[SR3] Testing Different Method for Determining Successes Options

[Stumps]

One of the issues that bothers me periodically is the wide variety of TN's scattered across a wide range of source material; without catalog or culminated indexing.

I attempt to make simpler what is otherwise complex quantity and disorder.

One of the problems that I have ran into while creating alternative design solutions, then, continues to be that altering a die count or TN as a solution for a system of perks with a tax can readily create worse results for the player than if they hadn't chosen any alternative than the most mundane of their options.

To help convey; an example:
Replacing BF and FA rules with something simple to work with.

Concept considered:
SA - Normal
BF - +1D6 & +1TN
FA - +3D6 & +3TN

Problem:
In both cases, at the average rates of 3 to 6 dice, the taxes (simulating recoil) result in such a stepping as to produce a probability lower than the probability available had the character stuck with SA.

This is not the only issue of this kind, nor is it this specifically that I'm interested in discussing. This is just an example so it's easier to understand the abstract.


I considered alternatives to TN and die adjustments.
What if instead of 2 individual dice reaching or equaling the TN as standard (1 net success), a player was only required 1 single die equal or beat the TN?
What if staging, however, still required an additional 1 net success per stage up or down?

This maybe would perhaps create a system that feels easier at the lower range TN's and places harder TN's as the middle ground.
So I made a comparison of the probabilities against each other.

This chart shows two primary data sets:
One data set (in the foreground in sharp contrast) is employing traditional successes and the other data set (in the background and faded) is employing the success concept described above.
The Labels at the bottom represent the same order such that "4|1 4|3 4|5" are the labels for the faded data set in the background and the "4|2 4|4 4|6" refers to the data set in contrast in the foreground.

The SR calculator I used to generate the data sets from which I pieced together and generated this graph: http://www.pvv.org/~bcd/SR/dicerollcalc.html

Here's the graph:
https://sites.google.com/site/myjunkfolders...obabilities.png

I find this interesting.
As then I have a different layer of manipulation in the design options instead of just D6 quantity or TN adjustment.

I'll use the above example of modes of fire.
Reminder: "Normal" is 1 single die = success & stage up/down requires 2 additional dice succeeding for each level of staging. We'll just refer to this idea as 135 (referring to the requirements for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd successes - which is standard as 246).

Concept considered:
SA - Normal (135)
BF - +2D6 & only able to stage up 1 level
FA - (Skillx2)D6 & staging forfeited

All take Simple Actions, but if FA is used, then both Simple Actions must be used for FA.

At the 4|1 to 4|3, and 5|1 to 5|3 rates, BF might be an attractive option - it brings a bit of an easier time to hit your TN's in the stage up (especially on 5's) for an additional damage level, but you are limited in your top-end of damage scaling.

Yet, FA really comes in as a help to hit very hard conditions, but without the ability to stage the damage beyond the standard; if you want more damage this way, then you'll just have to keep holding the trigger down.
This is interestingly helpful at the TN range of 6 and 8 - even 9 is helped some.

Now - this isn't perfect, but I'm pretty happy with this concept - it feels like the mechanics represent someone putting on more automated rates of fire to compensate for skill in conditions they really don't want to miss and can afford to spray bullets down range (e.g. running while firing).

[Again; just an example of the flexibility of this method for determining successes has.]


Even though this method of determining successes raises the overall probability of a single average success; I think I'm alright with this, as it inflates globally, and not uniquely.
It also gives a wider range for die and TN adjustment - the scale just got a tad bit bigger; which allows for more elbow room in TN and die adjustments in rules, penalties, or bonuses.
Yet, it also retains the unique SR D6 probability style.


I like this method, I think.
So; tear it apart.

If I like it - then my brain isn't looking for problems correctly, so tear it open. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)