NEWS

State of 6e today

  • 397 Replies
  • 15209 Views

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2585
« Reply #390 on: <09-08-20/1812:51> »
And then 6e releases, with the same editing mistakes that 5e had, on top of all the "change bad" things that people will dislike regardless of the rule quality.

I'd like to see some evidence that this has any bearing on 6e's reception.

I have never heard anyone say anything to this effect and as one of the more anti-6e folks I can attest nothing could be further from the truth for me and the folks I know.

5e desperately needed rationalizing, streamlining and improvements in the decker and rigger areas.

That's change that could have greatly improved the game.

Instead we got nu-edge.

If 6e had not implemented nu-edge and instead focussed on fixing the broken stuff in 5e and streamlining where possible I would still be buying all the shadowrun products produced.

Heck if they had deleted 5e entirely and replaced it with a better system i'd still likely by buying everything that came out.

It's not that folks don't like change, it's that they don't like shit sandwiches.

Well I am one person to whom the poor editing in 5th edition was a lot more of a put off to me than questionable rule design.  I can deal with rules I don't like.  What I will not deal with is the need to proofread and revise a book I paid for that's full of grade school errors, missing references, references that no longer apply but got copied and pasted from the old version and so on.  I don't know if 6e is as bad as 5e but I have no motivation to find out.  I gave enough money to CGL already for shoddy product. 

The 4A edition is a good example.  There was some odd rules choices in that edition but it was damned well written and edited.  It was a snap to house rule stuff I didn't like.  If 5e had kept every design decision and just been put together as well as 4A then I'd have already bought 6e by now.

No one likes crap editing so I don't think that was his focus. I think he was focusing more on the change bad part as it seems to boil down complaints into just not liking change instead of it being a actual mechanically worse rules system for them.  If you switch from a steak to tofu its not disliking change that is your complaint, but that you got tofu.

adzling

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3283
« Reply #391 on: <09-08-20/1904:02> »
No one likes crap editing so I don't think that was his focus. I think he was focusing more on the change bad part as it seems to boil down complaints into just not liking change instead of it being a actual mechanically worse rules system for them.  If you switch from a steak to tofu its not disliking change that is your complaint, but that you got tofu.

Thank you shinobi.

For all the people saying that the poor reception of 6e is because people don't like change please provide some evidence of this if you want to be taken seriously.

To date I have not heard anyone, zero, zilch express that the reason they don't like 6e is because it's different.

tenchi2a

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 120
« Reply #392 on: <09-08-20/1933:38> »

I look at it as Shadowrun has been a dying IP for the last 15 years. (Since WizKids got the licence)
With the printing of 4th edition it has been nothing but a downward spiral for the brand with every new edition driving away more and more of the fans that made it a big name in the RPG industry. The took a unique and beloved combat system and made it the current generic system that was popular at the time. A trend that has continued to this day. 6th is just the next failure in this 15 year run.

Another issues that has plagued Shadowrun is when it was first made. Due to the timing and the tech of the time, Shadowrun now comes off as very old-school cyberpunk truing to shoehorn in modern-day tech.

It may be a unpopular opinion but at this time IMHO Shadowrun either needs a reset or to just be shelved. In its current stated there is just to much baggage for new players and the system will not appeal to old players. And CGL needs to stop trying to follow trends and chase after the simplistic rules crowd who, after working in a game store I can tell you have the attention span of a moth, and remember the fans that supported them all these years and try to make a game that they will like.

Just my 2 cents.

I would be interested in hearing of your store experience, just to see if it lines up with what I am getting told by my buddies at my local store....

Because i am hearing the exact same thing. DnD 5e may be a huge seller, but it appears to be driving a HUGE rift into its own audience....
(For the record, I don't play dnd 5e. so this is all anecdotal). Apparently what is happening at my store is they have had to basically divide the players into 3 groups...
Larpers, Old skool players. and "first timers"...

The old Skool players (those that have been around for multiple DnD editions) can't stand the whining and complaining of the "new Players" (those that came in during 5e), and "New Players" hate the old skool players because they are "set in their ways and won't change"

And the Larpers just seem to drive both groups nuts...


Not sure what is happening to western media in general.... my Shops Comic section has gone from a 50 foot long by 8 foot high wall, to just a 5 by 5 foot rack, while the manga section has gone from 4 by 4 foot shelf to a 20 foot along wall...

The RPG section has shrunk a fair bit.... But Board games have expanded, as well as his section of East Asian books, games, and puzzles. Now some of this makes sense as we have a huge East Asian community... but the board game increase really surprised me... (the comic and manga thing, not so much...)


1. What I tended to see was new players who would buy the latest new shinny game, play it for one or two sessions then they where on to the next new shinny game. We had very little repeat business within any of the systems from the new players. Which my boss didn't mind since they where still buying new games all the time.
2. They would try a new game and once you got anywhere past "roll dice, roll (higher/lower) then target number", their eyes would glass over and they would start to say the game was to hard or to crunchy.
3. And the major ones for me and a lot of are older gamers was "That setting is stupid, they need to change it" ,"I'm offended by that game it needs to be changed" Or my absolute favorite was having one of the new players (Had only been in once before) come up to me and threaten to never comeback and tell their friends not to shop there (None of their friends did shop at are store) if we did not stop some players from playing a game because it offended them.

Overall we gained very few new RPG gamers from the walk-in crowd (they where mostly card or boadgame), most new RPG gamers where brought in by are older gamers (friends/kids).

The funny thing about #2-3 is that these seem to be the groups that most RPG game companies are designing games for these days. So all you get is a large corebook sale and maybe 1-2 supplements, then their off to the next game. Not a model client base to build a RPGgame off of, but great for game Store sales lol.
« Last Edit: <09-08-20/1938:08> by tenchi2a »

0B

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 149
  • Be seeing you
« Reply #393 on: <09-08-20/2006:08> »
And then 6e releases, with the same editing mistakes that 5e had, on top of all the "change bad" things that people will dislike regardless of the rule quality.

I'd like to see some evidence that this has any bearing on 6e's reception.

I have never heard anyone say anything to this effect and as one of the more anti-6e folks I can attest nothing could be further from the truth for me and the folks I know.

5e desperately needed rationalizing, streamlining and improvements in the decker and rigger areas.

That's change that could have greatly improved the game.

Instead we got nu-edge.

If 6e had not implemented nu-edge and instead focussed on fixing the broken stuff in 5e and streamlining where possible I would still be buying all the shadowrun products produced.

Heck if they had deleted 5e entirely and replaced it with a better system i'd still likely by buying everything that came out.

It's not that folks don't like change, it's that they don't like shit sandwiches.

Agree on all, and I should be more clear. I think it's fair to say that even if Edge was a well-designed mechanic, there would be people who disliked it because it was different. People disliked going from variable TN to fixed TN (See the comic I posted earlier for reference if you want 4e fanpro discourse), even though fixed TN is easier to balance.

However, comma, the changes made were not of good quality, so they failed on both counts (Designing good mechanics and appeasing the "old guard"). Like you said- if the new system was good, you'd have been fine with it, even if an improved 5.5e was what you really wanted.

There were some comments on the survey that seemed more like a dislike of design choices: "oversimplification" came up a few times, as did a dislike of combat not being realistic anymore. One person commented on a dislike in the shift in tone (With black lodge, cthulhu, etc.) Someone literally said "Changes too many things for the worse," which could be taken either way. I suppose you could argue that all of those changes are "actual bad," and I'd probably agree on a few. However, I want realistic combat if I'm using a crunchy system, and I want the plot to stay on a consistent tone (I like me an Earthdawn throwback once an awhile, but all the time? Eh. I also prefer cyberpunk and postcyberpunk to transhumanism, or at least prefer transhumanism in Eclipse Phase).

I don't think anyone is under the impression that all of /r/shadowrun loves 6e, and it's just a couple of weirdos who don't like it. I don't think anyone is under the impression that DTRPG sales aren't an indicator of how well a product is doing.

Lol oB, you give some of these fools WAY too much credit. Jab aside, your posts always seem logic driven rather than emotion driven, and I appreciate your perspectives.

Thanks!  :D

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #394 on: <09-08-20/2028:06> »
Someone literally said "Changes too many things for the worse," which could be taken either way.
I think that was me!

If it was, what I intended to say was pretty much what adzling said upthread. IMO the bar for “best edition of Shadowrun” is pretty low. They all have a multitude of serious flaws. 6e changed lots of things, but it mostly changed things that were alright and made them worse, while leaving untouched heaps of stuff that was bad.

I’d have been excited about 5.5e, streamlined and edited like 4e20A. I’d have been equally excited about Anarchy 2.0, with the rough edges filed down and the gaps filed. What we got was... not something that excited me.

(I will continue to temper this with acknowledgement that there are ideas in 6e I think are good, in isolation, and have made it into my 5e games. The skill list. The Matrix. Single-pass initiative, although I changed that a lot for my 5e table.)

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2585
« Reply #395 on: <09-08-20/2137:53> »
I said something similar as well. And I mean that not in a change is bad sense. But each rule when I look at is worse outside for me, the notable exception the new turn mechanic. While I personally prefer the pass systems and especially 2es system, my table likes this one so I consider that a positive change. But, weapon damages, strength and melee, the entire magic chapter, even the skills could basically making them all groups work and be good sure, but it makes it stand out the karma disparity between skills and attributes even more and it stopping at 9 with specialization/expertise going past that, which I don't like the new specialization/expertise system, the edge system and I didn't really like the 5e edge system, matrix overall though I think its core is better than 5es core, but we were x years into 5e with a ton of patches through supplements, how races work in priority I get the intent but it feels like they lost their identity, the priority system overall which again I'm not a fan of to begin with so you didn't have to do much for me to see it as an improvement.

But, its what missions will be doing so I'm kind of stuck for my online game of it.

topcat

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 93
« Reply #396 on: <09-09-20/1017:50> »
I find that 6E discussions mostly take place with people who haven't played it or really even looked beyond a few early reviews that hit the biggest changes in the game (e.g. combat axe pixies).  A massive portion of players never got past that and, likely, won't.

When looking at the rules, it helps to break it into pieces.  I like SR6's take on augmentations far more than any prior version.  Same with the action economy.  The changes to spellcasting, decking, sprites, skills, nuyen costs, firearms... I like all of that.

The priority table is absolutely awful.  Need to rebalance attributes, because right now it's best summarized as Triple-A: Always Attributes A.  The karma and performance equivalents are far out of balance.  SR6 will be much better the second they drop a karmagen or pointgen option.

I despise "big bullet" autofire where you are less likely to hit the target, but do massive damage if you do.  SR5 had this right.

I don't like removing STR from melee weapon damage.  Just a mess all around.

Summoning changes were good, but they desperately need to rebalance SR6 spirits.  Yikes.

Trading modifiers for Edge?  Meh.  The modifiers needed a lot of work, they were a mess.  I don't mind Edge, but the Edge Actions superpowers were a bad move.  The 2-Edge limit?  Again, meh.  Not thrilled, but I wasn't in love with TableRun either.

AR/DR?  I'm okay with SR6's armor class solution, but personally prefer armor as soak, even if the net result is similar.  SR5 got this right.  If I have to do AR/DR, I remove Edge from the game and add (AR-DR) to the attacker's pool.  If one party has a net advantage, give that many rerolls.  Simplified, no broken (or useless) superpowers, each individual point of armor matters, and it's clean.

So there is some bad, but the good changes outweigh those for me.  SR is a game of awful systems and SR6 is what I consider the best of a bunch of bad choices.

wraith

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 117
  • just another ghost in the machine
« Reply #397 on: <09-17-20/0029:35> »
Given how hostility towards SR6 also turns off new players that bought SR6, those polls cannot be representative unfortunately. Only CGL can say how well SR6 does compared to SR5, and any knowledge I have of said comparison falls strictly behind NDA, which I have no intent to break.

Why this topic keeps coming back month after month, despite there being nothing new to really say except for people going once again 'yeah but I really think SR6 sucks and Shadowrun is dying', as if they WANT the entire franchise to disappear, is beyond me.

Whatever excuse makes you feel better defending a badly flawed product, mate.  Look at the results, people haven't stopped liking, or playing SR, just panned the direction the current staff has taken the game.

It never ceases to amuse me that I have a fair collection of well put together and well written RPGs on my shelf that came out of Kickstarters with modest budgets, but a known name in the tradgames business working on an extremely well known property for a tabletop game can't manage to put in a similar level of editing, layout, or rules testing.

Of course, there's always 7th Sea 2e as a comparison, for a well-funded kickstarter that overpromised, delivered an incoherent and mechanically broken mess, and eventually drove the creator into selling the property entirely to Chaosium because of the costs of meeting his stated goals was too high.