mfb
May 30 2006, 12:47 AM
i feel it degrades the importance of ability if ability is completely irrelevant in a given situation. i feel it also puts too much emphasis on the 'luck' stat, if luck trumps ability. making Long Shot tests a combination of ability and luck (or experience, or whatever) places what i feel is the proper emphasis on luck and ability.
Hida Tsuzua
May 30 2006, 02:19 AM
What if long shot tests were done with (Edge + Skill)/2 rounded up dice? That way luck matters, skill matters, and the math is easy. The rounding up is to still allow long shot tests with 1 Edge and no skill. Also you're still spending edge so it should be a nice roll.
James McMurray
May 30 2006, 05:58 AM
QUOTE (mfb) |
the net result of this is that a guy who's defaulting to an Agi of 1, and a guy with Agi 3 and Pistols skill of 3, are both equal if the dice penalties on a shot add up to -6 or more. |
Makes perfect sense to me.
mfb
May 30 2006, 06:09 AM
goody for you. it's bad gameplay, a poor exchange: you have paid your hard-won karma for something, and you are in the same boat as someone who does not have it, in a situation where it should be useful. there are innumerable ways for any given situation to "make sense" in the way it is described by a game's mechanics. in a well-designed game, things will "make sense" without unduly punishing players for valid choices.
James McMurray
May 30 2006, 06:18 AM
You've taken that guy with skill and turned off the lights or made his opponent invisible. It takes more than average agility and slightly above average skill to hit something you can't see.
mfb
May 30 2006, 06:21 AM
agreed. but that doesn't mean that your agility and skill are necessarily irrelevant. just because task X requires more than ability Y does not mean that ability Y is not relevant to task X.
James McMurray
May 30 2006, 06:31 AM
Right. It means that some things are impossible at a certain level of skill. It's relevant, just not "relevant enough," a phrase that makes sense to me but is also swimming it's way through exhaustion and medication, so might not make sense to anyone else. You disagree. Nobody says we have to think the same way.

Think of it this way:
1) I have an agility of 3 and a 1 in basketball skill. I cannot possibly perform a successful dunk shot because my skill is too low (in either jumping or basketball, take your pick).
2) Michael Jordan has a 7 agility and a 7 skill in basketball. Give him three broken ribs and a severe beating (-7 injury modifier), turn off the lights (-6), and have Roseanne Barr sing the national anthem directly into his brain (-2 distraction) and he'll be incapable of making a dunk shot.
3) I've got a buddy in the army that's a damn fine shot. He's won awards for shooting. I have no idea what they are because I was drunk when he was telling me what all his badges, stripes, and buttons mean, but they're there. He'll be the first to tell you that if you shoot him in the kidneys and turn the lights out he ain't gonna hit squat. Maybe without the gut wound he could hit the target if you point him in the right direction, but he wouldn't get a bullseye. In game terms you've got a situation where modifiers drop his dice to 0 and another situation where they just drop them below the threshold necessary to hit the bullseye.
mfb
May 30 2006, 06:35 AM
and yet if you were playing basketball against MJ, and both of you had broken ribs, MJ would probably school you. so MJ can't dunk on a busted ribcage--he's still going to be better at basketball than you. if i had to pick between you and MJ to win the scoring point that saves Earth's greatest basketball heroes from being slaves to their cartoon overlords, and both of you have severe injuries, i'm going to go with MJ. just because you are faced with equal modifiers does not mean that your abilities are equal.
but i'll admit that your description makes sense, with the caveat that my description makes also sense. my description, however, makes sense and rewards the player for his good choices.
Eryk the Red
May 30 2006, 01:12 PM
The horse is dead. Put down your clubs.
It's just a matter of priorities. Variable TN gives you detail and variation. Which I value. Static TN gives you speed of resolution. Which I also value. Personally, I usually will want to choose speed. But everyone's got different priorities.
James McMurray
May 30 2006, 03:46 PM
QUOTE (mfb) |
and yet if you were playing basketball against MJ, and both of you had broken ribs, MJ would probably school you. so MJ can't dunk on a busted ribcage--he's still going to be better at basketball than you. |
It makes sense. Of course he'll tear me up, he's still got a dice pool left and I don't. But if you put me with broken ribs against MJ with all the crap mentioned earlier neither of us would win because we're both battered so much we can barely get the ball off the ground.
mfb
May 30 2006, 04:30 PM
says you. at this point, the only way to be sure is to actually put you and MJ on the court with broken bones and play a game. it makes just as much "sense" to conjecture that MJ would win as to conjecture that no one would win. the question is, which one of these conjectures lends itself better to fun, balanced RPG mechanics.
James McMurray
May 30 2006, 04:39 PM
So you think that if MJ was beaten so hard a 3 year old could knock him out he'd be able to shoot baskets? Okely dokely.
I think having impossible tasks lends itself to balance. Otherwise it's possible for someone to make a 40' running long jump without magic or cyber, hit a fly with full auto at the extreme range in a hurricane without even a scope to help, or talk the government of the United States into pushing through a bill that makes you dictator for life. The target numbers would be monstrous, but all it takes is luck when rolling.
mdynna
May 30 2006, 04:48 PM
How about this for an SR4 house rule mfb:
A dice pool can never be reduced below 1. For every situational modifier that would reduce a DP below one, convert it to a +1 DP bonus for the opponents roll.
Another way to mitigate this problem in SR4 is to make the Rule of Six "always on."
stevebugge
May 30 2006, 04:53 PM
I prefer the fixed target number system, mostly because it has proved much easier for my players to understand. What I really am pleased about is the reduction in the number of different types of tests under the new rules system.
mfb
May 30 2006, 04:56 PM
i think that if MJ were beaten that badly, he'd have a better chance of making baskets than you would, if you were that badly beaten. okely dokely?
this isn't about 'impossible' tasks, per se. a player who is even better than MJ could, under SR4, play b-ball just fine with a set of busted ribs, by virtue of the fact that he'd have a dice pool, or more of a dice pool, left after modifiers. moreover, positive modifiers (lowering the basket, whatever) could make it possible for MJ to play. i've already said my piece about the 'difficulty' of tasks in SR4; that's not what's being discussed, here.
houseruling so that dice pools can never be reduced below 1 would still mean that McMurray and MJ are equal. they would just be equal at 1, rather than 0.
mdynna
May 30 2006, 05:59 PM
Equal DP of 1 yes, but McMurray who had a lower skill to begin with would have much higher "roll over" modifiers. Under my above house rule, someone with a DP of 3 facing -14 worth of modifiers would roll 1 die but face a +11 to the opponent roll/threshold. MJ with a DP of 14 would roll 1 die with a +1 opponent roll/threshold. Turn on the Rule of Six, and (presto) MJ has a much better chance of succeeding based on his higher skill which, I think, is what you're getting at.
TBRMInsanity
May 30 2006, 06:01 PM
I see the advantages and disadvantages of both systems but I think the best system is a mixture of both. In some cases it is best to have a fixed tests (ie long ranged combat), and in other cases it is best to have variable tests (ie melee combat). That being said I like the way SR4 rules are set up.
James McMurray
May 30 2006, 06:11 PM
Why do you differentiate between the two types of combat?
mfb
May 30 2006, 06:37 PM
true, mdynna. that might work.
Shrike30
May 30 2006, 06:52 PM
I actually like the whole "average of Edge and Skill" for long shots. That fixes a lot of my problems with them.
mdynna
May 30 2006, 08:40 PM
The other "quick fix" is to limit the number of Edge dice available in a Long Shot Test to the value of the Skill that was to be used for the test. That way the PC has to be "good to be lucky, and lucky to be good."
Shrike30
May 30 2006, 09:14 PM
... I like that one even more. Do you let the dice explode with that limiter in place?
Shinobi Killfist
May 30 2006, 10:09 PM
I went with other, mainbly because I'm fine with either system, but I would of prefered a mostly fixed system, where instead of dropping into 0 dice where only edge can save you go to 1 die and the TN gets higher only when you should of beed dropped to 0 or the negatives. Something like for every die penalty that would drop you past 1 die the TN goes up by 1. The long shot sytem wouldn't really exist, you would still use edge as normal, but with maybe the additional option of lowering the TN by 1 for every edge die you give up.
Who knows maybe they tried this in playtest and it sucked, but its my off the cuff preference since I don't like how the system works at 0 dice.
mdynna
May 30 2006, 11:16 PM
QUOTE (Shrike30) |
... I like that one even more. Do you let the dice explode with that limiter in place? |
You would have to, otherwise you'd run into the "impossbile task problem" all over again.
nezumi
May 31 2006, 12:43 AM
Hmm... Alright, I'm curious. I'm going to post this poll again in the appropriate forum (SR) and see if we get different results.
You can find it here:
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?act=...=ST&f=7&t=13211I'd like to point out that right now variable TN is winning by infinity percent.
booklord
May 31 2006, 04:03 PM
I prefer the fixed, but I houseruled some of the modifiers.
For example if you're firing at a target protected by partial cover would have the number of dice rolled divided by 2 ( round up) rather than a straight -4 die modifier.
Modifiers like this helped reduce the number of "impossible" tasks without constantly resorting to edge dice. It also helps to limit those characters who overly specialize in a skill and end up rolling so many dice that they still get a decent number of dice even when attempting a truely impossible shot.
--- Tale of a pistol adept----
"I'm badly wounded so I'm getting out of here. So while running at top speed for the exit I'll shoot the guy 20 meters to my right. Yeah that's right the guy I can't see because he's completely concealed by those shadows. Not to worry I've got plenty of dice."
Eyeless Blond
Jun 2 2006, 12:50 AM
(Cross-posted in the other thread)
One thing many SR3 proponents paid little attention to is that the variable TN system also included thresholds all over the place, but most of the time it wasn't called a threshold. For instance, many decking tests required three net successes instead of just one. Magic had several spells, such as Shapechange, which had thresholds. Most combat tests were opposed, which could have probably been more easily been visualized as the defender setting a threshold for success.
Thresholds were everywhere in sr3. This in the end gave you three ways to modify difficulty: number of dice (which was in most cases completely under the player's control), TN (which in most cases was higly situational and under the GM's control), and threshold (which was usually set by the inherent difficulty of the test itself.) I thought it was a terrifically flexible and useful system, and I think could have been successfully used in SR4 as well, so long as the terminology was standardized and used consistently from section to section.
The idea would work something like:
1) The player largely sets his own dice pool. Base dice would be skill, or att+skill; things like cyberware, aiming actions, and whatnot would add dice, things like calling shots or tacking on different "special" maneuvers (sustaining extra spells, etc) would take dice away.
2) TN would start probably at a base of 4 or 5, 4 is using Skill, 5 if using att+skill. The TN would be based on environmental factors, and thus highly situational. The number would usually go up; only very special "favorable" circumstances would lower the TN. Distractions like fog would raise the TN, as would other aspects of the surroundings like cover, being in melee (when shooting), or being attacked by multiple opponents (when in melee). To avoid the 6=7 rule, the Rule of 6 only adds 5 to the next roll rather than 6.
3) Threshold would be largely set by the inherent difficulty of the task itself, independent of distractions. Shooting someone at close range would start with an Easy threshold (1), medium range would be Normal (2), long would be Difficult (3), Extreme would be Very Difficult (4). The target dodging would roll his own dodging dice, whatever that ended up being, each success adding to the threshold as before.
Or, in simplest terms, subject modifies dice, object modifies threshold, surroundings modify TN.
It's really not that complicated, if you explain it right, and it offers flexability and the potential for fidelity that you don't see in the nWoD/SR4 system as it currently stands. I can see how it would take a *lot* more work to design though, which is probably why noone bothered.
Anyway, that's how I thought it should have been done. C'est La Vie.
Dv84good
Jun 2 2006, 02:52 AM
Thanks Eyeless, your ideas are very helpful unlike some people who misinterpted the topic as a forum for arguing for or against SR$ or SR# like we have heard everyside of that arguement yet.
Cain
Jun 5 2006, 07:10 AM
QUOTE (Eryk the Red @ May 30 2006, 06:12 AM) |
It's just a matter of priorities. Variable TN gives you detail and variation. Which I value. Static TN gives you speed of resolution. Which I also value. Personally, I usually will want to choose speed. But everyone's got different priorities. |
This is not true. Savage Worlds is effectively a floating TN system (technically, it's a fixed Tn with a modified dice roll, but that's functionally the same thing). Savage Worlds also runs so fast, it makes everything else look like a slug with arthritis. It allows for just as much complexity as SR4, Gurps, d20, or any one of a number of systems; it's just many times faster and smoother in execution. Resolution speed has nothing to do with fixed vs floating TN; it all has to do with the actual mechanics and how many rolls are made.
QUOTE |
Think of it this way:
1) I have an agility of 3 and a 1 in basketball skill. I cannot possibly perform a successful dunk shot because my skill is too low (in either jumping or basketball, take your pick).
2) Michael Jordan has a 7 agility and a 7 skill in basketball. Give him three broken ribs and a severe beating (-7 injury modifier), turn off the lights (-6), and have Roseanne Barr sing the national anthem directly into his brain (-2 distraction) and he'll be incapable of making a dunk shot. |
Let's run with your example, but let's bring it back into Shadowrun terms, and make it even more extreme. I think this will illustrate the point:
Matt "Marksman" Markovich is one of the best in the world with assault rifles (Quickness 7, Automatics 7). However, he's not very lucky (Edge 1). And now, the run is hosed, and his team is in trouble. They're trying to escape, but they've got a Steel Lynx chasing them.
Marksman is using an AK-97 he picked up off a dead guard. It's not smartlinked, but it does have a laser sight (+1, total 15 dice). Unfortunately, he's in a moving vehicle (-3), the light is poor (-2), and it's raining heavily (-4, with an additional -1 because the laser sight no longer works). To make matters worse, the GM has ruled that since the Steel Lynx is dodging behind traffic, it effectively has good cover against him (-4); also, it's 60 meters away, which is Medium range for him (-1) but well within Short range of it's LMG. Total modifiers: -15, leaving him with zero dice. Even if he spends his one point of edge on a longshot test, he can't possibly get enough successes to hurt the thing, since the rule of six doesn't apply to longshot tests. He could theoretically Take Aim, but even then, it wouldn't be mugh help.
"Drek!" Marksman growls, and looks over at his teammate, Mr Lucky. He throws the gun over to him. "Here, you make the shot!" Mr. Lucky has no Automatics skill at all (-1), but he does know where the selector switch is, so he switches over to burst-fire (-2). He's also Moderately wounded (3 boxes, -1 penalty). He then calls a shot to bypass the Lynx's armor (-9) and lines up to fire. He doesn't bother to Take Aim, since it's not going to make a difference, there's no way in hell he'll have any dice left-- he could even blindfold himself, if he wanted. Total modifier: -28. Mr. Lucky now spends a point of Edge. He's got eight dice to make the test with, which averages to 2.66 successes, rounded up to 3. (He could also buy 2 successes outright, but most GM's won't allow characters to buy successes in combat.) The Lynx dodges with it's Pilot of 3, which results in 1 success-- a hit! It now has to face a 6P +2 (burst fire) +2 (net successes) = 10P attack, with absolutely no armor to help. Since it has a Body of 4, it averages 1.33 successes, which rounds down to 1. It takes 9 boxes of damage. What's more, even if we figure generously and round up, it still takes 8 boxes of damage... which is more than it's Body, and forces an immediate Crash Test. Since a drone doesn't have a Reaction score, it only gets it's Pilot of 3 to make a Threshold 3 test, and has -3 in wound modifiers. It fails, and crashes into a nearby wall with a suitably dramatic explosion. Mr. Lucky lets out a war whoop, and his teammates all slap him on the back for a good shot-- all except for Marksman, who grouses about how he could have done the same thing.
Being lucky is all well and good, but there's no way that someone could get lucky against Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Fastjack, and Bruce Lee all in the same day. And that's exactly what Edge, as well as the longshot test, represents.
QUOTE |
It's really not that complicated, if you explain it right, and it offers flexability and the potential for fidelity that you don't see in the nWoD/SR4 system as it currently stands. I can see how it would take a *lot* more work to design though, which is probably why noone bothered. |
Actually, nWoD's different in that regard, and IMO handles this issue better. I still don't like it, but it does address the issue a bit.
In nWoD, penalties remove dice, just like SR$. However, instead of being driven to zero, you will always keep one die. The catch is that the TN then shifts from 8 to 10; and since you botch if you roll more 1's, the odds of success vs critical failure have now become equal. In other words, there's a penalty for going into longshot territory. You can still pile on the modifiers until the cows come home without affecting your odds; but now, there's at least a mild reason not to.
Dv84good
Jun 5 2006, 04:57 PM
Well if you think it's that much of a problem throw out the longshot test.
I personally think alot of the modifiers should be added on the the defender's dice like visibility, cover and range the only one used on the attacker should be one's that effect him directly like wounds, moving vehicles, recoil. While this doesn't completely solve the problem it reduce the chance of the attacker's pool going to 0 and stop him from having a glitch when it was nothing he did.
James McMurray
Jun 6 2006, 02:31 AM
Cain, there are several threads already about the longshot test "problem." I assume that you already know what my reply to your post will be. If not, read the other threads, it's all said in them.
Eryk the Red
Jun 6 2006, 02:44 AM
And by the by, don't tell me that what I said is not true, Cain. It's remarkably rude. I was making a statement based on my experiences in an "all else being equal" kind of way. I never said that target number systems are the only factor in speed of play, nor did I say that there is never a system with variable TN that is more fluid than any particular system with fixed TN. I stated my opinion, and I never asked you to like it.
Tetsuyama
Jun 6 2006, 03:24 AM
DV84Good: I like your idea about applying more modifiers to the defender's test. In truth, if someone (like a reasonably skilled and amped-up street sam) can shoot a 4" circle at 25 meters with their sidearm when their heart's running 200 bpm, then if they can see it they really should have a reasonable chance at hitting it. And if you're hiding behind a dumpster but popping out to shoot at a CorpSec or Lonestar with a shotgun, you may have a better chance of not getting hit, but honestly it's probably more realistic to add to the defender's chance to avoid being hit (not be there when the shotgun goes off) than to drop his dice pool from 6 to 2; realistically the shotgun blast will probably be pretty close to where it needs to be. I can however see a strong argument for range affecting the attacker's dice pool -- long range shots even against static targets with good visibility can be quite difficult.
In all, it seems like shifting around the modifiers a bit where fewer apply to the attacker's pool and more apply to the defender's pool would make a lot of sense. The details of which go where can be left up to the specific GM. I suspect though that this modification might belong under the "Grittier Gameplay" houserules section, as I think it probably would make low-level minions more dangerous.
James McMurray
Jun 6 2006, 11:04 PM
Eryk: "don't be rude" does not compute for Cain. What's funny is that he constantly thinks others are being rude without mentioning a thing about his behavior.
Cain
Jun 7 2006, 06:21 AM
QUOTE (Eryk the Red) |
And by the by, don't tell me that what I said is not true, Cain. It's remarkably rude. I was making a statement based on my experiences in an "all else being equal" kind of way. I never said that target number systems are the only factor in speed of play, nor did I say that there is never a system with variable TN that is more fluid than any particular system with fixed TN. I stated my opinion, and I never asked you to like it. |
I apologize. I didn't intend to be insulting to you. However, I will stand on the statement that fixed TNs are not inherently faster than floating TN's. All else being equal, I've yet to see any meaningful difference. In my experience, speed of resolution depends more on the overall mechanics, and less on the fixed vs floating TN.
James is just annoyed that I keep using logic to counter his insults. I seldom mean to be deliberately insulting.
MikeTrevin
Jun 7 2006, 04:14 PM
For the mysterious "Other", I've heard of at least one gaming system where you character had points they could spend to drive success or failure, instead of rolling dice. There wasn't really any probability- whether you succeeded or not depended on how hard your character tried.
There were limits on the points, and they were somehow changed by your character's skills... I didn't play the game, but there you go. The 'other', quantum option. Though I guess that's not a 'target number system' at -all-.
Doesn't matter. I voted fixed TN. Things move so much faster in SR4 for my group than they did in SR3, and most of us like the new system.
Not that there's anything wrong with the old system. Other than the Rigger 3. *shudder*
EDIT: Characters don't need to have 'died' to accomplish things... silly typo.
Cain
Jun 8 2006, 06:28 AM
Well, if you're going to go like that, then Everway was a non-TN system. It depended on a tarot-like deck, which provided a general guideline for the results. The problem was that resolution depended on how fast and imaginative the GM was.
In the diceless category, there's also Amber and Nobilis, neither of which I'm familiar with. Wushu, as I understand it, depends on how cool of a description you can come up with. I can't remember how the SAGA system played out, but I do remember that I wasn't very impressed.
James McMurray
Jun 8 2006, 11:01 PM
I believe the original Deadlands was diceless. You played poker to do stuff.
Shrike30
Jun 8 2006, 11:18 PM
I believe the Deadlands books I've got are 1st Ed... while poker is used for some parts of the system, dice are used for others.
The Poker bit isn't just a gag, though... it's fairly frequently used. Pretty cool, I always thought.
Eyeless Blond
Jun 9 2006, 01:17 AM
Indeed, the SW system, which is basically Deadlands for everyone, still uses cards as part of their initiative system and in a few other places.
It's an interesting system, using what's effectively a variable TN because mods are added or subtracted from the base TN of 4 with exploding dice (called Aces in SW terms). Variable levels of success are implemented by beating the TN by four or more; each extra level called a Raise.
The system itself is so simple and stremlined, yet still retaining the exponential decay in probability feature throughout its progression, that I'm considering using it for SR instead of the current system. SR books would still be used for flavor, but such a system might well be faster and easier to play.
eidolon
Jun 9 2006, 06:21 AM
I wrote a variant version of the iniative rules for Deadlands when we played last. Dealing out cards and going top down for init was wwwaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyy too slow.
We still used the cards, but a bit differently.
Cain
Jun 9 2006, 07:12 AM
QUOTE (eidolon) |
I wrote a variant version of the iniative rules for Deadlands when we played last. Dealing out cards and going top down for init was wwwaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyy too slow. |
I don't have the original Deadlands rules, but I have Reloaded, the SW version. And in Savage Worlds, the card system runs very quickly and easily. If nothing else, simply having a visual on the table for everyone's initiative really speeds things up. I think the fact that you only get to use one card also helps; there are edges that might allow you to redraw cards, but you still can only put one into play.
Anyways, Savage Worlds is the proof that it's not a fixed versus a floating TN thing. It's how the overall system is built that really makes the difference. I'd love to see a Shadowrun/Savage Worlds conversion; Savage Worlds runs faster than anything I've ever seen, *and* it incorporates at least as many tactical options as any version of Shadowrun.
James McMurray
Jun 9 2006, 11:24 PM
Have you and Savage Worlds set a date yet?
eidolon
Jun 10 2006, 01:13 AM
Last I heard they hadn't, but they're registered at Tarzhey.
mfb
Jun 10 2006, 01:38 AM
incidentally, it should be noted that a card-based system is not really 'diceless'. you could replace the cards with dice (granted, finding a 52-sided die could present a challenge) and get the same mechanical results, with the caveat that the actual physical probabilities might be altered due to the way the 'dice' are cast in each case.
it should be noted that there are some issues with the original Deadlands system, mainly relating to the exploding dice. haven't looked closely enough at SW to see if it shares these problems. it's worth pointing out that it's really easy to smooth the progression out, as well.
James McMurray
Jun 10 2006, 06:51 AM
There's always live action WoD with rock-paper-scissors.
Dissonance
Jun 10 2006, 06:55 AM
I win this game of Spades. James, take 6P damage.
-X-
Jun 10 2006, 07:34 AM
I've found that games where instead of rolling dice, I just have each of the players attack me while I pretend to be multiple opponents end very quickly indeed.
Also, ow.
James McMurray
Jun 10 2006, 10:58 PM
QUOTE |
James is just annoyed that I keep using logic to counter his insults. I seldom mean to be deliberately insulting. |
I just noticed this one. Silly little Cain, always assuming that your idiocy = logic. Given that almost every claim you make is refuted, it's quite obvious that your "logic" is faulty. But you have an unimpeachable belief in your own rightness which, although it's obviously as stupid as you yourself can be, it is at least admirable in it's unflinching nature, even in the face of unignorable realities.
QUOTE |
I win this game of Spades. James, take 6P damage. |
I got all but one stack removed in my solitaire game, so I only take 2P. My platelet factories drop it to 1, and my damage resistance lets me ignore it. Meanwhile I just skunked you in a game of 42: soak 12S (6 for the victory, doubled for the skunking).
Jaid
Jun 11 2006, 03:06 AM
the game you really gotta worry about is 52 pickup....