 Resolving SR4 issues, Instead of whining like little girls |
  |
 Mar 24 2006, 09:51 PM
Post
#51
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner  Group: Members Posts: 2,026 Joined: 23-November 05 From: Seattle (Really!) Member No.: 7,996  |
You've had problems with players bombing things with whales and petunias too? |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Mar 24 2006, 09:57 PM
Post
#52
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,150 Joined: 19-December 05 From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex Member No.: 8,081 |
I hadn't, when the whales were well within availabilty ratings und the petunias had a good backround story. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 24 2006, 10:12 PM
Post
#53
|
|||||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,026 Joined: 23-November 05 From: Seattle (Really!) Member No.: 7,996 |
But with an availability rating of "42" neither of these things should ever have been in "question" :grinbig: |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 24 2006, 10:15 PM
Post
#54
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 66 Joined: 24-October 05 Member No.: 7,887 |
I also agree with this. There are some situations, that players simply shouldn't have any chance at success. You shouldn't be able to shoot a pistol and blow up a tank...exploding dice allow for that possibility. You can quickly get into situations were players will try anything because there is a small chance of success and hope the dice rule in their favor. I've seen people re-roll d6s, and get insane lucky streaks...so I know it's more probable than most impossible situations that people seem to be talking about here. Instead of putting mechanics into the game that allow for impossible actions, GMs should be running adventures that don't lead into situations so critical to the story that they can only be decided on single insanely lucky die roll. And on the flip side players shouldn't be able to ruin a story by allowing for the possibility of near-impossible actions. GM: Ok, the bad guy, who is escaping with the data file, laughs from his chopper as it speeds into the night. You'll have to track him down the hard way. Player: I shoot him in the eye with my red rider bb gun. <rolls> GM: I don't think... Player: Zing! Fifty 6's in a row! He's dead! GM: ... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 24 2006, 10:22 PM
Post
#55
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 475 Joined: 13-March 06 From: dusty Mexican borderlands Member No.: 8,372 |
Well, I suppose it requires good players to make something like exploding dice work. And a GM who's willing to make the bad guy fall onto the pilot, which causes the helicopter to crash onto the PCs. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 24 2006, 10:43 PM
Post
#56
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
SR4's system is indeed difficult to fix. ideally, the system should allow a minimal chance of succeeding at nearly-impossible tasks, while simultaneously discouraging even-more-improbably-high levels of success at those tasks. SR4 uses multiple dice; a player should not be able to make a one-shot kill on someone they can't even see because they rolled particularly well on one of those dice.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 10:46 PM
Post
#57
|
|||
|
Technomancer Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,638 Joined: 2-October 02 From: Champaign, IL Member No.: 3,374 |
I must be missing something, but why not? Say I call a shot for +4 DV and after cover and other modifiers I have, say, two dice to roll and try to hit the target. I roll them and it comes up 4, 5. If the extra damage for the called shot kills the target, where's the problem? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 24 2006, 10:49 PM
Post
#58
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
i'm saying that if a task is nearly impossible, it should be much harder to do really well at it than to barely succeed at it. constructing the exploding dice mechanic such that one really hot die doesn't determine your level of success--only that you succeeded--maintains that ideal. the specific example is just a throwaway; replace "they can't even see" with "is next to impossible to hit due to various factors".
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 10:50 PM
Post
#59
|
|
|
Technomancer Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,638 Joined: 2-October 02 From: Champaign, IL Member No.: 3,374 |
And do you feel SR4 maintains that ideal?
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 10:53 PM
Post
#60
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
not really. if i use Edge, the rule of six means that if one of my dice comes up a 42, i win. i have achieved enough hits to overcome any conceivable threshold. SR4, as it stands, tries to balance that by allowing rule of six only in certain circumstances, and disallowing it when the going gets really tough (ie, long shot tests). that does balance things, somewhat, by limiting the situations where rolling a 42 will break the game (or at least suspension of disbelief). however, it makes it so that many tasks are really and truly impossible (ie, when the threshold on a long shot test is higher than your Edge); i would prefer to see a mechanic that allows exploding dice even on long shot tests, but doesn't allow a single really high roll to allow a character to achieve wholly unreasonable levels of success. basically, a character should have to roll a 42 on several dice in order to perform fantastically well at impossible tasks.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 10:55 PM
Post
#61
|
|
|
Technomancer Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,638 Joined: 2-October 02 From: Champaign, IL Member No.: 3,374 |
Now I understand. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 10:55 PM
Post
#62
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
and what would be considerd a "wholly unreasonable level of success"?
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 11:01 PM
Post
#63
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
Kleaner's Red Ryder shot against impossible odds is as good an example as any. offhand, i'd say any instance when you roll more hits than you have actual dice is a point at which you really need to look at the system. as it stands, in SR4, that's not goint to happen very often. but if you open up the rule of six to apply to every roll, it's gonna happen a lot more often.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 11:04 PM
Post
#64
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
how about this:
when rolling long shots, you can never gain a critical success? basicly the number of hits stop counting 3 above the threshold... |
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 11:09 PM
Post
#65
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
it's a hard cap, so i pretty much automatically dislike it. but it works for its intended purpose, and i don't see a better way of doing it.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 11:14 PM
Post
#66
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
So cap hits by the number of dice in the pool. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 24 2006, 11:15 PM
Post
#67
|
|||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
so you dont like hard caps yet you want a cap? sorry but i feel like labeling that impossible (or atleast very close)... if the cap isnt hard its more often then not anything but a cap... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 24 2006, 11:16 PM
Post
#68
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
also workable. i'm not really interested in the final outcome, i'm just providing my infallible and 100% correct opinion on parameters that ought to be met.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 11:17 PM
Post
#69
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
Of course, your Highness.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 11:18 PM
Post
#70
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
'bout time somebody reco'nize!
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 11:24 PM
Post
#71
|
|||||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,026 Joined: 23-November 05 From: Seattle (Really!) Member No.: 7,996 |
Wow sounds like a collective bargaining agreement for the NBA, there is a salary cap but there are all these exceptions. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 24 2006, 11:30 PM
Post
#72
|
|||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
Again that's not true. All it requires is that the GM "fix" the system to allow the player to burn one Edge to get a hit (on pure luck) and presto, its possible under SR4's dicepool +/- modifier system with as much of a tweak as was needed for SR3. Not a solution I'd chose though, just there to prove you wrong. For the record, exploding dice were ruled out of Long Shot tests to limit the degree of success possible when relying on pure luck. Remember if you end up in a situation where you don't have Edge to spend (ie. out of luck to fall back on) and really need it its because you chose to use it elsewhere. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 24 2006, 11:39 PM
Post
#73
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
not at all. all you have to do is set it up so that one must roll extremely well on multiple dice in order to get high levels of success. a variable TN is the best way i know of to achieve that, but there might be other ways. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 24 2006, 11:43 PM
Post
#74
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
like say not allowing any one die to provide more then maybe half the original dice pool in hits?
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 11:52 PM
Post
#75
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
indeed. not impossible at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th June 2026 - 08:53 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.