flavour by Cain
Mr. Lucky needs to take out the Citymaster chasing their van, so he aims through the window at the driver (Specifically aiming at a passenger, pg 162). He's using an AVS (8P-f), and our modifiers are as follows: -2 recoil, -3 extreme range, -3 for being seriously Wounded, -3 for being in a moving vehicle, -6 for his target having total cover, -1 for his cover, and -2 for the light rain. To top this all off, he calls a shot to bypass the armor of both the vehicle and the driver. Assuming the driver was in heavy armor with helmet, that's an additional -12, and then we factor in the Citymaster's armor of 20. That's a total dice pool penalty of -52. It could be worse than that-- Mr Lucky might not have a pistols skill at all-- but it's largely irrelevant, since there's absolutely no way he's going to have a positive dice pool. He now spends a point of Edge. 8 Edge = 2.66 successes, which rounds up to 3. The driver can't use his vehicle skill to dodge, since he was specifically targeted; and he requires a Perception test at -6 to even notice that he's been hit. Assuming that the driver has a body of 3, he'll be taking an 11P wound, and will score 1 success-- not enough, he'll be taken out instantly. The vehicle will now need to make a crash test: it has a threshold of 3, using a Pilot of 3, and a handling penalty of -1. It fails, crashes, and likely kills everyone inside.
Thanks to potentially horrendously high Dice Pool Modifiers and the nature of Longshot Tests, ‘Luck’ seems a little stranger than ever in SR4.
These Rules takes care of the Problem.
Depending on Luck (not Edge) (Optional General Rule)
Rule :
Whenever you suffer a Dice Pool Penalty, you can buy 3 Dice to your pool for +1 Threshold/+1 hits on the Opposed Role. You can never roll more dice than your original Dice Pool.
Example :
Mr. Lucky above could trade in the -52 penalty for a -1 penalty and a +17 Threshold. He better be REAL good AND lucky.
Long Shot Tests (RAW pg. 67)
Rule Change :
Longshot tests will only aim for the most simple solution of a problem, additional complexity is figured normally and handled using ‘Depending on Luck (not Edge). Effectively this concerns any Dice Pool Modifier that aim for a better degree of success or for any distraction the character could avoid.
Example :
Mr. Lucky’s core problem above is that he wants to hit the driver. So would not have to worry about the Range, Wounds, Movement, Cover and Rain – those are elements of the basic problem.
He would be subjects to the Modifiers for Recoil (‘could go singleshot) and Called Shot (he is lucky if he hits at all …)
So if he really wanted to pull that feat, he’d suffer a penalty of -14, or -2 and +4 Threshold.
If Mr. Lucky was simultaneously trying to keep his AR-game of Go running, sing the National Anthem and sustain 3 Spells, he’d suffer an additional -10 Dice as he could drop all those activities if he really cared about hitting.
And Luck won’t help you if you don’t. Care, that is.
Full Version: 'Luck' reWorked
Um, it seems a lot easier just to make Longshot dice explode. but I guess that's just me.
Or to invoke GM fiat and tell your player to stop being an idiot when using the Longshot rule goes from "I do the improbable" to "I do the impossible."
The biggest thing rubbing me the wrong way about that Citymaster example is that you are not really taking out the vehicle, you are using the rules to knock out the driver...I mean, yeah, the vehicle could go out of control and whatnot, but even with the Longshot rules, they vehicle in question really isn't of importance, as you are just trying to take out the driver, right?
Geekkake : I don't see exploding Longshot Dice help any :confused:
Shrike30 : Yes, it might be easier to invoke GM fiat on near-impossible tasks, but players tend to react worst to GM fiat than to improbable rolls.
Additionally, the Rule adds some more Balance™ to mid-difficulty situations, too.
Deek : yes, I guess you could see it that way ... especially as Cain used it to show how to take out the Citymaster in the first place - but 'taking out the Citymaster' and 'shooting the driver' seem like different enough problems - shooting at the vehicle would be about 20 penalty dice less (6 Cover, 12 Armour, 2 Size), but require more hits to deal damage - which again makes the difficulty about he same.
At least with this rule you'd have to Burn a point of Edge to do either with some success, and have a minimal chance with a normal skill roll (Super-Gunbunny) or Longshot Test (Mr. Lucky) - Balance™ at work.
And, last but not least, I wanted to kill one of Cain's favorite subjects
Shrike30 : Yes, it might be easier to invoke GM fiat on near-impossible tasks, but players tend to react worst to GM fiat than to improbable rolls.
Additionally, the Rule adds some more Balance™ to mid-difficulty situations, too.
Deek : yes, I guess you could see it that way ... especially as Cain used it to show how to take out the Citymaster in the first place - but 'taking out the Citymaster' and 'shooting the driver' seem like different enough problems - shooting at the vehicle would be about 20 penalty dice less (6 Cover, 12 Armour, 2 Size), but require more hits to deal damage - which again makes the difficulty about he same.
At least with this rule you'd have to Burn a point of Edge to do either with some success, and have a minimal chance with a normal skill roll (Super-Gunbunny) or Longshot Test (Mr. Lucky) - Balance™ at work.
And, last but not least, I wanted to kill one of Cain's favorite subjects
Heh...fair enough...the difficulty is about the same...I just found it misdirecting reading how Cain was "taking out the Citymaster" and then when he gave his example, he targeted the driver...
*shrug* If my players want to bitch that I'm not letting them do something with a -52, they have the option of dealing with it when I have an NPC rip off a narrow full burst that'd normally have them at -4 and decide to apply the Long Shot rules, turning them into a red smear on the asphalt. Telling someone that "it occurs to you that what you're about to attempt isn't going to work," and letting them do something else is reasonable. I tell my crew "anything you guys do can get thrown back at you," and they understand that includes abusing loosely-defined rules to the point where the game falls apart.
Absolutely nothing is going to kill this topic in the eyes of Cain. No matter how many ultra-simple or ultra-detailed house rules you can come up with, no matter how easy and elegant a solution you might propose, you will be so fundamentally changing the game system by making your alteration to the Long Shot rule that you would be better served by rewriting the entirety of the game to use variable target numbers, which is what should have happened in the first place, which is why we should all bow down at the feet of Cain, acknowledge his superior intellect and gaming prowess, worship the giant gamer phallus he wields with such might on Dumpshock in order to smite his enemies, and emerge from the experience as enlightened beings, albeit slightly sticky.
"Mr. Lucky" is not the problem. Stupid people are the problem.
Absolutely nothing is going to kill this topic in the eyes of Cain. No matter how many ultra-simple or ultra-detailed house rules you can come up with, no matter how easy and elegant a solution you might propose, you will be so fundamentally changing the game system by making your alteration to the Long Shot rule that you would be better served by rewriting the entirety of the game to use variable target numbers, which is what should have happened in the first place, which is why we should all bow down at the feet of Cain, acknowledge his superior intellect and gaming prowess, worship the giant gamer phallus he wields with such might on Dumpshock in order to smite his enemies, and emerge from the experience as enlightened beings, albeit slightly sticky.
"Mr. Lucky" is not the problem. Stupid people are the problem.
so the shooter can do that 8 times (being human with exceptional edge).
thats 8 times within a time period set by the GM...
sometimes you have to absolutly, positivly have a chance at making it. thats when the long shot test comes in. its one of those "dramatic" moments where reality should take a back seat and let the character have his moment of fame.
remeber, a point of edge spendt on this action may well be a point of edge he dont have when needed on some other action...
oh, and this will not kill it, just add more fuel to the fire...
basicly edge is there for the story, for adding "action movie" moments
so the players can pull a neo and watch it work.
luck in older version was allways present, and only by ever increasing the targetnumber was it held in check (with a big enough skill, any targetnumber can in theory be hit with atleast 1 dice).
each system have its ups and downs. i go for the SR4 one as it "feels" faster and cleaner. i dont see the problem of edge and longshot tests. but then i guess i have a diffrent playing style then cain have given the example...
thats 8 times within a time period set by the GM...
sometimes you have to absolutly, positivly have a chance at making it. thats when the long shot test comes in. its one of those "dramatic" moments where reality should take a back seat and let the character have his moment of fame.
remeber, a point of edge spendt on this action may well be a point of edge he dont have when needed on some other action...
oh, and this will not kill it, just add more fuel to the fire...
basicly edge is there for the story, for adding "action movie" moments
so the players can pull a neo and watch it work.
luck in older version was allways present, and only by ever increasing the targetnumber was it held in check (with a big enough skill, any targetnumber can in theory be hit with atleast 1 dice).
each system have its ups and downs. i go for the SR4 one as it "feels" faster and cleaner. i dont see the problem of edge and longshot tests. but then i guess i have a diffrent playing style then cain have given the example...
Shrike30 : no comment. (:still giggling madly:)
hobgolin : darn, I like the cinematic quality of Longshot Tests, too, and I dind't have any player abuse it yet, so I didn't understand most of the fuss made around it here on DSF. But that fuss is starting to get on my nerves, so I did the same as I did with other rules : preserve the part that works and add an abuse filter.
The rules as written above would have close-to no effect on any situation I ever had pop up - normal Neo-style stunts still work the same - but prevent abuse ...
The 'Depending on Luck (not Edge)'-Rule is far more interesting than the Longshot Rule, as this is really something that tends to pop up - usually with low dice pools (up to ~8 dice) - it gets rid of that sharp 'no chance to succed' vs '33% to score a hit' - problem. You need to be quite lucky if you'd be reduced to (nearly) no dice by the RAW, but at least you get a chance.
And ... I'm writing up a kind of 'SR4 Service Pack' anyway so me and my players don't have to remember how we soldved what ... so I thought I might as well get rid of this problem, too.
hobgolin : darn, I like the cinematic quality of Longshot Tests, too, and I dind't have any player abuse it yet, so I didn't understand most of the fuss made around it here on DSF. But that fuss is starting to get on my nerves, so I did the same as I did with other rules : preserve the part that works and add an abuse filter.
The rules as written above would have close-to no effect on any situation I ever had pop up - normal Neo-style stunts still work the same - but prevent abuse ...
The 'Depending on Luck (not Edge)'-Rule is far more interesting than the Longshot Rule, as this is really something that tends to pop up - usually with low dice pools (up to ~8 dice) - it gets rid of that sharp 'no chance to succed' vs '33% to score a hit' - problem. You need to be quite lucky if you'd be reduced to (nearly) no dice by the RAW, but at least you get a chance.
And ... I'm writing up a kind of 'SR4 Service Pack' anyway so me and my players don't have to remember how we soldved what ... so I thought I might as well get rid of this problem, too.
| QUOTE |
| Absolutely nothing is going to kill this topic in the eyes of Cain. No matter how many ultra-simple or ultra-detailed house rules you can come up with, no matter how easy and elegant a solution you might propose, you will be so fundamentally changing the game system by making your alteration to the Long Shot rule that you would be better served by rewriting the entirety of the game to use variable target numbers, which is what should have happened in the first place, which is why we should all bow down at the feet of Cain, acknowledge his superior intellect and gaming prowess, worship the giant gamer phallus he wields with such might on Dumpshock in order to smite his enemies, and emerge from the experience as enlightened beings, albeit slightly sticky. |
You forgot the part about burnt offerings and first born children.
I figured people would just assume those and act accordingly.
It could work, but saying they've got +17 threshold is essentially saying it's impossible due to GM Fiat.
The simplest answer to the "longshot problem" isn't GM Fiat, house rules, or rewriting the entire system. It's as easy as being mature when playing a game.
The simplest answer to the "longshot problem" isn't GM Fiat, house rules, or rewriting the entire system. It's as easy as being mature when playing a game.
- If something sounds impossible: don't bother your GM or the other players with it.
- If it sounds like it might be possible, you've got almost enough dice to do it, and want to try: explain your action to the GM and if it turns out you're close to having a pool left (either by having 1+ dice or not much fewer than 0 dice) then spend your edge and go to town.
- If it sounds possible but you don't have enough dice to be close to 0 when you attempt it, get some more skill or a better attribute and try again later.
I've been avoiding the thread on "variable vs fixed target numbers" just because of such ludicrous attempts to subvert the system. The situation quoted in the OP is so utterly ridiculous I would not allow it as a GM or expect it to be possible as a player.
Frankly I don't think you should add negative modifiers through player choice once the dice pool has become negative.
Hence the character in the above example would have -11 as most of the modifiers added are due to player choice (choosing to remain in cover, use a narrow burst, aim at the passenger and bypass armour) and the only situational modifiers are -3 for range, -3 for wounds, -3 for being in a car and -2 for rain. It could even be suggested that it is a choice to fire at extreme range too, as if the player waited until the vehicle was closer he would suffer only a -8 penalty, which his edge dice would actually offset.
For what it's worth you could restrict negative dice pools to being no larger than a character edge attribute, but I suspect that Shrike30 is right, and that no matter how simple a fix or interpretation one chooses to use Caine will remain unsatisfied.
Frankly I don't think you should add negative modifiers through player choice once the dice pool has become negative.
Hence the character in the above example would have -11 as most of the modifiers added are due to player choice (choosing to remain in cover, use a narrow burst, aim at the passenger and bypass armour) and the only situational modifiers are -3 for range, -3 for wounds, -3 for being in a car and -2 for rain. It could even be suggested that it is a choice to fire at extreme range too, as if the player waited until the vehicle was closer he would suffer only a -8 penalty, which his edge dice would actually offset.
For what it's worth you could restrict negative dice pools to being no larger than a character edge attribute, but I suspect that Shrike30 is right, and that no matter how simple a fix or interpretation one chooses to use Caine will remain unsatisfied.
Am I the only GM here who wants MORE "Mr Lucky"s in my game.
The fastest edge refresh option is to do 'above and beyond' dramatic RP in scenes.
therefore for a "Mr Lucky" to be truly powerful, he has to RP exceedingly well.
The fastest edge refresh option is to do 'above and beyond' dramatic RP in scenes.
therefore for a "Mr Lucky" to be truly powerful, he has to RP exceedingly well.
| QUOTE (Kremlin KOA) |
| Am I the only GM here who wants MORE "Mr Lucky"s in my game. The fastest edge refresh option is to do 'above and beyond' dramatic RP in scenes. therefore for a "Mr Lucky" to be truly powerful, he has to RP exceedingly well. |
Yeah, I think that is the biggest point...roleplaying. I mean, if my players are into the story and they are doing things, no matter how incredibly lucky, but moving the story along, as a GM, I am happy to give them a chance to do the incredible.
Now, if my players are just focused on rolling dice and powergaming, I would likely not be as open to it...the main point is, I focus on the roleplaying aspect and if everyone is having fun and moving things along...its alright by me! At least in my games.
I think the point of Mr Lucky is to "expose" flaws in the system, rather than as a serious character to be RPed well.
I agree that good RP should take priority over number crunching, but being "truly powerful" is hardly a good basis for RP. Still, if someone were to make a character tricked out with edge and Rped well I would be fine with it. Only if they started trying to use edge outside the spirit of the rules would I have a problem.
I agree that good RP should take priority over number crunching, but being "truly powerful" is hardly a good basis for RP. Still, if someone were to make a character tricked out with edge and Rped well I would be fine with it. Only if they started trying to use edge outside the spirit of the rules would I have a problem.
True, true...
And whether it has been DnD, Twilight 2000 or Shadowrun, as a GM, if something is going to ruin or help a story, I let it go. In the case of Mr Lucky, I think my players would not be in a situation where they are trying to squeeze every ounce of trickiness to do the improbable...seeing I like to drive my games with story and plot, I'm not going to let the dice control the game...they will certainly affect it, but not control.
I've overlooked hits and misses plenty of times to adjust encounters to make the players have more fun, give them a scare, or do the impossible...
By the nature of any system, there is going to be a flaw, so no matter how many rewrites or times things are pointed out, a system is never going to be perfect...and the GM always has rights to adjust and make changes, so I don't see the issue, really.
Its like buying a computer with XP on it and forcing everyone to not make any changes, no new software, no tweaks...nothing. It just doesn't make sense. So, I am going to take my SR4 core rules and tailor it to my game and my players...therefore, a flaw is simply a one-time occurence and my players are wanting to play the game enough to accept the outcomes...
And whether it has been DnD, Twilight 2000 or Shadowrun, as a GM, if something is going to ruin or help a story, I let it go. In the case of Mr Lucky, I think my players would not be in a situation where they are trying to squeeze every ounce of trickiness to do the improbable...seeing I like to drive my games with story and plot, I'm not going to let the dice control the game...they will certainly affect it, but not control.
I've overlooked hits and misses plenty of times to adjust encounters to make the players have more fun, give them a scare, or do the impossible...
By the nature of any system, there is going to be a flaw, so no matter how many rewrites or times things are pointed out, a system is never going to be perfect...and the GM always has rights to adjust and make changes, so I don't see the issue, really.
Its like buying a computer with XP on it and forcing everyone to not make any changes, no new software, no tweaks...nothing. It just doesn't make sense. So, I am going to take my SR4 core rules and tailor it to my game and my players...therefore, a flaw is simply a one-time occurence and my players are wanting to play the game enough to accept the outcomes...
I myself do not like the Edge mechanic a whole lot (particularly the edge-as-luck), and I'll be house-ruling a 'Focus' concept to put in its place. I'll post it when I got it.
I haven't had this problem come up, but I think my solution will be thus:
Longshot tests are good for total dice pools from 0 to -9. For every full -10 in your final calculated dice pool, the longshot test requires the expenditure of an extra point of edge.
So a -52 final pool is fine, but you need to spend 6 edge on your longshot test.
I haven't tested this, and it may prove to be stupid, but it sounds like a pretty easy solution to me. If they want to try something so incredibly lucky, they need more luck.
Longshot tests are good for total dice pools from 0 to -9. For every full -10 in your final calculated dice pool, the longshot test requires the expenditure of an extra point of edge.
So a -52 final pool is fine, but you need to spend 6 edge on your longshot test.
I haven't tested this, and it may prove to be stupid, but it sounds like a pretty easy solution to me. If they want to try something so incredibly lucky, they need more luck.
I was thinking about this a bit more, an actual game mechanic. I mean, I am sure that I wouldn't be in a situation with my players that they are adding up -52 penalties and still try to make a longshot, but if they would, I think I would just put a simple limit on it.
And that limit would be Edge x 2. So, a character can only go for a Longshot if the penalties added up to twice their edge or less. So, a character with Edge of 3, would be able to attempt a longshot as long as the total adjusted penalty wasn't worse than -6.
To me, that seems reasonable. Anything past that and I don't think I would allow the longshot test.
And that limit would be Edge x 2. So, a character can only go for a Longshot if the penalties added up to twice their edge or less. So, a character with Edge of 3, would be able to attempt a longshot as long as the total adjusted penalty wasn't worse than -6.
To me, that seems reasonable. Anything past that and I don't think I would allow the longshot test.
Were someone at our table to suggest they could use the longshot test on a shot with a -52 dice pool penalty whoever was GMing would laugh at them. If it turned out they were serious everyone at the table would laugh at them.
deek and Moon-Hank
if you don't like longshot test, just get totally rid of them - the ways you want to go at them will limit their use too much IMHO - in fact if I understand them right you limit them to only those roles a character could still have done if he'd learnt the skill - no more really lucky or heroic deeds.
You simply both forget to figure in the original dice pool - if a character has 8 dice (base) to it, Moon's solution would always mean at least a -1 on Edge Pool, and deek's ... ummm ... only characters with Edge 5+ would ever be in a position to use Longshots.
Longshots are a cinematic option anyway : they allow characters to do something they shouldn't really be able to, even as a master of (whatever they're doing). They give even a character with INT 1, Perception Zero the chance to see the spotter on the roof, they allow them to make suicidal jumps out of windows to get away (and survive them), it lets them dodge shots that should have killed them, and of course let them change a bloody fight into victory.
Or, in other words - normally there shouldn't even be something like a ceiling for this ability.
Enter the munchkin. The munchkin uses this rule not for flavour, roleplaying or survival, no, he turns it into a weapon to 'win' at RPing. And those munchkins are rarely satisfied with 'GM fiat' or 'logic' - all that counts for them is Rules - and how to abuse them.
As I said earlier - if you don't like the idea of Longshots : don't use them, they are optional enough anyway. Any GM can say 'No, no Longshots, I'm not into cinematic RP'. That's fine.
Any GM who like them, and has no muchkins to worry about - no need for a rule change.
But if you have both munchkins AND normal players, you have to find a way to limit the munchkins without limiting the rest.
MHO again, of course.
if you don't like longshot test, just get totally rid of them - the ways you want to go at them will limit their use too much IMHO - in fact if I understand them right you limit them to only those roles a character could still have done if he'd learnt the skill - no more really lucky or heroic deeds.
You simply both forget to figure in the original dice pool - if a character has 8 dice (base) to it, Moon's solution would always mean at least a -1 on Edge Pool, and deek's ... ummm ... only characters with Edge 5+ would ever be in a position to use Longshots.
Longshots are a cinematic option anyway : they allow characters to do something they shouldn't really be able to, even as a master of (whatever they're doing). They give even a character with INT 1, Perception Zero the chance to see the spotter on the roof, they allow them to make suicidal jumps out of windows to get away (and survive them), it lets them dodge shots that should have killed them, and of course let them change a bloody fight into victory.
Or, in other words - normally there shouldn't even be something like a ceiling for this ability.
Enter the munchkin. The munchkin uses this rule not for flavour, roleplaying or survival, no, he turns it into a weapon to 'win' at RPing. And those munchkins are rarely satisfied with 'GM fiat' or 'logic' - all that counts for them is Rules - and how to abuse them.
As I said earlier - if you don't like the idea of Longshots : don't use them, they are optional enough anyway. Any GM can say 'No, no Longshots, I'm not into cinematic RP'. That's fine.
Any GM who like them, and has no muchkins to worry about - no need for a rule change.
But if you have both munchkins AND normal players, you have to find a way to limit the munchkins without limiting the rest.
MHO again, of course.
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| Were someone at our table to suggest they could use the longshot test on a shot with a -52 dice pool penalty whoever was GMing would laugh at them. If it turned out they were serious everyone at the table would laugh at them. |
Heh...yeah, I agree with ya there...same thing at my table.
I mean, adding up the penalties alone would take about 10 minutes of real-time, just to find them all in the book...Honestly, once their die pool hit zero, I would stop factoring anything else in...
Now that I think about it more, if it did happen in this situation, once his/her die pool hit zero, it would be considered virtually impossible, for that character, and I certainly wouldn't let them call their shot (i.e. hit the driver) on top of it all, ya know?
I could come up with loads of situational factors that would make it impossible to hit the driver...I think this sort of questioning of the rules comes up only in theory (which a message board is a fair place to discuss) or if you are running with strangers/newbies...with the guys I game with, simply laughing and telling them no would end any further dicussion and we would move on with the game!
I think both of them meant "penalties below 0." If i have 50 dice in a pool, and i get a -52 modifier, my penalties below 0 are -2. If i have 6 dice in a pool and get a -52 modifier, my penalties below 0 are -46.
| QUOTE (Phobos) |
| You simply both forget to figure in the original dice pool - if a character has 8 dice (base) to it, Moon's solution would always mean at least a -1 on Edge Pool, and deek's ... ummm ... only characters with Edge 5+ would ever be in a position to use Longshots. |
I think I didn't make myself clear in my Edge x 2 idea.
A character with 8 dice (base) and an Edge of 3 would be able to only try a Longshot if their modified die pool was better than -6. Assuming no positive modifiers, that would mean -14 dice to their action as the limit. For this example, any modified dice that was worse than -14 simple would not be eligible for a Longshot.
So, with an Edge of 5, the limit reaches down to -10. So, that would allow the 8 dice (base) to attempt a Longshot all the way up to that point, which would be a total of -18 dice modifiers...
Meaning, in order for someone to attempt this Longshot with the -52 dice penalty, you'd have to have a 26 Edge just to attempt it...
But I agree with ya Phobos, there are only a limited amount of players that will try to squeeze this type of action out...and luckily, I don't have those kind of players in my group...
| QUOTE (Phobos) |
| You simply both forget to figure in the original dice pool - if a character has 8 dice (base) to it, Moon's solution would always mean at least a -1 on Edge Pool, and deek's ... ummm ... only characters with Edge 5+ would ever be in a position to use Longshots. |
I said final dice pool. Not total penalty. The final dice pool includes the original skill.
Shrike seemed to understand me.
I'll try again, just in case I was unclear.
So, longshot tests come into play whenever the final dice pool (which includes base pool and all penalties) is 0 or less. The problem is that the odds of success for a final pool of -2 are the same as the odds of success for a final pool of -52. I agree that this could potentially be a problem. I don't want to make a hard line between possible and possible (GM fiat forbidding a longshot test) I suggest that rather than decreasing the odds of success, which is very problematic as pages and pages of threads seem to indicate, I suggest leaving the probability of success the same and changing the amount of "luck" expended. For every full -10 of the final calculated dice pool, charge an extra point of edge for the longshot test. So "Mr. Lucky" can attempt a task with a final pool up to -79 dice, but it will require all 8 of his edge to be spent on one test.
It still creates a situation where the do-ability of something tends gradually toward zero instead of having just two steps, I'm just sort of coming at it from another direction.
Am I making any sense? I can't tell.
Yeah, I understand what you are saying...
I was just clarifying what "I" meant on the whim of a rule I came up with a while ago...we are both putting limitations on Longshots, its just that your way gives an Edge 6 the ability to go up to -59 and mine only allows for -12...while the book sees no limit once you are below 0...
The GM should just make the roll secret and if he doesn't want it to happen (because of storyline or something) then no matter how many successes come up, he just says, "No, you missed!"
You are coming at it from a different angle, but you are still putting a hardline on the action...its just your hardline is much higher than what I feel comfortable with:) No matter, as all of the ideas so far sound good should someone want to use them...
I was just clarifying what "I" meant on the whim of a rule I came up with a while ago...we are both putting limitations on Longshots, its just that your way gives an Edge 6 the ability to go up to -59 and mine only allows for -12...while the book sees no limit once you are below 0...
The GM should just make the roll secret and if he doesn't want it to happen (because of storyline or something) then no matter how many successes come up, he just says, "No, you missed!"
You are coming at it from a different angle, but you are still putting a hardline on the action...its just your hardline is much higher than what I feel comfortable with:) No matter, as all of the ideas so far sound good should someone want to use them...
There is a realistic limit to how many -ve modifiers you can get imposed upon you. Of course you can make that much worse by choosing to take penalties for called shots and the like.
I would simply rule that if your choices take the dice pool to 0 you can't take a longshot test, you have to try something easier. Imposed penalties do not impact on your ability to take a long shot test. Of course what constitutes a self imposed penalty is up for some debate. Are range penalties self-imposed? After all, the attacker could try to get closer, and they are choosing to take the penalty for firing at long range.
Looking through the book I was also wondering... does the blind fire penalty still get imposed when the fight takes place in full darkness? Part of me says no, it's dark and you can't see anything anyway, while another part says muzzle flashes would light up the surroundings to a certain extent, so if you still can't see them it'd count. From a mechanics point of view, you still impose the cover modifier if there is partial light so it would make sense to impose them in full darkness too. Of course if you find yourself in that situation you've done something wrong!
I would simply rule that if your choices take the dice pool to 0 you can't take a longshot test, you have to try something easier. Imposed penalties do not impact on your ability to take a long shot test. Of course what constitutes a self imposed penalty is up for some debate. Are range penalties self-imposed? After all, the attacker could try to get closer, and they are choosing to take the penalty for firing at long range.
Looking through the book I was also wondering... does the blind fire penalty still get imposed when the fight takes place in full darkness? Part of me says no, it's dark and you can't see anything anyway, while another part says muzzle flashes would light up the surroundings to a certain extent, so if you still can't see them it'd count. From a mechanics point of view, you still impose the cover modifier if there is partial light so it would make sense to impose them in full darkness too. Of course if you find yourself in that situation you've done something wrong!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.