Game level - Dumpshock Forums

Game level, Why must it be street?

Stahlseele View Member Profile	Jan 18 2008, 07:36 PM Post #351
The ShadowComedian Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,538 Joined: 3-October 07 From: Hamburg, AGS Member No.: 13,525	i hope Redbeard will answer that

Kyoto Kid

Jan 18 2008, 07:40 PM

Post #352

Bushido Cowgirl

Group: Members
Posts: 5,782
Joined: 8-July 05
From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats
Member No.: 7,490

QUOTE (Stahlseele)

while we are at it . . what does an SR4 Char get out of an Cortex-Bomb?
one point of lost edge?

...dead? :grinbig:

Synner

Jan 18 2008, 07:47 PM

Post #353

Runner

Group: Members
Posts: 3,314
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado
Member No.: 185

QUOTE (Cain @ Jan 18 2008, 06:17 PM)

QUOTE

Cain included a rule that doesn't exist in his argument to counter one of my points. I am pointing out he is wrong regarding whether or not NPCs can use Edge in that manner under a strict reading of RAW.

I may have been wrong about the "Escape Certain Death" clause, but it renders "Hand of God" obsolete, which clearly wasn't the intent.

Only if you ignore what I've just told you. The intent was for HOD to work exactly like a limited form of ECD - with the limitation that it burns all the Prime Runner/NPC's Edge.

QUOTE

However, NPCs burning Edge is also one of the cheesier tactics a GM can pull, especially with one-shot NPCs. One shot characters are mostly unaffected by loss of Edge.

Whether you think its cheesy or not is irrelevant.

The opposition using Edge is an integral part of the equation. One you are chosing to ignore in your examples (ironic since they both revolve around using Edge in the first place). Your analysis is flawed if you don't factor it in.

You mentioned a few posts back that Combat tests don't have Thresholds. Good call. Combat tests are opposed tests and as such Edge can and does factor in - on both sides. If the player tries something that the gamemaster thinks is neigh impossible in the context of the game the group is playing, then he should make it neigh impossible - there is no reason he should stop at piling on negative modifiers.

I've said above that I'm willing to set aside burning Edge (to invoke HOG or otherwise). Let's do that.

QUOTE

Prime Runners are, via Hand Of God, since that burns *all* their Edge. But if they can choose to use both, then we get into an issue: they can ECD until they run out of Edge, then HoG all they like (since it only requires they burn their remaining edge, which is zero.

I think you need to reread what I posted. What I said was that Prime Runners were intended to use HOG rather than the basic rule (forcing them to burn all their Edge as opposed to 1 Edge). What I meant by my aside is that there is at least one other reason for Prime Runners to burn Edge (for instance getting a critical success) and this work just the same as for PCs.

Regardless, in the interest of continuing this discussion, I reiterate what I said above. Let's ignore option C. Let's forget burning Edge. Let's ignore the whole ECD/HOG contention. It isn't that important. What is important, is that the your NPC wageslave can still use his Edge to:
a) boost his dice pool and call on the Rule of Six.
b) boost his dice pool after the roll.
b) make a reroll.
All of which can affect the outcome of your Long Shot resolution all without burning Edge.

QUOTE

The rest of my analysis of his example remains. Individual NPCs get to use Edge. If the situation Cain depicted were to appear in a scenario, the NPC would be stated out as an individual. Setting aside option C for the moment, the NPC could still use all the options available with Edge.

Actually, in this case, he'd be statted out as a living McGuffin. As he's still an unnmamed character, and it's be a stretch to qualify him as a contact by those definitions. We can restat him as a sattelite dish and get the same effect.

You can blow smoke all you want, but the rules are clear.

I'm not sure whether you're laboring under the illusion that the categorization of NPCs as Grunts, Prime Runners and Contacts is all inclusive in which case you're just plain wrong - the rules for Grunts, Prime Runners and Contacts are simply "guidelines for gamemasters" to facilitate using NPCs. Or whether you're just trying to be difficult to make your example stick.

There have always been and always will be partially or fully developed one-off characters written up for the purpose of an adventure and which fit none of the aforementioned categories (ie. the bouncer at the club door, the cab driver you need to take you across town, the corner drug dealer, or the wageslave trying to escape in a boat with the briefcase the runners are after). Your wageslave on the run can't help but to be one of them, since Grunt rules apply only to "groups of similar individuals" (and are essentially intended to speed up conflict resolution) and everyone else (including most Grunts) get some sort of Edge to use.

Everybody else gets stated out as an individual. This means they have Edge. For instance: Human bystander A waiting to get into the club has at least Edge 2, the human girlfriend on his arm has Edge 2 too, the troll at the door has Edge 1 or more.

If this were a scenario written up in an official book the NPC would recieve get a one line write up and basic stats at the very least. If it was a home brew game it'd probably be a character put together on the fly. Regardless, he'd still be stated out and have an Edge rating. We can ask for a call of hands to see how many people would handle it otherwise if you'd like.

Once you accept the wageslave has Edge and can use it (again, let's put aside Burning Edge for the moment), there is no reason why it shouldn't factor into your example - reducing even Mr. Lucky's odds and making the proposition increasingly less likely even to his cousins Mr Amazingly Lucky (Edge 7) and Mr Legendary Lucky (Edge 6).

knasser

Jan 18 2008, 08:06 PM

Post #354

Shadow Cartographer

Group: Members
Posts: 3,737
Joined: 2-June 06
From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West)
Member No.: 8,636

Wow! So much to reply to? What is the latin term for argument by repetition? :)

I have to reply to this:

QUOTE (Cain)

I only brought up the logical fallacies for Knasser, who specifically asked for them.

Oh, there is no way you are blaming me for you posting endless definitions of logical fallacies. Do you recall the following interchange?

QUOTE (Cain)

QUOTE (knasser)

Argument by metaphor is poor argument.

Do you really want to get into it over what constitutes a good and bad argument

To which I replied "I'm fine to do so if it's in dispute." And this is specifically asking for all your links? You keep using this word 'specifically,' I do not think it means what you think it means.

Now onto more serious matters - like humour:

QUOTE (Cain)

Appeal to Ridicule. Just because you make a joke about it does not make you correct.

No, but it does not mean I'm wrong. A point delivered with humour, nay panache, remains a point. Four times I carefully stated what my understanding of your comment was before replying to it, whilst you four times accused me of setting up a false argument to demolish without explaining what you had meant instead. But more interestingly, when you finally do respond with what you meant we find that I had it right all along. Now you may or may not agree with my response to what you said, but I did respond to it correctly and it was no straw man.

QUOTE (Cain)

People are getting too caught up in the minutae of the example, and missing the forest for the trees.

There is no forest if there are no trees and until people are satisfied that your examples of "horribly broken rules" actually stand up, you can't condemn people for not accepting your overall forest, I mean point. Your response of

QUOTE (Cain)

The Shot Heard Round the Barrens example has held up, unarguably. The Citymaster example is under heavy, but unfinished, argument.

supports my point. We are still examining your two trees before deciding if this is a suitable spot to break out the picnic hampers. A number of people here (and a majority, I think) would disagree that the Citymaster example is still under unfinished argument. They would say that the argument is well and truly finished. And before I get another link in my face, no that is not Appeal to Majority, it's a response to your assessment of the state of the argument. As to "The Shot Heard Round the Barrens example has held up unarguably," I think unarguably doesn't mean what you think it means, either.

I haven't "tackled" The Shot example, because it would be repetitive and others have put it better than I have, anyway.

I'll concede any points about there being games out there that don't require a GM to have greater power than the players solely due to ignorance of the games that you mention. But as you say yourself, Shadowrun as written could not be played like that. Which begs the question of why you are criticising all of us Shadowrun GMs for playing it that way.

QUOTE (Cain)

QUOTE (knasser)

In these cases, the best positioned person to do so is normally the GM who is neutral and takes responsibility for a fun game.

*Everyone* takes responsibility for having a fun game.

Good players don't deliberately step on one another, or disrupt the game unnecessarily. They don't pull attention-whoring stunts, in or out of character. They roleplay their characters accurately, but not annoyingly. These are all responsibilities of a good player.

All very true, but the GM has greater responsibility for a fun game because the GM has greater power to influence the game's fun content. A GM has the power to stop players from doing any of the things you frown upon in the above quote. The GM in fact has more power to stop players from doing any of those things than other players. Furthermore the GM is of demonstrably neutral to at least a passable extent because the GM has the power to wipe out the party at any second.

QUOTE (Cain)

QUOTE (knasser)

If that discussion resolves things, then fine. If we reach impasse as the poster stated, then go to the GM as the person whose responsibility it is to be neutral.

The GM is not required to be that person. It can be any member or members of the group who know the rules and are willing to take on the role. Again, there was a large RPG.net thread on this very subject: there are many gamers, including some Shadowrun players, who have said this method works perfectly for them. YMMV, of course, but don't go assuming that it cannot work. You are making an Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

It is not an Appeal to Tradition fallacy if I say that 2+2 =4 just because it has equalled 4 historically. Nothing in my post either referred to previous tradition or implied this. My point was simply that the GM has a responsibility to be neutral which is pretty easy to demonstrate. I honestly think by this point, you're just looking for ways to tick off more of your Logical Fallacies whether they fit or not. Are you able to argue without Appeal To Www.Nizkor.Org/ ? ;)

QUOTE (Cain)

QUOTE (knasser)

Players don't want to be neutral - they want to engage in the world and identify with their characters goals and wants. They want to transfer all resistance to their characters actions onto another, not finding ways to let their character fail.

And *now* I see someone treating his players like children. Players can be neutral and impartial as well, especially if they're entrusted with the responsibility of doing so. And you know what? They are. You trust them to report their stats accurately, track ammo, not cheat on die rolls, and so on and so forth. If you have mature players-- which I believe you've claimed-- then you should not assume they'll cheat or act biased just to make things easy on their characters.

And this is personal. You're telling me how I run the game having never met me or played with me. I'm also pretty sure I never described my players as "mature." Please read what you quoted me as saying a second time? Is there anything in there where I refer to players cheating or acting biased? No there isn't and though you inferred it, I did not imply it either. My players have never wanted to be neutral or impartial. They have always wanted what their characters wanted, they have always wanted to fight and win or get the +4 Longsword and slay the wraith-king. The last thing they need or want is to sit back and say "I think the Wraith King should probably attack my character first - I'm a Wizard and I've only got five hit points left, so I'm obviously the most vulnerable target." They want an opponent they can hate and I provide. They want foes that they can outwit or that can outwit them. They don't want to play two sides against each other and feel the lack of engagement that it brings. Players can be honest. Players can grudgingly admit to me that they probably wouldn't know that their scout was killed by a lycanthrope and have silver arrows drawn and ready. But neutral? Not in my game!

A GM however, is neutral, has to be neutral, is demonstrably neutral, at least to a sufficient degree to keep the game running. A GM can after all, drop a cow on the party at any moment. And that's why they have a logical basis for being neutral as far as the rules go, too. I never said that the GM need be the rules expert (though that is normal). I said that the GM was the final recourse when an impasse is reached. And so he or she is.

And do I treat my players like children? I tease them, I lie to them, I mess with their heads, reward them and punish them. Perhas I do. But if your implication is that I patronise them or think they're beneath me then you're implying something far, far worse than anything to do with the game - you're saying that I or others here treat children partonisingly or as if they're beneath them. I really, deeply dislike that. Children are the most precious things most of us have. To treat players as if they're children should be to treat them with the greatest of respect.

And that I stand by.

Stahlseele View Member Profile	Jan 18 2008, 08:14 PM Post #355
The ShadowComedian Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,538 Joined: 3-October 07 From: Hamburg, AGS Member No.: 13,525	There's the Rule of BURNING one Point of Edge to avoid certain Death . . so Cortex-Bomb goes splat, player says:"burn edge for living" and . . his character lives and loses one point of edge permanently . . nothing else O.o

Synner

Jan 18 2008, 08:17 PM

Post #356

Runner

Group: Members
Posts: 3,314
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado
Member No.: 185

QUOTE (Stahlseele @ Jan 18 2008, 08:14 PM)

There's the Rule of BURNING one Point of Edge to avoid certain Death . . so Cortex-Bomb goes splat, player says:"burn edge for living" and . . his character lives and loses one point of edge permanently . . nothing else O.o

Not exactly. ECD (Escape Certain Death) as its been called above means the character gets to live and that's all - what exactly happens to him is up to the GM. He could be paralyzed, he could be in a coma for years, or he could get lucky and the kink bomb was a dud. Gamemaster's call.

knasser

Jan 18 2008, 08:20 PM

Post #357

Shadow Cartographer

Group: Members
Posts: 3,737
Joined: 2-June 06
From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West)
Member No.: 8,636

QUOTE (Critias)

Show of hands time, everyone. Raise your paw if you're likely to change your mind in either direction, into the "ZOMG it's borken and GMs are just players!" camp or the "everything is fine, GM fiat works!" side of the aisle, due to this thread.

Anyone? Anyone?

I will change my mind about SR4 being flawed if Cain can find an example of how it is that actually stands up. So far, the examples have been easily disputed with quotes from the actual book. I doubt in any case I'd ever go as far as to agree it is "horribly, badly broken" seeing as I've never had much of a problem with it since it came out. The lifting rules are the only thing that really leapt out at me as a terrible mistake and that is a minor thing.

As regards the GM authority point, I think I'm right (else I wouldn't be arguing it obviously) and I think Cain's aversion to it has more to do with the word authority than it does the meaning in this context. After all, he has advocated having a "rules guy" who everyone agrees to abide by. This is no different to everyone agreeing to grant the GM authority which is the normal approach. Splitting authority in this manner is more likely to cause problems however. Aside from the likely cases whereby a GM would have to share priveleged information with a player and the fact that the GM role has an in-built neutrality whilst a player's neutrality has no basis other than good will, there would inevitably be clashes between the two "absolute" authorities - the one in charge of the world and the one in charge of how it behaves. I don't know the games that Cain plays, but they seem markedly different to the way Shadowrun works and it is Shadowrun that is the subject here.

Moon-Hawk

Jan 18 2008, 08:21 PM

Post #358

Genuine Artificial Intelligence

Group: Members
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 12-June 03
Member No.: 4,715

QUOTE (Stahlseele @ Jan 18 2008, 03:14 PM)

There's the Rule of BURNING one Point of Edge to avoid certain Death . .
so Cortex-Bomb goes splat, player says:"burn edge for living" and . . his character lives and loses one point of edge permanently . . nothing else O.o

Loosing 1 point of permanent edge is the minimum repercussions to ECD. There is no upper bound.
edit: I changed my mind. The exclusive upper bound is death.

Kyoto Kid

Jan 18 2008, 08:32 PM

Post #359

Bushido Cowgirl

Group: Members
Posts: 5,782
Joined: 8-July 05
From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats
Member No.: 7,490

QUOTE (knasser)

What is the latin term for argument by repetition?

...repetitio

Also, excellent observations on the "Rules Guy".

knasser

Jan 18 2008, 08:47 PM

Post #360

Shadow Cartographer

Group: Members
Posts: 3,737
Joined: 2-June 06
From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West)
Member No.: 8,636

QUOTE (Kyoto Kid @ Jan 18 2008, 08:32 PM)

QUOTE (knasser)

What is the latin term for argument by repetition?

...repetitio

Figures. :D Am I correct in thinking that to make a latin word, you just have to replace the end of an English word with an 'o' and 'um' or an 'us.' I suppose the trick is in knowing which one to use with any given word.

And thanks,

-Khadim.

EDIT: Actually, I think Winner of the Thread title has to go to Ryu for managing to make an excellent point without actually saying anything at all. Very Zen. :D

Jhaiisiin

Jan 18 2008, 09:45 PM

Post #361

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,416
Joined: 4-March 06
From: Albuquerque
Member No.: 8,334

QUOTE ("Cain")

But if they can choose to use both, then we get into an issue: they can ECD until they run out of Edge, then HoG all they like (since it only requires they burn their remaining edge, which is zero.

Um... Cain, you can't burn "remaining" edge if there is none left. If you need apples to survive, of which you have only 2, and I take them both away from you, how do you continue to survive on Zero indefinitely? You can't. Remaining means a portion of the original value. Zero is a complete depletion. You can't burn the "remaining" amount if there is no amount to burn. How you completely missed this is beyond me.

Fortune

Jan 18 2008, 10:05 PM

Post #362

Immoral Elf

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

QUOTE (knasser)

Am I correct in thinking that to make a latin word, you just have to replace the end of an English word with an 'o' and 'um' or an 'us.' I suppose the trick is in knowing which one to use with any given word.

Correctum. ;)

Nightwalker450

Jan 18 2008, 10:13 PM

Post #363

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 698
Joined: 26-October 06
From: Iowa, United States
Member No.: 9,720

QUOTE (Jhaiisiin)

QUOTE (Cain)

But if they can choose to use both, then we get into an issue: they can ECD until they run out of Edge, then HoG all they like (since it only requires they burn their remaining edge, which is zero.

Um... Cain, you can't burn "remaining" edge if there is none left. If you need apples to survive, of which you have only 2, and I take them both away from you, how do you continue to survive on Zero indefinitely? You can't. Remaining means a portion of the original value. Zero is a complete depletion. You can't burn the "remaining" amount if there is no amount to burn. How you completely missed this is beyond me.

You had to comment on it... I thought it was so much better leaving it undisputed.. As in no one thought that this should even be argued, because it was obviously way out there.

Riley37 View Member Profile	Jan 18 2008, 10:54 PM Post #364
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 573 Joined: 17-September 07 Member No.: 13,319	I recently watched the animated Boba Fett part of the 1978 Star Wars Holiday Special, and it convinced me that one shot from a handgun can blow up a military heavy weapons vehicle. Otherwise, y'all are giving Critias way more attention than he deserves, but it's yours to give.

knasser

Jan 18 2008, 11:12 PM

Post #365

Shadow Cartographer

Group: Members
Posts: 3,737
Joined: 2-June 06
From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West)
Member No.: 8,636

QUOTE (Riley37)

Otherwise, y'all are giving Critias way more attention than he deserves, but it's yours to give.

I think you mean Cain, not Critias. But I've been enjoying it if I'm honest. If Cain doesn't work for a political party, he should. Catching all the tricks has been a fantastic logical workout. ;)

-K.

Cain

Jan 19 2008, 02:09 AM

Post #366

Grand Master of Run-Fu

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,840
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178

QUOTE

And this is specifically asking for all your links? You keep using this word 'specifically,' I do not think it means what you think it means.

You disagreed with me as to what constituted a good argument. I educated you otherwise. And since you did it again, I'll point out that you just committed a Red Herring.

QUOTE

No, but it does not mean I'm wrong. A point delivered with humour, nay panache, remains a point.

When you deliver one with actual humor, let me know. :P

And unfortunately, a fallacious argument does not hold up. The only support for your argument is to make fun of it, which helps prove I'm right. Appeal to Humor, a fallacious argument, which could be discarded.

QUOTE

There is no forest if there are no trees and until people are satisfied that your examples of "horribly broken rules" actually stand up, you can't condemn people for not accepting your overall forest, I mean point.

The Shot Heard Round the Barrens has held up. No one has attacked it directly, with canon citations. The best that has happened is Pete pointing out that I haven't calculated for Edge in the response. Which doesn't mean that the hypothetical -1,000,000 shot still isn't broken, it's just that theres ways of possibly offsetting some of the +1,000,000 of benefits. IMO, one or two dice isn't going to make a big deal against 1,000,000, but I'm not a mathematician.

QUOTE

All very true, but the GM has greater responsibility for a fun game because the GM has greater power to influence the game's fun content. A GM has the power to stop players from doing any of the things you frown upon in the above quote. The GM in fact has more power to stop players from doing any of those things than other players.

Wrong. Everyone has more-or-less the same responsibility to see that these things happen. And the same authority. In fact, sometimes the GM has less. Let's say that the disruptive player's girlfriend is there as well. Who's more likely to more power over him: The GM, with an unknown relationship; or an intimate companion?

One disruptive player can overwhelm a GM's best efforts. Which is why it's the responsibility of every player to be cooperative.

QUOTE

But as you say yourself, Shadowrun as written could not be played like that. Which begs the question of why you are criticising all of us Shadowrun GMs for playing it that way.

Another Straw Man. Where did I criticize "all Shadowrun GM's"?

I'm saying there's another way, yes. A better way. And there's a significant sample of people who like it. And I think you'll discover that the better Shadowrun GMs out there tend to follow aspects of this approach anyway.

QUOTE

Not in my game!

Ah, there it is. The "Not in my games! Wah!" Argument. Which, in addition to being an Appeal to Force fallacy, tends to show that a GM is ready to throw the punitive approach at his players.

QUOTE

I will change my mind about SR4 being flawed if Cain can find an example of how it is that actually stands up. So far, the examples have been easily disputed with quotes from the actual book.

Again, the Shot Head Round the Barrens. You certainly haven't tried to attack it, nor has Frank, and the best argument so far is that it could be countered to a small degree if you make Joe Normal into the equivalent of a Prime Runner. If it's so easily disputed with a quote, why haven't *you* posted a single page quote for the last four or so pages?

QUOTE

After all, he has advocated having a "rules guy" who everyone agrees to abide by. This is no different to everyone agreeing to grant the GM authority which is the normal approach. Splitting authority in this manner is more likely to cause problems however. Aside from the likely cases whereby a GM would have to share priveleged information with a player and the fact that the GM role has an in-built neutrality whilst a player's neutrality has no basis other than good will, there would inevitably be clashes between the two "absolute" authorities - the one in charge of the world and the one in charge of how it behaves.

I've seen the "Rules guy" approach work successfully, with Shadowrun. It causes fewer problems actually; because if the GM makes a rules gaffe, the rules guy can quickly come up with: "But it could have happened this way instead!" allowing the GM a fast retcon. And fast retcons are certainly a lot more fair, open, and acceptable than GM fiat. Instead of the GM saying: "I want it to happen that way, so it happens that way, no matter how unfair it is!"; you get: "Okay, that wasn't fair, how about this instead? I want things to go this way, and maybe I should go about it slightly differently."

QUOTE

Are you able to argue without Appeal To Www.Nizkor.Org/ ?

Sure. :D

Jhaiisiin View Member Profile	Jan 19 2008, 02:30 AM Post #367
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,416 Joined: 4-March 06 From: Albuquerque Member No.: 8,334	Okay, we've been through 15 pages now. All your other examples died in horrible flames, so how about a refresher on this "Shot heard round the barrens" example so we can all freshly pick it apart?

Cain View Member Profile	Jan 19 2008, 02:40 AM Post #368
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178	Here it is, for what I believe is the third time: The team's van is barreling up to the waterfront, only to discover their target's speedboat is already a klick out to sea, dodging its way at full speed through the Seattle waterfront traffic. The troll sam shouts: "Drek! I can't get a bead!" So, Mr. Lucky grabs the HMG from the troll, which he can barely lift, and takes a shot. The conditions are bad: Extreme Range (-3), Partial light (-2), With Glare (-1) and Heavy rain (-4, this is Seattle, after all). Mr . Lucky is in a moving vehicle (-3) as is his target; the GM assigns an additional -3 to reflect the boat's speed and pitching. The target has total cover (-6), and since Mr. Lucky only has the vaugest idea what he's shooting at, he gets the -6 Blind fire penalty. To make, matters worse, Mr. Lucky has two Serious wounds, for 9 boxes on both monitors (-6). He's never even picked up an HMG before (-1), but the thing is already set to full auto; so he goes for a narrow burst (-9, doubled to -18 because it's a heavy weapon and the gas-vent system is fouled due to an earlier critical fumble). Mr. Lucky is at -53 to hit. He could try to aim, but since there's no point, he simply hauls the thing into the general direction and fires. He has a negative dice pool, so he spends a point of Edge, giving him 8 dice to roll. He could simply buy two successes with that; if he were to roll, he'd average 2.66 successes, rounded up to 3. Since his target is an average wageslave, he only has his Reaction of 3 to defend with, which will average one success-- not enough. And since Mr. Lucky called for a Narrow Burst, there's simply no way the target can soak. On the one hand, this is a valid lucky shot. On the other hand, this is incredibly broken, an exploit running all the way down to the heart of the core mechanic. And let me also point out that this is actually a more difficult shot than the Citymaster example, so if you have a problem with that, you should really have issues with this one. Additionally, the wageslave is statted out as one of a bundle of faceless workers, meaning he has a Professional rating of 0. If we rewrite him as a Prime Runner, he'd then have an Edge of 2, assuming he's human. Even with two additional exploding dice, he'd only score 2 successes on a defense roll, still getting nailed with each and every bullet of the narrow burst. Edit: I forgot to repeat this point: The only reason I stopped at -53 was that I was running out of canon negative modifiers to apply. We could be discussing a -1,000,000 shot just as easily.

Fortune

Jan 19 2008, 02:45 AM

Post #369

Immoral Elf

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

QUOTE (Cain)

The Shot Heard Round the Barrens has held up. No one has attacked it directly, with canon citations. The best that has happened is Pete pointing out that I haven't calculated for Edge in the response. Which doesn't mean that the hypothetical -1,000,000 shot still isn't broken, it's just that theres ways of possibly offsetting some of the +1,000,000 of benefits. IMO, one or two dice isn't going to make a big deal against 1,000,000, but I'm not mathematician.

Maybe that's the problem. The 'one or two dice' against 1,000,000 that you cite is purely obfuscation. The maximum Dice Pool for the Mr. Lucky in your Shot Heard Round The Barrens example (or any other example from Mr. Lucky's Longshot Warehouse™) is 8! You could have -1,000,000,000 to your Dice Pool, and will still have a maximum of 8 dice for any given Longshot. The addition of a couple of dice to the defender's Pool via the legitimate use of Edge can indeed make a huge difference against Mr. Lucky's 8 dice.

toturi View Member Profile	Jan 19 2008, 03:11 AM Post #370
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187	Assumptions for Cain example, whether valid or not are: 1) Extremely high negative modifiers imposed on the firer(-53) 2) Firer has very high Edge(8) 3) Target has an extremely low or non-existent corresponding dicepools to resist the firer(1 to 3) 4) Target is a Grunt or otherwise unable to make use of the HOG/ECD(0) It is a matter of IC description but for the discussion at hand, evidently given his intent, can we not agree that said target is the lowest of the low NPCs ie a Professional Rating 0 Grunt?

Jhaiisiin View Member Profile	Jan 19 2008, 03:24 AM Post #371
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,416 Joined: 4-March 06 From: Albuquerque Member No.: 8,334	Okay Cain, so first off, he cannot buy successes. Rules as written specifically prevent him from doing so, as this is not an unstressful situation, nor is his dice pool some massive quantity. This point, however, has already been made, and you either ignored it or just didn't acknowledge it. The wageslave does have edge, as proven by the devs posting here. Is this example out of line? Maybe a little, but you've stacked on all manner of situations that are unlikely to occur at the same time. Basically you went for one of the most extreme situations you can come up with. And for the record, it's not more difficult than the Citymaster shot, because at least he can see his target (however vaguely) and isn't shooting through pure armor to do so. This one is a little more realistic, though only minimally so. Realistically, if Mr. Lucky shot in the general vicinity, he might hit the target with one bullet, but SR doesn't work like that, so you have to assume he gets hit with all 10. It's this part that it system falls apart, not in the longshot rules. The fact that it's assumed that you can keep a narrow enough spread, at maximum range, with unmodified recoil the likes of which you're listing is a serious issue. And that's where it's broken. Maybe that's where you should be aiming your focus, Cain.

Calabim View Member Profile	Jan 19 2008, 03:30 AM Post #372
Target Group: Members Posts: 37 Joined: 14-December 07 Member No.: 14,641	I am not really sure what the big deal is. If the guy is just a faceless wage slave grunt with no PR then have Mr. Luckys bullet tear through the guys eye socket in a beautiful spray of crimson. The guy is a faceless grunt, those guys where made to die. As has been pointed out, if the guy is any importance in the story he can be easily saved. However sense he is just a grunt he dies. Sorry buddy you should have had a name. People with names don't go out like bitches. :)

Cain View Member Profile	Jan 19 2008, 03:36 AM Post #373
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178	I forgot I had a third, noncombat example. Fastjack decides to write a Rating 2 Browse program for an aspiring decker. With his high Logic, aptitude in Software, superior library, and programming suite, he's easily got the dice to buy two successes, and completes his program in one month. Mr. Lucky, hiding out in a coffin hotel while recovering from the wounds he got just before the Shot Heard Round the Barrens example, decides he needs a Browse program too. He's got Software at 1, but with an average Logic, no tools, no plans, and some hefty wound penalties, he's well into a negative dicepool. He spends a point of Edge, and now has 8 dice to play with. That's enough to buy the requisite two successes; if he actually rolled, he's likely to get three. So, he completes his program in just one month, just as quickly as Fastjack. Now, a GM might say that Fastjack's plan has a slicker interface, fewer minor quibbles, and so on. But functionally, they're exactly the same thing. So, in the same amount of time, Mr. Lucky can write a program that is just as good as Fastjack can do, and Mr. Lucky isn't even a decker!

Fortune

Jan 19 2008, 03:45 AM

Post #374

Immoral Elf

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

QUOTE (Cain)

Fastjack decides to write a Rating 2 Browse program for an aspiring decker. With his high Logic, aptitude in Software, superior library, and programming suite, he's easily got the dice to buy two successes, and completes his program in one month.

Why can't Fastjack buy more automatic hits with his huge Dice Pool, gauranteed to be up around 16? Or better yet, even roll for successes, which more than likely will give him 5 or so hits?

Cain

Jan 19 2008, 03:53 AM

Post #375

Grand Master of Run-Fu

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,840
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178

QUOTE

The wageslave *does* have edge, as proven by the devs posting here.

Reread toturi's post. We've made the assumption that the target is a faceless, nameless wageslave. For our purposes, a grunt. I've already spoken as to what would happen if Joe were a Prime Runner instead.

QUOTE

Is this example out of line? Maybe a little, but you've stacked on all manner of situations that are unlikely to occur at the same time. Basically you went for one of the most extreme situations you can come up with. And for the record, it's not more difficult than the Citymaster shot, because at least he can see his target (however vaguely) and isn't shooting through pure armor to do so.

The Citymaster example is -52. The Shot Heard Round the Barrens is -53. Mechanically speaking, and as far as the rules are concerned, The Shot is the most difficult of the two.

As far as stacking on the modifiers go, that's rather the point. In theory, I could keep going to the -1,000,000 point, gaining the equivalent of +1,000,000 in benefits. I know it's not a 1:1 tradeoff, exactly, but this much is true: the more modifiers you pile on, the more benefit you get. And since the odds of success don't change, there's no reason to not pile on the modifiers as deep as you can.

So, while Mr. Lucky might get only(!) 8 dice, he gets the same 8 dice if he's making a standard shot, a called shot for +4 damage, or a called shot while standing on his head whistling Dixie.

QUOTE

Why can't Fastjack buy more automatic hits with his huge Dice Pool, gauranteed to be up around 16? Or better yet, even roll for successes, which more than likely will give him 5 or so hits?

Because it makes no difference. Two successes are all that is needed. Fastjack could go for a Critical Success, but that doesn't give him anything more than a flourish... which I already factored in.

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »