One of the issues that bothers me periodically is the wide variety of TN's scattered across a wide range of source material; without catalog or culminated indexing.

I attempt to make simpler what is otherwise complex quantity and disorder.

One of the problems that I have ran into while creating alternative design solutions, then, continues to be that altering a die count or TN as a solution for a system of perks with a tax can readily create worse results for the player than if they hadn't chosen any alternative than the most mundane of their options.

To help convey; an example:
Replacing BF and FA rules with something simple to work with.

Concept considered:
SA - Normal
BF - +1D6 & +1TN
FA - +3D6 & +3TN

Problem:
In both cases, at the average rates of 3 to 6 dice, the taxes (simulating recoil) result in such a stepping as to produce a probability lower than the probability available had the character stuck with SA.

This is not the only issue of this kind, nor is it this specifically that I'm interested in discussing. This is just an example so it's easier to understand the abstract.


I considered alternatives to TN and die adjustments.
What if instead of 2 individual dice reaching or equaling the TN as standard (1 net success), a player was only required 1 single die equal or beat the TN?
What if staging, however, still required an additional 1 net success per stage up or down?

This maybe would perhaps create a system that feels easier at the lower range TN's and places harder TN's as the middle ground.
So I made a comparison of the probabilities against each other.

This chart shows two primary data sets:
One data set (in the foreground in sharp contrast) is employing traditional successes and the other data set (in the background and faded) is employing the success concept described above.
The Labels at the bottom represent the same order such that "4|1 4|3 4|5" are the labels for the faded data set in the background and the "4|2 4|4 4|6" refers to the data set in contrast in the foreground.

The SR calculator I used to generate the data sets from which I pieced together and generated this graph: http://www.pvv.org/~bcd/SR/dicerollcalc.html

Here's the graph:
https://sites.google.com/site/myjunkfolders...obabilities.png

I find this interesting.
As then I have a different layer of manipulation in the design options instead of just D6 quantity or TN adjustment.

I'll use the above example of modes of fire.
Reminder: "Normal" is 1 single die = success & stage up/down requires 2 additional dice succeeding for each level of staging. We'll just refer to this idea as 135 (referring to the requirements for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd successes - which is standard as 246).

Concept considered:
SA - Normal (135)
BF - +2D6 & only able to stage up 1 level
FA - (Skillx2)D6 & staging forfeited

All take Simple Actions, but if FA is used, then both Simple Actions must be used for FA.

At the 4|1 to 4|3, and 5|1 to 5|3 rates, BF might be an attractive option - it brings a bit of an easier time to hit your TN's in the stage up (especially on 5's) for an additional damage level, but you are limited in your top-end of damage scaling.

Yet, FA really comes in as a help to hit very hard conditions, but without the ability to stage the damage beyond the standard; if you want more damage this way, then you'll just have to keep holding the trigger down.
This is interestingly helpful at the TN range of 6 and 8 - even 9 is helped some.

Now - this isn't perfect, but I'm pretty happy with this concept - it feels like the mechanics represent someone putting on more automated rates of fire to compensate for skill in conditions they really don't want to miss and can afford to spray bullets down range (e.g. running while firing).

[Again; just an example of the flexibility of this method for determining successes has.]


Even though this method of determining successes raises the overall probability of a single average success; I think I'm alright with this, as it inflates globally, and not uniquely.
It also gives a wider range for die and TN adjustment - the scale just got a tad bit bigger; which allows for more elbow room in TN and die adjustments in rules, penalties, or bonuses.
Yet, it also retains the unique SR D6 probability style.


I like this method, I think.
So; tear it apart.

If I like it - then my brain isn't looking for problems correctly, so tear it open.

are you aiming for a less than lethal combat system ?
and if you are changing it for combat how will it apply to everything else like magic, decking etc. without adding to the complexity the players face.

the Simple solution ? go for SR4A and keep the SR3 setting ...

if you want more feedback on this :

a tactical player makes full use of mounts, terrain, recoil, visibility and other in-situ modifiers to TN to get the most deadly outcome.

your proposal does not account for any of these TN adjustments above burst fire..

also:

I don't like anything that limits the staging of damage, like your proposed FA fire or BF.

i.e. regardless of the number of successes I get on DOUBLE my skill, I can only inflict a serious wound? on full auto?

the whole purpose of the damage system is to get more hits to stage damage ...

I must say I don't understand this.

One net success only require 1 individual die to reach the TN. A player is already required only 1 single die to beat the TN.

Otherwise, I know it's not the main subject, but why not entirely get rid of the idea that there's a penalty to the TN for the first burst fire in an initiative pass? With burst fire, the penalty would simply be the added recoil to your next burst. Some might even like to add up penalties on for several initiative passes. FA is a complicated problem, but I would just divide it into bursts, with added recoil maybe…

Granted, it's not ideal, but it keeps some interest for every style of fire…

It actually reminds a bit of the SR1 system, where it was generally harder to stage damage up with high damage code weapons…

(Possible) solution: flip it around.

SA => Normal
BF => +2d6, +1 TN
FA => -3d6, -1 TN

Increased BF here to 2d6, as the +1 TN is apparently enough to overbalance the increase of 1 die, so I increased it to 2. The Full Auto though makes the bell curve more reliable due to there being fewer dice and the -1 TN compensates, bringing the average back in the player's favor (note: I didn't actually run a statistical analysis on this, but you can see the point). As both of these options alter the distribution of results differently (different bonus, different penalty) then the "best" option actually depends on the circumstances, rather than simply making it "more bullets, more success" (or in your case, "more bullets, less success").

[EDIT - after reading freudqo's comment; ignore the 246 vs 135 comparisons below.
I guess now it's just about the mode of fire idea instead of the method of resolution; haha]

Hey there Mach_Ten,


No. It is still rather lethal.

The Modes of Fire was just an off-hand example - I haven't used that rule, but I might test it out to see how it performs vs. what it looks like in theory.

The main concept here was the difference of success determination over standard; 1-3-5-7-etc.. vs 2-4-6-8-etc...

Under 135, let's say 3D6 vs standard TN4, you have a near 90% chance to hit with the first success (1 single die), and then you have just over a 10% chance to stage up.
With the traditional 246 you have a 50% chance for the first success (2 single dice hitting TN), and then you have 0% chance of staging up (because you only have three dice and the next stage would require that you rolled 4 total successful dice).

Take it up a bit to 6D6 against TN4: you have a near 100% chance to hit with 135 (not that 246 has a bad % in this range), and your first stage up is 30% greater than in the 246 (~65% in 135 and ~35% in 246), and your chance to stage up again following that would be next to 0% in 246, while in 135 your chances are over 10%.

If you look at the graph of possibilities, the faded data set in the background is 135 setting, and that setting makes the entire spectrum inflated between 10 to 30 points of value over 246 traditional method.



It would apply the same across the board - speaking of the 135 vs 246 - not the modes of fire concept.
If someone wanted to adjust a rule in magic or decking, then I suppose they could look at success rates of staging as a possible as well, but even if the concept of adjusting stage up/down possibilities as a tax to perks isn't applied (which it probably shouldn't be applied that often, if it's a used idea), then even the inflation permits an easier time to adjust by TN and Die without being so very limited (considering the sharp jump from say, 4 to 5 or 6 for TN's, or the sharp jump when adding 1 to 2 dice in the 246 model)


No thank you.
I didn't move to SR4, not over setting, but over the mechanics.


Of course.
That was an example to show the 135 system juxtaposed against 246 from a design freedom consideration; it wasn't a rule for all things combat.
Conditional modifiers and equipment modifiers are a different matter, but I don't want to side chain into that tangent here, so I'm not going into super fine detail about those matters.

Here; the primary interest isn't actually the notion of moving up/down stage successes.

Instead, the primary consideration is simply 135 vs 246 and the inflated probability system vs the traditional.
At first notion; the inflated probability would intuitively seem to make things "too easy" or "too lethal", but if you consider that every roll and counter-roll would be using the same model, then everything inflates and offsets everything else.
At most the GM may want to increase a given TN if they want it a bit harder here and there, but I'd recommend sticking to the standard 4 as "average" method.


So, again, I don't want to focus too much on that; as that was just an example, but I suppose we could use it to explore the differences between 135 and 246 a bit, so I'll go ahead and get into the back-side comparison between the standard method and that method under 135 and 246 builds.

So; the purpose of FA is to increase one's chance to hit - it's not to open the double or triple damage button on your firearm.
The reason I like it is that it encourages FA to be used in that way - have a TN of 9? Only have 3D6 for firing that weapon?
Flip on FA and now instead of 30% chance to hit, you have a 50% chance.
Or, if you started with 6D6 and 50% seemed a bit too dodgy for you, then flip on FA and now you have a 75% chance and you fire that twice in one phase since FA is fired on each simple action; not just once as a complex action - but you must roll each simple action as FA once starting FA firing (so you are locked into a complex action's worth of FA firing, but you roll for each simple action - basically, you resolve twice with the possibility of moving the shot around).

So, the current system:
TN of 9 vs 6D6.
You flip on FA and your probability to hit is 50% (using the 135 system; if we used the tradition 246, then your probability is just above 10% - I'm not counting the variety of dice pools - this is raw core comparison).
You have a Medium damage weapon at 5 Power Rating (just making up a weapon off the top of my head).
In your complex action, you arbitrarily increase the rate of fire on your FA firearm as if time is relative and you have some elected control over a half-second's worth of bullet fire counting and select that your weapon in this half-second of time somehow went from 2 (SA) to maybe 6 shots (BF) that it normally does, to 10 rounds down range (and 10 is the maximum per Phase, so you hardly beat BF in this).
With 10 rounds, you receive a +10 (so the 2 non-penalized normal SA shots don't get to be free-bees; they are also penalized) recoil modifier (so 4+10; 14TN) and one throw of the dice for this phase (instead of 2 as BF provides).
The Power rating of my weapon is now 15.
I also staged up the damage 3 fold; so I maxed it out at Deadly.

So I didn't make my chance of hitting easier (the old adage that automatic weapons mitigate an unskilled person's disadvantage isn't represented - and that was the whole reason anyone made FA weapons to begin with; to make it easier for soldiers to hit targets with far less skill needed).
I made it harder for the target to stage the damage down, and I made it harder for me to hit them due to this obscene amount of less-than a second runaway recoil like I'm trying to hold on to a 20mm cannon without a brace and free-fire it - even if I'm firing an M16 or MP5.

My probability is now less than 1% (without dumping a bunch of combat pool and/or stacking a pile of modifications onto the weapon to mitigate automatic weapons odd wants in SR to take off to the moon), though my damage is now up to Deadly - but that deadly is meaningless if I don't hit in the first place within that 1% window.
So I went from 50% chance to hit to less than 1% chance to hit, forfeited two throws of the dice in exchange for one throw of the dice and gained some power rating and free stage-up's IF I hit.


Now on the flip-side; in the other model I quickly outlined in the OP, you flip on FA (no counting or tallying modifiers or stages of damage per 3 rounds...you just flip it on and grab twice your dice) and go from 50% to 75% chance to hit instead.
You will roll an attack and resolve it in full with the defender doing their part twice this phase.

So you will send a 5M shot downrange at 75% chance to his, instead of 50%, twice.
If you hit both times, that's a Serious wound stacking in one phase. (Moderate + Moderate)

Less than 1% chance for a 15D one time.
75% chance for a 5M twice to reach Serious.

The latter is more like what FA actually is compared to the former where the FA isn't really helping hit anything, but is just adding power to the shot at the expense of your chance to hit.
If you want a bigger caliber punch; grab a bigger caliber FA weapon.
FA doesn't automagic caliber power; it simply sends more rounds of the same caliber from the same weapon system down range and that makes it easier to hit something down range when a point shot would be rather difficult to manage (you're running, moving in a vehicle, they have protective partial cover...etc...)

So your want for a stage up is still there - since you roll it twice in one phase instead of only once.
The difference is that you aren't going to be penalized to the nines for using the weapon as it is designed and intended to be used in FA mode and find need to pile on massive after-market modifications to even make it functional and not launching itself into orbit when you shoot FA.

It also means that Joe-unskilled with 2D6 is able to pick up a weapon on the floor and flip on FA mode and go from a 20% chance (again, 135 probabilities; 246 is different - that would be 1% basically) against a 9TN to a near 40% chance to hit (or 6% roughly on 246 system instead of the 135).


If anything; I'd say it makes it more damaging overall than not due to the increased chances of hitting.

Cheers,
Stumps

Hey freudqo,


Hmm...I think I've been playing in an augmented "hardcore" mode for so long I may have forgotten this.
I'll have to look that over, but you may be quite right here in that I just innately have no concern other than turning off "hardcore" mode in our house rules.


I don't think the intention should be to do that, but for FA; sure, since that's kind of the point of FA and BF modes of fire - to send more down per cycle.
It is not the point to flip on FA and hit harder.
If you want to hit harder, you aim precisely where you want and take a more vulnerable area shot (accounted for by staging up), or you grab a bigger caliber boomstick (accounted for in larger damage code).

Cheers,
Stumps

Hello Draco,


That makes it balance to zero.
You go from 3D6 v TN4 @ just over 85% chance to hit to 5D6 v TN5 @ roughly 85% chance to hit.
You go from 6D6 v TN8 @ just under 60% chance to hit to 8D6 v TN9 @ just a fraction over 60%.


3D6 character ends up with 0 dice; unable to pull the trigger.
6D6 v TN8 goes from just below 60% chance to hit to 3D6 v TN6/7 @ just over 40% - I lost 20% chance to hit.

Cheers,
Stumps

Updated the probability chart for correction after freudqo pointed out my mistake (thanks freudqo!).

https://sites.google.com/site/myjunkfolders...%20Standard.png

I think the idea of stage up/down tax remains an interesting alternative to +TN & -Die only solutions.

Hey yourself .. before I get back into this I want to add that LOVE tinkering with game systems and different models
(I've put SR3 into the nWoD system, completely re-imagined the fallout RPG system and am working on a few other pieces.)

also, I have a love hate relationship with maths .. I love the idea of being able to do it ,, it hates the possibility of me ever learning it so we kind of avoid each other at best.
So, the graphs and stuff evades me ... the bit that interests me is how it affects the "perception" of a game system from a player perspective.

This I have found out to my loss, that as much as a system sounds simple to me .. other people can take an instant dislike to it for reasons or no reasons,
ESPECIALLY .. if you have one part that applies to combat and an utterly different system for other stuff... it ALL has to be simple and work together.

So, onwards ... I may need some clarification from you here, use small words please

Emphasis mine

I disagree, but that's just semantics really,
When I pick up a burst fire weapon or full auto weapon, the idea I have is to, yes, increase the amount of lead downrange and thus cause more damage (i.e. staging).

most of the SA weapons in SR3 are rated at (*M) I think with some (*S) etc.

so take our super hero gunner with a skill of 5 (ignore combat pool)
7 dice on a SA Burst... I reckon 5 successes on average with a TN4 ... the target then regardless of armour etc. can only ever take a Serious wound ?

I could get ALL successes with Karma and Combat pool and still only stage up one level,
admittedly ..the naked target will have a high number to resist
but a skilled gunner on 3-round burst with good grouping can only do a serious not a kill shot.

put that beast on FA and 10 bullets go whizzing at naked guy ... I've got like 20 dice here on a good day ... and the NAKED guy will get hit by every damn bullet
and still walk away as I have forfeited staging.

OH wait a sec, I missed this from the first post .. damn mobile ...
I can't get my head around how you are deciding dice pools and target numbers for the two simple actions,
and then for splitting targets out of a FA burst at a group as currently happens in a complex action.

Are you saying instead of staging up, the target is resisting 2 bursts in the same action thus 2 damage codes ?

You have calculated perfectly the probability of success, but I'm more interested in what success looks and feels like .. if that makes sense?

Mach_Ten,

Indeed; game mechanics design is fun!

I'll do my best (but don't feel bad if you don't understand something - my wife has been with me for 13 years and clarity on my part is still a challenge ).


Exactly; and that's a problem.
You are doing this because this is how FA works in SR.
However, the purpose of FA being invented and its continued use in firearms today isn't to increase the amount of damage (if that happens; YAY!). It is to increase the chance to hit - mitigating the need for high point accuracy.

The point of FA and SA comes down the difference of Point Shot and Area Shot.
Point Shot is SA, and at medium range to closer you may be able to get away with BF in Point Shot.
Area Shot is for medium to long range; depending on what's going on.

The purpose of Area Shot is to aim for the body in general with the interest of landing center mass.
The purpose of Point Shot is to aim exactly for the specific region on the body you want to hit; and hit it.

When you are in the service, they break down the weapon's effective range into these kinds of considerations.

FA becomes a method of increasing your chances at Area Shot under circumstances where Point Shot is less than ideal - such as they are under partial hiding, you are needing to move quickly, sweep a room rapidly for clearing, etc...

In all of these approaches, the point of FA is to throw more rounds in attempt to basically hit; the lethality component is secondary in consideration to the interest in increasing the chance to do so.
If all that happens is that you hit them; good enough. At least you hit them, and you can begin to work from there, and that may not have happened without being on FA mode due to the dynamics of movements and trajectories of the moment.

Basically - if you have a TN that has gotten a bit high for you because of these kinds of factors, then FA is a reasonable solution to the event becoming escalated in threatening your chances to hit.

On the other hand, if you have the ability to take a Point Shot - do.
One well placed and effective Point Shot can easily out perform an FA Area Shot; that's the entire point of sitting there day after day learning to balance canteens on the end of your muzzle while laying prone...to increase the ability to perfectly place that SA shot where it counts.

That you prefer, in SR, to use FA as a proverbial 'caliber-up' is exactly what interests me in removing that option for FA.

Alright; on to the example...

7D6 v TN4 is almost 100% chance of success and almost a 90% chance of staging up one level.

Did you mean SA Burst was BF Burst and that was 5+2=7, and only one stage up permitted?

Because the rules considered are:
SA - Normal
BF - +2D6 & only able to stage up 1 level
FA - (Skillx2)D6 & staging forfeited


So let's break it down:
Skill 5.
TN4.

SA = 5D6 v TN4 which means just over 95% chance to hit, 80% chance to stage up once, just under 20% chance to stage up twice.
BF = 7D6 v TN4 which means almost 100% chance to hit, a 90% chance to stage up once, and 0% chance to stage up beyond that.
FA = 10D6 v TN4 which means an effective 100% chance to hit and no chance to stage up.

Would FA, then, be the appropriate mode of fire to choose here?
No; rightly so - no.

Let's look at a different instance, though.

Skill 5
TN8

SA = 5D6 v TN8 which means just over 50% chance to hit, just under 15% chance to stage up once, effectively 0% chance beyond that due to the odds being 1% or less.
BF = 7D6 v TN8 which means 65% chance to hit, a 25% chance to stage up once, and 0% chance to stage up beyond that.
FA = 10D6 v TN8 which means just under 80% chance to hit and no chance to stage up.

So we went from a 50% chance to an 80% chance, and what you lost was a 15% chance to stage up.
But that doesn't even much matter because you also resolve FA as if it were only a Simple Action mode of fire, so you get that 80% chance to hit both times, so you get to apply your damage twice - which is a form of staging up (providing defenses, etc...).



OK, so it's resolved as two separate attacks.
But it's like a contract - you agreed to do FA and only FA for two Simple Actions, but you roll each Simple Action just as you would for SA.

Just as you would roll it out, completely, for a SA Pistol for each Simple Action of the Phase, you do so for this FA.
The only difference between the two in Action Cost is that the SA has the option of choosing to stop from shooting on the second Simple Action and doing something else; meanwhile, the FA mode is bound to continue into the second Simple Action with another roll of firearm attack following the (Skillx2)D6 rule.

You scatter your various pools in the same fashion that you would scatter them around an SA Pistol over two simple actions.


Now; for my House Rule scratchpad book, all dice pools are removed.
This makes adding and removing dice a much more effective rule option and makes smaller TN's more impactful.
The game works for me this way pretty nicely.
I understand dice pools are a big love to many folks, so I'm not suggesting everyone must remove them; you just go about using them the same way as you would for SA over two Simple Actions.

But I will say that the impact of these rules is probably diminished a bit if you are using dice pools because, honestly...who the heck really cares about +2D6 or wants to see a rule about (Skillx2)D6 at the tax of staging when you can easily grab these things at your whim from a giant pit of dice...as you said, "I've got like 20 dice here on a good day"...*shivers*

10 or 12, to me, is quite the high range and should come at a tax.
I prefer everyone remain around 6 to 10 dice throwing ranges.

If I want it easier - I'll use lower TN's instead of opening dice pools, as I see dice pools as not much more than causing an inflation.

Sorry; side tangent...anyway; yeah, just treat the FA like two SA Simple Actions with twice the dice and no chance to stage up; resolving the entire attack on each Simple Action.

Cheers,
Stumps

That must have been hardcore indeed .

On the topic of firearms mode, I'm not sure you can milk out of SR3 system the realism you seem to want for firearms without involving there too many calculations… Raising both dicepool and TN is a cursed way, since there will almost always be a critical TN/dicepool couple for which the option chosen will have the opposite effects.

But good luck with it anyway!

I did say I hadn't actually run the numbers.
I was more giving you another way to approach the problem, rather than a thought out solution.

As for the "can't pull the trigger" comment:
Yes they can, but they're so untrained they won't be able to hit anything. I think this is perfectly acceptable.

Hey Frequdgo,



Actually, I'm not interested in realism, as much as streamlined logic.
The reason I ever looked for a different way to do any House Rule was based on seeing either something that was ungainly, or illogical.

"Illogical" here means it doesn't follow suit in like form with SR's core mechanic's logic.
When I place modes of fire rules next to the logic of vague summary of actions or concepts (SR's core starting mechanical logic), there is an interruption in the logical flow of the system; a deviation.

So, for instance, here - it's not about the realism; for if it was, we would be more closely looking at something like Raygun designed.

Now; I do base the logic on representation of the real concept in some mechanical form - influence; but not simulation.
This is always the way I've made rules for any game - the mechanics must be simple, accomplish the frequency of interest for the players to the system, and the mechanics must feel like a representation or homage to what kind of action or processes it is they are being used to accomplish.

So here we have a lump-summary method that is fast, easy, and universal without requiring tabulation or tracking and carries with it a strategic array of options to the table other than 'how much damage do I want to do'?
Now we're playing a strategic game of what do I need to hit, how much do I need the stage up vs just making a hit, and if I need the stage up - do I need help staging up one (BF)?

Modes of fire becomes a selection of which tool do you need for the job and you hardly need to remember the multiple paragraphs worth of information in the Core book in this alternative.


Cheers,
Stumps

Hey Draco,


It's similar to what I've tried in the past before arriving at the idea of modulating the access to stage-up's; that's what I meant in the OP regarding how easy it is to run into a metaphorical wall very quickly when you try to resolve ideas by TN and Dice numbers alone.

Cheers,
Stumps

Frequdgo,

I just remembered why our House Rules were on "hardcore" mode (it bothered me that I couldn't recall why, so of course I had to keep thinking about it since I didn't leave any notes as to the reason - doh!).

So it's because of three sections in the SR book that give us our empirical baseline:
The Difficulty Number Table on page 92 of SR3, the Human Attribute Ratings Table on page 41, and the Skill Rating Table on 98.

For reference (rather than forcing everyone to go hunt those:

Difficulty Number Table:
2: Simple
3: Routine
4: Average
5: Challenging
6/7: Difficult
8: Strenuous
9: Extreme
10+: Nearly Impossible

Human Attribute Ratings Table:
1: Weak
2: Underdeveloped
3: Typical
4: Improved
5: Superior
6: Maximum unmodified human

Skill Rating Table (referencing Active skill description for reference in brevity - the Knowledge relatively reflects the same):
1: Introductory level
2: Practice level
3: Proficiency level - "You aren’t great, but you’re not too bad. You’re average."
4: Skilled level
5: Professional level
6: Innate level
7: Expert level
8: World Class level

---------

Alright; I'll try not to make this overly complicated...as much as is possible.

So we look at the difficulty table and look at Average, and then we look at the Attribute and Skill Table and look for Average and we get the standard formula: 3D6 v TN4 = Average/Typical

We should, then also note that 3D6 v TN10 should be"Nearly Impossible".
So we look and our probability is 25%.
0.o
That's hardly "Nearly Impossible".

In fact; when we look at all of them against 'Joe Average' (a character with nothing but 3D6 for all skills and attributes), we don't see these adjectives lining up with the resulting probabilities at all.

For 'Joe 3D6 Average', the following is true:

2: Simple - nearly 100% chance
3: Routine - just over 95% chance
4: Average - just over 85% chance
5: Challenging - about 70% chance
6/7: Difficult - about 40% chance
8: Strenuous - about 35% chance
9: Extreme - around 30% chance
10: Nearly Impossible - just under 25% chance

0.o
That's some odd relationships between the descriptions and the probabilities.

What if we just start simple and look at a single D6 against these TN's; just to get a basis for comparison.

For 1D6 v TNn, the following is true:

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)

Now that looks right.
So what happened?
Did someone way back create that chart's adjectives based on 1D6 and then everything else was created with 3D6 as the middle line without re-checking the TN rating level descriptions against it?

Which was the intention? The adjective (aka. the idea) or the resulting 3D6 v TN4?
Shouldn't 3D6 v TN4 result in 50%; i.e. all components are set to "average"?

Well, we looked at that and sure enough; if you take 3D6 v TN4 and require 2 successes instead of 1, you end up with the AVERAGE guy 3D6 roller looking like that 1D6 on that Difficulty Table (well...closer than the 3D6 required to hit 1 die for a success, anyway):

For 'Joe 3D6 Average' required to reach 1 net success for a single counted success, the following is true:

2: Simple - just over 90% chance
3: Routine - just under 75% chance
4: Average - exactly 50% chance
5: Challenging - about 25% chance
6/7: Difficult - just over 5% chance (virtual 10%)
8: Strenuous - 5% chance
9: Extreme - around 3% chance
10: Nearly Impossible - just under 2% chance

Here's a chart that places these side by side.
The Labels at the bottom indicate the <amount of dice>|<amount of successes required> (e.g. 3|1 means 3D6 needing 1 single die to hit the value, and 3|2 means 3D6 needing two dice to hit the value).

https://sites.google.com/site/myjunkfolders...ity%20Chart.png

So we flipped to 2 successes for a hit; thinking perhaps the designer's got lost somewhere along the way.
Now - today, I'm more inclined to go with the 1,2,4,6 etc... model instead of 2,4,6,8 model in spite of the logic error simply because it leaves more room to manipulate rules by opening up the probability ranges more widely than I think SR must have had in mind on day one when someone was sitting there staring at a D6 and dividing it into categories of difficulty and capability.


And I think that seems likely - that the designer's "got lost"...more, rather, they changed opinions somewhere along the line (which we have seen time and time again in SR - just think of Melee over the editions; it WAS a vague volley system and then got pedantic hit-by-hit formatting in spite of the language in the text stating that it represents vague non-specified volleys and not hit-by-hit formatting).


I will say this; however...if you play THIS way: requiring two successes instead of 1 and then staging by net successes over defender, then it is indeed a cruel and harsh world where you hope very passionately that you don't have to take a +1 or +2TN because your odds will radically fall off and you'll start reaching for any extra help you can get (especially if you don't use dice pools).

So anywho...even though I'm flipping back to the way it's outlined in the book for determining successes, thought I'd share what I finally recalled was the reason for this "hardcore" mode (because it wasn't just that we wanted "hardcore" mode).

Cheers,
Stumps

This makes sense actually.

I think I had the same problem way back, looking at those charts. But instead of thinking that the problem was with the skill definition, I always thought it was with the definition of "impossible".

And when you look at it, a lot of tasks defined as impossible by the book actually needs skilled professional to manage them on a regular basis for the game to be playable at all. If you call TN10 the "nearly impossible", then it means that shooting from cover to cover, no one shoot ever get killed by Joe Average. Add up some bad lightning conditions, and that's even worse. So for me, that's those TN which are not well defined, not the other way around.

But in general I always found that most RPG had a hard time setting up difficulties threshold as associated with average skills. I think that comes from the fact that RPG players don't like to fail at tasks but still want to feel what they accomplish is difficult. So designer exagerate a little on the difficulties of tasks for us to think like we're hero. But that's really my own little opinion .

Freudqo,

That is oh so very true; HaHa!

Cheers,
Stumps

I m puzzled.

I've read the start and it feels like we d'on't play it the same way.

Do we agree on this:

I shoot in SA mode, TN 4 (average range 5 + Partial light +1 - Smartlink -2). I use, say 10 dices (6 from skill + 4 from reserve.)
I roll 5 successes.

The defender use the dodge option with his 6 combat reserve dices at TN 4. He rolls 3 success. He doesn't do more success than attacker so he's hit.

He then soaks with Body+reserve (which he fully used on dodge). He has Body 4. and 3/0 armor versus 9M damages.

He rolls 1 succes.

Now (and only now) do we look at staging: Attackers 5 s. -3 from dodge -1 from soak = 1 success= Medium damages.

---------------------------------------------
Now say the same case, only at close range in daylight -attacker at TN2-: rolls 9 successes.

Same rolls for defender.

Damages are: 9 s. -3 from dodge -1 from soak = 5 execedent = Staged to deadly.


Do we agree to this?

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...t&p=1312503

Sk8bcn,

Hey there.
Yes, there was an error on my part.
See the post linked above, and those following it.

Cheers,
Stumps

Yes, that's why I think that SR3 is statistically non-consistent.

However, the game works better in case of resisted rolls so what I see as a huge flaw for a standart roll isn't the case for combat and honestly, SA/BF/FA works pretty well to me.

Sk8bcn,

That is exactly why I went back to standard instead of the augmented; because it's more flexible for combat.
Although, no, I am not a fan of BF/FA rules in 3e; too ungainly.
But if BF/FA works for your group as written; .

Cheers,
Stumps

Well, the point of BF and FA which makes those firing mode pretty interesting in the penalty they add up to the "dodge" option.

The base TN is augmented by the number of bullet.

Dodge is superior to soak in the sense that if you get more successes than attacker you fully dodge, else they work the same way as soaking.

Let's say you shoot a FA base 6M attack with 3 recoil compensation and smartlinks. That's 12F base code for a TN of +1 (at short range, it's TN5).

Okay you gotta get less successes BUT:

Opponent gotta dodge at TN10.

Even with a quite nice 5/3 armor, he must soak at TN 7.


If you got a skill 6, without any reserve you're likely to roll 2 successes.

Your opponent won't probably dodge it (requieres 3 successes TN 10). Even soaking will be hard. With 12 dices, it's probably only 2 successes that he'd roll. Not even enough to reduce the damages to Serious.

Even under cover, it can get difficult. The attacker could likely still roll a success at TN 9.



Now with a SA weapon, ok, you're going to shoot twice. Ok base TN would be 2 (first shot)/3 (second shot). Certainly equally likely to shoot the guy...unless, he takes cover.

And now, the SA works way worser: At TN 6/7, it will be easy to dodge, to soak. You'd better have some FA weapon.

@sk8bcn:

You calculation is wrong.

The dodge TN is increased by one for every three bullets. So the dodge threshold would be 6. Which is still okay and makes sense by the way.

Second, you can't compare an uncompensated weapon on SA (TN2 then 3), with one that has 3 compensation.

I agree that with an armored high body target which happens to be on face to face with you and you shot first, FA is more interesting. BUT: Better hope that you don't fail this TN5, which can happen with 6 dice, or that you're not past short distance (10m for a 6M SMG), where TN is 6 (one success, he dodges at 6 for one success too, as compared to the TN2 and 4 those would be with SA). If the target is unarmored, then SA is better. If the target is low body, then SA is better. Because if you don't outright kill him with your 5 successes at TN2, your second shot will. His only hope is that he has this armored jacket and 4 body not to die, and >9 body not to get some bad penalties. That's very restricted case for FA to work. And think that if you kill him with your first SA shot, you might as well get rid of his colleague with the second.

In this very case, the actual best is BF. No competition. I'm not a weapon specialist, but I always understood that BF was created specifically to help average soldiers at medium/long range…

And anyway, let's get to your cover example:

You get TN to 6. Okay, so you can hope 1 success on each shot. Bad boy will have to dodge each, losing his combat pool. Your FA TN is 9, so you get less than 1 success on each shot. Bad guy will have to dodge for 6, which is okay since you will not have more than one success. He might indeed begin his phase with his whole pool. And better not track ammos.

So once again, we're in a situation where FA will be useful only with an unlucky high armor high body bad guy. And in the same case, BF would have been just superior. No doubt.

And I won't talk about searching fire, where the problem is exactly the same. You'll trade a few dice for higher TN, which is kind of lame since SR3 subtitle is kind of "lower TN >> higher Dicepool"…

No the rule for BF and FA simply don't work correctly. Those for BF could be good if you didn't apply penalties to the first burst. Those for FA are hard to correct while feeling like you could fire as many bullet as you want… As I said in another topic, I wrote some so that you actually replace FA with BF, but never applied them.

The creator probably had noticed the huge problem with BF recoil application. And I think they tried to correct it by offering the players too many ways to increase recoil compensation. Because it's kinda written under the ARES alpha rules that you should put a gas-vent 4 on it, plus shock pad, to get to this 7 recoil compensation, allowing for a whopping 15D damage without any penalties, which means that now FA is the best in every single situation. Oh, and did I mention you can actually by a forearm gyro for your left arm, for 3 point RC more? So that's actually 10 uncompensated shots, for 18D damage. You could spray it on as much as 3 targets (or 4 if you go RAW on FA rules). This, BTW, makes the ARES Alpha the best non-concealable gun in the game, without any competition possible, available at chargen.

And I think the biggest hint that there's a problem with those rules is that I can start this post explaining FA is really underrated here, and finish it by advocating its use in any situation, providing you picked up the good gun.

Ah yes, I m wrong with dodging. My bad.

Right, it should be noted that with these augmented BF/FA rules, there's no RC to account for - it's simply not required as it's already being accounted for in the reduction of the staging.
And this is because, as freudqo pointed out...RC kind of got carried away in SR to ridiculous levels.
Honestly, FA weapons are designed with their recoil in mind...it's not like they kick THAT much as SR would have you think...that only happens in SR because SR needed a tax to the benefit and just made a simple trade of making EACH ROUND produce a MASSIVE probability kick to your TN, and honestly...that trade off is severly broken with how big of a difference your probability curve is from 5 to 6 TN and...look at it this way.
Let's say you roll 3D6 and your TN starts at 3 (96% chance to hit), you add a round, TN 4 (87% chance to hit), and then you add another round for a TN5 (70% chance to hit).

So far, each round has already had a wonky physical difference between the other.
The second round (TN5) added cost you 17% from the first round added while the first round added was only a 9% drop from the first round fired.

Now you add another round, TN6, and magically drop to 42%.
0.o

What the hell did they put in THAT round?
So...yeah...

And most of that explanation of concerns about dodging only actually points out issues with SR's really messed up system of "defender" rules where defenders get magically made actions in less than a second of time when they are not slotted to be performing any action previously...as if one is watching the Lord Marshal from Chronicles of Riddick slip through time persistence.
Oh I WAS and still AM focused over here, but hold on while I slip over to here and do some unaccounted for actions and go right back as if I never did anything.

Now, without getting into a discussion about how I (personally) have different dodging rules than standard, and just focusing on strictly standard rules, there's still really no issue here as the point is that you increased your chances to hit in going to BF or FA within the weapon's effective range.
Your odds are better at hitting in the first place; BF and FA don't increase the penetration value of a caliber (Power rating).

Now; if the counter-argument is that if you hold down FA, it weakens the structural integrity and in so stacking rounds in such fashion, vicariously increases the penetration value of the caliber....again; I would point out that SR simply has a sloppy system for Armor and Body meat by not having that system decrease with multiple impacts...because even SA over time can do the same thing as that FA; the difference is time.

It's far more streamlined and simple to employ some form of Dice increase at the cost of Staging and go fix the wonky Body soaking and Armor rules which, both, make doing a simple Ballistic Gel measure literally impossible in SR's physical universe.