Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Target Number Systems
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
nezumi
Copied from the SR4 forum here:

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=13177

Excellent arguments have already been made for both sides, but it's time to open this up to a slightly more balanced audience. So which is YOUR favorite?
James McMurray
This isn't any more balanced a forum than SR4. A lot of SR4 players don't read this one. I know I didn't for quite a while. If it were possible to ensure no double voting running it in both places would be best. Maybe the SR4 folks will see the link and follow it.
eidolon
2 marks to Mr. McMurray.
Platinum
true ... but since it is in a different forum you could and should see different results. (at least until all of the sr4 players pile in here to skew the results.)
nezumi
QUOTE (Platinum)
(at least until all of the sr4 players pile in here to skew the results.)

I think it's funny that the SR4 people voting 'skews the results' nyahnyah.gif

Yeah, at worst, we can take an average.
Platinum
well ... we cannot add the results of here and there then add them up and get an accurate result because of crossover. We needed 1 poll in a neutral forum, which cannot really happen now.
stevebugge
Voted again to further throw off any statistical reliability smile.gif

Then again anyone who puts any faith in the numbers of an Internet poll is also likely looking in to that Pacific Beachfront Property in Tuscon listed by the Lagos Real Estate Trust.
John Campbell
You won't be laughing after California falls into the ocean!
PBTHHHHT
QUOTE (John Campbell)
You won't be laughing after California falls into the ocean!

I'm not so worried about that now that Superman Returns! Ok, that was bad. dead.gif
Wounded Ronin
I really don't like fixed TNs.
Quix
It has to be said.

SWORDFISH MUSTARD BALL!!!!!!!!!!!!! wobble.gif
Herald of Verjigorm
I prefer variable swordfish over static mustardballs.
Smiley
I like the variable swordfish over the fixed mustarballs because it seemed like unnecessary tampering with something that already worked.
nezumi
And I ask again, who is voting for 'other' and what does that mean??
Platinum
it means diceless like amber.
James McMurray
Someone in the SR4 thread gave another alternative for other which combined the two, but it was in serious need of a hit from the balance stick. It's a workable theory but wouldn't work as given. Or at least it wouldn't work well unless you like massive amounts of disparity between varying skill levels.
Shrike30
QUOTE (Platinum)
true ... but since it is in a different forum you could and should see different results. (at least until all of the sr4 players pile in here to skew the results.)

How does it "skew the results" if people vote for their preference? Isn't the point of the poll to figure out people's preference?
nezumi
QUOTE (Shrike30)
QUOTE (Platinum @ May 31 2006, 05:07 AM)
true ... but since it is in a different forum you could and should see different results.  (at least until all of the sr4 players pile in here to skew the results.)

How does it "skew the results" if people vote for their preference? Isn't the point of the poll to figure out people's preference?

Only if their preference matches with my preference.

Sometimes I wonder if you people are even paying attention...
Platinum
You are obviously one of them, so you could not understand. wobble.gif
James McMurray
I think it's interesting that it's almost 50/50 in a primarily SR3 board.
Platinum
QUOTE (James McMurray)
I think it's interesting that it's almost 50/50 in a primarily SR3 board.

this isn't an sr3 board. This is a general shadowrun board where sr3 and broad sr mechanics are discussed. the sr4 board is the one that is exclusive. It is easy to say there are more sr4 players that hang out here than sr3 that hang out there.
James McMurray
It's also pretty certain that there are more SR3 players here than SR4 given how little cross posting is seen.
Eyeless Blond
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.
Rajaat99
Geez peopel, can't we all get alonng. I mean sheesh, SR4 sucks, lets move on.
Eyeless Blond
Aw, and here I thought I was being constructive, at least as constructive as critisism can ever be. *shrug*

(Edit x2) Decided what I added here didn't actually add anything...
nezumi
That's not a bad idea. Basically I see the 'environment adds to the TN' and the 'actor's skill (and presumably other things like smartlink') adds to the number of dice rolled' is ALMOST how it's done in SR3. Except that many things like the smartlink are considered environmental rather than personal (looking for a better word).

You're right that thresholds are already in place in SR3. In fact, I would argue threshoulds are in place for EVERy test in SR3 except open tests. Trying to kill someone with your gun? The threshold is 8 successes (minus his successes in absorbing damage). If you fall short, you don't kill him, but some smaller success does play out. The only real difference *I* see is that your system is more formalized.
Dv84good
Looks like both polls are almost equally opposite. Interesting.
Llewelyn
I'm just waiting for the last "other" person to vote!
James McMurray
It's about 50/50 here. I expected much more weight on the floating TN side. Over on the SR4 board it's 2:1 in favor of fixed, which isn't surprising.
Brahm
I'm mostly indifferent to the general question of fixed versus variable.

I must say that, although SR4's implementation of fixed TN could have used more polish, it is miles ahead of the collective of the dog's breakfast muddle of wildly different systems that were sprinkled throughout SR3.

The biggest problem I see with SR4 is they mostly failed to use Threshold modifiers, and even to fully utilize per hit mechanics. Both key strengths of fixed TN dice pools. This lead to a missed opportunity for a lot better use of a fixed TN strengths. Occationally resulting in really awkward mechanics. For example what was the author of the Concealing Gear rules thinking? wobble.gif

There are better implementations of fixed TNs systems out there, in d6 too, with a lot smoother playability than SR4 and obviously SR3. And incidentally more complete coverage of actions than SR3, approaching a boardgame level of completeness. Come to think of it can't say I could name a really well done variable TN pool system.

SR3 does expressly use Thresholds in places, it even effectively uses fixed TN in places. But varying the TN when using Thresholds creates very steep probability curve dropoffs making the TN very sensitive to change. Usually that is a bad thing. The ability to have a variable number of "successes" is a big strength for dice pools but variable TNs, or at least one with unbounded variability in the TN, actually seems to undermine this. :/ I think the need for the L-M-S-D damage range that then gets translated into boxes of damage to be applied is a symptom of that problem.

So I guess if the question was reframed to: For dice pools do you favour Fixed TN or Variable TN? I'd have to say Fixed TN.


P.S. Between dice pool and non-dice pool I must say I favour the asthetics of dice pool. Both grabbing a handful of dice, and the multiple 'successes' part. Though I guess the later is partially function as well as asthetics.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012