 Time, Pool, and the Flow of Combat, the SR3R way |
  |
 Mar 31 2007, 09:50 PM
Post
#51
|
|||
|
Free Spirit  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,944 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Bloomington, IN UCAS Member No.: 1,920  |
If the character is rolling 5D6 for initiative and manages all 6's, that 51 accounts for Reaction of 21. I can not recall ever having a normal character rolling in the 50's or above. (I have had some poweful free spirits with sky high initiative, but I pretty much just say they go first, or waiting until commanded.) |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Mar 31 2007, 09:58 PM
Post
#52
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
A sufficiently optimized Night One can get 50s. Not easily, per se, but it can be done. Drugs and possible better 'ware choice can expand that further. There's also always the possibility of a character with Adrenaline Surge rolling well, as that makes maximum initiative approach infinity.
Anyway, my thinking is (and again, I'm not saying I necessarily support that interleaved model—I'm still undecided) that if a proposed set of rules handles the most common cases (Init < 41; I'd say < 30, but stuff can fall pretty often) better than the status quo and all other cases no worse than status quo, that's a step in the right direction. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 2 2007, 09:19 PM
Post
#53
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 16-August 03 From: Northampton Member No.: 5,499 |
Thats because In SLA you generally don't get more then five (it is possible however) I also tend to avoid high powered games where an iniative roll of 51+ is likely. I can expend it though if you want? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 2 2007, 10:02 PM
Post
#54
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
No need—I think at that point the best option is to just tack additional passes on at the front of the initiative order. That arguably starts breaking at about initiative 71, but I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 2 2007, 11:41 PM
Post
#55
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
I still think we should be working on removing tables from SR3, rather than adding them. It may not seem like a big deal right now, but in a live game I suspect the graphic, like most other tables that are constantly referred to in SR3 games, will have to be constantly available, especially for those without a certain amount of inherent mathematical and spacial reasoning skills and memory. I had no idea that people considered SR3 too simple.
There's also the issues that complicated my proposal above (which was the same basic idea, only in numeric progression rather than graphic form): how do you deal with initiative loss and gain? Say a guy with five init passes gets shot in pass 4, dropping his init to 39. Which pass doe he lose? He can't follow the graphic, because according to the graphic the pass he loses was one he already took (the third). Which, then, does he lose? How about the guy with one pass who astrally projects in pass 3? |
|
|
|
|
Apr 2 2007, 11:53 PM
Post
#56
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
By canon the guy who astrally projects keeps his meatspace init for the rest of the turn. Cases like jacking into a vehicle (with a VCR) or the Matrix (with a good deck, or whatever we replace Response Increase with) are totally unhandled, so we should figure out what happens there.
You haven't been paying much attention, have you? ;) Seriously, though, I do believe that SR3 is too simple in more places than it is too complex—it's just that it's contradictory, poorly-described, or poorly-organized in more places than either. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 6 2007, 02:18 AM
Post
#57
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
So, are we going with Shockwave_IIc's table then, or are other proposals still being considered? I mean, I still like my idea better, being conceited and all, but I won't stand against the majority for such a trifle.
How about the other debates going on here: 1) Wired Reflexes and other init boosters don't make you move faster, but initiative boosts give you extra actions. How do we resolve this? 1a) Get rid of extra passes entirely? 1b) Fix the definition of certain actions to allow, for instance, firing more than one bullet from an SA handgun during a single pass? (If this choice is decided on, the discussion would move over to different threads as appropriate.) 1c) (Sort of a side note): What is the exact fluff text that should define how Wired Reflexes work? The higher-rated Datajack (discussed in the Decking thread)? Reaction Boosters? Boosted Reflexes? Synaptic Accelorators? 2) Mental and Physical initiatives. 2a) Should we include this terminology when discussing initiative? Would it help make things more understandable, or just confuse the explaination? 2b) Should 'ware, spells, and other init boosters be divided up along these lines? Should the Rating 2 datajack, for instance, only provide Mental Initiative, while Wired Reflexes only provides Physical Initiative? Should some 'ware/spells/etc boost both? 2c) What happens when your Mental Initiative is greater than your normal Initiative? Specifically, what happens when you get an extra pass with Mental Intiative boosters? Should the action granted be a purely mental action, or can some physical actions qualify? 2d) Same question for Physical Initiative. 2e) Should we include something like the rules on M&M pg. 45 for people with greater Physical Initiative than their natural initiative? 2f) How about people with greater Mental Initiative than their natural initiative? 3) Dice Pools 3a) Dice Pools out of combat: bug or feature? (Most seem to say feature, but the issue still isn't totally decided.) 3b) Expansion of pools/defining new pools for actions not currently covered by pools (lockicking, social skills, etc)? |
|
|
|
|
Apr 6 2007, 02:19 AM
Post
#58
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Oh, and not to forget:
4) Init boosts/penalties in the middle of combat/an initiative pass: how do they work? |
|
|
|
|
Apr 6 2007, 02:32 AM
Post
#59
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Well, I'm kinda waiting on more comments on it (including my codeveloper's, but he got socked in with work). Also, break starting tomorrow should give me more time.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 6 2007, 01:30 PM
Post
#60
|
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
I'm not huge on the new table.
1) Wired reflexes... - I think this suggestion is bad. Wired reflexes SHOULD boost your initiative like it stands. No reason to go with this whole 'extra actions but same initiative' thing. I'm also pretty sure Kage shot this idea down, so WR is more or less staying like it is. 2) Mental and Physical initiatives. - I like this idea, although I'm not sure if it'll make things more or less complex. I could really go either way. If we go with it though, we should use that terminology and it should apply to everything. 2c) Mental initiative is higher than physical - Mental only actions! 2d) Physical initiative is higher than mental - Spaz out! No seriously, I think physical initiative is linked to the lower brain, so you still get to do cool action stuff. I guess you just can't do 'mental-only' actions like deck, observe in detail, etc. Your smartlink still works though, you can still put a dozen holes in the target. 2e) Should we include something like the rules on M&M pg. 45 for people with greater Physical Initiative than their natural initiative? - (The rule says that, in stressful situations with lots of random movement, the character makes a perception test with a +1 modifier per +1d6 initiative bonus. If he fails, he flips out.) I think this rule is cool. It's rarely used, but it's good flavor. That said, I would modify it by saying every +1d6 physical initiative above the character's mental initiative. If the brain can keep up, it's not an issue. 2f) How about people with greater Mental Initiative than their natural initiative? - Not an issue 3) Dice Pools 3a) Dice Pools out of combat: bug or feature? - Feature 3b) Expansion of pools/defining new pools for actions not currently covered by pools (lockicking, social skills, etc)? - No, only add pools for them if they're skills likely to be used in combat 4) Init boosts/penalties in the middle of combat/an initiative pass: how do they work? - As the book states, penalties take effect immediately, boosts wait until the next time you roll initiative. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 6 2007, 01:48 PM
Post
#61
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,066 Joined: 5-February 03 Member No.: 4,017 |
1b) One time I proposed an option to split any action much like how multi-casting is handled. For a firearm, you could pump out up to as many bullets in a simple action as you have dice in the skill, but in that extreme, each bullet has only one die behind it (or two with combat pool). Recoil would build, but it could lead to almost as many rolls as SR1 full auto.
2) Partially opposed. I just can't see it working out well, but if you can come up with a model that covers all the initiave boosts well and still retains some reason for each one to exist it may work. 3a) I think I already said feature, but can't remember. 3b) a pool just for lockkicking? Cool, I want it. Seriously though, a social pool would either make social adepts slightly less obscene or significantly more obscene, I'm not sure which. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 6 2007, 02:07 PM
Post
#62
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Social adepts are currently excised (SotA:64 is one of the liber non grata for SR3R). While we may investigate returning them to the game at some point (if someone presents a really good argument), they aren't something that needs fixing right now.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 7 2007, 02:06 AM
Post
#63
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Agreed. I don't like the idea much myself. I DO like making the description of WR more, well, "gritty". As it is there's little difference between the different types of initiatives. I like the idea of WR as an expert computer system grafted onto the spinal column that enhances the range of responses available as a reflex action, literally wired reflexes. So "take out gun and start shooting" would be a valid "reflex action" instead of just jumping up. Or is that how it is already?
Exactly. Unified and consistent terminology is the key here; if we wanted things to be "simple" we'd be using SR4, wouldn't we? :)
Absolutely. This is where I really like the idea of defining Physical Initiative and Mental Initiative, and making them separate from normal initiative, which can be either Physical or Mental. In particular this is great for a decker because he can get his Mental Initiative bonus in combat: though he can't use it for physical tasks, there's certainly something he'd be able to use it for. On the flip side, we can have the mage's Increase Reflexes spell only provide either Mental or Physical Initiative boosts, and specify that spellcasting is never a Mental-only or Physical-only task. That'll help balance its craziness a little, I'm thinking.
Exactly. Another place where Mental/Physical Initiative can make things more sensible without sacrificing clarity or consistency.
Oh why not? I like the idea of a guy with high Mental Initiative being "on the edge", just in a different way from guys with wired reflexes. For instance, maybe if the mental guy fails a check then the harmony in his wired brain slips, fragmenting his thoughts. So he ends up having an argument with his own brain for a few moments. :)
Don't those kind of contradict each other? Why should combat skills used out of combat effectively get attribute dice added to the check, while noncombat skills used out of combat don't?
Yes, but what happens when you lose a pass? The current rules are pretty clear on that, but any new setup will have to take that into account. It is IMO the Achilles' Heel of the chart proposal outlined above, along with just about all the others. |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Apr 7 2007, 02:15 AM
Post
#64
|
|||||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
If I somehow lost my mind and decided that simplicity was the path forward, I'd probably base SR3R on Savage Worlds or BESM in preference to SR4. For me at least, it falls in a vast, barren gulf between "simple" and "good" (and the fact that I put "good" as the opposite pole from "simple" should tell you something about my opinions on design :) ).
The book isn't actually clear at all. When you project you keep your meatspace initiative, but nothing similar, unless I've missed something and you can correct this with a page reference, applies to jacking into the Matrix or a vehicle when you have a VCR. ~J |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 7 2007, 11:17 AM
Post
#65
|
|||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
I do think if we split initiative into mental and physical, we may want to rethink the initiative chart. It makes sense to me that if your lower brain is reacting faster than a normal human is capable of that the initiative order should be a little front heavy (more like SR2 than SR3). Once you've started firing it would seem comparatively trivial to continue.
They're apples and auto parts. Combat skills don't apply to negotiation tests, for instance, and the TNs reflect that. If pistols and negotiations were regularly compared in opposed tests, my opinion would change. I'm not aware of any test where a pooled and non-pooled skill directly interact. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 8 2007, 03:44 PM
Post
#66
|
|||||
|
Free Spirit Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,944 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Bloomington, IN UCAS Member No.: 1,920 |
Since I gave the astral example, I'll actually clear up my mistake by saying I was referring to starting in the astral and going physical, but I just looked it up and the character loses 2 initiative passes. As far as rigging or decking, this is how I have always played. The character rolls initiative and may jack in thereby altering his Reaction and dice used for Initiative, but the character is still under the initiative they rolled until intiative is re-rolled. Is there a rule similar to Astral plane to Pyhsical plane for jacking out after starting jacked in? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 15 2007, 09:56 AM
Post
#67
|
|||||||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
In this case I fully believe that gameplay and plausibility both have to work hand in hand. Plausibility dictates that the high-init guys all go out in front, but game play insists that the mages and the deckers and all the other un-enhanced guys get their chance sometime. Thus the interleaved systems everyone has been proposing lately.
Pooled and non-pooled skills would interact if any non-pooled skills were used in combat. When that happens, you immediately notice a change in the performance in pooled skills, exemplified by how characters using pooled skills have to split their attribute die among several skills, while the non-pooled skills use the same number of dice, in combat or out, every time. So, are there any non-pooled skills that someone might have to use more than once a Combat Turn? I don't know myself; anyone else know? (reposted from the Ranged Combat thread, because the idea of Surprise Tests belongs here. Should winning Surprise entitle you to an actual boost to initiative score? It it does, it'll go a long way toward making competition shooting from RL work in SR, as illustrated below:)
Hmm, rules for engaging an enemy where you have plenty of time to prepare, the enemy can't capably strike back, and you have a clear sight picture on your targets... Hey, sounds like an ambush to me! Whatever we decide on here in terms of initiative boosting and timing considerations, maybe we can adapt that to improved rules on Surprise and Ambushing. That way a 12-second competition shooting match would effectively be 4 full Combat Turns where the competitor freely gets the Ambushing benefits vs. the targets. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Apr 15 2007, 11:52 AM
Post
#68
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 519 Joined: 27-August 02 From: Queensland Member No.: 3,180 |
I don't think there's a rule outside of astral initiative. The 2 passes lost when re-incorporating (?) equate to the +20 astral projection bonus. As decking has varying levels of response increase the equivalent would be subtracting all matrix initiative bonuses if jacking out. Surprise giving an inititiative bonus is a good idea, the current surprise rules are a bit of a handful. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 15 2007, 08:33 PM
Post
#69
|
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
Be wary with surprise, it can be very, very deadly, and at least as current rules stand, shadowrunners are surprised far too often (since even if you're the one setting the ambush, you need to roll a reaction test. Also, here are no benefits for being 'prepared and aware' (as opposed to 'actively setting an ambush') - if sleepy guards round the corner, running into a group of active runners, they all roll against the same TN.)
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 16 2007, 10:15 PM
Post
#70
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 16-August 03 From: Northampton Member No.: 5,499 |
While true in the RAW form. Something that i did was use the "distracted" penalty from the perception table. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 17 2007, 03:44 AM
Post
#71
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Yeah, the rules do mention that GMs should add in other modifiers for "terrain, camouflage, and other extenuating circumstances", which would presumably include a +1 or +2 modifier for not being alert and aware.
What I'm suggesting is that people who are prepared for an ambush (the same guys who get their -2TNs to the Reaction test) also get a +5 bonus to initiative, assuming they roll any successes on their Surprise Test at all. Further specify that someone can get this initiative bonus for more than one combat turn, if the target does not do anything to disrupt the ambusher (this allows all those silly competition shooting events and other areas where people can act quickly without having to take a changing battlefield into consideration). I'd also suggest that, instead of this rather silly rule that you can't act against someone with more successes than you, maybe just a flat +2TN when acting against someone who beat you in the Reaction test? |
|
|
|
|
Apr 17 2007, 03:02 PM
Post
#72
|
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
I feel like a surprise test should give extra actions. I agree the 'not acting against someone who beat you' rule is kinda messed up, and easily abused. For instance, while you can't act directly against him, you can still fireball the area or drop flash bangs.
Related, perhaps adding "distracted' or just 'not in combat mindset' as a modifier would be a good idea. There's a big difference between a man who knows his life is on the line, the adrenaline pumping in his veins, and the guard half asleep at his desk, but the rules don't reflect that. Both react just as quickly, notice things just as easily. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 18 2007, 02:28 AM
Post
#73
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Well, +5 to initiative *will* give you extra actions; it's halfway to an additional initiative pass. Good point on the indirect attacks thing; I hadn't even thought of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 29th November 2024 - 11:13 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.