 Target Numbers Systems |
  |
 Aug 1 2006, 01:55 PM
Post
#301
|
|
|
Great Dragon  Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957  |
Ummm... nevermind. There's no point in going in circles with you as you're stuck in your own interpretation (as usual).
|
 |
 
|
|
Aug 1 2006, 02:57 PM
Post
#302
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 137 Joined: 8-June 06 From: Present day, Detroit Member No.: 8,683 |
I see that, but still, any argument for called shot with blind fire is pretty hollow. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 1 2006, 03:03 PM
Post
#303
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
I believe you'll find many of Cain's arguments to be pretty hollow. He likes to latch onto a perceived problem and ignore builtin fixes (incompetence x 7 ignoring GM Approval), or compare situations to older editions while ignoring chunks of those editions (NPCs in his game didn't use karma pool in SR3, so he ignores it in comparisons and dismisses it as "a patch / crutch" even though it was there all along).
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 3 2006, 05:40 PM
Post
#304
|
|||||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
Formal logic doesn't use equality statements. The statement "Any time a character scores 4 or more net hits on a test (4 hits more than needed to reach the threshold or beat the opponent), she has scored a critical success" would be expressed as: Four or more net hits -> Critical success The statment that "[You can burn a point of Edge to] Automatically achieve a critical success on one action." would be expressed as: Burn a point of edge -> Critical success Find me a quote from the book that can logically be expressed as: Four or more net hits <-> Critical success -or- Critical success -> Four or more net hits -or- Burn a point of edge -> Four or more net hits and I'll concede your point. After a decent amount of looking, however, I have not found such a quote, and doubt you'll be able to do the same. If you can construct a logical proof for: Four or more net hits -> Critical success; Burn a point of edge -> Critical success |- Critical success -> Four or more net hits I would also be willing to concede the point. A shortened form of this proof (just to make it less irritating to type, when you get around to it) would be: Four -> Crit; Burn -> Crit |- Crit -> Four
The problem is not "sanity"... it's that the rule doesn't go that way. The fact that your interpretation of the rules involves reading "four or more" as "four" when you run the logical statement backwards (that is, in the direction that it doesn't actually go) should have been your first tipoff that the rule wasn't intended to work in that direction. Had it been intended to work in that direction, a statement similar to one of the ones I ask you to prove above would have been made, rather than the RAW requiring you to make up a rule that was "missed in playtesting" just to get things to work in the broken way you imagine they were intended to. A determined rules lawyer doesn't have a leg to stand on. Why are you fighting so hard to misinterpret the RAW in a way that's broken, when the RAW being broken is your main complaint? |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Aug 7 2006, 08:27 AM
Post
#305
|
|||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
I'm not "fighting to prove the RAW is broken"-- that's already been established multiple times on these forums and others. I'm pointing out yet another area in which it is broken. In the meanwhile:
I don't need to. Logically speaking, if A, then B; so if B, then A. If you score more than four net successes, you have a critical success; if you score a critical success, you have earned more than four net successes. That's pretty clear. The problem comes from the burning Edge rule, which says that you earn an automatic critical success. So, it feeds back into the previous definition in an unexpected pattern. Naturally, there's not going to be a quote saying: "Oops, me made a big huge mistake here, but we're not going to fix it right away." What we will see is the logic pattern. So, exactly what point do you think is wrong?
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 7 2006, 11:46 AM
Post
#306
|
|||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
This is correct and by the book. The rules state that a result of 4 or more net hits is read as a "critical success" (ie. A critical success is a qualifier/decriptor for achieving 4+ net hits).
Since you've separated this from the previous point I'm going to assume that at this point you're inverting the argument above (ie. if 4+ net hits = a critical success then a critical success = 4+ net hits). This is where you're mistaken. Nowhere do the rules state that this is the case. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 7 2006, 11:49 AM
Post
#307
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
No. The reverse is an exception in logic. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 7 2006, 12:36 PM
Post
#308
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
If it's raining I get my umbrella. Are you trying to say that if I get my umbrella it's raining? If I get bit by a dog I get an open wound. Are you trying to say that if I got an open wound I was bit by a dog? Shall I go on? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 7 2006, 12:55 PM
Post
#309
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 881 Joined: 31-July 06 From: Denmark Member No.: 8,995 |
That isn't true. The logically following inverse of "if A then B" is "if not B then not A". Example: If I cut you, you bleed. Obviously you can't from this assume that if you bleed, I cut you. Someone else could have cut you, or I could have shot you or whatever. You can assume the negation though: that if you don't bleed, I haven't cut you. you're probably confusing it with "if and only if A, then B". Here you can assume that "if and only if B then A". For example "if and only if in contant with Kryptonite, Superman is weak". From that it follows that "If Superman is weak, he is in contact with Kryptonite". |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 7 2006, 06:40 PM
Post
#310
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
And since "if and only if you roll 4+ successes" is not the only way to get a critical success (since "if you burn a point of Edge" is the other way), you can't reverse it using that rule, either.
A critical success is defined as follows: "A critical success means that the character has performed the task with such perfection and grace that the gamemaster should allow her to add whatever flourishing detail she likes when describing it." At no point is it stated that a critical success is defined as earning 4+ net successes. Earning 4+ net successes is simply one of the ways to get a critical success. Burning edge is the other. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 7 2006, 07:03 PM
Post
#311
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
An example of a failed check that could be performed with perfection and grace would be an attack made perfectly but the other guy was just too good. For example (to draw from a movie both loved and reviled) in the most recent Highlander movie Connor teaches Duncan an attack that, when performed correctly is "unbeatable." Basically it's an unblockable and undodgable head shot. Of course, Duncan then pulls it out later but the uber bad guy stops it.
Other examples: diving and rolling Chow Yun Fat style across the floor while shooting perfectly straight. your bullets go exactly where you want them but the other guy isn't there because he dodged well. Or perhaps a leap through the air into a window (a la Matrix's Trinity). You duck, roll, and straighten out perfectly, earning a 10.0 from the aerial acrobatic judges. Unfortunately a gust of wind blows you off course and you smack head first into the wall. I can think of a lot of examples. I don't know how many would be picked by a player, since extra flare for failure isn't usually a good idea, but it's possible that there may be a situation where it's worthwhile. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 7 2006, 08:24 PM
Post
#312
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
"Extra flair" can come from things like "well, where DID those stray bullets go?"
I've had a player cause his missed rounds to set up the "perfect gas tank hit", with the sparks generated on the frame and everything. Sure, the car was extraneous... but there's nothing like a 20 food fireball whumphing up behind the guys attacking you to serve as a distraction :) |
|
|
|
|
Aug 12 2006, 10:24 AM
Post
#313
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
Just thought this would be interesting after all this discussion: ENnie results. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 12 2006, 03:50 PM
Post
#314
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
So "year of Mutants and Masterminds" isn't quite true then. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 12 2006, 06:11 PM
Post
#315
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
Nah. I'm sure we're about to be told this is a fluke. ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 12 2006, 06:18 PM
Post
#316
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
I don't know. It took less than 4 hours for three people to point how how fundamentally flawed his argument was. Usually at that point Cain slips away into the darkness, waiting for someone to mention edge or exploding dice so he can start his shennannigans anew with a fresh audience.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 12 2006, 07:41 PM
Post
#317
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 451 Joined: 8-May 06 Member No.: 8,533 |
Okay, I have a simple question I want answered, and one I haven't seen answered to satisfaction without people just dodging the question:
At what point does adding to the required number of successes become different than just raising the TN? If this has been answered in fullness, please point me to where. As I see it right now, all that happened was we swapped out impossibly-high TNs for impossibly-high numbers of successes and ended up with the same problem. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 12 2006, 07:44 PM
Post
#318
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
The only difference is in the probabilities. At some point both TNs / thresholds become equally impossible to hit. I personally don't see that as a problem, but others' opinions differ.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2006, 07:38 AM
Post
#319
|
|||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
I don't have to. RPG.net has already done it for me. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 15 2006, 01:56 PM
Post
#320
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 324 Joined: 18-July 06 From: Charleston, SC Member No.: 8,911 |
Well I think both are good, and SR4 does seem to use a fixed target number. But threshold modifiers, dice pool modifiers, and of course spending edge skew the flat probability curves this would imply.
There is something weirdly fascinating by the success and failures I've seen occur in what would appear certainty. Such as guys rolling huge dice pools and getting nothing, or a glitch. Guys with a few dice pulling off a near perfect roll. For those things that would be improbable but still possible no matter how remote, thats what edge does. In 15+ years of PnP gaming over many genres, I can say that the only lacking of this dice system is the space in your fist and the size of the dice. Other than the masse of little 6-siders needed, I think its one of the best random element system yet. By streamlining play with easy calculations, allowing for difficulty adjustments for GM variables/considerations, and giving players a trump card heroic function to smooth it all out. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2006, 02:18 PM
Post
#321
|
|||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Hey look everyone! Cain's back to spread misinformation again! :rotfl: Munchezuma: Asks the questions "how did this win?" vitus979 (just a few complaints, not a SR SUCKS AND SHOULDN'T HAVE WON!!!) cczernia: liked the book, has a problem with confusing matrix rules grandmaster_cain (you?): Doesn't like that character creation has rules in it. Doesn't like that other sections require cross referencing. In other words "cross-referernce where I tell you to, but nowhere else." Those are the posters from the thread that had something negative to say about the book. The rest of the people (it;s only 16 posts long) had good things to say about the book. And there's nobody saying that M&M is a vastly superior product. The clossest to that was a guy saying that SR4 was a great leap forward and M&M2 was a minor update, which is why SR4 got more votes. How is this RPG.net proving that the ENnies were flukes? |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
 Sep 15 2006, 02:27 PM
Post
#322
|
|||
|
jacked in Group: Admin Posts: 9,696 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 463 |
Not quite. While you are certainly right, that once you enter the realms of extremely high difficulties you will notice that checks become practically impossible (without Edge) compared to the almost equal nigh impossibility of extremely high TNs, the big difference does not lie there. Impossible and almost impossible are so close together, that it doesn't really make a difference in practice. Sure, you could still beat a TN of 12+, but it's so rare, that this actually happens, when you need it, that the practical application becomes pretty much irrelevant. However, the average and thus common case is much more important, and with the dice pool modifier we now have a much finer scale to apply modifiers to a check, which works a lot better than the extremely rough scale produced by the TN modifier system. A simple +1 modifier to a TN of 4 already lowers your dice pool to 2/3 when you project it onto a dice pool modifier (with unchanged TN, of course), another +1 and you are left with 1/3 of your original dice. If you start with a TN of 5, a +1 will cut your dice pool in half. This is a pretty big difference on average probabilities (it's not entirely the same, especially variances vary between the two approaches, but the average result is the same in the above examples). And that's the big problem of the TN system, that it is entirely unable to model small differences. The important difference does not lie where the huge modifiers come into play, it lies where the small modifiers are. Also, you while lower the probability of success with huge steps when you apply the first modifiers, and once you reach a TN of 6+, the steps suddenly become MUCH smaller. A +1 that increases TN 5 to 6 halves your chances, while a +1 that brings you from TN 7 to 8, for example, only reduces it to 5/6th. This way, the same modifiers act in a very different fashion, when combined with other modifiers. Finally, the dice pool modifier is much more in the spirit of the dice system SR uses (since 1st Edition). Counting only the number of successes/hits and not the height of them, that is. Bye Thanee |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 15 2006, 02:31 PM
Post
#323
|
|
|
jacked in Group: Admin Posts: 9,696 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 463 |
While Mutants & Masterminds is an incredible product and fully earned the acknowledgement, SR4 is such a VAST improvement over earlier editions, it really deserves the positive feedback as well. :)
Bye Thanee |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2006, 03:09 PM
Post
#324
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Hey you two, take the dice roll talk elsewhere. This is a "Cain is wrong about SR" thread. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2006, 05:00 PM
Post
#325
|
|||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
Actually, since they removed the rule of six, anytime the threshold is over your dice pool, the task becomes completely impossible. That means your curve drops off rather suddenly. If you're trying for a TN of 12 on one die, your odds are only 1:36, which isn't as hard as you might think. The problem isn't really fixed vs floating TN's, though. I've seen elegant examples of both. The problem is where penalties remove dice, because sooner or later you'll end up either at zero dice, or below your threshold, making the roll totally impossible. You can get away with this by always leaving them one die; but with a fixed TN system, you've just caused the problem that now they can pile on the modifiers without changing the odds. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 8th December 2025 - 05:43 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.