 Fixed TN |
  |
 Apr 5 2005, 06:26 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 112 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Württemberg, AGS Member No.: 2,068  |
So what do you think about fixed TNs in Shadowrun? This is more about the basic principle of a fixed TN than about the specific way it works out in SR4.
Personally I don't like fixed TNs, since I have the feeling it takes out a lot of the depth of the system. I need both, varying dice pool size AND varying target number. |
 |
 
|
|
Apr 5 2005, 07:03 AM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Great, I'm a Dragon... Group: Retired Admins Posts: 6,699 Joined: 8-October 03 From: North Germany Member No.: 5,698 |
As long as the TN is changeable and NOT the number of dices to be thrown, i will be fine with it.
edit: Just read the other thread to this topic. It's really a fixed TN. That sucks imo. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2005, 09:23 AM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 407 Joined: 22-March 04 Member No.: 6,183 |
Fixed TNs make Capt. Dave cry. :(
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2005, 09:27 AM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
To sum up for those who haven't bothered checking; the system announced uses a Att+Skill Dice Pool vs. a fixed TN of 5 with varying thresholds/difficulties.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2005, 10:21 AM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Knight Templar Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 212 Joined: 20-June 04 From: Ipswich, UK Just South of the Stinkfens Member No.: 6,424 |
The fixed TN will take some getting used to. I'll wait for the SR4 book before making my final decision on whether or not I like it. My wife Lady Bedevere thinks the concept sucks though!
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2005, 10:26 AM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 360 Joined: 18-March 02 From: Plymouth UK. Member No.: 2,408 |
It does quite well in nWOD and this sounds similar. I'm a fan.
Trying to keep track of your total when you are going for a 24 for instance is irrratating espeshaly when your result is 23. :twirl: |
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2005, 11:04 AM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 265 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Bangkok (sometimes Paris) Member No.: 332 |
I say that's a great idea. But maybe I'm biased :)
Honestly, when you see the rules built on that, you can't think anything else than it's a good idea. Much faster to use. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2005, 11:42 AM
Post
#8
|
|||
|
Tilting at Windmills Group: Members Posts: 1,636 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Amarillo, TX, CAS Member No.: 388 |
It did; this is what I was referring to here a few days ago when talking with Doctor Funkentstein about the new system. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2005, 10:39 AM
Post
#9
|
|
|
The King In Yellow Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,922 Joined: 26-February 05 From: JWD Member No.: 7,121 |
Puts too much emphasis on attributes, unless skills get more dice per point than attributes in some way. It's surely a nice idea to speed things up a lot, which I do appreciate, and simplifies the system a great deal, whcih I also appreciate, but I fear that, this way, a quickness 3, pistols 6 elite sec guard will not be able to shoot as good as a quickness 9 night one who has never held a pistol before, and that's just idiotic.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2005, 01:25 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 355 Joined: 24-August 02 From: Magna, Ute Nation Member No.: 3,166 |
I've never had a problem with the "old" system. I think it stinks that the rules are being dumbed down.
I don't like fixed TN's. The changing dice pool is fine, but I agree with Toa and Hermit. I would like both changing dice pool and changing TN. This system will also place more focus on attributes than skills. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2005, 01:26 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,332 |
i don't mind fixed TN, as there will be modifications of the number of dice thrown it seems. In the end it comes to the same. Either you increase the difficulty to achieve a hit, or you reduce the number of possible hits.
on a more probabilistic point, i'm not good enough to know. but i think it's a nice change. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2005, 12:19 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 639 Joined: 22-April 02 Member No.: 2,638 |
I'm guessing this also means the Rule of Six is RIP? While I'm happy to see an end to the whole '6 is really 7' mess, I'm also saddened to see another unique SR element disappear.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2005, 01:00 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,840 Joined: 24-July 02 From: Lubbock, TX Member No.: 3,024 |
I'd be interested to see the numbers breakdown as far as chance of success with this method vs. the old one.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2005, 02:26 PM
Post
#14
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
I'll definitely keep the Rule of Six regardless, combined with Extra Successes for Every 6 Rolled Above TN. Ie. 2 successes for an 11, 3 successes for a 17. Or maybe it'd be simpler to just give the extra successes per 6 rolled, ie. 2 for 12, 3 for 18, etc.
Echo that. I'm sure it would be easy for someone who's just done statistics to provide a simple table of probability of X(1,2,3,...,8,9,10) or more successes with Y(1,2,3,...,18,19,20) dice. I can only do it for 1+ successes, and maybe 2+ if you give me 2 hours. :( This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Apr 5 2005, 02:35 PM |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2005, 01:32 PM
Post
#15
|
|||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
most likely the night one will take a -dice mod or a +success treshold mod as its only using attributes for the test. but trow in one skill dice and suddenly you dont get that mod and boom :eek: only time will tell if this system will suck or not... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2005, 01:43 PM
Post
#16
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 276 Joined: 6-August 02 From: Kiel, Germany Member No.: 3,071 |
I think a maximum of #skill dice from attribute or something similar might fix that? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2005, 02:59 PM
Post
#17
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
That'd get you into the exact same problems that you have with defaulting in SR3 -- it would in some cases be better not to get a skill at all, since having a skill at 1 might actually reduce your chances of success from what you get through defaulting. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2005, 03:08 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
I'm in favor of variable TNs, but my mind could be changed. This is an area where I'm going on faith that FanPro will make it okay (although I voted I prefer variable.)
Don't fail me, FanPro!! I'm watching you. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2005, 03:19 PM
Post
#19
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 639 Joined: 22-April 02 Member No.: 2,638 |
How about something like a max of 3 dice when defaulting to an attribute alone? The implication is that using nothing but raw ability, your results will be average at best. Having at least 1 level in the appropriate skill would remove the cap. That way, having a skill will always be better than defaulting. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 5 2005, 02:15 PM
Post
#20
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,840 Joined: 24-July 02 From: Lubbock, TX Member No.: 3,024 |
So, instead of having no reason to learn a skill that defaults to a high attribute, there is now no reason to learn a skill higher then 1 that links to a high attribute.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2005, 03:28 PM
Post
#21
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
you still end up with the crasy stuff that a night one with minimal training can kick the ass of a avarage guard with avarage training any day...
edit: outch, bigity out-typed me :P |
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2005, 02:24 PM
Post
#22
|
|
|
The King In Yellow Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,922 Joined: 26-February 05 From: JWD Member No.: 7,121 |
yeap. no matter how I turn this, I see many problems with the apparent upscaling of attribute importance. :|
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2005, 02:36 PM
Post
#23
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 639 Joined: 22-April 02 Member No.: 2,638 |
Sure there would... if skills are cheaper to raise than attributes. Official statements seem to indicate that raising attributes is going to be hella expensive. If it costs less to raise all your Qui-based skills from 1 to 2 than it would to raise your Qui from 6 to 7, you'd probably pick the skills instead. Raising your base attributes so as to increase your dice pools when defaulting would face the law of diminishing returns with a max cap; anything above 3 would be useless to the unskilled. I'm sure there comes a point in the attribute cost vs. skillset cost matrix where it becomes cheaper to raise the attribute, but it still forces you to focus on a few key skills vs. being an untrained Quickness god. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2005, 02:36 PM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 184 Joined: 29-August 03 Member No.: 5,553 |
Absolute crap. For years White Wolf has been using the retarded little brother system to SRs d6 system. Now SR is moving more towards WW...? Absolutely wonderful.
Given that they've done some pretty amazing things in the past, I'll withhold final judgement until I see it, but it doesn't sound very promising.. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2005, 02:58 PM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 22-March 05 From: Milwaukee Member No.: 7,210 |
As far as high attributes go... I have to imagine that the troll ganger with street smarts and a Brawl 3 and Strength 7 is going to be a match for the trained human security guard with a karate 5 and Strength 5. Lets face it, the human knows his stuff... but the troll has 3 feet and 300 pounds on him. It should be tough going on the human.
Now, with high attributes, does it make since to learn skills? Yes, because I'm sure there will be an untrained penalty for using a skill when you have "no skill." Does that make learning a skill at 1 useful? You bet. A really smart guy, lets say Einstein, with no computer skill is going to have a tough time using a computer, but even a normal kid today, with no formal training (skill of 1) can navigate and use a computer effectively. There is a big difference between knowing nothing and just enough to be dangerous. Also, you are still assuming attributes will be used in the same way as in SR3. Attributes might not be more important then before, just used differently. For example, using body to resist damage may not happen any more. Perhaps, Body just represents how much damage you can take. I personally enjoy the resisted test however, but adding extra dice to resist for armor sounds good. In the end, FanPro announced that they are trying to streamline the system. Fixing the target number is one way to accomplish that. In SR3 you had to compute a target number and number of dice for every action in combat. Now, you have no dice pools to worry about. Add attribute to skill and your done. GM will add or remove dice for modifications. No more waiting for a player to figure out how to best use pool dice. No more adding up target number modifiers for range, visibility, or injury. It might not be as complex, but it will be fast, and that is what FanPro said they wanted. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th April 2024 - 11:55 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.