Dumpshock Forums > Limits and You!

Wired_SR_AEGIS

Jun 12 2013, 01:11 AM

Hello, Dumpshock! This is my first post. Long time Shadowrun player, I took a break during 4th edition, but I’m really looking forward to seeing 5th edition in action. While I’ve seen a lot of discussion on is Limits, one of the things I haven’t seen is a post that contains the underlying probabilities of Limits.

So I whipped up a quick Python Utility to model the behavior.

Initially, I intended to release the source code to that utility as part of this post, but Python is heavily whitespace dependent, and I ran into formatting issues. Instead, I’ve just included a print out of one of the reports I generated. If anyone is interested in having some code that can model results for you, send me a PM, maybe we can work something out.

The utility works as follows: A number of dice are rolled, and the successes are compared against a certain Limit. This is done 100,000 times for any given combination of dice from as low as 6 up to as high as 18, with limits ranging from 3 to 8.

Then the report gets a bit more granular of the results, and tallies the percentage of time that you would have exceeded the limit of 1 success, 2 successes, 3 successes, or 4 or more successes. In short, this helps measure how ‘painful’ a limit would be. For instance, infrequently losing one success is probably a mild annoyance. Losing two or three from time to time may be more than a mild annoyance. And of course, frequently losing 4+ successes is a great reason to raise those Limits!

Results below:

[ Spoiler ]

Some thoughts:

Rolling between 10 and 14 dice seems like it will be among the most common dice rolls. That represents a fairly proficient dice pool, that may include positive modifiers or skill specializations. The interaction with Limits there is interesting:

With 10 dice and a limit of 5, you’ll find that your successes are being clipped 7.6% of the time. Note that less than one half of 1% you’ll lose more than three successes. So frequently this is just an annoyance. If you outfit yourself with a Smartlink, and bump that Limit up to 7, it’s entirely possible that you can go your entire Shadowrun Career without having a significant impact from limits: 0.004% of rolls.

With 12 dice, and a limit of 5 you should probably prepare to be annoyed. Close to one in five rolls will be capped, though again don’t expect serious inconvenience. You will lose 3 successes 1.46% of the time, and 4+ successes 0.418% of the time. With a limit of 7, once again epic frustration requires epic deviations in probability: 0.042% chance for a roll to lose 3+ successes.

With 14 dice, you probably want to think about raising your limit. At that point, it’s time to get some custom gear. Limit: 5 is annoying or worse in close to one out of three rolls. About one in twenty rolls will cost you 3+ successes. With Limit: 6, that’s a bit more bearable. It goes down to under 2% of the time you’ll lose 3+ successes. And, of course, if you’ve got custom gear with a smartlink you’re sitting pretty: 1.765% chance you’ll run south of a limit. Losing out on 3 successes occurs 0.056% of the time. Losing 4+ occurs 0.009%(!!!) of the time.

Anyway! Hope the above is useful for all of you min/maxers out there who need to understand where your diminishing returns exist. And useful for any of you curious types who enjoy the elegance of the math “under the hood”.

Enjoy.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

Draco18s

Jun 12 2013, 03:13 AM

QUOTE (Wired_SR_AEGIS @ Jun 11 2013, 08:11 PM)

With 10 dice and a limit of 5, you’ll find that your successes are being clipped 7.6% of the time. Note that less than one half of 1% you’ll lose more than three successes.

About what I expected.
And I'm totally cool with this. One in every 13 rolls gets a hit knocked off? Not that big of a worry (on the "it punishes players" end of the spectrum in areas they SHOULD be competent in).

Wired_SR_AEGIS

Jun 12 2013, 03:49 AM

QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jun 12 2013, 03:13 AM)

About what I expected.
And I'm totally cool with this. One in every 13 rolls gets a hit knocked off? Not that big of a worry (on the "it punishes players" end of the spectrum in areas they SHOULD be competent in).

It certainly doesn't punish players with a Smartlink, that's for sure. A 10 dice pool with a character whose taken their standard Limit: 5 piece of gear, and outfitted it with a Smartlink to increase the limit to 7 will only lose successes 0.35% of the time. That's getting close to 1 in 300 rolls which is 'Miiiiiiiiiight happen once or twice in your characters career'. And when it does?

Something like 86% of of the time when you do crack the odds and hit a limit, you'll just clip a single success. The odds of losing actually losing two or more successes are silly: 1 in 2173 rolls. I've played a lot of Shadowrun, but I'm not sure I've ever made that many rolls. Period. Let alone with a single character.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

Cain

Jun 12 2013, 04:10 AM

I've discovered that player frustration can settle in at even one success stolen; this is especially true on opposed tests (which make up almost all of combat) where one success can make the difference between a hit or a miss.

Epicedion

Jun 12 2013, 05:15 AM

QUOTE (Cain @ Jun 12 2013, 12:10 AM)

I've discovered that player frustration can settle in at even one success stolen; this is especially true on opposed tests (which make up almost all of combat) where one success can make the difference between a hit or a miss.

Indeed, watching for how often a Limit contributes to turning a success into a failure is really the more important aspect. I suspect that rate would be much higher.

What you should do is take a series of reasonable scenarios. I recommend stuff like this:

Character with 5 Agility and 6 Pistols (11 dice) shooting at a target at close range, so no modifiers.

Compare shooting with a crap gun (Acc 3), substandard gun (Acc 4), standard gun (Acc 5), good gun (Acc 6), standard gun with smartlink (Acc 7), good gun with smartlink (Acc

.

Compare shooting at a target with Reaction 5 + Gymnastics 5 (10 dice).

Mathematically, you should see the following (only doing the odd ones here, since they're likely the most common):

Crap Gun (Acc 3)
Cap exceeded 52.74% of the time.
Dodger equals or exceeds cap 70.09% of the time (0% chance of success for the shooter).
Result: 36.97% of the time, the cap directly contributes to failure

Standard gun (Acc 5)
Cap exceeded 12.21% of the time.
Dodger equals or exceeds cap 21.31% of the time.
Result: 2.60% of the time, the cap directly contributes to failure

Standard gun with Smartlink (Acc 7)
Cap exceeded 0.88%
Dodger equals or exceeds 1.97%
Result: 0.017%

Bump up the shooter to 20 dice versus the dodger's 10 dice, you'll see the following results:
Crap gun: 65.87%
Standard Gun: 14.98%
Standard Smartlinked: 0.67%

Those are percent chances that the shooter exceeds the dice cap and still fails because the dodger equals or exceeds the cap. And it's just a single scenario. Comparing every single scenario would be a monstrously huge task.

The Accuracy Limit does bother me, though, because it reminds me of the old adage "it's a poor workman that blames his tools." But the system seems set up such that the better you are, the more likely you are to be able to rightly justify blaming your tools.

Draco18s

Jun 12 2013, 11:57 AM

QUOTE (Epicedion @ Jun 12 2013, 12:15 AM)

The Accuracy Limit does bother me, though, because it reminds me of the old adage "it's a poor workman that blames his tools." But the system seems set up such that the better you are, the more likely you are to be able to rightly justify blaming your tools.

So get better tools.

Wired_SR_AEGIS

Jun 12 2013, 03:35 PM

QUOTE (Epicedion @ Jun 12 2013, 05:15 AM)

Those are percent chances that the shooter exceeds the dice cap and still fails because the dodger equals or exceeds the cap. And it's just a single scenario. Comparing every single scenario would be a monstrously huge task.

The Accuracy Limit does bother me, though, because it reminds me of the old adage "it's a poor workman that blames his tools." But the system seems set up such that the better you are, the more likely you are to be able to rightly justify blaming your tools.

Less monstrous than you may think. I'll see about putting together something to model that. Having hard numbers always makes discussions about things like this easier, and more objective.

Also, don't forget that the reverse of your scenario may also be true: There will be times when Limits will work in the favor of PCs, when they have a sufficiently high probability of dominating the upper limit of their opponent. At those junctions in time, players will appreciate Limits.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

Tymeaus Jalynsfein

Jun 12 2013, 03:56 PM

QUOTE (Wired_SR_AEGIS @ Jun 12 2013, 09:35 AM)

Also, don't forget that the reverse of your scenario may also be true: There will be times when Limits will work in the favor of PCs, when they have a sufficiently high probability of dominating the upper limit of their opponent. At those junctions in time, players will appreciate Limits.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

I would not be in that group. If you cannot be hurt/challenged, then what is the point? Might as well just write a novel, instead.

Oracle

Jun 12 2013, 04:13 PM

So, if the limits do not affect anybody, why were they necessary? Shadowrun wasn't really suffering from a lack of ruleswise complexity before...

Draco18s

Jun 12 2013, 04:21 PM

QUOTE (Oracle @ Jun 12 2013, 11:13 AM)

So, if the limits do not affect anybody, why were they necessary?

Correction: "Limits do not affect anybody who uses the right equipment." Or in the case of natural (vs. gear based) limits, "Limits do not affect anybody who is naturally proficient."

E.g. someone who is naturally charismatic is never going to have issues using all the hits they generate in a social situation. Someone who is athletic is never going to have issues using all the hits they generate when performing athletic tasks.

Its when people are forced outside their strong roles that they're going to bump up against those limits.

Oracle

Jun 12 2013, 04:39 PM

It's just clipping the maximum successes of those characters who weren't good at the task in the first place? I'm still not really grasping, what this new concept is supposed to achieve...

j2klbs

Jun 12 2013, 04:55 PM

One thing that Limits does is increase the value of the "Pushing the Limit" Edge option. Since spending an Edge point lets you roll extra dice, benefit from the Rule of Six AND ignore any limits, it makes the use of Edge much more cinematic. In other words, a character might have a harsh limit imposed by a crappy pea-shooter gun, but he spends a point of edge and shoots the villain right through the eye socket!

In game terms, the most effective use of Edge has always been either "Pushing the Limit" if your dice pool was small or "Second Chance" if your dice pool was large. What limits do is shift the balance of power a little away from large pools, i.e. it helps out the character with smaller pools. Put another way, the Decker with a gun can, a few times per day, be as good as a maxed out Street Sam.

~j2klbs

Epicedion

Jun 12 2013, 05:44 PM

QUOTE (Wired_SR_AEGIS @ Jun 12 2013, 10:35 AM)

Less monstrous than you may think. I'll see about putting together something to model that. Having hard numbers always makes discussions about things like this easier, and more objective.

Also, don't forget that the reverse of your scenario may also be true: There will be times when Limits will work in the favor of PCs, when they have a sufficiently high probability of dominating the upper limit of their opponent. At those junctions in time, players will appreciate Limits.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

Monstrous. There are thousands of dice pool vs dice pool vs cap vs cap scenarios. Restricting it to a max of 20 and a min of 1, with a max cap of 8 yields over 20,000 possible scenarios.

Wired_SR_AEGIS

Jun 12 2013, 06:06 PM

QUOTE (Epicedion @ Jun 12 2013, 05:44 PM)

Monstrous. There are thousands of dice pool vs dice pool vs cap vs cap scenarios. Restricting it to a max of 20 and a min of 1, with a max cap of 8 yields over 20,000 possible scenarios.

Sure. In fact, the more that I peer at the underlying math of Limits, the cooler I think these interactions will be. Particularly the curved distribution of dice probability with respect to the linear distribution of comparative successes.

So it seems to me that you'd need to determine, among those scenarios, which hold "interesting" data points that should be teased to the surface. And then condense that "interesting" data into concise statements that people on the internet can argue about.

(Not to say that you wouldn't want to collect the other "non-interesting" data along the way. Just because, you know, it never hurts to have the luxury of more data points.)

I like the approach of modeling common dice pools, with common limits. Your example of 11 pistols dice w/ various limits vs. 10 Gymnastics dice w/ various limits is a good example of the type of scenario that should be analyzed.

It will be interesting to see how often dice pools of certain sizes effectively dominate limits of lower levels. Limits never change that More Dice = Good, Less Dice = Bad. And higher limits don't == Always_Beat_Lower_Limits. It's all just a function of probability, it's just that the probability isn't quite as straight forward as it used to be.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

Bearclaw

Jun 12 2013, 07:55 PM

QUOTE (Oracle @ Jun 12 2013, 09:39 AM)

It's just clipping the maximum successes of those characters who weren't good at the task in the first place? I'm still not really grasping, what this new concept is supposed to achieve...

I toyed around with the idea of limiting successes on ANY roll to your skill, or 1, whichever is higher, unless you used edge. Sadly, I couldn't get anyone to go along with the idea.

Bigity

Jun 12 2013, 08:09 PM

We did this for a time in SR3. Maximum hits were limited to your relative skill (or Force, or program etc).

Net hits mind, we never tried capping just hits themselves.

EDIT: Bah, freaking SR4. Successes, not hits

Shemhazai

Jun 12 2013, 08:15 PM

Instead of simulating, try this spreadsheet. The first page shows the odds of meeting or exceeding a certain threshold. The second page breaks down the odds of achieving a certain number of successes. The columns are number of successes and the rows are size of dice pool.

Edit: dead link removed

To find the odds of exceeding a cap with a certain number of dice, refer to the first page and check the column that is one greater than the cap. To see the odds of beating the cap by how much, refer to the second page.

Shinobi Killfist

Jun 12 2013, 08:33 PM

QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jun 12 2013, 12:21 PM)

Correction: "Limits do not affect anybody who uses the right equipment." Or in the case of natural (vs. gear based) limits, "Limits do not affect anybody who is naturally proficient."

E.g. someone who is naturally charismatic is never going to have issues using all the hits they generate in a social situation. Someone who is athletic is never going to have issues using all the hits they generate when performing athletic tasks.

Its when people are forced outside their strong roles that they're going to bump up against those limits.

You'd think having a smaller pool was enough of a penaty, now they can't even get lucky when trying things outside of their domain. That is actually the thing I dislike about limits the most, it seems to promote making sure people don't even try things outside of their specialty because they are doomed to failure. I like people going for the crazy, doing things they were not built for. I'd prefer to reward people for that instead of punish them. I'm wlling to wait and see, but what you just wrote does not sound good to me.

yesferatu

Jun 12 2013, 08:50 PM

If this rule is going to come into play 2% of the time...what is the point of including it?
I understand Catalyst needs to innovate and sell books, and I love them to pieces, but wtf?
Is this something players were asking for?

I haven't seen the "accuracy" limits on armor and other gear, but I can imagine the frustration when your 20 die gun bunny caps out at 7 hits against a moderately armored troll.

Shinobi Killfist

Jun 12 2013, 09:09 PM

QUOTE (yesferatu @ Jun 12 2013, 04:50 PM)

If this rule is going to come into play 2% of the time...what is the point of including it?
I understand Catalyst needs to innovate and sell books, and I love them to pieces, but wtf?
Is this something players were asking for?

I haven't seen the "accuracy" limits on armor and other gear, but I can imagine the frustration when your 20 die gun bunny caps out at 7 hits against a moderately armored troll.

I don't mind it so much on the high end, I am more worried about the low end where for example the Elf gun adept in the preview might not feel the urge to use any mental skils skill since he is capped at 3 hits, or hell he is capped at Hard tasks for physical things when he has a 6 agility and 5 gymnastics which makes it seem like he should be able to go for very hard acrobatics without needing edge. Though even on the high end extreme tasks are pretty much out of the range of any non-super human characters without edge. But if I got my basketweaving skill up to 12 and I have a 6 link stat making me one of the best basketweaker in history you'd think pulling off an extreme(8hits) basketweave would be common enough I wouldn't need edge. Still not pulling off extreme things without edge bothers me less than not pulling off relatively mundane but hard without edge.

thorya

Jun 12 2013, 09:23 PM

QUOTE (yesferatu @ Jun 12 2013, 04:50 PM)

If this rule is going to come into play 2% of the time...what is the point of including it?
I understand Catalyst needs to innovate and sell books, and I love them to pieces, but wtf?
Is this something players were asking for?

I haven't seen the "accuracy" limits on armor and other gear, but I can imagine the frustration when your 20 die gun bunny caps out at 7 hits against a moderately armored troll.

Just because a rule only comes into play 2% of the time, doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. There are rules for dealing with damage overflow for players and if they know what they're doing, less then 2% of their rolls will be related to that portion of the game.
And I think it was in fact something people were asking for, even if they did not realize what exactly they were asking for. Even the "hardcore" fan base that now is complaining so much about it. Maybe they weren't asking for this fix in particular, but they were asking for a fix.
All of the optimized 20-30+ dice pool characters, complaints that generalist characters can't compete or that book archetypes aren't any good, complaints that dice pool modifiers were overpowered, complaints that it was too hard to build believable opposition without unrealistically optimizing them, and complaints about how this or that item was broken (emo-toys?) are in effect complaints about the system and things that people wanted to see changed. If we now conclude that we don't like the fix for the things we complained about, you can keep complaining sure. You might even get optional rules (like people that got optional rules for attributes in the matrix) or you can not purchase the book, but don't pretend that everything was peaches and cream in previous editions (unless you're TJ, in which case you have always believed this) and that this is some sort of betrayal just because you don't like the attempts to make the changes we asked for. It's like people who order food and then because they don't like the dish they asked for they think they're entitled to a new meal for free.
And cue the righteous indignation, sense of entitlement, and denial of previous complaints.

Also, limits on armor is one of the places where they make the most sense. The amount of damage you can soak with a piece of armor should be capped. Your ballistic vest never gets lucky and entirely stops an anti-tank rocket.

P.S. Not saying I love everything about the new system. Like every rpg I've ever played or read the rules for, it has ups and downs.

Tymeaus Jalynsfein

Jun 12 2013, 09:34 PM

QUOTE (thorya @ Jun 12 2013, 03:23 PM)

You might even get optional rules (like people that got optional rules for attributes in the matrix) or you can not purchase the book, but don't pretend that everything was peaches and cream in previous editions (unless you're TJ, in which case you have always believed this) and that this is some sort of betrayal just because you don't like the attempts to make the changes we asked for. It's like people who order food and then because they don't like the dish they asked for they think they're entitled to a new meal for free.
And cue the righteous indignation, sense of entitlement, and denial of previous complaints.

Also, limits on armor is one of the places where they make the most sense. The amount of damage you can soak with a piece of armor should be capped. Your ballistic vest never gets lucky and entirely stops an anti-tank rocket.

P.S. Not saying I love everything about the new system. Like every rpg I've ever played or read the rules for, it has ups and downs.

Wow, I have never said that SR4A was error free or Peaches and Cream. I said that I have come to terms with the vast majority of things I don't like and don't worry about them. I have complained more than enough in the past about the system, and am still very vehement on certain subjects. But most of that is reserved for arguments on overoptimization and the complaints that there is no challenge (in one form or another).

I DO think there are issues (some of which you listed) with SR4A, but I have no need to make whole cloth changes (or even partial changes) to the system because of them. In the End, SR4A was what I wanted in the game. I can tell you what I did not want. That would be a New Edition. And "Limits" and the way they were implemented are only one reason for that statement.

yesferatu

Jun 12 2013, 09:39 PM

I straight up loved the 4th ed rules as soon as I read them.
As an improvement on 3rd ed, I thought it exceeded in simplicity and scalability.
From what I've read of 5th ed (character creation and combat pdfs) I can't imagine a new player being anything other than frustrated and confused.

Every SR player I've talked to wanted 2 things and 2 things only: More playable matrix rules & stun damage nerf.

Shinobi Killfist

Jun 12 2013, 10:03 PM

I've seen a lot of complaints about dice pool bloat extra dice from silly equipemnt etc. So yeah I am not surprised they were trying to fix that, limits seem a bit of an odd choice for that fix though.

Tymeaus Jalynsfein

Jun 12 2013, 10:05 PM

QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist @ Jun 12 2013, 04:03 PM)

I've seen a lot of complaints about dice pool bloat extra dice from silly equipemnt etc. So yeah I am not surprised they were trying to fix that, limits seem a bit of an odd choice for that fix though.

Odd Indeed... *shrug*

Cain

Jun 13 2013, 07:05 AM

QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist @ Jun 12 2013, 03:03 PM)

I've seen a lot of complaints about dice pool bloat extra dice from silly equipemnt etc. So yeah I am not surprised they were trying to fix that, limits seem a bit of an odd choice for that fix though.

Yeah, why not cap dice pools or do away with rampant dice pool stacking?

Also: if a rule meant to contain oversized dice pools doesn't actually come into play very often, then it's not doing it's job. If it comes into play too often, it's an annoyance. There's a possibility that Limits can ride the fine line between these two, but so far I haven't seen any evidence of this.

Oracle

Jun 13 2013, 09:15 AM

QUOTE (Cain @ Jun 13 2013, 09:05 AM)

Also: if a rule meant to contain oversized dice pools doesn't actually come into play very often, then it's not doing it's job. If it comes into play too often, it's an annoyance. There's a possibility that Limits can ride the fine line between these two, but so far I haven't seen any evidence of this.

That's exactly what I think. I still see no justification for the added layer of complexity.

Backgammon

Jun 13 2013, 10:36 AM

Here's an idea:

A pistol that does a normal amount of damage has normal accuracy

A pistol firing extra large caliber that does more damage has lower accuray

Lower base damage but more possible hits, or higher base damage but less possible hits. How does that sound?

Smirnov

Jun 13 2013, 11:14 AM

What still bothers me is that in an edition where the character matters more than the gear he has, hу is too dependent on the gear he has. For example, if you have a commlink that allows only 4 successes, but need 5 to break into the system, no matter how good you are, you'll never be able to do it. It all comes down to the gear in the end. Of course, unarmed characters will have an advantage in combat as they are limited only by their physical thresholds. Which will lead to the instance where an apex fighter would be more dangerous without a sword than with a sword (as he has, say, 8 physical threshold, but only 5 with a weapon).

The simulation doesn't seem too right. With a skill cap of 12 I'm sure to see a lot of ~20 pools on player characters. After all, even before all gear and augmentation a human can get dice pol of 20 (6 Attribute +12 skill +2 specialization)

Backgammon

Jun 13 2013, 11:36 AM

You are assuming situations where you need more successes than you can possible generate even exist.

Smirnov

Jun 13 2013, 11:47 AM

Yeah, I do

Of course, I don't have the full rulebook, so I have to use existing thresholds. There are thresholds of 5 now. On the other hand, there will be gear with a limit of 4 or 3.
Of course, static difficulties may drop this much, but that seems unlikely

Backgammon

Jun 13 2013, 11:53 AM

So all things being equal you're both assuming that the game designers made sure to create a game that was unplayable as well as assuming GMs, the ultimate regulating device of the game, would systematically put players against situations they cannot possibly win against.

CrystalBlue

Jun 13 2013, 11:55 AM

QUOTE (Smirnov @ Jun 13 2013, 06:14 AM)

What still bothers me is that in an edition where the character matters more than the gear he has, hу is too dependent on the gear he has. For example, if you have a commlink that allows only 4 successes, but need 5 to break into the system, no matter how good you are, you'll never be able to do it. It all comes down to the gear in the end. Of course, unarmed characters will have an advantage in combat as they are limited only by their physical thresholds. Which will lead to the instance where an apex fighter would be more dangerous without a sword than with a sword (as he has, say, 8 physical threshold, but only 5 with a weapon).

The simulation doesn't seem too right. With a skill cap of 12 I'm sure to see a lot of ~20 pools on player characters. After all, even before all gear and augmentation a human can get dice pol of 20 (6 Attribute +12 skill +2 specialization)

I think what you're missing is that they're trying to find a middle ground between gear and skill. A character can make a pipe-bomb in their basement with household products. It might be enough to get the job done. Does that mean they just created high-grade C4 to level half a city block? No. Same thing for guns. A world-renown marksman still needs top of the line gear to allow him to reach his full potential. Giving him anything less and, sure, he can hit a target that's still outside of the range of most people. But it'll be harder on him to do so.

The limits presented give, what I feel, more of a psychological limit. You see the number of hits that you cap at and, suddenly, a poor gun choice or a sub-par cyberdeck is starting to look a lot less attractive. You'll opt for something that can get you the successes you need, nine times out of ten. You'll want to align your dice pool with a reasonable accuracy and cap. And, in those cases where you need to get a high number of successes on a roll (such as your hacking example) you'll likely be spending edge anyways. At that point, your limit goes out the window and you can roll and keep 10+ successes.

In my opinion, they've given just the right amount of limiting variables and features to be fair while also giving us the right ways to break or exceed them. As it's been pointed out, the limits aren't going to become a factor as much. So why have them? For the people that carry around a dice pool of 20 and are only packing a holdout pistol. For the people that got a Hello Kitty disposable commlink and were able to break into a AAA corporation. And, for the people that can splash on a pretty face, wearing grimy and dirty clothes and not having showered in a few days, and STILL get the Johnson to fork out more money. When I see characters regularly using light pistols to end shootouts with high threat response teams without breaking a sweat, throwing 25+ dice and getting more then ten successes each time, I pray for limits. Just because a few people don't like them doesn't mean they're invalid.

Draco18s

Jun 13 2013, 11:57 AM

QUOTE (Backgammon @ Jun 13 2013, 05:36 AM)

Lower base damage but more possible hits, or higher base damage but less possible hits. How does that sound?

That's exactly what this system is supposed to do.

Blade

Jun 13 2013, 01:42 PM

The SR4 core system can play well with hit caps. I've played with a GM who enforced a skill*2 cap, and it worked pretty well to ensure that unskliled characters played by lucky players didn't outclass skilled characters played by unlucky players. It also ensured that characters with an agility augmented to 9 weren't very good fighters if they had low combat skills, or that characters needed to be skilled in order to benefit from dice pool bonuses.

So I don't have a problem with the hit cap concept. What I question is the choice of the limits.

When my GM enforced his skill*2 caps, it did fix problems caused by some characters, as explained above. But using attributes or gear as the limit doesn't seem to have any interesting impact.

First, there are the gear-linked limits: the fact that no matter how good you are at shooting, you can't do much damage with an old and broken rifle? It's taken into account by that rifle's DV. There's no need for an extra stat for that gun.

Then there are the attributes-linked limits. I guess they apply to characters with too many gear/powers bonuses who can do stuff far more impressive than they should be able to. That concept was already in the first aid rule for SR4, where it was tied to the skill. Tying this limit to the attribute will only make sense if boosting attributes isn't cheap and easy. If it is, then we'll still have the problem of the face who's got 9 AGI in his arm for a few nuyens and a skill of 1 and can shoot as well as the AGI 5/Skill 5 specialist...
Except that if attributes are harder to raise, then this whole limit thing becomes redundant.

So I really feel that limits are a bad solution to problems that lie somewhere else.

Shortstraw

Jun 13 2013, 01:43 PM

QUOTE (Backgammon @ Jun 13 2013, 09:53 PM)

So all things being equal you're both assuming that the game designers made sure to create a game that was unplayable as well as assuming GMs, the ultimate regulating device of the game, would systematically put players against situations they cannot possibly win against.

Or that different people did the limits and thresholds and it gets missed in the edit because that never happens....

Tymeaus Jalynsfein

Jun 13 2013, 01:44 PM

QUOTE (Backgammon @ Jun 13 2013, 04:53 AM)

So all things being equal you're both assuming that the game designers made sure to create a game that was unplayable as well as assuming GMs, the ultimate regulating device of the game, would systematically put players against situations they cannot possibly win against.

Opposing rolls will tend to generate such situations. *shrug*

Cain

Jun 13 2013, 02:28 PM

QUOTE (Backgammon @ Jun 13 2013, 02:36 AM)

Here's an idea:

A pistol that does a normal amount of damage has normal accuracy

A pistol firing extra large caliber that does more damage has lower accuray

Lower base damage but more possible hits, or higher base damage but less possible hits. How does that sound?

I don't buy that. Large caliber rounds IRL often have a higher accuracy, because they have more propellent and can be rifled. A .22 holdout is not as accurate as a .357 holdout for many reasons, including caliber size.

What we seem to be looking at is superior Gear = superior everything. Which is fine, except that makes cash the balancing factor in games, and that's notoriously hard to control for in a Shadowrun game. (I'm using "control" in the sense of a Control group, not as a personal table thing.) It also encourages looting and hoarding of equipment, something I usually find to be annoying to deal with.

I need to see some actual play reports. I need to see if Limits are really discouraging players from maxing out dice pools, and if Lucky characters are even more overpowered than before.

yesferatu

Jun 13 2013, 03:04 PM

Additionally, how does doubling the skill rating *shrink* dice pools?
Now GMs will have to keep track of MORE dice and an additional weapon stat.

StealthSigma

Jun 13 2013, 03:39 PM

QUOTE (yesferatu @ Jun 12 2013, 05:39 PM)

Every SR player I've talked to wanted 2 things and 2 things only: More playable matrix rules & stun damage nerf.

On of the people I played with was frustrated with how the rules didn't really permit the style of character he wanted to play. An unarmed disarmer who uses disarmed weapons while using the disarmed as human shields.

Tymeaus Jalynsfein

Jun 13 2013, 03:41 PM

QUOTE (StealthSigma @ Jun 13 2013, 08:39 AM)

On of the people I played with was frustrated with how the rules didn't really permit the style of character he wanted to play. An unarmed disarmer who uses disarmed weapons while using the disarmed as human shields.

Sounds doable to me (would take some effort, though)... What were the obstacles?

StealthSigma

Jun 13 2013, 03:56 PM

QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 13 2013, 11:41 AM)

Sounds doable to me (would take some effort, though)... What were the obstacles?

I'm not familiar with the houseruling we needed to do to make it possible. That was between the player and GM mostly. I believe it had to do with grapple rules not making it possible.

Of course, grapple rules themselves were a mess. Very difficult to get a grapple and trivially easy to maintain it.

yesferatu

Jun 13 2013, 04:19 PM

In fairness, it was three things and three things only...melee combat needed a fix too.

forgarn

Jun 13 2013, 08:00 PM

QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 13 2013, 09:44 AM)

Opposing rolls will tend to generate such situations. *shrug*

True, but you also have the adage that you are not going to be able to win every fight. If you are looking to get lucky, then that is what edge is for. Spend a point and remove the limits and you are all set.

Smirnov

Jun 13 2013, 09:15 PM

QUOTE (Backgammon @ Jun 13 2013, 03:53 PM)

So all things being equal you're both assuming that the game designers made sure to create a game that was unplayable as well as assuming GMs, the ultimate regulating device of the game, would systematically put players against situations they cannot possibly win against.

I'm making no personal assumptions, I'm voicing my concerns that we're can be heading into a very gear-dependent edition of mediocrity-triumphant averages. In all honesty, I don't want to play a game of joe averages. As I see the system right now, it's a speedway to joeaverageland - if you can't get more than X successes because of caps, there's no need to raise your skills to the apex level, also the difference between a character with medium pool and high pool becomes really vague. Let me put it straight - I like playing strong characters. When I make a character, I select a proficiency for him and make sure he is the best in the chosen field, and i don't settle for being 'the best around'. I don't like playing mediocre or weak characters, those that can't excel in their chosen field, those that struggle even against basic odds and so on. So, naturally, I like game mechanics that reward me for gearing towards being the best and hate the games that punish me for the same things or force me to be mediocre.

Again, I'm not accusing anyone. I haven't seen the full book yet. Maybe there are some additional rules, tweaks or whatever that fix everything. I'm only voicing my concerns, I'm speaking about what bothers me, what I'm afraid of. As it stands now, I see the limit system as a punishing tool only. It doesn't bring - again, as it stands now - nothing positive to the game, nothing deepening the game. It gives birth to some problems - namely, gear dependance and dominance of non gear-dependent characters as natural limits seem to be higher than gear limits. I see this as a problem, a problem that would certainly bar me from playing the edition if it's not resolved. I do hope that it will be resolved and my fears are misplaced. Because, of course, it is only fear itself we fear. And drop bears.

QUOTE (forgarn @ Jun 14 2013, 12:00 AM)

True, but you also have the adage that you are not going to be able to win every fight. If you are looking to get lucky, then that is what edge is for. Spend a point and remove the limits and you are all set.

Just to illustrate my point.
Assume there are two identical guys with, say, 20 dice for attack. One has a regular gun with limit of 5, the other has a smart-linked gun with a limit of 7. Who of the two will win the shooting contest? The one with the better gun. More still, if the second guy has less dice, until some point he will still have a better chance of winning. That just doesn't sits right with me.

Draco18s

Jun 13 2013, 09:34 PM

QUOTE (Smirnov @ Jun 13 2013, 04:15 PM)

More still, if the second guy has less dice, until some point he will still have a better chance of winning. That just doesn't sits right with me.

Nnnoooo....

Unless you've got some kind of statistics to back this up...

Because a DV5 gun limit 7 vs. a DV7 gun limit 5 are going to cap out at the same total DV, so the two guys with 20 dice each are going to be tied.* Likewise, if the guy with the DV7-limit 5 gun starts losing dice his total DV isn't going to miraculously go up. He's just going to cap out less often, which lowers his average damage, which means he starts losing.

*Actually the limit 7 gun will be slightly behind, on account of averages: he's going to cap-out less often, but only because we're looking at a total Dice Pool smaller than what he would need to roll to on average cap out his hits. But again, as the other guy loses dice the other guy is going to drop in damage, on average, and eventually end up lower than this guy, so the main point still stands.

Ryu

Jun 13 2013, 10:53 PM

Take a look at Feshy´s diceroller with statistics function. Enter your expected dice pool, consider how many hits you need to succeed.

The interesting part is opposed tests and having as many hits as the opponents limit, forcing the use of edge if they want to win.

Wired_SR_AEGIS

Jun 13 2013, 10:57 PM

There are some fundamental misunderstandings of dice littering this subject.

I think that's going to be a major hurdle to appreciating limits.

For instance: Having a lower limit than another person in no way eliminates your ability to beat them in a contested roll. Just like having less dice than someone, in no way, eliminated your ability to beat someone in a contested roll.

Additionally, having a larger dice pool with an infinite sample size dominates a smaller dice pool without limits. In the same way, having an equal dice pool, and disparate limits is likewise dominating in infinite sample sizes. There's no fundamental change here. The core result is a function of probability. Same as its always been.

There's a bit of a mathematical shell game going on, and if sounds like some of the above commentary isn't even looking at the table, let alone the shells, let alone trying to figure out which shell will win you a big kewpie doll.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

Draco18s

Jun 13 2013, 11:48 PM

QUOTE (Wired_SR_AEGIS @ Jun 13 2013, 05:57 PM)

There's a bit of a mathematical shell game going on, and if sounds like some of the above commentary isn't even looking at the table, let alone the shells, let alone trying to figure out which shell will win you a big kewpie doll.

Some of the commentary makes me think that they aren't even on the same block as the shell game.

Jareth Valar

Jun 14 2013, 12:09 AM

Peronally, I am going to wait to see the whole thing before having an informed opinion. However, that being said, I have a house rule fix that may work for some who see this as a problem right away. It keeps limits as they are and head nods to SR 1-3. Won't know if I will use this myself till the book comes out, but here it is anyhow.

Treat all hits over the limit on a 2:1 ratio. Spend edge to treat them as normal.

Still gives a character with a crappy gun a reason to call it a PoS, but doesn't completely nerf him either. He can still potentially kill someone with a hod-out pistol.