 Are hard caps set at staring caps good?, Really? |
  |
 Jan 13 2006, 04:54 PM
Post
#101
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 17-April 05 Member No.: 7,341  |
My understanding in your example is that with a 7 in this skill, the doctor has read all the books... But with his one in intelligence, he has some issues to coordinate all the information, and to use it efficiently.
The guy with 1 in this skill will have a really basic knowledge, but with a 6 in intelligence, he will be able to exploit this knowledge to get the right conclusions... But then again, the p69 rule seems, in my opinion, to be necessary in order to have a more realistic version of the game... |
 |
 
|
|
Jan 13 2006, 05:29 PM
Post
#102
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
One thing to note is that SR4 can actually have problems even in areas where it outshines SR3. It is well known that Blind Archery was simply too difficult in SR3. There are people who can really do it with a high rate of success, and that would have required a skill well over 12 in SR3, while a character in SR4 can actually do it as a starting character. That's a gain for realism.
But that doesn't address the fact that there really are people who can't do a backflip who are able to perform world-class feats of marksmanship. SR4 split quickness and intelligence up, and that goes a long way towards making more realistic characters (finally you can make someone who is really perceptive who isn't also a prize-winning physicist), but it still means that anyone who is really good with a gun is by definition quite proficient in Gymnastics, and we know that isn't true. Despite the gains made in SR4, there are still some hanging issues: 1. Skills are too expensive. It costs 10 BP for +1 die to every skill in the Firearms group. It costs 10 BP for +1 die to every Agility linked skill. That's bullshit. 2. Skill caps are unrealistic. Sorry guys, there really are things that people can do that they can't do in SR4 because the skill caps are too low. From marksmen to bakers, world class people can perform enviable feats so consistently that from a Shadowrun POV they are "buying success" on tasks that the caps simply will not allow for mundanes. And yet, we know that every man woman and child on Earth is a mundane. --- On the other side, of course, letting up the skill caps would make people roll larger piles of dice, and that's a pain in the ass. So it's an open question of whether the extra realism of allowing actual world class experts into the game is worth the extra annoyance of having more pieces of plastic flying around. But don't pretend that the limits are there for any other reason - they aren't. -Frank |
|
|
|
|
Jan 13 2006, 05:45 PM
Post
#103
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 210 Joined: 6-January 06 Member No.: 8,137 |
I totally agree with the part about skills, and it becomes even worse since skill groups are actually more expensive when it comes to post character creation advancement. As for the abilities of existent mundanes and the ability or inability of shadowrunners to match those I must admit it doesn't concern me that much. If nothing else we could justify their skills as pre-awakening adepts. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 13 2006, 05:48 PM
Post
#104
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Hehe. A baking adept. Look out! He's got buns of steel! |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 13 2006, 06:38 PM
Post
#105
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
I wholly agree that skills are disproportionately priced in relation to attributes.
Thresholds: Easy = 1, Average = 2, Hard = 3, Extreme = 4. Grand Bagel Master Bob has a 6 Baking skill and +2 dice for Specializing in bagels. Let's say that he's got a modest 4 in his linked Attribute (Logic, for Baking? Maybe Intuition?). That's a theoretical 12 dice. He can "take 4" and toss down 3 hits ("Hard" difficulty) without even trying or he can play the odds for an average of 4 hits ("Extreme" difficulty) if he decides not to phone it in. Note that I didn't even include Aptitude in there (which any world-class fella should have) nor a particularly awesome linked Attribute, nor Edge use. So, I have to disagree with you on that point, Frank. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 13 2006, 06:40 PM
Post
#106
|
|
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
It would be Artisan 6 (Baking +2) ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 13 2006, 07:13 PM
Post
#107
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
and? Dodger is good, but he isn't the best in the world by any stretch. now, if you said you saw deckers better than Fastjack, you might have a point--except that Fastjack doesn't have listed stats, which allows the GM to make use of one of the features of a no-cap system: all they have to do is say "Fastjack is better than you", and he is. moreover, i guarantee those deckers in SR3 weren't starting characters. unlike in SR4, you have to work to get to be badass in SR3, not just select it at chargen. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 13 2006, 07:20 PM
Post
#108
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Actually, he is by canon - as a Spikebaby and trained by an AI... ranking as superhuman. ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 13 2006, 07:22 PM
Post
#109
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
as there is no 'superhuman' ranking in the SR3 skill descriptions, i believe you're mistaken. and find me ten people who'd bet on Dodger outhacking Fastjack.
besides, are you really saying that it's worse for characters to be on par with Fastjack or Dodger after spending karma working towards it, than is is for characters to be that good at chargen? |
|
|
|
|
Jan 13 2006, 07:32 PM
Post
#110
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 829 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 770 |
Err...am I missing something again? at character creation: single skill = 4 bp per point skill group = 10 bp per point = 2.5x single skill cost after character creation single skill = 2x new rating skill group = 5x new rating = 2.5x single skill cost Now, attributes do get ridiculously cheap after character creation..and that's just dumb. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 13 2006, 07:33 PM
Post
#111
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
FWIW, the pre-SR4 literature has made me suspicious that Dodger had gone technomancer prior to Crash 2.0.
A character had asked if Dodger was an otaku, and the reply was that he was "something.... else." But eh, we might not actually find out. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 13 2006, 07:35 PM
Post
#112
|
|||||||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Yet there is one for NPCs...
Sure:
So, it is very likely that, depending which fanclub people are part of, there would be quite a discussion... So, as both of your point are obviously wrong, I suggest you should check your references first before posting. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Jan 13 2006, 07:55 PM
Post
#113
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
oops, you're right about the Superhuman rating. i haven't used those, so my memory on them is somewhat rusty. your second proof is not proof it all. "perhaps" and "one of" are not terms one uses to describe someone who is a match for an NPC like Fastjack.
all of which is completely tangential to the actual point of my recent posts, which you have thus far avoided answering. one might start to think it's because you can't. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 13 2006, 07:55 PM
Post
#114
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 210 Joined: 6-January 06 Member No.: 8,137 |
I meant compared to attributes. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 13 2006, 08:10 PM
Post
#115
|
|||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Oh, sorry - sometimes it is really hard to find an actual point in your posts other than your crusade...
No. It is worse that they can be flat out better. What they can reach at chargen is only a matter of guidelines at chargen, which are subject to change (as seen by MJlBB) - this is about the very system itself. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 13 2006, 08:16 PM
Post
#116
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
funny, i was about to say the same thing. the point you're trying to make conflicts with itself. you're saying that it's a problem that PCs can be better than Dodger, who is a Superhuman NPC. yet Superhuman NPCs are, by definition, always better than the group they're pitted against. if Dodger has both hard stats and a Superhuman NPC rating, that's a conflict in the rules, not a fault in the system. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 13 2006, 08:16 PM
Post
#117
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
Are you saying it's bad that PCs can approach and even exceed the abilities of (non-IE, non-dragon) canonical characters? If so, I'll have to disagree with that. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 13 2006, 08:24 PM
Post
#118
|
|||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Actually, it's both - the conflict shows the weakness of the system: The complete lack of a reliable grading system.
Not always - the exceed part is what causes strange shifts ingame when concerning 'the best of the world'. ;) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 13 2006, 08:31 PM
Post
#119
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
why is a concrete, set-in-stone grading scale a good thing? it allows the GM much, much less ability to tailor NPCs to fit his game. in a no-cap system, the GM can always come up with someone who is better than the PCs; in a capped system, the GM is locked under the same ceiling as everyone else. i'd argue that having lots of deckers who are as good as Dodger is just as bad, if not worse, as having one decker who is better. at least that one decker is something special, something unique. in SR4, deckers as good as Dodger are a dime a dozen. Dodger's just another chump with 13 dice.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 13 2006, 08:34 PM
Post
#120
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
I daresay that it's not the system at fault, but MAS (multiple author syndrome) at work. Also, it's bad form for anyone in a fiction-by-committee situation to declare that "So-and-So is literally the best in the world" because A) it implies a one-dimensional measuring stick and B) someone else can always come along and say "no, THIS guy is the best in the world." |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 13 2006, 08:41 PM
Post
#121
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
Because it allows gamemasters to consistently assign difficulties to tasks, and to connect fiction and adventures from multiple authors into a functioning whole without constant skill and difficulty inflation. Remember, the question on the table isn't even whether hard caps are a good idea. I don't think anyone here is asking for players to get so good at climbing that their mundane characters can climb rainstorms and shit. The question isn't whether having consisent guidelines is a good thing - I'm pretty sure we can all agree that having skill and difficulty values mean the same thing in different books and campaigns is a Good ThingTM. The question is whether the SR4 rules have enough space within those hard caps, and whether players are allowed to start too close to those hard caps. Personally, I would answer that No, and Yes respectively. But I can't seriously questions whether having a meaningful and consistent skill table at all is a good idea. -Frank |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 13 2006, 08:47 PM
Post
#122
|
|||||||||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
The very reason of standardization - it's more reliable and easier to use.
Which, after a while, just gets annoying, being overpowered by NPCs...
..while, maybe being 'boring', results in a basic kind of fairness. Rules working both ways are not a bad basis for setting up an equal gaming group.
unfortunately, IIRC, that wasn't the case.
To some extent - but without any real guideline provided by the system, there is no way of avoiding MAS. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Jan 13 2006, 08:49 PM
Post
#123
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
eh, agreed, to a point. a system where characters could conceivably have a skill rating of anywhere from 1 to 100 would be annoying as all hell to GM. but that possibility isn't automatically inherent in a no-cap system. for all its many faults, SR3 at least got that right: when's the last time you saw an SR3 character with a skill, or even a specialization, higher than about 15? once you get above a certain point, the cost of progression becomes more than most players are willing to bear; to me, that's a more elegant solution than simply putting a hard cap on things. but, as you said, that's not really the point of this discussion. the main thing that bothers me about SR4's skills and attributes isn't that they're capped--it's that the cap at chargen and the cap on post-chargen progression are the same. that, to me, takes all the joy out of advancing a character. as i've said before in this thread, if you view the rules as a make-do vehicle for your roleplay, then there's no problem with this; it's even a strength. but if you enjoy the gaming side, then it's a serious flaw.
maybe not the case in your experience. it is in mine, and in the experience of the extended gaming group i associate with. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 13 2006, 08:55 PM
Post
#124
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Nah, Warhammer and all the other D100 systems aren't that bad. ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 15 2006, 03:35 AM
Post
#125
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 261 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Massachusetts Member No.: 2,115 |
Reading through the thread, I came up with an interesting question: How bad is the skill description table if you define it as being referring to a character with a linked attribute of 4 for 1-5 and 6 for 6, and 7 for 7?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 8th January 2025 - 03:22 AM |
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.