Firstly; let me be clear here:
This is a matter of preference, and not an outright absolute.
Nothing in this post is intended to suggest that this method is inherently superior to the standard method; again, this is a matter of convenience and streamlining preference.

The Difficulty Number Table is incredibly simple and intuitive.
The shortcoming of it is that conditional modifiers are scattered so much across various books that collecting them all into one giant catalog is by no means a simple task (I've done this in the past - and still didn't succeed in collecting every modifier written).

I wanted a simpler method that was faster for the GM than tracing down wide ranges of TN modifiers for various conditions; an alternative which gives a general guideline to the GM, but ultimately lets the GM wing the difficulty by their impression of the challenge, while remaining consistent with the logic already extant in SR presented in the Difficulty Table.

To build this, I took the same concept displayed in the Difficulty Number Table and crossed it with a Condition Table (which I made up, but modeled after the Difficulty Table in the book's style of language).
The Difficulty Number Table is then broke into two considerations: TASK DIFFICULTY & CONDITION DIFFICULTY.
Average on both Task and Condition will land you a TN of 4.

The first is just the TN's alone, while the second chart is an additional variation which includes probability of first success using 3D6 and 6D6 (in case the GM wants to eyeball a reference point in figuring out the TN on the fly).

https://sites.google.com/site/myjunkfolders...20Variation.png

https://sites.google.com/site/myjunkfolders...obabilities.png


So when you look at something in SR that says the given task has a given TN as the baseline; that would be in AVERAGE condition line that you look, as the AVERAGE condition is exactly the Difficulty Number Chart found in Shadowrun 3rd Ed core book.

Then, under varying conditions (let's say it's raining, it's windy, the character is on top of a roof - and the task involves something from this rooftop position to the next one over) you scale down (higher) or up (lower) the chart as applicable to account for the general TN impact of the condition.

What the player has as gear or helpers unto their own self, such as using techniques to help them out - those shouldn't be accounted for as "Condition".
Those should augment the Task + Condition TN you gave them.
The same is true of wound modifiers; those are added AFTER the Task + Condition TN is selected.
These add-on's are what I refer to as "Character modifiers" (for clarity when going about these things).

So:
Task - how easy/hard is that task in and of itself
Condition - how good/poor are the conditions the character is in for the task
Character - any further modifiers from the character (or possibly another character) that help or hinder the final value (most players have these tracked on their sheets)

And that's it.

Again; this leaves it at the GM's discretion more often rather than flipping for where wind modifiers are, or rain, or low visibility, you're shooting while repelling, shooting while falling, melee while leaping off of a moving vehicle, et. al. nearly endlessly.

Just sharing around.

Cheers,
Stumps

I find it a bit too easy. Given time an amteur (skill 3) could create a top notch concept car (task nearly impossible + good conditions) with a fairly high likelyness.

Hey sk8bcn,


Could you expand on that, as 3D6 is listed as Proficient/average. 1D6 is listed as introductory.

Cheers,
Stumps

Maybe it's a matter of translation (I'm french), but to me an amateur is someone who does something in the field but not like a pro and as an "amateur". Exactely what proficient/average is to me.

Sk8bcn,

Does 10 seem "Nearly Impossible" as a TN to you?

Cheers,
Stumps

A 1 in 12 chance...hard but not impossible

Getting the jackpot in the Powerball lottery 1 in 175,223,510... and yet people manage to win it

Hey PraetorGradivus,

Very true; it is not - though, 1:12 is 1D6 v TN10.
If we were to take Sk8bcn's example, then 3D6 v TN10 would be 1:4.

However, I'm not (in this variation) addressing SR's adjective choice for the Difficulty Number Table, nor the Difficulty Number Table's baseline and scope (though, I did mention the issue in a post recently).

So, this takes the Difficulty Number Table from p.92 of 3rd Ed Core and crosses with itself again to produce the Condition and Task shown above.

The logical quandary that causes anyone to pull a 0.o when looking at these numbers is inherent in SR3's Difficulty Number Table itself, which outlines the following:

1D6 v TNn:
2: Simple - just under 85% chance
3: Routine - just over 65% chance
4: Average - exactly 50% chance
5: Challenging - just under 35% chance
6/7: Difficult - just over 15% chance
8: Strenuous - just under 15% chance
9: Extreme - around 10% chance
10: Nearly Impossible - just under 10% chance (around 8% and less the higher up you go)

This is the screenshot of that table on page 92:
https://sites.google.com/site/myjunkfolders....36.07%20AM.png


If these values to adjectives seem off, then one could adjust for that by revaluing the DNT on p.92 first, then taking that final product and crossing itself again to regenerate the above Condition & Task chart with higher values - although, you'd have to be careful to cross those values in check against SR3's assumptions about what numbers players will be attempting to hit for variously listed tasks.

We did something of this kind (mentioned in the post linked above) by requiring 2D6 to hit the TN to equal first success rather than 1D6 hitting the TN.
While that sharply changes the odds against the player's favor, it also comes with an issue of greatly limiting the scope one has to manipulate the TN with modifiers before the modifiers quickly drop the odds off; so you have less wiggle room.

Probably the easiest solution is either to accept that SR3's adjectives are just something we use for reference, or one could go back through and change the adjectives themselves.


Interestingly enough; every time I have brought up something to do with DNT variation in various discussions (such as this) someone eventually brings up that the variation's adjectives do not align with the probabilities, which causes me to consistently wonder how many groups actually recall p.92's DNT and how many groups actually follow that guideline.

Cheers,
Stumps

Of course I was only referring to a single die probability...his comment stated that a TN#10 seemed impossible. And the probability for each die is 1 in 12 whether you roll 1 die or 6.


And the probability of getting 1 or more 10s on 3 dice is clearly not 1 in 4 as there is a 77.025462963% chance you roll no 10s.

Hey PraetorGradivus,

Right, a near 23%; which fudging for vernacular is close to 1:4 (25%) [since just over ~11:50 is a bit ungainly of a reference point in terms of comprehensible or tangible ratios; people can imagine 1:4, or 1:12, but 11:50 is a bit harder to visualize].
Close enough, eh?

But again - I'm not addressing the wonkiness of SR's probability vs. adjectives in this.
I think it is rather agreed upon in general that the adjectives are a bit off from the actual employment of the TN's in game against the dice that players will throw.

Heck a Skill 6 character against a TN 10 has a ~40% chance of succeeding.
That's not "Nearly Impossible", and that's not counting Dice Pools that can easily push this up to the point where folks roll 10 dice + and the probabilities cross beyond the 50% threshold for a TN of 10.

Again; this just works off of the DNT in the book itself and crosses it by that same chart to outline a generalized condition reference instead of looking around for all the various TN modifiers for conditions (which, for the most part, would end up probably within the ballpark of winging by this chart).

Cheers,
Stumps

I just might be OCD about things.
It's just I'm to used to playing Axis and Allies and running into people who attack with 24 infantry, get 3 hits and complain that they are supposed to get 4.
Umm, yeah, 4 more often than not, but there's no gaurentee.

I also remember playing with a guy we wouldn't let roll his own dice because he insisted on rolling them one at a time and no matter the die he always rolled 6s closer to 1 in 2 than 1 in 6 that way. Which is why professional backgammon players don't let their opponents touch the top of the cup when shaking (unless they're a noob and don't realize people can manipulate dice).

But yeah 27% failure rate is close enough to 1 in 4 success rate I shouldn't have mentioned it.

My apologies.

Back to the question at hand.

To be clear, something someone who has introductory level at doing manage once out of 12 times is not "nearly impossible".

Is a shot a proficient person will make every 4 times "nearly impossible" ? No, of course. But, in real time playing the game, if you have to wait your 4th simple action to make the shot, with 3 other guys playing, 4 to 5 NPCs, after rolling initiative and all, fuck yeah, you might end up feeling it was hard to get there.

No one wants to play a RPG as dice rolling heavy as shadowrun where "nearly impossible" tasks requires 50 rolls to make it…

And it's all the more that no one will agree to what is "nearly impossible"? Something you make every 20 times? Something you pull every 200 times? Moreover, what is "hard", "stenuous"?

And I may add that it depends on the skill you use. A nearly impossible shot should be something an average guy could pull out once in 50 times or more. That's nearly impossible, but the miracle could still happen if he can aim and gets 5 or 6 shots. A nearly impossible emergency stabilisation healing test being something you pull out once every 7 or 8 times will be pretty much okay for everybody, if not too hard. Maybe you can't unify all skill test under the same mechanics and still have something "consistent"…

freudqo,


Exactly so, and why in making this alternative, I left the numbers right where they were.
Regardless of the adjectives, I'll assume that SR is adjusted and balanced for the numbers in the DNT chart.

Folks can rename them to whatever they want.

Cheers,
Stumps

Definitely not.

But if you're going to fix it, you should IMO fix it. That's why I said I find the probabilities a bit too high.

Hey Sk8bcn,

I understand your thought there, but I didn't think of this as fixing, nor did I want to conflate adjusting the baseline probabilities in SR with the idea of a two category DNT.
This is an alternative to flipping around and looking for condition modifiers; that is all.
It should relatively be identical to TNs that would often be generated by adding +/- TN modifiers from various conditions.

If someone wants to change SR's core probability...that's a much more complicated task.

Cheers,
Stumps

oh, ok, I didn't get that this was your goal.

Then, fine!

Indeed!
I once tried to tabulate every conditional modifier in SR3's array of books in an excel document and after an extensive amount of sifting through a massive array of dizzying texts (and far too many rows in excel), I decided there had to be a simpler solution that effectively accomplished as much and that's when I saw the DNT and decided (after looking over the array of modifiers I had tabulated) that you could fudge these values on your own for the most part because they only typically move a few small numbers (usually 1-3, or interval stages of 1) for the conditional concept being quantified and the DNT already gave us our standard ruler...just seemed that if you want a square, you just need to turn the ruler sideways from where it sits and you're done.

(a.k.a. I'm really lazy and I wanted a simple solution to be able to not flip through books)

What's DNT?

Hello Acenoid,


It's an abbreviation for Difficulty Number Table (the table is found on p.92 of SR3 Core).

Cheers,
Stumps

Thanks Stumps!