 Why SR4 ?, A basic flaw with SR3 |
  |
 May 25 2005, 10:52 PM
Post
#51
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298  |
Good grief. This thread has more than the usual share of mathematical confusion, plus a good dose of illogic to boot.
Sure, but this isn't an argument against variable TNs. No system lives up to this. With DC in D&D, you get out of range of the d20, after which the modifier does nothing. When you get close, you're drastically off in rates of success--for example, if you need 18 you'll succeed three times as often as if you need 20, but if you need a 6 you'll only succeed 15% more often than if you need an 8. Pretty weird. With a fixed TN of 5, adding or subtracting three dice to someone who only has four to roll gives them either one die (where they'll get 1/4 as many successes as usual), or seven (where they'll get 75% more on average). But if another person can muster 16 dice, their number of successes will only change by about 20%. In fact, there does not exist a function that does what you want. An exponential distribution is close, but the function has to increase to infinity to have the property you described, and that means it isn't a probability (which is restricted to values between 0 and 1). However, variable TN comes the closest to what you say, because every factor of 6, regardless of the existing TN, makes the task exactly 6x more difficult. So a six is a six is a six--no matter what your TN, you're always getting 6x fewer successes with a TN penalty of 6.
This is occasionally true by accident, and isn't a good argument for a variable TN system because sometimes it works exactly the opposite way. Anyway, yes, if something is harder, it should be harder as long as the ways in which it is becoming harder affect you independently. If you really want a system that has the property you described, you have to have a nonlinear combination of penalties, i.e. a penalty of N combined with a penalty of M is not a penalty of (N+M)--a flat penalty of (N+M) is worse. The problem with the SR3 system is that the progression in relative difficulty isn't what you'd like:
If your extra wound moves you from TN11 to TN12, you lose 50% of your successes. If you drop from TN7 to TN8, you only lose 16%. Only adding 5 instead of adding 6, or skipping over 6, 12, 18, etc., will fix the worst offender in the list (TN 6n to TN 6n+1).
Depends. Do you want a really strong barrier and not care so much about the levitation? Then you should cast the barrier first, even so. The principle stays the same--first cast the one you want to work well, and then cast the other. It's not as smooth as one might like, but again, adding 5 instead of 6 goes a long way towards fixing that.
I think you'll find the "gee, losing 2 dice when I'm rolling 4 is a disaster vs. who cares if I have 12" is just as bad a flaw, if not worse, unless you always play characters with nearly average stats. If everything has between 6 and 10 dice, it's no big deal.
There are some things you can only conveniently do with variable TNs, such as allowing tasks where you perform well (high number of successes) reliably (most every time you roll). TN5 might be good for a chaotic ranged combat situation, but if you're doing a long jump or something, you can't say "roll athletics vs. TN 2". So you have to end up applying a bunch of static modifiers to things and have the dice ride on top of that, and then you have a custom rule where a simple mechanic would have worked.
A light wound isn't a "scratch". Ten light wounds and you're dead (incapacitated to the point where you are utterly unable to care for yourself, and will die without immediate attention). Light wounds are serious. And you bring up the 6/7 thing yet again, but we've already found a one-letter fix for that (replace the "6" in "add 6" with "5").
Except you have to do both those things for fixed TN, except "how hard" means "how many successes"! In SR3, the number of successes needed isn't often varied, because the varying TN can take care of it. In SR4, I expect it'll be used a lot more. If you do a bad job of game design, and apply each of the three factors--TN modifier, dice modifier, and # successes needed modifier--at random, then yes, it's 50% more to keep track of than if you only apply two of those at random. But what if you do it consistently--for example, things that affect a character's abilities intrinsically and permanently (something they'd write down on their sheet) change the number of dice they have; environmental factors alter the TN (which the GM has to decide); and the amount that needs to be done alters the number of successes needed. You have to think about all three things in both systems anyway, so there isn't any more work unless keeping track of three numbers is horribly burdensome as compared to keeping track of two. And given that we've got two new numbers in the form of attributes, I'm not buying that an extra number is that bad.
They haven't announced anything about the combat system aside from the lack of combat pool. You could have one opposed roll: shoot with attribute+skill and soak with body + armor (or body + dodge with armor vs. weapon comparison determining the base damage, or whatever. You could have two: shoot vs. dodge to hit, then damage vs. soak to wound. You could have three: aim vs. dodge to hit, weapon vs. armor to determine damage, damage vs. body to soak. And so on.
What we do know is that you don't get to dynamically decide where your dice go throughout a combat turn. Maybe instead of having one pool they will have a giant table saying things like "aggressive stance: add two dice to your firearms test but subtract two dice from your next dodge test" as a tactical action you can take. That's not really a simplification. Gah, I ran out of time. Anyway, statistics isn't obvious stuff! Think a bit more before posting. |
||||||||||||||||||
 |
 
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
May 25 2005, 11:05 PM
Post
#52
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 442 Joined: 23-April 04 From: Pennsylvania Member No.: 6,280 |
The problem is, so much of all these conversations is revolving around things we don't know anything about. The more I hear about other people's opinions about what they're "sure" is going on, the more perplexed I get about how things could possibly be working.
|
|
|
|
|
May 25 2005, 11:10 PM
Post
#53
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 511 Joined: 19-August 02 Member No.: 3,139 |
Maybe I missed something in your post - but where does the custom rule come into play? And that still doesn't help me see that there is any sort of huge difference between the systems - they still seem to even out in the end. Except where in the new system, you can have your dice all taken away and your skill is 0 - where I assume you will still have one die to roll, and that effects the 2 die guy the same as the 8 die guy. That dosent' make sense. And is in fact unfair to the player of the 8 die guy. And, without exploding dice, some tasks will be impopssible. Yeah, my baby can't thread a needle, and my sammie cant' survive a fall form a 100 story building no matter hom many dice he rolls - gimmie a break - that's not what we're talking about with 'impossible tasks' - we're talking about: SR3: biotech, one die, tagert number 10. Possible. SR4: Biotech 1/int 1, 3 success threshold needed. Impossible. Yeah, we don't have all the data on the system, we're counting on them to do the right thing. Oops - too Late ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 26 2005, 12:41 AM
Post
#54
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
a long jump doesn't have a lot of variation IRL, eldritch. if you want to model than in a static TN system, you'll have to do some real mathematical gymnastics--ie, a custom rule that applies only to jumping.
|
|
|
|
|
May 26 2005, 03:28 AM
Post
#55
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 511 Joined: 19-August 02 Member No.: 3,139 |
Er, I thought the SR COmpanion had some basic rules for jumping?
Or am I completley missingthe point? |
|
|
|
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
May 26 2005, 03:30 AM
Post
#56
|
|
Guests |
How nice that they couldn't be bothered to put the jumping rules in the core book.
I digress. |
|
|
|
|
May 26 2005, 03:37 AM
Post
#57
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
SRComp has the jumping rules for SR3 (and they're pretty terrible rules, to be honest). SR4 rules will be different, though probably not better, given the static TN thing.
|
|
|
|
|
May 26 2005, 04:02 AM
Post
#58
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 511 Joined: 19-August 02 Member No.: 3,139 |
Agreed - there is a slew of rules int the Comp that should be in the basic book. And yeah, they're not great - but minimally easy - just to get you by - or give you a base to build your own. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 26 2005, 04:25 AM
Post
#59
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
"Not great" is a ridiculous understatement. The jumping rules are an open test. Which means the Olympics would be a lot more fun to watch, but retarded.
|
|
|
|
|
May 26 2005, 11:45 AM
Post
#60
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-April 05 From: France Member No.: 7,343 |
Easier rules - even a bit dumber, but more logical, will help good GM having a fluent story, and good GM will be able to adapt some particular rules on the fly.
When the system is to complicated, it is much more harder to adapt, otherwise you need to overrule the whole system, not just applying a patch ... I must admit I am just a SR player. If I would master that game, I won't give a chit off the rules, but only off the character description ... Because no real system is often more logical that rules - and always more fluid. I pretty sure a lot of you disagree ... Have fun anyway ! |
|
|
|
|
May 26 2005, 05:12 PM
Post
#61
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 70 Joined: 5-September 02 From: Everywhere and Nowhere Baby Member No.: 3,225 |
Well your right there I still can`t escape the things I see as "wrong" in the variable target numbner system as it is. As for a +6 always being contant thats true but a +2 isn't. Finally this is more a general comment. I started this thread as I do like a move to a fixed target number system, it is clear allot of people do not. I have given different reasons why I like the change and allot of people have pointed out that my concerns aren't that serious. Or that there are suitable reasons why the rules can work the way they do. I think I will enjoy seeing what a new fixed target number system is like. I hope it fixes things for me and that in doing so it doesn't destroy the feel of the game. I guess I will have to see how things shape up between SR4 and SR3. Of course I think time will be the best judge. I think one issue that this resolves around is the a fixed target number system is simpler to understand (or I hope the implementation is) and that at the end of the day I will like things to be simpler as I said. Let me make tactical decisions for my character and not worry about the math. [edit] Oppps forgot to say. Thanks to Kage for giving me realistic ways in which the numbers can be interpreted in the examples I gave, in some ways i think I was just lost in the numbers for some of them. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 27 2005, 03:39 AM
Post
#62
|
|||||
|
Prime Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,577 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Gwynedd Valley PA Member No.: 1,221 |
I think this sums it up well. disappointment and what seems to be just a money grab. As for changing variable targets to fixed, it see it as an advantage. it should be harder to hit a moving target thatn a still one, you moving too is going to make it worse. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 27 2005, 04:20 AM
Post
#63
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
i wouldn't call it a money grab. neither line development nor freelancing is a job you get into for the ferraris. it does seem pretty disappointing so far, though.
|
|
|
|
|
May 27 2005, 04:42 AM
Post
#64
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Of course it's a money grab. It's a money grab just like SotA:2064 was a money grab, and Magic in the Shadows is a money grab, and my going to work every day was a money grab until I went back to being a full-time student.
~J |
|
|
|
|
May 27 2005, 10:03 AM
Post
#65
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-April 05 From: France Member No.: 7,343 |
Actually this is not quite correct. There IS a function that does what you want. But only in a certain range. If the difficulty is dealt with fixed TN and adding/subtracting dices, you can have a decent range from say 5 to 12 dices initial pool, with a subtle effect on mods. And that range seems pretty good because most of the test will follow it (because you will add the linked attribute). Problems will occur out of that range, if no patch fix issues like impossible test when statistic should be only very low. The trouble with SR3 was the very short range of situation the design worked out without flow, because adding even just 1 to TN can cause very big variations on statistic (half the probability), or nothing. And those flows come in game very VERY often. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 27 2005, 10:15 AM
Post
#66
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 527 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,118 |
You just outlined the problem; the limited range of usefulness. Five to twelve dice is not a particularly useful range. If characters want to truly perform exceptionally in a fixed-TN# system with 5+ being the goal, they will be rolling more than 12 dice, be they from innate skill and ability or from all the proper combinations of benfeicial modifiers. Likewise, if a character possesses passable but not average/normal ability within a certain skill, or is being heavily penalized due to environmental factors, they might end up rolling 4 or less dice. If the system herds most characters into the 5-12 die range, there will not be very much point in being exceptional or legendary, rather than good. There'll be almost as little point being good, versus average. The system will hold up, at the cost of most characters performing within the same relatively dull range of mediocrity. If someone gets very good, the system breaks. If someone is really bad, the system breaks.
Is the price in variance and scalability worth the resulting stability? |
|
|
|
|
May 27 2005, 10:39 AM
Post
#67
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-April 05 From: France Member No.: 7,343 |
??? For sure you are wrong. Because damage will probably depends on hits, and because in opposition rolls adding 1 dice TN5 is a real advantage, and because all hit counts in quality of success (want to open an electronical look - ok in how much time ?) Someone with 4 dices (a beginner) TN5 often trying to have a succes with a 3 dices penalty (hard test) could be call a daredevil ... or a foolish jerk. Figure out that some action are IMPOSSIBLE not in nature but because of the character trying - I can't jump 6m long. May be I could with training. Still without modification there can sometime be a break with impossible test trying to figure out low probability action. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 27 2005, 11:05 AM
Post
#68
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
For an instance of where being "excellent" doesn't matter versus being "good" or "average," just look at the World of Darkness. Comparisons between the two systems have been made ever since the new die mechanic (Att + Skill) and the static TN (a 1/3 chance of success, about the same as WoD games) were announced. The SR4 system is, in short, very, very, similar to the established WoD stuff. And I've never liked the WoD stuff.
When a single die has only a 1/3 chance of bringing home a success (and every single die, ever, will now have exactly a 1/3 chance of bringing home a success), a single die doesn't really count for much. There's not any sort of reliable difference between having 6 dice for a test, and having 7. Or 7 to 8. Or, for that matter, 6 to 8. Single-die jumps are no big deal, in practice. In theory, there's a world of difference between a novice (Skill 2) and an expert (Skill 4) at something. In practice, using a die mechanic like this one, there's just not much there. The problem is, beleive it or not, added to by the skill + stat mechanic. The importance of a skill is dulled by that formula. Attributes begin to directly affect quite a bit more than they used to -- an athletic kid with no real idea how to use a sword (Quickness 6, Edged Weapons 1) suddenly finds himself doing pretty well against an average joe who's been into fencing for half his life (Quickness 3, Edged Weapons 4). Where text descriptions in any game using this sort of mechanic will make a huge deal about the differences between a 1 and a 4 in a given skill, the fact is it's just not always there. For a good laugh, go read the text/flavor descriptions of some skills in a WoD book. Then work some probability based on average difficulty tasks, an average attribute, and the "world class, olympic level" skill numbers. |
|
|
|
|
May 27 2005, 11:22 AM
Post
#69
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-April 05 From: France Member No.: 7,343 |
For the first point, the number of dices as the same influence than in sr3 when the TN was 5, less than sr3 TN <5, and more in TN >5 Sometimes it is more logical than variable TN, sometimes not. but it is always simpler. Second, you are right. But this point is not such an issue, because in the new system few character will have qck6, and having 3 qck and edge weapon 4 will be so much cheaper. In Sr3 there was no difference between a guy with qck6 str6 bd6 and another one with qck1, str3, bod1 since both have athletics 3. Do you think that flaw is now has bad as the one just above ? The truth is : you can't make a rule that distinguish situation were skill is more important than attribute, and were it is not. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 27 2005, 11:28 AM
Post
#70
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 78 Joined: 29-October 04 From: Frederiksberg, Denmark Member No.: 6,794 |
The Vampire RPG has sort of the same machanics (attribute+skill) and I think it works out allright.
Some differences:
I like when attribs. are expensive to raise... In SR3 all characters have body 6 after a few games. In fact now thinking about it I like the idea of have the attribs. more or less static. It gives you some weaknesses.. good for poleplaying... |
|
|
|
|
May 27 2005, 11:40 AM
Post
#71
|
|||
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
Attributes are...what...cheap, in SR? Bull. I've got a 250+ karma street sam who still hasn't raised his Bod to a 6. There's always something else, something more directly related to whatever your character is supposed to do, that's more worth karma. I dunno what game you play in where "everyone has Body 6 after a few games," but it's not mine. And, I just disagree on your assessment of the WoD "working pretty well," also. That's a game that's so very, very, character-and-plot-and-roleplay-and-angst-and-moan driven that they've outright stated in interviews, etc, before that their die mechanic (and especially combat mechanic) was almost an afterthought. Maybe your Shadowrun games are soap operas where sometimes a trigger gets pulled, but if you ever tried to run a combat-heavy Vampire game you'd have something besides the eternal hungry of the all-consuming beast within to moan about. It's a horrible system for combats. Absolutely horrible. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 27 2005, 12:30 PM
Post
#72
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-April 05 From: France Member No.: 7,343 |
It was quite easy to begin with most of the attributes at 6 ... Just need to pick up A for that ...
Quite cheap to raise the low ones. I think I do not understand rules and stats the same way you do do Critias :) |
|
|
|
|
May 27 2005, 12:54 PM
Post
#73
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 78 Joined: 29-October 04 From: Frederiksberg, Denmark Member No.: 6,794 |
I guess ones style of play just adapts with the rules of the game. I have fond memories of Vampire. It might be right that the system works better outside of combat... As I wrote the prev. post I sat with a feeling that there was something "off" with the combat system, but couldn't put my finger on it. ...still quite can't .. it's been awhile I still hope they raise cost of attrib advancement in SR4, but mostly of all I'm just happy that this great SR Universe is still alive :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 27 2005, 03:36 PM
Post
#74
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 511 Joined: 19-August 02 Member No.: 3,139 |
Sure there is - it's harder for the all ones guy to raise his athletics skill - he has to spend more karma raising a skill that is higher than the linked attribute. The all 6 guy raises his athletics with much less 'effort', (Spending of karma) than the Little Guy. Is that a perfect mechanic - No - but none of them are. Admittedly the last I plaed WOD was back when it first came out, but from what I remember combat stank. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 27 2005, 04:36 PM
Post
#75
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
honestly, the attribute+skill mechanic is one of the things i do like about SR4--or, rather, i think it's one of the things that could be implemented well. i never liked how little impact attributes had on characters in SR3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 3rd November 2025 - 06:57 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.