Why SR4 ?, A basic flaw with SR3 Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Switch to: Outline Switch to: Standard Linear+

[Earthwalker]

Well in a few posts about the new system and the hate it is causing requests have been made as to why do we need a new system. Basically asking what is wrong with the current system, as the question has been asked I will try to put an answer here.

The most basic flaw with Shadowrun 3 and in fact this is common to all of the first three editions of Shadowrun is the variable target number system. Well not variable target numbers as such more the fact a target number modifier isn’t a constant modifier. That might sound like nonsense so I will try to explain using a magical example.

If Billy Mage was wanting to cast a invisibility and a personal bullet barrier on himself and sustain them. He gets much better benefits for casting the invisibility first.

Ok so working with my limited stats knowledge (sorry but if I make mistake) and using average success here is how it works out.

Invisibility First

Cast invisibility 12 dice against target 4 = 6 successes
Cast barrier 12 dice against a target of 8 (base 6 + 2 for sustaining) = 1 successes
Total successes 7

Barrier First

Cast Barrier 12 dice against target 6 = 2 successes
Cast Invisibility 12 dice against target of 6 (4 + 2 for sustaining) = 2 successes
Total Successes 4

That’s a difference of 3 successes, and its all because making a 4 to a 6 is much worse then making a 6 to an 8.

Now SR4 is trying to address this and make it all equal as the target number will always be 5 and you will just need more successes for casting a spell while sustaining, or perhaps have less dice. The point is that the spell you want the most successes on will be the spell you cast first.

Now I am sure I aren’t saying anything here we all don’t already know. The variable target numbers has been an issue in Shadowrun from day one. So has the fact that 7 is basically the same target number as 6.

So there is my one reason to change. I may be able to think of more as more FAQ is released.

[Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*]

It's not hate.

Fuck.

And if there is any, I'd say that in my case it's directed at people who keep calling any criticism or concern "hate."

[Critias]

The flaw with our argument -- from start to finish -- is that it's based on the assumption that the variable TN is a problem. There are many of us, in many cases those of us with a handle on basic probability and an enjoyment for logical, tactical, practical, thinking, that think the variable TNs are a positive aspect, and one of the most unique, in the SR1-3 system.

I guess we'll find out when they launch SR4 whether or not it was a strength or a weakness, won't we? Along with pools, and everything else that made you think before you rolled.

[Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*]

Well, you can still think and use some probability to determine whether you have 3 times the number of dice as the success threshold to succeed a test on average.

[Critias]

Yeah, but to what end? From what they've told us, you'll have exactly one thing you can do to then influence that, after you're one with your thinking (IE, dividing by 3). You can spend Edge (if you choose to invest in that attribute with any given character points, instead of others). That's it, really, from what we know thus far.

You can think, but you no longer have to.

In the above invisibility/barrier example -- so what? Maybe mages should just be smart enough to realize that certain spells are more difficult to cast than other spells (especially if you've already invested a portion of your concentration on sustaining a nother spell), and it's assumed that they're smart enough to cast them in the "right" order?

[Ellery]

What you've shown is that the variable TN system gives you more successes if you focus on the easy spell first (and do really well there), and then focus on the hard spell. Why is this broken? That seems exactly right--if you take something easy, and concentrate on only it, you should be able to do really well, whereas if you concentrate on something hard, you won't be able to do all that well, plus if you're then distracted by it, you won't be able to do all that well on other things.

One could use your example to make a case against variable TN as implemented, but you didn't do it. I'll let you try again.

[Earthwalker]

First an apology, I am sorry if it seemed I implied that people who criticise SR4 hate SR4. I certainly didn’t want to give that impression, hate was only mentioned as a reference to the Why all the hate thread.

I love SR3 and still I criticise it.

As for the matter is this really a flaw I will try one more example to explain what I mean as a flaw.

I will start with the premise that shooting in bad light should be more difficult then in normal light. So we have two elves with natural low light vision working in partial darkness. This is expressed by the rules as a +1 target modifier. (No books here but one light range is +1 TN for natural low light cant remember off the top of my head which)

I believe that if it the system states that shooting in bad light is more difficult it should ALWAYS be more difficult.

Now if you have two elves one with a smartgun link and one without shooting at long range. You have a test something like this.

To shoot in normal light Smart gun elf looks for a target of 4. with bad light he shoots looking for 5. His shoot got more difficult because of light.

Now non smart elf has to shoot he is looking for 6 normally with bad light he is looking for a 7. The target has changed but if you roll a 6 it is the same as a 7. The light has in no way effected the shot.

If there an in game reason for this ? NO. It is just because 6 and 7 are the same number.

To me when a modifier is applied that should change the outcome of a roll. If a modifier is applied and nothing happens that is a flaw in the system.

Like you say it is me assuming that, but I think it is a pretty safe assumption that when you apply a modifier to a roll it should make a difference to the outcome.

[Critias]

The TN 6/7 thing has long been a bane of the game (for those who choose not to just play smart and take what luck they can get) -- I hardly think it's the sole reason they're redesigning the mechanic from the ground up. If it's such a huge problem for you, just house rule it so that TNs skip 7, 13, 19, etc, as if the numbers were not there. Poof. Much easier fix than making a whole new game.

[Jrayjoker]

Why SR4?

Why not?

I am sure the developers did not come to their conclusion to revamp an established game lightly. I think the biggest issue that was to be addressed is the rules bloat and consistency across disciplines. A perennial concern has been integrating deckers and riggers well.

Perhaps it was decided that it wold be simpler to rewrite the rules to accomplish this goal.

A side benefit wold be resolving the 7,13,19... issue.

[Earthwalker]

[Eldritch]

[Kagetenshi]

[Eyeless Blond]

Hey Kag, how's the SR3R project coming along? Or did it die already?

[Gort]

I agree that the 6-7 target number thing is bad, and also that variable modifiers (where +1 doesn't necessarily mean the same as +1 in another situation) is a flaw of SR3, and I'm interested to see how it all works in SR4. From what I've seen so far, I'm encouraged.

I think most of us agree that decking and rigging have problems that need sorting out quite badly. They are so bad that my Shadowrun group has never seen a dedicated decker, and we simply ad-lib vehicle combat. It will be very nice to see the re-writes of these rules, and to actually have a "classic" shadowrun team (you know, sammie, mage, decker) like in the stories.

I also want to see improvements in the weapons department - rebalancing things like worthless light pistols, heavy pistols that penetrate armour better than rifles, and knives that are on the whole less lethal than fists. (I also kinda hate the way reach is implemented, and the way that melee and ranged combat are so different mechanically, but those are more debateable)

I have lots of gripes with SR3 and from what I've seen SR4 is examining them and going in a good direction.

And hey, even if it turns out not to be your cup of tea, it's still a good source of houserules, yes?

[Catsnightmare]

[Earthwalker]

[Eldritch]

[Kagetenshi]

[nezumi]

I'm with Eldritch. I actually LIKE the variable TN. It makes sense.

The number of dice you throw is how good you are with the tools you have. That'll always be the case.

The TN is how tough the challenge is, given the tools you have.

Life is nice and easy. It would be a little cleaner if wound modifiers subtracted from your dice instead of added TNs, but that's okay. As a GM, it makes things very easy to plan out, and it gives me more complete control over the probability (since adding +1 to the TN is a more fine adjustment than +1 die to the player). Granted, the math is a LITTLE more difficult, but unless I'm really getting out my Statistics book, it's pretty easy to eyeball it, and as I said, it's more precise (which means it can be more realistic) without being significantly more difficult to understand.

I like it. I may keep it, even if I start playing SR4. But I suppose that begs the question, if I like the variable TNs and I like pools, why change over at all, right?

[Gort]

[Earthwalker]

[Kagetenshi]

Let's take your counterexample and change one thing: the fight's at dusk, and the area the fight is in is floodlit. However, the power to the floodlight is within reach—a single risk-free swipe could turn the lights off, leaving only the natural lighting (+2).

Swordmaster 1 has a medium-depth gash in his left arm (Light wound). Swordmaster 1's player knows that if he cuts the lighting, the TN plateau makes the fight even again. The first question is, is this reasonable.

I submit that it is. Comparative darkness means more uncertainty, means less ability for an opponent to specifically attack a weakness. Suddenly Swordmaster 2, who was previously able to attack 1's left side to his heart's content, needs to keep watch for the start of a blow that might otherwise go unseen in the gloom. Having a weak point is suddenly much less of a disadvantage, because it can't be singled out for attack to nearly the same degree.

The second question is, is it reasonable that Swordmaster 1 would be able to consider these factors? I submit that, once again, it is. Obviously there's a certain amount of fudge factor—I don't think Swordmaster 1 would differentiate easily between a change that results in TNs of 6/7 (fight is equal) or TNs of 7/8 (fight is unequal, but less so than 4/5 or 5/6). On the other hand, consider this: most games aren't enumerated in that much detail because of the abstraction that makes the game easier to play. In general, more attention is paid to the fact that someone has a Light Wound than to the fact that they've got an injured left arm, and more is paid to the fact that someone's staging an attack with a lower TN than their opponent than that they're specifically attacking weak points. In order to not become a study in sword techniques, the game turns to odds. In-game, the swordmasters consider the former. We, the players, quite reasonably model this by considering the latter.

~J

[Nerbert]

Here's the problem with the variable target number system. It has nothing to do with probability and statistics.

Variable TN systems are twice as complex as Fixed TN systems. You cannot argue this. There are always two rules for every roll. The rule to figure out how many dice to roll, and the rule to figure out how hard it should be. And if you're not obeying both rules, simultaneously, chances are you're making up the TN out of your own head. Which, as far as I'm concerned, negates the whole purpose of having those rules to begin with.

This continues on into every other aspect oif the game. A piece of equipment could modify your dice pool, or it could modify your TN. Each with a different statistical impact on the game.

This is clearly more complicated.

Now, many people seem to think that complexity = depth. And I'm not sure this is the case. I believe that it is possible for a Fixed TN game to have just as much tactical depth as the currect iteration of Shadowrun, but without the unnecessary complexity.

[Shadow]

[Gort]

Well, I'm just hoping for the retention of the three-roll "shoot-dodge-resist damage" system, (which currently involves Combat Pool) and the "oh crap I really need a reroll right now, cause I'm a player and we're meant to win" system. (which currently involves Karma Pool)

Whether these are known as pools or the Edge attribute or whatever, doesn't matter. I just like the feel it gives the game.