 Resolving SR4 issues, Instead of whining like little girls |
  |
 Mar 24 2006, 07:49 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence  Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715  |
It's not hyperbole to say many people don't like something. He knows many people, and of those many people he knows, they don't like it. He didn't say MOST people, which would require some kind of polling to back up. It may only be 1% or less of players, but 1% can still be "many". 1% of the world's population is 60,000,000 people. That is "many" people. It is not "most" people.
Not hyperbole. |
 |
 
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 07:53 PM
Post
#27
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
what? that's not true at all. i don't want to turn this into an SR3 vs SR4 debate, but that's simply not how SR3 works. in SR3, no matter how badly the odds are stacked against you, you at least have a chance of success because very little, if anything, reduced the number of dice you roll and the rule of six always applies. a guy with little or no skill firing in the dark at S damage while behind cover has a chance at hitting his target--a very, very small chance, but a chance nonetheless; it's no more "GM fiat" if he hits than it is GM fiat if a guy with high skill, full recoil comp, and a smartlink unloads into a target at close range in full daylight. you roll the dice, and you take what you get--or you karma it, if you have any left and you feel it's worth the expenditure. moreover, suppressive fire in SR3 was pretty handy even for guys with low or no skill. granted, they weren't likely to do much damage, but the targets have to roll to dodge before the shooter makes his attack roll, which makes suppressive fire a great tool for reducing the opposition's combat pool so that the real shooters can take them down. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 24 2006, 07:56 PM
Post
#28
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
No. If you default in SR3, and the target number rises above 8 (including modifiers), you simply fail. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 24 2006, 07:56 PM
Post
#29
|
|||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
Page 67, under Spending Edge, fourth bullet point. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 24 2006, 07:56 PM
Post
#30
|
|||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 475 Joined: 13-March 06 From: dusty Mexican borderlands Member No.: 8,372 |
While I see your point, and concur, let's try to get back on the OP rather than nitpicking word choices. I'm trying to make this thread more focused on problem-solving than bickering or continuing arguments from other threads.
Excellent, then here's another thread for further collaboration with various board members who may not be directly involved in your project. Offer up some of your solutions.
My first inclination is to agree, here. In life, there are times when you're just, well, fucked. However, this being a game and not a real-life situation, I'm hesitant to simply cut them off from any hope of success like that. Then again, I guess they could burn Edge, but that seems a little drastic. In the meantime, I guess my solution is to encourage another action to the same or sympathetic effect. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Mar 24 2006, 07:57 PM
Post
#31
|
|||||||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
heh, i just edited that post. sorry... |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Mar 24 2006, 07:57 PM
Post
#32
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
haha! jeez, forgot about that. you're right, there are situations in SR3 where you simply have no chance--but only if you have no skill at all. low-skill guys never run into that. my point about suppressive fire is still valid, though, since you don't roll to attack until after the targets roll to dodge. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 24 2006, 07:58 PM
Post
#33
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,150 Joined: 19-December 05 From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex Member No.: 8,081 |
So, is there a slightest chance your dwarf jumps 30m high in SR3?
I can't really remember, forgetting SR3 rules faster than learning SR4 ones, but wasn't that capped by Quickness or something? |
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 07:59 PM
Post
#34
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
True, Moon-Hawk. "Most" would designate more than 50%, while an undefined "many" is completely relative (and therefore without useful content). My bad; not true hyperbole. Just simply misleading. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 24 2006, 07:59 PM
Post
#35
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
never mind...
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 08:04 PM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
[QUOTE]No. If you default in SR3, and the target number rises above 8 (including modifiers), you simply fail. [/QUOTE]
You can fix that by removing the autofailure clause, and just allowing a normal roll. Under any dicepool +/- modifiers system, you can't do that-- even if you remove the autofailure clause, they've got no dice to try and roll with. So, is there a slightest chance your dwarf jumps 30m high in SR3? I can't really remember, forgetting SR3 rules faster than learning SR4 ones, but wasn't that capped by Quickness or something? [/quote] Hydraulic jacks come to mind... 8) |
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 08:07 PM
Post
#37
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Of course, that should be obvious - and thus wasn't my point. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 24 2006, 08:10 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
As a GM, I'm a fan of there being a system-defined point at which something is just impossible. I'm willing to throw on all sorts of positive modifiers to try and MAKE something possible, but it's really nice to be able to say "Look, your character knows he doesn't have a chance in hell of hitting what he's aiming at. You can fire just to get lead going in the right direction, but that's about it," and have a rules reason (which can always be fiat'ed around) to keep players from burning 5 minutes of playtime doing extraneous things. Basically, I see it as crowd control.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 08:23 PM
Post
#39
|
|||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
I understand this is a YMMV thing, but I've personally discovered that always allowing the players a chance leads to better games. Additionally, I had a problem with excessive GM fiat when I started, so I try very hard to avoid it now. Still, I can recall one or two times when I gave the players an impossible task, and watched them pull it off with a single lucky roll. Yes, it made my job much harder, since I had to suddenly shift parts of my plotline around to accomodate. However, overall I thought it led to a better game-- everything took an unexpected twist, and even I wasn't sure where this was all headed. I know I had a lot more fun as a GM during those sessions. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 24 2006, 08:33 PM
Post
#40
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 475 Joined: 13-March 06 From: dusty Mexican borderlands Member No.: 8,372 |
I definitely agree with the idea that allowing improbable actions leads to better games. It results in a lot less number-crunching, and a lot more creativity. So what do you recommend, short of overhauling the system? The only thing I can think of, off the top of my head, is allowing all dice to explode, and using Edge for it's other purposes (extra dice, rerolls, that sort of thing). The most obvious problem (aside from completely recreating Karma Pool, which I hated), is drastically increasing the hits the runners get. If my math is wrong on that, and it doesn't make as big a deal, then great. But it seems like it reduces some of the things I like most about the game, like increased combat lethality, and a greater likelihood of failure (without removing the remote possibility of success, I'd like to add). |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 24 2006, 08:42 PM
Post
#41
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Unless the players start to try riding the Infinite Improbability Drive instead of thinking about creative solutions that might work, too. In which case, it leads to a pretty bad kind of game - a game where the players are dissatisfied and the GM is annoyed. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 24 2006, 08:44 PM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
eh. you just have to make improbable things really, really improbable.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 08:48 PM
Post
#43
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
as long as its not 100% impossible, it can happen...
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 08:51 PM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
That's why it's called the Infinite Improbability Drive, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 08:57 PM
Post
#45
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
i think if the players would prefer to just roll the dice they're allotted without stopping to consider their chances of success, or looking for solutions that offer a greater chance of success, they'd be better off playing the SR4 base system than any modification being discussed here. that's a really dumb way to go about playing an RPG, and if the players insist on it, the GM needs to either switch to a system that doesn't smash players who play that way... or just smash the players and have done with it.
that said, i'm not sure it's the job of a game designer to keep players happy who insist on doing things the most bone-headed way possible. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 09:22 PM
Post
#46
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 475 Joined: 13-March 06 From: dusty Mexican borderlands Member No.: 8,372 |
I agree, and I'd certainly encourage my players toward another course of action in the case of a situation that can be resolved many ways. I'm talking about the real longshots, dramatic events like the runner being stuck on the roof of a burning building and trying to jump across a significant gap to the next roof, or maybe onto the landing rail of a passing helicopter. Chances are, the runner started the fire themselves by being an idiot, but does that mean I should allow absolutely no chance of success? Should I just tear up or delete their sheet in front of them without any rolls? I don't know, my gut disagrees. And my gut is vast and wise. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 24 2006, 09:25 PM
Post
#47
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
maybe issue a freebie edge point :P
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 09:26 PM
Post
#48
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,150 Joined: 19-December 05 From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex Member No.: 8,081 |
I was forced by the establishment to take statistics and logic courses at the university ... now i have to think about my chances of success everytime i even think of rolling dice. :D
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 09:34 PM
Post
#49
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Maybe that's why I don't really miss those really improbable possibilities. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 24 2006, 09:35 PM
Post
#50
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 475 Joined: 13-March 06 From: dusty Mexican borderlands Member No.: 8,372 |
Sure. All you have to do is be human to get it. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 25th June 2026 - 03:52 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.