 Using d10s instead of d6s, Probably mentioned before, but... |
  |
 Apr 24 2005, 03:04 AM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156  |
TN 8 w/ d6s: 6 followed by 2-or-higher: 1 in 12 = .09
TN 8 w/ d10-1: 2 in 10 = .2 TN 6-7 w/ d6s: 1 in 6 = .1667 TN 7 w/ d10-1: 3 in 10 = .3 TN 6 w/ d10-1: 4 in 10 = .4 Basically the d10 system improves probabilities across the board. In Classic Deadlands (and, for that matter, the Savage Worlds system) higher die types are used for better attributes/higher skills for just this reason. |
 |
 
|
|
Apr 24 2005, 03:19 AM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 95 Joined: 15-April 05 Member No.: 7,335 |
You guys aren't considering something and are using numbers that fit your argument.
When you take something with a TN6 in d6, it's equivalent int d10 is TN10. In the system described, you have to first hit a 9, and then a 1 on the reroll. that is MUCH MUCH harder than hitting the 6 and blowing the challenge away. As far as that example with the number 60, in d6, that's 10 rolls. in d10 that's only 6... that's not really fair because the d6 challenge should be HARDER than the d10 challenge. The d10 challenge would be at a higher equivalent target number. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 24 2005, 03:27 AM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,587 Joined: 25-January 05 From: Berkeley, CA Member No.: 7,014 |
All I'm saying is that making the game mechanics of Shadowrun fit using a d10 system is more than just a simple change of a die and prorating target numbers. If you change the probabilities of the game, you change the overall challenge and feel of the game mechanic. It's not more "right" or "wrong", but different. I think one has to take the typical SR d6 probabilities into account when making a d10 conversion, otherwise you end up with a skewed (and possibly unbalanced) system. For one thing, difficulty starts to taper off at 90% (any TN above 9) under d10 than ~83% (any TN above 5) under d6.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 24 2005, 03:29 AM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 95 Joined: 15-April 05 Member No.: 7,335 |
actually, I need to correct myself.
In the system described, the equivalent would actually be TN9, which has worse odds than d6. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 24 2005, 03:36 AM
Post
#30
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 95 Joined: 15-April 05 Member No.: 7,335 |
actually, with 9 being the reroll and 0 being 0, difficult tapers at ~80%... But still... There are two ways to do it IF you want to make the conversion, one way will make it easier (1-10) and the other will make it harder (0-9, which I am advocating, for the simple reason that the game feels too easy sometimes. I have only twice ever gotten roll-screwed in this system)...while you could just increase TNs as a house rule, the reason why it's superior to have a dice-side with a 0 value is that it gives the GM more flexibility in customizing their challenges. With a 1-6 or even a 1-10 value, you have a gap. in d6, there is no TN6, because noone can ever roll a flat 6. While you can have a TN6, it's pointless and it should either be TN5 or TN7. When you give a die a 0 side, you CAN roll a flat 5 (on a d6) or flat 9 (on a d10), which allows you a greater range of challenge difficulties. This is something that I consider to be quite significant (either 17 or 20 percent significant, depending on the die) It gives the GM greater flexibility to choose how difficult the game will be to the players and not have some gap imposed by the poor mathematics of the system. I would have no problem with d6 if it was on a 0-5 basis. I'm just really advocating the 0 value dice-side. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 24 2005, 03:41 AM
Post
#31
|
|||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,587 Joined: 25-January 05 From: Berkeley, CA Member No.: 7,014 |
Umm, no. At a TN 9 (difficulty of 90%), you have exactly a 10% chance of getting a success. At a TN 10 (difficulty of 91%), you have exactly a 9% chance of getting a success. And so on, until you reach a TN of 18 (difficulty of 99%), which has exactly a 1% chance of success, where the second taper point occurs. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 24 2005, 03:52 AM
Post
#32
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 95 Joined: 15-April 05 Member No.: 7,335 |
I'm sorry, you're completely correct. It's very sad that I'm so tired as to not be able to wrap my brain around simple math right now. I'm going to have to kick myself a few times when I get around to getting a good amount of rest. Although, If I'm reading what yous aid correctly, that supports my statement that there is greater flexibility in choosing a difficulty level with a 0 value side. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 24 2005, 04:02 AM
Post
#33
|
|||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,587 Joined: 25-January 05 From: Berkeley, CA Member No.: 7,014 |
I'm not disputing that. It's a long and tired argument, though... the 6-7 plateau has long been a bugbear (and in some cases, a beloved sidekick) of the SR core mechanics. Again, greater flexibility and better probability curves are great... but you have to retrofit the entirety of the Shadowrun mechanic and statistics to it, and it's not just a simple task of prorating all target numbers or refusing to change the numbers (while changing the mechanic). It's a completely different ball game, there. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 24 2005, 04:22 AM
Post
#34
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 95 Joined: 15-April 05 Member No.: 7,335 |
well, since it looks like there's going to be a whole new system anyway ;D why not a 0-5 d6 system while we're going about all these sweeping changes. ;D |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 24 2005, 05:05 AM
Post
#35
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 85 Joined: 24-September 02 From: Centerville, UT Member No.: 3,307 |
A 0-5 d6 system still has the problem that TN modifiers have a huge impact on the difficulty of a task and vary wildly in the amount of difficulty that they add to making a roll depending on the initial target number. The 0-9 d10 system smooths these out a bit. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 24 2005, 06:03 AM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,102 Joined: 23-March 04 From: The Grizzly Grunion, in a VIP room. Member No.: 6,191 |
Modifiers SHOULD have an impact on the difficulty of a task. They're there for a reason. You just want things to be easier, it seems. Make SR a D10 system, if you want to. It's a house rule and it's unnecessarily complicated. I don;t know why you're seeking approval on this site. You're not going to find it.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 24 2005, 06:13 AM
Post
#37
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 108 Joined: 10-July 02 From: SLC, Utah Member No.: 2,960 |
I don't think that he is seeking approval, but discussion on the issue. Of course there are those that will agree and disagree.
I think that there are some benefits to using a d10 in that the probabilities are a little more elegant, at least from what I understand of the discussion. However, I really like the difficulty that the d6 has with the set of modifiersd in sr3. Translating the modifiers directly over to a d10 system would allow rolls to be too easy for my tastes. If there was a way to calculate the modifiers so that they would represent a d10, or and die for that matter, then I would consider using it as a GM. Veracusse |
|
|
|
|
Apr 24 2005, 01:29 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,066 Joined: 5-February 03 Member No.: 4,017 |
The probabilities aren't more elegant, just easier for most. With a d6 system, modifiers that don't change the TN above 6 affect a clear 1/6 change per point. Due to a base 10 number system, this looks cumbersome when written as a percent: 16.66666666666666666666666666666...
It gets even less obvious when looking at probabilities on a second die since they are defined as x/36, which is an even less intuitive number to translate into a percentage. D10 just makes it so the first die of modifiers are the tens digit in the percent chance of success and the next die are the ones digit. It just changes the probability of success per die into something that people can grasp with their dominant mathematical paradigm and little thought. Any change you make to the rolls of the game is fair if it affects everyone equally. However, 'better' in this regard is purely subjective, so don't expect others to agree. The only group whose agreement matters for your suggested house rule is the group you play Shadowrun with. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 24 2005, 01:39 PM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,073 Joined: 23-August 04 Member No.: 6,587 |
I don’t see the D10 as being any worse than a D6 inherently.
The problem with the flat points in the difficulty curve is annoying yes but changing to D10 would require a major change of attributes, spell forces and weapon powers. Take for example social skills. They are typically skill TN stat apposed by skill or stat TN stat. with modifiers. Those with a high stat of 6 or 7 thus will be hard to score successes against with a D6 system but with a D10-1 system the chance of success is good. This situation repeats itself for spells (both casting and resisting) and damage resistance tests. Its not that the D10 system wouldn’t work, just that it needs an alarming amount of changes to make it work. Changing rule of 6 to add D6-1 would remove the flat points from the curve with the only side effect being making high rolls harder to achieve (something that was previously toted as a good thing) Edward |
|
|
|
|
Apr 24 2005, 02:02 PM
Post
#40
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 85 Joined: 24-September 02 From: Centerville, UT Member No.: 3,307 |
I really don't care if you approve of the idea or not - I'm soliciting opinions on what would need to be done to get it to work, not overall approval. And yes, the objective is to make most rolls easier and involve less die rolling. The d10 idea will do that. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 24 2005, 02:06 PM
Post
#41
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 85 Joined: 24-September 02 From: Centerville, UT Member No.: 3,307 |
If the chance is equally improved for both the acting and the resisting rolls (since both are now using d10), then we've kept our balance between the two largely intact, haven't we? The difference is that more successes will be rolled, but more successes will be rolled on both sides. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 24 2005, 02:36 PM
Post
#42
|
|||||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,073 Joined: 23-August 04 Member No.: 6,587 |
True. This will have an affect on the number of net successes when the skill or stat difference is large. But this will rarely be an issue. Also it favours the low stat in such tests because they have a greater improvement in the chance of a successes. I am not saying low stats will win most of the time, just that there is a larger part for luck to play. Another point is drain. If you don’t modify the drain codes then spell casters will not fear it. 6S drain was a serious thing requiring a probable 36 ice for complete resistance (that is to say accept some drain or use karma). Using your D10-1 system 15 dice will provide probable full resistance. Edward |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 24 2005, 06:25 PM
Post
#43
|
|||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,587 Joined: 25-January 05 From: Berkeley, CA Member No.: 7,014 |
I don't buy the "opposed test makes all things better" argument. For one thing, higher TNs on opposed tests make the outcome far more random (due to the high threshold for success). Opposed tests give the distinct advantage to someone who has a 6 or higher on a stat vs. someone who has 5 or lower, and I think this is part of the built-in SR mechanic. This is why the attribute caps and skill caps are 6 for starting characters. Also, opposed tests only cover a limited number of rolls. Suddenly, all weapons have been nerfed by 2 Power or more, for example. Suddenly, decking into a Red host has become significantly easier. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 25 2005, 12:48 AM
Post
#44
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 85 Joined: 24-September 02 From: Centerville, UT Member No.: 3,307 |
This could be a problem I suppose. Of course, it's a rare PC in the games I've seen that doesn't have at least one attribute above 6 to begin with. I thought that limiting beginning skills to 5 rather than 6 might be a good idea.
Weapons are essentially an opposed test, just with different TNs for each side. The TN for the dodge test probably would have to go up to 6. And decking seems to be amazingly difficult under the current system for beginning characters (or maybe my GM just likes throwing us up against systems that are too much for us to handle). |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 25 2005, 01:01 AM
Post
#45
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Beginning characters should run again Green-Easy or Orange-Easy hosts only.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 25 2005, 01:40 AM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,073 Joined: 23-August 04 Member No.: 6,587 |
A starting character should have a good chance against a red easy and with high masking and masking mode even a red average is a good chance. Just don’t stick around if you hit passive alert.
As to staring character attributes I have seen many characters with no attributes over 6. mostly human spell casters but also riggers and deckers. Edward |
|
|
|
|
Apr 25 2005, 01:49 AM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Er, no. Red hosts typically only have about three points of tally between trigger steps, and an Average is going to be expecting to raise tally once every test or two on anything a starting decker can dish out for DF. Even a Green-Average is a bad chance.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 25 2005, 03:05 AM
Post
#48
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,073 Joined: 23-August 04 Member No.: 6,587 |
I have seen starting deckers slice into a red average satalight host and gain super user axes without triggering a passive alert. True they triggered the first 2 layers of IC (at 2 and 4 I think) the first being quickly suppressed and the second not getting a chance to do anything being the type that ads security tally when you do something you don’t have an account for. Having a super user account by this time meant there was no such action (other than find pay data but he left that for the next visit, after the job was done.
Edward |
|
|
|
|
Apr 25 2005, 03:15 AM
Post
#49
|
|||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,587 Joined: 25-January 05 From: Berkeley, CA Member No.: 7,014 |
That's assuming you are using the optional "mode" rules, or anything else that boosts detection factor. The problem with using those rules is that it boosts detection factor without a corresponding additional rule for hosts to counteract it somehow. It's one of the main problems of the "everything relies on a System vs. Detection Factor roll" mechanic. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 25 2005, 03:25 AM
Post
#50
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I'm definitely going to need more information on what went down during that run, because that's more or less completely counter to all of my experience (which is not inconsiderable).
~J |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th July 2025 - 09:47 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.