SR4 in play experience - Dumpshock Forums

SR4 in play experience, very pleased Gm and players

Options

Cain

Mar 24 2006, 09:17 AM

Post #126

Grand Master of Run-Fu

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,840
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178

QUOTE

some rolls totaly impossible? the rule of six is still around, alltho you cant rely on it being present all the time any more ;)

at some point luck runs out. its not that it cant be done, but you have exausted your personal luck pool and pays the cost...

Actually, it just can't be done. The rule of six doesn't apply to longshot tests, so if you need more successes than you have Edge dice, you're screwed no matter what. And if you're out of Edge, you can't even try. I believe everyone should be allowed to at least try, and hope to get lucky.

QUOTE

variable difficultys is fun for a GM, but a pain in the ass for fast play. there is allso the dynamics of targetnumbers that was a multiple of 6 vs those that was multiple of 6 + 1. or rather, there was no vs. if you could do one, you could do the other.

now you trow the dice, look for 5 or 6, if edge is in pick up any 6's and roll again, repeat as needed. its faster in that you dont have to continualy recall what the targetnumber was this time round...

Savage Worlds is effectively a variable TN system with exploding dice, and it makes every other system out there look like a slug with arthritis. The speed of a system has got nothing to do with fixed vs floating TN.

Also, I've discovered that uncertainty is what makes a game interesting. If you're giving a player a high TN, he'll stop and think about it-- he won't be able to instantly predict how well he'll do, and I've never met anyone who could calculate odds on floating TNs on multiple dice on the fly. Versus fixed TN, I've seen too many mathematicians instantly say: "Oh, no big deal, I have this many dice so I'll probably get this many successes." I like to play Shadowrun, not do math homework. :P

QUOTE

in the end its the old guard that had the old rules so down in their head that they could repeat most of them from memory and point out the flaws in any of them. but now they no longer cant as its not the system the know. they have to sit down and re-learn the whole game.

its a "you cant teach a old dog new tricks" thing...

I play a *lot* of systems. Every few months, I'll pick up a new game just 'cause it looks interesting, and I'll memorize it. My gaming group rotates games so often, it's sometimes hard to keep the rules and settings straight. Heck, we went through one period where we didn't play the same game more than two weeks in a row. I've got no problem learning new systems.

The SR4 mechanics would have been great for another game. They're not so good for Shadowrun, however.

Azralon

Mar 24 2006, 03:49 PM

Post #127

Shooting Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,651
Joined: 23-September 05
From: Marietta, GA
Member No.: 7,773

QUOTE (Cain)

I'll argue with them simply because that's what people do here on Dumpshock

What a horrible rationalization.

Butterblume

Mar 24 2006, 04:06 PM

Post #128

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,150
Joined: 19-December 05
From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex
Member No.: 8,081

QUOTE (Cain)

Versus fixed TN, I've seen too many mathematicians instantly say: "Oh, no big deal, I have this many dice so I'll probably get this many successes." I like to play Shadowrun, not do math homework. :P

I have seen 16 dice rolled with zero hits, and 16 dice rolled with ten hits, yesterday, and that's uncertain enough for me ;).

Cain View Member Profile	Mar 24 2006, 06:22 PM Post #129
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178	shrug I've rolled SR3 critical failures on 13 dice. There's always someone who lives at the extreme ends of the probability curve. The average roller, however, can easily predict what's likely to happen-- and he'll choose the mathematically best approach, instead of the best roleplay approach. I mean, if roleplay isn't going to be effective, why should players do it?

hobgoblin

Mar 24 2006, 06:56 PM

Post #130

panda!

Group: Members
Posts: 10,331
Joined: 8-March 02
From: north of central europe
Member No.: 2,242

QUOTE

some rolls totaly impossible? the rule of six is still around, alltho you cant rely on it being present all the time any more ;)

at some point luck runs out. its not that it cant be done, but you have exausted your personal luck pool and pays the cost...

Actually, it just can't be done. The rule of six doesn't apply to longshot tests, so if you need more successes than you have Edge dice, you're screwed no matter what. And if you're out of Edge, you can't even try. I believe everyone should be allowed to at least try, and hope to get lucky.

i see nothing in the text that indicates that the rule of six magicaly dissapear when going for a long shot test. hell, your spending a point of edge and rolling the dice, just as if your adding edge on top of dice allready rolled. to me it more or less screams rule of six.

QUOTE

variable difficultys is fun for a GM, but a pain in the ass for fast play. there is allso the dynamics of targetnumbers that was a multiple of 6 vs those that was multiple of 6 + 1. or rather, there was no vs. if you could do one, you could do the other.

now you trow the dice, look for 5 or 6, if edge is in pick up any 6's and roll again, repeat as needed. its faster in that you dont have to continualy recall what the targetnumber was this time round...

Savage Worlds is effectively a variable TN system with exploding dice, and it makes every other system out there look like a slug with arthritis. The speed of a system has got nothing to do with fixed vs floating TN.

Also, I've discovered that uncertainty is what makes a game interesting. If you're giving a player a high TN, he'll stop and think about it-- he won't be able to instantly predict how well he'll do, and I've never met anyone who could calculate odds on floating TNs on multiple dice on the fly. Versus fixed TN, I've seen too many mathematicians instantly say: "Oh, no big deal, I have this many dice so I'll probably get this many successes." I like to play Shadowrun, not do math homework. :P

only reason fixed is faster when calculating probability and odds is because you can do it ahead of time and memorize. you could in theory do so for floating TN's to, but then would need a cheat sheet with tables ;)

so your issue with fixed TN's is that people you play with do probability maths at the table? interesting people you have in your group.

people i play with sometimes cant be botherd to do maths like counting up the eyes on the dice, much less be expected to do probability in their head on the drop of a hat.

it takes all kinds i guess.

edit:

did a bit of checking on savage worlds, and by the looks of it they do the same that feng shui does for mooks. basicly, they are either standing or out. no wonder its fast for mass combats...

Dashifen

Mar 24 2006, 07:32 PM

Post #131

Technomancer

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 4,638
Joined: 2-October 02
From: Champaign, IL
Member No.: 3,374

QUOTE (hobgoblin @ Mar 24 2006, 01:56 PM)

i see nothing in the text that indicates that the rule of six magicaly dissapear when going for a long shot test. hell, your spending a point of edge and rolling the dice, just as if your adding edge on top of dice allready rolled. to me it more or less screams rule of six.

QUOTE ("SR4 p. 67 under Spending Edge")

You may make a Long Shot Test (p. 55) even if your dice pool was reduced to 0 or less; roll only your Edge dice for this test (the Rule of Six does not apply).

hobgoblin View Member Profile	Mar 24 2006, 07:35 PM Post #132
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242	i do not see that (the rule of six does not apply) in the book.

mfb View Member Profile	Mar 24 2006, 07:41 PM Post #133
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670	it's right there in every copy i've seen.

Azralon

Mar 24 2006, 07:45 PM

Post #134

Shooting Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,651
Joined: 23-September 05
From: Marietta, GA
Member No.: 7,773

QUOTE (mfb)

it's right there in every copy i've seen.

Same here, I see it.

hobgoblin View Member Profile	Mar 24 2006, 07:48 PM Post #135
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242	err, dashifen's original quote was missing the page refrence... i see it now... anyways, its strange that this point about spending edge is not echoed in the text for the long shot text itself. i have a feel that they edited it out of the long shot text but forgot about it being in the spending edge bullet points. having it said in one place, but not in another (that specificaly talks about the test itself) is just confusing...

Dashifen View Member Profile	Mar 24 2006, 07:50 PM Post #136
Technomancer Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,638 Joined: 2-October 02 From: Champaign, IL Member No.: 3,374	Sorry, I closed the PDF and decided i'd finish the post and then go look it up. Didn't think you all were chomping quite that much on the bit ;) Anyway, I think it was intentional. The paragraph on a long shot test says you spend edge, see p. 67. On p. 67 it says the rule of six doesn't apply. Seems pretty clear to me.

Cain

Mar 24 2006, 07:51 PM

Post #137

Grand Master of Run-Fu

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,840
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178

QUOTE

i see nothing in the text that indicates that the rule of six magicaly dissapear when going for a long shot test. hell, your spending a point of edge and rolling the dice, just as if your adding edge on top of dice allready rolled. to me it more or less screams rule of six.

Page 67, under Spending Edge, fourth bullet point:

QUOTE

You may make a Long Shot Test (p. 56) even if was reduced to dice pool was reduced to 0 or less; roll only your Edge dice for this test (the Rule of Six does not apply).

So no, no rule of six. You could fix this easily by allowing it, but that's not the problem that I really don't like.

QUOTE

only reason fixed is faster when calculating probability and odds is because you can do it ahead of time and memorize. you could in theory do so for floating TN's to, but then would need a cheat sheet with tables ;)

so your issue with fixed TN's is that people you play with do probability maths at the table? interesting people you have in your group.

Actually, you can calculate the odds on the fly very easily, no memorization required. On average, 3 dice = 1 success. From there on, it's just basic division.

And the problem I have is this: whenever players can easily predict what their success rate is likely to be, they'll go for the most mathematically sound option. The more uncertainty you bake into a task roll, the more likely that they'll stop relying on dice and instead try roleplay, trickery, intelligence... the things that have always made my games a lot more fun.

You've probably noticed this as well. If you hand a player an easy task, they're likely to say: "Oh, hell, I can do this. Let's just roll and get it over with." If you hand them an extremly difficult task, they're simply likely to retreat. But if you hand them something where they can't predict exactly how it'll come out? "Hm, okay. Let me try something clever... maybe I can schmooze the guy, and get a bonus?"

Ideally, I like to balance it so that the roleplay choice and the tactical choice come out about even in attractiveness. I can help out the players who aren't quite as good with roleplay, while still bringing a lot of it into a game. Easy predictibility shifts things off-kilter.

Azralon

Mar 24 2006, 07:52 PM

Post #138

Shooting Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,651
Joined: 23-September 05
From: Marietta, GA
Member No.: 7,773

QUOTE (hobgoblin)

did a bit of checking on savage worlds, and by the looks of it they do the same that feng shui does for mooks. basicly, they are either standing or out. no wonder its fast for mass combats...

Yeah, I've seen board games with more involved combat systems.

Speaking of which, the World of Warcraft board game is pretty neat if someone and 3-5 friends have about 6 hours to spend. Oh, and $80. End of tangent.

Dashifen

Mar 24 2006, 07:54 PM

Post #139

Technomancer

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 4,638
Joined: 2-October 02
From: Champaign, IL
Member No.: 3,374

QUOTE (Cain)

And the problem I have is this: whenever players can easily predict what their success rate is likely to be, they'll go for the most mathematically sound option.

And you feel players didn't do this in SR3? In my experience they did.

Azralon

Mar 24 2006, 07:54 PM

Post #140

Shooting Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,651
Joined: 23-September 05
From: Marietta, GA
Member No.: 7,773

QUOTE (Dashifen)

In my experience they did.

Ditto.

Moon-Hawk View Member Profile	Mar 24 2006, 07:56 PM Post #141
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715	He's saying that when the success rate is easily predicted, players will go for the most mathematically sound option. In any edition. His point is that in SR3 the success rate was less easily predicted, so the most mathematically sound option was harder to see in more cases.

Rotbart van Dain... Rotbart van Dainig View Member Profile	Mar 24 2006, 07:58 PM Post #142
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951	A 'balance through obscurity' approach? :grinbig:

Dashifen

Mar 24 2006, 09:33 PM

Post #143

Technomancer

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 4,638
Joined: 2-October 02
From: Champaign, IL
Member No.: 3,374

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)

He's saying that when the success rate is easily predicted, players will go for the most mathematically sound option. In any edition.
His point is that in SR3 the success rate was less easily predicted, so the most mathematically sound option was harder to see in more cases.

Okay. That I can agree with. SR3 was harder to do the stats in your head, but not horrible.

Cain

Mar 24 2006, 10:57 PM

Post #144

Grand Master of Run-Fu

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,840
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178

QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)

A 'balance through obscurity' approach? :grinbig:

Well, think of it this way. In real life, we can't always predict the likelihood of our actions to three decimal places. We're more apt to decide things based on emotion, personal preferences, what looks good at the time, and so on. RPG characters really shouldn't be *that* much different. When you can't just look and instantly know which path is easiest, you're more likely to see personalities shine through-- and for me, that always leads to better games.

hobgoblin View Member Profile	Mar 24 2006, 11:00 PM Post #145
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242	a "good" roleplayer should be able to do personality over dice any day...

Azralon View Member Profile	Mar 24 2006, 11:09 PM Post #146
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773	Adding extra layers of complexity is good for additional realism only up to a (very subjective) point. The rule of thumb that I prefer is "unless it adds more fun than hassle, leave it out." Legislating against metagaming is ultimately a futile pursuit, because every player sitting at that table has some degree of out of character knowledge about the other PCs (as well as their own). I mean, I could guess at my own attribute and skill ratings, but I sure don't have the precision of a character sheet for my real life self.

mfb

Mar 24 2006, 11:14 PM

Post #147

Immortal Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670

QUOTE (hobgoblin)

a "good" roleplayer should be able to do personality over dice any day...

not really. SR deals almost exclusively with situations that are completely outside the realm of experience for most of its players. how is Joe Player supposed to determine things like whether his character should take an aimed shot or hose down the area with autofire, based on the character's personality? sure, in a few extreme cases (a guy whose trademark is neatness and precision, or a guy who loves causing as much damage as possible), it might be possible to make character-based decisions regarding game mechanics, but that's rare at best.

hobgoblin View Member Profile	Mar 24 2006, 11:18 PM Post #148
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242	do actors that play navy seals have actual navy seal background?

mfb View Member Profile	Mar 24 2006, 11:24 PM Post #149
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670	no, but they have scripts, and the good scripts are expertly advised by ex-SEALs or other cool guys. and some of them do train extensively for their roles.

hobgoblin View Member Profile	Mar 24 2006, 11:28 PM Post #150
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242	heh, should have expected that one... still, isnt roleplaying about pretending to be something your not? or is it supposed to be a real life simulation?

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »