 Variable TN vs. Variable "pool", Someone help me here.... |
  |
 Apr 14 2005, 06:08 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Resident Legionnaire  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,136 Joined: 8-August 04 From: Usually Work Member No.: 6,550  |
Maybe I am just too tired and not thinking clearly, but can some one explain the following to me:
As SR3 is, we have a variable target number, and generally throw (notwithstanding combat pool and whatnot) the same number of dice for a given test every time. Now it sounds as if modifiers will take the form of throwing a variable number of dice against a fixed TN? How does this streamline the proccess? You are essentially doing the same thing as you were before aren't you? |
 |
 
|
|
Apr 14 2005, 06:14 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
I think you're taking too narrow a view. Were that the only change being made to the rules, I would agree. I think most of the "streamlining" is going to occur in other ways, and they feel that using this other type of fundamental mechanic will facilitate that.
(ew, that almost sounded like I was advocating SR4) |
|
|
|
|
Apr 14 2005, 06:18 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 870 Joined: 6-January 04 From: Idaho Member No.: 5,960 |
Your modifying the number of dice you throw rather than the TN. Seems like the exact same thing, swapping TN modifiers for dice modifiers. I've yet to see any "streamlining".
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 14 2005, 06:27 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Resident Legionnaire Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,136 Joined: 8-August 04 From: Usually Work Member No.: 6,550 |
I am with Solstice here. It seems that if anything, (at least this portion of the rules) could actually be more of a pain to deal with. I want to know that when I try to hop a fence I use a certain number of dice every time. I ask the GM, "What number do I need?", not "How many dice do I get to throw this time?"
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 14 2005, 06:29 PM
Post
#5
|
|||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,587 Joined: 25-January 05 From: Berkeley, CA Member No.: 7,014 |
The streamlining comes from allowing the player to quickly adjucate his/her own successes. However, this won't be possible if they don't know how many dice they are going to throw. In effect, you are saying "How many dice?" instead of "What's my Target Number?" If they were really streamlining it, then the Threshold would be modifiable by GM-controllable factors, while the number of Dice thrown will be modifiable by player-controllable factors. This way, a player will never have to ask "how many dice do I throw?" because they'll already know. The GM just has to compare the "hits" against the threshold. So things like Smartlinks, laser sights, would probably add dice. Things like called shots and character movement would probably subtract dice. Anything that a player him/herself can control will modify the number of dice thrown. Meanwhile, things like lighting and target movement would modify the threshold (the secret number the GM knows). That is, if they were really streamlining it. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 14 2005, 06:38 PM
Post
#6
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
As I'm sure has been noted repeatedly in other threads about the same issues, this would lead to: 1) no positive GM-controllable factors, and 2) all GM-controllable factors having a huge effect on the outcome -- minor factors would have to be ignored. I'd rather they wouldn't "streamline" the game in that way, in fact I seriously doubt they'd do such a thing. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 14 2005, 06:42 PM
Post
#7
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
The scale of the factor would be about 2.5 die to 1 success, assuming exploding iterative 6's. Large, but managable. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 14 2005, 06:55 PM
Post
#8
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Also keep in mind that you have yet to see the rules. ;) The FAQ is rather thin on information, no? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 14 2005, 06:59 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 44 Joined: 14-April 05 Member No.: 7,331 |
The one problem I have with the variable pool over variable number is if the modifiers can take your dice pool down to 0 or even 1. As the system stands even if you have a +40 tn penalty and only one dice in a skill theoretically you can still get a success, and if you have more dice and are prepared to burn KP permanently you can buy successes up to your skill if you make that lucky one. A supreme effort for a supreme result.
Here you can get the problem of simply NEVER being able to succeed (0 dice) or if one dice is the minimum then if the penalty is enough to reduce someone of attribute of 3 and a skill 6 to 1 dice then a very well trained climber, for example, having the same chance of success as someone who has never climbed in their life, and has a severe limitation in that attribute. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 14 2005, 07:00 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
It's only "streamlining" in that I guess people don't have to really look at their dice anymore -- if they see a five or six, they pick it up. Pavlovian training can handle that much.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 14 2005, 07:06 PM
Post
#11
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
That's why I suggested in a thread some time back that positives add dice, negatives subtract successes. I never got around to defending it (RL pulled me away for a while). If you have iterative exploding 6's then even with less dice than successes required you still have a shot. You have to make sure to scale positives about 2.5 more in value than a similar negative (2.5 die averages to 1 success), but other than that you've captured the old "anything unlikely is still possible" that SR3 has. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 14 2005, 07:07 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 44 Joined: 14-April 05 Member No.: 7,331 |
Ahh, sorry bl;akkie I never saw that post. Yup that would cover it. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 14 2005, 07:07 PM
Post
#13
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Looking at your dice in SR3 has any meaning, other than reroll the sixes? The GM is the one that knows the TN, not the player. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 14 2005, 07:12 PM
Post
#14
|
|||||
|
Resident Legionnaire Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,136 Joined: 8-August 04 From: Usually Work Member No.: 6,550 |
A good idea for the new situation, but is that really any more streamlined than the current system? For a lot of tests (not perception for instance), our players know what their target is. For us, it's more fun that way. Gives the player something more to shoot for. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 14 2005, 07:14 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 44 Joined: 14-April 05 Member No.: 7,331 |
Hmm, actually one thing that the variable pool rather than variable tn would sort out is the problem I have always had with area effect spells.
You manaball a small gang, 4 people with Willpoer 3 and a leader with Willpower 5. You get 5,5,4,4,4,3,3,2,2,1,1. You want to karma reroll. Which ones do you reroll? ;) It everything is TN 5....problem gone, presuming Edge allows rerolls in a similar way to KP of course! |
|
|
|
|
Apr 14 2005, 07:20 PM
Post
#16
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Generally players know what their positives are because they generally are things that the player has control over or initiates. Once they know the number of die they will always know how many successes they rolled, without talking to the GM. Your players might know their SR3 perception TN is, but the GM has to tell them that. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 14 2005, 07:49 PM
Post
#17
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 |
Another way of handling the situation is the method used in Sanguine Publishing's Ironclaw/Jadeclaw games:
Of course, in Ironclaw/Jadeclaw, when you roll your hand full of dice, you're merely looking for the highest number rolled, so the re-rolls go quick. For SR4, where you have to check each die and count 5's & 6's, it might not be as smoothed, and there would certainly be issues with the fact that all those re-rolls would run counter to the whole concept of "streamlining". Still, it's one of my favorite game mechanics, because no matter how many penalties you pile on the situation, no roll is impossible to make, just highly improbable. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 14 2005, 08:05 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 468 Joined: 17-March 05 Member No.: 7,185 |
Possible solutions to the dice pool getting reduced to 1 or 0 are including mechanics for wildcard dice (like edge appears to be) plus adding in a stunting style system which gives bonus dice based on how cool you manage to describe your action.
Yes you still potentially have situations where situational modifiers to the number of dice rolled or the number of successes need make functional "impossible" tests. However there are always going to be situations in real life or even in SR3 that a result was simply impossible to acchieve it's just that they are going to be more clearly defined in SR4. Wait you say even with an extreme TN there was always the chance of succeeding on any given roll! Yes it was possible to acchieve a TN 100 or even TN1000 test no matter how statistically improbable but there are a wide variety of situations that even with truly astounding dice rolling you can't acchieve an effect. For example shoot a tank with your light pistol and it doesn't matter what TN you roll the vehicle armor rules kick in and it becomes impossible to actually do squat to the tank. Plus there is always the defaulting rules that limit the defaulting to TNs below 8. The key is whether situational penalties to number of dice rolled etc are common enough to make impossible test a probable event. If it's rare for there to be enough penalties to the dice pool to subtract 4 dice from a test (assuming average attribute of 3 and skill level of 1). If that sort of penalty is rare then the situation in which people are complaining about impossible rolls is pretty rare. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 14 2005, 08:12 PM
Post
#19
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
What is this "real life" you speak of? It sounds suspiciously like a Communist plot :eek: that I want to have no part of. 8) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 14 2005, 08:24 PM
Post
#20
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 468 Joined: 17-March 05 Member No.: 7,185 |
Hey it's not me that says SR3 is the most realistic game system out there. Personally I have absolutely no problem with lots of tasks being totally fucking impossible. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 14 2005, 08:36 PM
Post
#21
|
|||||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Communist! Burn the Communist!!! It's a good thing nobody put you in charge Vuron, or where that have left John McClane??? Jeremy Irons would have kicked his ass sooo hard. But no, John came through by rolling 6 after 6 and doing the [nearly] impossible. :P |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Apr 14 2005, 08:46 PM
Post
#22
|
|||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 468 Joined: 17-March 05 Member No.: 7,185 |
Come on John McClane clearly has a decent level of attributes and skills plus hella high levels of edge that he's burning like crazy. Further his GM (read Hollywood Producer) is using some optional stunt style system where saying Yippekaiyea Motherfucker! alot buys you a bunch of bonus dice. Also there is every likelihood that the GM is using a cinematic houseruled variation in which main PCs have something like x number of points a session in which they can declare Script immunity! |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Apr 14 2005, 08:49 PM
Post
#23
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
But only a COMMUNIST!!!!!!1 would want to force a GM to have to create house rules like that to allow cinematic heroics. :P EDIT: P.S. John McClane was a fricking flat-foot, and a failed one at that (he was fired from the NYPD). We are talking sub-Lonestar fodder. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 14 2005, 09:07 PM
Post
#24
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 468 Joined: 17-March 05 Member No.: 7,185 |
Yeah he was fired from the NYPD but that's because he was sooo badass he made his bosses looked bad in comparison. Really skilled people manage to make enemies in thier companies all the time ie Damien Knight and Leonard Aurelius; Villiers and Nakatomi; Lofwyr and the world it's just that not everyone is able to avoid being fired all the time ;) Besides can sub-Lonestar fodder take out the Death Star? http://www.grudge-match.com/History/mcclan...deathstar.shtml No I didn't think so! |
||
|
|
|
||
 Apr 14 2005, 09:15 PM
Post
#25
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Certainly couldn't if you Commies were running the shop. Fortunately John was rolling red, white, and blue exploding 6's that day, and we can all sleep the safer for it. U! S! A!!! Commies go away! U! S! A!!! Commies go away! U! S! A!!! Commies go away! |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th April 2024 - 12:30 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.