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

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.

Exactly.

The mage casts Chill Touch, just to spite you.

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?

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

And both are equally cool in their own way

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.

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

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.

This is on the level of "does that hurt? Then don't do that" advice from doctors. Yes, it's correct, but in the context of the discussion it misses the point. This is a post about Shadowrun and it's mechanics, so I am voicing my opinion on Shadowrun's mechanics. I know I can just not play with Shadowrun rules. I don't play with Shadowrun rules daily. But if that was a valid response to my opinion there wouldn't be any reason to discuss the rules of Shadowrun ever. You either like it or you play something else.

And yes, "like it or play something else" is a valid response to an opinion, but for people out there who haven't played Shadowrun, it's still worth voicing why something is disliked so that they can form their opinion without having to drop time and effort getting a session together just to give the rules a test-drive.

So coming to a discussion about the quality of the rules of a system and the opinions people have on said rules and saying "well just don't use the rules then" is dismissive and pointless. It almost reads as shutting down the opinions of others, even.