 I know Kung Fu...., Are skills easier in this game? |
  |
 Apr 22 2006, 06:33 PM
Post
#151
|
|
|
Great Dragon  Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957  |
No, it's an addon. And it also isn't necessary, it's just one of the available options.
|
 |
 
|
|
Apr 23 2006, 12:44 AM
Post
#152
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650 |
not quite
Note I do not say it is a game breaker, merely a paradigm breaker. The same way open tests were in SR3 |
|
|
|
|
Apr 23 2006, 03:04 AM
Post
#153
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
I read what you said. It doesn't shift the way the rules set works, it adds something to a small part of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 23 2006, 08:41 AM
Post
#154
|
|
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
It's the best solution I've seen so far. And the problem isn't just longshot tests; some form of longshot tests are just an inevitable result of a fixed TN system where modifiers add/remove dice. To *really* fix the problem, you need to seriously rethink the entire concept.
Both nWoD and its clone cousin, SR4, have this problem. WoD deals with it by always guaranteeing 1 die, but changing the TN to 10 when you reach longshot territory. So, your odds of critical failure and success are now equal. Unfortunately, you can still pile on the modifiers without changing your odds; but the odds are somewhat higher now. Since Shadowrun uses d6's, this isn't a workable solution for us; d6's just don't have the granularity to pull it off. We need larger TN increases to realistically model this sort of thing. As a result, we're abandoning the core concept of fixed TN. We're instead going to a default TN concept: generally, the TN is X, but circumstances Y and Z alter it. The effective difference now depends on how often Y and Z pop up-- and since it could happen anytime you remove dice, that means it occurs pretty often. So, in order to fix Edge, we need to rethink the Longshot test mechanic. And in order to fix that, we need to rethink the entire dicepool penalty concept. And once we've changed that, we've pretty much left the entire mechanical basis in the dust. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 23 2006, 10:19 AM
Post
#155
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Why? There is a quite simple and cruel fix: Remove it. It is still perfectly possible to take exploding Edge dice anyway. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 23 2006, 01:31 PM
Post
#156
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650 |
not if the dice modifiers drop you to 0 dice
you don't get to go for a long shot if it is remove, and since the base pool is 0 no edge dice adding tthis means Joe average CANNOT PULL A TRIGGER if the penalties are 2 or more |
|
|
|
|
Apr 23 2006, 09:23 PM
Post
#157
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
In your opinion. I prefer the idea of increasing the threshold for tests. An alternate way to do that which would apply to opposed tests would be to remove successes. You get the same effect as increasing thresholds but can now use it when the threshold is not a set number. Kremlin: The guy can pull the trigger all he wants, he just won't hit anything unless he gets lucky, by spending some edge. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 23 2006, 11:38 PM
Post
#158
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Such rule does not exist in SR4. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 24 2006, 02:07 AM
Post
#159
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
I think he's referring to Joe Average not having an edge pool.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 24 2006, 02:17 PM
Post
#160
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650 |
Actually I was referring o the simple point that even if he spends edge he won't hit
if edge dice from longshot tests can be reduced, or if threshold increased |
|
|
|
|
Apr 24 2006, 02:47 PM
Post
#161
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
With a threshold increase he could still hit due to exploding dice. His odds are very low, but he's an unskilled and unlucky guy, so very low odds fits the situation well.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 24 2006, 10:51 PM
Post
#162
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
So, is the GM telling a player to stop being an idiot the next time he goes to max out his penalties because he's going to long-shot anyways qualify as a "game breaker" or a "paradigm breaker?"
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 24 2006, 11:09 PM
Post
#163
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Neither, it's using the rules as written. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2006, 04:26 AM
Post
#164
|
|||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
Then we get some *really* wonky results. Increasing the threshold in combat screws with the entire damage system; and unless we allow exploding dice on longshot tests, we still run across the impossible everyday task. So, Joe Average still can't hit anything, with or without Edge, at only moderate penalties. Edge is supposed to allow amazing things to be pulled off, so we're going against the spirit of the rules right there. We also increase the number of situations where both parties fail an opposed contest-- what do we do when the defender critically botches a roll, but the attacker only misses because we artifically jacked up his threshold? Further, we're still hitting the player with double-jeopardy-- we're penalizing them twice, once by removing dice, and again by upping the threshold. Why penalize a character multiple times? Removing successes reminds me entirely too much of the old WoD system, where more dice actually increased your chance of a botch. By removing successes, you're dramatically jacking up the odds of a critical bolo on a roll. And if the successes to be removed is greater than the number of dice, we *still* have an impossible everyday task. So, unfortunately, simply raising the threshold doesn't work out mechanically. In fact, it causes about as many problems as it solves. We need a way of increasing the diffculty, instead of making things impossible, otherwise the system *still* doesn't work. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 26 2006, 05:38 AM
Post
#165
|
|||||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Edge tests already allow exploding dice. No need for a change there. Upping the threshold does make things odd for opposed tests, which is why I said to remove successes. It's effectively the same thing.
No, you've dramatically decreased the chances they'll succeed at their farfetched task. Go ahead and count the successes against botches but not for actual success. And for the record, reminding you of another system doesn't make something bad. :)
Ahem... Exploding dice are allowed on longshot tests.
Not quite. But nice try though. :D |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Apr 26 2006, 02:21 PM
Post
#166
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
I hate to do this, James, but:
I have to say, I feel a little cheated that you've occupied this much of the forums' time debating a rule you apparently haven't read. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 26 2006, 03:31 PM
Post
#167
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
I have read it, I just didn't have it with me and forgot. In that case, just make the rule of six apply to longshot tests with no base pool. There you have it, still no need to rewrite the entire system. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2006, 03:45 PM
Post
#168
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Fair enough. Allowing Rule of Six on long shot tests might be a solution.
Just to play devil's advocate, why isn't Rule of Six allowed on long shot tests, by the RAW? It very explicitly is not, so why did the designers decide that it should be that way? I want to understand their logic for disallowing it before I change a rule to allow it. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2006, 03:47 PM
Post
#169
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
It was probably done as a means of keeping unlucky people from pulling off incredibly lucky things. At least that's teh explanation that leaps to mind.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2006, 07:08 PM
Post
#170
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650 |
an additional penalty for when you go beyond what skill can achieve and step into the realm of pure jaggy luck
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2006, 07:49 PM
Post
#171
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 475 Joined: 13-March 06 From: dusty Mexican borderlands Member No.: 8,372 |
I think exploding dice on Longshots was the very first thing I houseruled. It makes no damned sense. It is, by definition, a "longshot", like hurling a basketball from full court at the last second. For most people, freaks and expert players aside, it has more to do with luck than skill or innate ability. Consequently, as a luck-reliant, "here goes nothing" attempt, it makes absolutely no sense to restrict exploding dice.
In fact, I'd ultimately like to see it errata'd out. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2006, 09:00 PM
Post
#172
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
Well, dice don't explode on normal tests. When you're making a Long Shot, it's essentially a "normal test" of your Edge alone.
If the threshold for a test is higher than your Edge pool, you just aren't riding that mythical beast called Edge hard enough to be able to pull something that freakishly hard off. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 5th September 2025 - 02:06 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.