which, both more stylish and requires less rolls of all the guards with hell modifiers failing to hit.

Edge is a wonky system but it's very weird to discredit something that can cause spouts of good luck to spring in your favour as "just one edge". It definitely can have impacts.

That's simply the difference in the rules, it's not a qualitative statement.  5th edition total darkness would be a -7, 6th edition it's a point of Edge.  If that's good or bad is a subjective judgement that folks need to make for themselves.   
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Banshee on (15:37:39/07-12-19)
Be that as it may, there are still a number of us looking at this and wondering how to make specific types of things matter.  My post gave a number of examples of essentially defensive play which seem to have been thrown out the window in the name of streamlining.  Refuting this one comment but saying nothing about the post that gave rise to the comment is not reassuring.

Does the system provide a mechanic for doing any of the things I suggested?  Getting the opponent to use up ammo on poor shots?  Defending myself from multiple attackers with effects I don't want to get hit by?  Shutting down ranged combat to enable my team to close?  Are *any* of these possible within the mechanics or am I reliant on a GM house-ruling a situation "reasonably" so that everyone is having fun?  In my gaming group I can count on that GM but I am blessed to be in a group with 150+ years of GMing experience at the table every Friday night.  I can't normally get that at a con event or in any random group and I am hoping that tactical play is not reliant on it.

(Heck, even if this kind of stuff is still behind an NDA, a statement that it has not all been swept away into the edge system, especially one that is limited to two edge per combat round, would be helpful.)

since this is unlocked now ... yes there are still many tactical options you can take to give yourself or your team the advantage ... MOSt of them but not all of them just boil down to your side being able to lock down one of the three potential options for edge gain during combat. There is no need to house rule anything, but it does require being able to explain or clearly show that what your doing does provide a tactical advantage. This may be a problem at some tables depending on experience and GM/play style, but I expect it should not be an issue for most.

@Banshee, I appreciate your taking time to address this and it is possible that we both agree here based on some other things you have said in this thread.

My concern is that statistically speaking 1 point of edge (if used immediately to reroll an opponent success) is a bit less than a 3-die penalty against a single attacker (or a group of Grunts).  With the limitation on gaining edge I am concerned that large scale tactical activity (anything intended to cover 3 attacks or more) is essentially still impossible as long as it is being covered by the edge mechanic.  That's not going to come up in every fight or anything but it does exemplify the kinds of fights that are the epic, memorable events in a campaign and so it is something that sticks out to me as an issue (and potentially one that could be solved or at least mitigated by going back to the 2-per-turn limit instead or the 2-per-round limit as discussed above).

yes, the revised edge economy will at least seem to lessen the impact (and probably realistically do so as well) but considering the opposition is working within the same economy it still has the same overall balance, and still provide those cool epic moments. Plus one of the features that hasn't been addresses yet is the ability to give edge back and forth between allies as well ... so you could very well team up for one big pay off pretty quickly which can lead to some epic drama too.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Ghost Rigger on (15:41:55/07-12-19)
I feel like you're very much yelling at trees in a forest: It does not matter which gun or which fictional creature you are firing at.
It does, actually. A troll is about the same as a bear, and most guns in Shadowrun have a real world equivalent. If the effects of shooting a troll with a gun is about the same as shooting a bear with a gun, then we can it realistic.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (15:45:00/07-12-19)
I feel like you're very much yelling at trees in a forest: It does not matter which gun or which fictional creature you are firing at.
It does, actually. A troll is about the same as a bear, and most guns in Shadowrun have a real world equivalent. If the effects of shooting a troll with a gun is about the same as shooting a bear with a gun, then we can it realistic.

So what you're saying is any time shooting a troll with a gun doesn't match up to bear hunting the game is unrealistic?
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Ghost Rigger on (15:46:20/07-12-19)
With some fudge room to compensate for the fact that a troll isn't quite a bear, yes.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (15:47:10/07-12-19)
With some fudge room to compensate for the fact that a troll isn't quite a bear, yes.

So a troll is a fictional creature?  ;)
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Ghost Rigger on (15:49:07/07-12-19)
A troll is a fictional creature that can be approximated with a real bear. Are you going somewhere with this?
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (15:51:27/07-12-19)
A troll is a fictional creature that can be approximated with a real bear. Are you going somewhere with this?

The exact same place that it started: That the troll is fictional and it's approximation one way or another to whatever touchstone you think makes it 'real' is artificial and even subjective among the people who agree it's 'like a bear'.

There are no real trolls or realistic shadowrun rules.

Because realism is a silly word to use for a game about shooting dragons with sniper rifles.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (15:52:21/07-12-19)
Jesus. No one is asking for pure realism in a fantasy game. They want the game world to react in ways that make sense so people can relate to it and plan around it. Thatís why there are rules on how magic words instead of just a sentence that says, itís magic. They want concealed targets to be harder or hit, strong people to hit harder than weak ones. They arenít saying you have to perfectly model a troll, but if a troll is a 400kg mass of bone and muscle it should probably be tougher than a human on average.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Ghost Rigger on (15:53:41/07-12-19)
More specifically, it should be about as tough as 400kg bipeds that we know about, which happens to include bears.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: FastJack on (15:53:47/07-12-19)
Enough guys. This is the reason I'm considering locking this thread permanently. Your both of opposite opinions, no one is right, no one is wrong, no need to continue the back and forth.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (15:58:04/07-12-19)
Jesus. No one is asking for pure realism in a fantasy game. They want the game world to react in ways that make sense so people can relate to it and plan around it. Thatís why there are rules on how magic words instead of just a sentence that says, itís magic. They want concealed targets to be harder or hit, strong people to hit harder than weak ones. They arenít saying you have to perfectly model a troll, but if a troll is a 400kg mass of bone and muscle it should probably be tougher than a human on average.

This is actually true in sixth edition. Luckily for you that editions fiction and what you expect from it have lined up.

And hey, if you can relate and make sense more of magic with rules based around what you feel to be more real or grounded, then uh, that doesn't make the magic more realistic. It just means it's genre sensibilities and yours line up.

Just like how some people prefer the tone granted by a system which emphasizes flowing and dramatic advantages over lopsided die pools granting advantage. Certainly a different tone. Definitely no more 'real' than one which decrees X as the arbitrary number of dice you lose from your pool of abstracted competence.

EDIT: Apologies to the mod, didn't give me the "someone has posted" warning when I hit post. I think I've more or less made my point about how arbitary game mechanics are well, arbitary regardless so am happy to let barking dogs alone.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (15:59:37/07-12-19)
The exact same place that it started: That the troll is fictional and it's approximation one way or another to whatever touchstone you think makes it 'real' is artificial and even subjective among the people who agree it's 'like a bear'.

There are no real trolls or realistic shadowrun rules.

Because realism is a silly word to use for a game about shooting dragons with sniper rifles.

this comment is lazy, as you've either not read previous comments addressing this fallacy or your ignoring them.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (16:04:04/07-12-19)
The exact same place that it started: That the troll is fictional and it's approximation one way or another to whatever touchstone you think makes it 'real' is artificial and even subjective among the people who agree it's 'like a bear'.

There are no real trolls or realistic shadowrun rules.

Because realism is a silly word to use for a game about shooting dragons with sniper rifles.

this comment is lazy, as you've either not read previous comments addressing this fallacy or your ignoring them.

Lazy is a fucking piss poor word to come from the guy whose post history in sixth edition sutff might as well be "I don't like men in black".

Like your literal last post was to complain "actually I want it to not be realistic but more real than that" and then you're calling me lazy for examining how realism isn't a meaningful damn word in a fictional game system? Come on man.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: dezmont on (16:04:17/07-12-19)
I think there is some merit to the argument that SR is... frankly... a very high powered (some may say zany, but it tends to be good at internally accounting for the fact PC 'tiers' of PCs are so powerful 99% of the setting can't meaningfully stop them, only slow them down. HTR, focusing on security and stalling tools in architecture via locking doors or cover or smoke poppers, ect) setting that allows PCs to do things so well that trying to accurately model little nitty gritty penalties may seem weird.

However, there is also some merit to it. As many people have pointed out, the fact that penalties exist favor the PCs quite heavily, even when the modifiers are equal to both offense and defense (And they often aren't, if someone tosses a smoke grenade in the middle of a room and both sides are taking -3 to hit because they have to sensor target, who is going to benefit more, the 20 defense dice, 20 attack dice street samurai, or the 12 defense dice, 8 attack dice corpsec team?).

But also, said penalties help contextualize the superhuman abilities of runners (and some of their opponents). A street samurai is more agile than the most agile human in existence because they literally replaced their muscles, sees time in slow motion because they stripped out the nerve endings in their spine, and can see bullet trajectories and calculate wind speeds and air pressure using a mini-super computer in their eyes. It helps you really wrap your head around how good that street samurai is when they can hit 4 different moving targets in the span of 3 seconds not even bothering to use the sights of their pistol at 60 meters out in a rainstorm. It helps contextualize that 8 dice to hit is quite fine for a human (because most people in real life use the aim action to boost their hit rate and semi-auto burst) but is pathetic compared to a superhuman cyborg straight out of cyberpunk fiction like Molly Millions or The Major.

Is the complexity worth that little extra bit of flavor-mechanical link? Maybe. You could easily get rid of it by focusing more dice into gear and 'ware so that the gap naturally is just bigger all the time and corpsec roll fewer dice, but with the new mechanic of attack rating it seems like the gap isn't just shrinking, but borderline going away, and I think that is what is spooking people the most. Low complexity modifier situations are fine enough as a mechanic, you will always get people freaking out over them because that is a big change for SR but they aren't inherently bad, but we also are seeing a very big focus on attacking the concept of the superhuman SR PC, which I think is a more radical departure from the game's entire history.

It isn't hard to notice that the changes to damage code, soak, and edge are pushing it so that PCs take more damage but are also dying less when they take damage. It feels like the goal is to make SR way more focused on 'fair' fights ala D&D where your fighter is taking hits but giving em out in equal measure, which the game has never really been about and isn't why people enjoy the game line. I think another good reason people are spooked a bit is because it isn't like street samurai were oppressive. They served to in a way show you immediately that you couldn't run SR as a combat grinder game, because SR's street samurai never got ground down in combat ever. The interesting vulnerability they had wasn't taking damage over time, but the fact that a street samurai's ability to help their team is very 'localized.' They can't do things in rooms they aren't in, which every other PC type can do. It forces you as a GM to not view a straight up combat where the stakes are just 'maybe a PC will die' as an interesting thing, because, frankly, it isn't interesting in most RPGs because killing a player character in a remotely noticeable percentage of fights in any RPG, no matter how fast the chargen is, creates an incoherent story where your cast is constantly rotating out and you can't really grow attached to the character's personal tale.

As someone else said, the playtesting sample size quality really shows and it feels like it was playtested on people who really enjoyed 5e D&D and its focus on gradual healing resource loss rather than cunning plans, non-dice/death based fail-states, and intense explosive set-piece actions. That may be intentional, maybe its an attempt to make SR more mainstream, but this is coming at a really huge cost I don't think most people would want to pay.

Combat now is in a way that splitting the team to do different tasks, something SR did so well its almost the game's main mechanic, not realistic because your just too vulnerable now. Samurai PC can't trash a room full of grunts anymore, which was a huge appeal of the role, and don't seem to do anything that well, so unless the resources to be a samurai go way down to allow them to hybridize their role we likely won't be seeing mundane combat characters that often. Dramatic, intense infiltration or exfiltrations that depend on the overwhelming force a samurai can apply in a single area... don't exist? It feels now like... D&D but with guns?

In essence, I think the question that needs to be answered here isn't "Are simplified vs complex contextual modifiers good or bad" or "How does this affect the relationship between PCs and NPCs?" The first is totally opinion (though the fact that this system depends on GM fiat constantly probably means it will be more annoying than the old table system and make this game really unpopular with 'low confidence' players who get nervous and have negative experiences when they don't know what is going on or what to expect, who are totally valid and make up a huge portion of the RPG demographic), and the second is obvious. The real question to ask is "How does this change the actual way SR is played, and if it removes core elements of the line, what does it replace them with?" We seem to be in a similar area with what was done to 5e riggers and hackers where there was a huge design focus on eliminating a 'problem' rather than making the systems enjoyable to use, though much like trying to stop powerful drones or remote hackers, I am very skeptical soak tanks and overwhelming PC advantage vs grunts without superpowers like them was a problem.

So like... what is the actual appeal of SR6? Why is it good? Why is it fun? Simplification can help a fun game be MORE fun by getting rid of the unfun stuff, and complexity can hide the fun, but neither of these things are fun. If SR6 was designed purely to be more simple, that is fine, but if it sacrifies the enjoyable aspects of SR... then no amount of simplification will make it good. Maybe if we saw new amazing actions that huff edge like no tomorrow that make samurai really valuable in combat, or really neat things that require a ton of skillpool and consistency people would have more confidence in the combat systems, but as is it just seems like the soul was ripped out of it, not because situational mods are gone, I again could see a reality where they entirely went away, but because so many babies were thrown out with the bathwater here and the GM fiat edge system as simplification is being mistaken for an interesting fun system.

If SR6 is going out of its way to make it so I don't have anything to sink my teeth into and is trying to make every interaction essentially GM adjudicated, why on earth should I play it? This is not a rhetorical 'you screwed up' question (Unless you literally can't answer it, in which case that bodes EXTREMELY poorly for the future of 6e), but a serious question that needs to be answered if anyone is going to get hype for 6e: Give me something I am going to love, don't advertise how little I am going to hate it.

I am not saying it is going to be bad, but I am saying nothing here displays why it is GOOD, and the fact that there is such a pushback about the objective truth of what global mods did to interactions between PCs and NPCs really doesn't build confidence. Like people played and loved exalted 1e despite the fact it was a total hot mess because Exalted gave you something to love, and the fixes to 1e in the form of scroll of Errata didn't try to stop the things people enjoyed despite some of them being way too good, but just made the experience more cohesive. People love 3.5 D&D despite its balance being terrible, because there is something there good. SR3e, 4e, and 5e all also are loved by many people because they all do some things truly excellently. Balance and design is important, do not get it twisted, a big thing hurting SR is the callous treatment of balance, but most RPGs that people love are loved because they evoke truly great experiences more than the fact they have no pointy edges that can cut you.

This isn't getting into the fact that while SR isn't a simulationist game that edge generation is so jarring in terms of effect that it actively takes people out of the experience or that it is really hard to come up with environmental scenarios that make sense. Those issues can just be fixed by the Gm ALSO using situational modifiers, and its weird that the designers tried to remove those from the game entirely rather than just reduce their scope and complexity. It doesn't excuse their absence, but the real game design sin here seems to just be that combat seems... lame. Where is the hype? Cmon, show me some cool new samurai supermoves! everyone else is getting new stuff why am I, a hypothetical samurai player in this imagined dialogue, just getting worse and less interesting?!?

SR6 already HAS done some things that have built hype a bit in my mind: The reduction in decker prices and focus on splitting the purchases means that now hybrid deckers can work hypothetically, so now I can finally play my old and sour combat decker who was hacking when the internet was still a thing! The changes to metatypes are legit great because now I can play whatever I want whenever I want and not ruin my PC and oh my god what are these race specific benefits you can buy going to be? That is legit hype generation. But the combat systems did the opposite of that by seemingly constraining the space as much as possible and not even being a good simplified system in my mind because it leans too hard on the GMs whims. Like other games that have GM adjudicated modifiers rather than a set table tend to do it in a way where the player has control over it (ex: Fate and tagging aspects being a thing players always do) for a reason.

Or; TL:DR:

"You shouldn't want everyone to like your game, or be afraid that some people will bounce off it. You should make sure some people LOVE your game." Mark Rosewater, paraphrased.

There are plenty of grinder combat game systems out there and if I love SR I actually probably don't love them, judging by how many people like to be mean to people transitioning from D&D to SR on reddit. Why should I love this new edition of SR6's combat that just makes the crunchy combat I liked simpler and more grindy? Don't tell me what I am not going to hate, tell me what I will like!
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Michael Chandra on (16:07:11/07-12-19)
Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (16:14:03/07-12-19)
Or; TL:DR:

"You shouldn't want everyone to like your game, or be afraid that some people will bounce off it. You should make sure some people LOVE your game." Mark Rosewater, paraphrased.

There are plenty of grinder combat game systems out there and if I love SR I actually probably don't love them, judging by how many people like to be mean to people transitioning from D&D to SR on reddit. Why should I love this new edition of SR6's combat that just makes the crunchy combat I liked simpler and more grindy? Don't tell me what I am not going to hate, tell me what I will like!

I mean, if you've got a huge post about why you like the old combat and don't think the new combat is for you then uh, this quote is super applicable no?

Unless you think "people" is a word that refers only to your own experience.

EDIT: And this is, again, coming from someone who doesn't think 6th edition is going to be any better than 5th for their preferences.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (16:15:18/07-12-19)
There'll always be people who don't like a change, The bigger the change, the more people that'll be.

I do think 6e's changes are, when taken as a whole, both an improvement over 5e as well as making SR more attractive to new players.  And the latter is, when you get down to brass tacks, the single most important thing in a game.


I totally get negative reactions.  For me, 4th "killed" everything I thought Shadowrun was supposed to be.  In my case, I quit the game for an entire edition.  I get it when people don't like what they're hearing about 6w... I've been there with 4th.

But on a long perspective, I do really think 6e is not just a better game than 5e... but that 6e (or something like it) is necessary if SR is to remain a living, supported game.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: dezmont on (16:16:08/07-12-19)
Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to.

You realize that Kylo was framed as being totally in the wrong when he said this right? Like his entire arc is that he has learned nothing from the past and is doomed to make the same dumb mistakes over and over because he refuses to grow.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: dezmont on (16:25:44/07-12-19)
[quote author=Quantronic DreamViolence link=topic=29520

I mean, if you've got a huge post about why you like the old combat and don't think the new combat is for you then uh, this quote is super applicable no?

Unless you think "people" is a word that refers only to your own experience.

EDIT: And this is, again, coming from someone who doesn't think 6th edition is going to be any better than 5th for their preferences.
[/quote]

My post was basically saying "Simplifying is fine. Changing the combat system is fine. But sell the changes as good, not as 'not bad.'" Maybe I should have baked that more into the TL;DR, but I did try to make it clear that I don't think old SR is perfect (And I actually tried to make a bit of a dig at people who turn their noses up at D&D and simple combat systems, but I suppose I utterly failed to make that clear) and that the idea of simplifying it could work, but there needs to be something good about the new system, not just 'less bad.'

Like the new combat system's changes can be summed up as 'removing fiddly bits and simplifying it.' Sure. Ok. A lot of my favorite combat systems are very simple. Traveller comes to mind.

Now why is this good? Why will this be fun? So much of the dev talk is about how they don't like something about the old system and are nuking it, but there is so little talk about what will be fun or great about combat, especially for PC types that are losing a major dimension of themselves.

If you were to be asked "What is cool about 6e combat" what would you say, other than saying 'its simple, you don't need to look stuff up?'

In Exalted you have crazy charm combos that allow you to do wacky things. D&D 3.5 has a super complex spell space that helps elevate it above grinder combat.

Traveller, a very simple combat system, is basically rocket tag where defensive actions are very strong but if someone subverts your defensive actions through finding a clever way to bypass them your probably doomed so despite the fact guns are very scary you want to be doing proactive things in addition to hiding and running.

SR5 focuses on one side establishing a huge advantage, usually yours, that turns fights into puzzles almost like Hotline Miami where when things are going well you roll through everyone, when they are not things go terrible. SR4 is hyper-lethal, a lot like Trav, but with more complexity and fancier tools.

What about 6e? What is going to be the thing that makes it actively fun? What do you do in a 6e combat? What are you trying to accomplish in order to eliminate your foe? Avoid? There isn't a lot of focus on that, there is in fact sort of an anti-focus on it in some ways by talking a lot about things canceling out and situational effects being very limited in scope and intensity.

6e's combat MAY be great. But they aren't talking about why it is great. They are talking about how they are trying to get rid of things they don't like. They are pushing for like, rather than love, and I think that is a real problem when the like comes at the cost of love. I didn't think it needed to be said, but so far we have seen nothing constructive about the new system, only reductive. It is fine if you do want to reduce 5e's combat system, but that still leaves samurai PC in the lurch. I think it is obvious that if we don't learn anything new and transformative about the new combat system anyone who plays a combat PC transitioning from 5e to 6e is going to be extremely disappointed, and no one who didn't enjoy a combat PC in 5e is going to find 6e makes it better for them because, again, combat PCs and a focus on combat is just now worse and less rewarding.

If everything about your combat PC gets worse, and a major dimension for why you would make a combat PC goes away, and nothing fills that gap, then what are people who play combat PCs going to do? Like that isn't me projecting my distaste of 6e's combat system on everyone, that is a super valid question any game designer would (or should) ask: "OK, so you got rid of the old upshot and basically turned every dial down... so what is the new upshot?"
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (16:30:21/07-12-19)
[quote author=Quantronic DreamViolence link=topic=29520

I mean, if you've got a huge post about why you like the old combat and don't think the new combat is for you then uh, this quote is super applicable no?

Unless you think "people" is a word that refers only to your own experience.

EDIT: And this is, again, coming from someone who doesn't think 6th edition is going to be any better than 5th for their preferences.

My post was basically saying "Simplifying is fine. Changing the combat system is fine. But sell the changes as good, not as 'not bad.'" Maybe I should have baked that more into the TL;DR, but I did try to make it clear that I don't think old SR is perfect (And I actually tried to make a bit of a dig at people who turn their noses up at D&D and simple combat systems, but I suppose I utterly failed to make that clear) and that the idea of simplifying it could work, but there needs to be something good about the new system, not just 'less bad.'

Like the new combat system's changes can be summed up as 'removing fiddly bits and simplifying it.' Sure. Ok. A lot of my favorite combat systems are very simple. Traveller comes to mind.

Now why is this good? Why will this be fun? So much of the dev talk is about how they don't like something about the old system and are nuking it, but there is so little talk about what will be fun or great about combat, especially for PC types that are losing a major dimension of themselves.

If you were to be asked "What is cool about 6e combat" what would you say, other than saying 'its simple, you don't need to look stuff up?'

In Exalted you have crazy charm combos that allow you to do wacky things. D&D 3.5 has a super complex spell space that helps elevate it above grinder combat.

Traveller, a very simple combat system, is basically rocket tag where defensive actions are very strong but if someone subverts your defensive actions through finding a clever way to bypass them your probably doomed so despite the fact guns are very scary you want to be doing proactive things in addition to hiding and running.

SR5 focuses on one side establishing a huge advantage, usually yours, that turns fights into puzzles almost like Hotline Miami where when things are going well you roll through everyone, when they are not things go terrible. SR4 is hyper-lethal, a lot like Trav, but with more complexity and fancier tools.

What about 6e? What is going to be the thing that makes it actively fun? What do you do in a 6e combat? What are you trying to accomplish in order to eliminate your foe? Avoid? There isn't a lot of focus on that, there is in fact sort of an anti-focus on it in some ways by talking a lot about things canceling out and situational effects being very limited in scope and intensity.

6e's combat MAY be great. But they aren't talking about why it is great. They are talking about how they are trying to get rid of things they don't like. They are pushing for like, rather than love, and I think that is a real problem when the like comes at the cost of love.
[/quote]

6th's combat will (presumably) flow better and be about closer fights tipped by cool edge effects allowing player expression for resolution and more dynamic circumstances than pure GM fiat or action economy in 5th can allow.

Like that's 6th's whole gimmick near as I can tell: Shadowrun streamlined with narrative currency.

Which I'm not overly enthused about (because I'd like trolls with clubs to hit harder than humans) but it's a perfectly decent pitch that I'll be happy to read.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Banshee on (16:31:38/07-12-19)
dezmont's post triggered one thing I want to post here

Now I can't go into much detail without giving away some things that are still behind NDA (grrrr can't wait for that to be over soon) ... but anyhow a well equipped street sam with at least 4 edge out of the gate can still reliably mow down an entire group of goons before they ever get a chance to react. I have done as a player and had it happen as a GM both so far. Now granted to will be almost edgeless afterwards but it can be done. Now if you are just a little bit more conservative with your edge, that same street sam can also solo that same group of goons in just a hand full of rounds and come out barely hurt if hurt at all.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (16:33:59/07-12-19)
Quote
"In the end, we came up with a system that kept my group's hacker and mage happily sitting at the table and waiting for their next turns instead of whipping out phones or checking out or going to pick up pizza, while also making the street sam feel like she still ruled combat in the shadows."

That's a pretty huge improvement over 5e in my view.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: dezmont on (16:38:15/07-12-19)

6th's combat will (presumably) flow better and be about closer fights tipped by cool edge effects allowing player expression for resolution and more dynamic circumstances than pure GM fiat or action economy in 5th can allow.


I can see why it might flow better, but nothing about new edge allows for more expression and dynamic circumstances. Furthermore, this does nothing for old combat PCs, who, again, just had their raison d'Ítre just... evaporate. Unless we see a very intense use for a huge edge surplus edge will likely actually make combat much more static. Having seen multiple LPs where the samurai just gets dunked on I am not optimistic about the future of the archetype. And that shouldn't be surprising because a stated goal was to make them less overwhelming in a fight. Which is fine but, again, what was that replaced with?


Like that's 6th's whole gimmick near as I can tell: Shadowrun streamlined with narrative currency.

Which I'm not overly enthused about (because I'd like trolls with clubs to hit harder than humans) but it's a perfectly decent pitch that I'll be happy to read.

As someone who has played quite a few narrative focused RPGs, there are good narrative currencies and bad ones. A good example is fate, because it gives players more narrative control and reduces the GM's need to track stuff.

Not to get too deep into the weeds of why I don't think new edge will work (I deliberately pretended it would accomplish its goal of simplification when trying to point out that in game design terms that doesn't translate to 'good' or 'fun' because I think it is important to highlight the changes, even if they worked, won't draw people to SR, like you yourself said), but SR's edge does the opposite of what you want a narrative mechanic to do. It forces the GM to constantly think and adjudicate about specifics without good guidelines and increases the specificity they need to apply to the world because now the players absolutely have to care about every tiny detail to earn that edge.

In a good narrative system, earning currency happens as an afterthought of the GM, and you spend it to create detail where there wasn't so that mismatches in the mental image of the game stop being a flaw and instead are something that the players can actively leverage and create stories out of. Earning is passive, use is active.

In a bad one, the currency forces you to be extremely detail oriented to earn which increases the consequences of miscommunication and mismatched mental images of a situation, and their effects are boring and very static, which edge seems to fit to a T. Earning is active, use is passive.

I think this is also the issue with Anarchy: A good narrative system puts narrative control in players hands and lets the GM lean back a bit, and it seems to be the key element missed here and in Anarchy. Fate and Savage World hacks of SR are really popular already, so it isn't like SR would die without complexity, but the pitch of 'narrative SR' needs to be backed up by good narrative systems.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Quantronic DreamViolence on (16:45:09/07-12-19)
You can get more expression purely via having an extra vector for it in edge tokens and when you spend it. I don't disagree with the rest of stuff where I'm not convinced by it being a particularly fluid or smooth version of narrative or momentum tokens.

But then again shadowrun has almost never being a system about smoothness. For better and often worse.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: dezmont on (16:53:16/07-12-19)
You can get more expression purely via having an extra vector for it in edge tokens and when you spend it. I don't disagree with the rest of stuff where I'm not convinced by it being a particularly fluid or smooth version of narrative or momentum tokens.

But then again shadowrun has almost never being a system about smoothness. For better and often worse.

I suppose that could be viewed as narrative control if you really squint but I always had the power to describe my rolls the way I wanted to in Sr anyway.

Still, by and large I think we mostly agree that the pitch is good and execution looks questionable in the extreme. I am more focused on the design philosophy where it seems like they made the same mistake they made going from 4e to 5e: Focusing on limitations and overfocusing on how to turn things down in a vacuum, rather than why something is good. Like the simplification angle is fine, but there is also a clear angle of an unambiguous nerf to Street Sams and to a lesser extent mundane PCs in order to facilitate this, so if that ends up being true, and nothing comes in to fill the void left in street samurai by losing defensive supremacy, old initiative, and the ability to push through insane modifiers, that is... a problem and it is going to not just fail to get people to love combat in SR, but make them not like it, which is obviously not good.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Michael Chandra on (16:56:11/07-12-19)
Except that a lot of people loved it in playtesting. So honestly I think that not everyone with a negative opinion will stick with that when it comes to actual play.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: dezmont on (17:02:40/07-12-19)
Except that a lot of people loved it in playtesting. So honestly I think that not everyone with a negative opinion will stick with that when it comes to actual play.

Multiple testers have come out and said it isn't good as well at pretty significant risk to their relationships with Cata, and the testing environment seems to have been small scale static groups with rapid design turn around which is... not a good testing environment. Nominally this was done for cost reasons, but I don't think there is any pretense that this was an ideal environment, and even in this environment that is going to bias extremely hard towards an artificially narrow consensus we are getting pretty strong warnings about this system.

So like yeah maybe it will be successful but I think that it is pretty clear the concerns about this interpretation of narrative mechanics flipping the traditional dynamic that makes narrative mechanics so good are, while obviously not confirmed because none of us can see the future, very valid. It could be great. It could be taste based. But lets not pretend that this is some isolated belly aching when errata team members are brawling out with the designers about the math and concepts behind this. There are very real reasons to be skeptical here, and pretending these concerns are unfounded, even if they aren't correct, doesn't serve anyone.

At the very least it strongly indicates these changes were not SOLD well, and that Cata should change its communications style when relaying these changes, because first impressions matter a lot for a product launch.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Michael Chandra on (17:13:29/07-12-19)
the testing environment seems to have been small scale static groups with rapid design turn around which is... not a good testing environment.
If you're going to claim your interpretations are solid reality about how the playtesting went, I don't think there's any point to this topic. Nobody ever claimed only a few small groups were involved. And people not liking all is not the same as 'everything is bad'.

Since your mind is obviously set, I'm out. I've had it with the attempts to lure out NDA-violations by some people.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: dezmont on (17:19:20/07-12-19)
the testing environment seems to have been small scale static groups with rapid design turn around which is... not a good testing environment.
If you're going to claim your interpretations are solid reality about how the playtesting went, I don't think there's any point to this topic.

I am not claiming anything about how play-testing went. Like I said, getting hyper-defensive about the optics of 6e doesn't serve anyone.

I am saying that from an objective standpoint if that summation of the environment is accurate (and you are claiming its not, which is its own problem in terms of the optics, especially because Cata essentially confirmed it was true in trying to excuse why it happened as a cost measure, so now we are getting mixed messages) that is not a good play-testing environment for the same reason why you wouldn't want to do that for a clinical trial or for a survey: Your continued interaction, immediate effect on the results, and small sample size would bias the results.

It is essentially an echo chamber. Maybe that didn't influence the results, I definitely don't think anyone deliberately tried to make anything worse, but there is a lot to be kinda "Eh" about. Optics of a product launch are incredibly important and getting huffy that people are saying 'this looks sketchy and there is a lot to be concerned about' isn't... going to help anything.

And this isn't an attempt to bait an NDA violation. Obviously no one testing the game should give details about 'razzle dazzle' in violation of NDA. Part of the problem likely stems from a lack of a centralized narrative about 6e anyway that is resulting in rampant speculation and leak culture. What I am saying is that the way that the combat of 6e has been officially sold is not good, and saying 'Well people in playtests liked it' is sketchy on many levels. For one, if they did, it would behoove the official communication to play up these enjoyable accounts, maybe even get some quotes. For another, that is just more mixed messages. And finally, we are hearing weird stuff about the playtests anyway, so even if those rumors about them are not true that is still not going to boost confidence, which matters, because negative buzz isn't an adversarial thing. Cata isn't (or shouldn't be) viewing people being anxious or concerned with a launch in an adversarial light, that is a losing marketing strategy.

They shouldn't be bending over backwards to every little criticism either mind, but like managing the buzz and perception of a product around launch is literally one of the most important things for a company to do. It is literally an entire discipline of marketing, and when a company loses control over a product launch's narrative that is in its own way a red flag.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (17:33:19/07-12-19)
Dezmont, I daresay you're mistaking plebean forum chatter as CGL communication.

The marketing is those updates like the one this thread is discussing.  Everyhing you've seen in this thread is fandom discussion. Even the statements by those posters bound by NDAs.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (17:52:05/07-12-19)
The exact same place that it started: That the troll is fictional and it's approximation one way or another to whatever touchstone you think makes it 'real' is artificial and even subjective among the people who agree it's 'like a bear'.

There are no real trolls or realistic shadowrun rules.

Because realism is a silly word to use for a game about shooting dragons with sniper rifles.

this comment is lazy, as you've either not read previous comments addressing this fallacy or your ignoring them.

Lazy is a fucking piss poor word to come from the guy whose post history in sixth edition sutff might as well be "I don't like men in black".

Like your literal last post was to complain "actually I want it to not be realistic but more real than that" and then you're calling me lazy for examining how realism isn't a meaningful damn word in a fictional game system? Come on man.

with the utmost to respect as you as an individual the use of the word lazy in this context was accurate.
why?
because I have stated the same response to your "realism" fallacy and yet you ignored those comments.

moreover this reply of your is also lazy as it incorrectly summarizes my statements on 6e, boiling it down to a comment that bears no relation to the thoughtful and in-depth comments i have posted within this thread.

I actually love MiB, just not as an RPG.
I also love trolls with axes lopping heads off of elves with monowhips.
However I also love it when that troll's axe swing bears some relation to the fact that the 600 pound combat troll is an order of magnitude more dangerous than a pixie with the same combat axe.
This is the crux of my dissatisfaction with the direction 6e has gone.
It perfectly summarizes the inanity that can occur when you so completely decouple mechanics from what should happen IRL.
It becomes a parody of itself.

I recognize that people have very different playstyles from our table, and have very different reasons to play that drives those preferred styles.
It's totally cool that you want some insane, crazy, stunt-driven mechanics for your RPG, that's awesome!
However it's not me, and it's not my table.
Our preference is to have that combat troll swing his axe with enough force to take down that armored door with one shot while the pixie struggles to lift the same axe.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: dezmont on (18:04:20/07-12-19)
Dezmont, I daresay you're mistaking plebean forum chatter as CGL communication.

The marketing is those updates like the one this thread is discussing.  Everyhing you've seen in this thread is fandom discussion. Even the statements by those posters bound by NDAs.

I am aware! I have been under NDA with Catalyst before, I 100% get that people often confuse you with an official company rep.

I mean I read those. I am saying it wasn't good. It definitely is a step waaaay in the right direction for Cata, definitely a vast improvement, but there is a ways to go. It is a solid B- in terms of being a product teaser, maybe a B, but it has some flaws if I were to grade it (and I do, actually for the record if I may flex for a bit, assist in grading articles like this now that I work part time teaching at a vocational highschool while I get my masters in communications theory with a concentration in applied social media, so I kinda want to stress I at the very least am crazy in debt to own a document saying I know what I am talking about here, even if you want to claim I actually don't!).

But for example, the article decided to make the lead answer to the question of 'What makes SR6 combat awesome' with 'First and foremost were the complexity of rolls being made' and 'we looked to stripping it down.' It builds up to the fact it is going to say more about combat... but then every paragraph is how much more streamlined things are! The conclusion is strong, but, again, focused purely on simplification. Every single paragraph and new concept introduced loops back around to simplification, and fails to talk about how it actually plays or feels.

There is one positive anecdote, and to be fair it is really strong.

"In the end, we came up with a system that kept my groupís hacker and mage happily sitting at the table and waiting for their next turn instead of whipping out phones or checking out or going to pick up pizza, while also making the street sam feel like she still ruled combat in the shadows."

This is great. It is strong, it claims to solve to an old problem SR has, this is definitely something that will get people to notice a major improvement if its true. But... you will notice... its not talking about how combat is specifically good. It talks about removing a problem, and alludes to something good unsupported by the work. In fact, it is the only reference to a combat PC type in the entire release. If the article also included some information on how it feels to be a combat PC in this system (it contains none, the entire article is purely about how edge makes things more simple) this would be the thing that puts people over the moon and gives it an A+ over all. As is though, it is the thing I would circle on the paper and write 'elaborate?' on in red pen. They managed to point out that being a mage or decker in a fight feels less draggy in the article, but didn't talk about the converse 'but samurai still feel really good' line, which is bad because Mages and Deckers got a lot of love in other articles already and this is nominally about The Street Sam's entire gimmick. It is easy to see why people are talking about the dawn of Troll Soaktank mages replacing sams now, even if that won't actually end up being true! We haven't heard anything about why samurai will be rockin, but we heard a lot about mages to make people either over-evaluate their capabilities in a way that makes them have negative perception of the product, or accurately clock that they will be way too good this edition. Regardless of what is true, you don't want people thinking that!

This article needed a paragraph or two to build up to that last sentence. Like a few sentences mentioning that having a high attack and defense rating makes you feel really strong in combat or is really helpful because of edge generation would help so much, but they literally did the opposite and in paragraph 11 said that edge is no longer as precious as it used to be!

Also they have some single line paragraphs. Looks good talking casually about something, which is the tone they went for here.

But sometimes they are separated out for no reason when they aren't used to bridge two paragraphs and are really about the one above.

I can't stress enough how much I thoroughly applaud CGL for these articles, how they actually are really useful and do help manage expectations and mellow the discourse. I suspect things would be a LOT worse without em. But this article really... doesn't address many of the concerns being raised, and they were raised as far back as the Shadowcasters preview. So it isn't like "Cata are such idiots" or "The game is going to suck hard" but there is a lot of validity in the concerns and perceptions being formed because Cata either doesn't have a response (AKA it IS actually going to suck and they don't want to lie), they don't know how to respond, feel uncomfortable responding because the internet sucks and is good at sustaining infinite negativity (which is why I have kinda avoided talking about 6e with people as much as possible because I found getting stuck in those cycles unhhealthy), or are just inexperienced when it comes to this sorta thing (the most likely actual answer). Better does not mean good, but better should be applauded as long as Cata continues to seek better, which I think it hopefully is.

But to be clear, when a company has a PR crisis, especially at a product launch, traditional wisdom is to always internalize the failure and view it as 'your own fault.' Trying to blame your customer base for not liking you irrationally is sorta appealing on a human level but doing so is basically admitting you have no control over your company's perceptions or success, so absolving yourself of that blame is actually sort of nihilistically accepting failure. And, in reality, PR and community management are sciences and in general it is very easy to see where negativity comes from in hindsight. And I think Cata has historically done that, but has been getting more succesful recently in realizing it has the power to control and redirect perceptions about them. It is why these articles exist at all! A big complaint about Cata has been their design process has been very opaque when it leads to bad results, and now the curtain is being lifted a little and while there is still belly aching it is hard not to notice the tone hasn't changed a bit. It is a step in the right direction.

Hopefully they keep making more, and a good way to do that is, again, to make people excited and feel like they are getting something new, no matter what kinda PC they are, where currently a lot of focus is on mages and deckers right now in terms of what they are getting and there is a lot of dancing around what Samurai obviously lost. That dancing is not subtle, and pretending people noticing it are just whiners does not build confidence, even IF they start getting transference and start complaining about the entire edge system (which admittedly may be happening, but I doubt it because, again, new edge inverts why narrative resource mechanics work because it forces the amount of detail the GM must include up rather than down) and being overly negative. Even if the complaints are irrationally hitting unrelated stuff, pointing that out without addressing the thing that was accurately noticed doesn't win you any PR points. it actually loses you them because despite being technically correct your trying to push through an irrational distaste backed by something that is actually rational to be concerned about.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Iron Serpent Prince on (18:40:22/07-12-19)
Except that a lot of people loved it in playtesting. So honestly I think that not everyone with a negative opinion will stick with that when it comes to actual play.

I've been involved in some playtest groups.  Nothing involving Catalyst in any way.

One of my first, my gaming group signed up for and was accepted without my involvement.   By the time I had any idea of what was going on, they were saying at our monthly meeting that they had three months to playtest the rules.  I accepted, and was looking forward to it.

To shorten the long story, after three months of excuses and zero play time, the person in charge of the playtest in the group asked everyone if they would allow them to send in a playtest report for the rest of us.  Yes, without any playtime and with only one person even reading the rules.

After everyone else agreed, I followed suit.  I felt dirty about it...  But hey!  We got our names in the book as playtesters!



My point is that while I don't accuse all playtest groups of doing that...  It can happen.  As such the findings of closed playtest groups is suspect at best - and yes it is because of a likely tiny fraction of playtesters.

Personally, if the playtest isn't an open one, I don't put any stock in it.  YMMV.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (18:45:57/07-12-19)
.... Even if the complaints are irrationally hitting unrelated stuff, pointing that out without addressing the thing that was accurately noticed doesn't win you any PR points. it actually loses you them because despite being technically correct your trying to push through an irrational distaste backed by something that is actually rational to be concerned about.

What a constructive post Dezmont.

As the current sole participant in the Internet Constructive Post Committee I am awarding you twelve brownie points, to be spent as you see fit (you can even convert them to bonus edge points when in combat!).
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: FastJack on (19:32:07/07-12-19)
People have been warned about breaking ToS just after I told the thread to watch it or I'll close the thread. Warnings have been sent, this thread is closed for discussion until tomorrow.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Hephaestus on (14:02:37/07-16-19)
Thanks to Fastjack for unlocking the thread. Hopefully everyone has had some time to chill, so we don't get locked up again.

That aside, I did have a couple questions after reading through through the beginner box.

1) It looks like the melee damage of weapons is fixed, but unarmed is based on strength. So would it behoove high-STR characters (i.e. trolls) to focus on just unarmed combat?
2) The QSR talks about drones being able to support one weapon mount, but the intro adventure has a Steel Lynx with four weapons on it. It also encourages splitting dice pools to be able to fire multiple weapons. Can anyone give us a direction on which way this will be in the CRB?
3) For combat, how do the grunt rules cover damage distribution? The QSR talks about AR and DV buffs, but not if/how damage is distributed to a grunt group. Do the players still need to individually target grunts to thin the herd?
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (14:42:07/07-16-19)
For 2. Weapon mounts depending on size in previous editions at least could have multiple weapons. The mount is for like a turret and the turret has 4 guns. As far as I know you only fire one at a time though.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (17:21:49/07-16-19)
re #3: The attacks are gestalt.  The condition monitors are still separate.

As for #1: Basically, yes.  But we'll see what happens with suggested errata. Maybe nothing, so don't count on anything changing.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: adzling on (17:29:20/07-16-19)
1) It looks like the melee damage of weapons is fixed, but unarmed is based on strength. So would it behoove high-STR characters (i.e. trolls) to focus on just unarmed combat?

100% correct.

Welcome to the inanity 6e
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Hobbes on (20:44:40/07-16-19)
Thanks to Fastjack for unlocking the thread. Hopefully everyone has had some time to chill, so we don't get locked up again.

That aside, I did have a couple questions after reading through through the beginner box.

1) It looks like the melee damage of weapons is fixed, but unarmed is based on strength. So would it behoove high-STR characters (i.e. trolls) to focus on just unarmed combat?

I had a Human burn out adept up to 9P unarmed damage at char gen so, not just Trolls.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Hephaestus on (20:48:54/07-16-19)
I had a Human burn out adept up to 9P unarmed damage at char gen so, not just Trolls.

Ho-ly drek. That sounds pretty busted when a sniper rifle only does 5P.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: dezmont on (20:59:30/07-16-19)
I had a Human burn out adept up to 9P unarmed damage at char gen so, not just Trolls.

Ho-ly drek. That sounds pretty busted when a sniper rifle only does 5P.

Melee needs upsides, serious ones, in order to compete with ranged, as you are making intense sacrifices in terms of action economy, attributes, and allowed equipment and 'ware bonuses.

I am skeptical if higher maxed out Dv will help, it didn't help back in 5e when autofire didn't grant DV, but melee SHOULD be spookier than ranged all other things being equal.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (22:02:12/07-16-19)
Yeah I have no problem with magic allowing you to kick harder than a assault canon. You have to use actions to close, you are out in the open etc.

Sounds like they still make burnout adept the best choice which is stupid. You should be massively penalized for taking ware as an adept and at peak min max get to the same point as a normal pure adept. Magic and ware is not supposed to mix in the setting but they always make it the optimal path.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Hobbes on (22:26:39/07-16-19)
I had a Human burn out adept up to 9P unarmed damage at char gen so, not just Trolls.

Ho-ly drek. That sounds pretty busted when a sniper rifle only does 5P.

To be fair I wouldn't actually play that specific build, it's a white board theory crafted build.  It's how I learn games, just build a zillion characters.  But 6P was easy on a Human, Adept or Samurai.  More is possible, but I am of the opinion once you're doing Assault Rifle damage with your bare hands you can probably find something else to spend your character resources on.  That is just my own personal benchmark for "enough damage".  YMMV.

AFAIK nothing has been reveled on Adepts/Burnouts/whatever, so I'd hold off until you see the CRB.  It's different than 5th, wait till you see it and then you can start a riot or do a jig or whatever seems appropriate. 

Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Finstersang on (06:17:23/07-17-19)
Thanks to Fastjack for unlocking the thread. Hopefully everyone has had some time to chill, so we don't get locked up again.

That aside, I did have a couple questions after reading through through the beginner box.

1) It looks like the melee damage of weapons is fixed, but unarmed is based on strength. So would it behoove high-STR characters (i.e. trolls) to focus on just unarmed combat?
2) The QSR talks about drones being able to support one weapon mount, but the intro adventure has a Steel Lynx with four weapons on it. It also encourages splitting dice pools to be able to fire multiple weapons. Can anyone give us a direction on which way this will be in the CRB?
3) For combat, how do the grunt rules cover damage distribution? The QSR talks about AR and DV buffs, but not if/how damage is distributed to a grunt group. Do the players still need to individually target grunts to thin the herd?

1) Thatīs the biggest issue for me beside Strength apparently turning into an absolute dumpstat: Why would a Troll with Strength 10 do less damage with a knife or a Club than with his fists? It makes no sense, neither from a realism nor from a gameplay/"balancing" PoV. The main advantage of unarmed combat should be that itīs available at pretty much all times, while melee weapons are not.

(I heard rumors that at least the Attack Rating of Melee Weapons skale with Strength. But at least in the QSR, this is not the case: They are fixed values, just like the damage Codes...)

2) Hard to tell how reflective the Drone rules in the QSR are for the full rules. Restricting the load to max. 1 Weapon is probably just a kind of "letīs not make things too complicated"-rule for players that want to try out the Rigger rules. The Steel Lynx in the QSR adventure seems to be some kind of cyberpunk boss monster, so they probably eased up on that restriction for their own "creations". That being said: Holy shit, this beast has 10 Body and 16 Armor? What do you even need a Defense Value that high for? This thing could probably be hit by an Asteroid and still get an Edge (And then perish, because it still soaks with body only. BUT itīs got an Edge!)

3) Pretty sure they are still targeted as individualls. They only attack as a "Swarm". What I find more interesting in this case: Who gets the Edge if the "Swarm" of Mall cops manages to earn one because of their attack? Itīs always assumed that thereīs just one Edge pool for a Group (like in SR5), but the QSR fail to spell that out?

And if thereīs group Edge for Grunts: Is that Edge pool subject to the same totally-not-an-error-seriously-we-really-really-thonked-hard-about-this Limit of max. 2 Edge per round?  ::)
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Totoro on (21:55:05/07-23-19)
We prefer realistic games in the sense that if you have "average" athletics, you can run about as far as an average person can run in real life, if you jump from a height, it matters how high it is, etc. If the rules obviously don't simulate real life at all (e.g., you can jump 10 meters without any training), then we don't like it. For what it's worth, we've playtested the rules a bit and edge seems to work pretty well. The examples provided in this thread that argued the new system was bad were not problems for us. When defending against an attack, the GM goes through a mental checklist for the attacker:

It's dim: Do I have low light vision? No = defender gets edge. Yes --> does the defender? No = attacker gets edge. (Yes to both = it's a wash.)
Hard rain: Do I have thermographic vision? No = defender gets edge. Yes --> does the defender? No = attacker gets edge.
Windy: Do I have a way to compensate? No = defender gets edge. Yes --> does the defender? No = attacker gets edge.

The key for us was not treating the test as relative to the opponent, but rather whether conditions made it easier or harder to score the hit. We house-ruled it a little, but the edge mechanic itself was pretty elegant, IMO. We put the Edge cap at 5, which on the defense side represents full cover, invisibility while at a range, or some other situation that makes it virtually impossible to be hit with a straight shot. (Obviously, full cover can be mitigated with indirect fire like anything else, but if what you are left with is '5', you are going to miss.) We decided to make cover have an impact on edge, not a change to defense because we didn't want to recalculate each time. We also allow up to two edge points for superior attack value, but the algorithm isn't important. Spending all 5 edge points on the defensive side gives you a special effect of "attack misses." I think the risk of our house rule is that the edge mechanic is now kind of like a "modifier," but in practice, it is just as fast as the shadowrun podcasts seem to be. (We're actually faster, but I think it is because we are not performing for an audience or trying to explain the game as we go.) You just say "1 is partial light, 2 is dim light, 3 is shadows, 4 is near darkness, 5 is completely dark" and do the same with other types of conditions (cover, glare, fog, etc.) then see how many the attacker can mitigate. I would have done the same with range, but it is pre-calculated so it doesn't matter much.

We decided you could only replenish edge once per action up to your EDG attribute, but you lost excess edge after your combat turn ended instead of after the combat itself. Even though I'm not happy we had to house-rule this early on, assuming the edge mechanic works the same in the core rules as in the QSR, the edge mechanic itself is pretty solid and is well-worth the reduced complexity IMHO.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Totoro on (22:06:41/07-23-19)
Another reason I like the edge mechanic is it will be easy to adjust for other aspects the group might see as problematic. Is the lack of impact from strength on melee weapon damage getting you down? Spend 3 edge to add STR to your melee weapon attack dice pool. I haven't tested this one yet, it's just off the top of my head, but I picked it because average STR is 3, which averages 1 hit, you can buy a hit for 3 edge, and you would want to use this technique if you were strong, making it a poor choice for STR 2 (who could just buy a hit with 3 edge) and a good choice for a STR 6 (who would average 2 hits). Unarmed seems good enough, so I probably would limit it to melee weapons. Of course, I haven't seen the core rules yet, so the STR-with-melee-weapons problem might only be an issue in the QSR.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Michael Chandra on (01:32:05/07-24-19)
Interesting completely-different Edge mechanic, definitely should be included in whatever SR6-houserules-topic we will no doubt have after release.

Question: If a source allows you to claim Edge only once per encounter, would you then let them pick when they claim it? So they can pick exactly when it applies, as to not waste the points on the after-turn cap?
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Totoro on (17:39:45/07-24-19)
Interesting completely-different Edge mechanic, definitely should be included in whatever SR6-houserules-topic we will no doubt have after release.

Question: If a source allows you to claim Edge only once per encounter, would you then let them pick when they claim it? So they can pick exactly when it applies, as to not waste the points on the after-turn cap?

That didn't come up, but I guess I should have had an answer for it. To match it thematically to the way we're using edge, I'd make them use it by the end of their first turn unless there was a reason why it seemed they'd be able to pull it out of their hat later.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: mrchrislackey on (09:47:53/08-08-19)
Are attack and defence ratings just to determine edge? Do they have another purpose?
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (09:50:34/08-08-19)
Are attack and defence ratings just to determine edge? Do they have another purpose?

Well, edge is a pretty big deal, which means edge-related mechanics kind of a big deal too in an indirect sense.

But yes, as of the core rulebook anyway that's all you use AR and DR for.  Who knows what kind of rules expansions there'll be though in the 6we combat splatbook.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: duckman on (10:45:26/08-08-19)
But if Edge is capped (I expect this to be houseruled away pretty quickly for a lot of people) and you already hit cap for whatever reason then AR and DR quickly become meaningless, right?  And this is probably my biggest problem with this edition (among many)...  Capping how quickly you can gain edge, particularly at the low, low level they have used, runs the risk of trivializing all the things that contribute to Edge like bothering to wear armor.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Xenon on (10:57:57/08-08-19)
... then AR and DR quickly become meaningless, right?
Since tactical advantage is a big thing you always want to prevent your opposition from gaining any.

If you go naked (because you think you might secure you tactical advantage somewhere else) then you give free edge to your opposition when they attack you. You probably don't need to go overboard with helmets and pads and shields etc, just wearing an armored jacket will in most cases be enough to prevent the opposition from gaining an advantage.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (11:15:08/08-08-19)
But if Edge is capped (I expect this to be houseruled away pretty quickly for a lot of people) and you already hit cap for whatever reason then AR and DR quickly become meaningless, right?  And this is probably my biggest problem with this edition (among many)...  Capping how quickly you can gain edge, particularly at the low, low level they have used, runs the risk of trivializing all the things that contribute to Edge like bothering to wear armor.

This isn't directed at you duckman, you just happened to have written the post that threw the last straw that elicited the outburst that's about to come.

There are a lot of people who are falsely speaking in a factual nature about "armor doing nothing", often in conjunction with citing that the "nothing" involves having hit the edge gain cap. Honestly it's aggravating.  Not because I'm a 6th edition apologist, but because of the inherent lack of logic to the argument.

Look: it is not a given that you'll hit your cap.  The system isn't a case of "at the start of the round, everyone's issued 2 edge, which then in turn caps them and they can't gain any more".  You have to EARN the two edge to hit the cap.  It is NOT a given that you'll hit the edge.  Can you see why I facepalm when people say "you don't need things that give you edge because you have things that give you edge?"
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: penllawen on (11:20:01/08-08-19)
you give free edge to your opposition when they attack you.
Well, only until they hit their own 2-per-Turn Edge cap.

Or even less under some circumstances. If Alice Sammy is in a fight with Bob/Charlie/Dick/Ellie/Frankie Ganger, using the mob rules, and Alice is wearing no armour, she'll concede one point of Edge per turn, equating to perhaps one dice reroll for the gangers unless they think they'll live long enough to justify saving up for a bigger Edge move.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Lormyr on (11:30:09/08-08-19)
There are a lot of people who are falsely speaking in a factual nature about "armor doing nothing"

While your point is well taken, I also think you know what they mean, which is more accurately along the lines of "armor doesn't do what we believe it should".

That said, there are instances with certain builds vs. certain adversaries in which armor does do literally nothing. An example would be a character with magic resistance and toughness making a damage resist test against a spell in which the character's body alone was enough to deny edge to the magician.

And while that might seem like a fringe case (and it is), there are numerous ways to build characters that guarantee your 2 edge vs. specific attacks/situations.

While I fall into the "armor doesn't do what we believe it should" camp, I also think there should never be a situation where putting a suit of armor on literally does nothing. We have that situation though.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Finstersang on (11:35:17/08-08-19)
But if Edge is capped (I expect this to be houseruled away pretty quickly for a lot of people) and you already hit cap for whatever reason then AR and DR quickly become meaningless, right?  And this is probably my biggest problem with this edition (among many)...  Capping how quickly you can gain edge, particularly at the low, low level they have used, runs the risk of trivializing all the things that contribute to Edge like bothering to wear armor.

This isn't directed at you duckman, you just happened to have written the post that threw the last straw that elicited the outburst that's about to come.

There are a lot of people who are falsely speaking in a factual nature about "armor doing nothing", often in conjunction with citing that the "nothing" involves having hit the edge gain cap. Honestly it's aggravating.  Not because I'm a 6th edition apologist, but because of the inherent lack of logic to the argument.

Look: it is not a given that you'll hit your cap.  The system isn't a case of "at the start of the round, everyone's issued 2 edge, which then in turn caps them and they can't gain any more".  You have to EARN the two edge to hit the cap.  It is NOT a given that you'll hit the edge.  Can you see why I facepalm when people say "you don't need things that give you edge because you have things that give you edge?"

Partially true, but once get in a  complex fight with many different characters and you will likely earn these 2 Edge pretty often. Itīs not a high bar. Every single Attack you perform or that is performed against you has the potential to generate up to 2 Edge, plus other Edge-generating sources (Control Rig etc.) on top.

If you are wired up with Inititative Enhancements, you can easily earn these 2 Edge with your 1-2 Attacks at the start of the round by making the best out of circumstances or having a Gun with a good AR. After that, the possible effect of DR-AR and beneficial circumstance is already greatly reduced, because the best thing it can do is help denying Edge for the Attackers. And if your Attackers have hit the cap as well (which is possible in a complex fight), fire out of cover IV (brilliant idea  ::))or canīt get Edge for another reason, then itīs really worth nothing.

Should I ever pick up SR6 (Iīm very hesitant now, but maybe the german CRB is not a total dumbsterfire...), iīll definetely houserule the 2-Edge Cap. Donīt know yet if Iīd prefer the AnCap or the Social Democrat approach (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29528.msg520481#msg520481 (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29528.msg520481#msg520481) for reference) to fix it, but Iīm definetely too old to be a commie 8)
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Michael Chandra on (11:48:57/08-08-19)
Nobody's dumb enough to not wear any armor. If you were armorless I'd give your enemies a second Edge point. Not sure why people constantly fall back to no-armor arguments.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Lormyr on (11:53:32/08-08-19)
Nobody's dumb enough to not wear any armor. If you were armorless I'd give your enemies a second Edge point. Not sure why people constantly fall back to no-armor arguments.

I mean, you could make up rules just to be a jerk, sure. It's not hard to make a legitimate build that does not need worn armor though.

Almost all weapons fall in the AR range of 8-12. There are very few things other than monofilament whips and unarmed/bow trolls that go higher. So if you are a beefy ork with a 9 body, that negates the substantial majority of weapons from being able to get edge when attacking you (barring other miscellaneous adds to either side, which are few).
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (11:57:29/08-08-19)
If you're gaining 2 edge on your attack, armor already HAS done something: the NPC not wearing enough of it has given you an edge point.

And in such a case, yes your armor can't give you more in the same round, but it can still deny edge to your attacker.  Armor is edge denial. Yes, not helping soak is a big change, but helping prevent edge actions from being used on you is still a big benefit.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Lormyr on (12:04:44/08-08-19)
helping prevent edge actions from being used on you is still a big benefit.

As relates to armor, circumstantially I would say. The big concern for me is getting dog piled by opponents all gaining edge. That would get ugly quick, especially if the grunts are kicking that edge up for the heavy hitters.

But DR is a lot easier to stack than AR, especially considering most of the great firing modes subtract AR.

A human with exceptional attribute and max body has a 7. Add in one of sustained increase body, or improved physical attribute and they have DR 11 without a lick of worn protection. That negates the vast majority of edge gain from attacks by itself, to say nothing of an ork or troll doing the same.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Finstersang on (12:07:05/08-08-19)
If you're gaining 2 edge on your attack, armor already HAS done something: the NPC not wearing enough of it has given you an edge point.

And in such a case, yes your armor can't give you more in the same round, but it can still deny edge to your attacker.  Armor is edge denial. Yes, not helping soak is a big change, but helping prevent edge actions from being used on you is still a big benefit.

Except that denying Edge can be very often be done with Body alone. There is a band of 8 Points of AR-DR difference in which nothing happens. Remove the benefit for having a DR thatīs 4 points higher than AR (or vice-versa), and you have a margin of 8+ points in AR-DR difference until the outcome flips from "no one gets Edge" to "your opponent gets Edge". Itīs a massive loss in verisimilitude.

Thatīs why I think that there also should be more than 3 outcomes (A gets Edge, B gets Edge, no one gets Edge) resulting from the AR-DR comparison.

Just have look at the DR of the Steel Lynx for perspective. 10 Body plus 16 Armor for a DR of 26! Is that even RAI or did someone accidentaly put in the originally intended total DR in as the Armor Score? ??? Anyways, a DR this high high is possible with the right perks and good cover. This is way beyond any AR that can be fumbled together, so theres not difference if the Attacker uses a Anti-Material-Rifle or a Pistol, apart from the Damage Code. If the DR-AR difference is really extreme, there should be an additional benefit for the dominant character. Likewise, if the DR still has (if just a little) effect when the difference is lower than 4, it would add another incentive to watch these ratings whithout making the game too complicated.

Suggestion:

Meaningfull, yet easy to remember. Instead of 3 possible outcomes from the AR-DR comparison, you have 6 (even 7). These new effects are also not affected by the 2-Edge-Limit.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (12:12:55/08-08-19)
... The big concern for me is getting dog piled by opponents all gaining edge. That would get ugly quick, especially if the grunts are kicking that edge up for the heavy hitters...

Well, in a dogpile scenario that's supposed to be rolled out as one combined attack (pg. 114, Grunt Groups) rather than X number of attacks for X number of NPCs attacking you.

Failing to combine them will of course run into edge problems... so don't fail to combine them :D
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Marcus on (12:17:42/08-08-19)
Not because I'm a 6th edition apologist, but because of the inherent lack of logic to the argument.
Which doesn't change the fact that you are a 6th edition apologist SSDR.

The chance of gaining a point of edge b/c you happen to have 4 over your opponent is not an exciting mechanic. Passive mechanics like that are boring, and it's made worse b/c it has a dead zone, maybe if it was whichever was higher it would be more interesting but honestly i doubt it. Sure you can say you stopped them gaining edge, but the mutual no edge is actually the worst out come possible, if you actually buy into that edge is a good system. Combat should be dynamic and interesting not passive and static.

If we compare this the traditional armor rules from the previous editions of SR which had 2 damage preventing mechanics (one passive and one active). It's very easy to understand why folk claim armor does nothing in 6e.   

Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Lormyr on (12:20:16/08-08-19)
Well, in a dogpile scenario that's supposed to be rolled out as one combined attack (pg. 114, Grunt Groups) rather than X number of attacks for X number of NPCs attacking you.

Failing to combine them will of course run into edge problems... so don't fail to combine them :D

Right, but if I recall correctly I think it says they can group up to 5, then you make additional groups? No access to my pdf at present so can't verify, but memory is telling me that it's 5 max, and up to gm discretion on how/if to group them.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (12:27:39/08-08-19)
Well, in a dogpile scenario that's supposed to be rolled out as one combined attack (pg. 114, Grunt Groups) rather than X number of attacks for X number of NPCs attacking you.

Failing to combine them will of course run into edge problems... so don't fail to combine them :D

Right, but if I recall correctly I think it says they can group up to 5, then you make additional groups? No access to my pdf at present so can't verify, but memory is telling me that it's 5 max, and up to gm discretion on how/if to group them.

Of course it's technically possible to be facing more than 5 NPCs all ganging up on 1 PC. I'd say that in general it's fairly implausible, but is it possible: sure.

But even in such a case where a dozen or so NPCs are all ganging up on you it's probably with ranged attacks since that many people probably can't all maintain a melee stance and reach around you.  And if that many NPCs are all shooting at you, and you're trusting in armor rather than cover, you'll get Darwin'd out.  Granted, it would have worked in 5e.  I think we all are aware it doesn't work that way anymore in 6we... we just disagree as to whether that's a step forwards or backwards for game balance.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: dezmont on (12:32:41/08-08-19)

Of course it's technically possible to be facing more than 5 NPCs all ganging up on 1 PC. I'd say that in general it's fairly implausible, but is it possible: sure.

The fact that Street Samurai literally can fight an entire gang on their own is the reason people sometimes call them solos, Omae. One of the PC archetypes is intended to be capable of fighting an arbitrary number of grunts. The system should support that well.

Obviously no SR edition actually did, big grunt fights were a nightmare, but at least in others Street Samurai were lore appropriately tough and strong, and if you were patient enough and had enough willpower to withstand a truly boring fight the sam would come out on top.

I kinda poked at this earlier in the thread, but without being mega tough and without really getting any new utility Samurai really suck to play in like every sense. Its worse than 5e riggers, and that is saying a lot. I don't see how anyone thought this was ok, because its really just awful.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (12:35:12/08-08-19)

Of course it's technically possible to be facing more than 5 NPCs all ganging up on 1 PC. I'd say that in general it's fairly implausible, but is it possible: sure.

The fact that Street Samurai literally can fight an entire gang on their own is the reason people sometimes call them solos, Omae. One of the PC archetypes is intended to be capable of fighting an arbitrary number of grunts. The system should support that well.

There's taking on an entire gang in batches of oh, say, 5 at a time... and then literally taking on an entire warehouse of people all at once.  You used to be able to trust in your Sleeping Tiger to flatten light pistol rounds. 

I'm not even going to apologize for considering it a superior system that you at least have to do something more than flick flattened slugs of lead off your jacket to survive a firing squad.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: dezmont on (12:38:03/08-08-19)

Of course it's technically possible to be facing more than 5 NPCs all ganging up on 1 PC. I'd say that in general it's fairly implausible, but is it possible: sure.

The fact that Street Samurai literally can fight an entire gang on their own is the reason people sometimes call them solos, Omae. One of the PC archetypes is intended to be capable of fighting an arbitrary number of grunts. The system should support that well.

There's taking on an entire gang in batches of oh, say, 5 at a time... and then literally taking on an entire warehouse of people all at once.  You used to be able to trust in your Sleeping Tiger to flatten light pistol rounds. 

I'm not even going to apologize for considering it a superior system that you at least have to do something more than flick flattened slugs of lead off your jacket to survive a firing squad.

You can consider it anything you want. Lore wise the street samurai was, in fact, supposed to be able to ignore bullets, and 6e's combat really... is kinda awful. Like I don't know how anyone thought this was good because its so not fun. It is like DH but without the PCs being able to do equally crazy things to make up for the opposition being really scary.

Also sleeping tiger DIDN'T allow you to survive a firing squad on its own. It helped a lot, of course, but the math of soak means you need a lot for it to really statistically matter. 5 grunts with handguns will down you in a pass of firing if they each get 1 net hit against a sleeping tiger combo body 4 PC. In fact in that scenario you actually probably go down in two hits. Average post-soak damage is 7. To get to 0 post soak DV on that scenario vs handguns even 10% of the time you needed around 30 dice to soak. You didn't get that just for putting on pants, you devoted over 4 essence, the REAL resource of SR, to.

People meme about it being way too strong but really 5e armor was exactly as strong as it needed to be to keep bullets dangerous for most PCs while still allowing samurai to samurai if you REALLY invested in it. And editions shouldn't be designed to react to an exaggerated meme that falls appart if you pump some numbers into a calculator and look over things for 5 minutes.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Lormyr on (13:00:57/08-08-19)
Of course it's technically possible to be facing more than 5 NPCs all ganging up on 1 PC. I'd say that in general it's fairly implausible, but is it possible: sure.

Once you factor in play styles, situation (missions or home game), ect. it becomes too circumstantial for me to speculate on how it will be handled on average. Just like players focus fire down the bads, I don't think it is unfair for them to do the same.

And if that many NPCs are all shooting at you, and you're trusting in armor rather than cover, you'll get Darwin'd out.

Depending on what kind of professional rating we're talking about, you're most likely correct.

But that aside, much like how it irks you when folks claim armor does nothing, it irks me how the other side claims how vital it is. It's really not. Cold hard math doesn't lie, and it is trivial difficulty to acquire a Defense Rating without worn armor that renders Attack Ratings less than 15 from being able to acquire edge against you. I would also very much enjoy that side admitting that, on some builds (and those builds being the characters that should be getting the most use out of it, not the least), armor is in fact useless - because it is.

The fact that Street Samurai literally can fight an entire gang on their own is the reason people sometimes call them solos, Omae. One of the PC archetypes is intended to be capable of fighting an arbitrary number of grunts. The system should support that well.

This is still very possible. It's not until professional rating 3+ that opposition begins getting attack dice pools above 6. If we're talking average gangers, as defined by the CRB, a well-built frontliner will still be able to mow through groups of them.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: penllawen on (13:03:21/08-08-19)
Nobody's dumb enough to not wear any armor. If you were armorless I'd give your enemies a second Edge point. Not sure why people constantly fall back to no-armor arguments.
Because they feel the system doesn't correctly incentivise PCs to wear armour. Which you appear to be agreeing with, as you just suggested a rule to increase the incentive...
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (13:03:49/08-08-19)
I think this AR to DR for edge system could have worked but it should have been probably 3 difference maybe 2 and it should have been 1 edge per 3 differences. So a cyber troll in a armor jacket might have a dr of 18 and get 3 edge most attacks. 

Obviously have to get rid of the limits per turn and maybe get rid of some of the silly edge moves.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: penllawen on (13:07:31/08-08-19)
Thatīs why I think that there also should be more than 3 outcomes (A gets Edge, B gets Edge, no one gets Edge) resulting from the AR-DR comparison.
I wonder if this is an artefact of the two-Edge-per-Turn cap. Imagine if Edge had no cap (with a corresponding adjustment to the cost of the higher Edge uses to keep things sane.) Now you could award, say, 1 point of Edge for every 3 points difference between AR and DR, or similar; now it starts to feel more meaningful and weighty and impactful.

I wonder if Edge went through a variation like that at some point but then everything got squashed down to a smaller numerical range and so we had to end up at "gain or lose 1 Edge", which just seems so... crude.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: dezmont on (13:09:35/08-08-19)

Obviously have to get rid of the limits per turn and maybe get rid of some of the silly edge moves.

I actually like the edge moves. They are a legit good idea, basically giving combat PCs "Mana." Like if you HAD to remove the ability to be immune to bullets or at least unable to die in any normal combat outside of weird freak occurances due to your combined defense rolls, the best replacement for that would be to make sure Sams got crazy special moves that made fights way easier for them rather than them merely just having a few dice on everyone else. It just wasn't executed well at all, and execution is kinda way more important than merely having a good idea.

I wonder if Edge went through a variation like that at some point but then everything got squashed down to a smaller numerical range and so we had to end up at "gain or lose 1 Edge", which just seems so... crude.

I am willing to bet money... actually no I need that stuff... on it working like this, but then they changed it because they realized the math didn't work out and resulted in eating a single attack or firing a single bullet gave you like 10 edge on some PCs and they didn't know how to or want to change things so that didn't happen or was ok (like edge being a resource you spend in fistfulls, like 10 edge being useful but not 'zomg OP' tier).

This is still very possible. It's not until professional rating 3+ that opposition begins getting attack dice pools above 6. If we're talking average gangers, as defined by the CRB, a well-built frontliner will still be able to mow through groups of them.

The issue here is those NPCs are not dangerous enough for any PC. Any NPC really dangerous enough to threaten players is also too dangerous for the Samurai. In essence, PC combat potential is now crazy flat, which is a problem because specialist combat enhancing 'ware past the 1-2 ess investment most mundanes are going to make got worse and is still priced assuming it works as a PC role, which it no longer does.

Samurai basically don't exist this edition. The most iconic role in SR just vanished in a puff of edge.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (13:10:56/08-08-19)
...
But that aside, much like how it irks you when folks claim armor does nothing, it irks me how the other side claims how vital it is. It's really not. Cold hard math doesn't lie, and it is trivial difficulty to acquire a Defense Rating without worn armor that renders Attack Ratings less than 15 from being able to acquire edge against you. I would also very much enjoy that side admitting that, on some builds (and those builds being the characters that should be getting the most use out of it, not the least), armor is in fact useless - because it is.
...

Well, there's an important distinction between redundancy and uselessness. Perhaps that's too pedantic for us to agree that the distinction is meaningful, though.

Thatīs why I think that there also should be more than 3 outcomes (A gets Edge, B gets Edge, no one gets Edge) resulting from the AR-DR comparison.
I wonder if this is an artefact of the two-Edge-per-Turn cap. Imagine if Edge had no cap (with a corresponding adjustment to the cost of the higher Edge uses to keep things sane.) Now you could award, say, 1 point of Edge for every 3 points difference between AR and DR, or similar; now it starts to feel more meaningful and weighty and impactful.

I wonder if Edge went through a variation like that at some point but then everything got squashed down to a smaller numerical range and so we had to end up at "gain or lose 1 Edge", which just seems so... crude.

I wasn't involved with the writing or the playtest so I don't know, but it's an interesting thought. I suppose it's possible the path tread that ground, sure.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: dezmont on (13:17:45/08-08-19)
Well, there's an important distinction between redundancy and uselessness. Perhaps that's too pedantic for us to agree that the distinction is meaningful, though.


I am that pedantic. By most standards of redundancy that isn't redundant. As in, it is not a failsafe, or extra cushon, or anything beneficial. Having a 'backup' isn't always a virtue or good design (From a player's perspective) if it will never have value. Ex: You would never ever build a PC with two implanted guns of the same type in SR5 because that 'redundancy' adds no value. There isn't a scenario where the second would be useful if the first isn't.

Likewise, as is, unless you are getting attacked by a grunt group with 4 flippin Barret 50 Cals you will never ever benefit from going above an armored jacket on a soak PC. Realistically even that is overkill, and if that is cropping up your GM just wants to rocks fall ya anyway. Like, yes, there are super duper specific edge cases where you can force armor to be useful for such a PC, but that doesn't a good design make.

Not that I am saying one should nerf combat PCs more. It just is funny how much their nominal upsides do not matter.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Marcus on (13:28:53/08-08-19)
Well, there's an important distinction between redundancy and uselessness. Perhaps that's too pedantic for us to agree that the distinction is meaningful, though.

I am that pedantic. By most standards of redundancy that isn't redundant. As in, it is not a failsafe, or extra cushon, or anything beneficial. Having a 'backup' isn't always a virtue or good design (From a player's perspective) if it will never have value. Ex: You would never ever build a PC with two implanted guns of the same type in SR5 because that 'redundancy' adds no value. There isn't a scenario where the second would be useful if the first isn't.
+1

Redundancy implies situational usefulness and as is pointed out this isn't the case.

AR and DR if you insist on having them, should be linked to an active mechanic, they could easily have been a Defense TN and To Hit Bonus. That could have simplified combat further reducing out the number of rolls needed. Sure you would need increase input values to both, but certainly could have been doable.

Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (13:36:09/08-08-19)
On my phone so the whole cut quote stuff is a pain.

Dez my issue with crazy edge moves is it gives the over the top moves to everyone not just sams. Iíd of developed the minor action thing as the currency for over the top. Currently minor actions feel more like a tax than cool moves.

Take anticipation. Instead of being a edge move if scaling minor actions use determined how many people you could attack and what penalty youíd be at a street sam with 5 minors would look like a bad ass compared to a decker. As is the decker can pull off anticipation just as easily.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (13:43:28/08-08-19)
While everyone can do over the top moves thanks to edge, not everyone has the spare actions left over to save/use for not getting killed.

That's also the same reason why sammies with a ton of actions probably won't be routinely cashing the minors in for a 2nd major.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Michael Chandra on (13:57:39/08-08-19)
Nobody's dumb enough to not wear any armor. If you were armorless I'd give your enemies a second Edge point. Not sure why people constantly fall back to no-armor arguments.
Because they feel the system doesn't correctly incentivise PCs to wear armour. Which you appear to be agreeing with, as you just suggested a rule to increase the incentive...
No I do NOT. There is nothing in my posting history that excuses that lie. I do not believe in the no-armor arguments and never will. Armor is plenty significant. Period.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Lormyr on (13:58:40/08-08-19)
The issue here is those NPCs are not dangerous enough for any PC

That is not true at all. Non-combat specialized characters are going to get absolutely wrecked in this edition when they are attacked by a dedicated assailant(s).

Any NPC really dangerous enough to threaten players is also too dangerous for the Samurai

The thing is building durable in this edition doesn't mean tanky (soak), it means get the hell out of the way (defense test). You could get away with #1 in 5e even if #2 was stronger. A character who dedicated his stats to body, reaction, and intuition, and his ware to bone lacing, wired reflexes, and reaction enhancers will be a lot more durable than one who didn't.

The bane of any attempt to take a hit is grenades. Those will mow through any build now, and are the biggest problem against trying to build defensively.

In essence, PC combat potential is now crazy flat

I agree. You come out the door about as durable as you will ever be unless you're a physical adept.

Samurai basically don't exist this edition. The most iconic role in SR just vanished in a puff of edge.

I would instead say combat durability doesn't exist this edition, but I digress.

Well, there's an important distinction between redundancy and uselessness. Perhaps that's too pedantic for us to agree that the distinction is meaningful, though.

Perhaps. I wouldn't call my natural body + one supernatural power + worn armor redundant at all, though. Hell in the case of a troll you don't even really need the power, it's just exceptional body 10 and watch 98% of weapon attacks fail their AR. That's pretty well the opposite of redundant to me. Two armor jackets is redundant. :p

While everyone can do over the top moves thanks to edge, not everyone has the spare actions left over to save/use for not getting killed.

This. You want to save your life? Stats, armor, favor of some dark god, edge be damned, action economy is the most valuable resource. Not really my cup of tea gaming-wise, but thems the breaks this edition.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Lormyr on (14:09:01/08-08-19)
No I do NOT. There is nothing in my posting history that excuses that lie. I do not believe in the no-armor arguments and never will. Armor is plenty significant. Period.

Situationally significant. Situationally useless. Your opinion is perfectly valid, but you can't ignore the mechanics.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: dezmont on (14:24:18/08-08-19)

That is not true at all. Non-combat specialized characters are going to get absolutely wrecked in this edition when they are attacked by a dedicated assailant(s).

But we were not talking about a dedicated assailant. We were talking about a combat NPC with 6 attack. Because defense scaling for non-adepts is essentially flat, this means that pretty much anyone who invests remotely in a defense oriented attribute is going to be fine vs this NPC. This is not a point in the samurai's favor.


The thing is building durable in this edition doesn't mean tanky (soak), it means get the hell out of the way (defense test). You could get away with #1 in 5e even if #2 was stronger. A character who dedicated his stats to body, reaction, and intuition, and his ware to bone lacing, wired reflexes, and reaction enhancers will be a lot more durable than one who didn't.

Body hardly matters this edition because soak scaling is so flat that the difference in dice does not statistically matter vs hits. Like the reason soak tanks worked is because you could scale soak high enough to get really consistent results. Like its easier to take no damage on average because of how low DV numbers are now, but in reality defense dice are all that matter now because of how autofire works and because soak doesn't scale due to both its low value and new edge. The variance is extremely high, a dicepool of 9 will roll 2 less successes than they expected around 35% of the time, while one of 30 will roll 2 less than espected about 12 percent of the time. Low soak-low DV actually means you take DV more often than you used to despite the fact it is easier to get to the point your soak is nominally negating all damage on average, your expected damage is high enough that you will just go down if you take fire where as before that wasn't the case.

Reaction and Intuition fare better, but in reality your goal to survive combat in SR6 is to get to having two major actions and then using full defense, because it scales significantly more aggressively than base stats. This is kinda sorta ok because it still gives a clear path to intense damage resistance, but it isn't gated at all.

Defense dice to consistently avoid attacks are a low hanging fruit in SR, especially now that we are back to pseudo 4e autofire. Like, yeah, wired is expensive, but it isn't so expensive that faces won't take it. Riggers don't work this edition, so that leaves mages (Who have spirits who CAN soak tank) and hackers (Who may not even really be an archetype). Faces have never been afraid of a 200k, 3 ess dip to get initiative, and this edition makes that a better deal. So the only real durability option that matters is going to be on the other main mundane archetype that still exists.

And this hypothetically gets worse as more defensive tools are added to the game, which is hard to imagine not happening. Like its cool if you think thematically that defense dice are cooler than soak, but it doesn't work well in terms of being the samurai's niche because that isn't a 'ware package, that is the minimum required 'ware to participate in combat that almost every PC grabs anyway.


I agree. You come out the door about as durable as you will ever be unless you're a physical adept.

That isn't what i am saying. I am saying a Samurai does not resist damage (As in, both soak and defense dice) better than any other type of PC to a meaningful level. It got way more flat because you do not have meaningful outcome differences from any Joe Blow who took wired reflexes. Bone Lacing, Dermal Armor, none of that makes sense to take because it changes your expected outcomes so little, where as before getting tough was HARD.

So this isn't a more lethal edition. It is an edition where your either not taking DV or your dying. Just like 4e. And 4e's combat meta was freaking awful.

It is super ironic. In trying to make it so that NPCs who could hurt the samurai didn't instagib everyone else, an edition was made where, realistically, no PC is getting hurt until everyone is constantly getting slammed by damage INCLUDING the samurai. There isn't an inbetween.

No I do NOT. There is nothing in my posting history that excuses that lie. I do not believe in the no-armor arguments and never will. Armor is plenty significant. Period.
[/quote]

If you are going to admit no new evidence under any circumstance can change your mind, that is fine, but it means you shouldn't be participating in discussions about this because you admit your position is not based on reality but an irrationally held belief that, regardless of if it is true or not, does not depend on what is actually true.

"You can't change my mind, no matter what" is like literally the definition of intellectually dishonest debating, it is possibly the most extreme form of self deception.

And, to be clear, you probably do want to wear SOME armor, the idea that you would legit be 100% unaffected by going naked it sorta a strawman. The point is armor is extremely devalued to the point in the vast majority of cases it does not actually matter.

Not worthless, but its akin to the difference of how 5e concealments below -2 worked. Like the outcome difference of a -4 conceal weapon and a -6 conceal weapon statistically existed in the same way there is theoretically a chance I will be struck by lightning right now. Like yeah a -6 means I literally can't fail to conceal that weapon vs corpsec when naked but in practice I am always putting my weapons in concealed holsters to negate that anyway and even if I didn't I am not going to lose sleep over a 1% chance of failure when I can re-roll to nuke that to literally less than a 1 in 10,000 chance. Anything else I could spend the resources I expended to get that conceal would be better.

In the case of 6e's armor, you, again, probably will be willing to drop 1k on an armored jacket just because maybe one day you might run into a 5 man gang with Ares Alphas, but even then that is sorta irrational because its far more likely for that 1k to actually help you doing almost anything else than to prevent a grunt group from getting edge attacking you maybe once over your entire career, because you need to A: be in that scenario, B: Be attacked, and C: need to have that edge point be a meaningful difference maker (in the sense it changes the outcome, so some long term negative effect needs to occur because of that edge existing that would not occur if it didn't AND which outweighs the benefits of the 1k you spent on... IDK... an autopicker).

In essence, the math just says no to armor in SR6 once you actually invest in not taking damage, which is weird.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: penllawen on (14:30:59/08-08-19)
Nobody's dumb enough to not wear any armor. If you were armorless I'd give your enemies a second Edge point. Not sure why people constantly fall back to no-armor arguments.
Because they feel the system doesn't correctly incentivise PCs to wear armour. Which you appear to be agreeing with, as you just suggested a rule to increase the incentive...
No I do NOT. There is nothing in my posting history that excuses that lie. I do not believe in the no-armor arguments and never will. Armor is plenty significant. Period.
Then why would you "give your enemies a second Edge point"?
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: dezmont on (14:43:34/08-08-19)
Nobody's dumb enough to not wear any armor. If you were armorless I'd give your enemies a second Edge point. Not sure why people constantly fall back to no-armor arguments.
Because they feel the system doesn't correctly incentivise PCs to wear armour. Which you appear to be agreeing with, as you just suggested a rule to increase the incentive...
No I do NOT. There is nothing in my posting history that excuses that lie. I do not believe in the no-armor arguments and never will. Armor is plenty significant. Period.
Then why would you "give your enemies a second Edge point"?

+1

This is literally the Oberoni Fallacy: It isn't a problem because I will make a houserule to fix the problem that doesn't exist. The fix can't exist without recognizing the problem that the fix nominally makes not exist.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Lormyr on (14:52:23/08-08-19)
But we were not talking about a dedicated assailant. We were talking about a combat NPC with 6 attack. Because defense scaling for non-adepts is essentially flat, this means that pretty much anyone who invests remotely in a defense oriented attribute is going to be fine vs this NPC.

To be clear by dedicated I meant you can't just flee - you'll have to fight. I didn't mean someone more skilled.

With your clarification, I somewhat agree. If the street sam maxs body/reaction/intuition and other character does the same, the difference isn't likely to be more than a few dice. Not all other characters will have the option to do that, though. Have you seen the attribute priority chart? It is incredibly unforgiving.

Lots of shit on soaking, dodging, and what to spend essence/money on

I mostly agree. The only area my opinion really differs is that I would be stacking body/soak with my defense dice for maximum durability.

That isn't what i am saying. I am saying a Samurai does not resist damage (As in, both soak and defense dice) better than any other type of PC to a meaningful level. you do not have meaningful outcome differences from any Joe Blow who took wired reflexes. Bone Lacing, Dermal Armor

I would argue that a character with bone lacing, wired reflexes, and dermal armor is a "street samurai", but that is really just semantics. Because this is not a class system but a build system, I am not really sure what point you are trying to make. I basically read your statement as "A street sam does not resist damage better than any other type of PC who bought the same stuff to resist damage".
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (14:55:34/08-08-19)
While everyone can do over the top moves thanks to edge, not everyone has the spare actions left over to save/use for not getting killed.

That's also the same reason why sammies with a ton of actions probably won't be routinely cashing the minors in for a 2nd major.

I suspect they almost never will be cashing it in for two majors outside ambushes. They will almost always need 1 minor, probably 2 so you wonít see the 2nd major for an attack. Maybe a second major for full defense so you donít have to think about it much.

Minors are a tax now. Minor to do everything, so people stay static and save them for a dodge. Creates a boring gameplay imo.

One thing Iím curious to see is supposedly certain items give you a bonus minor to do a certain action I assume like a quick draw holster or something. But does that bonus minor count against the overall limit of 5 minors.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: penllawen on (15:00:18/08-08-19)
One thing Iím curious to see is supposedly certain items give you a bonus minor to do a certain action I assume like a quick draw holster or something. But does that bonus minor count against the overall limit of 5 minors.
I think maybe it doesn't? I've read elsewhere that it's written as "when you spend a Minor action on X, get another Minor action for free." I think it's worded that way to bypass the "you can only start a turn with 5 Minor actions" limit. Which is a reasonable way to set it up, IMO.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: dezmont on (15:29:01/08-08-19)

I would argue that a character with bone lacing, wired reflexes, and dermal armor is a "street samurai", but that is really just semantics. Because this is not a class system but a build system, I am not really sure what point you are trying to make. I basically read your statement as "A street sam does not resist damage better than any other type of PC who bought the same stuff to resist damage".

The key here is to recognize the bone lacing and dermal armor as redundant. Like it doesn't improve your outcomes anymore than full body armor does.

Well... it does. Just not meaningfully.

Like lets say your being attacked by a Sioux Wildcat. They can't use grenades because argle bargle, foofaraw, hey diddy hoe diddy no one knows.

Actually no, its a hostage situation or your in a lab or whatever.

You got two PCs out of gen: Identical in every way save one has bone lacing and bone density for 2 extra soak, and your body is 2 higher, the other doesn't cuz they got nerd crud like... tailored pheromones or a datajack or the like. You both got 6 athletics. Intuition is kinda a really good attribute for deckers and faces so they got 5, just like you. You got 1 more base reaction because, hey, why not, and have 5 base, while they have 4. You both have wired 3, cuz you wanted two majors and a spare minor and to be frank it is so ridiculously a good breakpoint for 'wired it is gunna be bigger than taking 2 levels of monk in D&D 3.5, its all the rage, everyone who is anyone is doing it. You also both have an athletics reflex recorder because gosh darn if that little bit of nerve clusters still isn't one of the most insane deals in the game.

Also, you got dermal plating. It doesn't help you cuz your already generating max edge. While it is funny to just not wear any armor, just buy an armored jacket and save your essence if you REALLY gotta.

This is the most favorable grunt to go up against. Your nominal advantage vs this face gets smaller against lower skill opponents. You mostly will fight like... corpsec mind, but lets look at the ideal case scenario, the 'build around.'

You, the swole Samurai, take 0 DV after this attack 56% of the time. The average damage you take is 2.34, but when hit you will usually take 5-6 damage. You take 8+ DV around 3% of the time, and will go down in statistically about 3-4 attacks.

The stupid nerd who just took the wired reflexes takes 0 DV 47% of the time. A difference of about 10%, meaning around 1 in 10 attacks will hit them for their lowered reaction in this scenario that wouldn't hit you. Their average damage taken per attack is 3.43 and they take an average of 5-6 damage, just like you, per attack. Their damage trends upwards slightly higher, 6% of the time they take 8+ damage in a single attack, but they ALSO go down in 3-4 hits, and they don't meaningfully lean more towards 3 than you do, that 3-4 mostly comes from miss rate, which is nearly identical for you two. If you were willing to spend edge, it becomes more so, both your expected TTKs pretty much jump to eating 5 attacks lock step.

Vs weaker enemies rolling less dice, like something weak... lets say... a Red Samurai, those chumps, attacks do 0DV to you 75% of the time and 0 DV to the nerd about 66% of the time. Again, a gain of about 10%, or 1 in 10 attacks. Takes about 5 attacks to down them, about 5 to down you. Basic corpsec? Your miss rate differs by 1%, your both dodging over 95% of the time, the nerd at 96%, you at 97%, your average damage is crazy low, you take .009, they take .018, which is technically 'half' what they take but like what is the difference in dying after being attacked 10,000 times rather than 5,000?

That is the problem with really flat defenses where the biggest game changer is hit vs not hit: The outcomes are mostly the same and are mostly dictated by 'can I get a second major' which means if you ever intend to fight at all you will do a lot to get the second major, and in doing so your outcomes pretty much become identical in most circumstances to the guy who went all in on it. Like, yeah again the samurai technically took 1 less attack out of 10 vs the really elite folks, but that isn't going to realistically be a difference maker in most fights because your TTKS are so identical the shooting basically has to IMMEDIATELY stop after the face or decker gets 'unlucky' and falls prey to their inferior statistics. Neither PCs are likely at all to go down in one hit, the odds of that 'lucky shot' are basically identical, so the outcome really doesn't change outside of a super specific scenario. You aren't even dealing with a lot of variance, both PCs are pretty darn stable at resisting damage.

This is a problem SPECIFICALLY in the context of the concept of the samurai. I don't mind faces being tough, I think 5e handled that well by making it easy to not die instantly in a gunfight but really hard to become bullet immune. The issue is when there is no gap in performance for samurai defensively, and they haven't gained meaningful combat utility, the entire point of a samurai gets eroded. The math of this edition REALLY doesn't favor combat investments beyond wired 3 and a reflex recorder, and that basically means that dedicated combat PCs don't... make sense. You basically always are better off playing a face who also has wired 3 and combat skills and totally ignoring all the cool cyborg parts you can nab which... sucks?

Like it sucks that cyberlimbs, titanium bones, crazy body armor, ect don't... make any sense to take. Its bad design when the fantasy of playing a metahuman Terminator is something that sold SR for 5 editions but 6th comes along and basically... removes it?

EDIT: Funny thing about these numbers. I accidently made the face have 3 less defense dice, rather than 1 like I said, on this samurai, as well as 4 less soak. That means the actual outcomes are much closer than what I wrote. For example, vs the Wildcat, it is 56 vs 55% chance of being hit, and their average damage per attack is 3.09. Still pretty much the same TTK, but the variance is pretty much identical meaning the outcome is essentially identical: Only 1 in 100 attacks will meaningly be different between these two PCs. Is 2 attribute points and 1 essence to get a 1% chance of not going down to an attack that would down you if you didn't take those worth it? I dunno. It is a less than 1% chance, its more like 1 in 200 attacks a freakin wildcat makes against you will care about those differences. You gunna even be attacked by a Wildcat 200 times? You gunna be attacked by a Wildcat more than like... 4 times in a campaign? Is that really going to help you more than taking tailored 3 and an extra 3 charisma going to help you? Or more perception, or more stealth? You probably will positively affect your outcome hundreds of times in a campaign with those abilities you gave up that soak for, including by allowing you entirely new avenues to solve problems. None of this is 'cheese.' None of this is 'minmaxing.' 6e's philosophy of 'have the GM balance their table' doesn't work here because the Face isn't eve 'technically' playing within the rules, they are 100% within the spirit of the rules. They are acting totally in good faith here and there isn't a realistic option to fix this that isn't essentially 'be really mean to the face' or 'houserule to the point the system dramatically changes resembling a re-write of the core combat system. ALL the face did was invest in a few attributes and take 'wired 3. They didn't do any Pun-Pun weirdness or quickened buff spell edge-reagent combo exploitating that you can point to and say 'Ahah, that is the problem' because everything that allows this is working exactly the way it is meant to work in every context.

Opportunity cost is real, and opportunity cost says Samurai are a dead archetype. Long live wired 3.

Also, TTK means 'time to kill.' Basically how many attacks/actions it takes to ice ya.

This is all also assuming you didn't increase athletics ever, purely out of gen stuff. Once you start bumping your defense dice via bumping athletics the gap closes even more in favor of the non-samurai: Even if they don't invest as deeply their investments scale down slower than the samurai and thus the gap shrinks unless the samurai really goes ham and the other guy totally abandons defense, but even then we aren't talking any difference vs anything outside of Red-Sams and Wildcats.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Finstersang on (16:04:29/08-08-19)
A lot of this argument circles around the hyperbolic notion that Armor is completely , 100% useless in 6th Edition.

This is obviously not true. Armor can help you get Edge or help you deny Edge gain for your opposition. Also, worn armor houses additional enhancements. So no, thereīs no reason to go in naked or in a mankini except for the Lulz.   

But whatīs also a fact is that the AR-DR mechanic (which, just a little reminder, also encompasses Range, Recoil and many gear options) is extremely prone to creating situations in which a chunk of Armor (and/or the current Range band, firing mode...) actually doesnīt matter. This is due to the fact that


A lot of people noticed this. Many donīt like it. Some are angry. Some say that Trolls in mankinis will be the new meta, which is obviously a hyperbole. But the problem behind this is real. This system creates too many situations in which individual tactical choices, gear or other perks donīt offer a benefit. 
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Typhus on (16:16:43/08-08-19)
^ Precisely said.  Major detraction of the system for me, and a strong factor in deciding not to invest in it.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: dezmont on (16:22:24/08-08-19)
+1.

Re-contextualizing this as 'armor isn't literally useless' is pretty much a straw man. Armor has cases where it helps you, even for combat PCs there are edge cases where the difference between a +3 and +4 matters.

The issue is that as a system it is totally flaccid because the differences in outcomes basically don't matter, and it is super transparent that is the case. There isn't a ton of room to argue that point. It honestly feels like there are a ton of smokescreens coming up and wagons being circled to fend off the fact that... at least in terms of combat resolution... the edge system kinda fails to actually do what it is intended to do which is remove complexity while retaining tactical choices and individual situations mattering.

Like SR is a game ABOUT the details. The way edge works sorta forces every fight to be a 'white room' fight and feel identical, and also kinda makes all PCs feel very similar. It just... it KINDA works but that is like saying an octagonal wheel KINDA rolls. I don't see why anyone would actively want to use it. And these aren't surface level problems easily fixed with a houserule (not that they should be). Its kinda baked super hard into the game because you can't 'uncap' edge because of how strong some of the edge actions are, but capped edge makes these values really just not worth thinking about or building around. And it doesn't take too much poking to notice its broken.

It didn't even really make SR a more gritty game really where PCs are less able to faceroll threats easily. It just slightly increased variance so sometimes a PC randomly dies which is super great in a game with slow advancement and the only overarching story in a default campaign being character based. It isn't faster because, while people like to winge on SR5 modifiers, most modifiers were either 100% internal to a PC (Ex: If you were a barrier sensor sniper, you 100% knew your modifier for that) or were something the GM applied and thus could just dictate ("Its dark, take -5"). Edge prevents you from ever KNOWING the 'modifier' situation. It ironically forces you to spend more time thinking about and handling those details, rather than letting the GM just trust the player who has their PC charge on half their attacks pre-calculated their charging dicepool.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Lormyr on (17:07:46/08-08-19)
all that stuff

I pretty much agree with you. Built with similar goals in mind the difference between a ware-based tank and any other ware-based character looking towards defense is a matter of how much body your metatype gives vs. the other and if you have the cash to spare. But I also don't believe there needs to be a distinction between the samurai or the decker in this case, because their attributes and ware are identical sans 3 shifted points. So of course they are going to be almost as resilient as each other.

I also find it flat. I also think the armor, soak, and strength issues are bad design. I personally don't care for the edition much at all. That said, I am having trouble understanding the hang up on why the street sam should be more durable than a peer built and equipped almost exactly the same whom doesn't call himself a street sam.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: dezmont on (17:28:13/08-08-19)
all that stuff

I pretty much agree with you. Built with similar goals in mind the difference between a ware-based tank and any other ware-based character looking towards defense is a matter of how much body your metatype gives vs. the other and if you have the cash to spare. But I also don't believe there needs to be a distinction between the samurai or the decker in this case, because their attributes and ware are identical sans 3 shifted points. So of course they are going to be almost as resilient as each other.

I also find it flat. I also think the armor, soak, and strength issues are bad design. I personally don't care for the edition much at all. That said, I am having trouble understanding the hang up on why the street sam should be more durable than a peer built and equipped almost exactly the same whom doesn't call himself a street sam.

My point is more that the things that make a street samurai different don't work to actually create a distinct street samurai identity because most of your value is coming from something any PC expecting to engage in combat is going to take even if they don't specialize in it, while the things you take specifically for combat beyond do not add any value.

Put another way: In SR5, it was very common for faces to spend more of their essence and nuyen on combat 'ware than social 'ware, but they still ended up very distinct mechanically from dedicated samurai despite having very similar 'ware packages because despite the 3-4 ess of combat 'ware they would get, the stuff the samurai got they didn't had real impact simply because the math of combat was different. Despite soak 'ware being an overall lower proportion of your soak, it mattered more due to how soak dicepools work.

Its less "I am miffed Wired 3 makes you good at fighting" as much as "Bone lacing/Dermal Plating/Samurai 'ware investments outside of the basic 'wired package do not have meaningful effects, meaning that samurai as a role, AKA someone who invests very heavily into combat 'ware to get extreme advantages, don't really work, because your outcome is identical to what is probably going to be the optimized face 'ware package."

Spending 2 ess and a ton of resources to get a 1% performance increase is not worth it, and wired 3 is not expensive enough (nor should its price be increased, mind) to prevent any PC who cares about fighting from taking it.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Lormyr on (17:36:20/08-08-19)
Ok, I see what you mean. That is a legit perspective.

I personally found it to be similar in 5e as well, but that has more to do with the build and play of my core group. With a system reset we certainly lost a titanic number of options as compared to 5e, as well as the core changes drastically altering the value of what remains.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Typhus on (18:34:57/08-08-19)
This hits on something for me too.  I guess one of the turn offs for me in this edition is that the balance points seem to be obviously based around a game theory and not around a reality it's trying to create or present.  For example, on average how much damage *should* one take from a heavy pistol when wearing an armor jacket?  If all else is equal should it stop the damage entirely or just reduce it?  I'm not talking drams of blood measurements, but generally speaking.  It's always been abstracted to not observe hit locations in any edition, granted, but after 1st edition, I've never had a sense of what is true in the game world itself, only what is likely.  In prior editions, I could roll with what I had, but here, I lose any sense of the value of armor or its effect in the world itself, due to its absence in the observable math.  I have no idea if that jacket was supposed to be "effective" or "not very effective". 

I'll say this much: when I take 5 damage from a single hit, and never got to apply any direct benefit to stopping those 5 points, it sure doesn't feel very effective at the table.  If I take a hit from a grunt group?  ~8 damage in a single exchange?  You can visibly see players recoil from that kind of an exchange.  It feels terrible, especially from mook level bad guys.  No way do I want my players feeling that feeling from a group of gangers.  Where they used to be a way to provide a side challenge, and an occasional fun threat to stomp on, now they are terrifying.  I can't use them as flavor as a GM, and players will start running away if I do have them show up in force.  No way would I use the grunt rules as written. 

Even healing being instant cast doesn't offset that.  In fact, it makes it feel and play more like D&D -- and after 5 editions of healing magic taking time, again, this feels like a shift Because Reasons, not because the world is notably different in some way.  There was no mana count uptick or other meta reason.  Shifts happen between editions (duh), but this is a big game changer for how many things actually happen in the game world.  I can't use the same techniques or story design as a GM because the system literally takes a number of options away just on the dice alone.  Combat, gear, and character gen are probably the two largest places that manifests.

Watching the discussions and feedback in general, I don't feel like any amount of errata can fix the issues this game has as written.  It's not a matter of tweaking numbers or re-wording things.  Let's pretend you did that already.  Every rule is clear, sentence structure and tone is now address,ed and all the numbers jive.  The same issues will still persist.  It goes much deeper than errata can smooth out.  The details are just the manifestation. 
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: duckman on (21:24:22/08-08-19)
This hits on something for me too.  I guess one of the turn offs for me in this edition is that the balance points seem to be obviously based around a game theory and not around a reality it's trying to create or present.  For example, on average how much damage *should* one take from a heavy pistol when wearing an armor jacket?  If all else is equal should it stop the damage entirely or just reduce it?  I'm not talking drams of blood measurements, but generally speaking.  It's always been abstracted to not observe hit locations in any edition, granted, but after 1st edition, I've never had a sense of what is true in the game world itself, only what is likely.  In prior editions, I could roll with what I had, but here, I lose any sense of the value of armor or its effect in the world itself, due to its absence in the observable math.  I have no idea if that jacket was supposed to be "effective" or "not very effective". 

I'll say this much: when I take 5 damage from a single hit, and never got to apply any direct benefit to stopping those 5 points, it sure doesn't feel very effective at the table.  If I take a hit from a grunt group?  ~8 damage in a single exchange?  You can visibly see players recoil from that kind of an exchange.  It feels terrible, especially from mook level bad guys.  No way do I want my players feeling that feeling from a group of gangers.  Where they used to be a way to provide a side challenge, and an occasional fun threat to stomp on, now they are terrifying.  I can't use them as flavor as a GM, and players will start running away if I do have them show up in force.  No way would I use the grunt rules as written. 

This in spades.  And let's add some other basic insights.  Rarely do we ever see a single group of grunts in an "interesting" fight.  Multiple gangs (e.g. two of the go-gangs from the QSR at a time or a group of guards, some automated turrets (both grunt groups) and a guard officer.  If I am capped at 2 edge per round (and I expect this to be house-ruled out a lot of places so I say if) then am I *ever* gaining anything for having my armor?  All I need is to get within 4 of enemy AR to keep them from getting edge.  And this specifically means that the guys who are already stacked like the Troll Sam are the ones WHO DON'T NEED ARMOR!  What kind of flavor is that supposed to be?  The guys who benefit from armor are (gasp, imagine that) the burnouts who have casting stats, not Body and Bone Lacing.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Ghost Rigger on (17:19:49/08-10-19)
To add a little fuel to this fire, armor being more or less pointless suggests that APDS is also more or less pointless. After all, reducing the target's armor doesn't reduce their soakpool and instead plays into the crapshoot of edge gain/denial. Granted, it has the decency to do so while on the attack and hardened armor is still going to be a thing, so it may prove handy in a few fringe scenarios. However, I have been told that in 6e APDS will reduce the damage of whatever gun it's fired from....a decision that must have been made on a gamist basis, because it makes no sense on a simulationist or narrative basis. It wasn't stated how much the damage was reduced and how much armor penetration it granted, but it doesn't really matter, because no one is going to use APDS in 6e. Just 1 point of damage is a significant reduction of any gun's killing power and armor doesn't matter anymore. Better odds of gaining or denying edge (which for some unknown reason is limited to 2 per round) in some small number of very specific scenarios is not worth doing less damage, let alone paying nuyen for the privilege of doing less damage. And yet, that is exactly what the devs have given us.

At this point, we all need to admit that the devs don't know what they're doing.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: KatoHearts on (17:22:55/08-10-19)
It reduces the DV by 1 but AR goes up by 2 for...being less dangerous I guess.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Ghost Rigger on (17:26:44/08-10-19)
Well, then it's even worse than I thought.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: KatoHearts on (17:30:21/08-10-19)
Explosive is the only ammo that increases DV, no effect on AR though, guess doing more damage isn't a combat advantage.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Hephaestus on (18:36:21/08-10-19)
To be fair from a "simulationist" perspective, IRL armor piercing rounds actually do less damage to unarmored targets because the round is designed (both shape and velocity) to punch through metal. Against squishy things, they tend to make a nice tight little hole though the target, then hit whatever is behind it.

Its one of the reasons the FN 5-7 & P90 (5.7x28mm rounds designed to pierce armor) aren't used by law enforcement. Too high a chance to simultaneously not pacify the suspect AND hit the civilian behind them.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: penllawen on (18:48:47/08-10-19)
Explosive is the only ammo that increases DV, no effect on AR though, guess doing more damage isn't a combat advantage.
I don't think that's fair. Weapons in 6e have two axes; DV is a direct reflection of damage dealt, AR is an indirect number that abstracts away all other factors. Explosive boosts damage, which is a combat advantage; no need to double-dip it and boost AR too.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Jareth Valar on (19:00:01/08-10-19)
To be fair from a "simulationist" perspective, IRL armor piercing rounds actually do less damage to unarmored targets because the round is designed (both shape and velocity) to punch through metal. Against squishy things, they tend to make a nice tight little hole though the target, then hit whatever is behind it.

Its one of the reasons the FN 5-7 & P90 (5.7x28mm rounds designed to pierce armor) aren't used by law enforcement. Too high a chance to simultaneously not pacify the suspect AND hit the civilian behind them.

Penetration, penetration, penetration! Drilled into us at firearms training. That's the reason we were issued hollow points. Less chance of over-penetration and more of a chance to stop who you're shooting at.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Ghost Rigger on (19:34:15/08-10-19)
Explosive is the only ammo that increases DV, no effect on AR though, guess doing more damage isn't a combat advantage.
The devs certainly don't seem to think so, or perhaps they didn't think about this at all. -1 DV +2 AR makes you a less effective killing machine and would only help you if you were 1 DV short of being able to gain/deny edge, while +1 DV does that AND makes you more effective killing machine. Contrast this to 5e where APDS and Explosive Rounds perform the same on average; would copy-pasting the ammo statline from 5e make ammo balanced? No, but it would still be an improvement over what we got.

To be fair from a "simulationist" perspective, IRL armor piercing rounds actually do less damage to unarmored targets because the round is designed (both shape and velocity) to punch through metal. Against squishy things, they tend to make a nice tight little hole though the target, then hit whatever is behind it.

Its one of the reasons the FN 5-7 & P90 (5.7x28mm rounds designed to pierce armor) aren't used by law enforcement. Too high a chance to simultaneously not pacify the suspect AND hit the civilian behind them.

Penetration, penetration, penetration! Drilled into us at firearms training. That's the reason we were issued hollow points. Less chance of over-penetration and more of a chance to stop who you're shooting at.
I don't know about that. Sure, if the armor-piercing bullet goes right through the target you've imparted less kinetic energy to it, but you've also put twice as many holes in it as you would with a normal bullet, and maybe hit an important bit you wouldn't have otherwise. Not to mention that most of a human's important bits are protected by decidedly-not-squishy bone....but this is a moot discussion because using armor-piercing rounds against unarmored targets is economically inefficient.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Xenon on (06:05:31/08-11-19)
FMJ deal less damage. You get a nice small entry hole and a nice small exit hole. In battle you are only allowed to use FMJ (Hague Conventions of 1899). It makes perfect sense that APDS have a slightly lower damage value but that it instead have properties that negates armor.

JHP maximizes the stopping power of the shot. Targets are crippled and immobilized much more so than they are with full metal jacket ammo, increasing the odds of kill and of a successful hunt. It makes perfect sense that Explosive ammo have a slightly higher damage value.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Ghost Rigger on (10:12:18/08-11-19)
"A nice small entry hole and a nice small exit hole" could also describe a lethal head wound. While I agree that APDS shouldn't have +DV, I don't think it should have -DV. Yes, explosive rounds and JHP should deal more raw damage than APDS, but I see no reason they'd deal less damage than cheapass basic bitch bullets. But all this is a side discussion.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: dezmont on (11:09:21/08-11-19)
If I were to model APDS in a very realistic combat system I would 100% give it -DV simply because 99% of the time it results in less severe injury. The fact that it kills you in the same conditions it kills anyone anytime instantly isn't really a mark for it staying at +0.

That said DV vs AP, at least in 5e, was always sorta a joke because that is a 100% solved space where DV always wins until AP gets to -3 (which is the equivalent of a DV anyway) except in super extreme situations.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Moonshine Fox on (12:42:04/08-11-19)
"A nice small entry hole and a nice small exit hole" could also describe a lethal head wound. While I agree that APDS shouldn't have +DV, I don't think it should have -DV. Yes, explosive rounds and JHP should deal more raw damage than APDS, but I see no reason they'd deal less damage than cheapass basic bitch bullets. But all this is a side discussion.

Because most of the damage from a bullet is because it deforms on impact, tearing a larger path through the body, severing more blood vessels, and leaving an exit would large enough to not clot easy, leading to a higher chance of shock and death do to either blood lose or internal trauma. A small neat hole is less likely to hit a vital spot, which is how people can survive being shot several times.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on (15:27:11/08-11-19)
If I were to model APDS in a very realistic combat system I would 100% give it -DV simply because 99% of the time it results in less severe injury. The fact that it kills you in the same conditions it kills anyone anytime instantly isn't really a mark for it staying at +0.

That said DV vs AP, at least in 5e, was always sorta a joke because that is a 100% solved space where DV always wins until AP gets to -3 (which is the equivalent of a DV anyway) except in super extreme situations.

Yeah minus in DV makes sense for realism but gamist wise only in a system where it is having a substantive effect on penetrating armor.  Like if instead of a discrepancy of 4 attack rating to defense rating giving a point of edge it instead determined whether or not you used your armor to soak, then less DV but more attack rating would work. Currently its still a bit of a crap shoot if it will provide a edge and the value of an edge is way to nebulous to bother with this as a elite ammo. And it oddly will seem less effective against real armored threats like enemies with hardened armor or heavily armored drones as it doesn't actually reduce their armor and it does less damage and their defense rating will probably be high enough you wont even get the edge.

At the end of the day DV is king.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: penllawen on (15:29:35/08-11-19)
If weíre going down this road...

Isnít the point of APDS is that it penetrates the armour and in so doing is slowed and deformed enough that then it causes serious organic damage? Because that would seem to suggest its DV modifier would depend on the armour worn by the target... It could be negative DV on unarmored targets but neutral DV on armoured ones!
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Ghost Rigger on (16:08:21/08-11-19)
Yeah, arguments about 1 big hole vs 2 small holes aside, there's no reason for APDS to do less damage against an armored target.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Hephaestus on (17:21:02/08-11-19)
Yeah, arguments about 1 big hole vs 2 small holes aside, there's no reason for APDS to do less damage against an armored target.

Agreed. While I can see a slight decrease in damage from a real-world standpoint, in this edition it would probably have been better to just state "the target cannot gain an edge based on attack rating, regardless of their defense rating, against shots made with APDS rounds" and then left the DV alone.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Xenon on (17:57:38/08-11-19)
... target cannot gain an edge based on attack rating, regardless of their defense rating, against shots made with APDS rounds ...
But it should also depend on what you are hit with. Using APDS in a hold out pistol at medium range should probably still grant a tactical advantage to the defender.

A better solution would probably be to instead directly decrease DR of the target while using APDS. This increase the chance that the target does not get to gain edge when he is attacked but it also increase the chance that you will gain edge, even if the target is armored.

While game mechanic wise the above would be the exact same thing as increasing AR (as it currently do) this would also have one more feature that simply increasing AR would not:

- It would be highly useful against targets with hardened armor (which I feel is the very niche you would want to use APDS for in the first place and also what would be the big separating factor between APDS and Flechette).
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Finstersang on (18:49:26/08-11-19)
The most important part is that APDS rounds should be more effective against targets that have higher armor and/or better cover.

TBH, Iīd say that "Target canīt get Edge (due to the DR/AR comparison) from an Attack made with APDS" is not that bad of an idea. Getting an Edge from AR/DR is something that is more likely if the target has good cover and armor.

Another way would be something like this: "When shooting at a target using APDS Ammo, the following perks of your target are cut in half (round up) when resolving the Attack: Armor, Hardened Armor, Cover Level". With that big of an impact and especially the benefits against hardened armor, even the reduction of the damage score would be justified.         
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (18:53:36/08-11-19)
APDS gets +2AR to reflect how armor shouldn't be as good against it.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Finstersang on (19:22:17/08-11-19)
APDS gets +2AR to reflect how armor shouldn't be as good against it.

Yeah, and that Logic is the problem here (apart from the fact that +2 AR for -1 Damage is a terrible tradeoff). The +2 AR applies regardless of how good the armor (and/or cover) is. It doesnīt get better against stronger armor and it doesnīt offer less benefits against targets with low armor. If I understand it correctly, it even applies when there is no armor at all.

In 5th Edition, APDS (and Armor Penetration in general) at least had a kind of diminishing return against the occasional targets with (very) low armor, because you canīt reduce armor below zero. It also offered significantly higher benefits against hardened armor and drone/vehicle armor. In 6th Edition, itīs just a bad numbers game. APDS Ammo doesnīt really care for armor. It just looks like it does at a very superficial glance.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: penllawen on (03:03:51/08-12-19)
Another way would be something like this: "When shooting at a target using APDS Ammo, the following perks of your target are cut in half (round up) when resolving the Attack: Armor, Hardened Armor, Cover Level". With that big of an impact and especially the benefits against hardened armor, even the reduction of the damage score would be justified.       
Mmmm. I see where you're coming from, but a downside to this is it shifts calculations from pre-combat to during combat again. I suspect a design goal of the AR/DR system was, wherever possible, to bake all the gun's modifiers into its AR so it could be pre-computed and static. Then combat resolution goes faster, as you don't need to apply numerous modifiers to each other to resolve each attack. And that's a noble goal, in my opinion. Seems a shame to lose it.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Finstersang on (06:31:30/08-12-19)
Another way would be something like this: "When shooting at a target using APDS Ammo, the following perks of your target are cut in half (round up) when resolving the Attack: Armor, Hardened Armor, Cover Level". With that big of an impact and especially the benefits against hardened armor, even the reduction of the damage score would be justified.       
Mmmm. I see where you're coming from, but a downside to this is it shifts calculations from pre-combat to during combat again. I suspect a design goal of the AR/DR system was, wherever possible, to bake all the gun's modifiers into its AR so it could be pre-computed and static. Then combat resolution goes faster, as you don't need to apply numerous modifiers to each other to resolve each attack. And that's a noble goal, in my opinion. Seems a shame to lose it.

I get what you mean. Cutting 3 different possible factors (Armor, Hardened Armor, Cover) in half can be quite some math. Another idea is that the shooter can choose to ignore one of these 3 things entirely. Thatīs a little bit of math, but not that much. And usually, you should have a good estimate on which of these 3 things offers the biggest benefit for the target. Strong Effect, but itīs also counterweighed by the Damage reduction.

Or you can go with Hephaestusī idea of APDS denying Edge gain from AR/DR. Thatīs even less math than RAW and it still fits the purpose of APDS nicely, as this is usually something that happens because of cover and high armor. However in this case, there really shouldnīt be a Damage reduction added to it. And also, the limit of 2 Edge per round should be houseruled. Which is a good idea anyways, so...
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Xenon on (17:24:23/08-12-19)
Or you can go with Hephaestusī idea of APDS denying Edge gain from AR/DR.
You already gain that advantage by using an imaging scope....

I still think it would be better if APDS reduced target's armor rating by 2.
(the effect would be similar to +2 AR as it have right now, but it would have a bigger impact on targets with hardened armor).
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Ghost Rigger on (17:27:46/08-12-19)
Or you can go with Hephaestusī idea of APDS denying Edge gain from AR/DR.
You already gain that advantage by using an imaging scope....
Wait, what? Using an imaging scope makes your target's armor literally and completely pointless even within its newly defined functionality? Why? Was it not enough that they took our soak dice from us?
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Hephaestus on (19:31:06/08-12-19)
Or you can go with Hephaestusī idea of APDS denying Edge gain from AR/DR.
You already gain that advantage by using an imaging scope....
Wait, what? Using an imaging scope makes your target's armor literally and completely pointless even within its newly defined functionality? Why? Was it not enough that they took our soak dice from us?

Just looked it up. Finsterang is right, if you use a Take Aim minor action, you negate the target's ability to gain edge from higher armor. And the wireless bonus is to share the LoS view of the scope with your team (no mention of network limitations), so does that mean they benefit from this bulldrek as well?
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Xenon on (02:10:10/08-13-19)
Its only for the shooter, it require that you spend a minor action to get the effect and it is only used to negate edge gain from the defender - it does not help the attacker to gain an edge over the defender (but loading the weapon with APDS would).

If someone hunker down behind cover your long range sniper guy can take his time to line up a shot and hit the parts of the target that is not covered. I think it is a pretty cool feature actually :-)
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Finstersang on (04:09:11/08-13-19)
Or you can go with Hephaestusī idea of APDS denying Edge gain from AR/DR.
You already gain that advantage by using an imaging scope....
Wait, what? Using an imaging scope makes your target's armor literally and completely pointless even within its newly defined functionality? Why? Was it not enough that they took our soak dice from us?

Just looked it up. Finsterang is right, if you use a Take Aim minor action, you negate the target's ability to gain edge from higher armor. And the wireless bonus is to share the LoS view of the scope with your team (no mention of network limitations), so does that mean they benefit from this bulldrek as well?

Itīs Xenon who pointed that one out  ;) I donīt have the book, I only comment based on the bits I know. And the more I know, the happier I am that I havenīt paid CGL money for this dumbsterfire.

I mean yeah, one of the benefits of firing through a scope might be that it can help you find a less armored spot or something like that. Also, using the Scope is RAW most advisable in the Range Categories where the Gun is worst - which sounds fitting at first until you realize that this means that itīs rarely usefull when used with an actual sniper rifle on a long distance shot. BUT on a close range shot, using the Scope would be mechanically advisable, because thatīs where Rifles are crap (please tell me that thereīs a restriction on how close you can be to your target to profit from an imaging scope...).

Once again, itīs all so badly thought through. For imaging scopes, a simple AR increase (in the higher range categories) or godforbidd, a dice pool bonus would have been the right choice. Instead, they go with this terrible idea that would have been more fitting for Armor-piercing options.
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Michael Chandra on (04:42:25/08-13-19)
Or you can go with Hephaestusī idea of APDS denying Edge gain from AR/DR.
You already gain that advantage by using an imaging scope....

I still think it would be better if APDS reduced target's armor rating by 2.
(the effect would be similar to +2 AR as it have right now, but it would have a bigger impact on targets with hardened armor).
Hardened Armor is yet another subject I can't comment on due to NDA... =/

How does 'nullifies 2 autohits of Hardened Armor' sound as possible houserule, so that against Hardened Armor it's actually +1 DV instead of -1 DV? But only if they have strong enough for 2 autohits?
Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Finstersang on (06:39:02/08-13-19)
Or you can go with Hephaestusī idea of APDS denying Edge gain from AR/DR.
You already gain that advantage by using an imaging scope....

I still think it would be better if APDS reduced target's armor rating by 2.
(the effect would be similar to +2 AR as it have right now, but it would have a bigger impact on targets with hardened armor).
Hardened Armor is yet another subject I can't comment on due to NDA... =/

How does 'nullifies 2 autohits of Hardened Armor' sound as possible houserule, so that against Hardened Armor it's actually +1 DV instead of -1 DV? But only if they have strong enough for 2 autohits?


Goes in the right direction as well, bit IĎd really say that the Damage should not be decreased until there is some really fat advantage tied to it. This one boils down to "Itīs shittier bullets against all targets except Dragons and Spirits" right now. It also depends on if or how you want to houserule Hardened Amor.

Honestly, since the effect of the imaging scope seems to have purpuse the mark as well (not really an advantage for long-distance shots, but against targets with a good defense value), Iīd say just swap the 2 main effects around and improve the balance a bit:

Title: Re: Combat is SR6?
Post by: Xenon on (11:18:46/08-13-19)
Minus 1 DV make a lot of sense for APDS, keep that.

Beyond that I would say anything that affect the targets armor or defense is the way I would have gone. Let's review the options.

1.  -1 DV, +2 AR (as-is)
Against both normal armor and hardened armor and compared to regular ammo this give +2 AR and -1 DV.

This feels bad because:
- Regular ammo have a higher chance to not be fully stopped by hardened armor
- Easier to gain edge against a low armor targets (Flechette should give bonus AR, not APDS)

This feels good because:
+ Small entry and small exit should normally deal less damage
+ A heavy armored target will have less chance of generating edge against you.


2.  -1 DV and reduce targets armor by 2.
Against normal armor and compared to regular ammo this is the same as +2 AR and -1DV (which is fine and mechanically the same as it is today). Against hardened armor and compared to regular ammo this is the same as +2 AR and same net DV (-1 DV but also +1 DV from one less auto hit, this is one more DV than it have today) and +1 DV (-1 DV but -2 armor, which is two more DV than today) when it comes to if it may penetrate at all.

This feels bad because:
- Easier to gain edge against a low armor targets.

This feels good because:
+ Have have a higher chance to not be fully stopped by hardened armor
+ Small entry and small exit should normally deal less damage
+ A heavy armored target will have less chance of generating edge against you.
+ Less effect on targets with no armor


3.  -1 DV, +2 AR and nullify 2 hardened auto hits.
Against normal armor and compared to regular ammo this is the same as +2 AR and -1 DV (which is fine and also the same as today). Against hardened armor and compared to regular ammo it is the same as +2 AR and +1 net DV (-1 DV but +2 DV due to two less auto hits, this is two more DV than today), but still require one DV more when trying to penetrate at all (same as today).

This feels bad because:
- Regular ammo have a higher chance to not be fully stopped by hardened armor
- Easier to gain edge against a low armor targets.

This feels good because:
+ Small entry and small exit should normally deal less damage
+ A heavy armored target will have less chance of generating edge against you.
+ Deal extra damage against hardened armor


4.  -1 DV and deny edge for defender during AR/DR.
Against normal armor and compared to regular ammo this have -1 DV (same as today, but without +2 AR), but it also fully prevent high armor targets or targets behind cover to gain edge from their DR. Against hardened armor and compared to regular ammo it will have -1 DV (both for damage and for penetration) and no bonus AR, but it will prevent high armor targets from gaining edge. By doing this, modifier from scope should probably be changed to something else.

This feels bad because:
- Regular ammo have a higher chance to not be fully stopped by hardened armor

This feels good because:
+ Not easier to gain edge against a low armor targets.
+ Small entry and small exit should normally deal less damage
+ A heavy armored target will have no chance of generating edge against you.


If we combine the good things from above and discard the bad then we end up with something like this:

5.  - 1 DV, deny edge for defender during AR/DR and ignore 2 points of hardened armor
Against normal armor and compared to regular ammo this have -1 DV (same as today, but without +2 AR, will be less efficient against low armor but this is a good thing), but it also fully prevent high armor targets or targets behind cover to gain edge from their DR. Against hardened armor and compared to regular ammo it will have same DV and it will have one DV higher when it comes to penetration. It will prevent high armor targets from gaining edge.

This feels bad because:
....

This feels good because:
+ Not easier to gain edge against a low armor targets.
+ Small entry and small exit should normally deal less damage (but not against targets in hardened armor)
+ A heavy armored target will have no chance of generating edge against you.
+ Have higher chance to not be fully stopped by hardened armor


There you have it. Go with option 5. Discuss it. Thank me later ;)