Increasing Threshold instead of lower pools Options

[X-Kalibur]

Thought that hit me, perhaps it has been brought up before and I'm simply too lazy to search.

Say to shoot your firearm you have 12 dice. This means you need to roll 6 1's in order for a 'glitch' to occur. A glitch is something that is a minor inconvenience. A jam, a clip drop, your smartlink cutting out, etc.

Why then, should firing while moving at an opponent who is behind cover, increase my odds of a jam, clip drop, etc? It seems to me that instead of lowering someone's base dice pool and magically making them more prone to being unlucky, that simply raising the thresholds in combat is more effective.

I would like to hear other opinions on this idea however.

[Synner667]

That's variable target numbers, as per SR v1-3.

It worked fine, and made sense - as your example shows...
...But it had issues.

[Makki]

Why then, should firing while moving at an opponent who is behind cover, increase my odds of a jam, clip drop, etc?

they changed it in SR4A. targets get bonus dice for defense when in cover instead of shooter getting negative modifier

[X-Kalibur]

I actually miss the variable TNs from SR1-3.
<edit for more thought on TNs> the big problem was that even with a TN of say 14, you still only needed to hit it once for an effect. Well, that and that 6 = 7 in TNs.

What about other negative mods, Makki, such as darkness and the like? Do they also instead add to the defender instead of taking away from the attacker? Because if not my basic point still stands.

[Rand]

That has been something I have been kicking around for my game*, not because of the increased ability to glitch (I am fine with that), but because I want to speed up play. Another aspect I wanted to change is how players approach combat, by giving them even more incentive to use active defense in order to generate longer, in-game, combats. Basically, I believe that combat takes too much time at the table, but too little time in the game. I have never had a combat in any of the games I have been in or ran last more than 2 combat rounds (except for one car chase/fight). And those combats have universally taken 1-2 hours to complete due to all the cross-rolls needed.

I like the idea that the characters never alter their die pools, so they can figure them out and not need to worry wbout them anymore. Injury mods are the only problems I see, but that can be dealt with by ideology: I don't think that the current mods are enough to reflect being hurt/tired, so having the full TN increases could work - and give the players an extra incentive to be as smart and sneaky as they can (as well, as motivate them to drop out of a fight prior to being seriously injured or unconscious - morale anyone?).

*Namely, static TN numbers for combat. Using the Die Pool But Table, you cross reference the characters Total Reaction (including enhancers, both magical and technological) to get the Static TN. Yes, it will be kind of low (1 minimum), but that just serves to encourage active defenses more - which I see as the true reason for more IPs.

[Yerameyahu]

No, variable target number is variable target number. This would be variable Threshold. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

It changes the math a little bit, because you don't necessarily roll 1 hit per 3 dice; it also changes how Edge works, because you'd have a lot more Edge'd dice to get 6s on. It is functionally equivalent, and if you find it easier, go for it! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Be aware that it's not really helping simplify most combat, because they're Opposed Tests (doesn't make it worse, either, just saying). Instead of the assumed Threshold 1, you'd just have to remember to reduce net hits to account for the new Threshold, and still compare to the defender's hits.

[Makki]

sadly not. but it would make defending against guns interesting

[Tanegar]

Another aspect I wanted to change is how players approach combat, by giving them even more incentive to use active defense in order to generate longer, in-game, combats. Basically, I believe that combat takes too much time at the table, but too little time in the game. I have never had a combat in any of the games I have been in or ran last more than 2 combat rounds (except for one car chase/fight). And those combats have universally taken 1-2 hours to complete due to all the cross-rolls needed.

The problem with this is that, from the character's perspective, you don't want long, drawn-out fights. You want to put the opposition down fast, because runners are almost always outnumbered and every second you let the enemy keep shooting at you increases the odds that they'll succeed in doing something catastrophic to you.

Plus, if combat already takes too much time at the table, why the hell do you want it to take even more?

[X-Kalibur]

No, variable target number is variable target number. This would be variable Threshold. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

It changes the math a little bit, because you don't necessarily roll 1 hit per 3 dice; it also changes how Edge works, because you'd have a lot more Edge'd dice to get 6s on. It is functionally equivalent, and if you find it easier, go for it! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Be aware that it's not really helping simplify most combat, because they're Opposed Tests (doesn't make it worse, either, just saying). Instead of the assumed Threshold 1, you'd just have to remember to reduce net hits to account for the new Threshold, and still compare to the defender's hits.

Not trying to make it more simple or even trying to change it. I'm just throwing out an idea that came to me. Now obviously something would have to give somewhere. I'm thinking that maybe every -4DP mod would = a +1 threshold. smartlinks, specializations, and other pool bonuses that don't directly modify the skill rating would towards the prevention of threshold raising. This would serve to keep pools smaller all around and gunfights perhaps longer and more interesting.

This is all conjecture and brainstorming however. I have no plans to attempt to implement this in any way, especially seeing as how I'm not even the GM.

[Yerameyahu]

That's too good a deal. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I'd take 1:4 trade on *negative* mods anytime, and then roll my dice for their expected 1:3 payout, thanks. Plus, how often do you get mods in multiples of 4?

Nothing wrong with a little light rules brainstorming. Keep it up. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[X-Kalibur]

Well, 1:3 is the "average" result while 1:4 is the automatic success exchange rate. I'd have to playtest the exchange rates to see which one feels more natural. I figure while not a perfect solution, leftover mods could be a penalty to the pool or a bonus to the defender. Probably the latter.

[tete]

Ubiquity uses variable thresholds but they also have a TN of 4 rather than 5 so each threshold increase is not as bad.

[Yerameyahu]

I forgot to ask: did you glance at SR4A, p61? An optional rule:

Adjust the Threshold: Rather than counting modifiers, tell the player to make a standard test without modifiers and simply adjust the threshold to account for how you think modifiers would affect the difficulty (as a rule of thumb, –3 dice would equal a +1 threshold). Note that this only works for success tests and extended tests.

That last bit is what I meant for Opposed (Combat) Tests. You certainly can modify it for those tests, though.

[X-Kalibur]

I forgot to ask: did you glance at SR4A, p61? An optional rule:That last bit is what I meant for Opposed (Combat) Tests. You certainly can modify it for those tests, though.

Oh hey! I never noticed that. I haven't read through my SR4ALE too terribly closely yet, so I'm mostly still running on SR4 (1st release PDF).

[Rand]

Plus, if combat already takes too much time at the table, why the hell do you want it to take even more?

I did forget to mention that I was also looking at having armor & body be a fixed number too (it automaticaly takes away a certain number of damage levels), so that with the combined dropping of 2 dice rolls per attack, the combat will be faster for the players and gm, but take longer for the characters and npcs (so, response times can actually mean something). Of course, if the player wants to have a better defense they can always take an action and use active defense.

[Tanegar]

I did forget to mention that I was also looking at having armor & body be a fixed number too (it automaticaly takes away a certain number of damage levels), so that with the combined dropping of 2 dice rolls per attack, the combat will be faster for the players and gm, but take longer for the characters and npcs (so, response times can actually mean something). Of course, if the player wants to have a better defense they can always take an action and use active defense.

If Body + Armor reduce the DV on a 1:1 basis, that alone will make combat much less lethal and take more rounds. Right now, they reduce the DV on a roughly 3:1 basis if you roll, or 4:1 if you buy hits.

RAW example (dice rolls from Random.org):
Alice fires her Ares Predator IV at Bob. She has Agility 5, Pistols 4, and a Specialization in Heavy Pistols, for a total dice pool of 11.
Alice rolls 3, 5, 2, 2, 6, 3, 6, 2, 1, 5, and 5, for a total of five hits.
Bob has Reaction 4 and Move-by-Wire 2, for a total dice pool of 8. Bob elects not to go Full Defense.
Bob rolls 6, 5, 3, 6, 3, 3, 3, and 5, for a total of four hits.
Alice has one net hit, for a modified DV of 6P.
Bob has 5 Body and an a lined coat (6/4), for a total soak pool of 11.
Bob rolls 4, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, and 3, for a total of zero hits.
Bob takes 6P damage and is at -2 to all actions thereafter, assuming no other wounds.

Fixed-soak example (dice pools are the same as in previous example):
Alice shoots at Bob. She rolls 1, 3, 1, 1, 5, 4, 5, 2, 1, 3, and 6, for a total of three hits.
Bob again elects not to go Full Defense. He rolls 3, 3, 5, 4, 2, 1, 3, and 5, for a total of two hits.
Alice has one net hit again, for a modified DV of 6P.
Bob's fixed soak of 11 reduces the DV below 0, Bob takes no damage.

Basically, this rule will make small arms next to useless. Do you want to run a game in which the default weapon is an assault cannon?

[Yerameyahu]

Well, he didn't say 1:1, right? If you simply 'precalc' the Body+Armor roll using 3:1, that *would* speed up the game. It'd also get rid of some of the randomness, which (to me) isn't a good thing. Dice are there to provide uncertainty, or we'd just precalc everything.

[Tanegar]

Well, he didn't say 1:1, right? If you simply 'precalc' the Body+Armor roll using 3:1, that *would* speed up the game. It'd also get rid of some of the randomness, which (to me) isn't a good thing. Dice are there to provide uncertainty, or we'd just precalc everything.

No, he didn't say 1:1, but his stated goal is to extend the duration of combat. Also, I agree that reduction in randomness is, generally speaking, a bad thing.

[Yerameyahu]

That's true, he did say 'longer for the characters'. I didn't mean you were wrong in the first place, but I did miss that! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Rand]

Well, he didn't say 1:1, right? If you simply 'precalc' the Body+Armor roll using 3:1, that *would* speed up the game. It'd also get rid of some of the randomness, which (to me) isn't a good thing. Dice are there to provide uncertainty, or we'd just precalc everything.

I didn't say, I was throwing out an idea. If I was to go that route I would do the 3:1 - I don't see lessened randomness as such a bad thing. In fact, I have been getting interested in diceless games. Just because they have been here since the beginning doesn't mean that the dice have to always be here. The uncertainty comes into play when the players don't know exactly what they are facing. (Is that lock really hard? Is it trapped? Is the trap deadly, or just incapacitating? Is my skill enough to deal with it? If so? How do I use my skill the best in order to deal with it?) I like what someone else said (I think it was on a different game forum), about not letting the dice rule everything like "little plastic gods." I have noticed over my 30+ years of gaming that one of the first things that will screw up a game are the dice.

[Yerameyahu]

Well, it's an opinion. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) You could simply divide all DPs by 3, and play 'who has higher numbers?' Nearly all RPGs use dice quite a bit, because randomness makes it a game. In this case, *knowing* that I can safely ignore certain attacks is a pretty large shift in drama, tactics, etc.

[Tanegar]

I didn't say, I was throwing out an idea. If I was to go that route I would do the 3:1 - I don't see lessened randomness as such a bad thing. In fact, I have been getting interested in diceless games. Just because they have been here since the beginning doesn't mean that the dice have to always be here. The uncertainty comes into play when the players don't know exactly what they are facing. (Is that lock really hard? Is it trapped? Is the trap deadly, or just incapacitating? Is my skill enough to deal with it? If so? How do I use my skill the best in order to deal with it?) I like what someone else said (I think it was on a different game forum), about not letting the dice rule everything like "little plastic gods." I have noticed over my 30+ years of gaming that one of the first things that will screw up a game are the dice.

In the case of attacks, that's a problem because the players do know what they're facing. If the opposition is armed with pistols, the PCs can see that, and the players can make educated guesses as to what their attack numbers will be and how much damage each attack will inflict; I'd be extremely surprised if your players couldn't get within a margin of 1. As Yerameyahu noted, excising randomness also removes a large part of the drama: there are no more lucky shots, no desperate efforts, just a flat comparison of two numbers. If X>=Y, you win, else you lose. There's something to be said for not letting mathematics rule everything, too.

Just out of curiosity, how would you handle Edge, since Edge is at least partly a reflection of the character's luck?

[Rand]

In the case of attacks, that's a problem because the players do know what they're facing. If the opposition is armed with pistols, the PCs can see that, and the players can make educated guesses as to what their attack numbers will be and how much damage each attack will inflict; I'd be extremely surprised if your players couldn't get within a margin of 1.

Only because of "number crunchers" who need to know every last detail. In a game that cares less about the exact numbers, those things fall by the wayside. I know, we are all geared to understanding the numbers and it is strange and a bit scary to try and shift gears, but it is possible and also possible that it can still be a fun game. Plus, yoy may know what the gun can do, but you don't know what the gun weilder can do. You may think you do, but in all actuality, you don't.

As Yerameyahu noted, excising randomness also removes a large part of the drama: there are no more lucky shots, no desperate efforts, just a flat comparison of two numbers. If X>=Y, you win, else you lose. There's something to be said for not letting mathematics rule everything, too.

Actually, I believe it is by going the typical number-crunching route that is making it so that mathematics rule everything. You can't tell me that when you create that character with a Die Pool of 18+ that you aren't just ensuring that your math wins out, the "randomness" be damned. By doing such things, you are doing your best to remove the randomness, also. Remember, the idea of randomness is being shifted to the mystery of not knowing. I think players might just get a better feeling of accomplishment when they figure something out, instead of getting a good roll on the dice. The mathematic won't rule, but I don't care how cool I think I might be, the only way for ME to beat a master swordsman is through sheer luck.....

Just out of curiosity, how would you handle Edge, since Edge is at least partly a reflection of the character's luck?

....and here is where the sheer luck comes in. But, you just can't throw it in there and go "I win!" You need to explain and describe what this Edge Point means and how it is affecting. (Using the example of me against a master swordsman, I would probably go with the idea of the edge point being some extremely unlucky incident on his part - like something unseen gets under his foot and he twists his ankle - in order for me to have a chance at winning.)

My primary motivation in all of this has been my continually evolving idea that games and gamers are concentrating so hard on the numbers of the game, that they aren't actually playing the game anymore, they are playing a bunch of numbers. Using the numbers/rules seem to be a sort of crutch for RPs these days, I think, it means they don't have to actually think at the table, they can just say, "my character has a Charisma of 6, and an Etiquette of 5, I get 4 successes, do I totally dominate the social situation, or what?" Instead of actually RPing the situation more, and the same goes for knowledge skills and such - can't be bothered to actually try and figure it out for ourselves.....I want to get back to playing the game (though I do think that "game" is a misnomer; there are no winners and losers here..)

[Yerameyahu]

*shrug* Again, it's just personal preference. If you'd rather play freeform, do that. Skip the chargen entirely. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) It's viable if that's what your table wants.

[Tanegar]

Only because of "number crunchers" who need to know every last detail. In a game that cares less about the exact numbers, those things fall by the wayside. I know, we are all geared to understanding the numbers and it is strange and a bit scary to try and shift gears, but it is possible and also possible that it can still be a fun game. Plus, yoy may know what the gun can do, but you don't know what the gun weilder can do. You may think you do, but in all actuality, you don't.

In the first round, probably not. But I can make an educated guess, and as combat goes on, round after round, my guesses will get more and more accurate as I observe the opponent's capabilities. The next time I run into a similar opponent, I'll be able to make a very accurate guess right out of the gate.

Actually, I believe it is by going the typical number-crunching route that is making it so that mathematics rule everything. You can't tell me that when you create that character with a Die Pool of 18+ that you aren't just ensuring that your math wins out, the "randomness" be damned. By doing such things, you are doing your best to remove the randomness, also. Remember, the idea of randomness is being shifted to the mystery of not knowing. I think players might just get a better feeling of accomplishment when they figure something out, instead of getting a good roll on the dice. The mathematic won't rule, but I don't care how cool I think I might be, the only way for ME to beat a master swordsman is through sheer luck.....

Maximizing dice pools doesn't remove randomness, or even come close. There's a big difference between shifting a probability distribution and flat-out declaring, "I win." No matter how big my pool is, I can still fail. There is still risk involved; minimizing the risk is simply rational behavior. If we're just comparing two attributes, and mine is higher, I cannot fail. There is no risk, and therefore, no game.

....and here is where the sheer luck comes in. But, you just can't throw it in there and go "I win!" You need to explain and describe what this Edge Point means and how it is affecting. (Using the example of me against a master swordsman, I would probably go with the idea of the edge point being some extremely unlucky incident on his part - like something unseen gets under his foot and he twists his ankle - in order for me to have a chance at winning.)

That's not luck, that's a limited-use I-win button.

My primary motivation in all of this has been my continually evolving idea that games and gamers are concentrating so hard on the numbers of the game, that they aren't actually playing the game anymore, they are playing a bunch of numbers. Using the numbers/rules seem to be a sort of crutch for RPs these days, I think, it means they don't have to actually think at the table, they can just say, "my character has a Charisma of 6, and an Etiquette of 5, I get 4 successes, do I totally dominate the social situation, or what?" Instead of actually RPing the situation more, and the same goes for knowledge skills and such - can't be bothered to actually try and figure it out for ourselves.....I want to get back to playing the game (though I do think that "game" is a misnomer; there are no winners and losers here..)

Here we get into the issue of separating the player's knowledge and abilities from the character's knowledge and abilities. In your diceless system, how can a player ever play a character significantly different from himself? How can a (if you'll forgive me for descending into stereotype for a moment) socially awkward gamer play the suave, Charisma 6, Etiquette 5 face? How can a player of middling mental gifts play the Logic 9 cyberlogician? IMO, what you're describing is more akin to an old-school adventure game. If that's what you and your players want, by all means go to it, but you're drifting farther and farther away from the core concept of an RPG.