 Game level, Why must it be street? |
  |
 Jan 19 2008, 03:57 AM
Post
#376
|
|
|
Immoral Elf  Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486  |
As an addendum to my questions about the Fastjack example ...
Why can't Fastjack use Edge (regardless of whether it is lower than Mr. Lucky's or not) himself to raise his chances of getting even more hits? |
 |
 
|
|
Jan 19 2008, 03:59 AM
Post
#377
|
|||
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
Synner is using the Prime Runner/Contact rules, where the NPCs have Edge. Cain's example is using the Grunt rules, where the NPCs share Edge and in the case of Professional Rating 0 Grunts, have no Edge. It would not be unreasonable for Cain to go back and reword his example such that the target in question is the last fleeing member of Humanis Policlub mob(canon Professional Rating 0). The difference in the usage of the rules, IMO, lies in the wording of Cain's example. He could easily have said the guy driving the Citymaster was a Humanis member and some of the other Grunts are sitting in the back. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 19 2008, 04:03 AM
Post
#378
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,246 Joined: 8-June 07 Member No.: 11,869 |
"Religious dogma" |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 19 2008, 04:21 AM
Post
#379
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,416 Joined: 4-March 06 From: Albuquerque Member No.: 8,334 |
So now we're to the point of retroactive justification. Cain presented an example, and went through the trouble of listing all the factors (or so we can assume, as that's what he was basing his argument on). Now that we're finding many significant flaws, you and he are going back saying "Nuh-uh! He was a grunt to start with!" If you want a logical, well thought out example, then present ALL your facts on the front end, so we can appropriately rebut or agree with the information.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2008, 04:32 AM
Post
#380
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
After spending all this time discussing, does anyone else feel like heaving a collective sigh, and saying "so what - who cares?"
SR is flawed, sure. So is every other game, and every person that plays them. But those flaws don't necessarily invalidate the ruleset as a whole. [ Spoiler ]
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2008, 04:32 AM
Post
#381
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,246 Joined: 8-June 07 Member No.: 11,869 |
Jhaiisiin mocks our jihad! So...jihad on Jhaiisiin! |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 19 2008, 04:42 AM
Post
#382
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,116 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,449 |
I dunno. I'm kind of on the "everything is fine, GM fiat works!" side right now, but if Cain explains his point of view and goes through his Citymaster takedown example seven or eight more times, I miiiight change my mind. ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 19 2008, 04:45 AM
Post
#383
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,416 Joined: 4-March 06 From: Albuquerque Member No.: 8,334 |
With regards to the Browse program situation, again the break isn't in the longshot rules. IRL, if a capable program writer attempts to write a basic level program like Browse 2, he's going to be able to crank it out in a very short amount of time. The non-software writer Mr. Lucky, with all the resources of the Matrix at his disposal, could piece one together. Sure, it might take him a month, and sure it might be functionally similar to the one written by Fastjack. The problem is that Fastjack should NOT be taking a month to write his program. The break is in the timetables and the ability to affect them with successes beyond the threshold. Fastjack should be busting out a program a day or some silly crud, not taking a month to build a *basic* program.
That said, there is one modifier you're using which bothers me. It's the "Tools Unavailable" part. RAW states the modifier for that is "-4 or [/b]not allowed.[/b]" (SR4, Pg 125) I'm assuming you've never written a program, because you're allowing someone to have that modifier, and still make the roll. Here's the thing: To write a functioning program (the goal of your test, I'm hoping), you need a few things. You need the knowledge to program it in the first place, either by your education or whatever, or through your online resources. You need something to compile the code (a computer), and you need a medium to test it in (the target operating system). If you have these, even if they're oudated, you have the tools available. Without them, you *can't* finish the test, because you can't compile the program. Now if you retroactively correct yours to say they're both only writing the source code, and friend hacker is going to have to compile, run and debug it on his own, your example stands as something broken with the timetables and threshold rules, not the longshot rules. EDIT: Oh, and btw: Thank you Buster. Once the MyControls section of Dumpshock are working again, I am so using that as my sig. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2008, 05:26 AM
Post
#384
|
|||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
One thing at a time. I haven't gotten past the "Shadowrun is perfect! How dare you challenge the Holy Canon!" part yet. There are still people who say there aren't any serious flaws in SR4. Once I'm done bringing them around to your point of view, then I can demonstrate how broken it really is.
I've only programmed in original BASIC, so I'm going to have to take your word for a lot of things. However, I do recall that I can write out the code, and eventually input it into a computer later. I might not be able to test the program, but there's always a chance (Edge) that I got it mostly right on paper. There may be quirks, sure; but I factored that into my example. At any event, the question isn't precicely the time involved. The problem is that, mechanically speaking, he can do just as well at the same task. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 19 2008, 05:37 AM
Post
#385
|
|||
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
Actually I feel that the example was quite valid up until Synner presented his writer/dev intentions. Then it became necessary to modify the example in light of the new clarifications(which in itself is another symptom of how flawed the SR4 rule set is). Cain did tell us that he intended the NPC to be. I had pointed out to him that based on his descriptions, his intention did not strictly match the canon descriptions. But since it was his example, I see no point in requiring him to cross the Ts and dot the Is so assiduously. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 19 2008, 06:27 AM
Post
#386
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
I didn't say serious flaws. Some rules annoy me, but I mod as desired and enjoy the rest. Ultimately, all you can offer is your opinion, which I've already heard. Now you just bore/annoy me with repetition and condescension. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 19 2008, 09:42 AM
Post
#387
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
There's something of a disconnect here. Nothing that "Synner presented" that is directly relevant to this example is not plainly written out in the rules and has been all along (with the exception of possibly extending HOG to all "named" NPCs and which is largely irrelevant to this example). No one I've seen has disputed that NPCs have Edge (even most Grunts). In fact, the vast majority of NPCs in the game have Edge, and the most evident flaw in all of Cain's examples is that the NPCs never use it (ie. once again, in his latest programming example, FastJack doesn't use his Edge. If Mr. Lucky can, why can't FastJack?), even though the PC attacker is making the max of his. Cain is saying the Edge / Long Shot rules are flawed and he's chosing to ignore an element of the rules to prove his point. Look at the core book. It is clear that all Contacts get Edge. "Prime Runners"/signature characters get Edge. Even most Grunts get Group Edge. Why the heck wouldn't they be able to use it? Where does the system put restrictions on Edge use by NPCs? And what does my clarification change with regards to how the Edge rule set works and has worked from the onset (disregarding viability of HOG for non-Prime NPCs)? Let's disregard my comments as to author's intent. Let's assume HOG works as written and is restricted to Prime Runners (since it is pretty irrelevant to my point and simply a question of wording). How does the rest of what I elaborated upon, regarding NPC Edge use (all the other Edge options beside Burning Edge), somehow become a "rule set flaw." The book offers you the rule and tells you all (well almost) NPCs have Edge (a dead giveaway is the little chart with NPC and Critter Stats). Why wouldn't they be able to use it (like you would have used their combat pool in SR3)? Edge use is an element built into the system and blatantly obvious to anyone who has read the book. The Edge rules, introduced in the core Game Concepts chapter (along with such things as metatypes and Attribute definitions) is clearly open to all characters (PCs and NPCs alike). How can you make a statement about the validity of rule set if you're ignoring one aspect of the rules? If you've ignored Edge use by NPCs that is your problem, not the system's. I see too many GMs forgetting to pour on the visibility modifiers to Spellcasting dicepools and then complaining Combat spells are overpowered. Same mistake. Just as you can't evaluate Spellcasting without considering the impact of typical visibility modifiers that are built into the rules, you can't evaluate Edge balance without considering that it works for both sides involved. Now back to Cain's example: I'll concede that Cain's example is a valid one under the rule set. However, it hinges on so many exceptions it is not representative of either the entire rule set or even the standard Edge / Long Shot rules. It can potentially happen, if the escaping wageslave was somehow the last of a posse of unProfessional wageslaves that picked a fight with a team of professional runners, if he managed to escape and get on a boat, if the runners decided that this grunt was worth chasing to the dockside guns blazing through the pouring rain and heavy traffic just to make sure none of those hardy unProfessional wageslaves survived (as unlikely as that might seem). I concede that it might concievably happen (not at my table, but at some theoretical table somewhere). And in that unique situation, Cain's analysis is correct, Mr Lucky makes a brilliant and utterly unbelievable shot. In fact it's the type of really lucky shot that earned him his handle. To which I'll add the wageslave in the boat is an unimportant and unfortunate grunt (otherwise you wouldn't be using the Grunt rules) that's meant to go down easy (again that's thy the Grunt and that any GM who allows this extreme situation to happen probably has no problem with Mr. Lucky's fortuitious shot taking him down. However, Cain chose to make a sweeping statement based on an exceptional example. "Exceptional" because this is the one exception to the rule that NPCs get Edge and that factors into the calculations of the Edge mechanic in every other circumstance. What I'm pointing out is that contrary to what Cain stated several pages back this gimmick does not allow Mr. Lucky to take down Lofwyr (cause Lofwyr is sure as hell going to use his own Edge to boost his pools and make Mr Lucky's 8 dice look laughable) or even the Citymaster in his other vaunted example (cause that rigger or driver is not going to be an unProfessional Grunt). And he hasn't been able to refute this. In every other (more probable) scenario and set of circumstances, the use of Edge by the opposition (which any other opposition will have) reduces Mr Lucky's chances significantly. Fortune pointed out it becomes 1 or 2 dice against 8 dice (impossible to modify) but that is incorrect. Edge can be used to boost an existing pool and open it up to the Rule of Six. Meaning that one-off character wageslave (stats ripped from the Corp Secretary contact) would be rolling 5 dice to dodge the shot (and not 3) and the Rule of Six might factor in. This against the 8 dice rolled by the Luckiest Man Alive at the top of his game. By the way people keep forgetting that last bit . Mr Lucky is simply one of the handful of luckiest men alive in the entire world. He's past legendary, he's past exceptional, he's almost one of a kind (he has a Rating of 8). The gamemaster who approves (remember that phase of CharGen?) this (perfectly valid) character build is accepting that some of the stuff this guy does, and only him, is going to stretch believablility, borders the supernatural, and will impact the game in a few rare and extreme circumstances - and not as Cain would have us believe on a regular basis. The GM who approves this character is allowing the Luckiest Man Alive into his game. It's up to him to evaluate the (actual) ramifications (as opposed to Cain's hyperbole examples) and decide whether those are acceptable in his game with his group's playing style. It might not be acceptable (as much as a perfectly valid Body 30 Troll with no stealth skills and specializing in heavy weapons might not be acceptable in a team of black ops infiltrators) or it might - approval is up to the GM. Of course if he approves the character its also up to him to provide an adequate challenge to Mr Lucky. But getting back to the example, the problem here is Cain's Long Shot demands an extreme set of circumstances, that I personally have never seen occur at a table but admit are feasible (see above). I've shown that his example relies on a set of exceptional circumstances a) an extreme situation stretching believability rare), b) the NPC having no Edge (rare), and c) the shot coming from Mr Lucky with a full 8 Edge (rarer still). Assuming those extreme circumstances come into play at all, I can't see anyone questioning that it is a rare and extreme situation, rather than a common example of mechanics use. So my question is how does something that happens once in a blue moon, calls for a set of unusual circumstances, depends on the only exception to the NPC Edge use, and only ever happens to a unique character that is one of the world's most consistently fortunate individuals, suddenly extend to the entire Edge mechanic and become a "rules system flaw"? It is, in fact, a rare exception that the rules allow in very peculiar circumstances. It is feasible, though highly unlikely, but it certainly doesn't color the entire SR4 system, nor does it unbalance the Edge rules. Let me put this another way. How many of you have Mr. Lucky at your tables? And of those that have how many have encountered anything remotely similar to these situations? I have had Mr Lucky at my table - a min-maxer and rules lawyer to boot. And so far he's died two horrible deaths and never lived up to the hype - in fact, he's now Mr Not Quite So Lucky because he's burned 2 Edge to remain alive and he's seriously reconsidering whether the BPs poured into the Exceptional Attribute and Lucky were worth it. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 19 2008, 11:05 AM
Post
#388
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
Well I'm educated in that I've had a refresher on some latin terminology, but what you link to never seems to match up with what I've actually said. In the example right above where I'm typing, for example: Frank tells you to stop posting these links every other paragraph and you say that it's because I asked you to. I pull up the actual quote in which it proves to show otherwise and you respond with "Red Herring" which your link says is "changing the subject." Well I admit you're the expert in that area but I don't see how it applies to me directly answering a comment of yours. And since you've slipped in another little straw mman I'll just put in a quick correction. I didn't "disagree with [you] as to what constituted a good argument." I said that argument by metaphor was poor argument and you asked me if I really wanted to get into what made a good or bad argument. I said 'sure, if we need to.' But it was you that disagreed with me on this specific subject, not me commenting on the validity of any of these "logical fallacies" you keep linking to. And incidentally, the implication ever since is that you do think argument by metaphor is good argument. Isn't there a fallacy for this?
I'll have to ask for a show of hands for this one. It may technically be an Appeal To the Majority, but I like being told I'm witty. ;) :P
If you couldn't see the point I was making and only saw an attempt to be funny, then there's a problem and it's not on my end. But wait... I see in the very next line you contradict yourself by responding to the point I made in that joke. This is a Reducto Ad Senilium. (You'll notice that I separated out the humour into a separate sentence that time, in case it obscured the actual point from you).
Okay, well at least the Citymaster example has been laid to rest. As to the Shot Heard Round the Barrens, I'd love to see you actually get to -1,000,000 dice pool of penalties. Would you like to actually try it or are you going to re-phrase your argument to a scenario that could actually happen? But anyway, taking some of the less hysterical examples you've been posting to address, hitting the grunt on the boat - does it really qualify as "horribly, badly broken" as you've been saying? Firstly, it's an extremely contrived situation. Secondly, you have a character that is specifically built to be lucky. You may or may not like the flavour of that, but it's a viable build under the rules and the only likely outcome of it is that the target loses a few boxes of physical. And this is in a scenario that has been deliberately constructed to break the rules. Why your PCs are trying to shoot an unnamed wage-slave on a boat from extreme range in a storm, in the dark, during an earthquake, whilst near death is something we haven't got into yet. Anyway, your extremely luck-optimised character can pull off only a few edgy shots per adventure. Contrast that with a more balanced samurai who can consistently pull off good results. If luck being a trait of a character does not appeal to how you want to run your game flavour-wise, then by all means change it as I have (fixed edge progression is one of my three house-rules). But it's not unbalanced. And I think it's also worth quoting the guidelines on modifiers from the BBB itself:
In your examples you are directly ignoring the guidelines that are presented in the book itself. Now moving on to the question of GM authority, I think this argument is going to turn into a big mess because I don't think you will ever accept my definitions of terms. You don't like the use of the word authority though you have said thing similar to what I have said using different terms (e.g. in your proposal of a "rules guy" that everyone submits to). As I have said in every comment I have made in this all along - a GMs has legitimate authority because players give it to him willingly. Still, I'll make a couple of minor comments on what you posted because something needs to be said in response.
I said "power." The GM has more power to influence the events of the game than everyone else. Do you dispute that? If so, I think you'll be the only one. Having markedly greater power to control the events of the game, the GM has greater responsibility for how it turns out. Do you see what I did there? I put forward a reason for why things were the way I concluded. I didn't just say "Wrong. It is this way because I think it is this way."
Now you are conflating separate things. Who has more power of the player, the girlfriend or the GM? Could be either. Who has more power over how that player affects the game? The GM. Unless this is a Magic Girlfriend +5 that bestows the five times a day ability to change reality (I used to have one of those... six times a day if I took Zinc supplements), then she does nothing to increase a player's ability to alter the game world. You want to talk about who has greatest claim to a player's attention, go ahead - I'm not interested. But when it comes to influencing the game world, it is the GM. And it is this that matters most because that is what shows the GM has both greater responsibility to be neutral and greater responsibility for how events in the game proceed.
You have misquoted me which must have been difficult as my words are just a few lines above your own. I said you are "criticising all of us Shadowrun GMs" which in the context was fairly obviously referring to all of us in this thread that you have been criticising.
Better Shadowrun GMs? I doubt it. Different ways for different groups, and you're again being insulting. Though that said, based on this thread, I have trouble imagining you playing in some power-shared, right-through-reasoning committee group as you describe. I would think a "I am right because I am" approach would suit you better. It's been the basis of much of your argument here in this thread. Toturi, yes (n.b. you are only capitalised due to beginning a sentence, apologies). Toturi (again) may be more capable of neutrality than any GM I've ever seen and toturi's players seem to enjoy his unique style so all is good. But I don't think toturi is representative. More importantly, whilst I have in the past criticised him for his approach to GM'ing, I don't recall him ever actually criticising mine unlike you in the following quote:
Soooooooooo out of context. When I said "not in my games," it was at the end of a long piece about defending the fun of my players against things that threaten it. Not in my games indeed, I stand by that. I whip my players like dogs and they lurrrrve it (and you can sig me on that). So let's just drop the "Wah!" shall we? Or were you trying to join in on the humour thing?
Done. See above. Though the counterpoints that others have made do not require turning "Joe Normal" into the equivalent of a Prime Runner. That is not true.
Ah, so the principle is flawed if the GM is a bad one. Four things then. 1. The same applies to your "rules guy" if he's a bad one. 2. If the GM is a bad one then there are an infinite number of ways that the game can be redirected other than breaking rules. The existence of a rules guy will not compensate for a GM with an agenda. 3. The existence of two authorities in the game will sooner or later lead to conflict. 4. The IMPORTANT point you have missed is that the ceding of authority to your "rules guy" is exactly the same as the ceding authority to a GM. So your outrage that a GM should be given authority over players by players is hypocritical when you have the same principle operating under a different name in your own group (assuming that you do play this way).
Well that's so much better. I think for me this thread is drawing to a close. It has been a fun exercise to do all this logical wrestling. It was never really of much relevance to real games as 99.9% of GMs confronted with a player who tries to shoot someone whilst pointing the gun in a random direction will likely just laugh and no harm will be done to the game unless you have an insanely argumentative player that wont accept the stupidity of what they're doing. However, I can now see it starting to turn into something less pleasant (perhaps I'm going "Wah! Not in my thread") so unless you can come up with some interesting counterpoints to what I've said above I think I shall shortly be moving on. -Khadim. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jan 19 2008, 11:30 AM
Post
#389
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
Double post.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2008, 12:02 PM
Post
#390
|
|||||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
I think I'm getting this now. So someone who argues by repeated recourse to fallacy would be an expert in fallatio? Or guilty of Reducto Ad Fallus? . . . Okay, I have finally yielded to temptation. I apologise. I am done. This thread will be available as a saddle-stitched hard-bound coffee-table edition from Lulu.com. All proceeds to go to http://www.nizkor.org. -K. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 19 2008, 12:22 PM
Post
#391
|
|
|
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 |
Thanks for the edge rule analysis, Synner. It took my players some getting used to that NPCs can use edge. It is one of the more surprising things to pull on a samurai who thinks he´ll act first anyway...
The actual example would have to be modified somewhat; another point of edge needs to be spend on the Perception roll (target aquisition). But that is not your fault. If I was trying to keep the NPC alive, edged perception is also the prime avenue - have him notice the attack "by chance", roll full evasion in a fast moving vehicle. @ Knasser: Seeing as you like to be told you are funny... Yes, you are. Your dominant trait shown in this thread however is endurance, but that comes with the territory. Curiosity in a derailed thread: The other meanings of Jihad are scholary redefinitions of the original term, stressing the individual endeavour to better oneself, with the original meaning being "Crusade"? |
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2008, 12:59 PM
Post
#392
|
|||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
Ah, you caught that before I deleted it. I should explain that I made a comment to Buster about the use of the word Jihad, but I edited it out again because his joke only worked because of alliteration and he had to use a 'j' word and I didn't find the use of the word offensive. I'm not an expert on the history of the language, but the word today is not only used to mean violent action. It is also used to mean other sorts of struggle. You can tell what is meant by the context though. But really, in English it is a loan word and when someone in the West says a Jihad, you know they're thinking of fanatical muslim soldiers or something like that. I'm sure I could think of other loan words where the copied meaning is different to the original, though in this case it's not so much different as just more limited. Crusade might not actually be a bad equivalent (ironic or not) as people use it today to mean all sorts of things other than picking up a cross and invading the Middle East for the glory of Rome. (Though a jihad can be personal and crusade is usually a group thing, yes?) I honestly don't know if the original meanings of jihad were exclusively military or not and couldn't prove it either way if I did. I'm as reduced to wikipedia as the rest of you if you're going to start asking me questions of historical accuracy. I was raised in the UK and my first language is English. But jihad does have more meanings in arabic than struggle by violence today, so it's not right to take it to mean only the one thing. As you say, it can and does also mean a spiritual struggle within oneself. It's a powerful concept, not a casual one. And this is seriously off-topic. :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 19 2008, 01:01 PM
Post
#393
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
Again, I'm going straight for your emotional appeal in between step 3 and 5. Who cares? Yes, Fastjack could write a rating 2 program, answer a Jeopardy question, bake a cake, or do anything else that is well below his skill level without spending an Edge and Mr. Lucky could spend an Edge and do the same thing. So what? The task as defined is entirely binary: you do it or you don't do it. The fact that one person can barely do it and another person can do it or something much more difficult is completely lost in this example. Similarly a trollish cybersam can leap over a small gap with ease. Mr. Lucky might spend an edge to do the same thing. What is the problem? Your Fastjack example is not problematic. I accept your logical argument all the way up until you add the emotional content: that this is in any way a bad thing. Fastjack can buy the hits needed to microwave a burrito or drive his car across town, is it problematic that Mr. Lucky can spend an edge to accomplish these inconsequential tasks while whigged out on qualudes? Why? What is the problem here? --- We're in non-logical argument territory here. We both accept that FastJack can accomplish minor tasks and that Mr. Lucky can be bleeding from the intestines and spend an Edge to accomplish those same minor tasks. It now falls to you to make the emotional argument that there is in fact a problem with this state of affairs. I'm prepared with my argument: t seems entirely reasonable to me. What's yours? Justify your existence. -Frank |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 19 2008, 01:27 PM
Post
#394
|
|||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
A minor point, and made mainly because Frank doesn't usually leave anything for other people to pick up on, but it's not necessarily the same thing. Cain's original point was that Mr. Lucky could accomplish the same thing as FastJack in the same time. In fact, FastJack is more than capable of using the Rushing the Job rules (SR4,pg. 59) and accomplishing the task in half the time it takes Mr. Lucky. The odds of FastJack achieving this without glitching with a dice pool of 16 and point of edge for a re-roll are reasonably small and the odds of a critical glitch are minimal. At the same time, if Mr. Lucky tries to rush the job, the odds of a glitch are fifty-fifty and a critical glitch within the realms of possibility. Remember, Mr. Lucky lives by the long-shot, he's going to hit critical glitches more often than others. So if it comes down to a race between the two, FastJack can confidentally bang out the code in record time whilst Mr. Lucky risks flawing his software. You also have to ask yourself what being lucky on a software creation roll means. Maybe Mr. Lucky has a half-finished search program from his under-graduate computer course that he dropped out of. Maybe he finds a handy How-To on the Matrix that meets his needs. Edge is luck, we are told, so once you apply the fluff, it doesn't seem so terrible in this example after all. It's certainly not unbalanced game-wise and as Frank points out, the opinion that this represents some "horribly broken" rule-set remains opinion. One that not many people seem to share. Ooops. I said I was done. Sorry - just hadn't seen anyone make these points in relation to the software example, yet. NOW I'm done. -K. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 19 2008, 01:53 PM
Post
#395
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Technically, I specifically did state that Edge would provide the addition of one or two dice to the defender's Pool. I merely left off the exploding factor, because I was unsure just how much that would affect things. :P ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 19 2008, 01:59 PM
Post
#396
|
|||||||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I thought it was funny. :D |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jan 19 2008, 02:01 PM
Post
#397
|
|||||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
You get 20% more hits on average over and above the increased dice pool. However, that's average. You get rewarded for success with more success, failure looks exactly the same whether you explode or not. So you get a much flatter curve in addition to the increased everage hits. So your chances of getting 1 or more hits doesn't change, but your chances of getting 4 or more hits becomes astoundingly better. -Frank |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 19 2008, 02:18 PM
Post
#398
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
That's actually quite interesting. Thanks.
My eyes usually start to glaze over at some of the more advanced (to me!) math slung around here. Not that I'm stupid (at least I don't think so!), but sometimes it's nice to see things laid out in a little simpler manner. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2008, 02:47 PM
Post
#399
|
|
|
The ShadowComedian Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,538 Joined: 3-October 07 From: Hamburg, AGS Member No.: 13,525 |
yeah, the one downside to playing P&P RPG's . . sometimes you think you'd need an degree in quantum theoretics and improbability mathmatics <.< . .
i play the big combat troll for a reason ._. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2008, 06:55 PM
Post
#400
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
Okay, I just spent eight hours in an ER, so please forgive me if this post does not come across with my usual effervescent charm and charisma. I'm currently on three different pain meds, which aren't working, and that tends to make me grouchy. So, if I sound like I'm attacking anyone personally, please understand, that's not my intent.
I actually covered that in the last example. Even with two or more exploding dice, that only changes Joe Normal's probable successes into two instead of the three required. He'd still get spudged.
I have, as a player. To date, Mr. Lucky has yet to spend all of his Edge in a SRM or home game. He's also pulled off two "impossible" pistol shots, one at -12, and one at -18. True, those weren't longshots; but that goes back to mfb's point that high dicepools break the game as well, without needing to invoke Longshots or Edge.
There are many reasons why it's broken, which start adding up. First is the fact he can make the shot at all. Second, it could easily happen on a smaller scale, with less Edge involved. Third is the shattering of suspension-of-disbelief, although this more concerns the Citymaster example. Fourth is the fact that luck trumps skill. Fifth is the total destruction of niche protection: eight times a game, Mr. Lucky can potentially outshine a specialist in their field. Sixth is the total obsolescence of generalist characters; a character shouldn't need to involve a variety of obscure skills more than eight times a game (unless it's part of the core plot, in which case there should be a specialist in it anyways). Seventh is the disconnect between the core book's intended "gritty, street" game and the wildly cinematic effects of a Longshot. Again, it's like the designers did what a lot of modern martial arts are doing: stealing a bunch of cool ideas from elsewhere, without really stopping to think about how they all fit together.
The character I'm specifically referring to is my own personal creation, who (after some Karma) has 20 dice in Pistols, and averages 6-8 dice in most other categories. He lacks technical skills, but for that he's got skillwires with a Skillwire Expert System. He can not only consistently pull off good results, he can consistently pull off amazing ones as well.
Actually, no one ever "submits" to the rule guy. You're confusing power and influence again. He has no power to enforce the rules, he's just faster than consulting a book.
Yes, because we've all seen the stories (if not posted about them) of the one unruly player who completely destroyed a game session, despite all the "power" a GM wields. Do you dispute that?
Except my point is that this isn't actually necessary. Going back to my two examples, in Wushu, all a GM really does is provide flavor text and set challenges. If you boil down a Shadowrun GM's tasks, that's all they're doing as well. And then we get into games like Capes, which don't require a GM at all. And you can easily port the Shadowrun world into either system.
I've played a fair amount of Wushu, mostly in the Roanoke setting. I haven't played Capes yet, but I've read the free version. I have played a goodly amount of Truth and Justice, plus a bundle of other games that have shared narrative control mechanics.
Sort of. As you can tell, I'm not very good at the humor thing. Snide remarks are more my style.
Congratulations. You just nominated a rules guy. He may not be the same one you go to for Magic, nor base combat rules. You certainly haven't ceded him any power over your game. But you've shown him that you respect him; and from that respect, springs influence. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th February 2025 - 10:17 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.