[FastJack]

Am I the only one who sees the irony here?  People who don't like the edge system allowing tactics to benefit from unrelated nonsense are complaining about a rule aimed at preventing nonsense from generating edge, which could then be used to affect tactics?

I know! The ones that talk about how much the game sucks and how they aren't going to play it are posting about how they can break the system they aren't going to use. I mean, you can call it edge begging, but only if you're going to play Sixth Edition.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Ok, what if- after defeating the guards, the party face starts questioning the surviving wounded guard. (End of combat encounter start of social encounter maybe?)

While the face does most of the talking the hacker does the following:
Hack, hack,hack hack spend 4 edge on healing a physical dmg. Log off/log on.
Hack, hack, hack ..... until all his dmg is gone. Then he start to share the edge with his teammates, so they also can heal ( all the grunts had lowlight vision, so the team got pretty badly wounded). Once in a while the hacker will engage lightly in the social encounter.
After 6 minutes the face is done talking with the surviving goon ( that dude is pretty shaking, he just witnessed a bunch of runners regenerate in front of him).

Ok, thats the most extreme scenario I can come up with I think.

While the face talks, the hacker starts looking up all kinds of knowledge in the Matrix on everything from splinters to shock to sucking chest wounds. He ties bandages around his wounds, packing them with help from the items in the medkit, then starts working on helping his teammates patch up so they can get the hell out of there.

Just because you're healing doesn't mean you're Wolverine.

Yeah, I always got a vibe that healing from edge wasn't actually "healing" but "revealing that the wound never really was as bad as it looked/felt after all".

[DigitalZombie]

Interesting, the example was one of the craziest I could come Up with. That playstyle would differ from mine, but then again I Guess thats the purpose og This thread

[Ghost Rigger]

Am I the only one who sees the irony here?  People who don't like the edge system allowing tactics to benefit from unrelated nonsense are complaining about a rule aimed at preventing nonsense from generating edge, which could then be used to affect tactics?

I know! The ones that talk about how much the game sucks and how they aren't going to play it are posting about how they can break the system they aren't going to use. I mean, you can call it edge begging, but only if you're going to play Sixth Edition.

I was going to type up a bit about how, at the core of both its setting and its mechanics, Shadowrun is a game about exploitation and playing Mother-May-I to get edge runs against that, but you know what? I thought of something better: maybe one of the reasons they're never going to play 6e is because they see how easily broken some of the mechanics are. Did you ever consider that?

[FastJack]

Am I the only one who sees the irony here?  People who don't like the edge system allowing tactics to benefit from unrelated nonsense are complaining about a rule aimed at preventing nonsense from generating edge, which could then be used to affect tactics?

I know! The ones that talk about how much the game sucks and how they aren't going to play it are posting about how they can break the system they aren't going to use. I mean, you can call it edge begging, but only if you're going to play Sixth Edition.

I was going to type up a bit about how, at the core of both its setting and its mechanics, Shadowrun is a game about exploitation and playing Mother-May-I to get edge runs against that, but you know what? I thought of something better: maybe one of the reasons they're never going to play 6e is because they see how easily broken some of the mechanics are. Did you ever consider that?

Yes, people have lots of reasons for not playing the game, just as others have lots of reasons TO play the game. Neither is right or wrong. If you don't like 6E, there are 5 other editions and a bunch of other ways to play it. If you are so dead set against the new rules, why are you still posting about them? They are not for you, no one's trying to change your mind, but you are still trying to change other people's minds. It's time to follow Elsa's advice and let it go and let people that want to play the new edition, play it. I mean there's a core group of posters that don't like the new edition, continue to be very vocal about not liking the new edition, are constantly trying to change people's minds about the new edition, and yet you still have this forum thread that was created to show how broken Edge is in the new system, yet 52% think none of the examples presented are broken.

[Ajax]

It never ceases to amaze me how Nth Edition goes from being hated and despised, to being beloved and adored as soon as (N + 1)th Edition is released.

Anyone who feels like digging into the archives of this forum (or Dumpshock, RPG.net, or Reddit) should be able to find numerous threads of people swearing they'd never touch SR5 and would keep playing SR4; Dig even deeper (you might need the help of the Wayback Machine) and you'll find people saying they'd never play SR4 and they'd stick to SR3... And I might be getting bald-on-the-head and grey-in-the-beard, but I have clear memories of IRC's many Shadowrun chat rooms exploding with NERDRAEG at the idea of abandoning SR2.

In five or so years, I'll bet you my last ¥50 that we'll see people complaining about Shadowrun 7th Edition and vowing to never give up their beloved SR6.

Edit: Fixing an embarrassing typo totally derailed my final train of thought. I told you I was getting old.

[Ghost Rigger]

It's time to follow Elsa's advice and let it go and let people that want to play the new edition, play it.

And let them get introduced to Shadowrun through a janky, stillborn edition while simultaneously letting CGL know that this level of jank is acceptable? That's just irresponsible. For the sake of the hobby, 6e needs to crash and burn hard.

[ZeroSum]

In five or so years, I'll bet you my last ¥50 that we'll see people complaining about Shadowrun 7th Edition and vowing to never give up their beloved SR56.

FTFY

[FastJack]

It's time to follow Elsa's advice and let it go and let people that want to play the new edition, play it.

And let them get introduced to Shadowrun through a janky, stillborn edition while simultaneously letting CGL know that this level of jank is acceptable? That's just irresponsible. For the sake of the hobby, 6e needs to crash and burn hard.

Thank you for protecting us from the horrors of ...

Wait, that's not protecting, that's Gatekeeping and toxic fandom.

As I said before, you don't like it. YOU are not the line developer. YOU are not the sole protector of Shadowrun fandom. YOU are a fan. Just a fan and YOU do not decide what is good and what is bad. YOU may want this edition to crash and burn to prove YOU were right and YOU know what is best for everyone, but that's a falsehood since YOU are not the chosen one.

[ZeroSum]

This thread is starting to veer into ... *sunglasses* ... a Zero Sum game territory.

[Michael Chandra]

*innocent whistle* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBOMlWl7fFk 

[Ghost Rigger]

Thank you for protecting us from the horrors of ...

Wait, that's not protecting, that's Gatekeeping and toxic fandom.

Quite the contrary, this is a refusal to be gatekept. Something I like was changed in a way I certainly don't like, and now I'm being told that I can get out if I don't like it anymore.

There's a narrative going around the mainstream media that if you don't like a hobby and people won't change it to cater to you, you're being gatekept by a bunch of dumb bigoted nerds. Ignoring the obvious truth that if you don't like a hobby then you just don't like a hobby, several devs got in the habit of implementing new mechanics and tossing out old ones to appeal to broaden the appeal of their systems. This isn't inherently detrimental, but problems arise when the devs don't stop to ask important questions, questions like "what are the purpose of these mechanics", "what mechanics are an important part of the system's identity", "what mechanics does the current playerbase really like", "what mechanics are actually creating problems in gameplay and what is the best way to fix them" and "why were these mechanics used in the first place instead of something else". Unfortunately, the devs don't always stop to ask these questions, and the result is much like if an Italian restaurant started serving tacos and nothing but tacos. It doesn't matter whether or not the tacos are any good, it's still a slap to the face for everyone who used to go there because they liked Italian food. And if the tacos aren't good, well, that just means their vitriol is all the more justified.

Shadowrun was always a mechanically complex system, and the people who liked it appreciated it for being a mechanically complex system, even if having to stop gameplay to look up tables is a bit bothersome. And for 6e, how did the devs decide to tackle that last problem and a few others? By ripping out several mechanics and replacing them with a new, unasked for edge mechanic that is alien to the system and its whole history. Was the playerbase consulted at any point during this process? No, not even for playtesting. The simple truth of the matter is that 6e was made to appeal to people who don't like Shadowrun. Not people who like Shadowrun, not people who like Shadowrun but don't know it yet, not people who could potentially like Shadowrun, but people who just don't like Shadowrun. Because of that, I cannot in good conscience guide anyone interested in Shadowrun to 6e; I also cannot do that because people vote with their wallets. If 6e bombs, then the devs will go back to the drawing board and 7e will be made for people who actually like Shadowrun.

By all means, try to appeal to different demographics. Getting more people into the hobby is an objectively good thing for everyone. Go on making Anarchy, put out a second, improved edition of it. Hey, whatever, make board game or a collectible card game, I don't care. Just don't change the flagship product to appeal to people who were never interested in it in the first place.

[FastJack]

Whatever floats your boat, man. I just know that the truly toxic fans I've dealt with across many fandoms are the ones that believe the game/movie/show/whatever "belongs to them" and "how dare" the creator/director/author change things to something they don't like. Gatekeeping has NEVER been pushing out old fans from fandom, but about preventing new fans from joining (hence Gate and Keep, meaning you don't let them in).

Everything you say like, "6e needs to crash and burn hard" is tantamount to you're being upset that they aren't catering to what you like and would rather cater to other people who you don't feel knows the game as well as you do. I don't care how well the mechanics are written, or if there's a lot of typos in the book. YOU don't like it and want them to change to what YOU want. And everyone else be damned. This is not them changing from "italian to mexican food", this is them making lasagna with pork sausage instead of beef and you don't like the spices.

I honestly don't know what else to say to everyone that doesn't like the changes. They are not changing back, they don't care that you don't like the changes because they are looking at a new demographic to sell to and want to be successful. To put it in the food analogy like before, they were a small family restaurant that wants to become a big chain, so they have to make changes like not having mom cook in the kitchen anymore and changing the recipes so they appeal to more people.

[GuardDuty]

Shadowrun was always a mechanically complex system, and the people who liked it appreciated it for being a mechanically complex system, even if having to stop gameplay to look up tables is a bit bothersome. And for 6e, how did the devs decide to tackle that last problem and a few others? By ripping out several mechanics and replacing them with a new, unasked for edge mechanic that is alien to the system and its whole history. Was the playerbase consulted at any point during this process? No, not even for playtesting. The simple truth of the matter is that 6e was made to appeal to people who don't like Shadowrun. Not people who like Shadowrun, not people who like Shadowrun but don't know it yet, not people who could potentially like Shadowrun, but people who just don't like Shadowrun. Because of that, I cannot in good conscience guide anyone interested in Shadowrun to 6e; I also cannot do that because people vote with their wallets. If 6e bombs, then the devs will go back to the drawing board and 7e will be made for people who actually like Shadowrun.

So if I understand correctly, you're main point is that they've changed mechanics integral to what makes Shadowrun what it has historically been, yes?  And this is why the result is something that can only be recognized as Shadowrun by someone who has never played the game?

Easy.  In that case, I have the solution to your problem.  Lean in close so the mods can't hear.  *whisper*  (The thing they changed was Shadowrun "for people who just don't like Shadowrun" already, and has been for 12 years...so surely it must not be much of a travesty for a new one to come out.)

There, problem solved.  Now we can all go back to actually enjoying our hobbies how we like.

[Leith]

The issue with "edge abuse" is that it is an admonishment of metagaming and metagaming is an arbitrary category of player interaction with the narrative (Also, it's impossible not to metagame). Many critics of 6e have noticed this and (rightly) pointed the finger at the edge mechanic claiming it to be flawed and (wrongly) unplayable.

To cut to the chase, because edge is a resource the PC needs but is not something with a direct in game correlation any attempt to gain edge is metagaming. And like any form of metagaming it is going to depend greatly on the style of play at the table whether or not and under what circumstances it is acceptable. Remember it is a poor GM who punishes poor roleplay in game. Let the actions of the PC speak for themselves within the context of the game. If you judge the RP to be below your acceptable threshold you can always withhold karma (or give out bonus karma for the opposite, same thing).