The "6==7" problem, as I consider it, also extends to how 6s are twice as hard as 5s to hit, how 8s are not that much harder to hit than 7s, and all the other quirks of a dice system that creates effectively exponential TNs, but doesn't really follow a smooth probability curve.
I'm curious to see what the distribution is here. I suspect most people fall into the "Fatalist" category, but I'd like to know for sure.
Full Version: 6==7
*sigh* See, this is exactly what I'm having such a problem understanding. I mean, I listen to all the arguments in favor of 6==7, and invariably they usually come down to a very few types of arguments.
The first group of people like the idea that sometimes you get a "free" +1. Of course you're really not; you're actually getting so badly screwed over on 5->6 that it takes another TN jump to even out the distribution. In response to that I hear the flippant, "The world isn't fair, so the TNs shouldn't be distributed fairly," which is... well, think about it. Why 6 and 7 then? Why not 6==7==8, or 6=/=7, but 9==10? There's nothing inherent about TN6 and TN7 that should make them equal; they're just arbitrary points on a supposedly exponential TN scale.
Everyone else I tried to account for with "Ambivalent" and "Fatalist". So, really, I'm a bit lost now. Why do you consider a piecewise nonsmooth probability distribution good?
The first group of people like the idea that sometimes you get a "free" +1. Of course you're really not; you're actually getting so badly screwed over on 5->6 that it takes another TN jump to even out the distribution. In response to that I hear the flippant, "The world isn't fair, so the TNs shouldn't be distributed fairly," which is... well, think about it. Why 6 and 7 then? Why not 6==7==8, or 6=/=7, but 9==10? There's nothing inherent about TN6 and TN7 that should make them equal; they're just arbitrary points on a supposedly exponential TN scale.
Everyone else I tried to account for with "Ambivalent" and "Fatalist". So, really, I'm a bit lost now. Why do you consider a piecewise nonsmooth probability distribution good?
I do not think your actual question is terribly clear. So for my answer, I will have to say : 42.
| QUOTE (Daddy's Little Ninja) |
| I do not think your actual question is terribly clear. |
What's unclear about it?
Basically, the question is ...
How do you feel about the fact that in SR3 (and earlier editions), a Target Number of 6 effectively is the same as a Target Number of 7?
None of your answers really fit my feelings towards 6 == 7. I would best classify myself as "Unconcerned." I would sum that viewpoint up as:
"It's a quirk of the system, sometimes it's cool, sometimes it's annoying, but it doesn't concern me enough to put the effort into changing it or adopting an alternative."
"It's a quirk of the system, sometimes it's cool, sometimes it's annoying, but it doesn't concern me enough to put the effort into changing it or adopting an alternative."
OH. Right, I guess I was forgetting an option there. My bad.
Yup, I'm of the "don't care, just play" variety.
| QUOTE (Eyeless Blond) |
| OH. Right, I guess I was forgetting an option there. |
That's unfortunate, because I think quite a few people, myself included, would have chosen that answer instead.
me for example. . if you as a GM don't like it just make SOMETHING up to get it to jump from 7 to 8 . .
probability is too much math to still have fun with especially while actually playing x.x
the only probability i need is the 50% . . either it works or it does not, simple try and error with the consequences . . either the shot is a success, or it is not and the guard is on alarm . . either the shot kills/stuns the guard or it does not and the guard is on alarm . . no probability aside from that . . if my GM starts with things like the probability for the shot taking out the guard without alarming others is XYZ i am leaving the table . .
probability is too much math to still have fun with especially while actually playing x.x
the only probability i need is the 50% . . either it works or it does not, simple try and error with the consequences . . either the shot is a success, or it is not and the guard is on alarm . . either the shot kills/stuns the guard or it does not and the guard is on alarm . . no probability aside from that . . if my GM starts with things like the probability for the shot taking out the guard without alarming others is XYZ i am leaving the table . .
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
That's unfortunate, because I think quite a few people, myself included, would have chosen that answer instead. |
Yeah, I know. My only real consolation is that, at least for my purposes, both "Unconcerned" and "Approval" mean about the same.
See, what I'm trying to do is gauge the interest in one of the more controversial ideas we've seen so far in SR3R. Market research, basically. See, we've got an idea that amounts to a rewrite of the Rule of Six that we're mulling over, one that solves the 6==7 problem, the 5>>6 problem, and all the other little quirks in the SR3's main dice mechanic. The only real caveats are:
1) slightly higher probability of success at many TNs, especially those greater than 12, and
2) actually convincing people to use the damn thing.
The first I'm not all that concerned about; it'll just mean GMs can be even more generous with the +1s and +2s without being as concerned about screwing over their players, and players in turn won't have to game the system quite so much if they want a reasonable probability of success. I don't think it's enough to actually warrant rethinking the modifiers we have in SR.
It's the second that worries me. How many people really want the change, and, on the other side, how many people are comfortable enough or apathetic enough to not want to bother learning a new core mechanic? I do rather wish I had included that last option, but the poll itself is at least still sound.
The fact that we seem to have tied (7 in favor of change, 7 in favor of the mechanics-as-are) is... exasperating. In some ways it's great: half the people here might be willing to check it out! On the flip side, though, we have half the people here who may well dismiss the project for this reason, as this is a pretty fundamental change to the game, even a holy cow for some. Well we'll see.
| QUOTE (Eyeless Blond) |
| Yeah, I know. My only real consolation is that, at least for my purposes, both "Unconcerned" and "Approval" mean about the same. |
I do think that the lack of an 'Unconcerned' category forced some people (but not myself) to vote "Ambivalent'.
in most cases as long as the mooks are hampered by the same rules, I see no problem. I don't think I come across to many times in games where things went out of balance because of this quirk.
| QUOTE (Eyeless Blond) |
| Why 6 and 7 then? Why not 6==7==8, or 6=/=7, but 9==10? |
Because the system is based on the easy to find D6. That's it, no mystical or devious manipulations behind it.
And as a side note, as of my post, there are more who like it than oppose. Then there's also the SR4 votes and the indifferent votes.
QUOTE (Eyeless Blond @ Feb 1 2008, 08:11 PM) 
That's unfortunate, because I think quite a few people, myself included, would have chosen that answer instead.
Yeah, I know. My only real consolation is that, at least for my purposes, both "Unconcerned" and "Approval" mean about the same.
Yeah, I know. My only real consolation is that, at least for my purposes, both "Unconcerned" and "Approval" mean about the same.
Oh, in that case I'll vote approval.
edit: Actually, I voted ambivalence.
QUOTE (Herald of Verjigorm @ Feb 2 2008, 03:54 AM)
Because the system is based on the easy to find D6. That's it, no mystical or devious manipulations behind it.
And as a side note, as of my post, there are more who like it than oppose. Then there's also the SR4 votes and the indifferent votes.
Yes, there are at least twice as many people who would rather keep the current system as opposed to looking at a change. This is actually very helpful; it means that the SR3R project really should be spending less time as we have on new dice rolling mechanics, and concentrate on getting other things done. We have what may be a very good idea for a system change, one that can fix the progression while still using the previous d6, but maybe not as many people would be interested as I'd thought.
And as a side note, as of my post, there are more who like it than oppose. Then there's also the SR4 votes and the indifferent votes.
Though you might want to consider the people who voted for the last option to be pro-change—after all, it's equivalent to the first option 
But yeah, I think we accepted the assertion that this bothered a lot of people too easily, and the longer the question gets kept open the longer we're prevented from putting any serious thought into the other areas of the rules.
~J
But yeah, I think we accepted the assertion that this bothered a lot of people too easily, and the longer the question gets kept open the longer we're prevented from putting any serious thought into the other areas of the rules.
~J
Exactly. I still think we should get rid of Open Tests, but then we'll have that issue with Stealth and the idea of using multisuccesses. Think we should still bother with that?
Actually, maybe I'll just make a new poll, and this time not forget the "Unconcerned" option.
Actually, maybe I'll just make a new poll, and this time not forget the "Unconcerned" option.
i've never liked open tests, especially as applied to stealth. too easy to get your stealth score ridiculously high, and too easy for some retard to completely negate it with a ridiculous roll. i'd vastly prefer an opposed test, a la melee.
Well, let your opinion be known then! 
QUOTE (Herald of Verjigorm @ Feb 2 2008, 05:54 AM)
Because the system is based on the easy to find D6. That's it, no mystical or devious manipulations behind it.
Point of historical trivia - Shadowrun, 1st Edition, was designed originally as a d10 system using the same dice-rolling scheme. Very late in the design process a decision was made to change the dice to d6s because... and I think my memory is still clear on this - "... you can buy six-sided dice at a drugstore..."
Obviously, the plateau would have existed in a different place using a d10 system rather than a d6, but the result would have been more or less the same. The most immediate result was that more dice were needed to play, which really earned the "bucket o' dice" reference for the system. Frankly, we had only limited time to re-balance the mechanic from d10 to d6 and did a pretty good job, but it was far from perfect. On release we grumbled a great deal about the 6==7 plateau ... and those at higher break points (more so the higher breakpoints) ... but at that point it was what it was.
Tom Dowd
(co-creator, Shadowrun RPG)
Well, what did SR0 have that avoided a 6==7 issue?
Also curious, how big was the rebalancing? I can imagine if it was similar to the system that was released in all but scale, you would need to adjust TN modifiers, expected stat and skill ranges, build rules, and some similar assortment of things for each subset of the game (combat, magic, decking, rigging). Is that about right, or is there even more I did not think of?
Also curious, how big was the rebalancing? I can imagine if it was similar to the system that was released in all but scale, you would need to adjust TN modifiers, expected stat and skill ranges, build rules, and some similar assortment of things for each subset of the game (combat, magic, decking, rigging). Is that about right, or is there even more I did not think of?
It didn't have anything that avoided the issue, it was just slid out to 10==11. What did happen was that when it became d6 there were more extended die rolls than prior just because of how the numbers fell.
There probably wasn't as much rebalancing as their should have been to take into the account the dice shift, but yes what you are describing is what we adjusted. I seem to remember ..and we are talking just under twenty years ago at this point ( ::shudder:: ) ...alot of futzing about TNs and percentages... In the original d10 system TNs were higher and that had to get adjusted since obviously rolling a d10 at a TN of 5 is not the same as rolling a d6 at a TN of 5. We had, as you might expect, pages of computer printouts of various die/target results that either Paul Hume or Bob Charrette worked up (probably Paul) and since the game was already in playtesting we spent some time trying to align the new d6 numbers to fall in at least roughly at the percentages generated by the d10 system, since we were more or less happy with the way that felt. Frankly, I don't remember the specifics anymore but I remember some foreheads being beaten against desks when word of the change came down.
All in all, however, quirks of the system aside, the Shadowrun dice mechanic did what it was supposed to, which was support the storytelling of the game and the feel of the hybrid genre. It sure as hell wasn't perfect. (Coincidently, the reason I wandered back to Dumpshock after all this time is that I'm teaching computer game design and was web searching for sites talking about dice mechanics, and one of the links pointed to the forums...)
Tom Dowd
There probably wasn't as much rebalancing as their should have been to take into the account the dice shift, but yes what you are describing is what we adjusted. I seem to remember ..and we are talking just under twenty years ago at this point ( ::shudder:: ) ...alot of futzing about TNs and percentages... In the original d10 system TNs were higher and that had to get adjusted since obviously rolling a d10 at a TN of 5 is not the same as rolling a d6 at a TN of 5. We had, as you might expect, pages of computer printouts of various die/target results that either Paul Hume or Bob Charrette worked up (probably Paul) and since the game was already in playtesting we spent some time trying to align the new d6 numbers to fall in at least roughly at the percentages generated by the d10 system, since we were more or less happy with the way that felt. Frankly, I don't remember the specifics anymore but I remember some foreheads being beaten against desks when word of the change came down.
All in all, however, quirks of the system aside, the Shadowrun dice mechanic did what it was supposed to, which was support the storytelling of the game and the feel of the hybrid genre. It sure as hell wasn't perfect. (Coincidently, the reason I wandered back to Dumpshock after all this time is that I'm teaching computer game design and was web searching for sites talking about dice mechanics, and one of the links pointed to the forums...)
Tom Dowd
QUOTE (TomDowd)
All in all, however, quirks of the system aside, the Shadowrun dice mechanic did what it was supposed to, which was support the storytelling of the game and the feel of the hybrid genre.
indeed.
QUOTE (TomDowd @ Feb 6 2008, 11:35 AM)
(Coincidently, the reason I wandered back to Dumpshock after all this time is that I'm teaching computer game design and was web searching for site talking about dice mechanics, and one of the links pointed to the forums...)
I really appreciate your input. By way of showing my appreciation, if you find yourself in need of more material just let me know what you're looking for and I'll see what I can find or produce (it's something I've had to put a fair bit of thought into, what with SR3R and all, but I don't think I've collected the discussions on it I've had in any single place).
~J
Well, I for one liked the dice system you were able to get together in that time (or at least the refined versions you tweak it to later). I can also agree with the dice size logic, while I have nothing against other polyhedrons (fear my D30), d6s are easy to get in bulk.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.