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

[Herald of Verjig...]

[Eyeless Blond]

[Eyeless Blond]

[nezumi]

Perhaps an easy mechanic would be, for every number the Target Number falls below two, that counts as an automatic success? So a person at point blank in a brightly lit room would have say 2 or 3 automatic successes. Related, a gunshot at point blank against a non-moving target would perhaps have 2 automatic successes.

This avoids failures at ridiculously easy tasks (such as tying your shoes), and increases the threat of accidents and mooks, and allows for smart runners to better take advantage of one-shot kills (you have a rifle trained on a stationary target at moderate range? He SHOULD be dead.)

[Kagetenshi]

Then we'd have to completely rework VCRs, because my TN doesn't hit 2 except on a very, very bad day.

~J

[nezumi]

I was under the assumption we were going to rework VCRs anyhow. I'm not especially pleased with any piece of cyber that means you never have a TN above 3 for an entire class of actions.

[Eyeless Blond]

Heh, true. Maybe reworking Smartlinks should be in the works as well; SR3 games pretty much have to suffer from film noir syndrome just to keep sammies from TN-2 ing everything in the game. Maybe they should they just add dice equal to their rating to all driving tests instead, along with giving access to Control Pool?

My idea was that TNs could just go below 2, even into the negative levels. So if the TN should ever get to, say, -5, even rolling a 3 would count as two successes. Note that 1s are still always failures, and the Rule of 1 would still apply, so you'd have to roll anyway, just to see if you botch.

[mmu1]

By that logic, you'd have to rework more than just Smartlinks - keeping things dark doesn't work either, if the Sam was smart about his eye augmentations.

Between thermal, low-light, eyelights, flare-comp (and ultrasonic, maybe, if you have Essence and cash to spare) there are very few situations in which one will get any vision-related penalties - and most of those are not something you can reasonably use all the time.
It's not like you can run session after session in complete darkness filled with thermal smoke. On top of that, anything you do only ends up hurting everyone else who doesn't have the same augmentations more than it does the augmented guy.

However, I don't think the Smartlink situation and the VCR one are remotely comparable. -2 TN does not compare to -6 TN and making most your rolls vs. the handling of your vehicle, which you can lower through customization, for an effective -8 or -10 TN.

In addition, if you run your gun battles using all the tools available to you as the GM, you'll find plenty of ways to raise the shooter's TN above 2. Cover, target running, shooter walking, shoother running - those should come up consistently (assuming your gunfights don't happen with everyone strolling about in the open) and they'll drive the TNs up very quickly.

[nezumi]

I've never had significant difficulty with the smartlink. Shadowrunners, being characters who generally work in the shadows, are expected to intentionally look for dark and mist (and while eye augs reduce those penalties, generally only natural vision completely eliminates them). Like mmu said, add in cover, movement, range, etc. and on average I find shooting TNs are around 5 (7 for shooters without SL).

Eyeless blond, I don't understand your explanation. If the TN is -5, by your explanation, I'd assume you're guaranteed no successes, but likely to get 3 (with 3 dice). If 1 is still a failure, than you've changed absolutely nothing, you still have to roll a 2 or above on each die for it to be worth anything. My idea would mean that a -5 TN would give you 6 automatic successes (or perhaps we should just convert the negative number directly; a little less adding, make the rule a little less powerful).

[Platinum]

-2 for smartlinks just really make sense.... TN 2 is only for targets that don't have cover, have no lighting mods. all you are doing is trying to hit the side of a proverbial barn.... should be easy for seasoned professionals. This also assumes that you are resting, not moving over any kind of ground, etc.

maybe the -1 for stationary should be removed, and assume that everything is stationary,.... and if they move, you suffer a penaltly. +1 if you are moving. +2 for running. Most people forget the attacker walking/running modifiers.

the -6 from a VCR kind of makes sense, but I think it should be changed a little bit.
difficult maneuver TN's can get modded up really quickly. maybe the mod should be just level instead of level *2. with a VCR you actually become the vehicle, you feel, everything and when you twitch the vehicle twitches so it makes sense for all driving tests.

2. I think the augmentation that a vcr provides for firing weaponry should come from a targeting computer either in the vehicle or on your vcr rig. Wired reflexes don't lower your tn's why should a vehicle rig. Your weapons are part of you and you fire them much like you would a cyberweapon, so by that comparison, a targeting computer could take the place of a smartlink.

[Kagetenshi]

What augmentation does a VCR provide for firing weaponry?

~J

[Eyeless Blond]

[Kyoto Kid]

...not sure where best to post this question, but will there be a related thread on Bioware, Chemtech, and Genetech?

Been trying to play catch up on all the SR3R topics. Still have a long way to go. Somewhere along the line it would be handy to have a compilation of what changes/additions have already been agreed upon.

[Kagetenshi]

I imagine there will eventually be threads on just about every topic in the Shadowrun system. Questions, comments, and proposals on not-yet-threaded topics should go here.

I'm trying to keep decided changes at the top of the relevant threads, but at some point (probably over the summer) I'll see what I can do about making a more centralized repository of all changes.

~J

[Kyoto Kid]

...thanks for the clarification. Like I mentioned I am doing my best to get up to date so as not to reiterate concerns that have already been addressed or settled on.

I am tooling up to run a revised version of an SR3 campaign I did a couple of years ago and would like to bring it in line with SR3R (and eventually SOTA2065) as much as possible.

[nezumi]

[Eyeless Blond]

So, open questions on this thread:

1. Defining and clarifying game terminology: Open. There seems to be lukewarm support for this one, though debate continues over what to call the number of dice used in a test.
2. Naming thresholds as part of the core mechanic: Hotly debated. Some people see Thresholds as being everywhere, and that they need to be labeled as such. Others don't see Thresholds as being all that prevalent in SR3, so they don't deserve their own general rules.
3. Giving thresholds the same honored spot in the SR3 core rules as TNs by giving them extensibility guidelines as TNs have, and specifically spelling out where TN and Threshold apply: Closed(REJECTED). This one surprised me, as I currently see thresholds as already heavily integrated into the rules, just not in a way that is really spelled out, but vehement opposition to further integrating Thresholds is forcing me to back down.
4. Very high rolls --> extra successes. Open. Kagetenshi and Herald have both expressed dislike for this idea, though so far no concrete arguments have come up against it. On the for side there is disagreement on how to implement it: how much over the TN counts as an extra success? Should TNs be allowed to go into negative numbers, so the difference between roll and TN can be large enough that someone can, say, earn two successes from one die roll of 4 against a TN of -6?
5. Solutions for 6==7? Open. No proposals yet.
6. Getting rid of Open Tests, decking's pseudo-Extended Tests, etc: Open. Open tests in particular seem to be a holy cow for Kagetenshi, while for me they're more of a proud nail, so I expect more debate here.

[nezumi]

For E, one person recommended, when rerolling, add 5, not 6. So rolling 6 then 4 gets you a 9, not a 10.

[tisoz]

A. I like handful or fistful even if they sound a bit silly. They are easy to remember and give a direct reference to what they represent - the dice in your hand you are getting ready to roll for a given test.

B. They are akin to Open Tests - something that comes up in certain circumstances. Define them similarly.

C. Glad to see it is closed, as I see no reason to try to homogenize Thresholds.

D. In play, I usually observe the GM making an allowance for a very high roll in his description, although it does not mean he allocated more successes to the roll. This always seemed fine with me, and I've never noticed anyone complain. Usually it brings a grin to faces around the table.

E. Total non-issue to me. It does not bother me in the least. Actually, most of the solutions for this aggravate the hell out of me.

F1. Open Tests are a non-issue for me.
F2. Decking's Extended Tests, I'll have to look further.

[Herald of Verjig...]

A. Bucket

B. They tend to be used to indicate special cases, a common mechanic to handle uncommon difficulties. Leave them roughly as is, maybe toss out the term threshold a little more often, but any core definition should indicate that they are generally used to make certain tasks non-trivial.

C. There is no debate C.

D. If groups like rewarding really high rolls, they will do so regardless of there being no rule in the book telling them to. If groups don't like rewarding really high rolls, they will be irritated if there is a rule for it. Leave the topic unstated and let each group decide.

E. Unlike some, I like the uneven probability change of different TNs. It leads to cases where the low light additional penalty is insignificant as well as cases where that additional penalty will cut the likelyhood of success past the point where you risk action. Reality isn't statistically proper at any given time, so I like that the same penalty does not always mean the same thing.

F. I've had fun with open tests. I saw a dwarf with 2 in stealth out-hide a stealth adept, and I've had a know-it-all mage adept roll one 5 on 10 dice (all the rest lower). As before, certainty removes the need for a roll, and open tests are very uncertain.
FF. I don't deck much.

[Kagetenshi]

The same penalty isn't going to mean the same thing no matter what we do—a +1 is going to mean more going from 5 to 6 (1/3 -> 1/6) than from 6 to 7 (1/6 -> either 1/6 or 1/6*5/6 = 5/36) no matter how we slice it, unless we redo the entire die system.

~J

[Random Voices]

[Kagetenshi]

Your math is off—you've got tn 6 in the add-to-6 method being .3333 instead of .1667. I'll check the rest later.

~J

[nezumi]

Silly question, do the votes actually count for anything? After all, Kage is ultimately judge, jury and executioner. From my experience, I've seen more cases closed because he sees a convincing argument than because everyone said such and such is a good idea.

[Kagetenshi]

I'm more likely to continue thinking about something that I'm not convinced about if it's a popular idea, but yeah, a convincing argument is much stronger than a popular but vague approval IMO.

~J