The good - if you want shadowrun lite it does offer that if your ok with things becoming even more generic.
The bad - people who want more shadowrun feel other than a big dice pool are going to be left wanting, also people who don't like large dice pools won't have any options like ubiquity and fate do, lastly it's not traditional gm or gm less it's some weird inbetween I would have preferred gm less with gm optional rules.
The ugly - I know opinionated rpg writing is all the rage right now but frankly parts of this book are insulting. It feels like it's written in places by someone who has had awful gms and awful players and need to give them all the finger.

What are your thoughts.

The Good - The action is very quick, with no rulebook diving. Shadow Amps balance the archetypes, and Karma balances the advancement. Characters, after a 15 minute build-time, are immediately immersible. The game is completely modular and adaptable to your table; if you want a thing to be true, make it true as a group (including character concepts, scene narrations, house rules, etc.).

The Bad - Like all Shadowrun editions, it is clearly written for people who have played Shadowrun before; there is a little lore in Anarchy to ground a new player into the setting but even less to ground them into the system. The Anarchy gameplay experience is tightly tied to your table; if you have spotlight-hogging players or an adversarial GM, the shared story-telling can be a problem (but if you don't, it's great!)

The Ugly - Like all Catalyst Games publications, it sorely needs editing and proof-reading; we (players deeply invested in the concept and who posted on the official boards) got a lot of errata pushed through but there will remain more needed even after it goes to print. Luckily, see "The Good." (And my signature!)

[Edit] I should add that I have had 3 sessions so far after converting SR5 characters to Anarchy.

Thanks for the reviews. This pretty much puts me off even bothering with this product. The lack of care when editing in previous books makes reading the book a chore rather than a joy. I don't want to have my train of thought interrupted by having to figure out what was actually meant. Also, if whatever author it is that overuses the words This, These and That had anything to do with this book, I'd rather bash my head open than wade through another document by them. If you don't know what I'm talking about read either Protectors and Despoilers in Hazard Pay or Fall of a Dragon in Storm Front. Painful.

one more Reason to wait for the German Edition , even if it may take a while

with a patient Dance
Medicineman

The good:
* It offers Shadowrun Lite for people who want Shadowrun Lite. It probably works well for quick three-hour games.
* Very good world introduction chapters.
* For all the rules' faults, the pregenerated characters make the most of them, and are by themselves a lot more diverse, colourful, and entertaining than usual Shadowrun archetypes.
* The Living World details fun adventure seeds; this collection is usable without Anarchy, too, though some seeds need a bit of polishing to work with a longer, standard game.

The Bad:
* Characters are flat, narrow, one-trick, and can never outgrow that. this caters to a very specific play style and unnecessarily narrows down Anarchy's potential audience.
* With its starkly limited amp and skill slots, Anarchy manages to be even more magerun than SR5.
* Some parts (Karma is the new, official in-game currency johnsons pay you with) are so gamist and counterimmersive, it would make a 90s videogame ashamed.
* There's way too much "if you don't like this, make a houserule" but none of the promised rules toolkit. If a rules system comes along half-baked and then tells me "write your own if you think you'Re so clever!", I don't need to waste money on this book. I just dig into FATE and come up with a Shadowrun hack, or use one of the dozens available.
* There's a discerning lack of courage in maintaining traditional GM as opposed to a true narrative, GM-less system. Clearly, that was the idea, but by both preserving a traditional GM slot, and by regulating plot points, making any interrupt based on spending one of five points, and ensuring the GM has limitless plot points, SR narchy fails to muster up the courage to live up to its self-ascribed Narrative nature. As is, SR Anarchy is a lot more traditional, top-down structured than FATE, let alone Mystic GM Emulator.
* Plus, there's a lack of clarity how the Cue system's cues work, other than as a notebook of sorts of how to play a pregenerated, unfamiliar character (something that has been done just like this 25 years ago already). There's also no explanation as to why, with cues, you also need tags that seem to do the same thing.

The Ugly:
* Tune down the douchebroness already. You aren't funny. You aren't playful. You just sound like assholes.
* Also, some structure would really help this book. It is insultingly untidy, with rules about something being scattered all across the book and tied by references, sometimes even in a circle (for X, see p. 106; on p. 106: see p. 12; on p. 12, see p.106). Case in point: What Essence Loss Modifiers are and how they work.

Okay, I'm curious. When folks complain about the tone of the book, or the chip on the shoulder, or the douchebroness, or what-have-you -- can someone gimme some examples?

I'll readily admit that "tone" wasn't what I was looking for on my proofing runs, and I was certainly paying more attention to some sections than others, on my various read-throughs (meaning I may not have even seen the bits y'all are complaining about). That said, I've heard the complaint multiple times, from multiple sources, so I'm curious enough that any page numbers, paragraphs, or quotes would be appreciated.

What is douchebroness ?
I know a Douchebag and MLP Bro-Fans (but aren't they called Bronies ? )
and I know a Baroness, but I can't make a connection....
If someone could explain that expression to me ?

With a Dance on the wrong way
Medicineman

Just ask the Urban Dictionary.

Basically, a bro who is also a douchebag. A douchebro. Typical english compound word.

A bro|ny is a bro who is into MLP (po|nies), for reference on how this compounding works.


I'll reread it and post. It wasn't one big quote, it was dozerns of smaller, irksome sentences that added nothing but came across as bratty, arrogant, both, or otherwise fairly unpleasant.

Examples (two out of many):
* Strength: It’s how strong you are. Duh. (p 29)
* Helps you quickly come up with an answer to the ever-present question, “If you’re so smart, why are you still on the streets?” (p 29)

The first is plainly superfluous - thank you, Captain Obvious. It also comes across as arrogant. The second is much bitterer - aside from being annoyingly assumptuous and easily read as an insult to the player, it also carries a super-sized serving of racist arrogance.

And that is one random page.

I'd argue the book needs stuff like that, else the book is too vanilla, thus boring to read. But that's me.

And I don't want my intelligence or Common Sense insulted

You can surely spice up the reading but you don't need to do that by insulting the Players
When I read something like this


it seems to me pretty Vain and insulting
(maybe its lockerroom writing, I don't know)

HokaHey
Medicineman

I didn't mind the tone too much. I have been getting called "chummer" since 1990. I get that it is supposed to be an immersive, setting-based method of getting the rules across. Shadowrun has always had the tone of a veteran runner, giving advice to a new runner. But passages with tone like that should be confined to flavor text and fluff (like Bleeding of the Edge chapter), not in the meat of the rule set.

The one that irked me though was:

p. 40 (Attack Limits)


Its a little holier than thou for the chapter that it's in. You have to remember that you are writing this for two audiences: those new to Shadowrun (in which case, this passage is unnecessarily combative), and those Shadowrun veterans (in which case, they legitimately need a valid distinction from SR5 to help them shift mechanics).

It's best in both cases to just explain the concept clearly and unequivocally.

That's how all rules texts should be approached. Aside from being grating and making me wonder about the intelligence of the authors, it is just bloat, page space that could have been put to more productive use (like a concise definition how Essence loss penalties work that isn't literally spread in tiny morsels all across the book). Unfortunatly, it isn't in recent SR products. It's not like this problem is confined to Anarchy.


That's not what I get from these 'witty' asides, though. They sound like a poser telling a veteran what's what. Makes me want to ask them what the colour of the boat house in Hereford is and assault them with a cup of coffee, to be honest.

Yeah, that's been the problem with SR5 from the get-go, and it seems to be in Anarchy, too. I don't think it's necessarily malicious; they seem to think they are being witty, or cool. But if you think you have something witty, or cool, to say, then that's what the shadowtalk is for!! When I read the description of the Dodge Scoot, I don't need to read "no self-respecting shadowrunners would be caught dead on one." That would be fine if it was done as a poster in the shadowtalk (maybe with someone under it posting "Hey!"), but it has no place in the vehicle description. Something like "This little scooter will get you jeers from go-gangers, but is perfect for blending in with all of the other corporate commuters" would be better.

I agree (for the most part). All the more reason to inform them that their self-perception and what it seems like to outsiders is very different.


That's another irksome thing - Anarchy seems to assume there is only one true way to play Shadowrun, and that is gonzo pink mohawk. It fits in the general limitation-heavy Anarchy system, but given that I don't enjoy gonzo pink mohawk games, it doesn't sell me on Anarchy the way it maybe is intended to.

I should be clear: I am definitely on the side of "this product is RPG gold that needs some polishing."

Despite any distractions, uncertainty, and misunderstandings, this is a very playable, moderately accessible system with unlimited potential.

I cannot recommend it enough, honestly. It plays EXACTLY like your table wants it to play. Combined with the errata and liberal use of community input, I can see this overtaking SR5 at a lot of tables.

No, it doesn't. Speaking from experience, I can say this is more than a bit presumptive. It may play exactly like your table wants it to play. But not every table is your table.

Anarchy lacks a GM-light or GM-free structure, and modding it in is just as complex as it is with SR5 core. Now, getting rid of the need for a fixed GM (which nobody wants to be all the time) was one of the strongest appeals for a SR Narrative system for my table, and anarchy just didn't deliver there. You don't need to convert to Anarchy if you use a FATE-inspired narrative structure or MGME anyway.

I'll admit that I have never played MGME, but I have played FATE (in the form of Dresden Files) and SR 1-5 (along with D&D 1-5, and a half-dozen others). I cannot see how SR:A, in its base form, does not at least qualify as GM-light. The GM knows a few things more than the players (for suspense and discovery) but the players decide, to a great degree, how things play out.

There isn't a collaborative world-building process before play, but it is definitely built whilst playing, to the extent that your table desires. There isn't a collaborative character-building process but your characters are as deep and as deeply entwined as your table desires. The GM rolls the opposing dice for Tests, but does it really matter from who's hand the dice fall?

The Contract Briefs are...brief...enough that rotating GMs could happen every night. That's not a mod... that's just an agreement at the table. Rotation could even happen with every Scene. Heck, start the GM with a player character and 3 plot points and you can rotate every Turn.*

*Thanks, I just realized I am going to try this!

Yeah, you can do that with SR5 core too, you know. Maybe we define GM light differently.

My point is: The players' turns describe scenes from their characters' perspective and with their characters at the center (hence the cues). Yes, they 'may' introduce NPCs or spend one of their three plot points per session on 'interrupts and obstacles' that immediately affect the overall story, but the storytelling, world maintainance is firmly in the GM's hand. There is no true collaborative, equital world- and story-building, and it's still the GM's job as a benevolent dictator to keep every car of the story train firmly on the railroad tracks. The writing repeatedly stresses this point actually.

And all that can be done with SR5 core too. In fact, it is pretty much how my table ran things already (with SR4A, for full disclosure), sans formalized plot points. Those actually limit this type of conditional GM dictatorship (as opposed to the total hegemony traditional gaming prefers).


We've been experimenting with a similar, though less formal and conditional, system for some time at my table. It, of course, makes coherent plotting harder (though for the most part, Anarchy's contact briefs are vague enough it should work), but did work well enough at my table (with SR4A). What I am looking for is a more formalized rotating GM system, or one that is entirely GM free. This works reasonably well with MGME, though it's easy to fall back into GMing reflexes and not use the GME. It works moderately well with FATE.

However, I don't see how Anarchy works well with that, since it still demands a dedicated GM person at the table, and the players can be (using anarchy as written) at best "deputy GM" for a short time, with the GM always at the ready to rein them in (in Anarchy as written, that seems to be the primary concern). That is not GM light. It might be called reduced GM visibility, but it only reluctantly grants any power transfer to players, and only conditionally, paid for with limited currency, and always at the ready to yank control from grubby munchkin player hands, because you know, players.

I understand this bullshit is not "in character"?

I had always understood the shadowrun "reputation" system to be the exact opposite of this shit.

Nope, in straight-up rules text. A vehicle description. Probably intended to be flavorous, but sort of overshot the mark.


Depends on the approach to the system. There are two basic "schools" there - Black Trenchcoat (gritty, 'realistic' spy game, where low-key appearance, silencers, rare gunfights and elaborate, clever plans are key - think Blade Runner meets Person of Interest and Leverage.) and Pink Mohawk (overplayed, big guns, flashy outfits, blingy cars, explosions, massive shootouts with lasers and 'frontal assault' being the first, last and only plan - think Fast&Furious meets 90s Stallone and Judge Dredd). Usually, shadowrun products try to balance between those two 'schools' of playing the game. Anarchy, however, swings almost entirely towards Pink Mohawk. Which brought us this quote.

I don't know. Honestly, even in the most pink mohawk setting, I really can't picture shadowrun as being a game where a runner would give a shit about dying on a dodge scout. That's seriously lame, and precisely the opposite of what the game has always promised, pink mohawk or not, for character types.

From my personal experience, I have to disagree that Anarchy swings entirely Pink Mohawk. I've run 3 sessions so far (not in order):

One could be classified as Pink Mohawk as there was a van vs. go-ganger running chase scene with bullets and fireballs flying.

One was entirely stealth and subterfuge and even when I nudged for a fight with a security mage, the players pulled a fast one, used disguise, and fast-talked their way out.

One was a mix (as I believe most good campaigns end up): there was quiet infiltration, hacking, and plenty of legwork, but there was also a caterer that was brained with a wine bottle and a security guard tranq-darted in the neck.

In all 3 sessions, I GMed knowing only 1-2 Hard Points (plot details that I knew that I wanted to be true), but because our table built the story together, it went way off-course. I didn't have to reign it in; I just leaned into it. Now, granted, my players have been grouped for many years and there were no "I see a spaceship!" or "all the guards go on break at the same time" Narratives to try to lasso back. But I do not see my experience as an anomaly.

If a player wants a thing to be true, it is. If the table wants to expand Amp slots or Skill slots, it does. If the players want to sit back and ride a story-line, they can. Tags, Cues and Dispositions are as important as the table wants them to be: mostly ignored, or grant Plot Points for RP, or extra Karma for RP, or docked for bad RP, whatever. Make what you want of it... or don't. I am not the boss of you.

I guess what I meant too by, "It plays EXACTLY like your table wants it to play" is that if you don't want it to work, it won't.

is there some context that makes the second *racist* arrogance as opposed to just regular arrogance? i'm not picking up on what makes it racist... but to be fair, i've never been the target of racist arrogance (and there's not a ton of it in the places i grew up in general), so maybe the missing context is in me rather than the text.

See, I have run my games like this (though mostly, players lean into the GM (usually me or one other guy, because they want the experience of discovering a plot, not directing one) since SR2. Actually, I think in gaming theory terms, it's called the Island Method or something similar. I don't need Anarchy for that. In fact, Anarchy restricts this player interaction by regulating it and tying it to limited, virtual currency.


I think we're talking past each other. I'm talking about Anarchy as a rules system, RAW. You're talking about your games. Look, if Anarchy works for you, great. Just, this may be more becuase your group works than because of the specific Anarchy rules. Yes, you can houserule everything if you don't like it. That's the tired old standard response to criticism of game rules systems that are indefensible otherwise. I am, here, not discussing what could be houseruled, or how to adapt given rules to my table. I am talking about a book, called 'Shadowrun Anarchy', and its contents. I am talking about wheter, as written I think these rules make sense, the book is well-structured, the books tone is pleasant or unpleasant, and whether or not experimentally implementing said rules, as written, worked out or not.

You, however, seem all about your experience, and how your group works or not. That's fine, too. Just don't confuse "we houseruled it and now it works fine for us!" with disproving criticism of the product as sold.

Jaid, because of Forum rules, I'll get to you via PM.

The idea that you can make a rule-lite shadowrun system that could play with every table is plain wrong, no matter how you think those who don't get it to work are sabotaging themselves.

One of the main reason shadowrun has been and is still praised is because of the intrication of its game mechanics and its universe. Sure you'll find some stupid hacks, such as D20 shadowrun, but no one plays them because no one gives a shit.

A common alternative system is "the Sprawl" based on the apocalypse world system.

Personally, I found a lot to like in Anarchy. Like most SR products; there were some unnecessarily unclear rules; something I hope is cleared up in errata. Overall, SR has always needed a stronger editorial voice to ask, "Does this make sense? Is this unambiguously clear? Does this conflict with something in a different section?"

However, I am extremely excited by the potential of Anarchy. The problem I have always faced as a GM have to do with either prep or character generation. I've got numerous players refer to it as "the shopping game", given how long character generation takes. That, combined with having to plan opposition for three worlds (and realistically 1-2, since most groups punt on 1 of the 3 worlds for complexity sake) make prep a big time sink. I had time to put that effort in when I was younger, I no longer do.

The Matrix and Magic have always felt like they should be handwaved for the coolness factor. This system accomplishes that. Trying to create a specific series of rules to determine a futuristic cyberspace based on an 80s impression of what the internet will be in 100 years is asinine. Instead, having a player ask, "Can I hack that coffee pot to boil over and make the guard leave his post for 5 minutes?" should be a 30 second interaction, not a 20 minute dive into the rulebook while the other players dick around on their phones.

I wanted a narrative based system based deeply in the SR lore. This accomplishes it. Combining all of the various iterations into "Amps" simplifies charactergen, and removes the priority system problem of "no troll faces, no elf bodyguards".

Of course, if you've been playing SR for 20+ years, there are plenty of nits to pick. I don't have many, and those I do I feel comfortable hand-waving because it's a narrative system, and so long as me and my players are cool, there's not a real reason to get bent out of shape over it.

Your mileage can and will vary. I'll point out that this is probably the ideal system for a PbP game, as it introduces agency and narrative control to each player controlling a scene; essentially allowing the game to move forward with each post..

-DrZ

I haven't played Anarchy yet but I'm eager to. As a GM, I'm excited about Anarchy's open-world possibilities. I like sandbox games where the players can explore the world, and this system seems well-suited for that.

I share some of hermit's concerns about editing and book organization, and DrZaius' opinions about clarity, but in my read-through I didn't come across anything that was irrevocably broken or unplayable.

I don't think that Anarchy is inherently Pink Mohawk. I think it will respond to and reflect the players around the table. If the players are silly, they'll get a goofy game. If the players like subtly and finesse, the game will mirror that. Anarchy can support both equally well and I think Gingivitis' experiences are a testament to that.

It's interesting to me that DrZ says that Anarchy is "probably the ideal system for a PbP game". I've been going back and forth on this question for the last two weeks now. On one hand, I think Anarchy could be a wonderful way for players to compose their thoughts and to write them down just they way they want them rather than depending on the variable quality of spontaneous creativity and extemporaneous speaking. On the other hand, I wonder if other elements of PbP could disrupt the game or undermine its easy flow. For example, would OOC chatter contribute to the story or does it give the other players too much opportunity to speak out-of-turn? Can the GM (or other players) effectively spend plot points - surprise threats, shake it up, malfunction, etc. - even if some of these things are meant to be done mid-narration? Would this result in a constant stream of retconned posts (devaluing the work that players put into those posts), or can these options be effectively executed between narrations so that they help build the story instead of erasing it and redirecting it?

The answers might not be clear until I actually attempt it. I've had a combat-heavy mission rolling around in my head for the better part of a year that I never wanted to run with SR5 because it would turn into an interminable slog of combat turns and initiative passes. Anarchy might be the perfect way to sidestep a lot of those mechanics in favor of focusing on everything else that's going on, while simultaneously given the players the opportunity to indulge in some entertaining cinematic sequences.

I have to disagree heavily there. Putting your game in a sprawl with cyberware and corporations doesn't make a shadowrun hack.

Character stats are clearly outside the fourth wall, shadowtalk on such elements would hurt the setting far more than a witty comment by a writer. Strength is strength, the the writer is acknowledging the fact that the description is just there because everything else has one, no harm done. Unless the entire section becomes a pun fest or the comments are clearly soapboxing (see "what constitutes an attack") I don't a problem.




Shadowtalk exists because that description is supposed to be an in-universe document which the fictional readers comment on. If it's an in-universe document, then obviously this document was written by an in-universe person with in-universe opinions.

And it's not like gear descriptions with remarks about popularity among certain groups are anything new, they have existed since the original BBB. If "popular among security forces" is fine then why not "extremely unpopular among shadowrunners"?

Because saying "extremely popular/unpopular" is stating a common opinion about the 6th world opinion. Saying "no self-respecting shadowrunners would be caught dead on one" sounds like in character stuff. And not a very respectable character in this case…

By adding "Duh", the autor went beyond stating the blatantly obvious, and into the realm of opinionated commentary best restricted to in-character sections. Also, the section continues to explain that actually, strenth is also Body now, so the sentence is misleading, at least.


But it isn't. Please read the book before commenting?


That would be okay, if a bit assumptive. But it isn't what is written in the book. As this is a discussion about the book's tone, well, tone matters.

So, this in particular was referring to "the Sprawl", not 'a' sprawl, per-say. You are right that it isn't a SR hack so much as it an interpretation of the Gibson universe; but I think it's fair to say that SR is derivative of Gibson. If you are looking for a narrative based cyberpunk game, I think it's not a bad solution. It does not have magic or elves or anything though, some of the unique elements of SR that make it such a great universe to play around in.

-DrZ

In this context, it's very not fair to say SR is a derivative of Gibson without saying that it's at the very same time a derivative of Tolkien and stuff. Even admitting a narratived based system would fit shadowrun, leaving magic aside clearly will hinder the "shadowrun" experience. If you're really looking at a narrative based cyberpunk game looking like shadowrun, I guess the actual apocalypse world hack of Shadowrun called "the Sixth World" or something like that would do. But my point was and stands that probably many tables are not looking in such a thing since many tables consider the system in shadowrun to be intricated to its fluff. well… I know that just looking at this "sixth world" hack would give apoplexia to lot of fans.

Personally, I wasn't impressed by it (it was my first stop to look for a more narrative approach to SR). Too combat-focused, too bizarrely complex in the Matrix. Haven't had a look at the revised rules though.

And it also operated with a GM and limited currency for player 'interruptions', whcih is too close to traditional GM-Player relations for me (IIRC). If I move away from GM dictatorship, I want to move all the way towards a Syndicalist game structure, not just implement a counselory chamber of honorary dukes the GM can have share a bit of their burden while in reality relinquishing none of their power.

The line new in Anarchy but from the core book. Please read the base rules of the game before playing smartass while complaining about smartasses?


It's exactly what's written in the book, only in a tone that isn't encyclopedic enough for your expectations.

Pretty sure you can avoid sounding encyclopedic without being douchy.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Do you have something to contribute besides derision and flamebaiting?


Allright, let's try this again: That quote is not written in-character in the core book. How does that make it palatable as an in-character quote?

...speaking of tone..

This thread has obviously broken down. There are obviously those that will never try it and those that think it's great for what their table needs.

I suggest those that will try or think it's great should continue to discuss and those that hate it and will never try should avoid the Anarchy threads as best they can.

And there are those who tried it and found it wanting in one way or the other. You may not think it possible, but it totally is.

I suggest that those who want a "let's praise Anarchy" thread start one.

Depends, if your definition of "douchy" already includes the slightest snide remark it gets hard to convey a negative image without having to settle on a citation style.

@hermit: Have you ever actually looked at the book? The borders, the sidebars, the gear illustrations, the scan line effect in the background? Of course it's designed to convey the image of an in-universe document.

It's in character because of sidebars that give rules info? Come on. It's designed with that in mind, maybe, but the gear section of the core book is nowhere near in-character. It's just poorly written.


I suppose we're all nasty posters who can't take some locker room writing, the way real men write. (Kudos medicine man)

Mmm. Seems you don't get it. So I'll try with example.

"You might want something different to impress your average ganger"
"At least you won't break any speed limits"
"Maybe choose something else in case you plan to flee anything safe a jogger"

I don't care for such remarks. They are just basic hyperbole on the dodge scoots low performance that may be informative for the new runner or funny for older SR players. Saying your real average runner won't use such an uncanny tool like eva' cos' that would make him feel like a pussy is a different tone that the one I'm used to and pretty ridiculous to say the least.

Ok, let's see. it's been a while....

breaks out the admin colors

WARNING

Everyone please remember the TOS regarding personal attacks etc... Read item number 1 in that list.

Once engaged in moderating, moderators will moderate everyone.

I'm reading this thread and still Wonder: What is Anarchy exactely?

Kind of an alternate ruleset looking at narrativism?
Kind of a light rule book for people that loves easy rules/mechanism?
Does it hve an alternate developpment (supplemets or stuff)
Will SR books be compatible with both ruleset?

What's the exact point of this?

Yes, Yes, No, Probably; respectively.

The point is to make Shadowrun more accessible, and join the Narrative Play trend. I guess this might kinda work, though my feeling is Anarchy falls short of this ecause rules designers coldn't make the jump from benevolent GM dictatorship to true group-based narrative play.

What's been brought up and what probably does work well is using Anarchy's narrative structure in a PbP game.

Aaaaand
CGL can sell all the Splatbooks both for SR5 and Anarchy (also for SR4A and SR3 for Oldschooler) for a bigger clientel

with a mercantile Dance
Medicineman

It's not in-universe because of the content of the sidebars, it's in-universe because of the design the sidebars and everything else are obviously designed to look like an in-universe electronic document.



It would be a different tone if that was the actual description, but the actual description involves does not involve such gender stereotypes or appeals to fragile masculinity. All it does is state that the vehicle has pretty crappy stats, which are seemingly known widely enough that riding it can be damaging to one's reputation.

This is why we can't have nice things....

ETA: Good Lord, I really need to update my sig.

Precisely, what it does is saying a shadowrunner's reputation is linked to the vehicle he's riding. That's pretty much bullshit except if you consider all your runs to happen in a moronic fast & furious setting. And that for sure is a different tone to the one I'm used to in shadowrun products (I didn't bother reading 5e to be fair).

To be fair, maybe I shouldn't have used "pussy" in case some gender inequality aware person would feel offended at the idea of associating fragile masculinity to the link between powerful vehicle ownership and reputation. It's not important since the idea remains moronic even without the manly context.