Shadowrun 3rd Revised, our backs turned, looking down the path Options

[Sir_Psycho]

We should really take this to a melee combat sr3r thread.

Kage, make it so!

[Kagetenshi]

Once I stop being dead, it shall be so. Expect it Saturday, possibly tomorrow.

~J

[nezumi]

As an aside, as I go through this, I think the primary problem holding SR3R up right now is the fact that the one driving force behind the project (Kagetenshi) has a life. I have several suggestions to amend this (putting out a hit on his professors and girlfriend, kidnapping, etc.) but it seems to me that ultimately, if our goal is to finish this up before SR5, it may be most productive if Kage was not the sole arbiter. We can't run this like a democracy (even though I have put down my opinions in other threads. That's mostly just because I like to talk.) We have too many people with too many different views and too many of them come and go at random. A benevolent dictatorship is certainly most effective, with a final judge to toss out some ideas and allow others. With our current dictator oftentimes quite busy, it might be a good idea to choose a second. We have a lot of very sharp members interested in this who I think have a good idea of where this project is going (herald, sphynx, mfb, alethustra(sp?)).

Has the benevolent dictator considered hiring a benevolent sub-dictator or design team to help sort between 'stuff that deserves Kage's official decree' and 'stuff that can go straight to the rubbish bin'?

[Kyoto Kid]

...OK maybe this have been brought up before: MA loss for deadly wounds. SR4 dispensed with it. SR3R should do the same. The only way it would have an effect is when an injury or attack (such as loss of a limb) results directly in essence loss.

[nezumi]

By MA do you mean the roll for magic loss? That's currently up for debate in the Essence and Magic thread. So far all votes have been in agreement with yours:

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=9575

[Kagetenshi]

I do actually have another person on "development team", as it were, but he's even busier than I am and mostly doesn't read the threads (I talk to him directly about the thornier issues). I'd consider taking on a third person, though both of the people that I'd been considering offering the position to previously stopped being regulars around here.

I'd like to point out that not all votes have been in agreement, but I can potentially be persuaded otherwise.

~J

[Eyeless Blond]

I don't remember f this was ever brought up, but I think we might want to consider rewriting how the core mechanic is presented. The Game Concepts chapter in the SR3 book doesn't even explain all the game rules, let alone explain them clearly, coherently, and cogently enough for a new player to grasp. One thing that would go a long way toward clarifying the explanation IMO would be actually defining specific game terms and sticking with them throughout whatever document we decide upon:

• At the most basic level, we have a test.
• We should have a defined term for "number of dice you roll in a test". In SR4 this is termed Dice Pool; obviously we can't call it the same thing here. Or can we? Maybe:
  • A Normal Dice Pool is the general term for a group of dice you roll for a test. It usually starts at a base value equal to a Skill or Attribute rating (described later on in the character creation section). From this base value, Dice Pool Modifiers are added and subtracted, based on the circumstances of the test like cyberware, player choices (spend 4 dice from dice pool to perform a Called Shot), and other individual circumstances.
  • Combat/Hacking/Magic/et. al Pool would then be, literally: Special Dice Pools. Special Dice Pools are the amount of "extra effort" the character can put into that test... [etc. Go on about how Combat Pool etc. work).
• Target Number is a good example of a game term that already exists.
• Of course we'll need to include Threshold as an actual game term, rather than a mysterious term that's hidden in the Magic section and, despite being used, never actually referred to by name in the Decking section.

This creates an interesting quandry: we have two different terms for the difficulty of a test: Target Number (TN) and Threshold (Th- pronounced maybe "Tee-Aich" like TN is pronounced "Tee-Enn"?). Something that was never well described in SR1-3 was how to custom-define a test. We know that, in general, an "easy" test is TN4, Th1. But when, as a general rule, should you vary the TN? The Th? What class of factors should vary each? What affects the character's dice pool(s)? My idea was this:

• Dice pool modifiers would be mostly things under the character's control, and represent the character's ability to put effort into a task. You spend time to take aim with your gun: you add dice. You fight in melee defensively: you subtract dice from your attacking dice pool to add to your defending pool. A melee combat maneuver like Whirling would require a player to "invest" a certain amount of dice to get the desired effect. A Smartlink under this system would straight up add dice (still up for debate, but you get the idea).
• Th would represent the basic difficulty of the task. A Th of 2 would be a normal to middling-difficulty task; a Th of 4+ would be particularly difficult or time-consuming.
• TN would represent environmental factors. TN 4 would be normal conditions; TN 2 ideal conditions, TN 6 very difficult conditions.
• One great thing about the this system is that you will always know the number of dice in your dice pools, no matter what the outside conditions are. Every factor affecting your dice pools is something your character, and thus you, will know about long before a given test is made.

While we're on the subject, should we be implementing any of the common (or uncommon?) fixes to the 6==7 problem?


If a given die roll exceeds the TN by 6 or more, should that be counted as an extra success?


Any others?

[nezumi]

"If a given die roll exceeds the TN by 6 or more, should that be counted as an extra success?"

I've tried that on and off. Really, if someone rolls a 38 on a shooting test, I feel like that should count for something. I think the idea of dice exploding adds a degree of danger and fun to the game.

[Platinum]

I think that would matter in a game that used threshholds greater than 2 for staging. But I really liked using the standard threshhold of 2. I don't like the exceeding a tn by 6 rule. If there was a mechanic were the tn was >6 and you exceed it by double, then you get an extra success.

[Kyoto Kid]

[nezumi]

That's fine, although I'm not sure it's really relevant. My example would be something like:

"Alright, you're shooting the bad guy with your Ares Predator. The TN is 5."
"I rolled a 3, 4, 5, 243."

By the rules, that would be a 9M wound with 2 successes. It seems to be though, if the fellow was lucky enough to roll the incredibly improbable 243 (or really, even an 11), that bit of luck should count for something. If he DID actually roll 243, I'd say the guard is instantly dead. Just a lucky shot. If he rolled an 11, I'd say he got 3 successes, an unusually good shot. It makes life a little more interesting and dangerous, like I said. I have many memories of rerolling 6's and watching in excitement, but that situation only comes up when you're doing open tests or hitting extreme TNs.

The only downfall I see is it would increase how long any roll takes, since you're rerolling about 1/6th of the dice.

[Kagetenshi]

FWIW, I don't agree that a 3, 4, 5, 243 should be better than a 3, 4, 5, 5, but a full explanation for why will have to wait.

~J

[Eyeless Blond]

Heh, and here I thought the second proposal would be more controversial than the third, despite the fact that Thresholds do in fact already exist in SR3. After all, truly integrating thresholds into the core mechanic of SR3R, especially the part where it dictates the customization of a test and how to separate out what would cause a TN increase or a Threshold increase, would imply vast changes to how the entire game is run. Once it is actually defined like that, it becomes obvious that ranged combat ranges for instance should be handled with a Threshold increase, rather than a TN increase. And that's only the beginning; all over the game it'll have to be rethought whether a given modifier would serve better as a TN mod or a Th mod.

Relatively speaking, it's only a small consequence of this that a single die must theoretically be able to provide more than one success. Otherwise you pretty much lose the great benefit of the current system, that, at least in theory, anyone can have a "lucky moment" and succeed at almost any test, though the probability is vanishingly unlikely in the case of a guy with 1 die trying to hit a TN9/Th4 test.

[Kagetenshi]

Don't worry, I think that idea is absurd (at least the way you suggested it) as well :) I just decided to skip it then.

Short version: I like the idea that more successes means a better "quality" of overall success. Thresholds, in general, take a big ole' dump all over that. The only places where I have any intention of using them (barring some amazingly persuasive arguments) are where some exceptional level of success is required. I'd really like to get rid of the threshold in damage staging, for instance, but I don't see any worthwhile avenue of exploration to do that.

I'm astounded that you suggest that ranged combat should be a threshold increase, but since you like the idea in the first place I'd imagine there's a pretty big difference in our thinking right now :)

Edit: I guess the other use thresholds have is locking out certain capability levels (requiring that someone have more dice than the threshold)—this is part of why I like them for, say, encryption. Because they have this effect, they should even more emphatically be carefully and rarely used IMO.

~J

[Link]

[Eyeless Blond]

Not only in damage staging, but thresholds exist in magic resistance; certain spells (Shapechange is the canonical example); decking (five necessary to find a file); damage staging and encryption as you mentioned; essentially all Opposed Tests like melee combat... the list goes on and on. Thresholds are an integral part of SR3, even if the only place you actually see the word "Threshold" is in the description for the Shapechange spell. They're so integrated that IMO it'd be harder to get rid of them than to simply embrace and define them, and apply them with something resembling consistency.

Consistency is the key here. We don't want to homogenize the rules; if we're going to do that we may as well either stick with SR4 or take the whole system and convert it to Savage Worlds. One thing we shouldn't do however is deny the fact that SR3 as written is one of the most hacked-together kludges in the entire RPG universe. The first and most important way to begin to fix this is to tie together all the mechanics and terminology that the book uses (or ought to be using and isn't) into a unified, fully-explained core mechanic. It's one of the most important things we can do to ensure that we don't fall even further into SR3 kludge-land.

[Kagetenshi]

[nezumi]

I do agree with the statement that thresholds should be properly defined and pointed out in the rules, to make things easier to understand. We see what are effectively thresholds in every opposed test (ECM, melee combat, etc.) and in a number of other oddball tests (perception, effectively). However, that is a clarification of the rules only. I would not want to significantly increase the number of tests that depend upon thresholds. For instance, adding thresholds as a ranged combat modifier makes combat less dangerous, not more (not to mention, more complex).

If we were making a system from the ground up, being able to modify number of dice, pool, TN and threshold would make for a very granular system. But our goal is to modify, not recreate from scratch. The effort required to rework the entire Shadowrun dice mechanic to allow for TNs and thresholds on most or all tests would require a tremendous amount of effort on our part, moreso than I think we'll be able to easily tap into. I would shelve that for now and reexamine later if all the other problems have been satisfactorily resolved.

[Kagetenshi]

Perception is also absolutely not a threshold. A single success is sufficient to come to a "something's not right" realization.

~J

[tisoz]

[Eyeless Blond]

[Kagetenshi]

Whatever we end up doing with success tests, it won't do a damn thing about accidental shootings, which don't involve the shooter's skill at all (well, the sort you describe don't—hunting misidentifications will granted involve an attack test).

On the dice issue, I'm not sure what a good term would be, but I'd suggest "fistful" instead of "handful".

~J

[tisoz]

[Eyeless Blond]

Maybe just "hand"; otherwise it sounds a little, well, flippant.

[nezumi]

Silly question, is there a need for an 'accidental shooting' mechanic? It seems like it would be at least as useful as things like how to operate a battleship (which does exist in the rules).