I see that, but still, any argument for called shot with blind fire is pretty hollow.

Formal logic doesn't use equality statements. The statement "Any time a character scores 4 or more net hits on a test (4 hits more than needed to reach the threshold or beat the opponent), she has scored a critical success" would be expressed as:

Four or more net hits -> Critical success

The statment that "[You can burn a point of Edge to] Automatically achieve a critical success on one action." would be expressed as:

Burn a point of edge -> Critical success

Find me a quote from the book that can logically be expressed as:

Four or more net hits <-> Critical success
-or-
Critical success -> Four or more net hits
-or-
Burn a point of edge -> Four or more net hits

and I'll concede your point. After a decent amount of looking, however, I have not found such a quote, and doubt you'll be able to do the same.

If you can construct a logical proof for:

Four or more net hits -> Critical success; Burn a point of edge -> Critical success |- Critical success -> Four or more net hits

I would also be willing to concede the point. A shortened form of this proof (just to make it less irritating to type, when you get around to it) would be:

Four -> Crit; Burn -> Crit |- Crit -> Four

The problem is not "sanity"... it's that the rule doesn't go that way. The fact that your interpretation of the rules involves reading "four or more" as "four" when you run the logical statement backwards (that is, in the direction that it doesn't actually go) should have been your first tipoff that the rule wasn't intended to work in that direction. Had it been intended to work in that direction, a statement similar to one of the ones I ask you to prove above would have been made, rather than the RAW requiring you to make up a rule that was "missed in playtesting" just to get things to work in the broken way you imagine they were intended to. A determined rules lawyer doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Why are you fighting so hard to misinterpret the RAW in a way that's broken, when the RAW being broken is your main complaint?

I'm not "fighting to prove the RAW is broken"-- that's already been established multiple times on these forums and others. I'm pointing out yet another area in which it is broken.

In the meanwhile:

I don't need to. Logically speaking, if A, then B; so if B, then A. If you score more than four net successes, you have a critical success; if you score a critical success, you have earned more than four net successes. That's pretty clear.

The problem comes from the burning Edge rule, which says that you earn an automatic critical success. So, it feeds back into the previous definition in an unexpected pattern. Naturally, there's not going to be a quote saying: "Oops, me made a big huge mistake here, but we're not going to fix it right away." What we will see is the logic pattern.

So, exactly what point do you think is wrong?

• Earning four net successes is a critical success.
• A critical success is defined as earning four or more net successes.
• You can earn a critical success by burning a point of Edge.

Show me where any of that is wrong, and I'll concede your point.

This is correct and by the book. The rules state that a result of 4 or more net hits is read as a "critical success" (ie. A critical success is a qualifier/decriptor for achieving 4+ net hits).

Since you've separated this from the previous point I'm going to assume that at this point you're inverting the argument above (ie. if 4+ net hits = a critical success then a critical success = 4+ net hits). This is where you're mistaken. Nowhere do the rules state that this is the case.

No. The reverse is an exception in logic.

If it's raining I get my umbrella. Are you trying to say that if I get my umbrella it's raining?

If I get bit by a dog I get an open wound. Are you trying to say that if I got an open wound I was bit by a dog?

Shall I go on?

That isn't true. The logically following inverse of "if A then B" is "if not B then not A".

Example: If I cut you, you bleed.

Obviously you can't from this assume that if you bleed, I cut you. Someone else could have cut you, or I could have shot you or whatever.

You can assume the negation though: that if you don't bleed, I haven't cut you.


you're probably confusing it with "if and only if A, then B". Here you can assume that "if and only if B then A".

For example "if and only if in contant with Kryptonite, Superman is weak". From that it follows that "If Superman is weak, he is in contact with Kryptonite".

A critical success is defined as follows:

"A critical success means that the character has performed the task with such perfection and grace that the gamemaster should allow her to add whatever flourishing detail she likes when describing it."

At no point is it stated that a critical success is defined as earning 4+ net successes. Earning 4+ net successes is simply one of the ways to get a critical success. Burning edge is the other.

Just thought this would be interesting after all this discussion: ENnie results.

Nah. I'm sure we're about to be told this is a fluke.

I don't have to. RPG.net has already done it for me.

Hey look everyone! Cain's back to spread misinformation again!

Munchezuma: Asks the questions "how did this win?"

vitus979 (just a few complaints, not a SR SUCKS AND SHOULDN'T HAVE WON!!!)

cczernia: liked the book, has a problem with confusing matrix rules

grandmaster_cain (you?): Doesn't like that character creation has rules in it. Doesn't like that other sections require cross referencing. In other words "cross-referernce where I tell you to, but nowhere else."

Those are the posters from the thread that had something negative to say about the book. The rest of the people (it;s only 16 posts long) had good things to say about the book. And there's nobody saying that M&M is a vastly superior product. The clossest to that was a guy saying that SR4 was a great leap forward and M&M2 was a minor update, which is why SR4 got more votes.

How is this RPG.net proving that the ENnies were flukes?

Not quite. While you are certainly right, that once you enter the realms of extremely high difficulties you will notice that checks become practically impossible (without Edge) compared to the almost equal nigh impossibility of extremely high TNs, the big difference does not lie there. Impossible and almost impossible are so close together, that it doesn't really make a difference in practice. Sure, you could still beat a TN of 12+, but it's so rare, that this actually happens, when you need it, that the practical application becomes pretty much irrelevant.

However, the average and thus common case is much more important, and with the dice pool modifier we now have a much finer scale to apply modifiers to a check, which works a lot better than the extremely rough scale produced by the TN modifier system.

A simple +1 modifier to a TN of 4 already lowers your dice pool to 2/3 when you project it onto a dice pool modifier (with unchanged TN, of course), another +1 and you are left with 1/3 of your original dice. If you start with a TN of 5, a +1 will cut your dice pool in half. This is a pretty big difference on average probabilities (it's not entirely the same, especially variances vary between the two approaches, but the average result is the same in the above examples). And that's the big problem of the TN system, that it is entirely unable to model small differences.

The important difference does not lie where the huge modifiers come into play, it lies where the small modifiers are.

Also, you while lower the probability of success with huge steps when you apply the first modifiers, and once you reach a TN of 6+, the steps suddenly become MUCH smaller. A +1 that increases TN 5 to 6 halves your chances, while a +1 that brings you from TN 7 to 8, for example, only reduces it to 5/6th. This way, the same modifiers act in a very different fashion, when combined with other modifiers.

Finally, the dice pool modifier is much more in the spirit of the dice system SR uses (since 1st Edition). Counting only the number of successes/hits and not the height of them, that is.

Bye
Thanee

Actually, since they removed the rule of six, anytime the threshold is over your dice pool, the task becomes completely impossible. That means your curve drops off rather suddenly. If you're trying for a TN of 12 on one die, your odds are only 1:36, which isn't as hard as you might think.

The problem isn't really fixed vs floating TN's, though. I've seen elegant examples of both. The problem is where penalties remove dice, because sooner or later you'll end up either at zero dice, or below your threshold, making the roll totally impossible. You can get away with this by always leaving them one die; but with a fixed TN system, you've just caused the problem that now they can pile on the modifiers without changing the odds.

I am assuming you mean the roll is totally impossible without the use of edge...I understand what you are saying though...if you only have 3 dice, then hitting a threshold of 4 is impossible (unless you use edge).

I don't see a problem with that though, as in my game, we limit total successes by the skill rating + 1. So, someone defaulting on a skill, can only ever get a total of one success...so, some things are impossible, but that doesn't cause us a problem in my game.

Your last sentence I don't understand completely. I don't see how you can pile on modifiers without changing the odds...could you please explain and/or give examples.

I've always thought that Sanguine's base dice mechanic for Ironclaw/Jadeclaw was rather elegant in this regard. In that system, if you have a net penalty to your roll, you don't remove dice, instead, for each level of penalty, you must make an extra roll, and take the lowest result of all the rolls.

Actually, I thought 'impossible' carries that drop off quite well.

Bye
Thanee

You might want to read things before replying to them every now and then. The post you quoted already said that.

He's referring to the fact that once your dice pool hits zero and you're resorting to edge, no amount of modifiers changes your odds of success because they don't change your edge dice pool. What he is ignoring (and frequently does) is the existence of a GM.

This is a problem with a fairly simple solution: never subtract dice. Add penalty modifiers to the other side. For Opposed Tests, this is simple. For Extended Tests, add the penalty to the threshold. Treat Success Tests as though they were Opposed Tests where the opposition starts with zero dice.

Nice idea. I actually do that already in one instance (cover modifiers are added to the Dodge Test rather than subtracted from the Ranged Combat Test).

Doing that in a more consistent manner certainly has some appeal (especially when considering Glitch probabilities).

Bye
Thanee

That (though I don't think it's that bad, as a GM you can easily compensate for that, or just use the above) and the ammo rules (where they put + to DV and - to AP on an equal measure apparantly).

Bye
Thanee

Yes, and I've seen GM's kill off PC's for fumbles before. There's a reason why "GM fiat" is considered a bad word.

The problem isn't "GM discretion", it's when a GM thinks he can simply houserule anything he likes, whenever he likes, as often as he likes. Personally, I'd walk away from any such gamemaster.

Additionally, good systems are designed so GM discretion is needed as little as possible. By removing dice and forcing an increase in botches, SR4 is *increasing* the number of times it's required. Combined with the other penalties caused by removing dice, and the problem is obvious.

That would have been a good basis for a different system. Unfortunately, converting SR4 to that one would require completely rewriting the entire ruleset. We can hold out hope for SR5, but I can't see how to fix SR4 without changing the basic system of fixed TN, & penalties remove dice.

Really? It seems a fairly simple change to me. Care to explain a bit more?

LOL! Where have I heard that before?

It's for the runners that are firing Explosive or EX-Explosive ammo. Those jam and explode on a critical glitch, which is more likely when firing at targets that are under cover. That's kinda weird, like somehow the gun and ammo know that the target is harder to hit, and become depressed and less likely to work properly.