IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
mfb
post Apr 5 2005, 08:38 PM
Post #101


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



i have to agree with backgammon. the three updates so far have focused on what's changing--probably because that's what people are asking about most. what we're asking now, is, what's staying the same? what is there, in the new system, that makes it SRish?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mieric
post Apr 5 2005, 07:32 PM
Post #102


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 5-April 05
Member No.: 7,293



QUOTE (Backgammon)
Maybe it's the way information is being communicated that is screwing the pooch...

And the tendency for game publishers (not necessarily Fanpro) to change systems dramatically, making all prior purchases useless except as flavor text.

Once bitten, no matter by whom, twice shy.
Been there, done that.
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Having been through several changeovers of differing game systems.... my faith that that any new system will still have the playstyle that drew me to SR in first place is severely lacking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nikoli
post Apr 5 2005, 07:34 PM
Post #103


Chicago Survivor
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 5,079
Joined: 28-January 04
From: Canton, GA
Member No.: 6,033



Some quick number crunching
6 dice
16000 tosses (that's a 2% stand dev. approx.)

1 or more hits 91.213%
2 or more hits 64.644%
3 or more hits 32.169%
4 or more hits 10.294%
5 or more hits 1.819%
6 of 6 hits 0.150%

Formula used (in excel)
6 colums of randbwetween(1,6) 7th colum count colums 1 through 6, if they are >4 then, I counted from that colum if greater than 0 (1 or more hits), 2, etc.
Should give an idea of how easily an avergae person will fair in accomplishing somethign based on hits
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Patrick Goodman
post Apr 5 2005, 08:56 PM
Post #104


Tilting at Windmills
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,636
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Amarillo, TX, CAS
Member No.: 388



QUOTE (Backgammon @ Apr 5 2005, 01:14 PM)
QUOTE (Patrick Goodman @ Apr 5 2005, 03:44 PM)
Why is it that no one believes us when we tell them that we're thinking of things like this?

I try so hard to have faith in you guys, since I KNOW you guys are good. I'm the one trying to calm my group that SR isn't "ruined". But see, how could I know "something" was being worked on to fix the no-more-longshots problem? The update didn't say that. You did, just now, and I do feel better.

I'm glad it helped calm your nerves.

There just seems to be a lot of people saying, "Well, this is fucking broken because this one sentence in the FAQ is all they're ever going to say about it!" without the person ever considering that we play the game, too, and we think, "You know, this might be cool, but this could be a problem so we need to come up with a solution" as we do so. The fact is, we do play the new rules (it's called playtesting for a reason), and we do try to fill in the holes.
QUOTE
So we're supposed to either have blind faith that you guys are gonna give us a golden, shiney, perfect SR4, or read the updates and go "this sucks". Maybe it's the way information is being communicated that is screwing the pooch...

Not asking for blind faith, but we would all feel a little better if you (and that's a very generic "you" there) didn't assume we were mental midgets without the brains or common sense God gave a gopher. We've got some pretty bright people working on this, and we know that things are going to need work before this goes to print. That's all we're asking for. Instead of yelling, "This sucks and it's broken!", someone could try to ask politely, "Hey, did you consider Y when you were working on X?"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vuron
post Apr 5 2005, 09:09 PM
Post #105


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 468
Joined: 17-March 05
Member No.: 7,185



Any dicepool system of attribute + skill rating with fixed TNs is going to resemble exalted/aeonverse. Just like storyteller was initially seen as a variant of SR's dicepool mechanics.

Some concerns
Hopefully they don't use botches on 1s or multiple successes for 6s(d6 is just to small of a dice for those to function well)
Hopefully environmental +/- to dicepools aren't too extreme or common

Assuming that 6d6 is the average roll for the average person then 2 successes is a decent average. I assume that that one success will be enough for a routine task and that the additional success will stage for effect.

So shooting someone 10 meters away might be a 1 success test, while shooting them while you are jogging and in poor visibility might be a 3 success test and shooting the pistol out of thier hand while you are running full speed and in total darkness might be a 5 success test.

I would assume that any number of successes beyond the base get applied towards staging the target.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 5 2005, 08:05 PM
Post #106


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



Nikoli: I tried that with 50000 rows of 6 columns each, so that it did all the math at the same time (the same table had all the calculations down to the probability for each outcome), and stupid Excel crashed. :(
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hobgoblin
post Apr 5 2005, 08:09 PM
Post #107


panda!
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 10,331
Joined: 8-March 02
From: north of central europe
Member No.: 2,242



the more is read the less i like it. its no longer shadowrun, its a bastard child of shadowrun and wod :eek: pretending to be its father...

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Apr 5 2005, 08:19 PM
Post #108


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



see, okay. someone explain to me why X is bad solely because it was used by Y first? i gives one entire damn about who used the dN vs fixed TN Q first. what matters is whether or not it works well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mmu1
post Apr 5 2005, 09:29 PM
Post #109


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,070
Joined: 7-February 04
From: NYC
Member No.: 6,058



QUOTE (Patrick Goodman)
Not asking for blind faith, but we would all feel a little better if you (and that's a very generic "you" there) didn't assume we were mental midgets without the brains or common sense God gave a gopher. We've got some pretty bright people working on this, and we know that things are going to need work before this goes to print. That's all we're asking for. Instead of yelling, "This sucks and it's broken!", someone could try to ask politely, "Hey, did you consider Y when you were working on X?"

It's not insulting your intelligence to say that some aspects of a game you're making might "suck" as far as the more hardcore players are concerned.

You very well might be making a system that's going to play well, but based on the information out currently, it's not going to play remotely like SR3, and it'll reduce complexity in all areas - and not just those that most people here feel were overcomplicated to begin with.

And maybe it's just me, but saying that "yes, we know things are going to need work before they go to print" with less than four months of development left doesn't exactly inspire confidence...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mmu1
post Apr 5 2005, 09:31 PM
Post #110


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,070
Joined: 7-February 04
From: NYC
Member No.: 6,058



QUOTE (mfb)
see, okay. someone explain to me why X is bad solely because it was used by Y first? i gives one entire damn about who used the dN vs fixed TN Q first. what matters is whether or not it works well.

I think the fact that the WoD system wasn't actually any good (aside from a simple and accessible character generation system) might have something to do with it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Apr 5 2005, 09:33 PM
Post #111


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



emphasis on "was". most people are very pleased with the Aeon rules, which are what the "new" WoD uses.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shadow_scholar
post Apr 5 2005, 08:36 PM
Post #112


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 139
Joined: 6-February 05
Member No.: 7,059



I have to agree this evolving FAQ has me worried. I jumped into SR at the end of SR1 but really got into it at the beginning of SR2. I vaguely remember damage codes such as 5M3 and stuff like that, but it was simplified to 2 successes stage down in SR2. I thought streamlines like that were rad.

Fast forward on the day SR3 came out and I bought my book. I read through it and see that they reworked the magic rules to fit more closely with the core rules. Once again, that was a rad streamline (forgive my vernacular, I did most of my growing up in the 80s). Now that rigging and decking rules have evolved into his weblike behemoth I will admit I stay away from them, and that's my option as a player and a GM. So I hear SR4 is coming out, once again I think, "rad!" because I'm hoping they'll do to Rigging and Decking what they did to Magic in the change to 3rd Edition, streamline the rules to make them fit in with the core ones.

Well, now I'm hearing whisperings that the old system I know and love is somewhat caput, and has been replaced by either a complete copy or slightly modified version of the new WoD rules. That really bugs me. I'll admit I haven't played the new WoD, only the old version, which is what drove me away from the game. I loved the setting, I thought it was brilliant, but I hated the system. So I can see why FanPro is trying to appeal to those types of players, but one of the big reasons I play SR is because the rules are like nothing else I've played. Its their uniqueness and ability to at least give me a shot, no matter how slim it is, is what I loved.

The highest TN I can think of that I rolled against was something like a 20, and I remember the look on my GM's face when I rolled that 23 on the Int test. After a heartbeat he said, "fuck!" because now he had to actually give me info that he didn't bother thinking up because he never figured anyone would ever roll that high when they needed to. It seems like those days might be numbered because I'm hearing that the impossible TNs and open ended sixes are dead. Very sad. I loved that chance we once had. So who knows about this new system. I'll probably buy a BBB to see what has changed, but if I read through it and find that these current whisperings have turned into canonical shouts then I'm gonna remain an SR3 player for life.

So if FanPro kills part of what I feel makes Shadowrun the Shadowrun I love, then so be it, I'll stick with the old FASA days and FASA rules. You can call my viewpoint flawed, wrong, or childish, that's your prerogative, but I feel like FanPro is making a trade...trading new players for the old salty dog ones who are too set in their ways to keep with the march of "progress". Make your trade, FanPro. I hope it brings you much success.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vuron
post Apr 5 2005, 08:41 PM
Post #113


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 468
Joined: 17-March 05
Member No.: 7,185



Okay I didn't want to do math today but here it is

Since the chances of any one dice being a success is 33% the probability of getting 1 success out of any number of dice can be derived with the following formula.

1 - (0.67 ^ N) where N is the number of dice rolled

So a quick chart :)

Dice Rolled Chance of 1 Success
1 die 33%
2 die 44%
3 die 70%
4 die 80%
5 die 87%
6 die 91%
7 die 94%
8 die 96%
9 die 98%
10 die 98%

So there is a point of diminishing returns having much above 6 dice in your pool if you are looking for 1 success.

If I can remember how to do binomial expansion I'll do a chart for number of success expected for each number of dice in the pool
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 5 2005, 09:54 PM
Post #114


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



I suggest you use the accurate figure (1-(2/3)^N). I already did this (for 1 success, up to 10 dice) closer to the beginning of this thread. Here it is again, with 11-20 added:
CODE
# dice     P(1+ successes)  # dice         P(1+ successes)
1          0.333            11             0.988
2          0.556            12             0.992
3          0.704            13             0.995
4          0.802            14             0.997
5          0.868            15             0.998
6          0.912            16             0.998
7          0.941            17             0.999
8          0.961            18             0.9993
9          0.974            19             0.9995
10         0.983            20             0.9997
Diminishing returns should never be a problem in Shadowrun, though.

This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Apr 5 2005, 10:00 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nyan
post Apr 5 2005, 08:49 PM
Post #115


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 705



Those who are defending the fixed TN systems need to really take a moment to think about how modifiers are applied. Sure, it's easy to say, "now you just roll your N dice and count the X's," but what about when N changes? In Exalted, there are plenty of die penalties which are calculated before the roll. This slows down the game at that point (though you may recapture some of that lost time later). In current SR, there are almost no die penalties, just TN changes.

Shadowrun:
Player rolls N dice. N is determined by skill (or default) plus optional pool use. GM does not add or subtract from N. Before or after this, GM assigns a TN. If there's no pool use, then the player can just roll and wait for the TN. GM's input occurs once.

Exalted/other WW:
GM assigns die penalties. Player, after hearing the die penalties, rolls N - x dice. Player then counts own successes. GM then subtracts minimum success levels and "success penalties" (difficulty) to determine "level of success".

In SR, as things stand, there is one number that gets adjusted for regular success tests -- the TN. The player die roll can take place without wait, it's just the interpretation that takes a moment longer. WW-style has two places where the GM needs to pay attention. As a GM, I don't think that fits with what simplification is supposed to mean.

Admittedly, SR4 may not have die penalties, but that would make it awfully coarse-grained. I personally hate systems where "you must be at least this high" to have any chance of success.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eldritch
post Apr 5 2005, 08:51 PM
Post #116


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 511
Joined: 19-August 02
Member No.: 3,139



QUOTE
Why is it that no one believes us when we tell them that we're thinking of things like this?


:D Becuase we don't trust you.

*****

Sorry I'm still not on the band wagon. The more info that is released, the more nervous I get. I'll toss my hat in with the others that have said something to the effect of "Maybe the next faq update should focus on what isn't changing." And I don't think anyone wants to here about setting and flavor - we want to know what isn't changing about the mechanics; chargen, magic, combat, decking (:P), and rigging.

Yeah, I will admit, the new matrix stuff sounds cool. Hopefully someone will work out a 3rd edition version of it once it is released :)

(And I'll still call them deckers, riggers, and such.)

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rajaat99
post Apr 5 2005, 10:04 PM
Post #117


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 355
Joined: 24-August 02
From: Magna, Ute Nation
Member No.: 3,166



I wonder if Adpets and Mages are going to have disciplines, oops, I mean traditions, uh, tribes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shadow
post Apr 5 2005, 09:13 PM
Post #118


Why oh why didn't I take the blue pill.
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,545
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Gloomy Boise Idaho
Member No.: 2,006



It will be hard for them to tell us what mechanics arn't changing... since they are creating a whole new ruleset.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
slainethehornedg...
post Apr 5 2005, 10:24 PM
Post #119


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 29-March 05
Member No.: 7,261



Let me add a positive voice to this thread. I don't feel that the information provided so far has anything in common with WoD or nWoD. Or Aeon for that matter. The most one can say is that the system is skill+attribute which describes a lot of RPG's.

My group and I are the exact people that FanPro is targeting with SR4. We played SR 1, 2, and 3 and eventually quit due to the rules. IMO there are two major problems with SR3. One, players have a hard time being introduced to the game due to the near overwhelming complexity of the system. And two, GM's hated to run the game due to the overwhelming complexity.

Sure you can say that the complexity of SR was a part of the game but in order to get my gaming group back to SR it needs to be simplified some. Some mind you. My favorite part of SR has always been the magic system.

If FanPro cleans up the system maybe they would even have something that would make a good core system. The main problem I had with Earthdawn was the fact that they didn't use the SR mechanics.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nikoli
post Apr 5 2005, 09:38 PM
Post #120


Chicago Survivor
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 5,079
Joined: 28-January 04
From: Canton, GA
Member No.: 6,033



QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
Nikoli: I tried that with 50000 rows of 6 columns each, so that it did all the math at the same time (the same table had all the calculations down to the probability for each outcome), and stupid Excel crashed. :(

create the table with the data first, copy the results and then paste only the data, not the formulas. then save that new sheet and create the rest of the stuff. this will save your comp from re-rolling everytime youmake a change.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cynic project
post Apr 5 2005, 10:48 PM
Post #121


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,032
Joined: 6-August 04
Member No.: 6,543



these new rules further favor magically active characters, namely adepts.

If nothing else changes adept will be like street sams butter better. I mean that as in adepts will still roll more dice the samies. Right now that is alright, having more dice is a nice trick but not the end all of power. When you give flat Tns, having more dice is the be all and end all.

And don't even get me started about metas. Really, if nothing else changes then I would really have to think about playing a human.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lucyfersam
post Apr 5 2005, 10:50 PM
Post #122


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 226
Joined: 29-July 03
Member No.: 5,137



QUOTE
Instead of yelling, "This sucks and it's broken!", someone could try to ask politely, "Hey, did you consider Y when you were working on X?"


That was the intent of my starting this thread, generating thoughts given the amount of info we have to replace what we've been told has been taken away. However, no developer or playtester has commented... Yes it starts out somewhat critical, but that is because we were told something we loved was being removed from the game with no hints of something replacing it. That kind of news makes people a bit critical.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vuron
post Apr 5 2005, 09:47 PM
Post #123


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 468
Joined: 17-March 05
Member No.: 7,185



QUOTE (Cynic project)
these new rules further favor magically active characters, namely adepts.

If nothing else changes adept will be like street sams butter better. I mean that as in adepts will still roll more dice the samies. Right now that is alright, having more dice is a nice trick but not the end all of power. When you give flat Tns, having more dice is the be all and end all.

And don't even get me started about metas. Really, if nothing else changes then I would really have to think about playing a human.

You are making alot of assumption concerning attributes and attribute adders that aren't clear from the amount of information given.

Certainly if trolls adepts consistently have high single digit low double digit physical attributes they are going to roll pretty big dice pools.

However it's not entirely reasonable to assume that the attribute scales and racial modifiers remain consistent across editions. In fact I would be tempted to suggest that attribute adders above the "average" of 3 will be much more rare/costly than they are in SR3.

Furthermore I expect that karma increases to attributes will be much more expensive so as to discourage plugging all karma into the much smaller number of attributes instead of skills. Considering the number of active skills alone are much higher you would need to make attribute increase costs proportional to the number of active skills in the game to make skill increases worthwhile.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GunnerJ
post Apr 5 2005, 10:58 PM
Post #124


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 669
Joined: 25-May 03
Member No.: 4,634



Some more probability stuff. I worte a program that "rolls" some "dice" and then averages the successes. This is the output; it lists the average successes one can expect from the stated number of dice given the stated number of rolls of that many dice.

CODE
For 10000 rolls:
Average successes for 1 dice is 0.3276
Average successes for 2 dice is 0.6693
Average successes for 3 dice is 0.9939
Average successes for 4 dice is 1.3315
Average successes for 5 dice is 1.6765
Average successes for 6 dice is 2.0056
Average successes for 7 dice is 2.3144
Average successes for 8 dice is 2.6718
Average successes for 9 dice is 2.9822
Average successes for 10 dice is 3.344
Average successes for 11 dice is 3.6697
Average successes for 12 dice is 4.0276
Average successes for 13 dice is 4.3134
Average successes for 14 dice is 4.6439
Average successes for 15 dice is 4.9989
Average successes for 16 dice is 5.366
Average successes for 17 dice is 5.7181
Average successes for 18 dice is 6.005
Average successes for 19 dice is 6.3303
Average successes for 20 dice is 6.6381
Average successes for 21 dice is 7.0035
Average successes for 22 dice is 7.3343
Average successes for 23 dice is 7.7128
Average successes for 24 dice is 7.9664
Average successes for 25 dice is 8.3413


CODE
For 100000 rolls:
Average successes for 1 dice is 0.33354
Average successes for 2 dice is 0.66622
Average successes for 3 dice is 1.00229
Average successes for 4 dice is 1.33278
Average successes for 5 dice is 1.66744
Average successes for 6 dice is 2.00047
Average successes for 7 dice is 2.33248
Average successes for 8 dice is 2.66391
Average successes for 9 dice is 3.0001
Average successes for 10 dice is 3.33158
Average successes for 11 dice is 3.66391
Average successes for 12 dice is 4.00507
Average successes for 13 dice is 4.3362
Average successes for 14 dice is 4.66508
Average successes for 15 dice is 5.00817
Average successes for 16 dice is 5.32919
Average successes for 17 dice is 5.66823
Average successes for 18 dice is 6.00512
Average successes for 19 dice is 6.33123
Average successes for 20 dice is 6.67531
Average successes for 21 dice is 7.00249
Average successes for 22 dice is 7.34436
Average successes for 23 dice is 7.67601
Average successes for 24 dice is 8.00257
Average successes for 25 dice is 8.33942


Written in Java, I can email the source to any interested parties.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vuron
post Apr 5 2005, 09:57 PM
Post #125


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 468
Joined: 17-March 05
Member No.: 7,185



Excellent chart I was pretty certain my 3 dice buys you one success wasn't entirely correct but was close enough for quesstimates. Of course we don't know if the system is one predicated on multiple successes being needed for harder tasks or if it just has huge numbers of situational modifiers that often reduce the number of dice rolled.

Personally I find systems where more successes needed for harder tasks to be easier to adjudicate than remembering all the damned conditional modifiers and I generally feel they are more elegant than reducing dice pools but that's just my personal preference.

Overall it does predicate a significant change in a variety of structures but so as to make updating characters a scary proposition at best but I'd be content to just have a simple easy to use system.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th December 2024 - 12:56 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.