 streamlining the combat method |
  |
 Nov 1 2004, 06:20 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802  |
I've seen several rolls of 24+ with physical dice.
~J |
 |
 
|
|
Nov 1 2004, 06:25 PM
Post
#27
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 11-December 02 From: The other end of your computer screen Member No.: 3,724 |
oh we didn't set out to make it do that... We were just designing a "catch all" dice roller and eventually we had the fields: "number of dice", "number of sides", "add togther or list them seperate", "then add [ ]", "re-roll and add", "re-roll and replace" That "then add" is the key there. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 1 2004, 06:33 PM
Post
#28
|
|||||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,754 Joined: 9-July 04 From: Modesto, CA Member No.: 6,465 |
I'd almost think that a person rolling a die would be more apt to skew the roll. I'm sure we've all seen it many times when you roll the die and it spins in such a way that the "6" does a flat spin and voila, another 6! But I suppose that all falls within the realm of "rolling a die". I think as long as the pseudo-generator is written properly you should get "random enough" results. You can do some basic statistics on your generator's results to help qualfy if it's a good generator or not. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Nov 1 2004, 06:34 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I'm addressing the entire problem with 6~=7 in general.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Nov 1 2004, 06:37 PM
Post
#30
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 11-December 02 From: The other end of your computer screen Member No.: 3,724 |
ah...yeah...it's not a problem IR, but I was completely beside myself with glee when I stumbled onto it with our roller.
*pet's it lovingly* |
|
|
|
|
Nov 1 2004, 06:45 PM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Chicago Survivor Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,079 Joined: 28-January 04 From: Canton, GA Member No.: 6,033 |
I've seen a 54 on a physical roll
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 1 2004, 07:52 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 72 Joined: 12-September 04 Member No.: 6,654 |
Why did the person stop rolling?
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 1 2004, 11:42 PM
Post
#33
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 23 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,806 |
On my next game I'm planning to try a modification where every six above a target number counts as an extra success.
I can just see someone rolling a 54. "I got, uh, 9 successes." "You rolled two dice." "Yeah. I know." |
|
|
|
|
Nov 1 2004, 11:50 PM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
The question stands though ... why did the person stop? :D
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 2 2004, 12:12 AM
Post
#35
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 23 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,806 |
Maybe he wasn't using that modification, and he got bored? :)
"IT'S NOT AN OPEN TEST. IT'S A SUCCESS. STOP ROLLING." Or maybe he's one of those people who stops rolling the instant they get a success, and the target number was 49 . . . |
|
|
|
|
Nov 2 2004, 12:27 AM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
If you've rolled that many sixes in a row, it isn't normal to stop. :D
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 2 2004, 01:04 AM
Post
#37
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
You're nicer than I am. I'd never do this for under twelve more, and would probably go closer to eighteen. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 2 2004, 03:26 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
It's actually not a bad idea. It's very much in keeping with the "anything is possible" feel of SR rules. Allowing for theoretically unlimited successes is an interesting idea, I might have to try that. While 6 above sounds okay for high target numbers, when you think about low target numbers (like 2's) that could result in a lot of extra successes. Then again, if they're rolling for 2's then they've already won, haven't they? 18 is too steep. That'll happen too rarely to be worth remembering as a rule.
A similar variant I tried once was to allow everyone's natural 1d6 to initiative to be an exploding die (i.e. follow the rule of six), but no bonus dice did. That way it was possible for anyone to beat anyone at initiative; just increasingly unlikely as one person got wired. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 2 2004, 03:33 PM
Post
#39
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
My simple math says it adds exactly 20% more successes on average. It seems the weirdest with high TNs -- you are more likely to roll a second success on the same die as you rolled the first than you are to roll a success on some other die. I love it, because it adds that much more random factor to most things in SR. One thing it slightly screws over is Drain and other tests which are not in any way opposed. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 2 2004, 04:30 PM
Post
#40
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
I actually like how TN 6 = TN 7.
When the chips are down and the PC is making a desperate dodge test, I can make quips like, "Since you've been such a nice guy, I'll make that a TN 6 instead of a TN 7." And everyone laughs. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 4 2004, 05:51 PM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 50 Joined: 4-November 04 Member No.: 6,807 |
I roll initiative for NPCs and write it down, but I let the player remember there own scores. Then I just call out the highest NPC score ("can anyone beat 17?"), and any player that rolled higher lets me know.
I usually just fudge the combat pool for minor NPCs -- I give them a couple extra dice for every roll, fewer if they're dodging a lot. For major NPCs, I'll keep track of the combat pool. Also, I try to pit the PCs against small numbers of powerful opponents, rather than large numbers of goons. Combat goes faster that way. If I have to do goons, I fudge heavily to keep things moving (for example, by giving all the goons the same initiative score). |
|
|
|
|
Nov 5 2004, 01:32 AM
Post
#42
|
|||
|
UMS O.G. Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 444 Joined: 18-May 04 Member No.: 6,335 |
Yeah Deadlands. The concept of "raises" rewards those who roll dramatically higher than needed. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 8th December 2025 - 07:52 PM |
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.