Probably already been scooped in one of the SR5 threads that I stopped reading a while back, but in case I haven't been, there's this blog entry that discusses design philosophy. Enjoy.

Yes. Here's the discussion.

And I was right, it was a thread I'd given up on long ago because of all the (to my perceptions) stupid infighting.

I'm curious if these mission statements are meant for setting or rules? Would love to see the idea of opposing the authorities being incorporated in the game mechanic.

Why would that need a Mechanic?

Opposing the Authorities as a skill.
Opposedness as a character stat, like Street Cred and Notoriety.
Think about it, it will be glorious!

One of the things I love about Shadowrun is that the rules give the broadest set of possibilities. If you need to do something in the game with the help of dice, good chance is that there's a specific rule for this.
But speaking on the principle, I think it's good when the game mechanic supports the fluff. For example, it is stated that implants cost you your soul, and game mechanic has Essence to back it up. If there was no Essence, then the idea of paying with bits of our soul for cyberware would be a bit hollow. It's my opinion, of course, and I'm not insisting on it

Overall, the design statements sound good, if a bit vague. I'm glad they are keeping fixed TN.

There are already a lot of skills for such.
Any Combat Skill, Most Influence Skills, etc.

I'm generally not keen on the Attribute + Skill vs fixed TN system. With Attribute on approximately the same scale as Skill, it makes having good Attributes many times better than having good Skills. It also means that a heavily augmented person with weak skills is mechanically similar* to the most skilled person in the world with average characteristics. I don't find it to hold up under the theme well.

A variable TN system allows for a great deal of flexibility in terms of success rolls without being comparatively complex. Meanwhile relying solely on dice pool modifiers tends to only give mechanically weak adjustments to difficulty unless they're very large or applied to a very small dice pool. Since every 3-4 dice are expected to generate success, there's no way to threaten the best with failure while still giving the mediocre or worst a shot.

I'm sadly expecting another system that requires rolling dozens of dice again and again and again to accomplish a basic task.

*Edit: I should say "mechanically superior" there, since high attributes apply to all skills under them.

Bah, that's like saying you don't need Mechanic skills because there's already Hardware.
Fluff should be reflected in crunch. If you're fighting the authority, inevitably you should have the according skills!

"Make a 'Fight the Power' roll... okay, you successfully call the Lone Star beat cop a pig. He tazes you."

I'm all for rolling more dice if it means that I don't need to try and roll 15 on a d6.
Also your complaint can easily be rectified by tweaking numbers Epicedion. For example you could let skill ratings go up to 20?
or you could lower the max attributes, either way increases the decrepency.
Numbers are easy to tweak, systems are not.

"Make a 'Fight the Power' roll... okay, you get up".
And so on. See? It's really glorious.

Wait. You're serious?

Well there was a sort of elegance to the idea that Attributes provided a soft limitation on your skills (expressed cost-wise) as well as providing resistances versus damage and magic, and bonuses (in the form of combat/spell/etc pools), but not contributing directly to skill use unless you default all the way to the attribute (at huge penalties). The idea that they're just a passive (and huge) bonus to all checks puts an enormous focus on their importance, and gets really weird when you consider that some attributes are super-easy to get augmented and others are practically impossible.

The d6 variable target number system of course wasn't close to perfect -- it had scaling issues from the reroll-and-add rule of 6, target numbers of 7, 13, etc were statistically equivalent to the multiple of 6 just under them, and so on.

Me? No, of course not.
But it's a fun idea to play with.

I didn't think so, but sometimes things can come across a little weird. This was one of them.

Whew.

Similarly you had people back then who didn't like how little attributes did, I personally like it because it's intuitive and easy to learn (x+y, rather then "refer to table 3") you do bring up a good point with augments though.

Intuitive and easy to learn, sure, though just rolling Skill in dice (sometimes plus pool) isn't rocket surgery.

Yeah, i also don't like how little skills do. I tried to give +2DP per skill rank, but this failed because of Magic/Ranged defense tests, which frequently are attribute only.

Do I know you?

You can fix the double-skill-dice by setting the Attribute contribution to zero, but then certain Attributes do practically nothing.

Though I remembered another issue with it, which is the Untrained Troll No One Can Beat In a Foot Race Or Climbing A Wall Or Whatever problem.




Probably not. It's not a common phrase, but it's a funny one.

So, what skills (be specific here) would you create for "Fightin' the Man"?
Be creative and give me something that does not already exist.

Sticking it.
Communist Propaganda.
Tagging.
Fighting the Oppressive Cis-Culture.

The list goes on!