 SR4 Matrix Dicepool Rules ReWrite, How can one get this done? |
  |
 Dec 11 2006, 12:40 AM
Post
#51
|
|||||
|
Running Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,011 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Montréal, QC, Canada Member No.: 7,087  |
Yep. That's what it means. And that's what most of the player will do, for the most part. Like you don't see many starting mage with less than 5 magic. Or many Technomancer with less than resonance 5. Which of course means that these hackers in such a setting will tend to be geekier and less apt to do anything else but hack very well. And the TM already tend toward the geeky side enough as it is. I started writing something about this in the post you quoted but opted to edit out in order to be more concise. --- So to recapitulate, this house rule... ...will drain more BP at chargen since the player will now boost their INT, cerebral booster and still have to buy high program. ...will result in hacker with higher dice pool right from the start (most will start with at least intelligence 7 which is better than program 6 and then they'll get themselve up to 9 faster than a mage can initiate and raise his magic once). ...which means will need to tweak up the security's dice pool to maintain balance. There's just not that much good that comes off this houserule, IMO. I don't see how anything's gained. |
||||
 |
 
|
||||
|
Dec 11 2006, 12:43 AM
Post
#52
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Cant find it at the moment. But its just simple binomial stuff that every excel sheet can do . . . The main point is, that you can easily adjust node security to compensate if you want to. Im trying to provide a good baseline in my SGM 1.0. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 11 2006, 12:48 AM
Post
#53
|
|||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
No. Now it is a choice. Previously it was just a case of slap down a small amount of BP for nuyen and be the best. If a player wants that now, it's a sacrifice, just the same as it's a sacrifice if the samurai wants 6 agility or the mage wants 6 willpower. And that is good. Taking this with the four remaining points in my last post that you didn't address, I'm now in the mind to adopt Konsaki's system. I think it adds significantly to hacking. EDIT: I think you added to your post while I was writing. This wont "drain more BP at chargen". It gives the player the chance to spend their BP in that fashion if they choose. Nor will not doing so leave them weaker. Instead, it gives the GM the chance to introduce a more realistic range of opposition. It's no fun to have all hackers start off with maximum "attributes" which is what very cheap Program 6 means. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 11 2006, 12:54 AM
Post
#54
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 79 Joined: 18-September 05 Member No.: 7,758 |
likewise you don't want a system that cannot support them. As 'non-standard' as Edge is, don't you think it will occasionally be used? Then there is the experienced, dedicated Hacker, who after several months of gameplay finds himself at 21 dice for some Hacking tests. He's going to average 7 Hits, and occassional roll better than average. Your house-rule should probably support him too. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 11 2006, 12:58 AM
Post
#55
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,011 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Montréal, QC, Canada Member No.: 7,087 |
Well sure, it's your choice. But don't pad up your case with so-called points I didn't answer. All I see is a comment about allowing hackers to be better than agent and various opinions about the need for heroics and how you believe hacking is portrayed. Valid opinions but nothing for me to answer. I don't agree but I might as well discuss whether D&D or Amber is more fun. Pointless. Beside, I only have one Hacker in my campaign and he didn't start with every program maxed so I doN't quite see your point. And if I were worried about a trend in PC who always max all their program right off chargen I'd just cap the rating by asking that only one program start at 6, 2 at 5 and the rest at 4. It's less trouble than instituting change that will result swiftly enough in +3 dice to all matrix skill check and then rebalancing the opposition. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 11 2006, 01:07 AM
Post
#56
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,011 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Montréal, QC, Canada Member No.: 7,087 |
Since the opposition can also counter with its own edge, Serbitar's assumptions are reasonable. As an aside, how does a hakcker reach 21 dice? I can easily see Program 6 + Skill 6 + specialisation + codeslinger = 14 Where do the 7 additional dice come from? Edit : Wait, aptitude to boost your skill to 7. I can see how you reach 15 now. Only 6 dice short now. Edit : forgot hot VR! Up to 16. Getting there... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 11 2006, 01:08 AM
Post
#57
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Ill give you another example in the current system: The most dice any node or IC will ever come up with are 12. The most dice a hacker can get are 7(skill)+2(spec)+2(VR)+6(program)+3(improved skill) +2 (codeslinger) thats 22 dice. The odds of 22 dice vs 12 dice winning are 92.0 %. Give him an edge of 4 and he is unstoppable using the current system, even with the best there is. Seems like the RAW do more than "support" the experienced hacker. @charon: its actually: logic 10 + skill 7 + specialisation 2 + VR 2 + codeslinger 2 + improved skill 3 = 26 dice |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 11 2006, 01:12 AM
Post
#58
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 79 Joined: 18-September 05 Member No.: 7,758 |
@Charon
whoa, last time I checked Nodes do not get edge. Likewise you cannot call it even at 7 Hits, just because *both* opposing parties are able to get 7+ Hits. your Logic + Skill, limit Prog you can get: Log 9 + Skill 6 + CS 2 + SP 2 + VR 2 = 21 |
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2006, 01:15 AM
Post
#59
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,011 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Montréal, QC, Canada Member No.: 7,087 |
Opposition in my mind included security hacker. But you're right. Also, it's not logic + skill, it's Program + skill. Logic + Skill is the proposed houserule, not the official one. Serbitar : Improved skill? I didn't think of the physical adept hacker... Wonder if it's legal ; there's nothing physical about it. Even social skill have at elast body language to justify it. But not the place to debate it. Why do you also use attribute? That'd be the maximum under the proposed houserule. And yes, it's +2 not +1 in hot VR as I wrote. Brain fart. So the legal maximum would be 19 |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 11 2006, 01:17 AM
Post
#60
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 79 Joined: 18-September 05 Member No.: 7,758 |
The fact that the RAW has problems, is in no way related to the problems I'm bringing to your attention with your system. & @ Charon, no I'm not talking about RAW now, just Serbitar's stuff. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 11 2006, 01:22 AM
Post
#61
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
This is very related as we are comparing 2 systems to find which is better.
Stressing only the problems of one and not mentioning the problems of the other accomplishes nothing. Of course it is neccessary to know what a system does under the most extreme circumstances. But as I said I did the math and know it. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2006, 01:28 AM
Post
#62
|
|||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
But I have and if you wish to argue that these house rules are bad then you should address all of my points. I've no wish to repeat myself in full. As you say you couldn't see any other points, I'll highlight them for you. But please re-read the original posts as these are a summary: 1. Buying all programs at rating 6 is very cheap and leads to all hackers starting at close to maximum ability. Introducing logic makes this only possible with a significant amount of sacrifice. This introduces more variety in character creation. 2. As it currently stands, there is no real difference between the hacking skills of an idiot with Logic 1 and a genius with Logic 6. This is counter-intuitive and basing hacking on logic negates this. You are happy with likening using hacking programs to "Unreal Tournament" (your words), I am not. It doesn't suit the flavour. 3. It makes becoming the best hacker comparable to being the best samurai or best face or whatever. It doesn't seem right that the other archetypes must make big sacrifices to get their high stats when the hacker buys all the ones he cares about at maximum for a paltry 90,000 :nuyen: 4. It gives the player scope to be better than agents. This prevents the player being overshadowed by puchased software. You dismiss it as opinion, but equally it's your opinion that this is unimportant. To me it is not and I choose to list it. 5. The new system fits the flavour better. I'm not going to mutilate my point by surmarising. My reasons why it fits the flavour better were given earlier. Please re-read them. 6. It creates a greater range of ability in the opposition. There is no reason why all enemy hackers (and NPCs) wouldn't all have rating 6 programs. Adding Logic adds variety to a GM's portfolio. I'd also like to add a 7th point, while I'm typing. That is that this helps delineate the hacker from pseudo-hackers. By making an additional attribute important for hacking, then it makes it harder to become a great hacker. This is good because otherwise the samurai, rigger or face with a data jack can lay down the paltry sum of money for rating 6 programs and be nearly as good as the poor hacker character. A GM can easily adjust the power of the opposition to challenge different levels of hacker ability (so it becoming harder to achieve power is not a problem), but he will find it much more difficult to keep things fun when the samurai or whoever decides to beat the hacker at doing his thing. @yesman: How did you get 21 dice? I can't work that out! |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 11 2006, 01:34 AM
Post
#63
|
|
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
Just to weigh in on the other side of the argument, I think the limiting of hits by program is the biggest weakness. Perhaps if we used Program x 2 as the CAP then it would be fine, but this seems a bit high at the low end. Maybe some higher rating programs can be available. It would be a nice incentive for hacker players to aim for. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2006, 01:37 AM
Post
#64
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 79 Joined: 18-September 05 Member No.: 7,758 |
@ knasser
i don't think you can get quite that high with RAW. With Serbitar's system you get there by: Log 9 + Skill 6 + CS 2 + SP 2 + VR 2 = 21 He's shown in another post that you can get a bit higher than that. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2006, 01:42 AM
Post
#65
|
|
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
Yeah - I've seen his stat building since I wrote that. *shudder* How much does he want not to talk to my players? Does he take cash? :( |
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2006, 01:54 AM
Post
#66
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Yes
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2006, 02:25 AM
Post
#67
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,011 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Montréal, QC, Canada Member No.: 7,087 |
And there goes a lot of opinion. I answered what were arguments relevant to the mechanics. The rest is flavor and I'm not gonna respond, for example, with a long post explaining why I consider that the fact that cybercombat has nothing to do with logic to be in keeping with the flavor of the setting because it's not the topic. The topicis the Matrix Dice pool rewrite and I've stated my argument against ; Primarily a concern for the fact that Hacker's dice pool will augment and now you need to balance the counter-measures (which you never adressed). Plus a lesser concern that this will mostly result in Hacker that have even less BP to assign to non-hacking functions though whether it's good or not slips into matter of preference so let's just say that it's my informed opinion that such a rule will yield a lot more specialised hacker with fewer secondary talent. Take that as you will. I could add that this would probably create even more uniformity in hacker than currently exists. The rest of your point is basically saying that you like the effect this houserule would have on the hackers in a campaign. Well good, now I know your taste and they are valid but I have no intention of answering to statements like : "The system fits the flavour better". This can only lead to a serie of elaborate "Says you!" "Nah ah! I'm right!". |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 11 2006, 04:22 AM
Post
#68
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 79 Joined: 18-September 05 Member No.: 7,758 |
We're doing what now? When did that start? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 11 2006, 04:43 AM
Post
#69
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
well, it started right at the beginning, ultimately.
the first post might have been restated: i'm looking for a new system that works like <insert description> instead of how the official rules say. so, essentially, in order to build the requested new system the way that was asked, you are basically building a system that can be compared to the original system such that it works more like how the OP requested. thus, it becomes important that we compare the two systems, so that we can see precisely how the new system works relative to the old. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2006, 05:16 AM
Post
#70
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 870 Joined: 2-October 06 From: Athens Ga Member No.: 9,517 |
What I did was to take the attribute + Skill + Program route but it didn't end up with too many dice because of some other changes I made. For one get rid of the thresholds on hacking rolls being for extended tests. They should be set as thresolds on all rolls that you can use certain programs to lower that threshold.
One of the thresholds I added was a security trait based on the user level. Security People maintain varying levels of security on their computer. Most people would like to have as much security as possible but maintaining high security can slow down most users. Characters can keep a security level equal to their computer skill –2 or their system rating, which ever is lower without suffering the difference in penalties to all computer use. Many people have little security and just trust their Firewalls. They don’t bother with clearing their caches, adding separate admin levels, restricting access, etc. No security means that once you are past the firewall you have admin access. Usually only systems with a dedicated security sysadmin will keep their security above a 2. If someone hacks your system they have the security level as a threshold for all tests unless they slow hack and make themselves a normal user. The computer doesn’t actually look for intruders in the sense of making perception tests. They get successes on a perception test in effect based on the hacker failing to make the threshold. Each point below increases an alarm level. The user can set the effects of this. The normal response is to increase the firewall by the alarm level up to double the firewall. After that it just disconnects the commlink. On larger systems IC can launch with a bonus equal to the alarm level up to it’s rating. Once the alarms start to go off THEN you would have someone actually looking and making matrix perception tests and such. So what you have is two thresholds that stack to start with. One is the firewall, the other the security level. Your exploit lowers the firewall by it's rating. Extra dice past that go to helping your rolls. Exploit will not lower the security rating. But you have stealth which will negate it's rating in alarm levels as well as use it's rating as a threshold for the admin to find you. So the hacker could make several rolls with their higher dice pools against possibly very high thresholds that they have lowered. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2006, 09:46 AM
Post
#71
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Some idea:
One could introduce a mechanic to all defaulted tests: They are not limited to 1 hits, but instead the number of hits are halved. Is not that elegant but helps to fix high level things. Examples: OLD House rule Software tests are skill critical. Without a software skill you can only have 1 hit per roll. With it, you can have skill+1 hits NEW Software tests are skill critical. Without a software skill, all the hits are halved. With it, only the hits higher than the skill are halved. Brian Brain rolls 11 dice in his software programming test. He has only a skill of 1, but scores 5 hits. This gives him 1 hit for his skill of 1 plus 4/2 + 2 hits for his evil brain power resulting in 3 hits. --- OLD House rule The number of hits in hacking is limited to program +1 NEW All the hits above program rating are halved. Sam Superhacker rolls 26 in some test. He has a program rating of 6 and scores 11 hits. He gets 6 hits for his rating 6 programe and the other 5 hits are divided by 2 = 3 to a total of 9 hits. (There is no need for program+1 any more, as you can get hits even by defaulting) Might be a little too complicated . . . |
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2006, 03:06 PM
Post
#72
|
|
|
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 |
I´d resolve the "edge issue" of the logic+skill houserule by completely removing the cap on successes if edge is used.
Concerning the super-hackers: They should only come into play when standard program ratings are surpassed anyway. So no problem. The chance to reliably hit the cap of six successes is good enough on its own. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2006, 06:07 PM
Post
#73
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 79 Joined: 18-September 05 Member No.: 7,758 |
@Ryu:
If you intend to allow Edge to remove Hit Caps system wide, you are going to have real problems with Magic, at the least. On your second point: That's a play style issue, not a system one. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2006, 06:08 PM
Post
#74
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 79 Joined: 18-September 05 Member No.: 7,758 |
double
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2006, 07:26 PM
Post
#75
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
What? I thought Edge did remove hit caps already, specifically with magic. Have I been doing things wrong? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 31st August 2025 - 04:21 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.