Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Low Skill, High Attribute vs.
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
ludomastro
I seem to remember this coming up before, so if you can point me in that direction, I would appreciate it. (Searching for "skill" and "attribute" doesn't do much.)

Anyway, how do you handle - or not - the inconsistency (to me at least) of having the mechanics of high skill, low attribute be the same as low skill, high attribute?

eg: Unarmed 1 + Agility 5 = 6 = 2 hits on average. So does Unarmed 5 + Agility 1.

I can buy into Unarmed 1 with Agility 5. That shows a person with raw talent and a little training.

I just can't see someone with an Agility of 1 getting to an Unarmed skill of 5.

At the same time, I don't see an issue with the skill being 1 (maybe 2) point(s) above the attribute rating.

Please comment.
Zolhex
well 5 skill and 1 attribute could say he's a natural?

I prefer the higher attribute myself as skills are cheaper and attributes cover more than one skill.
ludomastro
QUOTE (Casazil)
well 5 skill and 1 attribute could say he's a natural?

I thought about that; however, I can't buy it. You may be a natural at hitting a baseball, but if you don't have the strength to hit it past the pitcher, you are still out.
Emperor Tippy
Perhaps he is a technical player? If you hit the ball in the right spot with the bat you need surprisingly little strength to get a good hit.
Ol' Scratch
Sadly, the game actually rewards Attributes far more than it does Skills in many cases. Attributes not only affect a wide range of Skills (instantly making it a better choice), but they're also used for things like Damage Resistance Tests.

Anyway, if I were designing the system, I'd probably have built the mechanic around Attributes determining the random value of the outcome, and Skill handling a solid modifier to the test. To me, Attributes represent your raw luck and talent when performing an action whereas Skill covers your solid, educated knowledge and training. The latter shouldn't be any more random than the stats on a gun or a vehicle, while the former should be pretty damn chaotic.

That's why I, personally, have an easier time seeing someone with Attribute 1 + Skill 5 vs. Attribute 5 + Skill 1. The former should be way more competent in that one, particular field than the latter should be.

But if you're looking for a patchwork solution, my initial suggestion would be to start with a limit based on the Skill rating. For instance, if you have Agility 6 and Pistols 3, you would only be able to use 3 Agility dice in that particular skill test. I'd see how that would go in a few games and continue building a house rule from there.
ludomastro
@ Doctor Funkenstein

I can see how Skill would limit Ability; however, would you do it the other way around?
Ol' Scratch
Long Answer: How do you mean? Say someone with Attribute 2 and Skill 6 tried to do something, and limiting his Skill dice to 2 as a result? I doubt it.

What I would do is make it more difficult and pricey to raise a Skill after character creation, though. Not quite to the same level as raising an Attribute would be (since they're still used across numerous Skills and have other important uses as well), but definitely not as easy as it is now.

Game balance is always tricky in theory, at least for me. I'd have to tinker around and try it out some before I'd find something that made sense to me.

Short answer: No. biggrin.gif
Kyoto Kid
...one rule that 3rd edition had was the "linked attribute". At chargen (both priority and BP system) you could expend skill points on a 1 for 1 basis up to the linked attribute rating. To purchase a skill above that rating was at a rate of 2 for 1. Similarly for improving a skill with Karma the cost was 1.5 x new rating up to the linked attribute. Above that it cost 2 karma x new rating. Yeah it was a bit more math, but it helped balance skills and attributes a bit more.

Maybe increase the BP cost to 6 for buying skills above the linked attribute.

...just a thought.
ludomastro
QUOTE (Kyoto Kid)
...one rule that 3rd edition had was the "linked attribute". At chargen (both priority and BP system) you could expend skill points on a 1 for 1 basis up to the linked attribute rating. To purchase a skill above that rating was at a rate of 2 for 1. Similarly for improving a skill with Karma the cost was 1.5 x new rating up to the linked attribute. Above that it cost 2 karma x new rating. Yeah it was a bit more math, but it helped balance skills and attributes a bit more.

Maybe increase the BP cost to 6 for buying skills above the linked attribute.

...just a thought.

I remember that from 2nd actually. Didn't play much in 3rd. Not a bad idea.
DTFarstar
I personally easily buy into the Attribute higher than skill rating thing. When I first started firing pistols- literally when I FIRST shot them, I got a much tighter grouping than average etc. I've never done martial arts or any kind of unarmed combat practice but I tend to be able to take on people who have been training for a couple years because of my size, quickness, and strength. I've never been trained to notice things, but I generally pick up all the small details most people miss. There are alot of things I do as well or better than alot of "professionals"(people who qualify for Rating 3) and definately better than Rating 2 people and I've never been instructed on how to do so. I'm assuming I've got high attributes. I dunno. Just saying it makes sense to me.

Personally, I think that there should be a much increased cost for raising a skill above an attribute. It is much harder to learn how to do something if you do not have a natural aptitude for that operation. Someone with CP(Agility of 1, I would assume) is going to have a MUCH harder time learning how to fire a pistol accurately. At some point the amount of knowledge they have just isn't going to matter. However, someone with wonderful hand eye coordination and no experience with pistols beyond point gun pull trigger to fire is still going to be able to ably track a target and get the bullet relatively close.

Just my .02 nuyen.gif .

PS: I was not knocking people with cerebral palsy, as a matter of fact my girlfriend has a VERY mild case and it is something we've dealt with several times as I've tried to teach her to do things.

(Video games, catching objects tossed to you, etc. NOT what you were thinking.)

Chris

EDIT: I didn't read KK's post till now, I think that is a good idea. Go 3rd edition.
Ol' Scratch
There's nothing saying both "solutions" can't work together. One is a philosophical metagaming issue (the difficulty in learning a skill above your natural aptitude) while the other is one revolving around practical application of a skill (where skill and training should be more important than aptitude).

The higher your attribute, the easier time you have learning a skill. But using that skill is worth more than relying on luck and talent alone.
Glyph
I don't really have a problem with the game's rather abstract rules, but if you have a problem with the high Attribute/low skill combo being equal to low Attribute/high skill, you could use the optional rule on pg. 69, limiting hits to skill rating x 2.
The Jopp
A low attribute but high skill can also be from someone experienced, like that old geezer down the block who was a black belt kung-fu champion thirty years ago.

Sure, a palsy strength of 1 or 2 but a skill of 7 (9) with martial arts specialization.

He might not hit you hard but he knows what you INTEND to do with your fist or foot before you do and wipes the floor with you.
Critias
If you want skills to matter a little more, and attributes to matter a little less, you could always just nix the skill cap and/or modify the prices of skill points. If attributes soft cap around a 6 (and more or less, they do), but skills don't soft cap at all -- well, there ya go.

A guy that's really dedicated towards getting good with a Pistol can train his butt off and stay ahead of the curve compared to the guy that's just relying on a natural aptitude for hand-eye coordination to carry the day. By allowing skills (over attributes) more "room to grow," you open them up as a possibility. If someone wants to play an over-the-hill guy with mediocre stats, but lots of practical experience (or whatever other sort of "attributes light, skill heavy" character you can think up) and still be a viable character, they could do so.

As it is, skills are even more strictly controlled (at character creation, especially) than attributes, and there's quite a bit more ways for technology to boost attributes than skills, to boot. Loosening that up might go a long way towards making skills count more.
Wasabi
QUOTE (Alex)
I can buy into Unarmed 1 with Agility 5. That shows a person with raw talent and a little training.

Remember that defending in hand to hand uses skill+Reaction so a person with agility 5 and reaction 2 [making a number up for the sake of an example] would be a naturally offensive person who may or may not be worth a flip at defending themselves.
Buster
I've seen people in real life that had no talent but practiced and practiced until they were good at something, so I think the RAW is valid. With the slacker generation, it's just rare to see this because people will more likely move on to something they're good at right away, rather than spend time struggling to learn some skills.
toturi
Why waste time and effort to learn something you got no talent in when you can learn something equally important and you are naturally good at?
Cabral
QUOTE (Alex @ Sep 27 2007, 12:41 AM)
Anyway, how do you handle - or not - the inconsistency (to me at least) of having the mechanics of high skill, low attribute be the same as low skill, high attribute?

eg: Unarmed 1 + Agility 5 = 6 = 2 hits on average.  So does Unarmed 5 + Agility 1.

I realize this isn't quite what you asked, but your statement is not true.
If both examples have +2 dice for unarmed tests, the results are:

Unarmed 1 + Agility 5 + 2 Bonus dice = Dice Pool of 6 (skill + bonus dice cannot exceed 1.5)
Unarmed 5 + Agility 1 + 2 Bonus dice = Dice Pool of 8 (skill + bonus dice cannot exceed 7.5)

Now, the Agility 1 character will be far more vulnerable to decrease attribute spells and other effects.

As for the explanation, the high stat low skill character is a natural. His raw ability allows him to be effective at the task but the actually grasp of technique is not there.

The low stat high skill character is highly trained but lacking the natural ability to realize his grasp of the techniques. He may excel in controlled environments, such as demonstrating katas, but in even moderately less controlled tasks, such as sparring or actual combat, the lack of underlining ability (agility for attacks, reaction for defense) is evident.
Buster
QUOTE (toturi)
Why waste time and effort to learn something you got no talent in when you can learn something equally important and you are naturally good at?

True, especially if you can make money sooner on something you're naturally good at. I'm not pointing fingers, I've done this myself. But my point is that I've seen people with no talent practice at something until they were excellent at it, so I think the RAW is valid.
MK Ultra
I´m a notorious High Att/Low Skill player, but I don´t see a problem with the low Agi/ High Unarmed Mr. Miyagi. In my table-game I use the house-rule that raising attributes costs new level * 5 instead of 3, that way it looks way more balanced to me.

I used to have a rather complicated houserule (that was even before SR4 was out, when I homebrewed my own version from the previews), that made both Att and Skill important in different ways, but it depended on the Attribute-Biostress rules from Man and Machine. I´ve droped it for now, but would most likely pick it up again (maybe a bit twaked), if I managed to do a regular table-game.

Pools where regular Att+Skill. Hits where hard-caped by Att (no more hits then Att, unless Edge was used) and soft-caped by skills (1 Stress-Point for the Att, if more Hits then Skill where achived).

That way, the routined Strength 2 + Running 5 (30 BP) girl would have a high probability to allways max. out her performence, without overexerting herself, but max. performance would be rather low.

The talented but unskilled Strength 3 + Running 2 (28 BP) guy on the other hand would have a higher max. performance, but also a lower probability to acheive a steady result and higher risk of injury.

Also, if both pushed themselfes to their limits (using their Edge Att of 3), the professional would most likely outrun the natural and the later would most likely get injured (keep in mind that 1 Stress-Point for St isn´t much, so it´s not like rolling a critical glitch).

P.S.: Swap genders in the example as you like, I have no intention to start another discussion about that.

P.P.S.: The RAW already dos reflect that an Intuition 1 guy has a much harder time to become dr. perceptron then the Int 5 talent, because it´s still quiet costly to increase Perception (or all the Int skills) to 5 compared to raising it (them all) to 1, even if the first example dosn´t have to pay Karma * 1.5 after the first rank. The Rule was good in SR3, because Att where of little to no other relevance for skills back than. In SR4 I wouldn´t punish the player that -for whatever roleplaying-reasons- prefers to raise Perception and shadowing from 1 to 2 instead of chosing to increase Int from 1 to 2, by making the Skill increase even more costly!
MK Ultra
QUOTE (Buster @ Sep 27 2007, 01:38 PM)
QUOTE (toturi @ Sep 27 2007, 06:25 AM)
Why waste time and effort to learn something you got no talent in when you can learn something equally important and you are naturally good at?

True, especially if you can make money sooner on something you're naturally good at. I'm not pointing fingers, I've done this myself. But my point is that I've seen people with no talent practice at something until they were excellent at it, so I think the RAW is valid.

Agreed. Some of the most prominent Legendary Martial-Artists of History rose to prominence despite (or maybe because) of a lack of natural aptitude (being rather short and coparatively weak). I´m not enough of a nerd to give actual examples, but I remember reading about at least 2 founders of prominent fighting-styles with that kind of drive (they developed exceptional skills to compensate for lacking aptitude).

Picture a left-handed person which was trained from child-hood to write with the right hand (not widely done anymore, but used to be that way only one or two generations ago). Is is so unrealistic that this person could have a better hand-writing then some naturally right-handed people? They´d still use the left hand, to swap a fly, because they where not trained extensively to swap flys with their right hand, therefore relying on their natural aptitude, but they´d regularly use the right hand to wright, because they have grown to excell the natural aptitude of their left hand through their skill-training.
Buster
That's true, training is based on the instructor's skill and there are tons of examples in history and mythology about a crippled or weak master teaching a student great skills.

Boelcke, the Red Baron's mentor, had a bum arm and didn't have enough strength to maneuver his fighter plane effectively. However, he was highly skilled, had an incredible stack of kills, and taught the Red Baron everything he knew.
Zolhex
Simple fix tell your players none of their skills can be higher than their linked attribute.
Moon-Hawk
QUOTE (Casazil)
Simple fix tell your players none of their skills can be higher than their linked attribute.

Or twice their linked attribute for a more moderate approach, or 1.5 times their linked attribute.

Although I'm not sure that making attributes more powerful/important is the right way to go, here.
FriendoftheDork
Guys I agree that something's up with having skills and attributes count as much, I had the same gripe in (the old) WoD system, T2k etc.

Sure, it makes sense for some examples such as unarmed fighting (to some degree) and running (to a greater degree), but for many active skills it doesen't even make that much sense that stats matter at all.

Build/repair you need a high logic? Yeah, cause mechanics are known to have excelent mental faculties. And all contortionists are experts at s sneaking about or picking locks...

My point is, for many skills training and dedication is ALOT more important than physical or mental characteristics.

I'd go for skill rating caps the dice you get from attributes, except it would probably break the game.

Apathy
QUOTE (FriendoftheDork)
Guys I agree that something's up with having skills and attributes count as much, I had the same gripe in (the old) WoD system, T2k etc.

Sure, it makes sense for some examples such as unarmed fighting (to some degree) and running (to a greater degree), but for many active skills it doesen't even make that much sense that stats matter at all.

Build/repair you need a high logic? Yeah, cause mechanics are known to have excelent mental faculties. And all contortionists are experts at s sneaking about or picking locks...

My point is, for many skills training and dedication is ALOT more important than physical or mental characteristics.

I'd go for skill rating caps the dice you get from attributes, except it would probably break the game.

for a smaller impact, why not just say that skill caps the number of sucesses that count (like spellcasting for spell sucesses), except when edge is spent?

Then it won't matter most of the time, but in extreme cases the Skill-6, Att-1 guy will consistently beat the Skill-1, Att-6 guy.
blakkie
QUOTE (Alex @ Sep 26 2007, 11:41 PM)
Anyway, how do you handle - or not - the inconsistency (to me at least) of having the mechanics of high skill, low attribute be the same as low skill, high attribute?

It is easy. 'Attribute' and 'Skill' are labels, not descriptions or definitions. The biggest inconsistancy is the baggage you bring that you assign to the labels. Realize what the 'Attribute' and 'Skill' represent by approaching this from the other way around. Assign to the labels in your head what is said on the matter by collective of the rules. All the rules and not just limited to some stupid fluff table that IMO is the worst, most misleading part of the BBB (in other words the distant second for biggest inconsistancy, although maybe inconsistancy isn't the best word for it).

Once you do that you'll see that what falls into Attributes in SR4 includes things that you, outside of SR4 might throw into a Skills bin.

The same holds true for the labels assigned to the Attributes, such as in your example Strength, and to a lesser extent the names of the Skills.
Cthulhudreams
QUOTE (Apathy)
for a smaller impact, why not just say that skill caps the number of sucesses that count (like spellcasting for spell sucesses), except when edge is spent?

Then it won't matter most of the time, but in extreme cases the Skill-6, Att-1 guy will consistently beat the Skill-1, Att-6 guy.

Actually it matters all the time. If my agi 3 hacker didn't take gymnastics, it is no longer possible for me to jump.

Capping hits to skill is a bad idea.
Apathy
QUOTE (Cthulhudreams @ Sep 27 2007, 06:08 PM)
QUOTE (Apathy @ Sep 27 2007, 04:43 PM)
for a smaller impact, why not just say that skill caps the number of sucesses that count (like spellcasting for spell sucesses), except when edge is spent?

Then it won't matter most of the time, but in extreme cases the Skill-6, Att-1 guy will consistently beat the Skill-1, Att-6 guy.

Actually it matters all the time. If my agi 3 hacker didn't take gymnastics, it is no longer possible for me to jump.

Capping hits to skill is a bad idea.

Good point, but couldn't you just cap to skill with minimum 1 hit?

Basically that says that the Agility 5 skill 0 guy wants to jump he can, but if he wants to jump very well he'll either have to learn the skill or use edge. If the guy's in great shape, but never played sports before in his life, he'll have to blow a little edge to have even a remote chance at getting past the aging out of shape footballer and scoring.
blakkie
QUOTE (Cthulhudreams)
Capping hits to skill is a bad idea.

Capping hits to skill is a bad idea. It really screws with all sorts of stuff with very wide reaching ripples.
Kyoto Kid
...personally I am glad it is done with spells. Otherwise mundanes would be completely toast.
Riley37
Mechanics who aren't very bright can handle routine situations, but the ones who can actually fix unexpected, complicated problems are the ones with disciplined and/or creative minds, whether or not their academic or social skills are well-developed. Those are, IMHO, the same mechanics who would quickly become competent when cross-training as programmers, paramedics, or other skills that involve methodical technique. In game terms, their Mechanic dice pool including Logic enables them to reach higher thresholds than their equally-well-trained but not-as-bright colleagues. When they cross-train as programmers or paramedics, they each get one rank in the skill, and the one with high Logic gets a much larger dice pool than the other.

If your local grease pit is staffed by idiots, well, they probably have low stat, low or medium skill with specialization, and get a dice pool bonus from "Three-Ring Binder With Foolproof Directions".

First Aid is a special case: max effect capped at skill ranks. Is that a good precedent for other skills?

Contortionists who are agile will learn infiltration more quickly than those who aren't. Sure, there are contortionists who are just specialists in that one skill... but they weren't designed by min-maxers. Harry Houdini, on another hand, had a lot of natural talent, developed a broad suite of skills, and is a better model for most heroic characters. (Escape Artist, Lockpicking, and Palm, for starters, plus entertainment skills based on his Charisma.)
Emperor Tippy
QUOTE (FriendoftheDork)
Guys I agree that something's up with having skills and attributes count as much, I had the same gripe in (the old) WoD system, T2k etc.

Sure, it makes sense for some examples such as unarmed fighting (to some degree) and running (to a greater degree), but for many active skills it doesen't even make that much sense that stats matter at all.

Build/repair you need a high logic? Yeah, cause mechanics are known to have excelent mental faculties. And all contortionists are experts at s sneaking about or picking locks...

My point is, for many skills training and dedication is ALOT more important than physical or mental characteristics.

I'd go for skill rating caps the dice you get from attributes, except it would probably break the game.

You ever met a current mechanic? Most of them have college degrees, and most are very intelligent.

The mechanics working on top cars (BMW's, Mercedes, etc.) can easily pull down hundred thousand dollar salaries and they have a job that can't be outsourced.

Today's current cars are nothing like those of even 15 years before. A new BMW has more processing power in it than your desktop.

My dads been a mechanic for his whole life, first on race cars and after he married my mom, regular cars.

My parents bought their first home by the age of 30 and my mom has never worked since they got married. When he was 40 we moved into a multimillon dollar home (7.5 wooded acres 18 miles from the Washington Monument). At the age of 50 his current net worth is several million dollars (good investments).

So yes, mechanics (at least the ones that are any good), are fairly logical.
Ol' Scratch
Would you rather have a surgeon of average intelligence but 20 years of training and experience performing surgery on you, or someone with a genius intellect who dropped out of pre-med doing the same operation?

As far as I can tell, the majority of people in this thread would rather have the latter.
Emperor Tippy
Same. And when did I ever even imply anything different?

I was just countering a fallacy that FriendoftheDork posted.

And I would prefer a person with both 20 years of skills and a genius intellect.
toturi
QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
Would you rather have a surgeon of average intelligence but 20 years of training and experience performing surgery on you, or someone with a genius intellect who dropped out of pre-med doing the same operation?

As far as I can tell, the majority of people in this thread would rather have the latter.

Neither.

Dr Average might have 20 years of training and experience but he might not have put those 20 years into his surgery skill - yeah, he's got great bedside manner and knows the limits of what he needs to do to avoid a lawsuit. Dr Wet-behind-ears might not have dropped out of pre-med, but he might have spent only a small part of his time studying med, but he might have graduated top of his class anyway. I want to see results. I judge by how well he has done or should do, ie his entire "dice pool".

If I know who is better, I'd go with whoever is better. But if both are equal, then I'd go with whoever is cheaper or luckier.
Ol' Scratch
What part of "surgeon" as opposed to "general practioner" did you not get? And I don't care what you say here; only an idiot would go for the pre-med drop-out over the experienced surgeon. The fact that you won't acknowledge who is better simply to win an argument speaks volumes.
toturi
QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
What part of "surgeon" as opposed to "general practioner" did you not get? And I don't care what you say here; only an idiot would go for the pre-med drop-out over the experienced surgeon. The fact that you won't acknowledge who is better simply to win an argument speaks volumes.

You are equating someone with Skill 1 will be a premed drop out. I am saying that if he is really that damn good, he will still have graduated with top honors, even at Skill 1. Then he is a top graduate fresh out of med school with Skill 1.

Now my question is this: Would you choose a genius up-and-comer or a stupid old timer?

And I don't care what you say here; only an idiot would go for the stupid old timer instead of the genius up-and-comer. The fact that you won't acknowledge who is better simply to win an argument speaks volumes.
Ol' Scratch
1) I said nothing about him being Skill 1. In fact, I didn't mention a single rating anywhere. I was asking which you'd rather have in this thing called "the real world." I know it's difficult for some people to grasp, but such a place does exist. Mythical as it may be while living in your parent's basement.

2) Love how you can't actually answer the question without completely changing the parameters around. First the surgeon became a general practioner, now he's a complete dunce.

<just pats toturi's head gently before moving on>
toturi
QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein @ Sep 28 2007, 09:44 AM)
1) I said nothing about him being Skill 1.  In fact, I didn't mention a single rating anywhere.  I was asking which you'd rather have in this thing called "the real world."  I know it's difficult for some people to grasp, but such a place does exist.  Mythical as it may be while living in your parent's basement.

2) Love how you can't actually answer the question without completely changing the parameters around.  First the surgeon became a general practioner, now he's a complete dunce.

<just pats toturi's head gently before moving on>

1) And I told you. I would rather have the guy that is more likely to produce better results - he can be the new hot shot surgeon or the old time surgeon, as long as he is better I'd take him. If I think they are equally good, I'd go for whoever is cheaper. This is the "real world". I know it's difficult for some people to grasp, but such a place does exist. Mythical as it may be while living in your own private dungeon. biggrin.gif

2) I never said that the surgeon was a general practioner, unless you are saying that a surgeon does not need to have a good bedside manner or have knowledge of what is malpractice. Yes, I changed Dr Average to Dr Dumb because you insisted on med school drop out. If you insist on an extreme example(med school drop out), then I have to change the parameters to balance both sides of the equation. Sure, I'd like to have the Experienced-Average-Surgeon over the Genius-Drop-Out, but that will change the moment Genius-Drop-Out graduates to become Genius-Up-And-Comer.

You have to compare 2 parties that have the same chance of producing the same sets of results. I think a fresh(but competent) genius will produce the same standard of results as compared with an average experienced guy. If you want to make a unfair comparison and pass it of as a fair one, then I'd call it as I see it.

<just pats Doc Funk's head gently before moving on>

Nothing like a good argument to get the old blood flowing, eh Doc? Happy birthday.
ludomastro
Umm, wow! Never thought that I would see this type of discussion from my little question. I will ask everyone to calm down a bit though. I do know that some of you are needling each other for fun; however, those who are truly new may not understand.

After reading the thread and thinking a bit I have the following conclusions:
  1. Skill can limit Attribute due to the need to focus the raw talent into something. I am thinking of a pile of ammo (Attribute) without a gun (Skill). I think that covers the thought first brought up by Doctor Funkenstein.
  2. The Jopp mentioned "masters" with high Skill and low Attributes. While I certainly know people like this - my brother is a football coach but can't play any more - I can't believe they reached that Skill level at an extremely low Attribute level. I'll except that this is my bias and move on from there.
  3. I believe that Kyoto Kid hit what I am looking for. An old rule. In 2nd and 3d, the linked Attribute was the point at which the Skill upgrade cost changed.

Feel free to continue the discussion, just be ready for some houserules should I post a new game.
Cthulhudreams
The other problem with capping outcomes in some way to the skill level is that due to the overpriced ness of skills in shadowrun you tend to have high stats and low skills (except in the case of hacking)

In SR, If I take my 80 BPs and go

Agility 5 Firearms 2 Gymnastics 1

my character is MUCH more hardcore than

Agility 2 Firearms 5 Gymnastics 1

I'm rolling the same 7 dice with guns, but the first guy has 6 dice in gymnastics and the second guy has 3. First guy also has 4 dice on unskilled agi tests, second guy has 1.

Same BPs, shitty outcome but dude 2 is way more sucktastic than dude 1.

which is one in SR most characters have high stats THEN they work on skills. I'd find some examples of what I meant in 'Welcome to the shadows' if I wasn't really lazy.

If you cap hits to skill in some way, you prevent people making character 1. This might be cool as it removes the 'two characters, same BP, one is in all ways better than the other' factor BUT it also makes the characters overall much weaker. If you decide to cap hits to skill, can I suggest significantly reducing the cost of skills to reflect this? May I suggest a cost of 5 for skill groups and 2 for individual skills.
Grinder
QUOTE (Emperor Tippy)
My parents bought their first home by the age of 30 and my mom has never worked since they got married. When he was 40 we moved into a multimillon dollar home (7.5 wooded acres 18 miles from the Washington Monument). At the age of 50 his current net worth is several million dollars (good investments).

So yes, mechanics (at least the ones that are any good), are fairly logical.

So you know one example of a well-educated mechanic who struck rich when he was 50. Statistic-wise, that's not enough to say that all (or even most) mechanics will end that way. biggrin.gif
Emperor Tippy
I know the people he works with as well. And there isn't a single one who I would classify as unintelligent.

I was serious when I said most BMW's have more processing power than your computer.
Grinder
QUOTE (Emperor Tippy)
I know the people he works with as well. And there isn't a single one who I would classify as unintelligent.


I was referring more to the point of making millions of $.

QUOTE

I was serious when I said most BMW's have more processing power than your computer.


I never doubted that. smile.gif
The Jopp
QUOTE (Grinder @ Sep 28 2007, 10:37 AM)

I was serious when I said most BMW's have more processing power than your computer

Let me guess, most OS for those little computers are MS based? Explains all those cars breaking down all the time. grinbig.gif

As for my definition of "masters" I merely meant that people can be skillful but lack the physical requirements to perform as someone who is in top shape.

You can for example have the troll boxer with AGI 2 but Unarmed (Boxing) 6[8] and STR of 12. He could be facing another one with AGI 6 and slightly lower skill.

Troll would be far slower but his skill would compensate - and the fact that he hits like a pile of bricks
Buster
QUOTE (Emperor Tippy @ Sep 27 2007, 08:01 PM)
My dads been a mechanic for his whole life, first on race cars and after he married my mom, regular cars.

My parents bought their first home by the age of 30 and my mom has never worked since they got married. When he was 40 we moved into a multimillon dollar home (7.5 wooded acres 18 miles from the Washington Monument). At the age of 50 his current net worth is several million dollars (good investments).

So yes, mechanics (at least the ones that are any good), are fairly logical.

No, YOUR dad was very logical, you were very lucky to have a dad like that. Besides, race car technicians are not normal mechanics. Most mechanics I've met drive junkers, live in crummy shoebox houses with deadbeat girlfriends, and spend all their money on pot. I would estimate a Logic of no more than 2. biggrin.gif
blakkie
QUOTE (Kyoto Kid @ Sep 27 2007, 05:54 PM)
...personally I am glad it is done with spells.  Otherwise mundanes would be completely toast.

IMO mundanes w/o magical backup are already completely toast. I just wish they would have figured out a good way to avoid the caps without burning the toast. wink.gif But that is a tough nut to crack and still keep the feel of SR1-SR3. Force might have needed to mean something a lot different.

P.S. If they didn't let all those extra hits increase the DV that would be a really good start.
blakkie
QUOTE (Buster)
QUOTE (Emperor Tippy @ Sep 27 2007, 08:01 PM)
My dads been a mechanic for his whole life, first on race cars and after he married my mom, regular cars.

My parents bought their first home by the age of 30 and my mom has never worked since they got married. When he was 40 we moved into a multimillon dollar home (7.5 wooded acres 18 miles from the Washington Monument). At the age of 50 his current net worth is several million dollars (good investments).

So yes, mechanics (at least the ones that are any good), are fairly logical.

No, YOUR dad was very logical, you were very lucky to have a dad like that. Besides, race car technicians are not normal mechanics. Most mechanics I've met drive junkers, live in crummy shoebox houses with deadbeat girlfriends, and spend all their money on pot. I would estimate a Logic of no more than 2.

Hey, I know those guys! smile.gif Most of them also aren't particularly good mechanics. But I'd go to them to change oil over doing it myself because:
1) my time is worth more than what they'll charge me
2) changing oil is messy
3) changing oil is a lot easier if you have a lift
4) they have taken the time to learn enough about changing oil that they are unlikely to screw it up

But that aside 'Logic' in the SR sense isn't really about making solid life choices or a sense of taste in women.

This is a good example of the baggage brought to the table and heaped upon the one word labels in the game mechanics (not the greasy kind).
Buster
I think it would be cool to have some pseudo-scientific anti-magic tech for mundanes like in Ghostbusters. Personally, I don't know why anyone would want to play Shadowrun without playing some sort of Awakened character, but obviously lots do. Some anti-spirit weapons and anti-magic armor/implants would be cool and would give the muggles a fighting chance.

EDIT: moved to new thread. http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=19228
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