Long ago, in a forum right here, I learned that an important part of SR4 was modifiers. An example of this is combat magic. If there are never any modifiers, combat spells rule the scene. The next step was for me to go through Denial, Isolation, Bargaining, Depression and finally acceptance. So now, my games have modifiers on most but not all situations. There is however a new issue, slllllloooowwww dowwwwn.

When a new player arrives and we all count out how many dice and name all of the sources/losses, this is expected and considered a worthwhile investment. When I have to do it for every action, the game slows down. One of my players had gotten downright nasty about it,
"Is there glare here too?"

I've come to accept it isn't necessarily that the modifiers are bad, its the need for interaction. If this were a computer game, everything would be tabulated for us and complexity acceptable. Being that its a game played on a schedule with real people around, there has to be a better way.

What do other game masters do to convey all of the modifiers clearly and quickly?
Do you always double check a players math?
Do you play with a limited number of modifiers per scene? one, two, xxx?

I've really wanted to buy a new batch of colors for our battlemat and draw out the regions affected. This however would be another slowdown as things change on the battlefield.

We've been playing a great deal of "roll XDXX and (possibly)add Foo" games on non Shadowrun weekends. Its been amazing how fast those games, Deadlands, A Time of War and Rogue Trader, move even in combat. The players can roll their actions independent of GM interaction. How can I bring that to SR4?

Respectfully,
BlueMax

I prepare the midifiers in advancel. Each of my encounters has 4 vibility modifiers: Morning noon, evening, night. I add together the approriate modifiers for each entry and when the players ask, I give them the numbers.

A fast-and-loose solution is to give the take the penalty dice the player would have gotten - and give them to the defender instead.

Sure, it messes with odds and statistics a little bit, but its -far, far- faster, because those numbers are all at the GM's fingertips, and you don't have to relay them to the players.

If you do want to use the regular system, make Notecards of bonuses. Lighting conditions, background count, stuff like that - and hand them out to each player for the relevant scene.

Well, I've usually been playing by post on rpol.net where people can just write things. So someone might do something like (and I'm making this up off the top of my head, I'm not using anyone's "real" character:

Then, as a GM, I can see what their modifiers are, I can see how they're adding it up if I don't remember from last time and they can put that bunch of modifiers into their ScratchPad in the game and just copy/paste it into a post the next time they do some action. And then I roll for the orc and she gets lucky and soaks up like 8 damage so she's knocked unconscious, with 1 box of physical damage (the rest went to stun). That ho'll know to bring him some frakking nuyen tomorrow!

You may also notice that I rolled damage at the same time as an attack. Just use different colored dice, or roll in a different box or whatever. Roll as much as you can at the same time, speed things up.

When I play around a tabletop, we basically do the same thing. we don't right down the "normal" DV of an attack then add all the modifiers, we add in all the modifiers we "normally" use and that's the new normal DV for the attack. So, from then on, we only worry about any additional modifiers. In this example, we basically know that Walter would be rolling 20 dice for "every" pimp slap and we only have to worry about any "unnatural" modifiers, like wound penalties, the other person's reach negating his reach, etc.

I also tell my players at the start of a tabletop roleplaying session (in every genre, originally I started saying this when running high level D&D games), "If you surprise me with something in game, the answer is no. The answer will always be no. I am fully capable of forgetting everything you tell me and not metagaming, "Well, he'd win if I tried X so I won't try it". You may very well see my NPCs go into situations where I know they're going to lose because the NPC thinks they have the upper hand. So tell me right now about any super thing that I might find surprising, or any combination of things that's going to surprise me and make me take time to check out or the answer will just be no for tonight." So if a person suddenly says, "Oh, and my new power that I bought at the end of last session lets me roll 25 dice now, when I thought they'd be rolling lik 10 dice, if we didn't talk about it before hand, it's not happening (tonight at least, they should have brought it up before we started because that's a pretty significant jump and I can't remember off the top of my head how every piece of cyberwear interacts with the technomancer's simrig complex form that lets him function as a living tactical note while the magician's spell boosts everyone, it should have been brought up at the beginning, we're not going to spend time on it now, the game will go on as though they didn't have that piece of cyberware (but just for tonight).

Then, basically, people just roll their own stuff. When playing on a table, I can't see all the dice that people are rolling -- if they really want to cheat, it's not that difficult. I highly advocate that in combat, a player roll their dodge/parry/gymnastics at the same time as their attack (use more differently colored dice, roll in a different box, whatever). You know when you attack someone that you're likely to get attacked back, so just roll it now then subtract your defend hits from their attack hits when the counterattack comes.

An order of operations is an interesting approach to this problem, which tends to crop up in lots of forms (usually in those "how do I make large scale combat not suck?" threads).

My current thinking is that you can divide modifiers into "thematic" and "situational".

Thematic mods are overarching conditions dictated by the story that affect everyone involved more or less equally. Basically anything that would be hinted at in the GM's description of the scene- darkness, rain, glare, fog, dense forest, sometimes range etc. As D2F suggested these can often be calculated in advance based on the plot.

Situational modifiers are based more on PC and NPC actions and tend to fluctuate from turn to turn and action to action. Some can also be precalculated (NPCs in some cases) but otherwise this is where you need your players to help out if you want to keep the game moving. This is where an "order of operations" would be helpful.

I would suggest limiting the number of modifers to the two or three that are going to make the most difference. If you do that you can come up with a way to prioritize then. The order will largely depend on the type of test but for something like ranged combat I would say wounds > recoil > cover > range or somehing like that (note visibility would be precalculated in most cases).

1. Teaching a totally new player (to SR rather than just the new edition) is theory-run for me. I´d ensure that the dp´s are appropiate during chargen, then simply call the modifiers in the beginning. An also repeating argument hereabouts is that a game needs group-approved dicepool brackets.

2. In the beginning for teaching purposes yes, later not. If you *need* success in a given situation, and are willing to go there, go.

3. Nope, but we often don´t care for calculating mods at all.

SR4A p. 61 Suggests

"Let’s face it: while modifiers help to add realism to a game, they can also
bog down gameplay when you have to consult a big list of possibilities
and do a bunch of math. If you seek a sleeker and more fluid style of play,
try one of the following options:
Adjust the Threshold: Rather than counting modifiers, tell the player
to make a standard test without modifiers and simply adjust the threshold
to account for how you think modifiers would affect the difficulty (as
a rule of thumb, –3 dice would equal a +1 threshold). Note that this only
works for Success Tests and Extended Tests.
Use the Most Severe Modifier: Instead of accounting for every potential
modifier that could affect a test, quickly identify only what the
most severe modifying circumstance is, and just apply that one. If it’s a
situation where you feel a lot of additional modifiers may apply, increase
it by 1 or 2 according to your gut feeling. This should allow you to seize
upon a single modifier quickly rather than accounting for all of the possible
affecting elements, though it makes Tests significantly easier for
characters with high dice pools.
For example, let’s say you want a character to make a Perception +
Intuition Test to notice a clue left in a room. Rather than looking up the
Perception Test modifiers, the GM decides that the biggest modifying
factor is that the room is dark, and applies a –3 modifier for that alone.
If a lot of other modifiers might also apply (the character is wounded, the
clue is partially hidden under something else, the character knows what
he’s looking for, etc.), the gamemaster can simply nudge the modifier up
to –4 or –5 depending on his “eyeballing” of the situation, rather than
looking all of the modifiers up.
Gamemasters should be warned that using the Most Severe Modifier
may favor characters with high dice pools that might otherwise be kept
in check by cumulative modifiers."

I -really- like the adjust the threshold way, it seems more intuitive, that way the players don't have to worry about math and only the GM does, and can have it worked out ahead of time, and adjust up and down depending on circumstances the players change.

Has anyone ever done a detailed analysis of statistical effects of the "adding attackers negative mods to the defenders DP" approach? How big of a difference does this make? I could see it increasing survivability for mooks, which could be a plus.

It would reduce variance, increasing the odds for a "mean" result. The difference in dicepools would stay the same. Results depend on if the mean is enough (a question of the definition of "mook").

Edit: Variance, not variability.

If it's a brand new character to the game, then I'll just give them a character that I made and they can play it for the first session or two while learning the game. I usually make min/maxed 300 BP NPCs, so then the character can take the NPC and spend 100 more BP customizing it and end up with a fairly well rounded character who's pretty good at whatever it is that they do.

One word: Habits

When I played The One True Game (Battletech) once upon an epoch, people always disbelieved when I called out a target number in seconds while everybody else counted on their fingers and consulted tables. Then, after several frustrating minutes of (usually twice) explaining my math out loud, people would blink and say "ok, roll it". It boilded down to this in ranged combat:

Starting: Pilot's skill
Distance: Makes it harder to hit further away
Target movement: Fast targets are harder to hit
Intervening terrain: What's going to come between me and my target?
My actions: What did I do to improve/weaken my shot? (running, walking, jumping, aiming if using those rules)

I always stuck to that progression, working my way from the target back towards myself mentally. Worked like a charm.

You can apply the same logic in Shadowrun to try to smooth things over:

• Starting: ALWAYS [Stat+Skill] for Skill-based tests
• Distance: Easy
• Target movement: As/if apropriate
• Intervening terrain: Cover, visibility, whatever that's between you and them
• My actions: running, aiming, braced, autofire, etc.

Another idea is to do the following (more generic, works for other tests and the GM can follow your math easily):

• Starting: place # of dice in front of you = [Stat+Skill]
• Positive Mods: count out each modifier as extra dice, keeping them visually separate (5+4+2+1+1+2, etc
• Negative Mods: subtract the number of dice, again in visually separate groups, from the previous total group.

Physical objects help most people process data better than trying to manipulate numbers in our heads.

And whatever you do, if you have an operation you're doing all the time (read: shooting, hitting, dodging, hacking on-the-fly) get in the habbit of always adding and subtracting modifiers in the same order. Try to keep similar items in the same mental "categories" like putting "reach" under "distance to target". Things that are different but function similarly should also be grouped like light conditions, smoke, intervening obstructions and so on.

Anyhow, that's how MY twisty excuse for a coloidal data processing unit is wired, so you actual kilometerage will vary hugely.

When I'm GMing, I simply trust my players to give the right number after announcing any applicable modifiers to the situation. They're free to apply any modifiers they think is appropriate, too, and I'm fine with that. If for some reason someone feels the need to fudge their numbers, so be it. RPGs are games, sure, but they're not ones reliant entirely upon the numbers, and if someone really doesn't want to goof up for whatever reason, I'm okay with that. They're there to have fun just like everyone else. If "losing" at an RPG isn't fun for them, well... <shrugs>

When I'm playing, I do much the same, just in reverse. If the GM doesn't offer up any modifiers, I'll either ask if any are at play or mention any I'm using when I announce my action/roll. Otherwise I follow a procedure very similar to Kerenshara above.

Bear with me, here (I hate statistics).

What I envision is a system where the player calculates thier maximal DP including any bonuses for equipment, powers, qualities, etc. This should be easy for most, as in my experience players are really good at remembering positive DP mods. Then any situational mods that apply to the attacker would be added or subtracted to the defenders DP in an inverse fasion (relative to the attacker). Since most of the attacker-positive/defender-negative mods are already accounted for in the player's calculation, the majority of these adjustments will add to the defender's pool. The end result will be that both players are rolling more dice.

So wouldn't the variance increase? Unless I'm totally off base (which is a distinct possibility) larger DPs should allow a wider range of possible outcomes. Right?

As to your second point, if the DP spread doesn't actually change, isn't the outcome under the RAW rules equally dependant on the defender's abilities relative to the attacker's?

------------

Also, I really like Kerenshara's "work from the target back to the shooter" approach. There's something there that really resonates with my medical training.

Adding dice to defense rather than offense results in bigger dice pool rolls, which makes glitching less common and edge more powerful (since you can re-roll more dice). That probably benefits players more than mooks.

EDIT- Method- larger dice pools allow a wider range of results, but create a "bell curve" effect, so a larger portion of results end up about "average". Typically, with any random event, the more samples you take (more dice rolled) the closer the results are to the expected average, which is what is meant here by "variance is decreased".
An obvious example of this is my point regarding glitches; with large pools, they almost never happen.

Ah. Good points. In my group we use the optional rules for more glitches and use Edge sparingly so those effects would be negligible relative to the amount of time it would save. I'd have to play with it and see...

This is why I want a Shadowrun iPad app.

Please, Jason. If CGL makes it through, or if you're the line developer at a new company, please, please, please say you'll at least consider the Shadowrun iPad app. Something similar for a PC would still be a step in the right direction, but there's something about laying flat on the table that feels less disruptive to a PnP game.

For most games I use a magnetic dry-erase board with a small easel on a side table. I use dry-erase magnets to write each PC/NPC name and initiative on and then arrange them in order during combat. The dry-erase board is large enough that I can also write whatever environmental modifiers are in place. This way everyone can see when it is their turn and also what general modifiers may apply. Additionally, if you use a battlemat you can use small slips of paper with varying modifiers on them and then place them next to a token or miniature to represent a target behind cover.

Just use a smartboard =)

I was intrigued by "players are good at remembering positive modifiers"; presumably they'll also be good at remembering things that would hinder NPCs.

So when collecting a DP as GM, you'd start by calling off your bonuses, and then the players call out your penalties. When it's the players' turn, they call out their bonuses, and you call out their penalties.

This all requires a handy reference sheet with all the modifiers on it, of course. Those exist (GM screen, cheat sheets etc.) For ease you could say that any modifiers not listed on it aren't applicable during combat (looking things up would slow down too much.)

I can see how this could work well; it could increase player participation and tactical thinking. It's also a way to teach new players how to work the system for gains.

I wonder if it could work?

Generally I have a Mac laptop when running Shadowrun. So I use these:


http://www.jackpoint.net/sheets/index.html


Carl

Do all members have said sheets open? Are they shareable?
My concern isn't the exactness of the dice, as I have 3 excellent rules lawyers at the table who keep everything RAW, its the time used to communicate and review the totals.

Several posters have commented with regard to cheating. Let me be clear that this is not a concern. However, we would feel like we were cheating if we played through something with a house rule and then commented on its design. Take Missions, we assume they are designed to be played RAW.

When I run my own stuff, there is lots of room for quick and flexible rulings. The rulings are primarily necessitated by the lack of tough opponents in SR4. (for my own stuff my players want "the big baddy")

BlueMax

Well anyone can have a sheet open if they like. Two of the players have netbooks and use the sheets for their characters. Generally I have several tabs open in the browser for each character and drop in a mook when necessary with an extra one or two for the mooks.

I find it's a bit cumbersome right now which is why I'm working on a more elaborate tool which would work in a more shared environment. See http://www.mooks.us and http://www.jackpoint.net for information. I'd point you to the mooks page but I am poking around at a piece of it and it's not working at the moment.

I'm doing a bunch of stuff at work that is relevant to what I plan on jackpoint so I'm in a bit of a pause while I get the new bits figured out. I don't want to jump in to make changes on one side only to find a better way or better look on the other side and have to rewrite a bunch of stuff

Carl

A few datapoints without consideration of glitches:
9 dice vs. 6 dice succeed 60.6%
7 dice vs. 4 dice succeed 62.2%

So you are right, there is an increased chance of PCs not having a net hit. Mooks profit from less glitches (4.2% instead of 6.9% in this case), edge rerolls get more powerful.

Since variance increases (stupid me), the chance of having more net hits on the attackers side increases, too:
9 dice vs. 6 dice, 3 or more net hits: 20.4%
7 dice vs. 4 dice, 3 or more net hits: 16.7%

Regarding survivability, you are the judge. Compare the base DV of your players attacks to your mooks ability to soak.

(Please check my math.)

Continued...
If the expected damage based on that alone is very low (as in SMG vs. body 4 + bal armor 8 =>5-4=1), having better odds for many hits is better than connecting for 0-1 damage more often.

I´d say your suggestion is good. The GM can take care of dp modifiers alone. And mook stats are already adjusted to the PCs power.

Double post.

Triple post.