 SR goes new WOD, New world of shadowrun dice |
  |
 Apr 5 2005, 05:01 PM
Post
#51
|
|||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 619 Joined: 27-May 03 From: Detroit Member No.: 4,642  |
We don't know that, maybe weapon power adds to the number of dice rolled (I don't particularly like that idea but it's a possibility.) Frankly, the thing I liked about changing T#s was that the environment should affect my chances, not my skill level. With the new system, it sounds like rainy weather will make my skill dice go down. SR will become even more abstract, if easier to explain to new players. If there are no tactical dice pools, we will probably house rule one general "Task Pool" for that purpose. Overall, happy that things are getting simpler, unhappy at how it's being simplified. |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Apr 5 2005, 05:02 PM
Post
#52
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 403 Joined: 27-August 02 From: Scotland Member No.: 3,175 |
There's also the point that the 3rd edition D&D system is much better than AD&D 2nd edition. In my opinion, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2005, 06:12 PM
Post
#53
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
right. i'm not advocating keeping the current dice pool mechanic--but i am advocating the inclusion of a mechanic which allows the player to increase the rate of success on a limited number of rolls of his choosing.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2005, 05:04 PM
Post
#54
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 511 Joined: 19-August 02 Member No.: 3,139 |
Erg! Yes it is - sorry. I had my filters on - only looking for 5's. Oops. Sorry for taking your time, thanks for pointing it out. Continue on. ***************************** |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2005, 06:14 PM
Post
#55
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
That don't bother me, I happen to think 3rd Ed D&D is also far superior to 2nd Ed.
If weapons still have a 2-part "Damage Code" in SR4, the two figures are most likely Dice Amount Modifier and Success Requirement Modifier. However, not knowing exactly how the dice mechanic and successes, let alone dodging, damage resistance, armor, etc., work, this is just idle speculation. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 5 2005, 06:15 PM
Post
#56
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,078 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 67 |
Oh, but yet when D&D3E was announced, the cries against change deafened the ones you see on this board about SR4. And there are still people who hate D&D3E. As there always will be, I'm sure. And Kage, that you consider D&D3E a wholly different game than D&D2E is an entirely valid opinion. And it makes sense, given that you're obviously very mechanically-minded. But on the other side of things, I've seen players who hardly blinked at the transition to 3E, and feel that it's still Dungeons and Dragons, and roll up their fighter and go clobber some orcs in some good old hack and slash action. And it certainly hasn't hurt D&D. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2005, 06:22 PM
Post
#57
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 619 Joined: 27-May 03 From: Detroit Member No.: 4,642 |
Yeah, I liked the old damage system. It made sense that the number was the penetration power and was reduced by armor. Maybe in the new system the power of the weapon will subtract dice from the damage resistance test. Bah, it's useless to speculate. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2005, 05:18 PM
Post
#58
|
|||||||||
|
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 |
Well I meant you in the general Fanpro sense. But didn't see you say you were writing System Failure?
I know you need feedback from people who don't play the game, about how they percieve the game. But I don't want the game "fixed" to please someone who has never played. People who have never played SR, who have a negative impression of SR arn't going to suddenly spring for $40 dollars worth of rule books. They did for D20 because AD&D was so incredibly bad that any changes were an improvement.
Really? Which peices are bing kept? Character creation? No. Combat.. again no. Matrix? Riggers? No, no. Magic then maybe? What exactly is staying in? The base mechanic? Nope. Well I know Fanpro is keeping the D6. But the rules in 4 seem to me to be a whole new system.
Yes D&D kept the 18 point scale, atcually they increased it to infinity, which I thought is great. My understanding is that in SR4, 6 will be the Attribute absolute maximum, is that incorect? D&D3 did not keep the same AC or to hit, but changed it to the other TSR systems, Gamma World. And SR4 rolls a D6 for resolutions sure, but that doesn't mean it has anything in common with current SR. I went from SR2 to 3 rety easilly, all the changes made sense to me and they seemed to flow. I guess I am looking for the same thing in SR4 |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Apr 5 2005, 06:27 PM
Post
#59
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 403 Joined: 27-August 02 From: Scotland Member No.: 3,175 |
Well of course. But then there are far more D&D players than there are SR players, so they're bound to be louder eh? :) What I'm saying is that the changes were necessary there, and, to my mind, made the game much better as a result. That doesn't mean I think the SR rules don't need to be changed, in some areas. But I am concerned they'll be over-simplified, or some parts will be changed or removed when a lot of people (on dumpshock at least...) would prefer them not to be (e.g. combat pool). On the other hand (I'm running out of hands here!) I don't find the SR3 rules as woefully bad as 2nd ed AD&D (in fact I rather like them), so if the developers pull off the same kind of thing that was done with D&D we'll be in for some goddamn kickass rules. The small amounts of evidence aren't too encouraging yet, but then I'm sure the same sort of thing happened with D&D at this stage. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 5 2005, 05:20 PM
Post
#60
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 |
Seeing as how alocating combat pool for dodge tests was never intended to represent "dodging the bullet" statements like the above really tickle my funny bone. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2005, 06:28 PM
Post
#61
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Yeah, that's actually what I meant by "Dice Amount Modifier", I forgot to clarify it. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2005, 05:26 PM
Post
#62
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
The environment doesn't nessarily affect the number dice. In fact removing dice to roll for negative situation modifiers would be a very bad thing for the system to do for a number of reasons. 1) The veil of the GM screen is pierced. He has to effectively give you all the situational modifiers, not just the ones your PC can precieve. 2) As the number of dice you have left nears 1 each situational modifier has much greater impact on the statics of whether or not you succeed/fail at the task. This was a issue with the old SR3 system too, only not as pronounced as this would be. 3) Related to #2, it creates chunky probability curves. So modifiers that are absolutely crippling for a 3 Attribute/3 Skill character would become near trivial to a 4 Attribute/5 Skill character. Another possible way that the system could handle this is for negative situational modifiers increase the number of TN5 successes required and positive situational modifiers could add dice for use. Because you are starting with a good sized pool of dice (Attribute + Skill) the number of successes required has a bit more wiggle room for the negatives, and the positive modifiers have a decreasing weight as they grow. This is especially true if Weapons and other tools all give positive modifiers of one sort or another. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2005, 05:27 PM
Post
#63
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 5-April 05 Member No.: 7,292 |
Hi, first time around...
First of all, the setting is as important as the game mechanics ! Ever played FenShui (or something like that) ? I think the setting is really cool and creative but the mechanics... arrrggg... The first time i've heard of SR4, i was hoping to see a polished version of SR3 which i believe is still a fairly good game ! There are some things which definitively need improvement like all the "Rigger" rules... but killing the "pools" is, in my opinion, killing a major part of Shadowrun. So many times my characters have been saved by those dices... (and it worked out for the GM too !). In my experience, you will always have new ideas in managing/controling/... things but you have to stop somewhere ! If you keep on changing things, you will be overwhelmed and they won't work (even if the new ideas were really good). I think that it is the main problem with SR in general and probably created by the freelancer/designer ratio being too high ! New people = new ideas = always changing things over... My hope in SR4 was to have a clean sweep of old things, polished rules and new setting stuff. Basically: "put back the clock to 00:00" but it seems that they are changing the clock instead ! I'll give SR4 a try for sure (give them a chance, you never know) if it's only to see what's happening by 2070 ! |
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2005, 05:27 PM
Post
#64
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 226 Joined: 29-July 03 Member No.: 5,137 |
If their new "dice pools" function in the same way as SR3 dice pools, then we have a real problem, as that brings us very near to the old WW dice splitting problem, which was even worse than the current system (which still sucks). This would be terrible. In all the people I have ever introduced to the system over the years, I have never had some one say "Hey, dice pools are too complicated." I've heard a lot of other complaints about rule complexity (rigging especially), but not that one. As for knowing the calculation for every dice pool off hand, I know most of them, and really don't mind looking them up during chargen if I need to, I look stuff up for chargen in every other system I play, why should it be so hard to look up a calculation for dice pools? They are a whole lot easier than putting together all the mods I usually have to my Attack Modifier on the rare occaisions I'm stuck playing D20. This is what I meant by throwing out the good with the bad. The developers seem to be deciding too many things are cumbersome and complex, and that is problematic. If I saw even a hint that there was something to replace dice pools rather than redefining them (which I consider to be rather annoying, use a different term if the meaning is different), or having them function like current dice pools and have to split them across actions I would be a whole lot happier with the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2005, 05:32 PM
Post
#65
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,078 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 67 |
Also, lemme clearly mention that I'm not trying to come off as a FanPro partisan on this. Like I mentioned, I'm not a playtester, nor one of the designers making the rules. I've seen a form of the playtester rules, which are not set in stone yet, but I haven't even had a chance to read them all (I'm consumed in SR3 land, trying to make sure System Failure comes out good). I can also say I haven't fully agreed with everything I have read and had a feisty disagreement with one idea on the rules a few days ago, and hope that my input is considered even though I'm not officially a playtester. But that's part of the process; good game mechanics don't usually come down from on high, whole and finished, like the ten commandments. ;)
They may. Hop over to RPG.Net and check out the threads on SR4 there. There are quite a few people saying "I might pick up Shadowrun now" or "I haven't played SR in forever, but I might go back to it now with these changes." And if I could find more people who wanted to play Shadowrun because their heads won't hurt while trying to figure out the rules, they will probably buy some books. And you absolutely do have to make changes based on people who have never played. More specifically, based on the reasons they have never played. That's not unique to SR. It's not unique to the roleplaying game industry. Don't you think Hollywood studios consider the people who did not go see their movie when they make future ones? Don't you think video game designers consider the people who did not play their last game when they make the next one? Doesn't Ford consider the people who are not buying their cars when they plan the future of their car manufacturing? They certainly don't say, "we're only making cars for the people who already own Ford cars!" |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2005, 05:36 PM
Post
#66
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 |
So does anyone have a Golden Calf I can smash this "Thou Shalt Have No Dice Pools" thing against before it becomes part of the canon? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2005, 05:38 PM
Post
#67
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: 5-April 05 Member No.: 7,293 |
Then again there are still some of us grognards that think 1e AD&D is the superior D&D game system. Finding books that are in decent shape is a PITA though. I'll be buying and hording copies of the main SR3 books up until August (so I don't have to spend a fortune later getting what I want.) After that, Fanpro ain't getting any more of my ¥. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2005, 05:46 PM
Post
#68
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 619 Joined: 27-May 03 From: Detroit Member No.: 4,642 |
Ah. Thanks. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 5 2005, 05:48 PM
Post
#69
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,840 Joined: 24-July 02 From: Lubbock, TX Member No.: 3,024 |
I don't know why, seeing how this test was called the Dodge Test. It may not be Matrix-like, and no-one suggested it was, but the end result of a very successful Dodge Test was that the bullet missed completely. Thus, the bullet was 'dodged'. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 5 2005, 06:58 PM
Post
#70
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 619 Joined: 27-May 03 From: Detroit Member No.: 4,642 |
I didn't think about doing it that way. That makes a lot more sense. Thanks for the thought. Yes, I see it now variable T#s are basically replaced with variable success numbers. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2005, 05:51 PM
Post
#71
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Surely you mean to say "1e AD&D, with very extensive house rules that fixes all that terribly messed up crap"? :wobble: |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2005, 07:08 PM
Post
#72
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
I had considered that previously, but didn't have a nice table at hand to figure out the actual curve even for a simple One Success Required test. Guy 1: 6 dice (e.g. Attr3/Skill3) Guy 2: 8 dice (e.g. Attr4/Skill4) Guy 3: 10 dice (Attr5/Skill5) Guy 4: 12 dice (Attr6/Skill6)
It's not that bad, and you can't say SR3 doesn't have its fair share of freaky probability curves. With a fair amount of tweaking (and I'm sure the developers will be busy doing just that), it seems pretty nice.
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 5 2005, 07:12 PM
Post
#73
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: 5-April 05 Member No.: 7,293 |
Nope. We play almost exactly by the book, there's really no major need to houserule any of it. In fact, when we first started I used to houserule stuff all the time - but as I've gotten older I find less and less need to houserule anything. But that's neither here nor there. I've suffered through a dramatic system change in trying to go from 2e AD&D to 3e D&D - I hated it. It definately wasn't the same game after the change. Now that it looks like SR is going to suffer the same fate - I'll just play the older versions. After august (and the end of my buying splurge) all my money will be going to the half-priced book stores instead of Fanpro. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 5 2005, 06:05 PM
Post
#74
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Aren't those percentages for a single TN5? They are going to have to require multiple TN5s to signify successes, at least for some tasks. Otherwise you pretty much get to do whatever you say you want to.
P.S. Yes, SR3 had some brutal probability curves. None worse that Open Tests, but any Opposed Skill test was rough. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2005, 06:05 PM
Post
#75
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 468 Joined: 17-March 05 Member No.: 7,185 |
Yes fundamentally this is a shift to a Margin of Success style mechanic in which numbers of successes needed indicate the relative difficulty of the task at hand.
So a routine task might require 1 success meaning someone with three dice in the pool should succeed 100% of the time. A hard task might require 3 successes and a suitably heroic task might require 5 success to achieve the effect. Granted this is hard to tell because we don't know what will comprise the skill test as it could be dice equal to skill + attribute or skill + attribute modifer or simply skill. Further we don't know if the scale of 1 skill point in the current system remains the same or if what would be 2 skill points becomes 2 dice for tests. Fundamentally though having fixed target numbers and presumably no exploding dice (on a d6 system having extra successes for 6s is a bit too often) allows the GM to guess probabilities easier and to have less control over truly unusual results. Granted you won't neccesarily have novices pull of truly phenomenal results unless there is a mechanic for adding dice to the test (karma usage would come to mind) but you'd have more predictable results which isn't inherently bad. Yes this almost certainly means damage codes are changing because body tests would likely be against this fixed TN of 5 but I'm not sure that is such a bad thing. Personally this does sound like a more elegant method of test resolution than the current system and depending on how it is hashed out could be a very positive improvement. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st December 2024 - 06:33 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.