 Target Numbers Systems |
  |
 Sep 15 2006, 05:22 PM
Post
#326
|
|||
|
Shooting Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,706 Joined: 30-June 06 From: Fort Wayne, IN Member No.: 8,814  |
I am assuming you mean the roll is totally impossible without the use of edge...I understand what you are saying though...if you only have 3 dice, then hitting a threshold of 4 is impossible (unless you use edge). I don't see a problem with that though, as in my game, we limit total successes by the skill rating + 1. So, someone defaulting on a skill, can only ever get a total of one success...so, some things are impossible, but that doesn't cause us a problem in my game. Your last sentence I don't understand completely. I don't see how you can pile on modifiers without changing the odds...could you please explain and/or give examples. |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Sep 15 2006, 05:34 PM
Post
#327
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 829 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 770 |
I think he's saying that once a player is down to one die (assuming his GM won't remove that last die) there's nothing stopping him from saying "so I call the shot for -100000000 armor" (except, of course, for a sane GM, but who's ever seen one of those ;))
As for the "eventually things get to be impossible" complaint...well, yeah! No matter how hard you try, you aren't going to jump the Pacific. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2006, 05:46 PM
Post
#328
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 |
I've always thought that Sanguine's base dice mechanic for Ironclaw/Jadeclaw was rather elegant in this regard. In that system, if you have a net penalty to your roll, you don't remove dice, instead, for each level of penalty, you must make an extra roll, and take the lowest result of all the rolls. |
||
|
|
|
||
 Sep 15 2006, 05:55 PM
Post
#329
|
|||
|
jacked in Group: Admin Posts: 9,696 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 463 |
Actually, I thought 'impossible' carries that drop off quite well. ;) Bye Thanee |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 15 2006, 05:56 PM
Post
#330
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
You might want to read things before replying to them every now and then. The post you quoted already said that. :)
He's referring to the fact that once your dice pool hits zero and you're resorting to edge, no amount of modifiers changes your odds of success because they don't change your edge dice pool. What he is ignoring (and frequently does) is the existence of a GM. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 15 2006, 07:31 PM
Post
#331
|
|||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
This is a problem with a fairly simple solution: never subtract dice. Add penalty modifiers to the other side. For Opposed Tests, this is simple. For Extended Tests, add the penalty to the threshold. Treat Success Tests as though they were Opposed Tests where the opposition starts with zero dice. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 15 2006, 07:35 PM
Post
#332
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
I actually like the way that sounds. But several other usable alternatives have been proposed in this and other threads. Cain doesn't care. He's a "if I don't like it, it must suck" type. :)
If it ever comes up as a problem in my games that tasks can be impossible, I'll definitely suggest your alternative and see what people think. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2006, 07:43 PM
Post
#333
|
|||
|
jacked in Group: Admin Posts: 9,696 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 463 |
Nice idea. I actually do that already in one instance (cover modifiers are added to the Dodge Test rather than subtracted from the Ranged Combat Test). Doing that in a more consistent manner certainly has some appeal (especially when considering Glitch probabilities). Bye Thanee |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 15 2006, 08:42 PM
Post
#334
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 829 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 770 |
Thinking about it - the only real undisputable flaw in the sr4 rules (that didn't exist in one form or another in previous editions) is the glitch rules.
For example: Why does a target ducking behind a table make the attacker's gun more likely to explode? gaining cover => attacker loses dice fewer dice => easier to glitch The above solution of adding the negative modifiers to the defender or threshold solves this nicely. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2006, 08:47 PM
Post
#335
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Since when does a glitch mean the person's gun explodes? Maybe your glitch has something to do with the table, like a bad ricochet.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2006, 08:49 PM
Post
#336
|
|||
|
jacked in Group: Admin Posts: 9,696 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 463 |
That (though I don't think it's that bad, as a GM you can easily compensate for that, or just use the above) and the ammo rules (where they put + to DV and - to AP on an equal measure apparantly). :D Bye Thanee |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 15 2006, 08:51 PM
Post
#337
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 829 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 770 |
I was overstating it a bit...but a critical glitch (also with increasing likelihood with fewer dice) with the right ammo can (GM's discretion) cook off.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2006, 09:10 PM
Post
#338
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
It's that GM Discretion part that makes it ok. A GM should IMO base the glitch or critical glitch off of the situation. If it was external factors that caused the glitch by lowering your dice pool then they should probably play a role in it.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 16 2006, 05:47 AM
Post
#339
|
|
|
Grumpy Old Ork Decker Group: Admin Posts: 3,794 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orwell, Ohio Member No.: 50 |
Sorry, this thread dropped off my radar for a bit.
James, Cain, and anyone else involved here... No personal attacks against other forum members, their preferred style of play, etc. Keep it civil. Bull |
|
|
|
|
Sep 16 2006, 11:06 PM
Post
#340
|
|||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
Yes, and I've seen GM's kill off PC's for fumbles before. There's a reason why "GM fiat" is considered a bad word. The problem isn't "GM discretion", it's when a GM thinks he can simply houserule anything he likes, whenever he likes, as often as he likes. Personally, I'd walk away from any such gamemaster. Additionally, good systems are designed so GM discretion is needed as little as possible. By removing dice and forcing an increase in botches, SR4 is *increasing* the number of times it's required. Combined with the other penalties caused by removing dice, and the problem is obvious.
That would have been a good basis for a different system. Unfortunately, converting SR4 to that one would require completely rewriting the entire ruleset. We can hold out hope for SR5, but I can't see how to fix SR4 without changing the basic system of fixed TN, & penalties remove dice. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 16 2006, 11:16 PM
Post
#341
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Cain, we all know you don't like GM's making decisions. You don't have to keep saying it. :) But it's not a bad thing. In fact, it'sa good thing, as it gives a GM more practice thinking on his feet. Feel free to disagree. ;)
Really? It seems a fairly simple change to me. Care to explain a bit more?
LOL! Where have I heard that before? :please: |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 16 2006, 11:21 PM
Post
#342
|
|||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
It's for the runners that are firing Explosive or EX-Explosive ammo. Those jam and explode on a critical glitch, which is more likely when firing at targets that are under cover. That's kinda weird, like somehow the gun and ammo know that the target is harder to hit, and become depressed and less likely to work properly. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 16 2006, 11:26 PM
Post
#343
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 750 Joined: 9-August 06 Member No.: 9,059 |
It's no more dumb than the idea an explosive bullet is less likely to blow up when you're a good shot. What does your ability to aim have anything to do with the stability of the round or the reliability of the slide?
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 17 2006, 12:21 AM
Post
#344
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
What Slithery D said. Also, the effects of Glitches and Critical glitches are up to the GM. Ex-ex's explosion rate is therefor completely tied to a specific campaign. If your GM doesn't think cover will make your ammo explode then it won't. In this instance the benefits of Aaron's system become obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 8th December 2025 - 03:54 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.