Flat damage reduction (e.g. -2 damage from every attack) makes a single large hit better than multiple smaller hits of equivalent total damage, since the damage reduction would only apply once with the single large hit. So one hit of 40 damage would be better than four hits of 10 damage each.

40 - 2 = 38

(10 - 2) + (10 - 2) + (10 - 2) + (10 - 2) = 8 + 8 + 8 + 8 = 32

Proportional damage reduction (e.g. /2 damage from every attack) means that, rounding issues nonwithstanding, there's no difference. It doesn't matter how many smaller chunks it's divided into since the amount you subtract is based on the amount you're dealing.

40/2 = 20

(10/2) + (10/2) + (10/2) + (10/2) = 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 = 20

It's probably because whenever spellcasters are being compared, a Wizard comes in and says something like "we're the only ones who had to work for our magic", as if finding a powerful entity and convincing it to make a not horribly skewed bargain, learning to commune with the land itself, or following the orders given by a deity isn't "work".

And don't Bards also have to study their magic?

Why would you use ChatGPT to emulate a word processor? You get all the functionality you need without ever hitting enter.

The mage casts Chill Touch, just to spite you.

Depends on the friend group, honestly. I can see scenarios where people aren't ready to have guests half an hour earlier than expected.

Though, this is why communication is important; if you ask the host if 30 minutes early is preferable to 15 minutes late, you'll get the answer that works for them.

And both are equally cool in their own way

I've only heard one statement about the Tom Cruise reboot; "The most interesting thing about that movie was the trailer they mistakenly released without any audio"

So... not glowing reviews.

Ehh... it's definitely not an entry-level TTRPG. I've tried playing it once and bounced hard, though it was partially the fault of the GM...

It's very crunchy, and complicated, and the rules aren't laid out very well. Maybe now that I'm more experienced with TTRPGs in general I might have more fun with it. I remember doing some silly stuff that was a lot of fun, it was just bogged down by mistakes and misunderstandings and rules, and the way things are set up can often divide the party in a way that isn't fun (the net, for example. Anyone not net-capable basically gets a lunch break whenever you're doing anything in the net).

Just make sure to watch out for the potted petunias that follow.

Oh yeah, the setting is fine, but the rules of the RPG itself are tough to get into.

Art imitates life, and sometimes, life looks at art and says "hold my beer"

If you "run Shadowrun" by "replacing the rules entirely" you aren't running Shadowrun. You're running a different system with Shadowrun's setting.

Great! Now, no matter what the plot demands, at least one party member will be having fun!

Technically no matter how many free actions are taken, a round always takes six seconds. So if you take the cry action enough times the density of your tears will make a black hole and destroy all the enemies.

Fool of a Tiefling!

No, that's different characters playing the same cast.

It's not always that simple. Sometimes metagaming can be subconscious, or just hard to avoid. It's not always "to get an advantage" in such plain terms, and kicking players off the table for doing this on occasion... well, you do you, as always, but I won't be surprised if you have difficulties keeping a table full when you DM.

If you use an older edition of Shadowrun, you're running an older edition of Shadowrun, like how people say they run PF2e. Or you saying you'd run Shadowrun Anarchy. But you wouldn't say you're running Shadowrun at a LFG forum and expect nobody to ask or care what edition.

House rules are house rules. They're expected, but usually minor in the scope of the system.

Both are a far cry from "replacing the mechanics entirely". There's only so much you can replace or scrap before you cross a line of it not being the same system anymore, and "replacing the mechanics entirely" definitely crosses that line. It's like when you see someone say "Yeah I'm running D&D5e but I replaced the combat rules and added Draw Steel's negotiation system and reworked all the proficiencies and changed to Vancian spellcasting". At that point, you're basically playing your own system where the stats and classes are inspired by D&D5e, but nobody would call that "D&D5e but with house rules/homebrew". There's more stuff that isn't D&D5e than that is.

This is exactly the kind of thing that people get annoyed at D&D people about, just sort of in reverse; D&D people run different settings with a 5e ruleset and call it a "new system". You're running a system's setting with a different system and calling it "the same system". There's absolutely nothing wrong with pasting Shadowrun's setting onto a new system, but if I run a campaign in Shadowrun's world but I replace the mechanics entirely with D&D5e, I'm not running Shadowrun. I'm running D&D5e.

that assumes that all discussion is made via text chat and not voice chat. Any item usage that goes un-typed is lost.

I know perfectly what it is I'm upset about; nothing.

I attempted to engage in a basic discussion on a public forum. I'm sorry if that offended you somehow, but I also don't understand why you're here in that case.

I never took anything as an attack.

You're injecting emotion and intent into my statements. That's not healthy or productive.

So I'll summarize it all one last time; I personally believe that what system you claim to be running should be primarily centered around the ruleset and not the setting. We disagree on that matter and that's okay. But during that discussion you clarified your intent when making the original statement, and I stepped back to address that as well; I consider your response, both the original one and this one right here, to be unproductive and dismissive when it comes to the discussion of Shadowrun's ruleset.