NEWS

[SR6] Open Issues?

  • 14 Replies
  • 543 Views

topcat

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 93
« on: <09-03-20/1121:41> »
Looking at SR6 and errata, what issues are still open for resolution?

I'm not talking about things that make you sad (e.g. balance, AR/DR mechanics, Edge mechanics, etc.), but issues that need to be resolved so that the game can function.

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2887
« Reply #1 on: <09-03-20/1205:44> »
Totally subjective question.  The game functions as written as evidenced by the fact that there are games being played.

There are certainly Errata submissions that haven't been approved, but we can't share that list.

6th Edition is a functional game, but you need a table that buys into the core mechanics.  If most of the players don't buy into how AR/DR and Edge work in 6th edition, it's probably going to be a short campaign.  Much like any game really. 

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Moderator
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 4026
« Reply #2 on: <09-03-20/1259:52> »
It's playable, but of course there's still rough spots.  I'm curious to watch this thread to see what people feel are the most egregious ones.
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, youíre fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2887
« Reply #3 on: <09-03-20/1317:12> »
Well, the Fireball the Universe thing is kind of a biggie  ;  )

But that just gives players equal access to an in game "Rocks fall, everyone dies." kind of move.

Lormyr

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 794
« Reply #4 on: <09-03-20/1345:18> »
I think the most accurate phrasing would be the game itself is fully playable, but there are specific mechanics in the game which are some combination of poorly worded, poorly balanced, or directly contradictory to itself.
"TL:DR 6e's reduction of meaningful choices is akin to forcing everyone to wear training wheels. Now it's just becomes a bunch of toddlers riding around on tricycles they can't fall off of." - Adzling

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2605
« Reply #5 on: <09-03-20/1422:12> »
It works in that itís core mechanic is functional. Dice pool vs dice pool. Some modifiers. It has a edge system that technically works even if it is somewhat rough.

It has whole sections that are payable only in the most technical sense of the term. Much of the language are unclear or contradictory, and much of it is unbalanced. So yeah itís technically functioning.

I suspect instead of errata what they will do is give soft fixes in future books. I pity the person trying to soft fix some of the contradictory stuff or the persons writing the magic book. 

0B

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 169
  • Be seeing you
« Reply #6 on: <09-03-20/1454:37> »
I dislike the terminology of "functional" or "nonfunctional" with a game.

A better way of putting things might be "how much of the game is reliant on GM/table rulings." Depending on game type, you may want more or less of this. Crunchy games tend to work better with less reliance on rulings, narrative and OSR games work better with less reliance on rules.

Any time there's one of these, GM needs to make a ruling:
  • A contradictory rule
  • A vague or unclear rule
  • A rule that is implied, but not explicit
  • A situation not covered under the rules

A GM might want to make a ruling in these situations, but these are so subjective that I wouldn't count them under the same category:
  • The rule would cause significant disruption in the game or it would make the game less fun
  • The rule covers the circumstance, but not in the way the group likes
  • Cannot remember the rule, don't feel like looking it up

So I think the "functionality" of a game comes down more to 1. What's your appetite for rulings in a crunchy/rules-heavy game? and 2. How often do you need to make a ruling?

topcat

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 93
« Reply #7 on: <09-03-20/1542:04> »
Totally subjective question.  The game functions as written as evidenced by the fact that there are games being played.

If it helps to play semantics, let's say "functions within the boundaries of its rules."  If a GM must make a decision on something within those rules, because those rules are lacking or unclear in some way, not merely because they don't like the rules, then it would be an open issue.

I see posts here and in other places that it's unplayable, but haven't found that to be the case when I played it.  Still, those SR4A and SR5 players are extremely vocal about how it's unplayable.

So far, nobody brought up anything specific.  I'm curious if that changes and, if so, to what degree.

topcat

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 93
« Reply #8 on: <09-03-20/1545:52> »
For example, I consider the Adept Power "Combat Sense" to be inconsistent with other rules - even compared to the spell bearing the same name - but it is clearly spelled out and functions as written.  That's something that makes me sad, but it isn't what I would consider an open issue.

0B

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 169
  • Be seeing you
« Reply #9 on: <09-03-20/1652:32> »
If you're looking for a list, there is this post from about 8 months ago (Prior to February errata). This PDF is the one that lists the status of all of the above errata.

At the time, there were 274 potential points of errata brought up on the reddit errata thread or from the German CRB.
  • 6 were removed as they either weren't errata or were fixed by errata.
  • 18 were typos or very minor wording things ("same a skill groups" vs "same as skill groups", "if you're a decker" vs "if you're not a technomancer").
  • 21 were fixed/changed in the German CRB (And may or may not be rules in the English CRB).
  • 64 were fixed in the January 2020 PDF update
  • 95 are NOT fixed, again this is prior to the February errata so this number may be lower.

Keep in mind- not all of the above errata mentioned is an official point of errata. It's entirely possible that some of these are intended to be left as GM rulings, or are simply not a priority. Or, they have been fixed by errata team, but aren't published and can't be commented on due to their NDA.

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9682
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #10 on: <09-03-20/1654:51> »
I dislike the terminology of "functional" or "nonfunctional" with a game.

A better way of putting things might be "how much of the game is reliant on GM/table rulings."
I'd make that "is reliant on GM/table rulings but not by design". Because there are a lot of places in the book where things are deliberately left up to the GM, yet there's also places where it seems like this was NOT intended and it is a gap / contradiction / bad phrasing.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

0B

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 169
  • Be seeing you
« Reply #11 on: <09-03-20/1921:12> »
Eh, I think player taste matters more than designer intent when determining if a rules system is for you. A narrative system might have the perfect ratio of rules-to-rulings based on designer intent, but if you don't like narrative systems, you won't enjoy it. Lots of people love mustard, I hate it, even if it's the best mustard ever made.

The tricky part here is that since SR games have been crunchy in the past (Lots of rules), the player base already has an expectation of the rule system to err more towards "rules" over "rulings." So, you might be able to evaluate the ratio against other editions or your expectations. I think when people talk about a game being "functional," they mean "does this meet player base expectations?" or "does this meet my expectations?"

It's also tricky when the rules-to-rulings varies by section (Magic vs Matrix vs Combat, etc). You can also evaluate the consistency of the ratio.

And the hardest part of all of this is that whether something is a rule or a ruling is subjective. I count an implied rule as a ruling because not everyone will come to the same conclusion, and I only count rules that are actually in a book. Others might not. For example, I counted "Essence starts at 6" as a ruling, not a rule, until errata put it into the book. There were several places that had thresholds of "5 - Essence," so someone who is completely new to SR might assume that Essence starts at 5 instead. However, Essence has been 6 in every other edition of SR, so it was also reasonable to say that it started at 6. Some people might've put "essence starts at 6" as a rule even prior to errata, since it was "obvious" (to past players of SR) that essence starts at 6.

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9682
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #12 on: <09-04-20/0251:24> »
For example, I counted "Essence starts at 6" as a ruling, not a rule, until errata put it into the book. There were several places that had thresholds of "5 - Essence," so someone who is completely new to SR might assume that Essence starts at 5 instead. However, Essence has been 6 in every other edition of SR, so it was also reasonable to say that it started at 6.
Was it ever added to SR5 then? Because I still have this Change Blindness note:
"Essence: Starts at 6 implied by max Magic and essence reduction rules, death at 0 as implied by Essence Loss"
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

0B

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 169
  • Be seeing you
« Reply #13 on: <09-04-20/1120:18> »
Oh, jeez, I stand corrected. Yeah, as many issues as I have with 6e, I still think 5e was worse.

Honestly, that still points more towards that being a ruling pre-errata, then, since it's based on community knowledge and not RAW.

MercilessMing

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 156
« Reply #14 on: <09-16-20/1107:16> »
Well, the Fireball the Universe thing is kind of a biggie  ;  )

But that just gives players equal access to an in game "Rocks fall, everyone dies." kind of move.
Everyone who doesn't burn a point of Edge...