[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

... You're underestimating how much armor any competent player is going to be wearing at any given time, while also ignoring that lowering DV values has skewed lethality for targets that should be very easy to take out.

See 5e pg 379.  There's still a similar rule to Mowing them Down in 6e.  Whether 5e or 6e, if the GM feels the NPC shouldn't take more than a gank to neutralize, it doesn't.

[Rift_0f_Bladz]

As a professional Pink-Mohawk Player (read my tag line if you don't believe me). My gaming group loved heavy armor (aka lots of dice), big weapons, and lots of explosives (read 2 mages). But we also like our games deadly, so we were almost always moments away from burning Edge. Luckily, we had amazing rolls so that never happened.

My point is, while bikini/muscle shirt tops look cool in art, it makes no since in a shoot out. Why are your players using armored clothing when Armored Jackets/Executive Business level of armor exists? I get occasionally you cant use those, but there are plenty of armor ~9 high end clothing/specialty armor out there for the players (and bad guys) to use.

As for 6ed armor thing, I get that the damage codes and soak pools got stupid fast, Troll with Nodachi anyone, same Troll with all the stackable armor were? But, armor only giving a single die reroll effectively, unless you have more edge to use, is crazy as well. Honestly, to me the fact that people are already saying how they would modify the rules for home games scares me. That is showing, to me, that something doesn't work or at least is a bad selling point.

Finally, yeah 5th was horrible for a lot of rules and others were useable, with either clarification, officially or via table calls. But I personally love crunchy games. The trend of simplify everything is personally a copy of D&D5 ability to reclaim top dog of RPGs, held for a decent while by Paizo and Pathfinder 1 (also super crunchy). Now, suddenly, both Pathfinder and ShadowRun are like, yeah lets do that! Granted both systems needed work, but not, in my opinion, how it was done.

[adzling]

It can encourage and enhance all types of play, pink mohawk, black trench-coat, and mirror shades alike. Your pink mohawk players can wear the crazy outfits so often depicted in cyberpunk art without worry. Your black trench-coat players can focus more on blending in situationally and could very well be more encouraged to use a lot of cover, just like real combat. And finally your mirror shades players have their usual mix of the other two drawing from benefits of both.

As I noted in response to Stainless's comment re: "hooray we can now wear normal clothes and not care so that's awesome for black trenchcoat" (i'm paraphrasing) that's a bogus argument as you can do that with armored suits, clothes, vests, gowns and still retain the relationship to reality.

So again, there have been no reasonable arguments to date why removing the relevance of armor (and other similar divorcements from reality) is now better. In fact most have been factually incorrect (see above).

The only semi-reasonable argument I have heard is "because tanks in 5e were impossible to kill" which is a decent argument until you realize that:
1). it's WORSE in 6e with the lower damage codes meaning higher body is now hyper-effective.
2). there's other ways to skin this cat that could have resulted in both meaningful limits on soak pools AND something that reflects reality enough (not perfectly, but enough).

IMHO 6e is a clear indication that the developers wanted shadowrun to become wholly pink mohawk (perhaps that's the play style they all play so it didn't seem like an issue?) and there is no longer any room for a black trench play in srun.

That's a change from prior editions and not a good move imho.

YMMV

[Michael Chandra]

Honestly, to me the fact that people are already saying how they would modify the rules for home games scares me.

People shouted the same with SR5, and probably with any new edition of any RPG. So can't use that as judgement factor, really. Heck, if we want to take people's expressed concerns as gospel: We have both claims that the game will be Pink Mohawk only and claims that the game will be Black Trenchcoat only now. If what people are saying is taken as gospel, that means SR6 is a living and breathing paradox that will end the universe and all life in it.

As for sounds from people who actually played: We also got a lot of positive reactions from people who tried out the Box. So all in all I'd say it's too early to judge or let things scare us.

[Ghost Rigger]

So, to turn back to my prior posts that have only been met with "but 6e is awesome!" nonsense srun has now effectively determined that a bikini is materially similar to an armored jacket and helmet in a firefight.
That's fine for pink mohawk games but wholly unsuitable for a game that has grounding in realistic in world responses, i.e. black trenchcoat.

Except it's only beneficial for pink mohawk on an aesthetic level (according to your definition of pink mohawk aesthetics anyways); on a gameplay level, it's actually very detrimental. Pink mohawk players need soak dice just as much as, if not far more than, their black trenchcoat counterparts because they got shot at more often. In fact, the lack of soak dice is going to push players to black trenchcoat if anything, because now the only way to survive until the end of the run is to not get shot at in the first place.

See 5e pg 379.  There's still a similar rule to Mowing them Down in 6e.  Whether 5e or 6e, if the GM feels the NPC shouldn't take more than a gank to neutralize, it doesn't.

Optional rules do not excuse poor core rules. And what about fringe cases where the target should be easy to take down but is definitely not a grunt? Does Mowing Them Down apply to whomever the GM feels like it applies to? Do the rules even matter anymore?

[adzling]

As for sounds from people who actually played: We also got a lot of positive reactions from people who tried out the Box. So all in all I'd say it's too early to judge or let things scare us.

This is baseless afaik.
I have heard no one says it's better for black trench supported by any reasonable argument.
Do you have one Michael?

[adzling]

So, to turn back to my prior posts that have only been met with "but 6e is awesome!" nonsense srun has now effectively determined that a bikini is materially similar to an armored jacket and helmet in a firefight.
That's fine for pink mohawk games but wholly unsuitable for a game that has grounding in realistic in world responses, i.e. black trenchcoat.

Except it's only beneficial for pink mohawk on an aesthetic level (according to your definition of pink mohawk aesthetics anyways); on a gameplay level, it's actually very detrimental. Pink mohawk players need soak dice just as much as, if not far more than, their black trenchcoat counterparts because they got shot at more often. In fact, the lack of soak dice is going to push players to black trenchcoat if anything, because now the only way to survive until the end of the run is to not get shot at in the first place.

you are of course correct, my reference to pink mohawk was stylistically related.

[Ghost Rigger]

I have heard no one says it's better for black trench supported by any reasonable argument.

It fucks over black trenchcoat less than it does other play styles because how much it fucks over your play style is directly proportionate to how often you get shot at while playing your play style. That's as close as we're ever going to get to a "reasonable argument".

[Shinobi Killfist]

Style of play we kind of need definitions for. I think people are using the terms differently.

I’d say 6e seems more divorced from reality. Not necessarily narrative but making no efforts to fit with simulation at all. No idea what that means style of play wise.

As for mow then down rules, the GM will fix it doesn’t actually fix core design issues. It should work on its own with the GM nudging around the edges for unusual play.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

See 5e pg 379.  There's still a similar rule to Mowing them Down in 6e.  Whether 5e or 6e, if the GM feels the NPC shouldn't take more than a gank to neutralize, it doesn't.

Optional rules do not excuse poor core rules. And what about fringe cases where the target should be easy to take down but is definitely not a grunt? Does Mowing Them Down apply to whomever the GM feels like it applies to? Do the rules even matter anymore?

Mowing them Down in 5e already applies whenever the GM wants it to.

One of the major goals in 6e (my synthesis- I was not involved in writing or playtesting) is to change combat into a back and forth affair that lasts more than 1 combat round.  This is a MAJOR change from 5e.  And completely deliberate. Frankly, I'm excited to see 5e games of rocket tag go away forever.

Now, it's completely fair that at times it's very undesirable for what should be a silent elimination be a back and forth affair that 6e wants combat to be.  So in those cases, the GM is armed with a rule to situationally bypass the back and forth and "Mow them Down".

From my POV it's a win/win from a design standpoint. Exciting and engaging combats? Check.  Capability to quickly silence the Janitor when that's called for? Check.

[adzling]

I have heard no one says it's better for black trench supported by any reasonable argument.

It fucks over black trenchcoat less than it does other play styles because how much it fucks over your play style is directly proportionate to how often you get shot at while playing your play style. That's as close as we're ever going to get to a "reasonable argument".

Yah I guess this a definition of playstyle issue then.

For me black trench involves serious action / fights but also realistic in world responses to violence etc.
I want my runners picking the best weapon for their mission, the best armor and other gear and thoughtfully kitting for missions as an integral part of their prep.
I.E. as close to real world effects as possible.

6e wholly fails that sort of gameplay as most of that can be tossed out the window as wholly irrelevant; might as well put on a bikini and just punch someone as it does as much damage or more than a pistol.

[Ghost Rigger]

Mowing them Down in 5e already applies whenever the GM wants it to.

So the rules don't matter anymore, it's just whatever the GM feels like. Got it.

One of the major goals in 6e (my synthesis- I was not involved in writing or playtesting) is to change combat into a back and forth affair that lasts more than 1 combat round.  This is a MAJOR change from 5e.  And completely deliberate. Frankly, I'm excited to see 5e games of rocket tag go away forever.

I don't know what you're talking about. I've been through multiple 5e combats, and none of them were "rocket tag". In fact, the fights against higher-end enemies involved more back and forth than the ones against streetscum. I'm starting to think that you're barking up the wrong tree.

Now, it's completely fair that at times it's very undesirable for what should be a silent elimination be a back and forth affair that 6e wants combat to be.  So in those cases, the GM is armed with a rule to situationally bypass the back and forth and "Mow them Down".

If he notices that the rule exists and actually remembers it on game night. Fun fact, I've read through the CRB many times but the first time you mentioned "Mowing Them Down" in this thread, I had to go look for that rule because I was convinced that you were just pulling something out of your ass. This is part of the reason why optional rules don't excuse poor core rules: they're not just optional, they're forgettable and easy to overlook.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Same. 1st I heard of mowing them down. I still roll with professional ratings I’m most fights from 1e. No idea how they have changed in 5e off hand. It worked, felt no need to change it. But cowering or stopping fighting isn’t disabled. So it doesn’t work in many situations.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Well, there ya go.

37 pages into a discussion about 6e y'all learned a rule from 5e.

[adzling]

yeah Stainless im not familiar with rocket tag as function of combat in 5e.

It's never worked that way for our table and we play vanilla 5e combat rules.

Combats involve plenty of back and forth and most damage is stun.

It seems like you're experience of 5e combat is very different from ours, not sure why.