Glitches- kinda glitchy, house rules? |
Glitches- kinda glitchy, house rules? |
Dec 3 2009, 08:31 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 588 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 227 |
Has anybody else noticed that glitches have some odd probablities associated with them? Used house rules to fix this?
Below is the output from a program I wrote to show (roughly) the chances of glitching for various pools and varieties of glitch; note that in all cases these are normal glitches, not critical. This data is based on 100000 rolls; the pools used for each column are the same, and smaller pools are sub-sets of larger pools, so you can at least compare "apples to apples", even if the specific values are off a bit due to sample error. The "glitch" column is for the basic glitch rule. Worth noting is the chances for glitching with 4 dice is HIGHER than that for glitching with 3, 6 is higher than for 5, etc. Its in fact almost twice as likely. The "grem1" column shows the chances of glitching if its a test using the Gremlins Quality, rating 1. Again, the chances are higher for even number dice pool sizes than for the next pool size down- again, almost double. The "rush" column shows the chances of glitching if its a test using the rushing a job rule (1's and 2's count towards glitches). Again, there's the same issue, and its pretty noticable, though the jumps upwards are not quite as severe. The house rule I came up with to address this is something I call the "hold one" rule. Basically, one of the dice in your pool (physically it would be an odd colored or otherwise distinctive die unlike any of the other dice) is "held back" for glitch purposes, and only if the roll is a glitch both with and without the "hold back" die is it really a glitch. The "HO" columns show the same role types as the previous 3, using the "hold one" rule. The basic effect is obvious from these charts- the chance of a glitch with an even sized dice pool is the same as that of the next smaller odd sized pool. This removes some of the oddities from glitching, but also decreases chances of glitches over-all. Are glitches a big factor in play? There's ways to bump up the chances a bit so the curve matches the basic glitch curve but is (much) smother (adding an extra die that contributes if it comes up a 1 works well), but is the added complexity worth it? I'm also considereing replacing the gremlins rule with one that has characters using something like the rushed job rule, because I like the fact that large pools can still glitch, and small ones don't do so automatically. pool glitch grem1 rush HOglitch HOgrem1 HOrush 2 0.306 1.000 0.555 0.167 1.000 0.332 3 0.074 0.423 0.259 0.074 0.423 0.259 4 0.132 0.518 0.408 0.074 0.423 0.259 5 0.035 0.196 0.209 0.035 0.196 0.209 6 0.061 0.261 0.318 0.035 0.196 0.209 7 0.018 0.095 0.172 0.018 0.095 0.172 8 0.030 0.134 0.258 0.018 0.095 0.172 9 0.009 0.048 0.144 0.009 0.048 0.144 10 0.015 0.070 0.213 0.009 0.048 0.144 11 0.005 0.025 0.121 0.005 0.025 0.121 12 0.008 0.037 0.177 0.005 0.025 0.121 |
|
|
Dec 3 2009, 08:39 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,679 Joined: 19-September 09 Member No.: 17,652 |
I'd not really thought about it before, but you're right, there is an increased chance to glitch on even DPs over their previous counterpart.
However, as an easier solution to the 'hold one' rule, you could just have odd numbers around down instead of up when determining how many 1s are needed for a glitch. Another thing to think about though, is that a critical glitch is more likely on 3 dice than 4, so I'd still rather take 4 dice over 3 even if I am taking an increased risk in getting a regular glitch. |
|
|
Dec 3 2009, 08:43 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Street Doc Group: Admin Posts: 3,508 Joined: 2-March 04 From: Neverwhere Member No.: 6,114 |
I think your solution very elegantly fixes the problem as you identify it, but it does add a little bit more complexity. I always ask myself if that complexity is worth it- i.e. is the problem more bothersome than the fix. In this case, that little bit of added complexity will impact every roll you make. I guess my question would be: do you find glitches so bothersome that its worth this?
|
|
|
Dec 3 2009, 08:49 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,536 Joined: 13-July 09 Member No.: 17,389 |
What Karolina said. What you're not taking into consideration is the critical glitch rate, which are more common on odd dice compared to the even dice partners.
|
|
|
Dec 3 2009, 08:58 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 492 Joined: 28-July 09 Member No.: 17,440 |
Mhmm, each even numbered pool downgrades the Critical glitch chance, converting it to a regular kind. Since hits are derived on 5 or 6 and a glitch is only on a 1 under normal circumstances, each dice is twice as likely to hit then it is to glitch as I see it.
Imaginary number time cause i'm lazy and not doing the real math: lets say out of 20 rolls of 5 dice you have a glitch rate of 3 and a crit glitch of 2. Add another die to that and it converts the rate to more like glitch of 4 and crit glitch of 1. Both add up to a total of 5 glitches of any kind. I think my logic is right, but I'm not math wiz. Considering that crit glitches are catastrophic failures compared to regular glitches I rather like the trade off. |
|
|
Dec 3 2009, 09:28 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 656 Joined: 18-January 06 From: Leesburg, Virginia, USA Member No.: 8,177 |
... Another thing to think about though, is that a critical glitch is more likely on 3 dice than 4, so I'd still rather take 4 dice over 3 even if I am taking an increased risk in getting a regular glitch. Actually, with book rules, the chances of a critical glitch on 3 dice is 4.63%, while the chances of a critical glitch on 4 dice is 5.17%. So not only are there more glitches with 4 dice than with 3, there are more critical glitches. When applied to critical glitches the inversion does persist at higher dice counts, but it is much smaller. Probably the uglist cases are at the 1 to 2 dice range. 1 die has a 1/6 chance of glitching, and such a glitch is always critical. One would assume that would dominate the 2 die glitches, where there are both critical and non-critical glitches. But it turns out there are slightly more gritical glitches with 2 dice than there are with 1. Yours, Joel PS: Mongoose, your numbers are actually for critical plus non-critical glitches. |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 01:35 AM
Post
#7
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,679 Joined: 19-September 09 Member No.: 17,652 |
Well, that'll teach me to not run the math on odds before posting. I still say the much easier fix is to round the number of dice needed to glitch on odd numbers down instead of up. Technically the the rules do indicate that you should be rounding up, but like I said, this fixes that oddity.
Now, correct my math here, but on a 1 die roll, you have a 1/6 chance of glitching, which is a 16.66% chance of critical glitch. On two dice though, you have to roll a 1 and then a not 5 or 6. That is a 1/6 chance times a 4/6 chance which is 16.66% * 66.66% = 11.106% chance of a critical glitch. |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 01:39 AM
Post
#8
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 304 Joined: 29-October 09 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 17,812 |
of 36 possibilities, (1 1 to 6 6) there are 7 critical glitches (1 1, 1 2, 1 3, 1 4, 4 1, 3 1, 2 1) - this is a 19.44% glitch rate.
on 6 possibilities (1 to 6) there is 1 critical glitch at, yes, 16.67%. your probability would be right if we rolled one die, and then the other [edit] only glitching on the first die, but we don't; so there's a few extra combinations (notably the probability of 'not a hit not a glitch' on die one * the probability of a glitch on die two (1/2)*(1/6) = 8.33% -> which is conveniently the difference between your result and mine.) |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 01:44 AM
Post
#9
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 186 Joined: 23-October 09 Member No.: 17,788 |
However, rolling that 1 means that you still glitch. So, you still have a 1/6 chance to glitch on a 2 dice roll. You just have a lower chance of actually hitting a critical glitch.
|
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 01:49 AM
Post
#10
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,679 Joined: 19-September 09 Member No.: 17,652 |
I was afraid it might do something like that. I figured it counted that. Odds was never something we went over properly in statistics class, which depressed me as a gamer.
|
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 02:04 AM
Post
#11
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
There are a number of resources online; really, approaching it from combinatorics is probably more helpful than approaching it from statistics, as simple counting problems don't really need powerful statistical tools.
Plus you get to not make me sad by performing random trials to generate approximations for easily-calculated probabilities. ~J |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 02:05 AM
Post
#12
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Since they were asked about in general, I use a house rule where you glitch if a number of 1s show up equal to the lowest of the associated Attribute or Skill. Critical glitches follow the same rules as normal glitches. Say you're shooting a pistol and have Agility 6 and Pistols 2. It's only going to take two 1's for a glitch to occur regardless of how many dice you're throwing, as your Pistols skill is only a 2. If half the dice pool comes up as 1s, it's a critical glitch.
The philosophy is 1) that I like glitches as both a player and a GM and 2) that unskilled people and untalented people both do a shoddy job of things. I also like to insure that critical glitches actually come up from time to time. Which they don't. I don't think I've ever seen one outside of my own dumb luck; but that's par of the course. Note that I treat glitches as simple little mistakes, not the crippling acts of stupidity a lot of other GMs do. A glitch on a Pistols Test, for instance, might mean it jammed after firing, but a Simple Action to whack it on the side will get it working again. A critical glitch means it's jammed until you can sit down and work on it. Which is pretty much how it's supposed to be for the mos tpart, but I've seen way too many GMs treat glitches like critical glitches. Note that I do allow actions to succeed if the test itself was still a success,, it's just the consequences of the aftereffects that vary. |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 02:07 AM
Post
#13
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 656 Joined: 18-January 06 From: Leesburg, Virginia, USA Member No.: 8,177 |
Just to complete the story properly, due to the way dice interact, the total of critical and non-critical glitchs on 2 dice is actually 11/36. With 7 of those being critical (as compared with 6/36 for 1 die), and 4 of those being non-critical.
Yours, Joel PS: Yes, I enjoy doing this sort of computation. PPS:Rounding the number of dice needed for glitches down instead of up does not produce quite the effect you intend. For 3 dice, this would produce 48/216 (8/36) non-critical glitches and 37/216 (just over 1/6) critical glitches. I.e. 3 dice would critical glitch slightly more often than 1 die, and have regular glitches to content with as well. |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 03:03 AM
Post
#14
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 304 Joined: 29-October 09 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 17,812 |
However, rolling that 1 means that you still glitch. So, you still have a 1/6 chance to glitch on a 2 dice roll. You just have a lower chance of actually hitting a critical glitch. uh, no? (5 1, 6 1, 1 5, 1 6) is the actual 'plain' glitches, that 4/36 or 1 in 9. (11.11%) if you mean glitches and critical glitches that's (11/36) or 30.5%. you actually have a higher chance of crit glitching with 2 dice than glitching with 2 dice. (if you meant 1 die versus two then you're still wrong, as 19.44%(7/36) is greater than 1/6.) |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 04:19 AM
Post
#15
|
|
Street Doc Group: Admin Posts: 3,508 Joined: 2-March 04 From: Neverwhere Member No.: 6,114 |
Technically the the rules do indicate that you should be rounding up... This is slightly off topic, but is this actually stated anywhere in the BBB? I thought it was, but I did a cursory search the other day (SR4A) and couldn't find any hard fast rule.And I agree with Dr. Funk. I think glitches are a little too rare and I tend to house rule toward more glitches. The ol' stove pipe jam is my favorite non-critical glitch because it's basically an annoyance that slows the player down (and I happen to think that SR combat is ridiculously too fast). [As a side note, is it weird that there is a baby in the background of that shooting video?] edit: Critical Glitch |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 04:38 AM
Post
#16
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,679 Joined: 19-September 09 Member No.: 17,652 |
Well, I say technically because it says "If half or more of the dice pool rolled come up as 1s, then a glitch results." and half of 3 is 1.5 Since rolling 1 1 is not at least 1.5, and you can't roll half a die (Well, you know d3s not counted), it seems that you would have to get at least 2 1s for a glitch on 3 dice.
|
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 04:45 AM
Post
#17
|
|
Street Doc Group: Admin Posts: 3,508 Joined: 2-March 04 From: Neverwhere Member No.: 6,114 |
Ah I see. I thought maybe there was a blanket "always round up" rule somewhere (i.e.- not just glitches). Maybe I'm on crack.
|
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 04:50 AM
Post
#18
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,679 Joined: 19-September 09 Member No.: 17,652 |
Ah I see. I thought maybe there was a blanket "always round up" rule somewhere (i.e.- not just glitches). Maybe I'm on crack. No, fairly sure Shadowrun follows the standard rules for rounding (.5 or greater means round up, .499999 or less means round down) when it occurs and whole numbers are required, which isn't all that often outside of initiation. There is one thing to think about as an advantage to 4 dice over 3. You can just buy the hit and not worry about glitching under non-stress circumstances. I think that is good reason to want to go from 3 dice to 4 (As well as the increased chance of some success, even if it is a glitch) |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 05:41 AM
Post
#19
|
|
Street Doc Group: Admin Posts: 3,508 Joined: 2-March 04 From: Neverwhere Member No.: 6,114 |
They seem to occur quite often in my experience. Off the top of my head you have glitches, things like electrical damage that (obnoxiously) halve armor and the limitations on the Take Aim action.
And I seem to point this out a lot on the boards, but you cannot buy successes with a DP of 4. The rules state that the GM should only allow purchasing successes for large dice pools when there is little-to-no risk of failure. |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 05:45 AM
Post
#20
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Does it actually state that as a rule, or is that another of the helpful "suggestions" that were so liberally scattered throughout the SR3 rules?
Edit: ok, I just dusted the cobwebs off of my copy of SR4, and unless they've changed it in SR4A it is indeed a suggestion. You can buy successes with 4 dice under the same conditions as with any other number of dice, that is to say "if the gamemaster allows it". ~J, who recently had to go through every sourcebook and make a ruling on every last suggestion and optional rule in the game. This is why optional rules and suggestions for fudging are design failure, people. (Bitter, me? Never!) |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 05:50 AM
Post
#21
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,650 Joined: 21-July 07 Member No.: 12,328 |
Pretty sure SR4 actually states you always round fractions in favour of the players in one of the introduction sections. It would seem that it would influence all rounding.
|
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 05:52 AM
Post
#22
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,679 Joined: 19-September 09 Member No.: 17,652 |
Where does rounding come into a problem with Take Aim? I didn't know there was any division at all involved in Take Aim.
You are right, there are a few other instances of rounding where whole numbers are needed, but that still isn't many. Glitches technically doesn't round because it technically doesn't require a whole number. You are right about half armor being one of the few other places where you have to round. |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 05:57 AM
Post
#23
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 304 Joined: 29-October 09 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 17,812 |
No, fairly sure Shadowrun follows the standard rules for rounding (.5 or greater means round up, .499999 or less means round down) when it occurs and whole numbers are required, which isn't all that often outside of initiation. almost without except SR4 indicates which way to round on things that result in halves, generally this is in the PCs favor* ex. condition monitors specifically state '8 + Attribute/2 (round up)' but for instance, the have your gear catch you while falling test (pg133 SR4A) is half the PCs body (round down). considering the rule is 'half or more' I would rule that 1 of 3 is less than 1.5 and therefore not subject to the glitch rule (regardless of rounding). QUOTE And I seem to point this out a lot on the boards, but you cannot buy successes with a DP of 4. The rules state that the GM should only allow purchasing successes for large dice pools when there is little-to-no risk of failure. As per page 62, SR4A, the rules do not specifically prohibit buying hits with a DP of 4 (e.g. it's in the table.) the rule statement is specifically: 'Gamemasters should only allow this when the character has an exceptionally large dice pool (and is unlikely to fail) or when the situation is non-threatening and non-stressful. it is important to note that, per RAW it is an "or" statement. (That is, exceptionally large** pools are permitted by RAW to purchase hits even in threatening or stressful situations and you are permitted to purchase hits in non-threatening** or unstressful** situations even when your pool is exactly 4.) * A change from previous editions. **exact value subject to GM discretion |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 05:58 AM
Post
#24
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 186 Joined: 23-October 09 Member No.: 17,788 |
Pretty sure SR4 actually states you always round fractions in favour of the players in one of the introduction sections. It would seem that it would influence all rounding. I believe I'm right in saying that this applies, accepting where it is specified in the rules to round one way or the other. |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 05:59 AM
Post
#25
|
|
Street Doc Group: Admin Posts: 3,508 Joined: 2-March 04 From: Neverwhere Member No.: 6,114 |
Pretty sure SR4 actually states you always round fractions in favour of the players in one of the introduction sections. It would seem that it would influence all rounding. Thats what I thought, but I couldn't find the actual statement.Where does rounding come into a problem with Take Aim? I didn't know there was any division at all involved in Take Aim. QUOTE (SR4a @ page 148) The maximum number of sequential Take Aim actions a character may take is equal to one-half the character’s skill with that weapon, rounded down. So in this case it is stated that you round down, but in other cases its round up. Thats why I was curious. At any rate, we should probably stop derailing Mongoose's thread. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif) |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 10:36 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.