God damn people, some of you came down awfully hard on Penllawen. He's been verbally critical of some elements of 6e, but I personally can't recall him being non-constructive in that criticism. I'm going to go on a real talk tangent here, and I'll start with this:
First, I get that a lot of people are some combination of have worked very hard on the new edition, are proud of their work, want it to be well received, and are frustrated by the non-constructive negativity and the constructive criticism. It's making folks sensitive. If you have become sensitive, no big, it happens to all of us. You need to take a moment to step back and re-harden though because the wear is showing on some of you.
Second, the only way (and I mean the only damn way) that
anyone improves at
anything is by being challenged. Constructive criticism (which I define as any criticism that includes what they do not like, why they do not like it, and thoughts for improvement) is good for you. Embrace it.
Third, the vast majority of this comes down to personal taste. For Catalyst the "right" answer is work they can be proud of that earns them money. For the fans the "right" answer is a game that is fun for them to play and makes sense to them.
Specific no-holds barred responses that need to be said:
What is the purpose of sharing the data? When you release data, you are trying to prove a theory, correct?
While I think that is often the case, it doesn't have to be. Sometimes data can be shown to initiate a point of discussion, which is what I believe Penllawen intended. I very much read his point as "Here is some limited but interesting data about reviews on 6e, what do you guys think?", not "Look at how shit this game is doing, here is the data that says so.".
In this case, your theory is that Shadowrun 6E isn't any good and people should stop purchasing it so that Catalyst Game Labs stops production and sells off the IP to people that "know how to make the game". Correct?
I didn't get that from anything he posted at all. . .
I'll happily tackle that question with my own personal answer, though. I have been a strong critic of 6e here (with some praise, but minor in comparison), so for the official record:
1). 6e is ok. I do not think it is garbage, but I also think several things could have been handled significantly better. On the game mechanics side this includes strength and melee, armor and soak, the really lopsided priority chart, humans and special points, some attacks not having defense tests, explosives damage and aoe radius, rigger issues, missed opportunities to reign in magic (foci and spirits in particular), and the core edge system being a poorly balanced feature, requirement, and limitation.
Most of that stuff comes down to personal taste issues, with no right or wrong answer. Some of it, though, is absolutely poor design.
2). On the editing, playtesting, and publishing side of things that could have been handled significantly better though, it speaks for itself. The ball was dropped. Period. That doesn't mean we can't recover, and I hope we do. I am just calling it like I see it.
3). Do I personally want Catalyst to stop production and sell the IP? I want Catalyst to
improve, and if they do, I want them to prosper for their effort. If they cannot improve, or can but refuse, then perhaps it would be best for the fans and the IP (if not the company themselves) if the IP did fall into the hands of someone whom would treat it better.
For the most part, this is not a reflection upon the authors and freelancers at all, and more on the business practices of the shot callers of the company. No one is perfect, and I wouldn't demand that of anyone, but I am going to list just a few of the companies business practices that could be improved upon:
- Loren Coleman is still at least somewhat involved with the company after embezzling roughly three quarters of a million dollars from it, perhaps even still of co-founder/manager/ect. status and influence (I do not know his exact role other than being involved enough to have directed the GenCon panel for the company). If that doesn't tell you what sort of integrity to expect then I don't know what does. If you are not familiar with this incident, look it up. Good read.
- Now this was before my time with Shadowrun, and I hope that all of the authors have since been paid, but as of 2010 there was a significant number of freelance authors that still had not been paid by Catalyst for their work on 4e. That is a more than 2 year delay on wages. Again, this is easy to find info from a simple google search. More good read.
- From 5e in 2014 to now (the time frame of my personal experience) the editing on the books has been absolutely dreadful.
Now even if I do not agree with some of the author's and freelancer's opinions/work, I do believe that most of them at least care about the the product and the IP. I honestly cannot say I believe the same of Catalyst, though. The above problems are not the result of how something that is cared for is treated.
If they manage to turn things around and treat the IP, the product, the people who write for them to make the game possible, and the consumers with some manner of respect, then I'll be the first to say they improved from their challenges. If they continue on as is (editing and publishing) or was (past issues), and do not grow and improve, then I do believe the IP will be better off in the hands of a company that does.
Once again, I want to differentiate between the authors/freelancers, the Missions team, forum moderating team, and the actual Catalyst decision makers, because I know they are (mostly) very different people.
I'm not as salty about Catalyst as many. For a start, 5e is my favourite edition of Shadowrun [1]. Sure, it's not perfect, but no RPG system is.
What I am salty about, however, is the pretty poor state that 6e shipped in. We had a ~10 page errata doc, covering 30-40 items, for a physical book that was on sale at GenCon for $50/100/200. Since then, there's been at least 15 things the Errata Team have publicly confirmed they are looking at.
I wanted to highlight there two things, because they are very separate, but often mistakenly lumped together.
The first mostly comes down to gaming preferences. Being passionate about that is great, discussing and debating is great, but being actually mad about personal tastes is silly and doesn't help anyone.
The later though is worth being mad about. It speaks directly to how the company views and respects both it's product and consumer.