SR5 Preview #3, In which is discussed character generation Options

[RHat]

I think that you miss my point a tad bit. The decision (in game) to tempt fate (by spending Edge) is well and good, but that expenditure should not be a guarantee of success. And fortunately for me, in SR4Aa, it isn't. However, You can NEVER just get lucky in SR5, because you MUST PAY A RESOURCE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE of it. That is just resource management at that point. You are now relegated to the commonness of the masses.

Hell, in SR4A, the Common Guard can get Lucky (because teh GM is runing HOT that night on his rolls), and actually hurt the Combat Troll. Not so much in SR5, because he may never actually have that resource to activate that luck. And without that Resource, well, he is just SOL. Whose brilliant idea was that?

If the guard's packing, say, a Predator and is using the smartlink, he's got a limit of 7. Give the troll Reaction 5 and Intuition 4, and you're generating 3 hits to avoid the attack. If I recall correctly, the DV seen on Heavy Pistols so far is something like 8 or 9. So that's 12 or 14 damage that the Combat Troll gets to soak - certainly has the potential to hurt him, I'd say.

[Draco18s]

OK, here's a question:

Which one of these probability curves offers the most improvement (that is, as play continues, characters get better)?
X-axis: game stats
Y-axis: probability of success, given some threshold

Choice A
Choice B

[RHat]

You ignored a keyword in my post.

SR4.5 does not require the use of edge to be lucky. That is the defining line.

Hm. I may have missed that. Apologies.

[StealthSigma]

OK, here's a question:

Which one of these probability curves offers the most improvement (that is, as play continues, characters get better)?
X-axis: game stats
Y-axis: probability of success, given some threshold

Choice A
Choice B

Those charts aren't on the same scale. The only difference that I can discern between them is that A plateaus after an arbitrary point. Otherwise they both appear to have the exact same curve, based on my rough judgment. Hard to tell without any vertical lines.

[Black Swan]

If I'm not mistaken, Edge debuted in one of the early FASA products -- the earliest I've seen it is MechWarrior 2nd Edition (1991), though I heard it was in 1st (1986?). Problem is, it didn't transfer well between variable target and fixed target systems (it used to be primarily useful to make extreme longshot rolls somewhat plausible, but still unlikely). Karma Pool was slightly better (a la SR3) since you had to spend points on an increasing scale (3 dice = 6 KP) so it was primarily used for botched roll recovery (but had the nasty habit of stockpiling awkwardly in advanced characters).

Karma Pool was SR1, SR2, and SR3. (not being an ass, just clarifying) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I used to run with the rule that the first point of Karma pool was free (as per standard game rules) then one point was added to the pool for every step.

Total Good Karma Karma Pool
1-9 1
10-19 2
20-49 3
50-89 4
90-140 5
etc.

I found it to be a good way to stop players from becoming uberpowerful super fast.

Oh, and you could use 1 point of karma to reroll any number of dice that didn't come up a success. This is what my players ended up doing almost all the time.

[Draco18s]

Those charts aren't on the same scale.

Actually, they are. Both were produced using binomial distributions. If you mean that the maximum value isn't the same, blame excel.
I, have, however, artificially inflated the maximum value so that they are the same. If that helps.

[Cain]

If I'm not mistaken, Edge debuted in one of the early FASA products -- the earliest I've seen it is MechWarrior 2nd Edition (1991), though I heard it was in 1st (1986?). Problem is, it didn't transfer well between variable target and fixed target systems (it used to be primarily useful to make extreme longshot rolls somewhat plausible, but still unlikely). Karma Pool was slightly better (a la SR3) since you had to spend points on an increasing scale (3 dice = 6 KP) so it was primarily used for botched roll recovery (but had the nasty habit of stockpiling awkwardly in advanced characters).

Edge as a stat did appear in Mechwarrior 1 (IIRC), but the particular mechanics are unique to SR4/4.5. It didn't do nearly as much then as it does now. It's been a long time, but I do recall that even then, Edge was overpowered. I don't have my books handy, but as I recall, there were two stats you always maxed out-- one was the "Agility" equivalent, which factored into all your combat skills, and Edge. The rest of your attributes could be dump-statted easily.

At any event, I've discovered that any game with a front-loadable luck stat is more easily broken. For example, in White Wolf (any version) you always want a super-high Willpower, because it's just too good. The only reason Lucky in Savage Worlds and Fortune in Feng Shui aren't broken is because those games are over the top to begin with, so it doesn't matter as much. D&D 4e doesn't have a luck stat, but it does have rerolls, and I have a character who will go through several rerolls while crit-fishing. Luck stats are very powerful, and need to be managed carefully. Edge is managed badly.

[Black Swan]

OK, here's a question:

Which one of these probability curves offers the most improvement (that is, as play continues, characters get better)?
X-axis: game stats
Y-axis: probability of success, given some threshold

Choice A
Choice B

Alrighty then. . . . despite my high IQ, I'm not a mathematician. Can you walk me through that?

[StealthSigma]

Actually, they are. Both were produced using binomial distributions. If you mean that the maximum value isn't the same, blame excel.
I, have, however, artificially inflated the maximum value so that they are the same. If that helps.

You must be using a different term for chart scale than I'm familiar with. For two charts to be in scale, both axis on both charcter must have the same minimum and maximum values otherwise comparison between two charts is not easy to perform. Of course if you really wanted it to be easy to compare you'd chart both stats on the same chart (thus bypassing the whole scale issue).

Alrighty then. . . . despite my high IQ, I'm not a mathematician. Can you walk me through that?

The Y-Axis represents the probability of an outcome where 0 = 0% and 1 = 100%. The X-axis represents the number of dice in the pool.

The first chart with the plateau shows that you never exceed a 23% probability of success.

The chart is meaningless without know the data he's dealing with. Most threshold numbers for tests tend to be 1-4 so a 23% probability of success on a dice pool of 20 seems really really low for what it should be. I'm suspecting he included threshold numbers much higher than 4 or there's something I'm missing.

[Draco18s]

The Y-Axis represents the probability of an outcome where 0 = 0% and 1 = 100%. The X-axis represents the number of dice in the pool.

The first chart with the plateau shows that you never exceed a 23% probability of success.

Correct

[Seerow]

The progression is logical, it's just not necessarily linear.

When you're pushing an exponential scale (like Karma progression) into a linear scale (like Attribute and Skill Points), you've got to do a fair amount of approximation. The basis for that approximation can come pretty much anywhere along the original scale, but you've got to pick somewhere. We looked at a few tables created with different approximations, and the one presented is the one most of us liked. It is, to be fair, only one of a number of approximations that are all valid in their own rights for their own reasons, but this one was the one that we thought was the best fit for SR5.

These approximations you're making aren't consistent though, unless skills/attributes are changing to a linear scale, while special attributes are still on an exponential scale. I mean let's use the Attribute*5 = karma cost rule, and look at what you gain as you go up, assuming you're looking to min-max as much as possible.

Regular Attribute:
Rating E: 12 pts. Allows for 2 6s and a 3. That's 225 karma
Rating D: 14 pts. Bump the 3 up to a 5. Up to 270 karma (+45)
Rating C: 16 pts. Bump 5 to 6, and a 1 to 2. Up to 310 karma (+40)
Rating B: 20 pts. Bump the 2 up to a 6. Up to 400 karma (+90)
Rating A: 24 pts. Bump a 1 up to a 5. Up to 470 karma (+70)

Compared to Special Attribute (assume Human, start with Magic 2):
Rating E: 0 (baseline)
Rating D: 3 pts. Bump the 2 up to a 5. 60 karma. (+60)
Rating C: 5 pts. Bump the 5 up to a 7. 125 karma (+65)
Rating B: 7 pts. Bump the other 2 up to a 4. 160 karma (+35)
Rating A: 9 pts. Bump the 4 up to a 6. 215 karma. (+55)

So no, even taking into account possibly having exponentially scaling costs, these numbers make no sense whatsoever. Nevermind the fact that this highlights the major problem of SR4's chargen system (which was starting out using a completely different system than what you use to progress), and how that got carried over into SR5 and doubled down on. But seriously I don't get how you can say with a straight face every other priority option gets progressively better as you increase in rank, while race gets progressively worse.

[Seerow]

Except most Agility skills are variations on one theme -- shooting people. Charisma just doesn't have 5 skills that cover slight variations on Negotiation.

Don't bother. I made the argument in depth about agility like 20+ pages ago, and everyone decided to ignore it so they could come back and make the same exact arguments later.

[RHat]

Don't bother. I made the argument in depth about agility like 20+ pages ago, and everyone decided to ignore it so they could come back and make the same exact arguments later.

To be fair, it's generally just the specialist that takes all of what Charisma offers - most would only take the one skill.

[Seerow]

To be fair, it's generally just the specialist that takes all of what Charisma offers - most would only take the one skill.

And how many people take all that agility has to offer? Typical character I see has a single ranged combat skill, infiltration, and maybe a melee combat skill/palming. They might get some gymnastic skill (usually through Athletics group) but use it exclusively for Dodge so it's paired with reaction instead of agility. If you do consider combat/infiltration/palming "everything that agility offers" then why exactly are we referring to it as a superstat? I can only imagine it's because of Combat, which leads us to what I've said before.

The reason Agility is so commonly maxed is because 1) It's really easy to cap out and 2) Taking part in mundane combat without high agility is a fools game.

1 is trivially easy to fix (make Agi boosting harder to come by), but if you fix 2, you probably don't need to, after all you rarely hear complaints about Muscle Augmentation/the strength superstat.

As for 2, there's a bunch of ways they could make that better. Making not everyone need to be able to shoot a gun to take part in combat would be a great start. This is partially accomplished by giving the Logic Based (oh hey that's still a main factor in limits AND a whole shitton of skills isn't it?) hacker a role in combat that doesn't involve shooting. Taking it further could have involved unlinking close combat from agility (it makes at least as much sense for strength, which could use the extra benefit, or reaction which would give melee focused guys an edge in initiative), and making sure that combat casting is viable and most mages aren't defaulting to using a gun (already the case in SR4).

It could also be done by making attributes less important in dicepools in general (while gun skills are where people like to go to highlight this, guys with logic 13, and a bunch of skills at rating 1 are just as bad), for example the suggestion others have made of counting attributes as only half towards dice pools, while raising skill caps and making skills cheaper. It could also be helped by adding in weapons that are itemized in such a way to be ideal for less agile/skilled characters (ie people who pick up the gun as a secondary), while characters with bigger dice pools go for something else that is better for them (This is actually one of the places where limits comes in really handy, and the fact that this doesn't seem to even be on the radar is somewhat concerning).

[Epicedion]

Edge as a stat did appear in Mechwarrior 1 (IIRC), but the particular mechanics are unique to SR4/4.5. It didn't do nearly as much then as it does now. It's been a long time, but I do recall that even then, Edge was overpowered. I don't have my books handy, but as I recall, there were two stats you always maxed out-- one was the "Agility" equivalent, which factored into all your combat skills, and Edge. The rest of your attributes could be dump-statted easily.

At any event, I've discovered that any game with a front-loadable luck stat is more easily broken. For example, in White Wolf (any version) you always want a super-high Willpower, because it's just too good. The only reason Lucky in Savage Worlds and Fortune in Feng Shui aren't broken is because those games are over the top to begin with, so it doesn't matter as much. D&D 4e doesn't have a luck stat, but it does have rerolls, and I have a character who will go through several rerolls while crit-fishing. Luck stats are very powerful, and need to be managed carefully. Edge is managed badly.

Regarding dump stats, I agree. One problem with having eleventy billion attributes is that it promotes building a character to use as few different attributes as possible (and it also causes arguments about whether a skill should REALLY be using X attribute instead of Y attribute). A system that abstracts things more heavily into, say, Physical attribute, Mental attribute, and Social attribute would certainly be more easily balanced.

Re: luck stats, I also agree. They're easily unbalanced if handled poorly. Going back to the archaic Fallout SPECIAL system, Luck was a fine stat, as it provided your critical chance and factored into certain skill chances (like Gambling). It actually represented the character's luck in a tangible way. Edge is all over the place, and trends (especially at higher levels) toward being an I Win button you can press 6 or 7 times a session.

To be fair, it's generally just the specialist that takes all of what Charisma offers - most would only take the one skill.

And generally no one takes all of what Agility offers. Find me someone who has high skill in Automatics, Pistols, Shotguns, Rifles, Throwing Weapons, Unarmed Combat, Clubs, Edged Weapons, Heavy Weapons, and Sweet Kickflips.

[Shemhazai]

Karma Pool was SR1, SR2, and SR3. (not being an ass, just clarifying) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

You nailed it. I like to think of Edge (and previously the Karma Pool and burning Karma) as the result of experience rather than luck. You can buy the Lucky quality to add just one point to Edge.

[Nath]

Not to mention treating Edge purely as luck cause some metaphysical problems regarding the reason why humans would get one point more than the other metatypes.

[cryptoknight]

and making sure that combat casting is viable and most mages aren't defaulting to using a gun (already the case in SR4).

Huh? Force 12 Stunballs are what I see at just about every Missions Table I've sat at or run. Why use a gun, when you can just stun them all and slit their throats with a knife if you want them dead?

7 points of drain isn't that hard to deal with when it shuts off the combat. And its physical... so after the combat, the medic pulls out the first aid kit and fixes whatever is left.

[Seerow]

Huh? Force 12 Stunballs are what I see at just about every Missions Table I've sat at or run. Why use a gun, when you can just stun them all and slit their throats with a knife if you want them dead?

7 points of drain isn't that hard to deal with when it shuts off the combat. And its physical... so after the combat, the medic pulls out the first aid kit and fixes whatever is left.

Which is why I even added that combat casting is already plenty viable in SR4. The main focus there would be not messing it up.


Unrelated: I'm pretty sure you can't first aid away physical drain damage.

[Draco18s]

Unrelated: I'm pretty sure you can't first aid away physical drain damage.

And what makes you say that?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

And generally no one takes all of what Agility offers. Find me someone who has high skill in Automatics, Pistols, Shotguns, Rifles, Throwing Weapons, Unarmed Combat, Clubs, Edged Weapons, Heavy Weapons, and Sweet Kickflips.

I have a character that has 3's and 4's in all of those skills. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[tasti man LH]

Unrelated: I'm pretty sure you can't first aid away physical drain damage.

No, you can.

All Drain can be healed by First Aid. It's just that Drain can't be healed magically.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Don't bother. I made the argument in depth about agility like 20+ pages ago, and everyone decided to ignore it so they could come back and make the same exact arguments later.

Because while there is some truth to it not nearly as much as either you or Rhat try to make out.

1. While all ranged combat skills are for ranged combat they each have areas they excel in and suck in. So more than 1 skill has more value than just the 1 skill, presumedly why their is a break for groups, though it probably should be a bigger break.
2. You are putting the cart before the horse. Yes people frequently only buy automatics. But that isn't because the other skills dont have value it is because attributes ae so good for their price point and skills are so expensive for their price point people can't afford more.
3. If all ranged combat skills were = to just 1 skill why aren't they just one skill. Why not just ranged combat as a skill, no automatics, no pistols etc. Just ranged combat.

The correct approach is to look at what skills would a person want to imrpove for their character given a fairly normal concept. And that is how much agility is saving you, not how much the player trimmed down to fit it into the broken costs, but how much they would take for their concept.

Most street sams for example would know every gun skill, probably 2-3 close combat skills, infiltration, palming and gymnastics so at least 8 skills. Now they are agility focused so its not the best example. But most runners who aren't focused on this stat will want to know 1 close combat, 1 ranged combat, infiltration and maybe one more based on concept so 3-4. The balance of the stat should fall somewhere in between those 2 points.

[RHat]

And generally no one takes all of what Agility offers. Find me someone who has high skill in Automatics, Pistols, Shotguns, Rifles, Throwing Weapons, Unarmed Combat, Clubs, Edged Weapons, Heavy Weapons, and Sweet Kickflips.

I'll direct you to the analysis on the subject I posted previously (in the spoiler) - I don't disagree at all, I'd just weight Agility a little higher in terms of real value than Charisma.

[ Spoiler ]

We also know that what is usually thought to be the "worst offender" (Agility) is not a factor in limits. What we don't know is what the Karma costs for skills looks like.

And it is very clearly intentional that Attributes be more valuable than skills, so the line of argument would have to be somewhat more in depth than "attributes are worth more than skills" - especially since it's not a zero-sum situation.



As I said, I'll grant that they're undercosted. That is very different from too valuable.

Further, I'll reiterate that what is relevant is the real value of an attribute, not the potential value of Attributes as compared to skills. If anyone's not sure what I mean, let's go through the Agility list.

Archery - Ranged Combat
Automatics - Ranged Combat
Blades - Close Combat
Clubs - Close Combat
Escape Artist
Exotic Melee Weapon - Close Combat
Exotic Ranged Weapon - Ranged Combat
Forgery
Gunnery - Actually used through Matrix actions in nearly all cases, so it doesn't even count.
Gymnastics
Heavy Weapons - Ranged Combat
Infiltration
Locksmith
Longarms - Ranged Combat
Palming
Pistols - Ranged Combat
Throwing Weapons - Ranged Combat
Unarmed Combat - Close Combat

See all of those Ranged Combat skills? They count ONCE, because most characters won't have more than one of them in the first place, and even if they do it's still just one action. So that's 7, but it's not at all likely that a character is going to be making use of all that. The most agility focused character I can think of, the Infil/Sam is gonna be at about 6 (Close Combat, Ranged Combat, Gymnastics, Infiltration, Locksmith, and Palming), while even just a normal Sam might only have 3 or 4 (Close Combat, Ranged Combat, Gymnastics and perhaps Infiltration). A less Agility focused character might be using just Ranged Combat and MAYBE Infiltratoin. So the real value of Agility is about 2-5 Skills. Now because it's not zero sum, and because there needs to be space for the Agility focused character, the high-end value is completely out of the question. 3 times is actually a pretty decent evaluation.

[Seerow]

1. While all ranged combat skills are for ranged combat they each have areas they excel in and suck in. So more than 1 skill has more value than just the 1 skill, presumedly why their is a break for groups, though it probably should be a bigger break.
2. You are putting the cart before the horse. Yes people frequently only buy automatics. But that isn't because the other skills dont have value it is because attributes ae so good for their price point and skills are so expensive for their price point people can't afford more.
3. If all ranged combat skills were = to just 1 skill why aren't they just one skill. Why not just ranged combat as a skill, no automatics, no pistols etc. Just ranged combat.

Re 1/3: Actually, having the gun skills reduced is something that really should happen. The skills are not meaningfully different enough to warrant being separate skills. It's as if a Mage had to pick up a different skill not just for every school of magic, but for every spell he could cast. Turning "Firearms" from a Skillgroup into a Skill would be a great first step. Combining Gunnery and Heavy Weapons would be another good choice. As would be turning the Close Combat skill group into a Close Combat skill. While the different weapons do have their niche, they aren't different enough to warrant picking up a whole separate skill for them.

Re 2: It's almost like you're agreeing with me here. I agree skills aren't totally worthless, in fact you'd be hard pressed to find any place I've said that. The problem exists with cheap attributes and overpriced skills, as you said. I would, for example, love attributes that only give half their bonus to dice pools, and have skills go back to having cost based on attribute again, and become uncapped and the driving force in dicepools (ie if you have attribute 4, getting a skill rating up to 4 is really cheap. From 5-8 is a little more expensive. 9-12 a little more, and so on). Like having skill 1-3 in a bunch of random stuff shouldn't be character optimization suicide, it should be the sort of thing that is expected.

Either way this has little bearing on the discussion of whether or not agility is a superstat, and if it is if a valid solution to that was excluding it from limits.