Geekkake
Mar 24 2006, 02:57 PM
There are plenty of threads complaining about aspects of SR4 they don't like. Awesome. Now let's fix them. Pick one of those problems, and offer a resolution. And for the love of God, try to refrain from "here's X problem, IT CAN'T BE FIXED". These are, of course, simply suggested house rules.
Longshot tests: The most valid complaint I've seen regarding Edge is that there comes a point where the runner simply cannot attempt what they want to attempt. Their dicepool is reduced to zero, and don't have enough Edge to overcome the Threshold for the task. This is not only bad on players, but seems to run contradictory to the entire purpose and nature of Edge.
Solution: Make the dice explode. There's still a huge chance of failure, but frankly, if the modifiers of a situation have reduced your pool to zero, you're staring at a task that, well, exceeds your skill. You have to rely on blind luck. But luck can do crazy things, and there should never be a situation that entirely precludes the possibility of success, no matter how remote. Exploding dice allows the players to still try anything, and simply makes the chances of success more unlikely the higher the Threshold gets.
Now you try.
Azralon
Mar 24 2006, 02:59 PM
I do like the thread subtitle.

But, to business:
Movement and variable initiative passes bother me in the way they interact. It's all very simple when everyone has 1 IP and can move X meters per Free/Simple Action.
However, when people get multiple IPs, movement breaks down in either simplicity or realism. If I can walk 10m as a Free Action and I have two IPs, should I be spending one Free per IP to move 5m? Do I spend the one Free on my first IP to move 10m, and then I can't move any more until the next round?
The method I've been using is that you look at whoever has the highest IPs, then you divide everyone's movement by that and that's how much they get to move per IP (whether they have an IP left or not). That promotes a little bit more simultaneity and gives the people with fewer IPs something to do until their next action.
It's a pain, though, and it gets all wacky when people's IPs can dynamically change. So I'm not really sure how to best handle it.
Mr. Unpronounceable
Mar 24 2006, 03:31 PM
Err...if you're using edge the dice do explode, don't they?
(with the exceptions of rolling edge after the test, or rerolling failures.)
blakkie
Mar 24 2006, 03:36 PM
QUOTE (Mr. Unpronounceable @ Mar 24 2006, 09:31 AM) |
Err...if you're using edge the dice do explode, don't they? (with the exceptions of rolling edge after the test, or rerolling failures.) |
I think he means always exploding dice, and there is a suggested optional rule already in the book for that. The reason they took out exploding dice, I suspect, is to keep the speed up. Once you get up to 10 or more dice it is rare not to reroll at least once, and a couple rerolls becomes fairly common. That isn't a huge amount of time on one roll, but when you do it on every roll it starts to add up.
I could take it one way or the other. I like the excitement of exploding dice. But at least having it in Edge gets me by. Not sure, would have to try it to see how much things slow down with rerolls. It would probably depend a lot on how tight and awkward rolling is for you to start with.
Mr. Unpronounceable
Mar 24 2006, 03:52 PM
I guess...but his example was specifically a character whose pool had been reduced to zero and whose edge was less than the threshold needed - so you'd roll edge with exploding dice to solve the problem (which doesn't seem to exist, because that's what you would do anyway.)
Eryk the Red
Mar 24 2006, 03:56 PM
The book specifically says that the Rule of 6 doesn't apply on Long Shot tests. The idea here is to say that it does.
Mr. Unpronounceable
Mar 24 2006, 04:08 PM
ah - that's what I was missing...thanks.
SL James
Mar 24 2006, 04:27 PM
QUOTE (Geekkake) |
There are plenty of threads complaining about aspects of SR4 they don't like. Awesome. Now let's fix them. Pick one of those problems, and offer a resolution. And for the love of God, try to refrain from "here's X problem, IT CAN'T BE FIXED". |
Some of us are rebuilding the whole damn thing, you sanctimonious little prick.
Eryk the Red
Mar 24 2006, 04:28 PM
I'll take a sanctimonious prick over someone just being belligerent.
SL James
Mar 24 2006, 04:53 PM
That's because you don't know what you're talking about, newbie.
Kleaner
Mar 24 2006, 04:53 PM
QUOTE (SL James) |
QUOTE (Geekkake @ Mar 24 2006, 08:57 AM) | There are plenty of threads complaining about aspects of SR4 they don't like. Awesome. Now let's fix them. Pick one of those problems, and offer a resolution. And for the love of God, try to refrain from "here's X problem, IT CAN'T BE FIXED". |
Some of us are rebuilding the whole damn thing, you sanctimonious little prick.
|
Here's a news flash -- nothing any motherfucker on Dumpshock says matters. We're all sitting here talking about a role playing game. Your pointless drivel is no more or less important than our pointless drivel, in the great, global, scheme of things.
p.s. Calling someone a newbie because they've happened to discover the little rock you hide under on the internet after you did, is just plain silly.
stevebugge
Mar 24 2006, 04:59 PM
Why do I get the feeling that sooner or later Bull is going to be very busy with this thread...........
Magus
Mar 24 2006, 05:03 PM
Or Adam. It seems that when ever James gets passionate about something the thread goes to Hell.
Dashifen
Mar 24 2006, 05:03 PM
My biggest problem is the lack of interesting combat options for Astral and Matrix combat. Ranged and Melee have all these interesting modifiers that a player and GM can use to create tactical situations. Granted, they also encompass perhaps the largest percentage of combat in the game. Thus, I can understand why they were focused on first and Astral/Virtual combat comes second. Perhaps we'll see a return of the Matrix Combat Maneuvers from SR3 when we get Unwired, and Astral combat has always been kind of a I-hit-you-now-you-hit-me kind of thing. To that end I think we could do this:
For Matrix Combat:
Change matrix attacks back to a simple action. Then, allow the three maneuvers from third addition (parry, position, and evade) as follows. Note, I use Pilot for the skill used by the opponents below. Obviously, if you're maneuvering against a hacker, use Hacking or Computers as appropriate. As before, the maneuvers are all simple actions.
- To parry, roll Hacking + Armor, each hit gives you a +1 modification to your Armor for the following attack and only the following attack. That could mean you end up with a huge defense roll for one attack, but because matrix attacks are now simple actions again, the opponent can always try to hit you again if necessary. Glitches mean nothing happens, or maybe a slight bonus to the opponent, critical glitches could crash your Armor program or reduce it by the hits, etc.
- To position, roll Hacking + Analyze vs. Pilot + Analyze,
net hits give a +1 modifier to the winner's Attack on the following round. Note, as in SR3, this means that you can end up hurting yourself rather than helping when using this maneuver. Upon further consideration, and with a review of the Melee Combat Modifiers, if the positioning character wins, they are considered to have the Superior Position modifier (+2). If they lose, then their opponent gets said modifier. I use Analyze for the program on this test because the position maneuver is all about assessing the combat's progress and using your program to detect weaknesses in the target's icon.
- Evading is the hardest one to translate. Since the SR3 version of this maneuver allowed you to evade for X combat turns reduced by any security tally increases you made, it cannot directly translate as SR4 has no security tally. Thus, I think it works best like this: the evading character rolls Hacking + Stealth. The total number of hits times two on this test become a threshold for an extended test made by the evaded icon. The extended test has an interval of 1 combat turn and is made with Pilot + Analyze. Icons evaded as a group may perform may use Teamwork to re-locate an evaded icon.
Example
Hacky McHacksalot is being attacked in cybercombat by 2 IC programs. Luckily, he goes first. Since he doesn't want to crash the programs and risk alerting the host, he decides that flight wins out, in this case, over fight. He rolls his Hacking + Stealth program and gets 3 hits. The IC programs work together to try and relocate Hacky, which requires a Pilot + Analyze (6, 1 combat turn) test. One program assists the other, giving it 2 more dice in the Teamwork Test, and the other IC rolls 4 hits on the first interval, giving Hacky a chance to try and log off.
Now, if you're savvy you might wonder why you'd do an evade since you could log off in the middle of cybercombat. Well, my other addition to matrix combat is the use of the interception rules, that is if someone is attempting to perform a matrix action other than cybercombat, then the opponent's icons can attempt to intercept and block that action using the interception rules from normal melee combat. Thus, without evading first, then you might be blocked in your attempts to do something else.
Things have gotten a little more interesting for Astral combat since you can cast spells as normal while on the Astral plane now, bringing in an element of ranged combat, especially when using the indirect combat spells. I'd like to see some metamagics that deal specifically with Astral combat, perhaps one that provides a projected magician the ability to make a ranged astral combat attack rather than just melee attacks. But I haven't honestly given it as much thought because Astral combat doesn't come up as much in my games as Matrix.
Cain
Mar 24 2006, 06:20 PM
QUOTE |
Longshot tests: The most valid complaint I've seen regarding Edge is that there comes a point where the runner simply cannot attempt what they want to attempt. Their dicepool is reduced to zero, and don't have enough Edge to overcome the Threshold for the task. This is not only bad on players, but seems to run contradictory to the entire purpose and nature of Edge.
Solution: Make the dice explode. There's still a huge chance of failure, but frankly, if the modifiers of a situation have reduced your pool to zero, you're staring at a task that, well, exceeds your skill. You have to rely on blind luck. But luck can do crazy things, and there should never be a situation that entirely precludes the possibility of success, no matter how remote. Exploding dice allows the players to still try anything, and simply makes the chances of success more unlikely the higher the Threshold gets.
|
The problem here is that it doesn't address the situations where a character has no Edge whatsoever. For example, let's assume that an unskilled character with Quickness 2 and -1 in wound penalties attempts to fire a uncompensated fully-automatic weapon. He's got a dice pool of zero, no Edge left-- and according to the RAW, he can't even pull the trigger. We could rule that he can just fire blindly for special effect, but that just doesn't sound right-- someone blindly spraying a fully-automatic weapon sounds like a serious threat to me. We can't even rule that he can use the suppresive fire rules, since that requires a roll as well.
We could try and use the nWoD solution: still give them one die, but make it so they only succeed on a 6. This means the odds of success and critical failure are identical. However, then we've pretty seriously reduced the value of Edge, and longshot tests in general. Additionally, players won't be going through Edge as rapidly as before.
The only way to fix this is to overhaul the core mechanic entirely, going to a floating TN again. If we always allow exploding dice, fix the standard TN at 5, and then have it increase by 1 for every negative in your dice pool-- then we can allow everyone to have a single die no matter what, and we don't have to worry about piling on the modifiers. However, this requires abandoning fixed TNs, and thus the entire rule base of the game.
Synner
Mar 24 2006, 06:45 PM
QUOTE |
The problem here is that it doesn't address the situations where a character has no Edge whatsoever. For example, let's assume that an unskilled character with Quickness 2 and -1 in wound penalties attempts to fire a uncompensated fully-automatic weapon. He's got a dice pool of zero, no Edge left |
Then he's quite literally out of luck.
QUOTE |
- and according to the RAW, he can't even pull the trigger. We could rule that he can just fire blindly for special effect, but that just doesn't sound right-- someone blindly spraying a fully-automatic weapon sounds like a serious threat to me. We can't even rule that he can use the suppresive fire rules, since that requires a roll as well. |
And strangely enough, exactly the same thing happened in SR3- when someone with little or no skill picked up a gun (or defaulted). If you've ever used the suppressive fire rules its even worse. If he hit anything it was GM fiat and that remains the case. That being said you don't make rolls to pull a trigger - or open doors or run round a corner. You make a roll to actually hit something you're aiming at when you pull the trigger.
QUOTE |
The only way to fix this is to overhaul the core mechanic entirely, going to a floating TN again. If we always allow exploding dice, fix the standard TN at 5, and then have it increase by 1 for every negative in your dice pool-- then we can allow everyone to have a single die no matter what, and we don't have to worry about piling on the modifiers. However, this requires abandoning fixed TNs, and thus the entire rule base of the game. |
FanPro has no plans (or intention) of overhauling the core mechanic, but some alternative implementations of Edge are planned for a not-so-upcoming book.
Austere Emancipator
Mar 24 2006, 06:52 PM
[Nevermind.]
Rotbart van Dainig
Mar 24 2006, 06:54 PM
QUOTE (Geekkake) |
Longshot tests: The most valid complaint I've seen regarding Edge is that there comes a point where the runner simply cannot attempt what they want to attempt. |
Personally, I'm thinking about dropping Longshot use of Edge completly:
If the Dice Pool drops below 1, it is still possible to add the exploding Edge dice.
If the Dice Pool still is below 1, automatic failure still happens.
blakkie
Mar 24 2006, 07:01 PM
QUOTE (SL James) |
QUOTE (Geekkake @ Mar 24 2006, 08:57 AM) | There are plenty of threads complaining about aspects of SR4 they don't like. Awesome. Now let's fix them. Pick one of those problems, and offer a resolution. And for the love of God, try to refrain from "here's X problem, IT CAN'T BE FIXED". |
Some of us are rebuilding the whole damn thing, you sanctimonious little prick.
|
Setting aside the kettle-pot thing

.... so what have you got so far? I know you were working on the social Skills. Social skills are something you could have an entire 15 page chapter dedicated to and still have to be brief to fit it in, so the 2 pages the spent on it in the core leaves a lot to flesh out.
Azralon
Mar 24 2006, 07:14 PM
QUOTE (Synner) |
FanPro has no plans (or intention) of overhauling the core mechanic |
Sweet.
Cain
Mar 24 2006, 07:15 PM
QUOTE |
And strangely enough, exactly the same thing happened in SR3- when someone with little or no skill picked up a gun (or defaulted). If you've ever used the suppressive fire rules its even worse. If he hit anything it was GM fiat and that remains the case. |
There was an easy fix for that one, though. Yes, technically you couldn't roll if you were defaulting and your TN was over 12. However, you could simply allow a roll without needing to alter the basic mechanics of the game. Floating TN systems are based around the assumption that there are no impossible tasks, just degrees of difficulty. SR4 makes the assumption that certain things are flat-out impossible-- something many gamers don't like, and something that can't be fixed without seriously changing some of the most basic assumptions of the game.
Azralon
Mar 24 2006, 07:17 PM
QUOTE (Cain) |
something many gamers don't like |
Unless you can provide documentation of your opinion poll, I recommend rephrasing to either "something that some gamers don't like" or "something that I myself don't like."
Cain
Mar 24 2006, 07:22 PM
How about: "In twenty five years of gaming, I've never encountered a player who liked it in the slightest"?
hobgoblin
Mar 24 2006, 07:22 PM
QUOTE (Eryk the Red @ Mar 24 2006, 04:56 PM) |
The book specifically says that the Rule of 6 doesn't apply on Long Shot tests. The idea here is to say that it does. |
you mind pointing me to the text that says so? i cant find it, neither under rule of six or long shot test...
edit:
never mind, someone else point out where it was.
very strange place to put it tho. i would expect to find it echoed under the long shot text on page 55, or maybe under the rule of six info on page 56. neither talks about it. all we have is a () under a bullet point about spending edge...
smells like someone did a last second edit and forgot about a bit of text...
Azralon
Mar 24 2006, 07:23 PM
QUOTE (Cain) |
How about: "In twenty five years of gaming, I've never encountered a player who liked it in the slightest"? |
That would likely be more accurate, yes. See how misleading hyperbole is easily avoided?
Moon-Hawk
Mar 24 2006, 07:49 PM
It's not hyperbole to say many people don't like something. He knows many people, and of those many people he knows, they don't like it. He didn't say MOST people, which would require some kind of polling to back up. It may only be 1% or less of players, but 1% can still be "many". 1% of the world's population is 60,000,000 people. That is "many" people. It is not "most" people.
Not hyperbole.
mfb
Mar 24 2006, 07:53 PM
QUOTE (Synner) |
And strangely enough, exactly the same thing happened in SR3- when someone with little or no skill picked up a gun (or defaulted). If you've ever used the suppressive fire rules its even worse. If he hit anything it was GM fiat and that remains the case. |
what? that's not true at all. i don't want to turn this into an SR3 vs SR4 debate, but that's simply not how SR3 works. in SR3, no matter how badly the odds are stacked against you, you at least have a chance of success because very little, if anything, reduced the number of dice you roll and the rule of six always applies. a guy with little or no skill firing in the dark at S damage while behind cover has a chance at hitting his target--a very, very small chance, but a chance nonetheless; it's no more "GM fiat" if he hits than it is GM fiat if a guy with high skill, full recoil comp, and a smartlink unloads into a target at close range in full daylight. you roll the dice, and you take what you get--or you karma it, if you have any left and you feel it's worth the expenditure.
moreover, suppressive fire in SR3 was pretty handy even for guys with low or no skill. granted, they weren't likely to do much damage, but the targets have to roll to dodge before the shooter makes his attack roll, which makes suppressive fire a great tool for reducing the opposition's combat pool so that the real shooters can take them down.
Rotbart van Dainig
Mar 24 2006, 07:56 PM
QUOTE (mfb) |
a guy with little or no skill firing in the dark at S damage while behind cover has a chance at hitting his target--a very, very small chance, but a chance nonetheless; |
No. If you default in SR3, and the target number rises above 8 (including modifiers), you simply fail.
Cain
Mar 24 2006, 07:56 PM
QUOTE (hobgoblin @ Mar 24 2006, 12:22 PM) |
QUOTE (Eryk the Red @ Mar 24 2006, 04:56 PM) | The book specifically says that the Rule of 6 doesn't apply on Long Shot tests. The idea here is to say that it does. |
you mind pointing me to the text that says so? i cant find it, neither under rule of six or long shot test...
|
Page 67, under Spending Edge, fourth bullet point.
Geekkake
Mar 24 2006, 07:56 PM
QUOTE (Azralon) |
That would likely be more accurate, yes. See how misleading hyperbole is easily avoided? |
While I see your point, and concur, let's try to get back on the OP rather than nitpicking word choices. I'm trying to make this thread more focused on problem-solving than bickering or continuing arguments from other threads.
QUOTE (SL James) |
Some of us are rebuilding the whole damn thing, you sanctimonious little prick. |
Excellent, then here's another thread for further collaboration with various board members who may not be directly involved in your project. Offer up some of your solutions.
QUOTE |
The problem here is that it doesn't address the situations where a character has no Edge whatsoever. For example, let's assume that an unskilled character with Quickness 2 and -1 in wound penalties attempts to fire a uncompensated fully-automatic weapon. He's got a dice pool of zero, no Edge left
QUOTE (Synner) | Then he's quite literally out of luck. |
|
My first inclination is to agree, here. In life, there are times when you're just, well, fucked. However, this being a game and not a real-life situation, I'm hesitant to simply cut them off from any hope of success like that.
Then again, I guess they could burn Edge, but that seems a little drastic. In the meantime, I guess my solution is to encourage another action to the same or sympathetic effect.
hobgoblin
Mar 24 2006, 07:57 PM
QUOTE (Cain) |
QUOTE (hobgoblin @ Mar 24 2006, 12:22 PM) | QUOTE (Eryk the Red @ Mar 24 2006, 04:56 PM) | The book specifically says that the Rule of 6 doesn't apply on Long Shot tests. The idea here is to say that it does. |
you mind pointing me to the text that says so? i cant find it, neither under rule of six or long shot test...
|
Page 67, under Spending Edge, fourth bullet point.
|
heh, i just edited that post. sorry...
mfb
Mar 24 2006, 07:57 PM
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) |
If you default in SR3, and the target number rises above 8 (including modifiers), you simply fail. |
haha! jeez, forgot about that. you're right, there are situations in SR3 where you simply have no chance--but only if you have no skill at all. low-skill guys never run into that.
my point about suppressive fire is still valid, though, since you don't roll to attack until after the targets roll to dodge.
Butterblume
Mar 24 2006, 07:58 PM
So, is there a slightest chance your dwarf jumps 30m high in SR3?
I can't really remember, forgetting SR3 rules faster than learning SR4 ones, but wasn't that capped by Quickness or something?
Azralon
Mar 24 2006, 07:59 PM
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk @ Mar 24 2006, 03:49 PM) |
That is "many" people. It is not "most" people. Not hyperbole. |
True, Moon-Hawk. "Most" would designate more than 50%, while an undefined "many" is completely relative (and therefore without useful content).
My bad; not true hyperbole. Just simply misleading.
hobgoblin
Mar 24 2006, 07:59 PM
never mind...
Cain
Mar 24 2006, 08:04 PM
[QUOTE]No. If you default in SR3, and the target number rises above 8 (including modifiers), you simply fail. [/QUOTE]
You can fix that by removing the autofailure clause, and just allowing a normal roll. Under any dicepool +/- modifiers system, you can't do that-- even if you remove the autofailure clause, they've got no dice to try and roll with.
So, is there a slightest chance your dwarf jumps 30m high in SR3?
I can't really remember, forgetting SR3 rules faster than learning SR4 ones, but wasn't that capped by Quickness or something? [/quote]
Hydraulic jacks come to mind...
Rotbart van Dainig
Mar 24 2006, 08:07 PM
QUOTE (Cain) |
You can fix that by removing the autofailure clause, and just allowing a normal roll. Under any dicepool +/- modifiers system, you can't do that-- even if you remove the autofailure clause, they've got no dice to try and roll with. |
Of course, that should be obvious - and thus wasn't my point.
Shrike30
Mar 24 2006, 08:10 PM
As a GM, I'm a fan of there being a system-defined point at which something is just impossible. I'm willing to throw on all sorts of positive modifiers to try and MAKE something possible, but it's really nice to be able to say "Look, your character knows he doesn't have a chance in hell of hitting what he's aiming at. You can fire just to get lead going in the right direction, but that's about it," and have a rules reason (which can always be fiat'ed around) to keep players from burning 5 minutes of playtime doing extraneous things. Basically, I see it as crowd control.
Cain
Mar 24 2006, 08:23 PM
QUOTE |
As a GM, I'm a fan of there being a system-defined point at which something is just impossible. I'm willing to throw on all sorts of positive modifiers to try and MAKE something possible, but it's really nice to be able to say "Look, your character knows he doesn't have a chance in hell of hitting what he's aiming at. You can fire just to get lead going in the right direction, but that's about it," and have a rules reason (which can always be fiat'ed around) to keep players from burning 5 minutes of playtime doing extraneous things. Basically, I see it as crowd control. |
I understand this is a YMMV thing, but I've personally discovered that always allowing the players a chance leads to better games. Additionally, I had a problem with excessive GM fiat when I started, so I try very hard to avoid it now.
Still, I can recall one or two times when I gave the players an impossible task, and watched them pull it off with a single lucky roll. Yes, it made my job much harder, since I had to suddenly shift parts of my plotline around to accomodate. However, overall I thought it led to a better game-- everything took an unexpected twist, and even I wasn't sure where this was all headed. I know I had a lot more fun as a GM during those sessions.
Geekkake
Mar 24 2006, 08:33 PM
QUOTE (Cain) |
QUOTE | As a GM, I'm a fan of there being a system-defined point at which something is just impossible. I'm willing to throw on all sorts of positive modifiers to try and MAKE something possible, but it's really nice to be able to say "Look, your character knows he doesn't have a chance in hell of hitting what he's aiming at. You can fire just to get lead going in the right direction, but that's about it," and have a rules reason (which can always be fiat'ed around) to keep players from burning 5 minutes of playtime doing extraneous things. Basically, I see it as crowd control. |
I understand this is a YMMV thing, but I've personally discovered that always allowing the players a chance leads to better games. Additionally, I had a problem with excessive GM fiat when I started, so I try very hard to avoid it now.
Still, I can recall one or two times when I gave the players an impossible task, and watched them pull it off with a single lucky roll. Yes, it made my job much harder, since I had to suddenly shift parts of my plotline around to accomodate. However, overall I thought it led to a better game-- everything took an unexpected twist, and even I wasn't sure where this was all headed. I know I had a lot more fun as a GM during those sessions.
|
I definitely agree with the idea that allowing improbable actions leads to better games. It results in a lot less number-crunching, and a lot more creativity.
So what do you recommend, short of overhauling the system?
The only thing I can think of, off the top of my head, is allowing all dice to explode, and using Edge for it's other purposes (extra dice, rerolls, that sort of thing). The most obvious problem (aside from completely recreating Karma Pool, which I hated), is drastically increasing the hits the runners get. If my math is wrong on that, and it doesn't make as big a deal, then great. But it seems like it reduces some of the things I like most about the game, like increased combat lethality, and a greater likelihood of failure (without removing the remote possibility of success, I'd like to add).
Rotbart van Dainig
Mar 24 2006, 08:42 PM
QUOTE (Geekkake) |
I definitely agree with the idea that allowing improbable actions leads to better games. It results in a lot less number-crunching, and a lot more creativity. |
Unless the players start to try riding the Infinite Improbability Drive instead of thinking about creative solutions that might work, too.
In which case, it leads to a pretty bad kind of game - a game where the players are dissatisfied and the GM is annoyed.
mfb
Mar 24 2006, 08:44 PM
eh. you just have to make improbable things really, really improbable.
hobgoblin
Mar 24 2006, 08:48 PM
as long as its not 100% impossible, it can happen...
Rotbart van Dainig
Mar 24 2006, 08:51 PM
That's why it's called the Infinite Improbability Drive, I guess.
mfb
Mar 24 2006, 08:57 PM
i think if the players would prefer to just roll the dice they're allotted without stopping to consider their chances of success, or looking for solutions that offer a greater chance of success, they'd be better off playing the SR4 base system than any modification being discussed here. that's a really dumb way to go about playing an RPG, and if the players insist on it, the GM needs to either switch to a system that doesn't smash players who play that way... or just smash the players and have done with it.
that said, i'm not sure it's the job of a game designer to keep players happy who insist on doing things the most bone-headed way possible.
Geekkake
Mar 24 2006, 09:22 PM
QUOTE (mfb) |
i think if the players would prefer to just roll the dice they're allotted without stopping to consider their chances of success, or looking for solutions that offer a greater chance of success, they'd be better off playing the SR4 base system than any modification being discussed here. that's a really dumb way to go about playing an RPG, and if the players insist on it, the GM needs to either switch to a system that doesn't smash players who play that way... or just smash the players and have done with it.
that said, i'm not sure it's the job of a game designer to keep players happy who insist on doing things the most bone-headed way possible. |
I agree, and I'd certainly encourage my players toward another course of action in the case of a situation that can be resolved many ways. I'm talking about the real longshots, dramatic events like the runner being stuck on the roof of a burning building and trying to jump across a significant gap to the next roof, or maybe onto the landing rail of a passing helicopter.
Chances are, the runner started the fire themselves by being an idiot, but does that mean I should allow absolutely no chance of success? Should I just tear up or delete their sheet in front of them without any rolls? I don't know, my gut disagrees. And my gut is vast and wise.
hobgoblin
Mar 24 2006, 09:25 PM
maybe issue a freebie edge point
Butterblume
Mar 24 2006, 09:26 PM
I was forced by the establishment to take statistics and logic courses at the university ... now i have to think about my chances of success everytime i even think of rolling dice.
Rotbart van Dainig
Mar 24 2006, 09:34 PM
QUOTE (mfb) |
that said, i'm not sure it's the job of a game designer to keep players happy who insist on doing things the most bone-headed way possible. |
Maybe that's why I don't really miss those really improbable possibilities.
Geekkake
Mar 24 2006, 09:35 PM
QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
maybe issue a freebie edge point |
Sure. All you have to do is be human to get it.