Reasonable Dice Pools Options

[sunnyside]

It's straying a bit but in the "alternate rules" section it has using thresholds for combat instead of pool modifiers. How do you mean "wonkey". If aiming lowers the threshold you don't get the "can't hit anything" wonkyness, and hopefully just get people actually having to aim when making hard shots, instead of popping one off every 1.5 seconds, while walking and dodging a little(not the full defense version just the reaction version).

[Cain]

What I mean by wonky is that you end up with a lot more "tie" results, where one succeeds beyond the other, but not by the Threshold. Or worse, when one person critically botches, but the shooter doesn't meet threshold, so he fails as well. I'll let the mathemagicians of Dumpshock explain it, they can describe the odds much better than I can.

[sunnyside]

First off, while off topic, I'm interested in this because I'm strongly considering doing it.

I don't think I follow you. In combat you roll for the attacker and then, if they hit, you roll for the defender.

Even if you applied thresholds to all sorts of other stuff the SR4 threshold mechanic is really just a hit subtraction scheme. If you get four hits and have a threshold of three you just go one hit.

Can someone give a wonky example?

[odinson]

[Tarantula]

So, assuming no other modifiers, would aiming reduce the threshold to 0 from 1 resulting in automatic success? (At say, a shooting range, target is not moving, well lit, in short distance)

[Ravor]

Well personally I'd rule that you couldn't reduce a threshold lower then 1.

[Tarantula]

By reading the alternate rules part... it says change combat to a success test with thresholds of 1 short range, 2 medium, 3 long, 4 extreme, and then have the DP modifiers modify the threshold instead.

Though, reading over the descriptions of thresholds in the success test section, I don't see anywhere where it says you can't reduce the threshold below one. Especially if you're changing DP modifiers to threshold modifiers. In which case SL + 1 Aim means you can insta-hit at long range ignoring anything else.... Even worse, throw in vision magnification 3, reducing extreme to short... which you have to aim to use anyway... so you get base 1, -1 for aiming, -2 for SL.... for a modified threshold of -3. So, baddy better hope he has some good modifiers on his side.

[Ravor]

Yeah, which is why I'd rule as a base assumption that you couldn't reduce a Threshold below 1, just like I wouldn't allow someone with a Photographic Memory to reduce a Memory Test to Threshold 0 either.

*Edit*

Because I think that doing otherwise is just broken.

[Tarantula]

I disagree... slightly. How about stating it that someone can't reduce a threshold below 1 after modifiers.

This way, when, mr. -3 is shooting at someone partially covered, hes at +4 and back to 1. Which I can accept that someone aiming, with vision magnification, and a smartlink, can shoot someone peeking around a corner fairly well. Throw in some darkness, and assuming he has thermo, hes now at +3 more, so you're looking at a 4 to hit someone poking around a corner, in darkness, while aiming, using thermo sights, and a smartlink. Already thats at the extreme difficulty level. Smoke, or anything else (shooter walking/running) basically screws the shot except on some lucky rolls.

Also, this pretty much kills Mr. Lucky's chances. 4 successes on 8 dice isn't a good prospect. Even with exploding 6's

[Garrowolf]

Yes, negative thresholds don't make sense. I think that it even says in there that a threshold of 1 is the lowest.

For one I don't allow luck only actions. My rule is that you can only add edge to an existing dice pool. If you have no dice pool then you can't roll.

I also don't allow you to make a shot that you can't see in the first place. If you have enough visibility penalties then you simply have no target. The flip side of this is that I tend to take the worse of the various penalties or just set the threshold to 4 if they could still see it but it is hard to target. It's not a math test.

I've gone a step farther with edge and limited it based on my campaign power level. All characters get it at 3 to start on most games. I tell them when it goes up. They don't have to pay for it. They can't increase it by themselves. Picking human gives you 10 points.

[sunnyside]

10 edge?!? Well OK....

Actually I was thinking of having threshold modifying things switch to dicepool modifying things if the threshold goes below zero. I also don't like having everything modify threshold, I kind of like the new, not absolutly neccesary, smartlink. Though obviously going all pool or all threshold is easier on the players, so maybe I should do that. I suppose autosuccesses aren't so out there. Presumably a glitch would negate them, and, seriously, how hard is it to hit a man sized paper target at 10 meters with a lasersight anyway? And that would have the old edition feel where you'd be rolling a dice pool of D6's against a target number of 2.

[Garrowolf]

10 build points not 10 edge!

Well I have the environmental difficulties that would apply to everyone be threshold and the things that hinder the character modify the dice pool.

[sunnyside]

I can see that. Have things on their character sheet affect dice pool. Have most of the rest affect threshold. It means that in combat they could roll while describing their action without having to make sure exactly what the details are of the shot. Though I suppose they might want to know anyway since it can greatly affect how likely they are to connect.

[knasser]

Edge is not buyable in my game. It works as the old instant karma rules did. Humans start with 2 points of edge. Metahumans with 1. They both get an extra point of edge after earning 10 karma points. Then another after 20 karma points. And another after 40 karma points, etc. Caps remain the same, though no-one has reached them.

The result is that everyone "grows up" learning to be sensible and rely on their skills. It makes the game a little more realistic which is a plus for my tastes. And it provides a steady improvement grade.

[mfb]

negative thresholds--ie, automatic successes--would actually be a good addition to the core mechanic. a threshold, after all, is just an automatic unsuccess.

[Kerris]

[Garrowolf]

For the most part yes. what is does is tell the player that the action is inherently hard instead of saying that he is having a hard time with it. It makes the action more neutral to the character. Just keep the character specific penalties separate as dice pool mods.

Then turn around some of the equipment bonuses and make them cancel out certain threshold mods. A scope would negate range thresholds. Vision enhancement would negate visibility thresholds and so on.

Personally I think that any combat situation with people running around should have a minimum threshold of 2. This covers the chaos of the action. If you want your game more cinematic then make it a 1.

Automatic thresholds could work under 2 cases. One the action is done in a calm circumstance. Two it is an incidental action that is not the focus of the action such as an athletics roll to jump during a running gunfight or one of the rolls during a hack. I wouldn't allow it for shooting someone or the actual data search. The die roll is too important.

Actually this would be the same cases that I allow buying successes in the first place. I don't allow the 4-1 rule to be used under stress.

If you allow negative thresholds what I would suggest is make them roll as normal but if they get any successes (ie not a critical glitch) then add the negative successes as additional successes. So if you have -3 threshold and roll 2 successes then you would have 5.

[pbangarth]

Not to make any point, I just want to share a quote I ran across. It's from Evelyn Waugh, the British author of the middle 20th century. (Brideshead Revisited, The Loved One, etc.) (See Wikipedia for a more complete list)

"Manners are especially the need of the plain. The pretty can get away with anything."