[lazlo]

They playtested a lot but even veteran players missed plenty of things. I caught maybe 20% when I read the book from end to end and making notes like crazy. People ask questions and I'm all "d'oh!". Fortunately they're using a decent errata process nowadays.

Maybe they should have had non-veteran players playtest it then.  Veteran players are going to read the rules and subconsciously fill in the gaps with their extensive knowledge, while new players are more likely to say, "um... how do we do we figure out unarmed damage?"

[fougerec99]

F.i. I´d say that there´s a really clear picture now that the majority of players don´t like and/or understand the logic (or rather, lack thereoff) behind Melee weapons being almost 100% independent from Strength while Unarmed Combat relies on it when it comes to both the Damage Code and the Attack rating. Refusing the necissary "blessing" for adjusting this issue via errata (or at least in the Combat supplement...) or refusing to acknowledge that there might be an issue here is just insulting at this point...

If someone could just explain the decision maybe that would help.  It might be something we're just not seeing and having it explained could help.  We may not like it, but at least we'd understand it.

Right now I ordered the 6E book for free (won a draw for a shopping spree at an online store) and I'm starting to regret my purchase.  I'm basically looking at gutting 6E for what is good and combing it with 5E.  So it's little more than an options book

[markelphoenix]

F.i. I´d say that there´s a really clear picture now that the majority of players don´t like and/or understand the logic (or rather, lack thereoff) behind Melee weapons being almost 100% independent from Strength while Unarmed Combat relies on it when it comes to both the Damage Code and the Attack rating. Refusing the necissary "blessing" for adjusting this issue via errata (or at least in the Combat supplement...) or refusing to acknowledge that there might be an issue here is just insulting at this point...

If someone could just explain the decision maybe that would help.  It might be something we're just not seeing and having it explained could help.  We may not like it, but at least we'd understand it.

Right now I ordered the 6E book for free (won a draw for a shopping spree at an online store) and I'm starting to regret my purchase.  I'm basically looking at gutting 6E for what is good and combing it with 5E.  So it's little more than an options book

Having used it, it's not as terrible as people are making out. Are there big mistakes? Yes. Am I enjoying the new rules, yes!

[fougerec99]

Having used it, it's not as terrible as people are making out. Are there big mistakes? Yes. Am I enjoying the new rules, yes!

I am really hoping that it plays better than it reads.  I'll definitely play it as written before making any hard and fast decisions.

[Michael Chandra]

They playtested a lot but even veteran players missed plenty of things. I caught maybe 20% when I read the book from end to end and making notes like crazy. People ask questions and I'm all "d'oh!". Fortunately they're using a decent errata process nowadays.

Maybe they should have had non-veteran players playtest it then.

They did. But if the rulebook is in flux, even playtesters will start remembering things and face change blindness.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Having used it, it's not as terrible as people are making out. Are there big mistakes? Yes. Am I enjoying the new rules, yes!

I am really hoping that it plays better than it reads.  I'll definitely play it as written before making any hard and fast decisions.

Some of what will make it play better is actually the lack of material. While yes many people want book x,y,z out SR5 had those and 30 more which bogged down the rules with bloat. Many times my layers would be like I use x program or y ware and I’d have no idea what it did there was just too much. Trimmed down systems flow easier. The core mechanic is the same and unless you used a lot of modifiers in SR5 it probably won’t be any harder or easier. It’s still die pool vs die pool. But there is a lot less to deal with.

[Finstersang]

Having used it, it's not as terrible as people are making out. Are there big mistakes? Yes. Am I enjoying the new rules, yes!

I tend to agree. There´s a lot that really got better.

But among all that there are some really obvious stinks - often due to change blindness. It would be wise to errata these soon, before everyone starts switching to different houserules regarding core mechanics. And before you start to build up additional stuff on top of that. The current state of the Core rules is not a good foundation for a supplement (unless that supplement directly aims at some of these problems. Would come off as a little bit greedy, but hey...  )

[Typhus]

Not unplayable

Yes, unplayable fits.  You can't currently make a character with it since the RAI are so badly written or absent. That's pretty basic.  That has nothing to do with six books not yet in the mix. 

It's not that a determined and clever GM can't make it work and bridge the myriad haps and stitch up the loopholes as they arise.  We've seen that they can. The problem is that they have to do that just to run the game .

This means each GM has to maintain a houserule document just try to play it RAW/RAI.  Players can't use the book as printed, because it's either been erratad or houseruled, and so there's no point in buying a hardcopy.  And if they play at a new table, fundamental details that completely change a build (like how unarmed damage is calculated) may be in play that make certain builds immediately unusable or require rebuilding.

The PDF may get updated regularly, but that is not likely to make up for all the missing info, especially when constraining the book to an arbitrarily lower page count (when page count wasn't the problem with 5). 

So, yes, unplayable and definitely irresponsible as a game company to have released in such a shape. 

As for mining it for ideas, as it stands, I think the only thing I am considering keeping from it is the action economy.  Almost nothing else is working for me the more I read through it.

The only upside for me is that I am writing more homebrew and retro porting, and may actually play some old school shadowrun again.  Going back to the good times. 

[penllawen]

As for mining it for ideas, as it stands, I think the only thing I am considering keeping from it is the action economy.  Almost nothing else is working for me the more I read through it.

I'd like to hear ideas about how to do that, because I also quite like that aspect of 6 but don't see how you'd backport it.

I might have a go at porting the Matrix rules. I definitely like the 6e Matrix rules better than the 5e ones.

[Lormyr]

The matrix section is one of the few that is a strict improvement imo.

[penllawen]

The matrix section is one of the few that is a strict improvement imo.

Yeah, I can't see any aspect of it that's a step back from 5e. Which for my money makes it the best Matrix rules SR has ever had.

(I mean, thematically I like 2e's dungeon-crawling host maps and hardlines, but it's horrific to actually play unless your non-deckers go out for a lot of pizza!)

[Shinobi Killfist]

The matrix section is one of the few that is a strict improvement imo.

Agreed it’s solid, the best it’s ever been imo.

[Typhus]

I'd like to hear ideas about how to do that, because I also quite like that aspect of 6 but don't see how you'd backport it.

Well, granted I haven't tried it yet, but the basics would seem to all be there.  Complex = Major, Simple & Free = Minor, unless it's an attack.  All attacks seem to be Major.  There might be some fringe cases for specific exceptions, but that's my baseline for now.  Conversion to a 3 AP/turn  system is my backup plan, with Complex/Major being worth 2, and Simple/Single Move being 1.  Reflex Boosting adds extra AP, probably +1 per bonus die.

I've got a laundry list of other simplifications that go with my home edition ideas, too much to easily explain, and probably still full of holes to fill. 

Related to other statements in this thread, I also tend to reject arguments that praise 6 by saying it's "better" than 5.  That's a pretty low bar to clear, IMO.  "Better" here does not = "good", especially in regards to the Matrix.  Sooo many missed opportunities with that section.

[penllawen]

Well, granted I haven't tried it yet, but the basics would seem to all be there. 

I'll get back to you on this. I had something I couldn't figure out but now my mind's gone blank.

"Better" here does not = "good", especially in regards to the Matrix.  Sooo many missed opportunities with that section.

Eh, you could be right, but I don't want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I've been playing SR5 for a year now, and having fun. Anything that improves on it is good news in my book.

[Banshee]

The matrix section is one of the few that is a strict improvement imo.

Agreed it’s solid, the best it’s ever been imo.

among all of the negativity it sure does warm my soul to see this post ... there are things I wish that I could have had more time and space to work on but overall I am happy with what I wrote for the matrix and glad people like it.