Take Aim and Called Shot - Dumpshock Forums

Take Aim and Called Shot

mfb View Member Profile	Dec 1 2006, 10:15 PM Post #201
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670	fixed TNs in the manner that SR4 employs them are bad, yes. and compared to mutable TNs, fixed TNs are much more difficult to create a good game mechanic around. it's not that you need to increase the pool to compensate, it's the amount you need to increase it by--namely, the exact amount of the modifier applied. the things i dislike about level-based games, i dislike about that mechanic. oh, that was a good summing up of my stance, a few posts back.

Moon-Hawk View Member Profile	Dec 1 2006, 10:18 PM Post #202
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715	I was the one that made it a mile. Oops.

eidolon

Dec 1 2006, 10:47 PM

Post #203

ghostrider

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 4,196
Joined: 16-May 04
Member No.: 6,333

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)

That's a pretty reasonable situation that I can see players getting upset over.

Whereas to me, it's a completely unreasonable request and the players shouldn't try so hard to invoke bovine bombardment. ;)

And yeah, pretty good summation of the two stances. Rules != end all be all of a roleplaying game.

eidolon

Dec 1 2006, 10:54 PM

Post #204

ghostrider

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 4,196
Joined: 16-May 04
Member No.: 6,333

QUOTE

Any chance we can move any SR3 discussion out of the SR4 forum?

<mod mode> Guys, please leave moderation of the forums to the mods and admins.

There's just no need to clutter up a conversation with random "this shouldn't be here, this should go there" type stuff. If we see stuff that's drastically unrelated and out of place, we'll take care of it.

Thanks.

</mod mode>

mfb

Dec 1 2006, 10:58 PM

Post #205

Immortal Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670

QUOTE (eidolon)

Rules != end all be all of a roleplaying game.

i'll certainly agree with that. you can't (and, i think most here will agree, shouldn't) put strongly-defined rules on roleplaying.

eidolon View Member Profile	Dec 1 2006, 11:02 PM Post #206
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333	:P You keep that up, I'll start calling you Twisty McGee.

mfb View Member Profile	Dec 1 2006, 11:04 PM Post #207
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670	well, the part i left unsaid is that the rules should, as much as possible, be the end-all-be-all of success/failure resolution in RPGs.

James McMurray

Dec 2 2006, 12:32 AM

Post #208

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957

QUOTE

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.

Well, given that the guy apparently knows exactly where the target is, if he's that good he can shoot by memory. And of course, since SR4 is so easily moddable, if you don't like it, change it. Again, an excellent design feature, usable with ease, and set up so that changing one thing doesn't have the horrible ripple effects you see in more complex (and also flawed) systems. Me likes. :)

That specific example seems to me to be an abuse of the blind fire rules. Those rules don't mention being able to shoot something you don't know is there. that's just my interpretation though. Other groups will probably read it differently, and it's a credit to SR4 that both variations work. :D

QUOTE

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.

Your definition of "very similar" seems to be on the fritz.

QUOTE

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.

Dpes the guy know where the target is exactly? If so, let him take the shot. If not, don't let him. The blind fire rules don't say they let you shoot at random and hit something. If you don't like someone who is the best humanly possible being able to make shots like that fairly often, house rule the blind fire penalty. Hell, if it really bothers you, take blind fire capabilities away, make it -12, or whatever else floats your boat. It's easy to do, and SR4 handles it great.

QUOTE

because the rules clearly state that such a shot is possible--moreover, they state exactly how difficult such a shot should be.

Here's a hint: every game out there that allows shooting an inanimate object blindly and at range states exactly how difficult the shot will be. You complain when modifiers aren't given and you complain when modifiers are given. Personally, I don't have a problem with them making the shot. It's a game, not an exact representation of reality. You want a more realistic view, and unfortunately (IYO) SR4 doesn't give that.

QUOTE

underlying problem that higher levels of ability completely negate reasonable levels of modifiers.

Except that this isn't a problem. World class people performing world class tasks seems pretty logical to me. I think we can both agree YMMV. :)

QUOTE

Guys, please leave moderation of the forums to the mods and admins.

Sorry. By making it a question I assumed it would have been clear that it was a request, not a command. I've just seen too many of these threads implode as soon as someone says something along the lines of "SR3 is better than SR4 because ___."

Fortune

Dec 2 2006, 01:10 AM

Post #209

Immoral Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486

QUOTE (James McMurray)

By making it a question I assumed it would have been clear that it was a request, not a command. I've just seen too many of these threads implode as soon as someone says something along the lines of "SR3 is better than SR4 because ___."

My post was in direct response to the previous one, and was quite valid in that it was comparing the usefulness of the type of systems in relation to the style of gameplay that mfb desires. The previous post (and many others in this thread) also have referenced SR3, and yet you chose to single out my post alone and respond to me in a snide manner.

mfb

Dec 2 2006, 01:19 AM

Post #210

Immortal Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670

QUOTE (James McMurray)

Dpes the guy know where the target is exactly? If so, let him take the shot. If not, don't let him. The blind fire rules don't say they let you shoot at random and hit something.

which requires the GM to make up rules for locating the target. realistically, there's no way someone can shoot that well without aiming, whether they remember (or see) the target's location or not.

re: similarity, reread my post. i told you exactly what about SR4 i find similar to level-based gaming. specifically, the part where a challenge of difficulty X can only be beaten by characters of ability level X+1. it's the sharp cut-off of... well, let's call it challenge rating, shall we?

QUOTE (James McMurray)

Except that this isn't a problem. World class people performing world class tasks seems pretty logical to me. I think we can both agree YMMV.

i think your logic detector may be on the fritz. if world-class characters can pretty much automatically succeed at feats of world-class difficulty, why doesn't everyone in the Olympics tie for gold? people of world-class ability often fail in the face of world-class challenges.

QUOTE (James McMurray)

Here's a hint: every game out there that allows shooting an inanimate object blindly and at range states exactly how difficult the shot will be. You complain when modifiers aren't given and you complain when modifiers are given.

well, that's because they don't provide enough modifiers, and the ones they do provide are hilariously flawed.

Drtyrm View Member Profile	Dec 2 2006, 02:20 AM Post #211
Target Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: 27-November 06 Member No.: 10,045	I believe that you would get a lot more receptivity mfb, if your examples weren't so corner case. Single shot kill of a City Master driver. Snap shot at 1km in pitch darkness. You are obviously trying to "break" the system, and then complaining when it goes snap. I don't see the point here.

Chandon View Member Profile	Dec 2 2006, 02:54 AM Post #212
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 261 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Massachusetts Member No.: 2,115	Drtym - Both of those cases are issues that the game rules should deal with. I mean - the developers included armored vehicles and sniper rifles, the game should support them.

eidolon

Dec 2 2006, 03:21 AM

Post #213

ghostrider

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 4,196
Joined: 16-May 04
Member No.: 6,333

What Drtyrm is saying, however, is that in order for the game to not support them, you have to go out of your way to set up a situation in which it doesn't.

QUOTE (mfb)

which requires the GM to make up rules for locating the target.

Whuh..howzat? I don't follow. What exactly is causing the GM to have to make up rules?

Chandon View Member Profile	Dec 2 2006, 03:47 AM Post #214
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 261 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Massachusetts Member No.: 2,115	MFB's examples aren't really that abnormal though. I mean night is half the time, and if you have a sniper rifle with a range of over one kilometer, you might try to take a shot at that distance. This isn't some weird special case, it's the normal usage of that piece of equipment. Once you get to that point, it's logical to look at the modifiers that apply before taking any action - and the fact that you can make a snap shot at that distance at all is pretty silly. If I were designing a roleplaying game and adding rules about ranges for different weapon categories, I'd like to think that I'd sit down and consider the effects of the rules I was writing for the different classes of weapon. As it is in SR4, unaimed rifle shots at extreme range don't make a lot of sense. The problem existed in SR3, but it was somewhat less silly with varying target numbers. The increased silliness can be explained as a side effect of the SR3 to SR4 rules migration - you can't just change target number mods to dice pool mods and expect the result to have the same properties.

Drtyrm View Member Profile	Dec 2 2006, 03:54 AM Post #215
Target Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: 27-November 06 Member No.: 10,045	My point was that rules are abstractions, Chandon. Some people are fine with a rulebook that doesn't specifically state, "You cannot shoot through an APC with a handgun." Others need that in there. I can understand the difference in opinion and playstyle. (Hell, spend some time checking out the Character Optimization forums for D&D3.5, you'll see rules lawyering at the Olympic level). I just don't see how you can come to the conclusion that the rules are "bad", since it's ultimately subjective.

Chandon View Member Profile	Dec 2 2006, 05:21 AM Post #216
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 261 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Massachusetts Member No.: 2,115	Here's the thing: The rules provide a mechanism to resolve the handgun vs. APC case. There's nothing unclear about it - there's no question about which rules apply or how to apply them. This shouldn't be a difficult special case either - the case of a gun versus armor is the most commonly used combat mechanic in the game, and vehicle armor is a simple variant of armor that's been handled reasonably well in previous version of Shadowrun. For simple cases like this, we should have to make judgement calls like "you can't shoot through an APC with a handgun". What vehicle armor can you shoot through? How about a pickup truck door? Determining the answer to these questions is exactly why those rules were written - the defining answer should be "you can if the rules say you can".

toturi

Dec 2 2006, 08:07 AM

Post #217

Canon Companion

Group: Members
Posts: 8,021
Joined: 2-March 03
From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG
Member No.: 4,187

QUOTE (Drtyrm)

I believe that you would get a lot more receptivity mfb, if your examples weren't so corner case. Single shot kill of a City Master driver. Snap shot at 1km in pitch darkness. You are obviously trying to "break" the system, and then complaining when it goes snap. I don't see the point here.

I think the point was that even if you do try to break the system, it stays unbroken.

James McMurray

Dec 2 2006, 08:14 AM

Post #218

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957

QUOTE

i think your logic detector may be on the fritz. if world-class characters can pretty much automatically succeed at feats of world-class difficulty, why doesn't everyone in the Olympics tie for gold? people of world-class ability often fail in the face of world-class challenges.

In SR terms, it's because those are opposed tests, and the GM has opted to require rerolls until there's a clear winner. In other words, the superheroes are being challenged by other superheroes.

Kagetenshi

Dec 2 2006, 03:05 PM

Post #219

Manus Celer Dei

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,008
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802

QUOTE (Drtyrm @ Dec 1 2006, 10:54 PM)

My point was that rules are abstractions, Chandon. Some people are fine with a rulebook that doesn't specifically state, "You cannot shoot through an APC with a handgun." Others need that in there.

That's a horrible, horrible example, unless I'm badly misunderstanding what you mean by "specifically". If the rules allow, via the interactions between firearms, armor, and vehicles (and possibly called shots to bypass armor), a handgun to shoot through an APC, there is no other reasonable conclusion than that you can shoot through an APC with a handgun. Adding a little note that says "by the way, APCs are impervious to handgun fire" makes it worse, because then you've got an exception and when you slap three meters of rolled homogenous steel equivalent on an ordinary car and then someone fires on it with a handgun, the fact that it isn't an APC means that it's perfectly pervious again.

On the other hand, if the interaction between armor, vehicles, and handguns is such that a handgun cannot shoot through an APC, there's obviously no need for a special explicit case.

James: presenting the Olympics as an opposed test is a clear violation of the opposed test's intent—reread page 57, SR4. With, granted, some exceptions, the olympics are mostly not people "in direct conflict with one another". They're each doing a task, an ordinary success test in which they are in conflict with that task, and being judged on how well they complete that task relative to others—hit-counting, roughly. Watch figure skating sometime, and notice that people do still fall down.

~J

Aemon

Dec 2 2006, 04:37 PM

Post #220

Target

Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 17-October 06
Member No.: 9,636

QUOTE (mfb)

QUOTE (Aemon)

And my point is that this encompasses EVERY SINGLE TABLE-TOP RPG KNOWN TO HUMAN KIND.

No game can encompass everything. No game can create rules, systems, content for every aspects. It is the job of the GM/DM/Storyteller to fill those gaps in according to the campaign they are interested in running and that the players are interested in playing.

i have acknowledged this in previous posts. you have not acknowledged that there's a sliding scale between "perfect representation of reality through the rules" and "GM just makes everything up as he goes along". my argument is that SR4 goes way too far towards the latter, and is deliberately designed to be unappealing to players and GMs who prefer something closer to the former.

Alright mfb, I acknowledge that you may feel, subjectively, that SR4 does not contain a tight enough rules system for you to enjoy.

So my question is:

Why in the bloody blue blazes are you on these forums talking about Shadowrun then?

You see, I too have found table-top RPGs that I found unappealing. Mechwarrior RPG for example. None of us got through player-creation without losing a limb. It was the dumbest character creation session I have ever been involved in and to this day, it serves as laugh for my friends and I; like a reminder of what RPGs shouldn't be. I am not, though, on the Mechwarrior RPG boards complaining about a game that I don't play.

Fortune

Dec 2 2006, 04:49 PM

Post #221

Immoral Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486

QUOTE (Aemon @ Dec 3 2006, 03:37 AM)

Why in the bloody blue blazes are you on these forums talking about Shadowrun then?

Because the SR4 rules set is not the sole extent of Shadowrun. As to why he visits the SR4-specific Forum itself, well the Sixth World moves on, and in order to keep current with even the non-rules portions on Dumpshock you need to visit the most-frequented Forum, namely this one.

As an aside, the whole seperate Forums thing is getting pretty lame now. But I've said enough about that in more appropriate areas.

Drtyrm

Dec 2 2006, 05:15 PM

Post #222

Target

Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 27-November 06
Member No.: 10,045

QUOTE

That's a horrible, horrible example, unless I'm badly misunderstanding what you mean by "specifically". If the rules allow, via the interactions between firearms, armor, and vehicles (and possibly called shots to bypass armor), a handgun to shoot through an APC, there is no other reasonable conclusion than that you can shoot through an APC with a handgun.

My point is more that this is all subjective. Some can live with the GM having to make a call. Others cannot. We all pretty much agree you can't find this mythical Perfect Rule System For All People. I guess I should be asking myself why I am continuing to discuss it.

QUOTE

Watch figure skating sometime, and notice that people do still fall down.

A figure skater falls, and yet still scores some points. There's no absolute failure in that sense. The difference in performances would be that some participants commit less mistakes (i.e. generate more successes). Or am I misinterpreting SR4 rules?

Drtyrm

Dec 2 2006, 05:38 PM

Post #223

Target

Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 27-November 06
Member No.: 10,045

Aemon, I think I can answer your question by quoting mfb from this thread:

QUOTE

the most recent thead that delves into discussion about why SR4 ~~blows~~ ~~sucks~~ ~~bites~~ is less than satisfactory to some players

Mfb is being disingenuous (at a minimum), when he says SR4 rules are too loose for him. He hates the rules, and needs to make sure we all agree I guess.

Kagetenshi

Dec 2 2006, 05:45 PM

Post #224

Manus Celer Dei

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,008
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802

QUOTE (Drtyrm @ Dec 2 2006, 12:15 PM)

A figure skater falls, and yet still scores some points. There's no absolute failure in that sense. The difference in performances would be that some participants commit less mistakes (i.e. generate more successes).

I'll try to come up with a better example, because at this point the nastiness becomes how to model a figure-skating routine via one or more tests. It could be a single very difficult test, with failure still potentially being a good score but one that isn't remotely in the running for a medal. It could be a fairly easy test with umpteen successes expected for everyone, and it just being a matter of who gets the umpteenest. Alternately, it could be a series of difficult tests, which most people will fail at least one of, with "least failed tests" being a significant part of the judging.

So yeah, back to the drawing board. For what it's worth, option 1 or 3 are the ones that I would go with, but you've reminded me that 2 is not necessarily unreasonable.

Drtyrm: I know there's a tendency to characterize intense dislike as an irrational emotion, but people can come to that position, and maintain it, through rational thought processes. Besides, it's absurd that you're describing mfb's statements as disingenuous while cherry-picking quotes to present out of context.

~J

Drtyrm View Member Profile	Dec 2 2006, 06:56 PM Post #225
Target Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: 27-November 06 Member No.: 10,045	I definitely see your point Kagetenshi. At high skills, everyone generates successes, so there are no total failures. Olympic weightlifting? At some point you get to a weight that some folks can't lift, and others can't. It would appear SR4 wouldn't model a weightlifting competition all that well. Should we put in some rules to deal with that occurence? OR is that what a GM is for ;-) Mfb said he hates SR4 rules. How is that out of context?

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »