[PMárk]

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.

I do mind (or would). There's Anarchy for that, for the people who like that style. Make an Anarchy 2e, if there's a market for it. In the core game, yeah you're right, the new system falls between the chairs and doesn't do either well, but I wouldn't like the game to go into that direction in the future. The 6e edge system is too much for me already, alongside with some of the "streamlining", but all that were talked to death. Ultimately, it seems like a lot of people have the same issues with 6e.

[penllawen]

It is fair to say that you don't like the edge system when you don't understand it.

More than fair. The things I don’t like about it are all things I knew I didn’t like from the earliest news we had, well before the book was released publicly. If a given Edge point is worth 1/4 of a die or 1/3 of a die or 2/3 of a die, that doesn’t change how I feel about it, because the things I dislike most are broad things and are not rooted in fine details. I think this applies to the people in the video, too. They don’t like the entire Edge system. They quote specific things they don’t like, and some of those things have some incorrect details. But rebutting those details doesn’t rebut the fact that they dislike the whole thing.

[wraith]

Honestly, as much as I don't like the Edge system, it's the basic mathematical problems that bug me more.

Stuff like the difference in value between character creation and advancement for skills and attributes is a clear and unequivocal designer oversight that can only really happen if the people writing the game are either not checking the systems against each other, or do not have sufficient grasp of the math behind their own game to catch that they've created a huge optimization problem.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

It is fair to say that you don't like the edge system when you don't understand it.

More than fair. The things I don’t like about it are all things I knew I didn’t like from the earliest news we had, well before the book was released publicly. If a given Edge point is worth 1/4 of a die or 1/3 of a die or 2/3 of a die, that doesn’t change how I feel about it, because the things I dislike most are broad things and are not rooted in fine details. I think this applies to the people in the video, too. They don’t like the entire Edge system. They quote specific things they don’t like, and some of those things have some incorrect details. But rebutting those details doesn’t rebut the fact that they dislike the whole thing.

No, but getting details wrong plants the seed of doubt that they might dislike it for no good reason.

I watched the video. I felt obligated to even, to make sure they hadn't kicked over any rocks I hadn't already seen kicked over.  And sure enough, they had a litany of complaints about detailed rules problems.  I'm well aware they could have gone much longer than they did listing off broken or conflicting rules.  I'm very aware.  However, the bulk of the video was stressing their opinion of the edge system.  However, as far as I'm concerned, that opinion is severely undermined by expressing a faulty understanding of how the mechanic even works.  Between only ever discussing the "Reroll a die" edge boost and repeated complaints about there being an overwhelming number of ways to spend edge, I truly suspect they only ever used edge in 6we to reroll dice.  Their own dice, at that.  They didn't even get how edge works in previous editions right.  No, Mr GM, edge in 5e wasn't a logarithmic "X edge means you reroll X dice X number of times".

And honestly, if you don't grok Edge in 6we, you can't grok the system itself.  Because yes, the one thing they WERE right about Edge is that its tentacles go into every aspect of the game.

[Michael Chandra]

No, Mr GM, edge in 5e wasn't a logarithmic "X edge means you reroll X dice X number of times".

Uuuuuhhhh?!

[Iron Serpent Prince]

I like how people have gone so far off the deep end that their only defense "against" the video is that Roll4It talked about the rules wrong....

Sad.


First off, I haven't watched them play any of their Twilight Sins game.  And I don't discount the fact they could have screwed up the rules during play.
That being said, there is a big difference from discussing a rule incorrectly in a debrief style session after you've gotten out of a system you don't like than when you are actually playing it.
In my experience (both personal and observational) people don't give half a shit if they talk about a rule correctly when they don't like it - regardless if they played it correctly or not.

Next, (dis)like of a rule does not have to be objective.  In fact, the opposite is true.
If you need an example, I dislike the Song of Ice and Fire RPG, and will choose almost any other system if given the option.  It isn't that the system is bad (there are a few mechanical issues, but most people will probably not encounter them), I simply don't like it and can't really enjoy it.

Finally, if you couldn't tell, they didn't go into this video with any kind of detailed notes (or even the Core Book open as a reference).  If you can't cut them some slack for not nailing the details right in a conversation, you might need to double check you meds.

[Iron Serpent Prince]

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.

Come on now!  Give 'em a chance with the errata.

We were told, repeatedly, that they have an errata system in place and that the errata team had access to the Core Book prior to release.

So, give CGL a couple of weeks to put out the first wave of errata before you judge their ability to fix the system.


Er...  Nevermind.


Give 'em a month after release and then there will be the first wave of errata!

Um...  Maybe not...


Hey, we can hope that within the first three months they will put out something?  Perhaps?
I mean, CGL wouldn't string us along for another edition...  Would they? 




Note:  This isn't any commentary on the errata team.  This is about CGL getting their drek together.  I'd wager that the errata team had a couple dozen (at least) submissions at the time the "hotfix" was released.  And still we wait for anything from CGL....

[adzling]

as an ex-errata team member i am going to stand up for their work.

what gets reviewed, approved and published is not up to them.

and they were hard at work well before the book was released.

any current lack of errata is down to the line developer, pure and simple.

heck we had reams of 5e errata ready to be reviewed that we couldn't get any attention for (because it turns out 6e was already deep into development and the line manager was overwhelmed/ couldn't give a crap about 5e).

also FYI the errata team CANNOT fix borked mechanics, it's all about typos and incorrectly worded stuff for the most part.

the only rules edits permitted are very minor and around the edges and only in response to something that was omitted or clearly incorrectly worded, most often.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I like how people have gone so far off the deep end that their only defense "against" the video is that Roll4It talked about the rules wrong....

Sad.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that's directed at me.  If not, mea culpa.

To reiterate what I JUST said: they do have completely valid gripes.  And to reiterate another thing I just said, I could make a longer list than they did.  So I'm not "defending against" the video by any stretch.

What my post was directed at was the video's crucial argument is NOT the broken things, but that they simply didn't like the edge system. And I'm not saying there's any problem with that.  In fact, they're completely right in that if you don't like the Edge system, then there really is no reason to play 6we as house-ruling around it involves so many 2nd and 3rd order ripples that you may as well just play something else instead.  What I was and am saying is that when your argument is opinion, your opinion is undermined when you get the details wrong that support your opinion.

[Michael Chandra]

If you hate SR6 so much in advance that you're unwilling to even learn the rules while running a podcast on it, I do indeed question the sincerity of the attempt. It's a very bad way of poisoning the well.

I believe I've said it before: there's plenty of things to want improved or fixed and reasons to make demands of Catalyst without making up arguments for the sake of it, or exaggerating the flaws just to try to drive the point home.

[KatoHearts]

If you hate SR6 so much in advance that you're unwilling to even learn the rules while running a podcast on it, I do indeed question the sincerity of the attempt. It's a very bad way of poisoning the well.

Yeah they got the book three months in advance and had to start by houseruling it. Try actually watching the video and you'll see they were sincere and you know if they were just anti 6e it would have been far harsher.

[Lormyr]

If you hate SR6 so much in advance that you're unwilling to even learn the rules while running a podcast on it, I do indeed question the sincerity of the attempt. It's a very bad way of poisoning the well.

1). Did any of them state they hated SR6 prior to running it in that podcast? If so I missed that part, but I am happy to be enlightened.

2). Even trimmed down and simplified, SR6 is a staggering amount of rules. Judging strictly from this podcast alone (this is the only time I have heard of these people) I do not believe it is fair to say they were unwilling to learn the rules. They had a reasonable handle on them, a better handle than some of the freelancers did in the pre-release podcasts, and I am willing to wager that few groups who play shadowrun have a fully correct grasp of the rules. It's a lot of material to retain.

3). They offered constructive criticism, that was largely fair. Yes, they had a few things wrong. No, I do not agree with some of their criticism (notably on the matrix). They were not aggressive or cruel in their criticism, so saying they poisoned the well is rather unfair. Saying some of their information was mistaken would be the fair statement.

I believe I've said it before: there's plenty of things to want improved or fixed and reasons to make demands of Catalyst without making up arguments for the sake of it, or exaggerating the flaws just to try to drive the point home.

You know that to any reasonable person their is a substantial difference between stating something you believe to be accurate that is unfortunately erroneous and maliciously making shit up, right? Now if they were doing the later I'll happily apologize and chastise them, but did anyone else seriously get that impression besides Michael?

The constant cries of toxicity are getting just as fucking old as the actual toxicity.

[KatoHearts]

1). Did any of them state they hated SR6 prior to running it in that podcast? If so I missed that part,

They were specifically excited for a streamlined version of shadowrun so the opposite of that.

[Lormyr]

Smh.

[Marcus]

If you hate SR6 so much in advance that you're unwilling to even learn the rules while running a podcast on it, I do indeed question the sincerity of the attempt. It's a very bad way of poisoning the well.

I believe I've said it before: there's plenty of things to want improved or fixed and reasons to make demands of Catalyst without making up arguments for the sake of it, or exaggerating the flaws just to try to drive the point home.

Wait Chandra you're critical of folks who don't like 6e? Well I am shocked. Who would have guessed? lol I hate to break to y'all but as good Errata team might be it isn't going to able fix that mess they call a CRB. Sure maybe they can fix the typos If they are allowed, and maybe they get what was just missed in there. But that's not gonna make it go. 6e is too flawed. Getting it playable is going to require a large scale re-write of major sections, and even then it won't be what was described. To many random modifier and weirdness got put in. You wanna try releasing 6.5? Good Luck. The reality is that errata is gonna drop, and 6e still isn't going to work.