 Take Aim and Called Shot |
  |
 Dec 1 2006, 08:56 PM
Post
#176
|
|||||
|
The Dragon Never Sleeps  Group: Admin Posts: 6,924 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,667  |
Most of what you describe here is mechanically more likely to occur in the SR4 game mechanics then SR3. Or at least just as easy. Though that one sentence...
With the SR3 target variables and the influence modifiers have, the circumstantial modifiers can easily overwhelm the base skill level of the characters. The SR4 distribution and variance is a little flatter and the modifiers are slightly less influential overall. But you can still apply as you need to. Though if applying "circumstance" modifiers to low-end characters to make things dangerous for high-end characters who can wipe the floor with said low-end characters isn't some kind of GM fiat, then I don't know what is. |
||||
 |
 
|
||||
|
Dec 1 2006, 09:01 PM
Post
#177
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I disagree. I think SR3 was a much better platform for the type of game that mfb is describing.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 1 2006, 09:10 PM
Post
#178
|
|||
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Refers to a situation in which one option renders the other impossible. If you want to have cake, you can't eat it, otherwise you would no longer have cake. Related to "can't have it both ways". ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 1 2006, 09:11 PM
Post
#179
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
high-end characters in SR4 stand a very good chance of accomplishing impossible tasks. for instance--an instance i've used before--a character with 6 skill and 6 attribute can hit a target 1km away at night without stopping to aim--without any sort of vision enhancement at all. granted, if the target gets to dodge, he probably won't get hit, but that's still a horriffic level of accuracy. the argument i've heard against this example is that the GM should apply a threshold to such a test. that still makes no sense to me, because it means that shooting at a wheelchair-bound target (1 dodge die) is easier than shooting a stationary target (no dodge, but you have to overcome a threshold).
this is also the example i use to point out how dependent SR4 is on GM fiat/intervention/whatever. you can't even make a simple shot in the dark without the GM having to stop and say "do i want to let him use the rules that are clearly stated in the book as being the only ones applicable, even if that means that he can do completely absurd things, or do i make a GM ruling?" and as for modifiers overwhelming the base skill of the characters, what about the fact that in SR4, the modifiers can completely negate the characters' skills? with enough modifiers, you don't even get to roll. SR4, to me, is about a step away from being level-based. this is perhaps exemplified by the fact that when i questioned power levels in SR4, McMurray went straight to d20 for examples. there's nothing inherently wrong with level-based games, but a game that's going to effectively be level-based ought to go ahead and use levels. and, as i've said before, if i wanted level-based SR, i'd adapt d20 Modern. at least that system doesn't require so much GM intervention! |
|
|
|
|
Dec 1 2006, 09:15 PM
Post
#180
|
|||||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Oh, okay. I've always heard that expression and thought, "How the hell am I supposed to eat cake if I don't even have it? If I have a cake, what the hell else am I supposed to do with it but eat it?" So really, what the expression is saying is, "Have my cake and eat it too, but then still have my cake afterward." Yeah, that makes more sense. :) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 1 2006, 09:16 PM
Post
#181
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
i think we need some GM intervention on that phrase.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 1 2006, 09:18 PM
Post
#182
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Yeah really, can we get an errata on that expression?
edit: Should that be, "an erratum"? |
|
|
|
|
Dec 1 2006, 09:22 PM
Post
#183
|
|||||
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
I already intervened. (LOLZERS and all that. ;))
It's also a weak, extremely limited, easily solved example. But you seem to like it so much...:D And yes, if you want to play a game so ludicrously bloated by designers' attempts to answer every possible situation with a new book of rules, then d20 anything is a good choice. Frankly, I think calling on d20 as support of your argument in this case is a bad choice as well though, because if you play only with the "core" books (PHB & DMG), the game is just as "full of holes" and "reliant on GM intervention" as SR4 is right now. (Well, as people claim SR4 to be right now.) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 1 2006, 09:23 PM
Post
#184
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
in New Zealand, it's "omg teh erattaz!!111!!!11!1"
but it does require a solution. a situation that the rules already describe how to handle requires a seperate solution. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 1 2006, 09:24 PM
Post
#185
|
|||
|
The Dragon Never Sleeps Group: Admin Posts: 6,924 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,667 |
I'm curious why you think this feat is possible in SR4. My initial thinking on the rules pushes this into negative dice pool, starting with 12 dice, very easily, even with aiming. No arbitrary GM Threshold applied. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 1 2006, 09:26 PM
Post
#186
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
show me your math. my math says -6 for total darkness, -3 (or 4? don't have my book available) for range, leaving 3 (or 2) dice for the shot.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 1 2006, 09:30 PM
Post
#187
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
-3 for extreme range. (edit: this is clarifying mfb's range modifier, not trying to stack another one on)
And, since it's total darkness, the 6 attribute in question here is Intuition, not Agility. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 1 2006, 09:31 PM
Post
#188
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
So you think that highly skilled individuals should fail at mundane tasks? The guy that wrote the internet should have problems writing a search program? Granted "wrote the internet" is a blatantly foolish example, but it is fitting if we're talking about 25 Programming dice. That's just something we'll have to agree to disagree on again. I tend to think that vastly skilled individuals are vastly skilled.
That's easy to do. Just don't give them to many dice. If you want people with skill levels that make them very very good, but still capable of failure, don't make superheroes.
Well, oddly enough, if a system doesn't do what you want it to but others do, perhaps you ought to play those other systems? Oh wait, you do. :) Nobody is saying that SR4 is great for everyone. Obviously it isn't.
Huh? this is an incredibly silly statement. The guys that wrote D&D didn't make it playable for everyone. The guys that do Storyteller are the same. Game systems cannot possibly satisfy all target audiences. The SR4 devs decided which people they wanted to target. Just because you're not in that group doesn't mean the choice is wrong, it just means you're not in that group. You seem, especially after that last argument, to be of the opinion that anything which doesn't match you'r idea of good is wrong. And, like me with my "play something else" belief, you're free to hold it. However, you're wrong (at least in my opinion).
Any chance we can move any SR3 discussion out of the SR4 forum?
I like that aspect. Others don't (including you and Cain especially). I like the idea that everybody can't do everything, and think it's a vastly better model of reality then SR3's "we'll make it hard, but doable." It's very easy to house rule if you don't like it.
What? I went straight to level based because that's what I'm familiar with. I could have used WoD, L5R (which has levels kinda, but not really), or something else. I defy you to show me anything in SR4 that's uses levels, or is even close to them. You can't just say "James used d20, so SR4 is level based, you have to actually have backup for stuff. Can you proffer any facts? |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Dec 1 2006, 09:32 PM
Post
#189
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
the darkness is just icing on the cake. the idea of someone being able to make a 1000-meter snapshot stands on its own to anyone who's ever trained with firearms.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 1 2006, 09:32 PM
Post
#190
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
mfb, I see the mechanics of what you're saying. It's just that to me (I can't speak for anyone else), it seems ludicrous to me that as GM, you would even allow the test.
The banana in the tailpipe thing was exactly the point, as far as I'm concerned. You would never allow a character to try that, right? So what does it matter if there's some mechanical way to construct a test for it? Why create (or allow) the situation to come up in the first place? It really seems like you're arguing about nothing, to me, because it seems absolutely ridiculous to think that any GM, when presented your "in the dark while running longshot test" by a player, would go "well damn, I guess you can try it because technically the rules can support it if I let you". I GM. I don't want the rules to GM for me. When I'm playing, I want a GM. I don't want the rules to attempt to cover every possible ludicrous occurrence. But that's just me. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 1 2006, 09:36 PM
Post
#191
|
|||||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
It was pertinent to the subject at hand, in that it was being used as a comparison. You have no reason to be curt towards me. Especially when you later go on in the same post to refer to the very same thing you chastised me about. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 1 2006, 09:40 PM
Post
#192
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Just to offer a counterpoint to this: First off, I'm against you useing the phrase "longshot test" because while this is, technically a shot at very long range, a longshot test refers to something else. Second, I imagine this could come up something like: GM: You arrive at the docks, but it's too late. The ship has already left five minutes ago. Player: I shoot him. GM: What? He's like a mile away! In the dark! Player: According to the rules, it's only a -9, I can make that easily. GM: No, that's ridiculous. Players: You're an ass-hat GM, you're cheating just because you don't want us to do what the rules explicitly state that we can. That's not a Mr. Lucky example, or an anti-citymaster banana. That's a pretty reasonable situation that I can see players getting upset over. edit: Just for the record, I definitely see where both sides are coming from. I'm just going to switch sides randomly to keep the conversation moving. :-) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 1 2006, 09:47 PM
Post
#193
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
McMurray, you picked another false premise. i never said i wanted high-end characters to fail at mundane tasks. i said i wanted them to be challenged by impossible tasks. re: levels, it's simple. characters with a certain number of base dice, in SR4, cannot be stopped by certain amounts of negative modifiers. that's true in any system, of course. the difference is that in SR4, the progression of how base dice relate to the amount of modifiers that can be easily overcome is absolutely linear. raise the base dice by one, and the amount of modifiers that can be overcome is also raised by one. it's not exactly like levels (and i never claimed it was), but that simplistic linear approach to challenges is very similar to level-based gameplay. the idea that X is always trumped by X+1 is what i'm talking about, and what you clearly stated that you are in favor of.
the banana was McMurray's example. i used it because i could make my point with it, despite the fact that it was the silliest extreme one could take the rules to. a better example would be the long-range shot i mentioned above. why would i, as a GM, allow someone to make such a shot? because the rules clearly state that such a shot is possible--moreover, they state exactly how difficult such a shot should be. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 1 2006, 09:57 PM
Post
#194
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 19-August 06 From: Austin Member No.: 9,168 |
Right here is where everyone is banging their heads. To mfb, the system specifically adds rules which make such a situation possible, then requires the GM to negate it. And that's bad. Because if the rules allow it, denying it is either wrong, or a indication that the rules don't work. To Eidolan, the rules are a basic framework that define most tasks, but the ultimate question is always up to the GM. The fact that the rules could be aligned in such a way to suggest that it's possible is secondary to the fact that the GM will clearly say "no." And that's good. And I'm 99.999999% sure no one is changing perspectives on that one. ;) Note: I use mfb and eidolan as the most recent posters espousing the view, not as sole examples. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 1 2006, 10:01 PM
Post
#195
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
You make it sound like the rules are being twisted in to knots to accomplish the task. As mfb states, the rules are there, and are quite clear about the penalties involved. No superfluous 'aligning of the rules' is necessary. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 1 2006, 10:06 PM
Post
#196
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
the long-range shot is perhaps an overly-heinous example. people look at it and focus too much (for the purposes of the point i'm trying to make) on how wildly the rules differ from reality, ran than the underlying problem that higher levels of ability completely negate reasonable levels of modifiers. the fact that it's possible to make this shot without aiming isn't necessarily the problem; you can even do that in SR3, with enough karma. the problem, to me, is the sharp divide between "it's possible, and even easy" and "can't even attempt to make the shot".
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 1 2006, 10:06 PM
Post
#197
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,706 Joined: 30-June 06 From: Fort Wayne, IN Member No.: 8,814 |
I'm kinda looking this over, and one thing that stands out, to me at least, is that something a mile away, or 1600m, is off the charts, according to pg 139. Is this max range being ignored in the examples?
Also, in this scenario (extreme range shot in total darkness), wouldn't cover (blind fire) at -6 also apply? So, at extreme range (-3), in the dark (-6) and target hidden (-6), that's 15 dice of penalties to overcome, right? As a GM, I'm tempted to give a character a shot, but realize that I wouldn't let them attempt it past the extreme range of their weapon, so one mile (1600m) is out of range for any of the weapons listed in the core book... |
|
|
|
|
Dec 1 2006, 10:09 PM
Post
#198
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
i said 1km, not 1mi. and yes, you could also apply Target Hidden. in that case, you just need to have 18 base dice to overcome it. the problem doesn't go away, the more modifiers you add; it just gets put off by the exact amount of the modifier.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 1 2006, 10:10 PM
Post
#199
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 19-August 06 From: Austin Member No.: 9,168 |
Well, I tried to pitch each one in the appropriate tone to the camp I was describing. ;) You'll note that the mfb version doesn't imply anything of the sort. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 1 2006, 10:12 PM
Post
#200
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 19-August 06 From: Austin Member No.: 9,168 |
I guess this is the part I don't get. Yes, if you add more modifiers you decrease the pool, and you'd need to increase the pool to compensate. It seems like that portion of the argument is simply boiling down to "Fixed TNs are bad for you." Yes? Because the only time that's not the case is if the TN value changes instead. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th February 2025 - 06:42 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.