Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: X-Kalibur Sep 2 2010, 09:38 PM

Thought that hit me, perhaps it has been brought up before and I'm simply too lazy to search.

Say to shoot your firearm you have 12 dice. This means you need to roll 6 1's in order for a 'glitch' to occur. A glitch is something that is a minor inconvenience. A jam, a clip drop, your smartlink cutting out, etc.

Why then, should firing while moving at an opponent who is behind cover, increase my odds of a jam, clip drop, etc? It seems to me that instead of lowering someone's base dice pool and magically making them more prone to being unlucky, that simply raising the thresholds in combat is more effective.

I would like to hear other opinions on this idea however.

Posted by: Synner667 Sep 2 2010, 09:41 PM

That's variable target numbers, as per SR v1-3.

It worked fine, and made sense - as your example shows...
...But it had issues.

Posted by: Makki Sep 2 2010, 09:46 PM

they changed it in SR4A. targets get bonus dice for defense when in cover instead of shooter getting negative modifier

Posted by: X-Kalibur Sep 2 2010, 09:50 PM

I actually miss the variable TNs from SR1-3.
<edit for more thought on TNs> the big problem was that even with a TN of say 14, you still only needed to hit it once for an effect. Well, that and that 6 = 7 in TNs.

What about other negative mods, Makki, such as darkness and the like? Do they also instead add to the defender instead of taking away from the attacker? Because if not my basic point still stands.

Posted by: Rand Sep 2 2010, 09:52 PM

That has been something I have been kicking around for my game*, not because of the increased ability to glitch (I am fine with that), but because I want to speed up play. Another aspect I wanted to change is how players approach combat, by giving them even more incentive to use active defense in order to generate longer, in-game, combats. Basically, I believe that combat takes too much time at the table, but too little time in the game. I have never had a combat in any of the games I have been in or ran last more than 2 combat rounds (except for one car chase/fight). And those combats have universally taken 1-2 hours to complete due to all the cross-rolls needed.

I like the idea that the characters never alter their die pools, so they can figure them out and not need to worry wbout them anymore. Injury mods are the only problems I see, but that can be dealt with by ideology: I don't think that the current mods are enough to reflect being hurt/tired, so having the full TN increases could work - and give the players an extra incentive to be as smart and sneaky as they can (as well, as motivate them to drop out of a fight prior to being seriously injured or unconscious - morale anyone?).

*Namely, static TN numbers for combat. Using the Die Pool But Table, you cross reference the characters Total Reaction (including enhancers, both magical and technological) to get the Static TN. Yes, it will be kind of low (1 minimum), but that just serves to encourage active defenses more - which I see as the true reason for more IPs.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 2 2010, 09:52 PM

No, variable target number is variable target number. This would be variable Threshold.

It changes the math a little bit, because you don't necessarily roll 1 hit per 3 dice; it also changes how Edge works, because you'd have a lot more Edge'd dice to get 6s on. It is functionally equivalent, and if you find it easier, go for it! Be aware that it's not really helping simplify most combat, because they're Opposed Tests (doesn't make it worse, either, just saying). Instead of the assumed Threshold 1, you'd just have to remember to reduce net hits to account for the new Threshold, and still compare to the defender's hits.

Posted by: Makki Sep 2 2010, 09:54 PM

sadly not. but it would make defending against guns interesting

Posted by: Tanegar Sep 2 2010, 10:11 PM

The problem with this is that, from the character's perspective, you don't want long, drawn-out fights. You want to put the opposition down fast, because runners are almost always outnumbered and every second you let the enemy keep shooting at you increases the odds that they'll succeed in doing something catastrophic to you.

Plus, if combat already takes too much time at the table, why the hell do you want it to take even more?

Posted by: X-Kalibur Sep 2 2010, 10:11 PM

Not trying to make it more simple or even trying to change it. I'm just throwing out an idea that came to me. Now obviously something would have to give somewhere. I'm thinking that maybe every -4DP mod would = a +1 threshold. smartlinks, specializations, and other pool bonuses that don't directly modify the skill rating would towards the prevention of threshold raising. This would serve to keep pools smaller all around and gunfights perhaps longer and more interesting.

This is all conjecture and brainstorming however. I have no plans to attempt to implement this in any way, especially seeing as how I'm not even the GM.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 2 2010, 10:14 PM

That's too good a deal. I'd take 1:4 trade on *negative* mods anytime, and then roll my dice for their expected 1:3 payout, thanks. Plus, how often do you get mods in multiples of 4?

Nothing wrong with a little light rules brainstorming. Keep it up.

Posted by: X-Kalibur Sep 2 2010, 10:36 PM

Well, 1:3 is the "average" result while 1:4 is the automatic success exchange rate. I'd have to playtest the exchange rates to see which one feels more natural. I figure while not a perfect solution, leftover mods could be a penalty to the pool or a bonus to the defender. Probably the latter.

Posted by: tete Sep 2 2010, 10:38 PM

Ubiquity uses variable thresholds but they also have a TN of 4 rather than 5 so each threshold increase is not as bad.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 2 2010, 10:42 PM

I forgot to ask: did you glance at SR4A, p61? An optional rule:

That last bit is what I meant for Opposed (Combat) Tests. You certainly can modify it for those tests, though.

Posted by: X-Kalibur Sep 2 2010, 10:47 PM

Oh hey! I never noticed that. I haven't read through my SR4ALE too terribly closely yet, so I'm mostly still running on SR4 (1st release PDF).

Posted by: Rand Sep 3 2010, 05:01 PM

I did forget to mention that I was also looking at having armor & body be a fixed number too (it automaticaly takes away a certain number of damage levels), so that with the combined dropping of 2 dice rolls per attack, the combat will be faster for the players and gm, but take longer for the characters and npcs (so, response times can actually mean something). Of course, if the player wants to have a better defense they can always take an action and use active defense.

Posted by: Tanegar Sep 3 2010, 07:25 PM

If Body + Armor reduce the DV on a 1:1 basis, that alone will make combat much less lethal and take more rounds. Right now, they reduce the DV on a roughly 3:1 basis if you roll, or 4:1 if you buy hits.

RAW example (dice rolls from http://www.random.org/):
Alice fires her Ares Predator IV at Bob. She has Agility 5, Pistols 4, and a Specialization in Heavy Pistols, for a total dice pool of 11.
Alice rolls 3, 5, 2, 2, 6, 3, 6, 2, 1, 5, and 5, for a total of five hits.
Bob has Reaction 4 and Move-by-Wire 2, for a total dice pool of 8. Bob elects not to go Full Defense.
Bob rolls 6, 5, 3, 6, 3, 3, 3, and 5, for a total of four hits.
Alice has one net hit, for a modified DV of 6P.
Bob has 5 Body and an a lined coat (6/4), for a total soak pool of 11.
Bob rolls 4, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, and 3, for a total of zero hits.
Bob takes 6P damage and is at -2 to all actions thereafter, assuming no other wounds.

Fixed-soak example (dice pools are the same as in previous example):
Alice shoots at Bob. She rolls 1, 3, 1, 1, 5, 4, 5, 2, 1, 3, and 6, for a total of three hits.
Bob again elects not to go Full Defense. He rolls 3, 3, 5, 4, 2, 1, 3, and 5, for a total of two hits.
Alice has one net hit again, for a modified DV of 6P.
Bob's fixed soak of 11 reduces the DV below 0, Bob takes no damage.

Basically, this rule will make small arms next to useless. Do you want to run a game in which the default weapon is an assault cannon?

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 3 2010, 07:34 PM

Well, he didn't say 1:1, right? If you simply 'precalc' the Body+Armor roll using 3:1, that *would* speed up the game. It'd also get rid of some of the randomness, which (to me) isn't a good thing. Dice are there to provide uncertainty, or we'd just precalc everything.

Posted by: Tanegar Sep 3 2010, 07:39 PM

No, he didn't say 1:1, but his stated goal is to extend the duration of combat. Also, I agree that reduction in randomness is, generally speaking, a bad thing.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 3 2010, 08:03 PM

That's true, he did say 'longer for the characters'. I didn't mean you were wrong in the first place, but I did miss that!

Posted by: Rand Sep 3 2010, 09:30 PM

I didn't say, I was throwing out an idea. If I was to go that route I would do the 3:1 - I don't see lessened randomness as such a bad thing. In fact, I have been getting interested in diceless games. Just because they have been here since the beginning doesn't mean that the dice have to always be here. The uncertainty comes into play when the players don't know exactly what they are facing. (Is that lock really hard? Is it trapped? Is the trap deadly, or just incapacitating? Is my skill enough to deal with it? If so? How do I use my skill the best in order to deal with it?) I like what someone else said (I think it was on a different game forum), about not letting the dice rule everything like "little plastic gods." I have noticed over my 30+ years of gaming that one of the first things that will screw up a game are the dice.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 4 2010, 01:20 AM

Well, it's an opinion. You could simply divide all DPs by 3, and play 'who has higher numbers?' Nearly all RPGs use dice quite a bit, because randomness makes it a game. In this case, *knowing* that I can safely ignore certain attacks is a pretty large shift in drama, tactics, etc.

Posted by: Tanegar Sep 4 2010, 02:27 AM

In the case of attacks, that's a problem because the players do know what they're facing. If the opposition is armed with pistols, the PCs can see that, and the players can make educated guesses as to what their attack numbers will be and how much damage each attack will inflict; I'd be extremely surprised if your players couldn't get within a margin of 1. As Yerameyahu noted, excising randomness also removes a large part of the drama: there are no more lucky shots, no desperate efforts, just a flat comparison of two numbers. If X>=Y, you win, else you lose. There's something to be said for not letting mathematics rule everything, too.

Just out of curiosity, how would you handle Edge, since Edge is at least partly a reflection of the character's luck?

Posted by: Rand Sep 4 2010, 11:07 AM

Only because of "number crunchers" who need to know every last detail. In a game that cares less about the exact numbers, those things fall by the wayside. I know, we are all geared to understanding the numbers and it is strange and a bit scary to try and shift gears, but it is possible and also possible that it can still be a fun game. Plus, yoy may know what the gun can do, but you don't know what the gun weilder can do. You may think you do, but in all actuality, you don't.


Actually, I believe it is by going the typical number-crunching route that is making it so that mathematics rule everything. You can't tell me that when you create that character with a Die Pool of 18+ that you aren't just ensuring that your math wins out, the "randomness" be damned. By doing such things, you are doing your best to remove the randomness, also. Remember, the idea of randomness is being shifted to the mystery of not knowing. I think players might just get a better feeling of accomplishment when they figure something out, instead of getting a good roll on the dice. The mathematic won't rule, but I don't care how cool I think I might be, the only way for ME to beat a master swordsman is through sheer luck.....


....and here is where the sheer luck comes in. But, you just can't throw it in there and go "I win!" You need to explain and describe what this Edge Point means and how it is affecting. (Using the example of me against a master swordsman, I would probably go with the idea of the edge point being some extremely unlucky incident on his part - like something unseen gets under his foot and he twists his ankle - in order for me to have a chance at winning.)

My primary motivation in all of this has been my continually evolving idea that games and gamers are concentrating so hard on the numbers of the game, that they aren't actually playing the game anymore, they are playing a bunch of numbers. Using the numbers/rules seem to be a sort of crutch for RPs these days, I think, it means they don't have to actually think at the table, they can just say, "my character has a Charisma of 6, and an Etiquette of 5, I get 4 successes, do I totally dominate the social situation, or what?" Instead of actually RPing the situation more, and the same goes for knowledge skills and such - can't be bothered to actually try and figure it out for ourselves.....I want to get back to playing the game (though I do think that "game" is a misnomer; there are no winners and losers here..)

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 4 2010, 03:26 PM

*shrug* Again, it's just personal preference. If you'd rather play freeform, do that. Skip the chargen entirely. It's viable if that's what your table wants.

Posted by: Tanegar Sep 4 2010, 07:18 PM

In the first round, probably not. But I can make an educated guess, and as combat goes on, round after round, my guesses will get more and more accurate as I observe the opponent's capabilities. The next time I run into a similar opponent, I'll be able to make a very accurate guess right out of the gate.


Maximizing dice pools doesn't remove randomness, or even come close. There's a big difference between shifting a probability distribution and flat-out declaring, "I win." No matter how big my pool is, I can still fail. There is still risk involved; minimizing the risk is simply rational behavior. If we're just comparing two attributes, and mine is higher, I cannot fail. There is no risk, and therefore, no game.


That's not luck, that's a limited-use I-win button.


Here we get into the issue of separating the player's knowledge and abilities from the character's knowledge and abilities. In your diceless system, how can a player ever play a character significantly different from himself? How can a (if you'll forgive me for descending into stereotype for a moment) socially awkward gamer play the suave, Charisma 6, Etiquette 5 face? How can a player of middling mental gifts play the Logic 9 cyberlogician? IMO, what you're describing is more akin to an old-school adventure game. If that's what you and your players want, by all means go to it, but you're drifting farther and farther away from the core concept of an RPG.

Posted by: Rand Sep 5 2010, 03:32 PM

No, I am going away from what you concider an RPG. I still concider it an RPG (Role-Playing Game, not miniatures battle game, not boardgame).

Yes, characters can do and know things that the players themselves cannot and do not, which is why the GM gives them information and allows them to do things that the players wouldn't know or do. But it is done is such a way as encourage the players to think, and not say, "You rolled 4 successes you know the story."

Let me give you an example: I once had a halfling thief in AD&D. He was captured and put in a cell, hung from by his hands with metal shackles on a wall. To get out of the cell, I didn't look down at my character sheet to see what skills and numbers I had, I described what I was doing and the GM (Tim Arradondo, who was very good at this sort of thing) determined by my attributes and such that it was a good plan. If I had been an obese mage, I would have had to try another method.

Yes, the characters need to have the proper abilities, but it is up to the player to use them best, not the dice.

Here's my test as to if the rules and such are dominating a game too much: When you give your players a problem (or as a player, when you are given a problem) does everyone drop their eyes to their character sheet looking for that one thing to solve the porblem for them, or do they lean back, get a glassy-eyed look and start to ponder the possiblities? If the former: the rules/numbers control too much, imo. I think that by having so much stuff on the character sheet, you loose sight of your character, I see it all the time.

In the old school games they didn't make rules to cover absolutely everything, for a number of reasons. One of these reasons, I believe, is because they know that the rules cannot cover every situation, so why try? Encourage, and thusly teach, the GMs and players to use their own creativity (remember that word, it is a governing term in RPGs) to solve the problems. By concentrating on the numbers I think that flavor is lost, and flavor is what its all about. (How many times do you order food because of something other than flavor? I am sure it is the forefront of your mind everytime, as it is mine - though I truly do need to worry more about nutrition these days.... )

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 5 2010, 05:36 PM

So when your Logic Challenged player cannot come up with a solution (Because the Character is more Intuitive, Logical and Capable than the Player is), then what do you do? My guess is tell him he is out of luck, as that is what you are implying above, at least from how I read it... The stats on the sheet are there to simulate a character... oftentimes a character that is completely different than the Player himself. Dice are also there to control randomness... you could have the most brilliant plan in the world, and the right skills and attributes in combination, along with a respectable dice pool, and still have luck come crushing down upon the character's shoulders (Happens a lot to my character's in fact). Yes, the game is about social interaction, but oftentimes, the stats are what control the outcome. Without the randomness of the dice, you might as well just write a book, as you have already decided how things are going to play out in the end.

And your DnD example is meaningless... Apparently you know your character's stats well enough not to have to peruse the sheet, I know lots of Players who are just like that, myself included... Unfortunately, not everyone has a photographic memory for character stats, and must look at the sheet from time to time.

And as a note... I Often try new food dishes based solely upon their presentation; after all, I have no basis for an informed decision from the flavor of the dish...

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 5 2010, 08:17 PM

Terrible example: many people eat for nutrition (the primary reason, y'know). Also, price.

The kind of game you suggest is perfectly fine, Rand. It's just not Shadowrun, and it's not what most people think of when they think (tabletop) RPG. It sounds like freeform (-ish).

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 5 2010, 09:18 PM

Yeah, I don't get much chance to actually experiment with a lot of new foods; I cannot generally afford it, so I stick to tried and true most fo the time. But on those ocassions when I can, it is often the presentation that swings my vote...

As for the game described above (somewhere), I have to agree with Yerameyahu...

Posted by: Rand Sep 6 2010, 04:46 PM

When the player is stumped, as happens, then it is up to the GM to give out hints and clues to jump start the thought process (but not replace it), as is appropriate to the characters attributes/stats. And, sometimes we fail. We fail to think of the right thing, we fail to realize something important, etc. Why is that a lesser form of failing to getting bad dice rolls? I don't think it is. Knowing a character is not just knowing their "stats", it is knowing their personality and how they think, stuff that is not put down on a character sheet most of the time - because it is already full of crunch. The more crunch, the less character detail I have noticed...in other words, when you spend so much time on these numbers and other crunch, you lose sight of who the character is, and it becomes that much harder to remember the crunch, as well.




Why did I know that mentioning food was going to get to some people? Of course we eat for nutrition, that is why the big trend in food for the last 70+ years (with a small number of years - like 5-10 - reversing that) has been to overprocess food to the point of it having next to no nutritional value, hence the expanding waist, and decreasing lifespans. (But, yes, I agree that price does play a pretty-big part also - damn capitolism and being on the wrong end! )



Well, as it says in the main book about there being no right or wrong way to play, I guess it IS Shadowrun - just not the one you would like to play. And yes, it is much more freeform in ideology, for a reason: I like the art of the game much more than the science of the game. (Probably has something to do with the fact that I liked art in school more than math/sciences.....) I just know that my most memorable times playing games have had little to nothing to do with what I rolled on a die, and if you think back and find the same, maybe more freeform is what you truly want as well. If not, then: "All ahead full, Mr. Sulu!"

And Yera, I have come to find out that I don't fit in the "majority" of just about anything....even in those things that aren't in the majority themselves.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 6 2010, 05:09 PM

It's not about what I'd like to play. If it's a problem saying it's 'not Shadowrun', then I take it back. My point was that it's not what everyone else thinks when they think Shadowrun, that's all; the book has numbers and rules. Anyway, I guess that covers it.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 6 2010, 05:21 PM

Well, I can agree with a few points above... I generally enjoy the roleplaying aspect of roleplaying games a great deal... getitng into the head of someone that is not you. However, the rules (Stats) provide a framework for things that are outside of the framework of the player. How many players are World Class Marksmen, or Martial artists, or Researchers, or any other occupation. I would be willing to bet that that number dwindles into insignificance for the players of the game. Also, How many Players have the capacity to Work complex multi-stage calculations in their head (Logic 6+)? I would say that that number also pales into insignificance for players. Sure you will have one or two from time to time, somewhere int eh world, but really, how many Players can be as smart as Einstein and as suave/deadly as James Bond?

Have you ever had a game where you could think rings around the GM? I have, and it is often times a bad experience. There is generally no suspense, as you can see things coming a mile a way (plots tend to simple for those sho surpass the GM), and you are able to outperform and outplot any of the opposition that is thrown against you by that same GM because you have a greater intellect. Some would call that cheating... Now, reverse that a bit. When you have a Genius level GM who is capable of plotting things out 15 levels deep, and even your most thought out Clues (Which to you are exceedingly obvious) are just whinging by their ears as they continuously miss them... Sound like fun?

The stats are there to handle that situation, if you continue to downplay the stats, the characters will never fulfill their potential. Many players have characters that are so much more advanced than they are, that there is no way you can compare them. It is these stats that make the game fun for those players. They now have a chance to actually play something that they will never be, whether that is intellectually, physically, or socially superior. Why would you penalize the Player for their Character's abilities? Why would you just not allow them to roll their dice pool when the player is stumped rather than lead them by the nose with clues that they contiunue to miss. A simple roll and the plot moves on. The Story progresses. All forcing a player to try to out-think you is going to do is frustrate the player when they can't.

I know the above is an extreme example, but I have actually seen it a time or two. Not everyone thinks the same, and what may be painfully obvious to one person is inadequately modeled for someone else entirely. If the insistence is on the "Story" above the capabilities of the Players/charcters (They are the Protagonists after all), then why not just write a book? Since you have already decided how the plot will unfold based upon your desires, and you do not let the Stats interfere with that at all, where is the satisfaction for the players and their characters when they accomplish something, regardless of whether they out-thought the GM or rolled really well?

I am really curious to how you actrually handle this in game...

Posted by: Myrgan Sep 6 2010, 06:42 PM

Rand, I think you're blaming the numbers and the dice for a fault that is really coming from lazy GMing. Whenever our Face tries to say something like "my character has a Charisma of 6, and an Etiquette of 5, I get 4 successes, do I totally dominate the social situation, or what?", I remind him that it is me who tells him when he rolls what, and then I ask him what he says to the guy. I let him RP for a bit until he has gone far enough in a certain direction and *then* I tell him to do a test, although if his RPing was bad, it mightn't be the Charisma+Etiquette test he was hoping for. Or I let him do the Charisma+Etiquette test to see if he just screwed up or if he REALLY screwed up.

I'm a bit sceptical about the no dice-rolling idea, I think the dice-rolling gives the PCs the feeling they aren't *completely* delivered to the whims of the GM. Without dice, every failed attempt at anything becomes personal.

Posted by: Rand Sep 6 2010, 09:46 PM

TJ: In my experience, the more crunch, the less "getting into the head" of the character. I have seen it time and time again, in games I ran and games I have been a player in. Now, I have played these games just like the rest of you (with dice and numbers and such) and the thought of diceless is weird to me too - but I don't let weird stop me (usually ). Of course most of the players aren't all those things you mentioned, and yes their characters may be and that is the challenge of playing the game. Not being something but pretending to be. No you don't have to make them actually do the things, that is where you guys seem to be not getting this. I have just begun to look into the diceless stuff (remember I said that at the beginning) so, no I don't have all the answers to exactly how it works out, but it does have an appeal (to me) because of the over-crunching I see going on in games today. Perhaps a meld would be better? I don't know yet. But I do know that I want to ROLE-play much more than I want to ROLL-play. (I do know this: that for the vast majority of things "really" either we can do them or we can't. And if we can't, then maybe the challenge isn't rolling high enough, but thinking and finding another solution to the problem - not everything should be solvable with a high enough roll. Nothing about diceless says that every situation is a "you win-or-lose",at least not the bits I have looked into.)

As it pertains to GMs that are either too dumb or too smart, well, just like when you look for a group to fit your personality, you look for what you want there too. Its the same thing. If you are relying on the dice to for your games entire sense of mystery, well I say this: Get out. Get another group. You can do better - eventually. Find the group that fits you. And I know all about dry spells, prior to the game I am running now I hadn't played for about 3-4 years, and then it was only a couple of one-shots trying out different rules systems (D&D 4e and Dark Heresy).

Myrgan, Do you call the salmon that swims upstream to die lazy? Having to fight through the rules of a game is a waste of time that takes away from the time you could be working on the campaing. Plus, I don't know about you but I work a full-time job as well so when I sit down to work on a game, I don't want to have to worry about making sure I cover an esoteric rule from page 326, paragraph 5, book-9. I want to be writing up the backgrounds of the NPCs, the history of the story, the description of the locations. The numbers of the situation are the last things on my mind.

You all seem to think that it is all about the whims of the GM, well isn't now? No matter what you roll, the GM can always say: "Miss!" You don't know what is behind the screen. You don't know if that NPC has something special helping him out. The situation dictates the responses and it is up to the GM to judge if the right responses are being made, dice or no dice.

Posted by: DMiller Sep 6 2010, 10:13 PM

Rand, TJ, Yerameyahu,

You are all right. None of you is wrong.

From a player's point of view (that would be me), it takes a good blend of both raw role-playing and dice to make a great game. When I GM (not that often any more) my games tend to be a number crunch and hack and slash. My group likes it for the fast pace and "lets have fun attitude" (very pink mohawk).

Our primary GM has a long story plot that he has worked up with a lot of twists and clues within clues. He knows what we as players are capable of and he pushes us (as players) to our limits for both mechanical and roleplay ideas. If we as players miss something he usually has us roll for our characters to determine how big of a clue he will give us and so on. It is a comfortable blend of the two styles. Comfort of course would vary from group to group. It really helps to also know your players and their characters.

As always just my 2 Nuyen.

D

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 7 2010, 12:06 AM

All very. very true...

Posted by: Myrgan Sep 7 2010, 02:25 AM

Rand, sorry about the "lazy GMing", I didn't mean to attack you, I just meant to say that the degree of role-playing a GM tickles out of his PCs doesn't have to have much to do with the instruments supplied by the canon, i.e. rules, numbers and dice. They are after all only instruments, some groups spend the whole time polishing them, others use them to role-play, and even get them bent and dirty in the process.

But originally I was going to say "Cool, do away with the canon, far out! Sounds like an interesting project", it's just that after thinking about it, I have my doubts. Role-playing has it's limits, there are situations that just have to be decided. You can have your PC talk 10 minutes about how she holds the gun, what she does to control her breathing, what she thinks about to control her nervousness, which part of the target is hidden behind the sight from her point of view, what she concentrates on when she squeezes the trigger, etc, etc... at some point a decision has to be made as to whether she hits the target or not. You can either leave that decision to chance, i.e. let her role some dice, or you, as the GM, can dictate what happens. In my experience, dictating just doesn't go down too well with players. You can dictate to their disadvantage for the purpose of building up to the climax or whatever, and they'll be thinking "why the hell not? Its a reasonable idea, dammit", and you can dictate to their favour, even try to reward them by letting them shine, and they'll be thinking "oh thank you for your boundless generosity, your Highness". Whatever you dictate, you won't see them jumping up and dancing like they would when they just rolled 8 hits with 10 dice at a crucial moment of the game.

Yeah, Shadowrun GMs can do something behind their screen and say "Miss!" all the time. A GM that does that won't be a very popular GM for very long. That's exactly the point!

Posted by: StealthSigma Sep 7 2010, 12:47 PM

Injury mods are semi-permanent. It's not something that is likely to change up and down frequently during combat. Even so, compared to a lot of the situational modifiers it's still a rather smooth one to deal with.

--



It depends on the dice man.

With my dice, I tend to throw somewhere between 3:1 to 2:1 (33-50% success rate). My GM's dice when he throws for NPCs tends to land around 50-75%. The GM's brother tends to fall around 25-33%.

Generally speaking, I only trade when the roll is for an activity that isn't rushed. I should recommend to the GM's brother that he does tradein's more often since that usually is about his hit rate. Perhaps suggest it to the GM so his insanely lucky dice rolls aren't constantly screwing us over.

Posted by: Runner Smurf Sep 7 2010, 02:24 PM

I like the idea of doing using variable thresholds in combat. It makes a lot of sense on a number of levels, and I think it can be fairly quickly implemented at the table. As a baseline, it is similar to simply putting in +/-3 modifiers. From a simulation perspective, it adds a lot more realism as you can reflect that some kinds of things are so much harder to do that you just might not be able to do it at all. For example, RAW, shooting a moving target at long range with cover is no different than shooting a long range target standing in the open. The defender (may) get some additional dice on his reaction test, but there is no reflection in the rules for the fact that those kinds of shots are extraordinarily difficult to make, and even experts often miss.

My suggestions:
- Ranges. Each range increment should increase the threshold by one. Scopes add one die per range increment. This means scopes are useful, but they don't make 1-km shots trivial.
- Cover. 1 for partial, 2 for good.
- Target-in-motion. 1 (or 2 if particularly difficult movement pattern).
- Shooting improperly. 1. By this I mean if you are firing a heavy weapon while standing, or a machine gun from-the-hip, or something like that. Big enough, bad-ass enough troll or an appropriate gyromount could nullify this.
- Called shots. 1 or 2, depending on how difficult the shot is.

I think those are the only ones I'd impose, and leave the other given modifiers "as-is". I might - might - consider having a smartlink lower the threshold by 1, but I'll have to think about that one for a while.

Posted by: Rand Sep 7 2010, 04:38 PM

I agree. As they say, "Each to their own." My sincere hope is that everyone sitting down to a game table has fun. (Of course, the hope extends beyond the game table, but this is an RPG board. )


Sorry too, got defensive and it wasn't necessary. ("I got feelings too, y'know?" he says in whiny-man voice. ) But you are wrong, to a degree. The more you make someone deal with one aspect of something, the less they can deal with the other aspects. People are a finite resource, so is a person's ability to work on something - hence all the labor laws. If a game system has a lot of crunch, dealing with that crunch takes time and energy that is taken away from dealing with the other parts, namely the roleplaying parts: history, story, NPCs (history, story, description, quirks, etc..), atmosphere, etc.. Example: If it takes me 40-90 minutes to just put together an NPCs stats (it has happened) then, I am a little burned out by the time I begin working on their personalities and such. This is where the lazy part does come into play for me: I love game companies to put out as much NPC, maps, adventures and such so that I can raid them. It makes putting together an adventure and campaign easier for me.

But, my point is that I have noticed a trend to concentrate more on the numbers/dice than on the RPG-ing, and I don't like it. It is too much like a miniatures game than an RPG, to me. So, I am searching for new things and new ways and even though some of these new ways seem weird to me, and they generate the typical "that's different, kill it" feelings, I push those aside to truly give it a fair shake. (Or at least as fair as a 40+ yr old can......sigh......)


Well, if they do it ALL the time, of course, no one would ever succeed at anything. My point there was, you (the player) don't actually know in those cases whether the GM "let" you succeed or not. So, to say that using dice devoids the GM of his "Master of ALL" powers that he is granted by being the GM is like carrying around your baby blanket as a bullet proof vest: pretty-pointless. And, by having them "roll in front" of everyone just tells me that you might as well be playing a miniatures battle game and not an RPG, with the GM doing nothing but placing the next fights foes in front of you. (IMO.) Wait! Isn't that D&D 4e?!?

Posted by: Rand Sep 7 2010, 04:49 PM

What I meant was, I don't think that the injury mods are enough. A -1? Really? That is nothing, even looking at a die pool of 6-7, it barely affects it. When you are looking at dice pools easily exceeding 10 dice, it is nothing. Getting hurt can really affect you, and SR is a game where it DOES affect you. I haven't found any rules where you can shrug off the injury mods - without a power or something like that. (Like using Composure to temporatrily resist the effect.)

I was thinking, in order to further make the players more likely to look to defense, that making each level a TN modifier: it increases the TN of everything they do by the injury level. This will make it so that someone who is seriously injured act that way, they have seriously increased the difficulty of every action they take and may say, "sorry guys, but I'm no help to you back here. I should get out of here." And the others can say, "Damn! Ralph's messed up pretty-bad, we should get him out of here." "But what about the case? We are supposed to be getting the case!" "I know. But it's not worth Ralph's life. We need to get him out of here!" Drama. That is what it is about for me. Plus, those guys with the huge dice pools will still have some chance at doing many things, even things that would be hard for ordinary folk, but just not still be able to shoot the wings off a fly at 100 meters. (Which should be what the awesome gunman can only do when he is healthy.)

Posted by: Rand Sep 7 2010, 04:51 PM

Runner smurf, a lot of what you have down there is exactly what I was thinking. The speed in use for combat is a big point for me. The rules do have an option of static TNs for firearms with medium range = 1, long range = 2, etc.., so the concept isn't all that foreign to SR.

Posted by: StealthSigma Sep 7 2010, 05:15 PM

There are some augments that allow you to ignore some of the injury modifier.

Adrenaline Pump lets you ignore the modifier while it's active.
Damage Compensators lets you ignore a number of damage boxes (both stun and physical) up to its rating (max 12) for the purposes of wound modifiers. So with a Rating 3 Damage Compensator, you don't start accruing a wound penalty until 6 boxes of damage. For a cool 180,000 you would need to take either 15 stun or 15 physical damage to achieve a -1 wound modifier. So you would need 14 Body or Willpower to have the ability to take wound modifiers. =X
Pain Editor lets you ignore the wound penalty from Stun damage.

Posted by: Cheops Sep 7 2010, 05:25 PM

I use variable thresholds for all aspects of SR4A. I find that it works better to highlight the value of augmentation. Everything converts from dice pool to threshold on a 1-for-1 basis. Works pretty well so far. To cut down on combat I took away the dodge roll (and skill) and just treat the dodge bonuses as +threshold and penalties as -threshold. There are still a few things that increase dice pool instead of threshold (positive qualities mostly, some augmentations) but over-all my players never have to change their dice pool and many tasks are actually a challenge now.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 7 2010, 05:32 PM

That's how Exalted 2e works, basically. 1:1 seems like it wouldn't work at all, but whatever is fun for your table. There are certainly many, many variations possible between static and random resolutions in RPGs.

Posted by: StealthSigma Sep 7 2010, 05:40 PM

Is variable threshold supposed to work by adding together all the + and - modifiers and adjusting the threshold number up/down based on the result divided by three rounded down?

So if you have +3 and -6, you would increase the threshold by 1?

+9 and -3 would decrease threshold by 2?

Posted by: X-Kalibur Sep 7 2010, 05:44 PM

At least until the threshold hits 1, at which point you'd probably want to either give them bonus dice or apply some sort of penalty to the other person in the case of combat, maybe giving them a threshold before hits count towards dodging.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 7 2010, 06:07 PM

Yuck, an extra step in something that is supposed to fast-track.

Posted by: Warlordtheft Sep 7 2010, 06:37 PM

Yeah, but you figure most fights are won or lost before the first round is fired.

Posted by: Rand Sep 7 2010, 07:50 PM

Which falls under the "power or something like that" scenario.


With my idea, most of these numbers would be pre-generated so that it would be faster. Hopefully. And funner. Again, hopefully...


Not quite sure as to the meaning behind this statement (which depends upon the emphasis of the "you" in there). If 1) serious, then yeah, they are, with the only mystery being that we don't know the outcome until after the fact (by this same philosophy, a die that comes up a 5, had a 100% chance of being a 5 at that time, only prior to that we couldn't know that), or 2) snide: Phhlllththththththth...

Posted by: Cheops Sep 7 2010, 10:13 PM

Exactly. The Internal/External modifiers from Exalted 2e are where I got the classifications from.

I come from the school of thought that SR4 becomes totally broken as a system once you hit 12+ dice. Therefore, something that increases difficulty as drastically as 1:1 ratio is highly regarded. If it was 1:3 (apart from forcing me to do more arithmetic than I care to) then highly skilled/augmented individuals could still plow through everything without any challenges. 1:1 means that there is still SOMETHING out there that even a cyberzombie/dragon has trouble with. Allows creation of challenges at all tiers of play -- from Street to Prime Runners.

Although I should mention that all 6's explode, not just on Edge enhanced rolls.

Posted by: Rand Sep 8 2010, 10:49 AM

I would be very interested to get more info on this.

Posted by: Cheops Sep 8 2010, 04:07 PM

Not really much more detail to go into than what I have there. I'm kind of making a lot of it up as my players interact with the rules.

For instance, full autofire is +9 Threshold. However, a tripod is something like -6 Threshold. So now there is a strong incentive to actually use a tripod with your character who has a 20 dice pool because he could actually fail if he tries to just one-hand, full auto the gun (20 dice against 10 hits as opposed to 10 dice versus 1 hit when not compensating the recoil). Similarly, having a hacker run overwatch on you during a gun-fight becomes great. Blind-firing through the wall is now +8 threshold which is still pretty hard to get with your 20 dice. However, having the hacker display the target vector and feed video into your smartlink that +8 threshold suddenly disappears. Also provides strong incentive for EW during combat as each side tries to remove this advantage.

I can't really remember which pieces of cyberware I gave -threshold or +dice to. I think anything that was a dice pool modifier became +/- Threshold modifier and anything which was a skill/attribute modifier became a +/- dice pool modifier. Again, trying to mimic how Internal/External penalties work in Exalted 2e and making it so a player knows they always roll X dice and it is the Threshold that changes (less time spent counting dice).

Posted by: Myrgan Sep 8 2010, 07:07 PM

*My* point there was, if you (the GM) play your "Master of All" card too often, the players will quickly have the feeling that they are pinballs in a giant GM mind-fart. That applies to "beating" good PC rolls behind a screen too often (one of the reasons I hardly ever roll behind screen), and IMO it certainly applies to not rolling at all and just telling the players what happens. In my experience (both as GM and player), part of good GMing is giving the players the feeling they have a certain amount of control, and that's where I don't see a no dice-rolling version playing out well.

I see your point that too much crunch can distract, and though I have my doubts with the "no crunch at all" approach, I am inclined to agree that SR rather does have too much of it. Which is why I find Cheops' idea very interesting.

Cheops, what's your base threshold (w/o modifiers) in ranged combat? The target's Reaction? Half target's reaction? A third? What about close combat and other opposed tests?

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 8 2010, 07:21 PM

The basic theory of what Cheops' suggestion's source is that you simply pre-calculate all *defensive* pools into a 'defense rating' (Threshold to attack them). So, the simplest version would be to 3:1 all defense pools (Dodge Value = Reaction/3, Parry Value = (Reaction + Skill)/3, etc.), opposed tests (Con Defense = (Charsma + Con)/3, etc.). It's a little harder in SR4 than Exalted 2e because SR has more varied opposed rolls.

Obviously, Cheops' actual suggestion is a little more complex (possibly too much so, but we'd have to try it out).

Posted by: Rand Sep 8 2010, 08:14 PM

Right, but the operative words here are "too often". Everything "too often" is bad, hence the word "too". A good GM doesn't do it too often, but just right. (I had to. )

In my experience, people who want everything up front think that the only way GMs make these calls are to short change them, when in fact, many GMs also go the other route: having what seems to be a bad roll succeed. Plus, contrary to Tanegar's above response, you will not ever know all the "behind the screen" factors in play. And the fact that you rolled well but failed, could be a clue, just as the opposite. Also, what about those times when the character isn't supposed to know they are even making a roll, like secret Perception check? If the GM rolls it he is "denying the players God given right to control everything about his character!!!" But if he has the player do it, he just gave away vital information just by having the player make the check. For me, I want to surprise and draw out some level of emotion from the player, not just the pretend character, because the player is who is sitting at the game table. So when something is supposed to be surprising, I want it to be surprising, scary=scary, funny=funny, etc..to the player. (Obviously it can't be the same, but somewhat is good enough.)

I feel that concentrating on the number soo much takes away from those emotion-generating situations. I mean, really, other than frustration, what emotions were ever conjured in math class?

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 8 2010, 08:18 PM

I think you're overstating the case for the general population of gamers, but yes, certainly your personal experience is valid.

Posted by: Rand Sep 8 2010, 08:21 PM

Yera, I think Cheops said he got rid of the dodge skill, but I still don't know what he has for a "Base TN."

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 8 2010, 08:24 PM

I'm assuming he used *something* like the Range Thresholds optional rule + Reaction/3, but I know that's not the exact specifics.

Posted by: Rand Sep 8 2010, 08:56 PM

The biggest problem I see with his method is that it actually doesn't work for those non-optimized characters. I works well for characters with the 12+ die pools, but when you are talking about the average joe* with a 6 die pool, a +4 TN is HUGE. So, in a mixed group it could be a problem. But, you can always use it as a way to say, "that is why the snipers and gun adepts do the shooting and not the technomancers." ("And vice-versa.")

It does seem to reinforce dedicated roles, as well. In a game where you want some overlapping of skills, this will make that nearly impossible, as far as I can tell. If that is what you want/like, then cool.

*Who I think the current mods were made for, which could be classified as a mistake right at the beginning as PCs rarely conform to the average joe's stats.

Posted by: Cheops Sep 9 2010, 12:22 AM

Nope. Far more brutal. Threshold 1/2/3/4 for Short/Medium/Long/Extreme. Looking at it I should probably reinstitute the Counterattack rule for Melee/Unarmed from SR3. Dodge penalties can only negate the +threshold from dodge bonuses. Oh, and I made it so you can take a single Free Action on every combatant's turn so you can dive for cover when getting shot at. Better find some hard cover Omae.

I found everyone was dying in 2 shots anyway unless they jacked their Dodge through the roof. Even then it was still mostly just extra dice rolling. So screw it! I should probably also note that these are experimental rules that I implemented for our current game not something I have been doing since 2005. So take them with a grain of salt.

Screw it, here are all my house rules so far:

Game Mechanics

• All 6’s explode with or without Edge
o Doesn’t matter if Edge is spent before or after the roll now
• All dice pool modifiers become Threshold modifiers
o Positive dice pool modifier becomes negative Threshold
• If a modifier doesn’t have a description then assume it is a Dice Pool modifier
• Threshold Test: a Threshold modifier increases the overall Threshold
o Dice Pool modifiers alter the individual test’s threshold
 #hits = Hits – Threshold +1
 can change from test to test

Character Creation

• Active Skills cost 2 BP, Knowledge Skills cost 1 BP
o Skill Groups cost 5 BP
• Positive Qualities that give Dice Pool Modifiers still give dice
o They don’t modify thresholds
• Negative Qualities are gone  if you want one, role-play it
• Spell Force: since spells are now learned at a specific Force get bonus points
o Full Mage  10 BPs just for spells
o Mystic Adepts  5 BPs just for spells
o Cannot buy at Force greater than Magic or 6 (whichever is lower)

Skills

• Skill Changes
o Dodge is removed
o Outdoors Group is now a skill called Survival replacing all skills in the group
o Firearms group is now a skill replacing all skills in the group
 Includes Gunnery and Heavy Weapons
o Close Combat group is now a skill replacing all skills in the group
o Athletics group is now a skill replacing all skills in the group
o Thrown Weapons is removed – Athletics covers this now
o Exotic Weapons skills are gone – exotic weapons now cause a +1 Threshold modifier unless you have a Firearms or Close Combat specialty that covers said weapon
o Driver Skill Group – new skill group that covers the “normal” piloting skills
 Pilot: Ground Craft, Pilot: Watercraft, Pilot: Aircraft
o Binding is gone  Summoning is used instead
o Ritual Spellcasting is gone  Spellcasting is used instead
o Conjuring Group: add Assensing to this group
o Sorcery Group: add Astral Combat to this group
o Electronics Group: add Electronic Warfare and Cybercombat
 Hacking is gone  Computer is used instead
 Data Search is gone  Computer is used instead
 Computer Science  replaces Hardware and Software
o Diving becomes a Knowledge Skill that compliments Athletics
o Parachuting becomes a Knowledge Skill that compliments Athletics

Combat

o Initiative tests are gone: act in order of highest I+IP to lowest
o Speaking is a non-action (similar to Threading)
o Free Actions
 may take 1 Free Action per Action Phase including during other character’s action phases
o Ranges: Short 1, Medium 2, Long 3, Extreme 4
o Defense Rolls are gone
 Defense Modifiers add as Threshold to the attacker’s roll
o Armor Penalties kick in at STR + BOD (not BOD x2)
 Military-grade: add extra limit equal to the higher of the two attributes
o Driving with AR: still adds +1 die instead of modifying Threshold

Magic

o Spells are learned at a specific Force
 Can’t cast above that
 Can cast at any Force below
 Force can be increased at the same cost as Complex Forms
 Add +Force to the Threshold for the learning test
o Ritual Casting can be done with participants of different Traditions
o Direct Combat spells are now treated the same as any other attack
o All Mental Manipulations are now Illusions (rules work the same)
o Counterspelling adds as Threshold to the attacker’s roll
o Banishing: now used in exactly the same manner as Counterspelling
 Works against all Powers used by Spirits

Hacking

o Treat everything like it was in the real world
o Response is gone: just use System now
 TMs get to pick which Attribute to use
o Exploit – used to pick locks, open windows, etc
o Stealth – equivalent to Infiltration, Disguise, and Etiquette
o Analyze – perception, replaces Analyze, Browse, Scan, Sniffer, Track
o Edit – used to change things, acts like build/repair skills
 Does the Sniffer intercept
 Can also Defuse
o Encrypt (Hacker software) – language skill used to communicate with secure nodes
 Replaces decrypt – just roll to see if you “understand” what’s being said
 Threshold equal to Encrypt rating being run by target
o Spoof – equivalent to Negotiations, Con, and Leadership
 Replaces Command
o Medic – no change
o Amor – no change
o Attack – no change
o Biofeedback Filter – adds to Threshold for the Black Hammer attack test
o Black Hammer – Blackout is gone
 damage is Stun/Physical as per normal Armor rules
 attacker can always choose Stun instead
o Agents:
 Agents cannot pass orders to other Agents
 Only actively subscribed Agents may be commanded
 If the active subscription to an Agent is terminated then the Agent stops doing what it was told and returns to its “home” node
o Technomancers can work with mundane equipment without having to buy the skills twice
 Have an intuitive understanding but can still make things work
o Decompiling can now be used to defend against Sprites in the same manner as Counterspelling and Banishing

Street Magic

• Conjuring Drain: using Force/2 + Hits
• Acquiring Geas during play: Threshold 3 test whenever Critical Glitch on important test
• Magic Loss: Happens with following glitches
o Resisting Physical Drain
o While using a Stim Patch
o When receiving First Aid
• All Foci at Force 6+ require an Exotic Component
• Arcana is linked to Drain Attribute instead of Logic (unless it is Logic)
• Metamagic can be learned as per rules on page 52
• Aid Enchanting is allowed (79)

Unwired

• IPs in AR: can only take 1 Matrix action regardless of number of IPs
• Sprite Fading: equal to Rating/2 + Hits
• Resonance Loss: occurs when rolling a glitch in the following instances
o Resisting Physical Fading
o Resisting Electrical Damage
o When receiving First Aid
• Tactical Software: do not need to pay to get the benefits
o This is what AR was supposed to do when added to the game
• Technomancer Rules (137)
o Attack Protection: +2 Threshold to all attacks by regular programs
o Difficult to Analyze: +1 Threshold to all Matrix Perception using Analyze programs (not complex forms)
o Immunity to Crashing: can only be crashed by Resonance beings


Still used 400 BP so my team isn't exactly a beginning team. I wanted to streamline the rules as much as possible. SR is way too crunchy and was killing my fun as GM.

Posted by: Myrgan Sep 9 2010, 11:18 AM

IMO depriving the players of their only influence on the outcome of their endeavours that can oppose the whims of the GM (yes, whims! For players, "GM has (given himself) additional background information" and "GM is on a whim" is usually the same thing) is definitely playing the "Master of All" card "too often" and far from "just right". There is indeed a slight difference whether the GM rolls behind the screen al the time or he simply dictates every outcome: with the former a trusting player can still have the feeling he can throw the GM off with a good roll, with the latter he can't. But in my eyes, in both cases the GM is too potentially manipulative for any player to feel comfortable.

Posted by: Tanegar Sep 9 2010, 03:26 PM

Has it occurred to you that, since you apparently don't like anything at all about Shadowrun, it might behoove you to play something else?

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 9 2010, 03:40 PM

Actually, many of those just look like SR3.

Posted by: StealthSigma Sep 9 2010, 03:53 PM

How does that make the comment any less insightful? Perhaps use SR3's rules rather than SR4's which is playing something else.

Posted by: X-Kalibur Sep 9 2010, 03:56 PM

Has it occurred to you that perhaps he enjoys the setting but wanted rules that more closely simulated SR3?

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 9 2010, 04:21 PM

Because SR3 is Shadowrun, StealthSigma. It's *not* playing something else. There's simply no call for that kind of 'insightful' comment.

Posted by: StealthSigma Sep 9 2010, 05:03 PM

There's no reason that you cannot divorce the setting from the rules.

There's the Shadowrun setting and the SR1/2/3/4 rule-set.

Posted by: Doc Chase Sep 9 2010, 05:05 PM

Why are mommy and daddy separating?

Posted by: Cheops Sep 9 2010, 07:44 PM

There's also the fact that the two new players I have can't just walk into any FLGS and pick up a copy of SR3 if they want the rules. They can however walk into any FLGS and buy a copy of the SR4A rules.

I looked at using SR3 instead but I would have needed just as many house rules to make Otaku and wireless/AR work in SR3. So when confronted with 2 choices that led to the same amount of work for me, I chose the one where my players can still purchase the rules. Also, SR3 required just as much work from the GM to run the game as SR4 but more work from the players to play the game than SR4 so again, I chose to use SR4 but give it SR3 flavour.

Posted by: Rand Sep 9 2010, 08:13 PM

I agree with the 2 shot and the crunchy, and some of what you have put together. Was still just wondering what the base TN to punch (or stab, or smack, etc..) someone is using your system? Is it their Reaction as the TN? Or is it 1, plus modifiers? You have all that for firearms, but I don't see anything for melee.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 9 2010, 08:16 PM

Be careful not to confuse Threshold with TN, btw.

Posted by: Rand Sep 9 2010, 08:25 PM

Yeah, oops. I do dat sometimes.

But I am looking for the base number for melee combat.

Posted by: Cheops Sep 9 2010, 09:45 PM

Honestly it hasn't come up yet and I didn't really think about it because melee is usually beyond useless. It would either be Threshold 1 or else an opposed test like in SR3. That being said I do have a melee adept in the group so I'll have to come up with something sooner or later...

I might go with threshold 1 and see how that works.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 9 2010, 09:49 PM

Again, Reaction/3 would be the classic method. It depends, but remember that it's *intended* to be easier to defend against melee than bullets.

Posted by: Myrgan Sep 10 2010, 02:11 PM

I've been thinking about reducing the TN to 4 (i.e. if you roll a 4 it's still a hit) and then declaring (attribute+skill)/2 as the base threshold for what are now opposed tests. It seems more KISS than /3 and rounding is less distortive. Also: the "dice modifier => threshold modifier" becomes less dramatic.