[Michael Chandra]

When people liking any part of SR6 or disagreeing about how big a thing a flaw is, is painted as 'unconditional support' and 'defaulting to approval', all in an effort to discard their opinions as irrelevant, that is purely manipulative toxic behaviour.

To expand on this: There are flaws in SR6. There are rules missing, or unclear. There's decisions made that not everyone agrees with. That all is a given. So yes, we should point out things that are missing, wrong or unclear. But with things 1 considers unclear, maybe a dozen others all see the right meaning, and then the question isn't 'is this unclear' but 'why is it unclear to you specifically'. So then, knowing how 'apologists' read it is relevant because it helps figure out how well a section is written. We've had debates where I read something as X, and someone else (occasionally an 'apologist') as Y, and it can end up as 'no, it's clearly X due to Z' but also as 'I think it's X but I see how you would get to Y, so definitely something for the errata'.

And when things are missing or in error in 1 place, maybe the 'apologist' figured out how it should go based on some parts of the rules, which is why they consider it a minor bump instead of a big problem, so then too their input matters.

And when it comes to demanding change: Demanding change based on misunderstandings isn't helpful, it poisons the well. One must strive to first understand the rules, before demanding they're changed. Claiming Edge is a quarter of a die, would be the perfect example of not understanding. An SR6 Edge Point is worth 1/4 of an SR5 Edge point if you look at only the SR5 uses that made it to SR6, but you get Edge way faster in SR6 so there's no direct comparing. And in any opposed test, Edge usually is worth 2 dice: The 2/3 chance of costing your opponent a hit by forcing them to reroll.

Meanwhile, demanding change based on a personal conviction is exactly the point where the opinions of 'apologists' also matter. If only the side that disagrees is allowed to voice their opinion, it becomes impossible to properly vet how well-accepted a mechanic is. We're not the British Government, only sending counters to 1 side. This is supposed to be discourse, not discord. A well of negativity that doesn't allow input from others, is as bad as the claimed wells of positivities would be if they truly existed.

So no, I disagree with the statement that agreement is manipulation while disagreement can do nothing wrong.

[wraith]

When people liking any part of SR6 or disagreeing about how big a thing a flaw is, is painted as 'unconditional support' and 'defaulting to approval', all in an effort to discard their opinions as irrelevant, that is purely manipulative toxic behaviour.

To expand on this: There are flaws in SR6. There are rules missing, or unclear. There's decisions made that not everyone agrees with. That all is a given. So yes, we should point out things that are missing, wrong or unclear. But with things 1 considers unclear, maybe a dozen others all see the right meaning, and then the question isn't 'is this unclear' but 'why is it unclear to you specifically'. So then, knowing how 'apologists' read it is relevant because it helps figure out how well a section is written. We've had debates where I read something as X, and someone else (occasionally an 'apologist') as Y, and it can end up as 'no, it's clearly X due to Z' but also as 'I think it's X but I see how you would get to Y, so definitely something for the errata'.

And when things are missing or in error in 1 place, maybe the 'apologist' figured out how it should go based on some parts of the rules, which is why they consider it a minor bump instead of a big problem, so then too their input matters.

And when it comes to demanding change: Demanding change based on misunderstandings isn't helpful, it poisons the well. One must strive to first understand the rules, before demanding they're changed. Claiming Edge is a quarter of a die, would be the perfect example of not understanding. An SR6 Edge Point is worth 1/4 of an SR5 Edge point if you look at only the SR5 uses that made it to SR6, but you get Edge way faster in SR6 so there's no direct comparing. And in any opposed test, Edge usually is worth 2 dice: The 2/3 chance of costing your opponent a hit by forcing them to reroll.

Meanwhile, demanding change based on a personal conviction is exactly the point where the opinions of 'apologists' also matter. If only the side that disagrees is allowed to voice their opinion, it becomes impossible to properly vet how well-accepted a mechanic is. We're not the British Government, only sending counters to 1 side. This is supposed to be discourse, not discord. A well of negativity that doesn't allow input from others, is as bad as the claimed wells of positivities would be if they truly existed.

So no, I disagree with the statement that agreement is manipulation while disagreement can do nothing wrong.

I'll be blunt with you.  Errata can't fix basic bad design, and your appeal to populism doesn't change the flaws of the product.

The problems with 6e's base systems aren't going to be fixed in post, because they require a fundamental rework that is more on the scope of a '30A' version than simple errata.

[Finstersang]

When people liking any part of SR6 or disagreeing about how big a thing a flaw is, is painted as 'unconditional support' and 'defaulting to approval', all in an effort to discard their opinions as irrelevant, that is purely manipulative toxic behaviour.

Ah, good ol´ tribalism. How far we´ve come as a species

Seriously, I know what you mean. But honestly, fixating on the toxicity of a discussion or certain structures of argumentation can sometimes be a little bit (self-)manipulative in its own regards. It quickly delves (intentionally or not) into these deflective meta-discussions and forum feuds about who´s misrepresenting whom, who´s poisoning the well, who´s and whom´s side...

This is nothing I specially address at you, Chandra. Or even just at this forum. It´s a general observation about many other recent discussions as well. Remember when the internet "discovered" the strawman fallacy a few years ago and suddenly everyone was accusing each other of strawmanning back and forth, up to a point where obvious satirical depictions of opposing viewpoints were called out for it? Notice how this neither helped the discussions at hand nor helped to eradicate the unforgivable sin of strawman arguments? It´s good to recognize manipulative argumentation, fallacies, "toxicity" and whatnot, but it´s not always the best choice to call it out if you want to stay on topic. If you can recognize it, others will often recognize it as well.

[Typhus]

Regarding a community house rules collection, I feel like that just exacerbates the underlying problem.  As I see it, the system as it exists today is very fragile, if you can even call it a system -- it has different logic in play in different sections.  It's not something you can houserule your way out of, nor just errata your way out of.  Everything you "fix" breaks something else.  Every fix I've seen proposed has this result.  You can't pull out Edge and AR/DR you have rewrite the whole combat system. You can't just add more modifiers, you break the Edge system. You can't shuffle thresholds very far, you break something else, etc etc.  I say this because I've tried to "fix it" and this is what happens, every time.  The enormity of it quickly outweighs any enthusiasm my inner rules nerd might have.  Moreover, I shouldn't need to do that.

I'm not saying the concepts couldn't work, and I've never meant to imply that with my advocating for a rewrite.  However, this book is at beta stage at best.  It's just too wobbly to work with.  With it's current state, any given fix creates a need to adjust something else.  Strength in the damage calcs is good example.  It seems easy, but then you try it and not so much.  Then what of armor?  Well now you have to adjust damage again.  Etc Etc.  The endeavor quickly balloons out past something you can reasonably propose to be a simple thing.  A community collection of fixes, while interesting and perhaps informative in the longer haul, would seem to just generate a larger proportion of "unfixes" for each proposed "fix", leaving tables even more vexed than they are today.  I feel like it would be destabilizing as a general outcome more than helping.  The underlying issues are too large. 

[markelphoenix]

I kind of regret sharing the link now...

[0B]

  Growth is an anti-fragile process, and the inability to handle negative feedback is an inability to grow.  Hell, patient satisfaction has a negative correlation with positive patient outcome.  Social approval is intended to be predicated on completion of an ordeal that produced growth.  Defaulting to approval regardless of what they've done is like shooting them up with heroin for basically the same reasons why morphine isn't addictive or a problem for someone in pain but will turn a healthy person's brain upside down.

If CGL can't handle negative feedback, then CGL is incapable of producing a quality product.  If users can't handle giving negative feedback, then a CGL capable of producing a quality product can't produce a quality.  The only user feedback I ever considered "bad" when I did software development was user apathy or users clearly telling me what they thought I wanted to hear.

Hit the nail on the head right here. You need to divorce critique of the work from critique of the developer, the brand, or even the company. However, comma, you need to be able to accept all feedback, positive or negative- I disagree with you on some points. Positive feedback is harmful when you are testing something to confirm your bias or current hypothesis, but it should not be ignored. Ideally, you are always testing in such a way that you can disprove your current hypothesis, or at least are testing for multiple hypotheses- in this case, the hypothesis of a game designer would be "X is fun" or "X is a fair¹ mechanic."

The fact that people have mixed subjective opinions of things like edge is significant and should be noted. Ignoring the positive feedback and only taking the negative may make edge better for those who disliked it, but by ignoring the positive feedback, you may have created a mechanic that is disliked by the people who once liked it. It's hard to balance ideas between groups of people with different tastes.

You've probably heard "three sustains, three improves" or "three ups, three downs." And that's partially true for objective things. For more subjective things, especially creative works, I've found that the vast majority of the time, if someone tells you that something isn't working for them or that they dislike it, they're correct. It is nigh impossible to have an incorrect subjective opinion unless it's based on a misunderstanding of the facts. (Even then, the problem is likely with how you worded or explained the game rule rather than the rule itself). However, comma, if someone tells you how to fix it, they're usually wrong.

For example, take the new way armor is handled: A lot of people don't like it. The common "fix" is that you should just go back to 5E's way. This likely would not actually fix it. A better way is to ask follow-up questions and dig deeper to find the why- do people dislike it because it's more lethal? Did the corresponding damage code changes make combat slower? Do people find high body, low armor unrealistic for soaking bullets as opposed to low body, high armor? etc. I'm probably either preaching to the choir or saying a bunch of things people won't understand or will disagree with.

My point is, you should divorce critique of the work from critique of the creator, and similarly, you should divorce critique from the person giving the critique. Objective aspects of the critiquer can be OK to include (Has this person played an RPG before? Have they played Shadowrun before? Etc), since you want to make sure you're getting critique from all parts of the audience. Subjective aspects are pretty much useless, and detrimental when paired with their critique (Is this person a good GM? Do they use the "right" type of cyberpunk when playing? Etc)

1: Not to be confused with balanced or symmetric. Fairness in gaming is a whole other blob of lobsters.

I kind of regret sharing the link now...

Don't be- these sorts of discussions can be productive so long as people keep their personal feelings and vendettas out of things. It's kind of a pain to sift through all the sniping of other users, the creators, etc, but there is good discussion here. And if you hadn't shared it, someone else would have.

[Finstersang]

I kind of regret sharing the link now...

Naw, it´s cool man. Apart from some nitpicky stuff like the Ammo complaints (I would even call that an improvement, if it weren´t for APDS and Flechettes being utter shit now...), they hit the nail the on the head on almost every issue.

I hope it hurts the right people at the right places. Probably wishfull thinking, though...

[wraith]

I kind of regret sharing the link now...

Naw, it´s cool man. Apart from some nitpicky stuff like the Ammo complaints (I would even call that an improvement, if it weren´t for APDS and Flechettes being utter shit now...), they hit the nail the on the head on almost every issue.

I hope it hurts the right people at the right places. Probably wishfull thinking, though...

Given this is the second edition in a row that has been majorly fragged up, one would think that CGL might catch on that the people they have in charge of the line don't have the faintest idea of how to build and publish an RPG.

[Michael Chandra]

I kind of regret sharing the link now...

Don't be- these sorts of discussions can be productive so long as people keep their personal feelings and vendettas out of things. It's kind of a pain to sift through all the sniping of other users, the creators, etc, but there is good discussion here. And if you hadn't shared it, someone else would have.

Completely agree with this, @MP. Someone else would have posted it anyway. It's been a hot discussion topic on Facebook and on Discord, which is why I even know about it to begin with.

Unfortunately I don't know exactly what rules they got wrong, otherwise I'd love to analyse why they got them wrong (I understand why people got toxins completely wrong, even though I seem to have parsed it right myself, which was a mistake another podcast apparently made), but any time I could spend watching that video I'd rather spend watching Netflix or playing boardgames.

[dezmont]

I kind of regret sharing the link now...

Don't be- these sorts of discussions can be productive so long as people keep their personal feelings and vendettas out of things. It's kind of a pain to sift through all the sniping of other users, the creators, etc, but there is good discussion here. And if you hadn't shared it, someone else would have.

Completely agree with this, @MP. Someone else would have posted it anyway. It's been a hot discussion topic on Facebook and on Discord, which is why I even know about it to begin with.

Unfortunately I don't know exactly what rules they got wrong, otherwise I'd love to analyse why they got them wrong (I understand why people got toxins completely wrong, even though I seem to have parsed it right myself, which was a mistake another podcast apparently made), but any time I could spend watching that video I'd rather spend watching Netflix or playing boardgames.

I would highly recommend actually watching the video!

Obviously they did to some extent, but a huge part of game design is conveyance: The game using its mechanics and layout and thematics to sort of teach you how to play them without having to come out and tell you how to play them. A biiiiiiiiiig issue with new edge is that the fact it is an abstract mechanic taking the place of a literal one breaks a major 'rule' of conveyance.

Those rules are, of course, guidelines. You can have abstract mechanics in a game that is pseudo-simulationist, like SR is... and does! Old edge was an abstract mechanic too wearing a weird rubber suit that looked like a simulationist mechanic to help you 'grok' it faster. It just is that when you violate those rules of conveyance its ideal to shore it up elsewhere: Old edge was purely abstract, but had fluffy concepts behind it that scanned to how we view the world on the abstract level already, and its usage was mostly rather simple.

If 6e has any objectively existant flaw its the failure of conveyance of its concepts and how to have fun playing it, so looking for where those break down and shoring them up is important. Even if 100% of the information in the video was wrong (and its not) it would still do anyone who actually cares about 6e well to understand these criticisms because it likely means that there is a conveyance failure.

For example, for the obviously wrong part of how mages can't get edge, it may be wise to place more emphasis on how mages can get edge by attaching conceptual weight to their interaction with reagents: Bringing it down from an abstract concept and creating a clear, concrete reason why mages get edge for doing it that the mage character in universe is partially aware of, so it becomes really clear how you do it: Spending reagents something something blessing of spirits something something, for example. Without changing any rules and instead creating more thematic focus on the act of spending reagents to generate edge, you make the rules... better. Point out that mages who successfully use combat magic not only harm their enemies but revitalize themselves as the act of destruction 'aligns their essence' or whatever. Just as old edge was dressed up in thematic language to cover its abstract behind, new edge could be as well, at least in areas like magic, because you can make the generation of edge less an abstract 'momentum' based benefit and more a concrete knowable side effect: The spirit gave you good fortune, frying that dude has your mana all jumping for joy, ect.

While I personally think 6e's edge is fundamentally just not a good mechanic and struggle how to imagine to fix the problems it causes for the entire system, a really low hanging fruit to at least make it way less aggravating is, wherever possible, make any method that gives you edge have a concrete example of what the edge actually is. I probably would not have come to this conclusion as strongly as I did without watching that video, and I agree with the video! Imagine what you could do as someone who actually LIKES edge and wants to make people understand how cool you think it is with the information in it?

Now to get into the sensitive stuff. Let me preface with a gross butchering of not even a quote but a concept by PBS's Mike Rugnetta: Someone pointing out a fallacy in good faith is them being concerned you are not arguing to the best of your ability, and are hurting your argument. I also want to emphasize that disagreeing with someone isn't an excuse for being a jerk, and that people can be pretty grody towards people who like 6e. And, of course, I want to emphasize I am no saint, and have, in fact, participated in toxic fan culture in the pass, which colors my perspective because I know the mindset that leads one there and empathize with it, but also that may make people guarded around me.

This contributes to the tribalism problem. You, accidently or not, seemed to indicate you don't think a criticism is legitimate without even having listened to it. While the phrase "I don't know exactly what they got wrong" could just be discussing the errors others are talking about, it has pretty overt negative connotations and one has to admit that even if it wasn't the intent it can easily be read as you thinking the criticism is just overtly 'wrong' and thus that it shouldn't hold weight, rather than you being concerned about correcting specific parts of the criticism without dismissing it.

Like intent doesn't... really matter when you are trying to persuasively defend a position, which you have chosen to do in regards to your enjoyment of and appreciation for 6e and your desire to defend it and refute claims that is bad and correct the issue and say its really good!

The optics on that make it seem like that evidence based arguments do not matter to you. I am sure they do, I remember that you went to quite the lengths to talk about how weird and gamey recoil felt in 5e on Shadowrun Universe, and I know you feel the discourse is overwhelmingly toxic, but it bears repeating that a big reason a lot of the discourse is toxic is many people feel 'forced out' of these forums. It isn't your job to walk on eggshells around other people but if you like 6e and want people to come to see the strengths you see in it, it is important to avoid coming across like you are dismissing its faults out of hand, even if you are not doing that.

And, finally, do feel free to not engage with stuff that doesn't make you happy. A big problem with toxic fan culture in the first place is the inability to walk away from experiences that are not enriching and it really IS good to say "I would rather play boardgames than submerge myself in negativity." If you aren't feeling it, it isn't your job to wade into it!

[0B]

That's true. If you're on the internet talking about games, you aren't playing games. People commenting on forums aren't going to fix games, only the developers can do that. Current business practices make it tricky to have discussions with decision makers, due to NDAs and all that. Toxicity also makes it harder for a developer or freelancer to even want to engage with the community, which is an issue that's been around since 2010.

[Michael Chandra]

I think my boss would kill me if I played Shadowrun during breaktimes. And unfortunately playing a tabletop involving gunfights in the train will also get me in trouble.

[Finstersang]

It´s worth watching, especially for the things they "got wrong".

F.i. they keep going on and on how 1 Edge is "just one die to the test". Which is only true if you only use the default Edge option blindly, and only on your own failed dice. The option to reroll hits of the opposition is obviously stronger than that, and the fact that you can often choose when you want to use Edge and for what Effect makes it even more powerfull. 1 Edge = 1 Die is just wrong. But why does it keep popping up?

Likewise, that one dude in the bottom right (the "Professor") somehow never managed to earn Edge, because he seemingly never realized that combat Spells have an AR, that you can earn Edge by using Reagents etc. And apparently, the players had to argue for their situatianal Edge gain and often "forgot" that. So, no Edge from the GM. They run dry and only use the few pieces of Edge they earn from AR/DR for measly rerolls of their own failed dice (hence the "it´s only one die" sentiment). If you play it out like that, the whole premise of the Edge system goes up in smoke.

They obviously weren´t sold on the Edge system and thus, never truly embraced its potential. Maybe they never really wanted that part of the game to work and (consciously or not) sabotaged themselfes on that. You can see that the GM really wasn´t happy with it, and his playstyle seemed to be a bottleneck here [1]. But I also think that the book frames Edge the wrong way. As a GM, you get a lot of "be carefull, don´t give out too many" and "remember, there´s this godawfull limit of 2 Edge per Combat round. Can´t have too much fun here  ", as if situational Edge is some kind of rare blessing that GMs should be as pinchpenny as possible about. On the other hand, rewarding players for clever choices is often downplayed. And GM Edge (i.e. the GM having his own Edge pool to fill up for poor/risky choices of the players) isn´t a thing RAW, which is a huge missed opportunity IMO.

[1] Kinda weird that they also complained about the 2-Edge-limit, though. They probably picked that up in the forums, because with that playstyle, they would have rarely encounter that problem in the field.

[PMárk]

It is fair to say that you don't like the edge system when you don't understand it. The edge system, the more I think about it and play with it trying to fix it, really shows itself to be a terrible idea and mechanic. You can not understand something and still find it awful. I am not saying this as an edition grognard, it just... objectively is a bad design.

It doesn't reduce complexity at all. It is, in fact, probably the best way to make an RPG painfully obtuse to play. You have replaced the rather simple interaction of 'roll less dice when things are harder' with 'compare an extra set of numbers on EVERY attack, do a math problem, and use this to charge an alternate resource, which you THEN use EITHER to modify dicerolls OR to do a unique set of one off actions. AND based on GM adjuration sometimes you get this for free based on how the GM feels about what decisions you made up till then. Also your fighting the fact this doesn't thematically represent something immediately happening which is a known red flag of mechanics due to it harming conveyance."

The underpinning of the edition is a mechanic that should have been cut pretty much the second it was tested. It is one of the most gamey things I have ever witnessed in an RPG, it feels like it was ripped from an obtuse but fun bigbox boardgame game like Dune or Twilight Imperium than an RPG. It sounds like something a mainstream comedy would use to make fun of how it feels like to play an RPG if your not familiar with them.

"After you make your attack roll compare your conviction stat to their Resolution score to see if you generate virtue points which you can trade in for heroic declarations later!" Snorts, pushes their taped together glasses up their face, reveals their buck teeth.

There is a reason those jokes deliberately avoid using thematic concepts and deliberately make things abstract; it makes things more confusing when mechanics representing literal actions contain totally abstract elements. People who don't play these games and use them as a punchline understand that. It shouldn't show up in a core design, it should be showing up in a Big Bang Theory episode.

Also, as they pointed out, the rules are... insanely poorly edited and actively fight against comprehension. The fact that people who are playing roleplaying games for a living couldn't wrap their mind around it isn't justification to point out they lack the knowledge to criticize it. It is the most damning criticism of all.

Ultimately, it's a system that tries to be like the hip narrative systems with their meta-currencies, while also trying to be crunchy and simulationist, like SR always were. It just didn't work out, IMO and yes, it's too gamey for me too. I'd choose floating modifiers every day of the week over it.

[Finstersang]

Ultimately, it's a system that tries to be like the hip narrative systems with their meta-currencies, while also trying to be crunchy and simulationist, like SR always were. It just didn't work out, IMO and yes, it's too gamey for me too. I'd choose floating modifiers every day of the week over it.

I fails (or rather: is prone to fail. Because this problem is highly dependend on the GM!) because it´s stuck between the chairs: Sometimes it´s the new way to model modifiers and mechanical perks, sometimes it´s supposed to be a narrative meta-currency, and sometimes it´s still treated like it´s some kind of emergency fate-point-style mechanic that needs arbitrary restrictions for balancing or some shit.

I don´t mind SR turning into a "hip narrative system". The thing is, it doesn´t really happen RAW. It rather levels gameplay depth due to arbitrary restrictions.