Vampire: The M/R vs Shadowrun 4 Options

[warrior_allanon]

[SR4-WTF?]

[Nerbert]

[Kagetenshi]

A request: could you use the phrase "trivial actions" or some similar equivalent instead of a term that already has a completely different meaning in-game? Thanks.

~J

[Nerbert]

Killing an enemy is by no definition a simple action. Wounding an enemy is. It only takes one success on an attack roll to damage your oponent.

[Shadow]

[Nerbert]

Right, all of those are simple actions in WoD too. The number of successes measures your degree of success. With no successes you can fire a gun in either SA or BF mode, but if you get one, it means you hurt someone, you can also potentially kill someone in a single action, but thats not what makes an action simple.

[frostPDP]

You're trying to argue the context of a term and it looks like you're falling shorter than a legless Dwarf.

Its a simple action in game mechanic terms, terms which usually reference the amount of time/complexity of the issue. Slapping closed a padlock is probably a simple action - Unlocking one with the key probably isn't. Picking one open certainly isn't.

By your definition, closing that lock is simple - Unless it locks a group of people into a gas chamber. Then suddenly its not simple. Game system versus game situation - In system terms its a simple action, in the situation its dreadfully important. Unfortunately, we're concerned with the mechanic rather than the situational.

[Shadow]

[Critias]

This is funny.

[Nerbert]

Thats exactly what I'm saying! People were using "Killing a Person" as an example of a "simple action"! Killing a person is not necessarily a simple action, it can be, but its not always going to be. Locking people into prison can be a simple action, but its not always going to be.

Firing a gun and closing a padlock on the other hand, those are always going to be simple actions.

So when someone says "You can't kill a person with one success in a simple action in nWoD." they are correct, because killing a person takes more then one success. However, "killing a person" is no where near to a simple action. Nor is it in Shadowrun.

Thus, it does not make any sense to use this as evidence that one success is not enough to succeed at a simple action.

[Ol' Scratch]

Maybe I'm missing what you're trying to say. Any phrase that has "one success [is or is not] a Simple Action" (which, by the way, should be capitalized as its a proper noun for a specific game term) as the heart of its meaning is a completely nonsensical phrase. It's like saying "an attribute [is or is] not a score of 1." It just doesn't make any sense. Maybe you should try and clarify yourself a bit.

[mfb]

i think, in his own spastic way, he's trying to convey the idea that there's more to killing someone than a Simple Action. for instance, you have to acquire the weapon, load it with bullets, find the person, and draw the weapon first. only once all that is accomplished does the Simple Action come into play.

why that's relevant to the discussion, i have no idea. but i think that's the concept he's trying to communicate.

[Nerbert]

I said that in nWoD there are no thresholds. One success is enough to succeed at any simple action and that five successes gets you a critical success.

Someone replied "You can't kill someone with one success."

To which I replied that killing someone is not a simple action. Since it is not a simple action, I never claimed that one success would accomplish it.

To which people disagreed.

Perhaps the confusion is that you are concieving of Simple Action as a period of your initiative, whereas I am using the list of simple actions in Shadowrun to define what can be accomplished with one success in nWoD.

[Critias]

But you're not making any sense -- and this is coming from someone who understands both systems.

"Simple Action" is a very specific term in Shadowrun. It has nothing to do with successes. It's an increment of effort, a measuring of time and activity, a very, very, defined amount of action that's possible within an initiative round. You very much can "kill someone" with a simple action in Shadowrun. In matter of fact, it happens more often than not with a great number of characters I know. It takes a Simple Action to fire a burst from an assault rifle, or a single shot from most sniper rifles, or a shot from a heavy pistol. Any of those Simple Actions are, in many cases, more than enough to "kill someone."

I don't see -- and neither does anyone but you -- what that has to do, at all, with nWoD in the context you're trying to shoehorn it into.

Saying there are no thresholds in nWoD is fine. In the hard and fast and amazingly basic world view of the system, that is true. The fact remains, however, one success is not always enough to get the job done (much less to do it well). You can kill someone in one action in nWoD, with above average (or sometimes even average) rolls. It's a single action, a single roll of the dice -- why not call it a "simple action," that being the case?

I don't see at all the link between "Simple Action" in Shadowrun and "one success" in nWoD.

It's like saying "In three seconds I can marmalade rainbow trout." The sentence starts out english, and ends english, but there's absolutely no logical bridge between the two very different subjects.

[Kagetenshi]

[mfb]

that's also possible. though at this point, i wouldn't discount the marmalading of rainbow trout in the space of three seconds as being his intended message.

[Nerbert]

Since Kegtenshi seems to be the only one I'm getting through to, let me break it down into very simple words.

A simple action in Shadowrun is "a very, very, defined amount of action that's possible within an initiative round". Lets take "closing a padlock"

In nWoD, anything you can do in a simple action can be accomplished with one success. In SR there are thresholds that we don't know how they work. Lets say, in a combat situation, you have to close a padlock. Lets say its also wet and slippery and you're running away.

in nWoD you might roll dex + athletics, dex because its based on a feat of dexterity, athletics because of the slipperyness/running etc. Then you'd apply modifiers, you're moving, its slippery, etc. lets, say minus 4. So you add your dex, you add your athletics, you subtract four, and you roll x d10s against TN 8. One success, congratulations.

Same thing in SR4. Lets say Agility + Doing Shit in the Rain. Now, modifiers. We don't know how these will work precisely. Maybe they will subtract from your dice pool, maybe they will add to your threshold. You roll your dice, one success, what happens? Who knows.

The point is, it may very well be something completely unlike nWoD entirely

[Critias]

Doubt it.

But you score points for being amazingly vague and (purposefully?) confusing while slowly warping the conversation back to your original, flawed, defiant stance.

[Cain]

OK, so Nerbert's argument basically amounts to this: It could be like nWoD, or it couldn't. Therefore it isn't. Therefore he's a master debator.

I'm not going to argue the last point much, although I might remove a syllable from it.

[nick012000]

I would like to point out that even in the current SR you typically need more than one success to kill someone with a Simple Action, becuase you need to stage up the damage...

[mfb]

you're correct. most posters here don't know how SR4's dice mechanics will work. i myself have never played an nWoD game, so i couldn't begin to tell you if they're similar or not. if there are playtesters out there who've played nWoD, they're (wisely) keeping their mouths shut.

so: no, we don't know how similar nWoD and SR4 will be. what we do know is that, based on the FAQs so far, they sound similar. and that's more than enough to justifiably worry someone who doesn't like nWoD.

[Nerbert]

Yes, the basic dice mechanic is very similar. There's more to a game then the basic dice mechanic for performing actions.

[mfb]

right. and while that's not enough to say for sure that the rest of the system will be similar, it's enough evidence to justify being worried that the rest of the system will be similar.

[Nerbert]

Maybe if you're a cynical naysayer dedicated to disliking the game based solely on the parameters of the worst possible scenario that you can imagine that still coincides with known information. By which I am not refering to anyone in particular. That just seems to be the mindset of quite a few people.

The rest of us, ok its just me, choose to assume that the developers are not brain damaged. V:tM took a lot of inspiration from Shadowrun as many people have said, they are nothing alike and Vampire benefited greatly from it. I don't see any reason to completely disregard that scenario in this situation.