 Newbie & Questions |
  |
 Dec 15 2004, 07:29 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 10-December 04 From: State College, PA, USA Member No.: 6,878  |
Hi all,
I'm new to Shadowrun. I tried to get into it in the early nineties, but the rules were beyond me at the time. I've been looking for a game with a sci-fi/fantasy bent and I decided to give SR another look. Some people stressed to me how complex the rules are but I'm about half-way through the combat chapter and haven't had any problems. I do have some questions through... 1. What's the point of open tests? I haven't read anything that leads me to believe that the game needs a different mechanic for resolving tests. What's the design logic behind them opposed to success tests? 2. On pg. 94 in the social modifiers table under the intimidation/interrogation open test heading "Agressor has street reputation" the listing is "-Karma." Shouldn't that be "+Karma." Thanks, Nick |
 |
 
|
|
Dec 15 2004, 07:33 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 942 Joined: 13-May 04 Member No.: 6,323 |
1) Not sure. They're easily replaceable with regular tests, and that's what I do. I know they're in the rigging rules a lot, which I rarely look at, but as far as sneaking, I tend to replace it with "roll your stealth skill against a TN = to opponent's intelligence, with appropriate mods. Observer rolls their intelligence against your stealth, with mods. Whoever has more successes wins."
2) Dunno on that one. The rules of Shadowrun have become a lot clearer. Basically the only places where they're still really complicated is Decking and Rigging, and even decking's not that bad. JaronK |
|
|
|
|
Dec 15 2004, 07:43 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 392 Joined: 18-October 04 From: Tujunga, CA Member No.: 6,768 |
rigging on the other hand...LOL
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 15 2004, 08:01 PM
Post
#4
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 77 Joined: 5-December 04 Member No.: 6,869 |
They're used for when you do things that multiple people can foil, or can be foiled at a later time. Hiding so that all those guards passing won't see you (Your Stealth check is their TN), making a bomb that's difficult to disarm (Your Demolitions check is the TN), designing a contract that's difficult to understand (Your Law check is the TN), and stuff like that. You never know who's going to try and get past your stuff, and having you make another Security Systems check every time someone tries to sneak past your camera and tripwire setup can not only get annoying, it can tip the GMs hand (Roll Security Systems? Someone must be breaking into my apartment on the other side of town!). It's easier just to have them roll at whatever you got when you setup the system and have whomever trys to get past it roll at that TN. Edit: I looked up for #2 and yeah, you're probably right. It's supposed to be +Karma for the agressor. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 15 2004, 08:06 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 10-December 04 From: State College, PA, USA Member No.: 6,878 |
Hmm, that makes sense. I don't know why you use open test for intimidation and interrogation rolls though since that really can't be foiled at a later time.
Nick |
|
|
|
|
Dec 15 2004, 08:21 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 392 Joined: 18-October 04 From: Tujunga, CA Member No.: 6,768 |
Maybe the next time you see that guy who was pounding your face you still feel the same... LOL.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 15 2004, 08:30 PM
Post
#7
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 77 Joined: 5-December 04 Member No.: 6,869 |
I suppose because the interrogator/intimitator can't really "lose" the contest. The target may resist the effect; but, nothing really happens to the interrigator, and the target may have to roll again as more time passes (Say he has to roll every hour and make a success or risk spilling his guts). In the case of intimidation and interrogation you're not trying activly accomplish something. You're trying to create an environment and set of circumstances that thwarts someone else. It's up to them to resist the effects you place against them. Of course you could use that logic to rationalize that a target must make the open test and the interrogator/intimadator should make the regular test. Or you could just make an opposed test. The agressor rolls Intimidation agaist the targets Willpower and the target rolls Willpower against the targets Charisma (Or perhaps Strength, depending on how he's doing it). It's up to the players and GM really. The way that works best is the way that works best for you. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 15 2004, 09:42 PM
Post
#8
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,754 Joined: 9-July 04 From: Modesto, CA Member No.: 6,465 |
It's used to try and generate your attempt to achieve "your best". The more dice, the better your chance to score higher on an Open Test (OT). I use the OT when pitting two things against each other where only one success would be needed to show a victor. I've noticed that when someone is "trying their best" it's rather abstract to assign a TN and make a typical Success Test (ST).
Like stealth for example, the OT generates the TN for anyone that would need to make a perception test to see them. Switching this around as a ST, what would the TN be? What would the successes measure? Many folks use a TN=4 and observers use TN=4+successes to detect them. This might work, but you set a limit = TN+Skill dice as the maximum TN for an observer. On the other hand, OT results are only limited by the number of 6-rerolls that are made. The higher your skill, the better your chance to get a high TN. Everyone's got their own take on OT vs. ST and many folks simply remove it. Although not glaringly obvious it has it's place IMO. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 15 2004, 10:16 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
One of the best versions of removing the Stealth Open Tests I've seen uses a base TN of 4 (with modifiers, such as the opposites of those on the Perception Tests Modifers Table, p. 232), with each success canceling one success from the Perception Test of anyone attempting to spot the character.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 16 2004, 09:45 AM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Senior GM Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,406 Joined: 12-April 03 From: Redmond, WA Member No.: 4,442 |
With regular success tests, such as combat, its rare for a person with 3 dice to beat a person with 6 dice. And with Karma Pool to catch those few cases where the dice don't average out, it becomes even more predictable.
With open tests, however, there is a lot more variability in results. And since use of one Karma Pool only lets you reroll one die, the outcome can not be made predictable. I like the idea that 3-dice guards will sometimes notice a 6-die sneak. I think that's great. A lot of players like to calculate the odds and only do things that they believe are almost certain to succeed, but with standard rules Sneaking isn't one of those things. Personally, I think that's why a lot of people complain about Open Tests, as the outcome is much less predictable. But that's just my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 16 2004, 11:20 AM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
With situational modifiers, Stealth can fail often enough without an Open Test. It's kind of silly that a Stealth 6 + Improved Stealth Adept is subject to the kind of randomness that Open Tests promote.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 16 2004, 11:36 AM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I personally disagree given the nature of stealth. Then again, as far as I can tell this debate has become divided to the point of being up there with Religion and choice of operating system as something that people just aren't going to agree on.
~J |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 27th April 2024 - 11:21 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.