So, again we have an SR3R-related issue poll. One thing we noticed when looking at Thresholds, as well as the issue of getting rid of Open Tests for stealth, was that sometimes it was actually impossible to accomplish a task when a threshold was set. Thus, for instance, it's impossible for an Int 3 guard to ever positively identify someone, as per the rules, because he can never achieve the necessary 4 successes with only 3 dice.

So, we had the idea of allowing more than one success with a single die, if you roll +X over the TN. For example, say that +X was +6, and the TN was 8. If you were rolling three dice, and were crazy lucky, getting a 16, 11, 9, you would get four successes.

So far our empirical tests seem to indicate that +6 is actually a pretty good value for +X, generating a very decent probability curve that even holds up in the edge cases where you have high dice vs. low TN/Threshold, cases where the threshold and the number of dice are roughly the same, and so forth. What do you think of the idea?

I'm not wild about Thresholds on anything other than opposed tests. Unopposed, one success should be a success.

You seem obsessed with the number crunching mini-maxing instead of enjoying the game.

As Eyeless Blond said in the first post, this is for SR3R. They are redesigning the rules, which pretty much requires them to concentrate on mechanics and numbers and stuff.

??? Bad example, I think.

Is this not one of the uses for the Karma Pool, to add dice to a test?

If you are dead set on having an exploding die feature, make it cost Karma Pool to invoke.

I have also noted that GMs usually (it is a rare one that does not) describe the result of a high success as accomplishing more than a single success would account for.

Exactly. That's the main reason I'm blitzing the forums with all these polls; we've gotten far too bogged down in the fundamental mechanics lately, and it's ground everything else to a halt. How can we work on

How so? Should positively identifying someone (4 successes on Perception required) require the average person to spend karma pool, even if the guy is six inches from your face (TN 2)?

This is a very good point, though I'm still concerned it doesn't solve the problem of Thresholds. The problem with Thresholds is more relevant than it generally is in SR4, even, as you're not rolling attribute+skill, but merely skill.

Actually, this gives me an idea. I know many times where I did not recognize someone in optimal conditions, for a few seconds. I think I read somehwere that SR4 has a category of test where your successes continue to build so long as you continue working at it.
So, first try, 1 success, little info. Keep looking, get two more, almost enough to ID but not quite. On the third round, another good roll and 2 successes, finally enough to get a solid ID.

Make this an option for perception (physical, radar, astral, and whatever), and adjust the rules for build/repair and spell study (and maybe others) to use it also and it may solve some of these issues.

SR4-style Extended tests in SR3R? What do the rest of you think about that?

I think it is a bad example because the Perception Threshold table is expressly stated to be only a guideline. Even given your example as stated, it could represent a wide range of situations.

1. Guard is trying to positively identify his best friend whom he saw just before he went to the bathroom.
2. Guard is checking ID of Pizza Delivery guy.
3. Guard is trying to positively identify person from an APB. The APB gave a poor, vague, purely verbal description, and since being described as the subject of the APB the person has bathed, gotten a haircut and changed clothes.

1A. A single success just about makes sense.
2A. Could follow the example threshold description.
3A. Even 4 successes does not seem like enough to convict the guy beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is this really a problem with not having an exploding die? Or is it a problem with the threshold examples and perhaps some omitted modifiers?

It sounds good at first.

[We need a Devil's Advocate Smiley] But are there not rules where trying something again imposes a +2 modifier every time it gets retried? Is that going to get amended and will it prompt more revisions? [/D's A]

It is the next logical step of including Thresholds in the first place. It also already has certain precedents (like in decking), and isn't quite so oddball a mechanic as an open test. Still, it's just another change from "normal" SR3, and I'm not sure how many big changes like these we should be accommodating.

Anyway, we seem to be just about tied at this point, with 5-4 in favor of making the change.

Anyone else feel like expressing their opinion?

I think all the examples that come up regularly during play, like any combat situations, need to be the first place such a rule change gets tested.

Exploding dice favors the person with the bigger dice pool. So exploding dice are usually going to work against the character who needs them most.

The Magician who is casting resisted spells at Force 6 is going to more than likely be better equipped to deal with the drain than the target of the spell. Since a 6 is needed for a success already, this is going to be a prime candidate for using the exploding die, and it is going to favor the magician, not the target that may not have had enough Attribute dice to resist in the first place. Comparing to your threshold example, it is like the threshold just got better odds of raising the threshold by implementing the exploding die mechanic.

Hm. That is a point—at the same time as we make it possible for the disadvantaged individual to succeed at tasks at certain times, we may be simultaneously making it more difficult for them to succeed when they otherwise would have been able to.

I'll have to run numbers this afternoon, thanks for pointing that out—I'd totally missed the possibility.

~J