Apr 7 2005, 06:09 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 669 Joined: 25-May 03 Member No.: 4,634 |
I've tried, since SR4 was announced, to stay current on all the important discussions, but alas, I have recently fallen behind. So, if an idea like what I am about to suggest has already been brought up, my apologies.
Some people seem worried that the new system will remove the possibility that existed in SR3 to always be theoretically able to succeed, no matter how hard the task. This is because the Rule of Six made it so that no matter how high the TN was, there was a theoretical chance that at least a single die could hit it. With the new system, it is feared, this will go away. If you need at least X successes against a TN of 5 and you have less than X dice to roll, tough luck. I don't think it necessarily has to be this way. The "always have a shot" feel of SR3 can be maintained in SR4 with a simple reworking of the Rule of Six. Basically, if you get a 6 on a die roll, not only do you have a success, you can roll that die again. This process does not terminate, so if you roll a 6 again, you get another success and another re-roll. If, on a re-roll, you fail, then you stop and have as many successes as the roll generated so far. Same with a 5 on a re-roll, except you get another success before stopping. In this way, even a single D6 has a theoretical chance of generating any number of successes. It seems a very basic idea, so I'd bet someone else has thought of it; so again, sorry if this is redundant. But I figure this idea is worth a(nother) mention, at least for a potential house rule. |
|
|
|
GunnerJ Modified Rule of Six Apr 7 2005, 06:09 PM
Ellery It has been mentioned in several places, and I thi... Apr 7 2005, 06:17 PM
Austere Emancipator Yep, at least by mfb, Eyeless Blond and me, and pr... Apr 7 2005, 05:17 PM
Penta Every method is fucking brilliant until it meets r... Apr 7 2005, 05:24 PM
Eyeless Blond Honestly I don't know how it could work any di... Apr 7 2005, 10:15 PM
Austere Emancipator QUOTE (Eyeless Blond)Honestly I don't know how... Apr 7 2005, 10:33 PM
Synner Eyeless - The Aeonverse version of the nWoD rules ... Apr 7 2005, 10:40 PM
Kagetenshi I personally think it's a very bad idea, as it... Apr 7 2005, 11:06 PM
GunnerJ Just to give a bit more substance, I went and modi... Apr 7 2005, 11:12 PM
Kagetenshi Out of interest, why do you sample rolls? It seems... Apr 7 2005, 11:15 PM
GunnerJ The results that I feel are most important to comp... Apr 7 2005, 11:17 PM
GunnerJ QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Apr 7 2005, 11:15 PM) Out... Apr 7 2005, 11:22 PM
Kagetenshi You just noted it yourself, it's off by over t... Apr 7 2005, 11:23 PM
GunnerJ Um... so? Apr 7 2005, 11:24 PM
Kagetenshi So it's wrong, and for at least that portion i... Apr 7 2005, 11:25 PM
GunnerJ Look, I'm doing this for fun, because I want t... Apr 7 2005, 11:25 PM
Kagetenshi As my ninja-edit states, the part that gets to me ... Apr 7 2005, 11:26 PM
GunnerJ QUOTE Actually, I think what bugs me isn't tha... Apr 7 2005, 11:27 PM
Kagetenshi Fair enough.
Incidentally, unless I messed up my ... Apr 7 2005, 11:36 PM
GunnerJ QUOTE (GunnerJ @ Apr 7 2005, 11:17 PM) The re... Apr 7 2005, 11:38 PM
Kagetenshi I see that you consider them important, but I... Apr 7 2005, 11:40 PM
GunnerJ Er, see my latest edit. I was deciding how I wante... Apr 7 2005, 11:43 PM
Kagetenshi I pity anyone who has to read this after all of th... Apr 7 2005, 11:45 PM
GunnerJ QUOTE I pity anyone who has to read this after al... Apr 7 2005, 11:49 PM
Kagetenshi It's true, but providing that extra successes ... Apr 7 2005, 11:53 PM
GunnerJ QUOTE It's true, but providing that extra suc... Apr 8 2005, 12:10 AM
Ellery It is better to do this analytically, but it's... Apr 8 2005, 01:18 AM
GunnerJ QUOTE The scope of that computation is beyond what... Apr 8 2005, 01:32 AM
Ellery Aha, there are code tags. That will make this muc... Apr 8 2005, 02:32 AM
Phantom Runner AH!! For the love of Nuyen!!
Let... Apr 8 2005, 04:14 AM
Ellery The above stuff shows how much of a shot someone h... Apr 8 2005, 04:42 AM
Critias Dammit. Who got her started? Who was it?! Y... Apr 8 2005, 05:54 AM
mfb she blinded me with advance probability maths. Apr 8 2005, 06:03 AM
otaku mike Having a "10 again" rule in nWoD is very... Apr 8 2005, 02:03 PM
GunnerJ It's hard to make sense of the statistics with... Apr 8 2005, 02:14 PM
GunnerJ QUOTE (otaku mike @ Apr 8 2005, 02:03 PM) Hav... Apr 8 2005, 02:16 PM
Kagetenshi It happens one out of every six times on average o... Apr 8 2005, 02:34 PM
GunnerJ QUOTE (Kagetenshi) It happens one out of every six... Apr 8 2005, 02:41 PM
Ellery Er, I think the 6-dice person having as much as a ... Apr 8 2005, 02:49 PM
Kagetenshi QUOTE (GunnerJ) One out of six is signifigantly mo... Apr 8 2005, 02:57 PM
GunnerJ 1/6 = 16.666...%
1/10 = 10%
Again, I'm not so... Apr 8 2005, 03:04 PM
GunnerJ QUOTE (Ellery) Er, I think the 6-dice person havin... Apr 8 2005, 03:07 PM
Eyeless Blond QUOTE (GunnerJ) In my three years playing Shadowru... Apr 8 2005, 03:16 PM
Kagetenshi Oh, I agree that it's not going to slow the ga... Apr 8 2005, 03:21 PM
esmdev Wasn't the exploding 6 system was first implem... Apr 8 2005, 03:36 PM
Kagetenshi Yes, why?
~J Apr 8 2005, 03:40 PM
esmdev QUOTE (Kagetenshi) Yes, why?
Just commenting t... Apr 8 2005, 11:30 PM
Kagetenshi No one's complaining about the exploding dice,... Apr 8 2005, 11:33 PM
Cougaar QUOTE (Eyeless Blond) Indeed, this is one thing I ... Apr 11 2005, 02:57 PM![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 30th December 2025 - 06:03 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.