NAN's victory is a direct consequence of the magic come back.

As Moirdryd told, a huge part of historical events would have absolutely no credibility had they not happened. And governments are way more unpredictable than what you seem to think.

Who's to say what the US government would do if magic came back and the US army got its ass kicked by overwhelming magical powers? Please tell me of your alternative to the Denver Treaty.

Honestly, I don't think it really was tought out this way.

It was just like, "what would be cool do to with this land, that relates to the past?"

That's why :

>north america is Indians/Confederates/Union (btw the way very, very close to Deadlands background-situation).
>Carribbean : yes Pirates!!!!!
>France: kind of monarchy,
> Germany : vaguely allied states.

I think that the concept preceded to logic of the story. I guess it was up to the author to wrap up a somewhat credible story around it. With more or less success.

Oh, I agree it was probably the process you described.

And I agree that there was "more or less" success. Just saying NAN is closer to the more than the less (except when they got specific about demographic figures).

Almost everything in Shadowrun was first put together because it was COOL (in fact a surprising amount of stuff when you look at it has a post-apoc flavour in many respects when you get outside the sprawl only without the nuclear fallout) but FASA also did a pretty damned good look at How and Why, it's one of the few games set on an alternative Earth that's in the Future that really takes a good stab at providing a coherent timeline of events and also sneaks in ways that events can twist (like the initial Crash, VITAS, the Eurowars and the Great Ghost Dance vs the incredulous arrogance of the US military). Deadlands does this pretty well in a historical setting.

IMHO one of the worst things they ever did in regards to Shadowrun was try and make things like technology and certain world events match more in line with what modern events and technologies etc did. When you do that you dilute the world mythos and ultimately weaken your game universe. The same could be said for rules sets with the obsession everyone has for 'streamlining', sometimes it works really well (D&D 5e being a very good case in point) and sometimes it doesn't at all. Sometimes complexity is in fact desirable. Shadowrun in it's flavor and theme is a game deserving of it's moving parts and sometimes those parts are overwrought, for example; Rigging in 3rd edition, the vehicle combat rules has a stack of calculations for things like the Maneuver Value as is fairly intimidating, there's also a quick system in Rigger 3 that removes a chunk of the options for a simple roll, however there is a handy wikia site that provides the same options from the core rules, removes the need for a maneuver score and makes using those options as simple as the Rigger 3 limited option rules (link http://denver.wikidot.com/info:rigger-quick-resolution) this is a really good example of streamlining. Staying simulationist to a degree is something that certainly should be a thing.

Yup. This is why I dont think whoever (I'm holding out hope that CGL loses the license) makes Shadowrun 6th is going to make it a continuation: pretty much everything starting from Haley's Comet and beyond was pure drek. It's reboot or bust at this point, and if there's one thing the SR Returns games have proven it's the popularity of the 1-3rd edition setting.

I don't know about everything post comet being drek, Year of the Comet was kinda weird but I believe the SOTA books came out afterwards as did Dragons of the Sixth World and several of the Shadows Of books and they were all pretty good.

A reboot is basically a terrible idea. What ever happened to Frank Trollman's Cyberpunk Fantasy Heartbreaker? Wasn't that suppose to be the reboot the kills Shadowrun, and that was 7 years ago.

Even things that are Shadowrun-like, like Eclipse Phase are still no where near as popular as SR is.

All the insane SR lore is what really makes SR for me, on top of the rule of cool where you can have motorcycle jousting rock vampire elves fighting cybernetic troll abominations. Everything about SR really is all about the rule of cool. Which is why we get VR Matrix, dragon CEOs, and literal cultural tribalism and figurative with the return of the NANs. Without this stuff, it is not Shadowrun. I never understood why anyone would want SR to not be cool and instead be just another cyberpunk game, but maybe with elves or something.

The Ghostwalker stuff was all right, but most of the rest of it (shedim, drakes, SURGE, etc) was terrible. Granted, all of that looks like Hemingway in comparison to what came after, but that's when the definite downward slope began.

Meanwhile Cyberpunk 2077 is getting a AAA level video game release. Trailer was at E3 today. There's a market for cyberpunk, and SR is losing it badly because it is so mired in terrible writing decisions that the only way a spinoff VG property was successful was going back to the 2050's.

True but we have been waiting for the Cyberpunk release announcement for years (and I am happy it's coming) and the Shadowrun games (Returns, Dragonfall, HongKong) were all pretty good and are still selling. Trying to make Shadowrun match the future of Now is a mistake, trying to make it a massively over simplified abstract system is a mistake. People always seem to think this is what they want and sometimes they are right (Modiphius are certainly riding the wave of their 2d20 system plugged into several big licenses), but a large amount of the biggest sellers out there are NOT those things but instead tend to have warts. WoD 20th Anniversary editions prove this, the FASA release of Earthdawn 4th is gaining attention, RuneQuest is top of DriveThru's charts right now, Call of Cthulhu system related products and creeping back into regular prominence, these are all classic systems and games that cleave pretty close to their roots (or are still in their roots). There are lots of streamlined and simplified rules systems and yet the only ones you see for any length of time are 5E adaptions, Modiphius 2d20 and the new 7th Sea. We certainly shouldn't be afraid of having some crunch.

I see what you're saying, but I disagree. I actually like Shedim as an antagonist-pulling-the-strings, and the 4E events in Denver, and the Dragon Civil War were pretty interesting. Same with the Aztlan-Amazonia war and the situation around Bogota. Granted, the War! book was pretty controversial because of it's rules for battle rifles, Milspec commlinks, etc, but the setting information and tips for Shadowrunners in a Vietnam-style setting were excellent. And they were a nice change from what I've seen as the all-too-common default of overpopulated sprawls and gritty urbanisation. Seattle is great, but I don't want every campaign or run to feel like a slightly different version of it.

Likewise, I really liked the Market Panic book and the info leading up to the Megacorporate Audit. Sadly, I think it was horrendously underused, but that's an issue with the execution, not the concept. Same with CFD. Not a bad idea, but it was yet another body-snatching-while-stuck-in-a-city(at least as far as Boston goes) plot, just like Big City and Renraku-Arcology:Shutdown before it. And that's the main issue I have, not that the plots they've come up with in 4E and 5E were hot garbage, but just that they never used them to their full potential. The Audit itself made an incredible backdrop for tons of runs between corporations targetting each other, from AAA-rated ones down to even A-rated or unrated ones trying to get an edge. But there wasn't really a campaign book that detailed HOW to make use of all that. Heck even after Boston got "resolved" in the Lockdown book, we only heard about Neonet's demise as barely a footnote in a later book. That should have been a major plot resolution by itself.

The writers have decent ideas, but the game/Catalist/whoever needs to focus on following through with them to their conclusion. Otherwise, it feels like they just can't be bothered to wrap things up.

this comes up every time a new edition is boiling in the clone vats.

Just. Let. It. Go.

Shadowrun is xx number of years old, and it shows.

When it came out, cyberpunk was a thing, urban fantasy was a new idea for mainstream games, and almost every system created rules for it,
Now it's mainstream, and its the grandad telling everyone how relevant it is, while shuffling around so no-one gets to look past it and see all the other games that also exist.

It’s old. It's fat. It's confused.

As with software, constantly trying to shoehorn new tech into old devices just doesn't work after a while.

Burn it to the ground, sort out the setting and start again.

Considering other games on the market, does shadowrun 666 [the devil bastard edition] really need a 400 page base rulebook costing $50 ?? Does it really need to be so incomplete that you must buy other sourcebooks just to be able to play it properly ??

Yah, yah, yah. Company profits. Cash Cow. Desperate fans. New editions of old sourcebooks to make money. Etc.

Except now, there are so many unofficial shadowrun conversions, the makers should really be looking at what people are playing and why - and that's from a company with 7 different versions of the same game supposedly being supported all at the same time.


Don’t bother to wait for an official shadowrun 6, get out there and use much better rules from a plethora of existing games to make the game you want.

Yah, just keep telling people that

You're right Synner there are better rules for SR but most of them are in older versions, hence why people are talking about a Good new edition. Something that is the game people want. Look at the love that originally went into Shadowrun 3®, look at the hope people had for SR5 and the divide that was SR4. The best rule set for Shadowrun has always been Shadowrun, mixing and matching from elsewhere just doesn't tend to hold water.

C'mon chummer, when did you become a cynic? Surely there's some ideas rattling around in there that are wanting to be heard on how SR could and should be?

Most off-brand products fail. Most fan projects fail. Pretty much every off-brand fan project is doomed to fail from the start. Shit, ever heard of a game called Zwiehander? It was a knockoff for Warhammer Fantasy RPG, a brand that was actually literally dead with no competitors and it STILL failed. (Ironically enough, a new WHFRPG edition is coming out, now.) Never underestimate the power of a brand, it's why SR is still kicking even after massive embezzlement, controversy, and a long string of poorly-edited books.

As an amusing aside, Trollman wrote a lot of 4th ed stuff. He actively disparages the "grognards" for putting the priority system back into the game (hes an unrepentant powergamer, so any character creation option that doesn't let you min to the max is not his favorite). So the idea of rebooting back to 1-3e doesn't really apply to his attempt given that he's firmly a 4e kind of guy.



The Shedim are nothing more than knock-off insect spirits. Same style of threat, similar nature of threat. The zombie threat should have had a biological or technological origin, we already have Killer Possession Spirits From Beyond That Want Your Meat! As for the rest...I respect your opinion, but still I reserve the right to call all that stuff garbage.

Also, gritty overpopulated sprawls is where cyberpunk happens. A change of scenery isn't a bad thing, but War! did an awful job of what is already a challenging task. Frankly, if you get tired of you cyberpunk setting in your cyberpunk game, that's more a signal that you maybe need to play another genre to recharge your batteries for a while. I get the same way when I'm playing Star Wars and I start getting tired of the clearly delineated good guys and bad guys: rather than trying to adjust the setting to something it's not just to suit my current hankering, I switch to a genre that scratches that itch as a matter of course.



I have neither the time nor the inclination to do the job of a game designer in my spare time, man. That's why I pay companies to do it for me. If old age was enough to do in an RPG, DnD would have kicked it years ago. As it is, it's still the strongest brand in the market, and that's BEFORE you account for all the people playing older editions. Seems more than a bit premature to stick a fork in SR and call it done, especially given how popular the setting is. It's just awaiting a company that can do it justice. And in the meantime, why not make a wish list of what you'd like to see?

Honestly, I'm probably just waiting another year and switching bases. Cyberpunk is putting out a new edition of tabletop to coincide with the videogame release, and if it's any good game design wise it will be lightyears ahead of SR at present.

Synner667, if I knew magic was real, then my reason would be either one of three things:

1) "Magic is REAL! That is so cool!"
2) "Magic is REAL! Holy S**T! That means all the BAD THINGS are real too!"
3) Combine 1 & 2 above



This is true, and I know I might have to turn in my Shadowrun card and be burned at the stake for heresy, but Starfinder, with some tweaking, can "easily" step in for Shadowrun. I put easily in quotes because the amount of tweaking to bring in something like Essence might be somewhat difficult. Then again there is a d20 conversion of Shadowrun on the Web and if you use the Essence rules from there in Starfinder, then you're pretty good to go.

d20 is a terrible system for anything, up to and including D&D, so I can't see it translating to Shadowrun remotely well. Especially Paizo's version of d20.

I do the same thing, bit that isn't to say any game only HAS to be one-dimensional, or even limited in atmosphere. D&D doesn't have to only be high fantasy, just as Shadowrun doesn't only have to be gritty cyberpunk all the time. Yes, urban spawls are the easy go-to backdrop for the game, but if that was all it was about then there wouldn't be numerous books on places the the NAN, Amazonia, Tir Tairngire/Tir Na Nog, etc. Sometimes it's nice to change things up for a bit before going back into the familiarity of the genre.

Ahahahahaha. Hilarious. The entire troll post was okay, but this sentence is comedy gold.

The very idea makes very little sense. Only if you envision shadowrun as the ultimatest pink mohawk setting and only that could you envision to use something as flimsy and ridiculous as d20 for your game mechanics.

I'm still using D&D 3.5, with Pathfinder mixed in. I love it, and our gaming group still uses it. (For D&D games, not Shadowrun)

I know. It does combat. Kinda, sorta, if you're interested in playing a wargame with less interesting rules than GW writes for skrimishes. That is the sum total of the d20 toolbox.

Skills exist, but they are a complete afterthought that can usefully be replaced with rock-paper-scissors to handle any non-combat action without a noticeable change in the play of the game.

Let's say that it can do the very specific kind of combat that you'd expect from a D&D game, and that sums it up pretty well. I've always found shadowrun to be quite combat heavy despite what it says on the box. But the kind of abstract ranged and semi-realistic combat it promotes is hundreds of miles aways from what d20 can provide.

If everyone who's poo-pooing d20 is talking about the "I'm down to 1% of my health and I am still kicking ass just like I had full health!" garbage, there is rules for taking penalties to hit/skill check rolls when you're injured. In fact I'll be using them when I start my campaign.

In fact I'm going to be using the variant rules where the attacker makes an attack roll and the defender has to make a defense roll. Armor does not boost your defense roll. It only reduces the amount of damage you take when you get hit.

We also use both of those rules. Armor doesn't make you harder to hit, it negates some of the damage if you are hit.

See here.

The fact that you can rewrite d20 to be a different thing does not, in fact, say anything good about d20 as a system, friend.

This isn't a rewrite of the rules. Just variant of the d20 rules that's in the Unearthed Arcana (I think) or Players Handbook 2.

I know I was talking about the very mechanics used with d20. I've literally no idea how you jumped to such a conclusion as criticizing the hit point system.

Otherwise I think if you really want to do it, having opposed rolls on d20s is just making the system even clumsier with no benefits.

Every system has its stumbling points. Shadowrun is a very nice game system, but some of the choices made with the lore have been... sub-par.
Even the game mechanics have stumbled a little bit... case in point the Wireless Bonuses in 5th edition Shadowrun.

D&D is also a very nice game system. Dump on it all you want, but you can't deny that without D&D you would not have had Shadowrun.

Without the Model A I wouldn't have my Crown Vic either, but you don't see me arguing that it's a good platform to use as a daily driver.

I think more in point, D&D precursor everything else and D&D does D&D well (especially 5e) it allows for a certain flow and theme of game that in many respects mirrors the styles presented in it's source materials, it's fairly easy to run fantasy tropes from low magic to epic sorcery using D&D with the heroes being, well, heroes. I think it's also a really good example of a parallel we see in SR of multiple different editions being used and building on what's gone before. 3.5/pathfinder and 5e being two massively played systems.

With SR the love seems majority divided three ways SR3, 4 & 5, which is why this discussion is good and why I started the thread "Why Do You Shadowrun?" Can the lessons of several editions be learned and looked at to come up with something that appeals? D&D 5e tells us this is a possible thing

I believe binarywraith criticized D&D. I didn't. I criticized the basic mechanics of d20 as being incompatible with shadowrun. That's quite different.

I couldn't care less about D&D personnally. When I want a bit of High Fantasy, I personnally play with friends some old edition of WFRP which is a terrible system but is simple enough and fit the warhammer lore that I can enjoy it well enough.

D20 as a random generator is quite nice for the kind of tactical minigames that is promoted by D&D. There are no pretences of providing realism, but instead a heroic/dramatic combat quite suiting a high fantasy LOTR setup.

That's exactly what you don't want for playing black trenchcoat/spy/mafia henchmen gritty game with lethal firefight in a setup promoting much higher level of abstraction for combat. If anything, D&D heritage has been plaguing down the game mechanics for a great while toward useless minutiaes instead of actually developping a system fully adapted to its setting. It's even worse that SR4 went exactly into the bad direction, bringing back attributes even more in combat and suppressing tactical pools.

EDIT: and if I may add something: sure, we shouldn't forget without D&D we wouldn't have shadowrun. But YOU shouldn't forget that would it have used D&D mechanics, shadowrun would have disappeared into oblivion.

As a hilarious note, I was looking at my 1e hardcover earlier and realized something. We are less than six months out from the 30th year of Shadowrun.

Bets that Catalyst has -anything- planned?

They might, but it'll be as big, or even a bigger abortion than the Wireless Bonuses in 5th edition.

Here's a vote for DnD 3.5 as well... Campaign still running strong...

Back to Shadowrun:

Isn't what you describe SR Anarchy ? I didn't went to anarchy, would not go to it (no clue whether it's good or bad).

What I'm certain of is that I don't mind paying for 400 pages core book with plenty of optionnal books funding this way the compagny that wrote them as long as they are good.

I don't want a light hack of SR, nor a d20/generic spin-off (someone still play Cthulu d20? Deadlands d20? GURPS Vampire?).


I just want a good ruleset, purged of it's bad ideas, and a new set of storyplots well developped.

And please, no big dragon fights with armies of shadowrunners (O_o) or a gun that sells badly and destabilize a megacorporaion (O_O) or shit like that....

I took a look through Anarchy and it seemed far too simplified to me. It did not feel like Shadowrun at all. It is a different game system though, so that is to be expected.

There is a market for three kinds of games imho: Simple Games, Balanced Games, and Detailed Games.
Shadowrun, aside from 1st Edition maybe, if you use the main book only, always fell into the last category.

For me, the problem is not that Shadowrun is a detailed and complex game, but that is has become too complicated to use.
The rules are written badly, with an incredible amount of clutter until you get to the point, and to add to that, they get spread over half a dozen books, which is something I always hate.

That said, Shadowrun does the extra books better than other franchises, like DSA (The Dark Eye), a German high fantasy RPG, which I played once, and never again, because making a character in two hours required four books and a computer program.

Then again: That said, back in 2007 I coded my own Excel sheet for Shadowrun 4's pointbuy system, so my new players would not get discouraged right away. The whole "Attribute points cost 10 points, except the one that brings a character to maximum, which costs 25 points", and the fact that Gear costs points too, requiring conversion of monetary value to point value, and always seems to come last in Chargen, which means you have to probably re-spec attributes and skills, is a hassle otherwise, for new players.
I have gotten to be a great fan of the Priority system because of this experience, since it solves all of this hassle.
I still have the sheet, and I even made one for 5th Edition, which was way easier to do.^^

This is the problem I see with Shadowrun's complexity: Not complexity itself, but the execution of such. Having winding road is not a problem if you can see the road. Somehow the street lamps are not working in Shadowrun, it is always night, and it always rains. How ironically fitting.

For this reason, Anarchy seemed like a solution to a non-existent problem to me. Anarchy moved it towards the less complex part of the Balanced section on my scale.
As someone said before: If you want to play pink mohawk only, and nothing more complex, this is a good move. Otherwise it lacks the depth of a detailed game, which I have come to expect from Shadowrun.

When I play Shadowrun, I play it for the crazy setting, sure, but I also play it for the ability to do a lot of tweaking with your gear, with your magic, and with your character in general.
If I wanted easy, I could just as well use one of the many great universal RPG systems, like Fate, and adapt it for Shadowrun in a day.

There is no reason, in my eye, to try and enter the market from that side, since there already are easier and better options available, by competitors who have been on that side of the market for a while.

You should check it out though. Tastes are different, and you might like it.



I have had 2nd Edition D&D books lying around for years, and always wanted to GM them, so I read them thoroughly.
Then I checked out Pathfinder and it just seemed unnecessarily complex to me, mechanics-wise. At least for a high fantasy heroics RPG.
The Combat Chapter reminded me too much of 4E/5E Shadowrun, and I had to drop it. But to each his own I guess.

But as I said, tastes are different.

Edit:
I have complaining about needless clutter, and then making a long post like this.
My regret is best expressed in the immortal words of George Lucas: "I may have gone too far in a few places..."

Regardless of how detailed a game is, the game should be as simple and elegant as possible while still meeting other design goals. And even a detailed game should work to progressively expose complexity over time and experience, as opposed to front-loading it. And finally, there will always be diminishing returns on detail and options.

Shadowrun Anarchy isn't intended to replace SR5. It's not a traditional RPG, even if it can be played as one. But, it's nonetheless a great exercise in breaking from convention and exploring simplified mechanics. Some of which could be useful in a more detailed SR6. A prime example is the weapon range mechanic.

All weapons have three ranges: close, near, and far. Each range either has a dice pool modifier or a null value indicating the weapon can't be used at that range. This is a very elegant mechanic. First, it's useful both when you need exact ranges or want to treat ranges in the abstract. Second, it removes the need to reference a range chart. Finally, it's something you can easily hang other mechanics off of. For example, adding a scope could increase your modifier at far range while reducing it at short.

But, the best thing about Anarchy, and the thing that should inspire SR6, is how it's written. It's clear and concise throughout. It may have a few organizational problems, but the text itself is a pleasure to read. The SR5 Core Rulebook, on the other hand, is a slog to get through and a pain to reference, a trend that has continued through most of the line. I also love the single-page mission briefs. I'd love to see something similar for the main game, regardless of edition.

My 1/50th

Personally Id sit down with 4e and 5e and compare and contrast what worked and what didnt. Figure out why the bug fix didnt work and try a different bug fix.
Also take a Simple + Fun Flavor approach.

The base mechanic should always be attribute+skill not attribute x2 or whatever other zany things. Now maybe favor adds something in but dont ever break the base mechanic.
For example magic resistance shouldnt be two attributes it should stay attribute+skill, give non mages counterspelling (ala inception) or give them a base number of hits that it adds to or some other method. You can come up with some way of keeping core mechanics. This gives it simplicity then you can have fun flavor if needed.
For example Shaman vs Mage doesnt have much flavor anymore that needs to come back but not at the expense of braking core rules.

The Decking needs to be fun and not a mini game. Forget realism it needs to be fun. Hacking cyberware could be fun but thats hard to balance when the street sam gets hacked (which isnt fun for him) Trust me I just spent 3 days grep logs searching for a bug that I didnt know what it is or have an error code, it just had to feel weird (i eventually found it though). That wasnt fun, decking needs to be fun while still letting other people play to.

Rigging just needs more streamlined its getting there

Magic overall needs toned down, it was too powerfull in 3e and it feels like its just getting worse.

Anarchy was straight-up a reaction to the Apocalypse World system becoming vastly popular for takes on anything.

No, it should be skill alone. I never understood why they included attribute in the first place, probably just to copy other systems. Having individual skills was fine and easy enough.

I would hate a shadowrun book written in the lame "in your face" tone shadowrun anarchy is. Saying that it's better written than SR5 doesn't mean anything. If anything, just go back to the way preceding editions were written, it was quite ok.

So however strong or smart someone is has no effect whatsoever on their effective skill level in X? I think I'll keep attributes involved in the roll.

I'd say it was all about that "large dice pool on a single roll "-feeling that would have gone away when they ditched the original pool dice concept in the transition to 4th Ed.



Well, one could argue that the attributes influence on gaining / raising skills sufficiently represented their effects on (trained) skills. However, the actual effects of attributes (and similar game stats) on effective skill ratings came with the original dice pool concept where the majority of pools were indeed derived from attributes and similar game stats but had some degree of limitation when and where those dice were available to the skill user.
I always had the feeling that removing the original pool concept and turning it into a flat addition of attribute dice was the streamlined but not necessarily best solution to the problems that the original pool mechanics had:

1. the different pools had no consistency in terms of how they were calculated
2. there was a very distinct lack of a dedicated dice pool for stuff like social skills while ...
3. ... the combat pool was kind of a catch all thing for anything not Matrix / not Magic that put way too much emphasis on Quickness and Intelligence - particularly when used in conjunction with skills that weren't linked to either attribute
4. the pool refresh mechanic was mainly developped with regard for combat / combat turns which effectively made certain pool usages outside of combat an "always on" thing for certain skills (like magic or - to a lesser extend - the tech stuff ).

Exactly. Like it was in SR1-2-3, and no one really bothered. Attributes strongly affected your ability to learn a skill though, which was enough, and affected how hard you hit, how well you resist, how fast you run, how perceptive you are etc.

As has been said by Cochise, the dice pool concept in SR1-2-3 had some flaws. It gave some attributes too much importance relative to others. The game could have been a lot better without the concept, or with huge restriction on its use.

I usally went for [Skill] dices with Target number equal to the opposite character's Attribute when we had a contsted roll, but honestly, that didn't work well neither.

You could be a World class negociator (skill 8 ), if you had Charisma 4, no way you would beat the skill 4, Charisma 6 in a contested roll.



The thing is, with large dice pools : the more dices you roll, the more your probability curve lean towards average results (I'm not sure about my English there-I could use the wrong words).

Negociation targets intelligence in SR3, but the problem remains the same. Charisma was targeted for etiquette I think. Tests targeting attributes could be a problem. I'd keep them only for magic.

Plus ca change plus la meme chose

When I first started playing SR4, I very much liked Attribute + Skill with a fixed target number. I even like dice pool bonuses, but I really dislike dice pool penalties. They're cumbersome at the table. I also think that the glitch mechanic doesn't work well with the size of most dice pools. It just doesn't come up often enough to justify its existence. Limits are an okay mechanic when it comes to gear effecting dice pools, but they're yet another thing to think about with every roll and the calculation for natural limits make running the game more difficult.

I'd be interested in seeing something like this: Your dice pool equals your skill + positive modifiers (mostly gear related, like smartlink). All rolls have a limit equal to a linked attribute or a gear attribute, whichever is lower.

The target number is slightly variable to handle conditional modifiers, borrowing the concept of Advantage/Disadvantage from D&D 5E. Normally, the target number is 5. With advantage, it's 4. With disadvantage, it's 6. It never gets higher or lower than that.

Then reduce the number of attributes. I think you could reduce it down to three: Body, Mind, Essence. But some would probably be dissatisfied with that.

And then you have something totally unrelated to shadowrun.