[FastJack]

The group should then discuss if there are any house rules they would like to implement. These are specific instances where the group decides to play the game differently than how it is written. These should be established prior to the first game being played to avoid confusion.

[Shinobi Killfist]

notes on advancement (specifically skills)

Yes karma cost are higher, basically on par with skills groups ... because well they are basically skill groups now .. also the same cost as attributes
Specializations and expertise cost are pretty cheap ... same cost as a spell

as for training times ... they are purely a suggestion and explicitly states that, so if you think they are too much cut them back

Wait what? The rules for training time aren't actually rules? Then why are they in the book at all?

Are there are other rules that are purely suggestions we should be aware of?

Optional rules aren’t that unusual. Though why anyone thought month per was a good start for the optional rule I got nothing. You go on 5 runs and finally save enough karma to bump your firearms from 5 to 6. You spend it and begin training let’s be nice and say 1 run a month, presumedly if it’s one a month they are kind of big runs and not mission sized so maybe 2 sessions per run. 3 months in real life pass before you finally get to see that thing you saved for and bought.

This isn’t Old school d&d where you are building your name level fortress or creating a powerful magic item. You are doing a ridiculously mundane task.  Bumping a skill a bit. Even in a simulationist game that would be really hard to guess how long that would take. Quite a few people advance in skill quickly and something like that might only take days not months.

I can’t see the fun in it either way. By the time the 6 months in game passed the player probably forgot he even paid for it and has earned buckets of karma they have no desire to spend since they won’t see it.

[Iron Serpent Prince]

Now I will agree with you it is not our place as gm's or players to fix big blatant holes in a game by using house rules ... but that is not what we are talking about here.

Except it is.

as for training times ... they are purely a suggestion and explicitly states that, so if you think they are too much cut them back

So, the not-rule in the book, is deliberately - and explicitly - stated as not being a rule.

And you, with your signature that indicates that you are speaking with some connection to - if not authority of - CGL are telling paying customers that they have to do the work to finish the rules.

That is bovine drek.

Straight. Up. Bo. Vine. Drek.

The only saving grace of this, is you at least warned potential customers that 6e could very well be handeled just like 5e.

"Fix the rules?  Why would we do that?  We already got paid, sucka!  We will simply string you along for a few years, and then release a new unfinished set of rules that we expect y'all to buy up."

To be 100% fair, the errata team for 5e did try to the fullest extent of their abilities.  They weren't allowed to succeed.

[Shinobi Killfist]

All RPGs in the last 20 years or so have optional rules and expect some levels of house rules. I think you are blowing this out of proportion.

[Moonshine Fox]

Now I will agree with you it is not our place as gm's or players to fix big blatant holes in a game by using house rules ... but that is not what we are talking about here.

Except it is.

as for training times ... they are purely a suggestion and explicitly states that, so if you think they are too much cut them back

So, the not-rule in the book, is deliberately - and explicitly - stated as not being a rule.

Then tell us oh great swami who has seen the future with the street released book and played games with it, what rule exactly is incomplete and in what way exactly is it incomplete.

The last few pages of this thread has indeed be speculation on the QUICK START rules we know of and the hints about full rules dropped, including discussing house rules we have used and may or may-not need.

I’m not sure what it is your mad about, that many of us have dared change the rules as written to better fit our players and game? Or that there’s an optional rule suggestion in the upcoming CRB? It’s been a common practice for ttrpgs to do such for at least 30 years now.

If you hate the company and it’s people and it’s people as much as it seems, why are you playing their game?

[mbisber]

Hey Fast Jack?

I have had beefs with 5E since its introduction at Origins 2013. I had to redo my official Missions character at least four times.

But, it seems to me that most of the beefs about 6E are a trifle premature.

It's one thing to read endless foolishness about Perceiving Magic in 5E, p.280, for example, in this forum, but we can all read the nitpicking stupidity at work.

It's another to make blanket statements without having something actually to read.

I believe my Neo-Tokyo Missions character will have more at stake in how 6E turns out than 99% of the others in play. My character is that extreme. But. I am going to save my bellyaching until I get the bad news in print.

So, Fast Jack? Tell these buffoons to tone it down. Or why not suspend them for a while?

[Shinobi Killfist]

While I’m sure people should tone it down, calling people buffoons probably isn’t helping.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I believe my Neo-Tokyo Missions character will have more at stake in how 6E turns out than 99% of the others in play. My character is that extreme. But. I am going to save my bellyaching until I get the bad news in print.

Well, any character concept relying on options from beyond the 5e CRB is unavoidably going to have issues converting to a CRB-only 6e. 

[mbisber]

... calling people buffoons probably isn’t helping.

True. but what if it quacks like a duck?

[mbisber]

Well, any character concept relying on options from beyond the 5e CRB is unavoidably going to have issues converting to a CRB-only 6e.

All too true.

[tenchi2a]

All RPGs in the last 20 years or so have optional rules and expect some levels of house rules. I think you are blowing this out of proportion.

The issues is not optional rules or house rules perse.
The issues are optional rules dressed as suggested norms with no true alternatives suggested.
An optional rule is just normally something to change the way the game is played in a flavor or tactical sense.
Such as RG1-RG5 in "Run and Gun", or the expanded lifestyle rules in "Run Faster"
And are not presented as this is how we set it up in the base rules, but you don't have to use it.

House rules are fine if they are imposed to bring a working game inline with the tables preference in play-style.
But I can not support the idea that a company should count on players to create house rules to fix issues with their game.
Just to be clear CGL has never made this statement so I will give them the benefit of the doubt that this is not their official response.
But This is why I will not support the idea that if a game mechanic is perceived to be broken by a large group of players the answer is just to house rule it.

To me this is a lazy answer to this issues, and promotes an air of non-concern or indifferent for the players bases prescription of the game, be it a small number or a large number which is hard to determine from just a forum or a few review site reviews. On both sides of this you have to remember that most posters here come from groups of players (The campaigning group) that can range from just the reader to 6-8 people in number. so to dismiss every comment as just a squeaky wheel is wrong and can be devastating to a game (D&D 4th anyone).
The point is if as MC stated, their are whole pages of players complaining about the system("It sucks") as it stands, and only a few are praising it, there may be a issues there that "Just House Rule it" will not solve.
I have started this ad nauseum, but I don't think 6th is a horrible attempt at a Shadowrun game system.
I just feel that it has issues about where the priorities are with the mechanics.
Edge could be a wonderful addition to the game if it was not the core mechanic that it's presented as.
I'm not even say it should be only an optional rule, but I don't logically see it as a complete replacement for the modifiers system or portraying the effects of armor, etc.
It is a bonus mechanic nothing more, so it fails massively as a modifier mechanic which needs to work effective both way and not just in the positive.
Just to be clear "0" is not an effective negative, nor is the defender gets a bonus and you don't when the bonus by itself (without existing edge) Doesn't come close to emulating the penalties that it is replacing.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Well let's dial down the optional rule talk, at least with regards to training times. Because it's not an optional rule to deviate from what the "rule" is in 6e.

Look back at what Banshee said.  The "rule" is the training times are whatever you want them to be, but here's a chart anyway with but a simple suggestion.

[Iron Serpent Prince]

All RPGs in the last 20 years or so have optional rules and expect some levels of house rules.

(Emphasis added)

Precisely.

As a community, we have fostered an environment where we shame other paying customers into enabling lazy designing.

Perhaps I've been spoiled by quality design companies that strive to produce a complete and correct core rules.  And then release optional rules that are clearly labeled as such, so the consumer can make an informed decision.

That shouldn't be the exception.

The core rulebook should not be a Mad Lib passed off as a complete - even if basic - system.

We should not have to pay someone else and then need to complete the game for ourselves.

That is not the same as tailoring it to our own tastes, that is something separate.  The core rules need to be clearly defined because the age of "home game" is disappearing.  With living games and online tabletops becoming increasingly more common, all prospective GMs need to know precisely what the core rules are so they can present potential players with a clear list of changes they are making to their personal game.
This way, prospective players can make an informed decision (or choose not to) before joining the game.

Prospective players should not be required to submit individual questionairs to GMs to find out how they filled in each blank.

[tenchi2a]

All RPGs in the last 20 years or so have optional rules and expect some levels of house rules.

(Emphasis added)

Precisely.

As a community, we have fostered an environment where we shame other paying customers into enabling lazy designing.

Perhaps I've been spoiled by quality design companies that strive to produce a complete and correct core rules.  And then release optional rules that are clearly labeled as such, so the consumer can make an informed decision.

That shouldn't be the exception.

The core rulebook should not be a Mad Lib passed off as a complete - even if basic - system.

We should not have to pay someone else and then need to complete the game for ourselves.

That is not the same as tailoring it to our own tastes, that is something separate.  The core rules need to be clearly defined because the age of "home game" is disappearing.  With living games and online tabletops becoming increasingly more common, all prospective GMs need to know precisely what the core rules are so they can present potential players with a clear list of changes they are making to their personal game.
This way, prospective players can make an informed decision (or choose not to) before joining the game.

Prospective players should not be required to submit individual questionairs to GMs to find out how they filled in each blank.

+1

[kyoto kid]

..OK caught about half of tonight's live play session (was busy in the kitchen).

When the sidebar chat moved to purchasing/upgrading skills I found another major downside.  Instead of it taking 2 Karma x skill rating to learn/improve a skill, it now takes 5 Karma.  Furthermore the time span is increased from days x rating (1 - 4) and weeks x rating (5+) to one full month x skill rating.  This will really stifle character advancement particularly in a homebrew to the point your character will be relatively "static" for a long time.  It will also likely mean few characters will take anything above a Low lifestyle as it could get costly (increasing your firearms skill to say, 6 suddenly costs you 12,000¥ at a low lifestyle plus the training cost). So much for what you made on that last run that you wanted to put away for that new piece of chrome or wetware.

The time factor will not have as much an impact in missions play as you can take as much downtime as needed between sessions however the resources impact will still be there. For example my character Leela who has a middle lifestyle, getting that rating 6 in a single skill would cost 30 Karma and 30,000¥ (about the price for a degree at a state college!). 

The way it was explained is that all skills are now skill groups and sub-classes (like say Pistols) are now specialisations that still require you to have the base group skill.  It wasn't explained how much it cost on time and Karma for specialisations and how far one could increase them (I came away with the impression that you need to raise the core skill first to improve the specialisation further).  If Karma awards are about the same as they currently are in 5E, it would mean very, very slow character advancement overall.  I don't know how others feel, but if I devote weeks if not months to playing and really don't see my character improving very much, I'll bag it and go find some other way to spend my time that is more rewarding (or just stay with 5E).

Just Wow. Why put in a rule that's going to have to be completely ignored? That's just doesn't make any sense. How did that get through play test?
As to the raising cost did they increase karma awards to go with it?

...that is something I didn't get a chance to ask before the session was over.  5  karma x rating to raise a skill, better off raising the base linked attribute, and if you are not awakened, augmenting it.