Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: SR goes new WOD
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
Pthgar
QUOTE (Shadow @ Apr 5 2005, 01:22 PM)
...No more weapon power...

We don't know that, maybe weapon power adds to the number of dice rolled (I don't particularly like that idea but it's a possibility.)

Frankly, the thing I liked about changing T#s was that the environment should affect my chances, not my skill level. With the new system, it sounds like rainy weather will make my skill dice go down. SR will become even more abstract, if easier to explain to new players.

If there are no tactical dice pools, we will probably house rule one general "Task Pool" for that purpose.

Overall, happy that things are getting simpler, unhappy at how it's being simplified.
Zeel De Mort
There's also the point that the 3rd edition D&D system is much better than AD&D 2nd edition. In my opinion, of course.
mfb
right. i'm not advocating keeping the current dice pool mechanic--but i am advocating the inclusion of a mechanic which allows the player to increase the rate of success on a limited number of rolls of his choosing.
Eldritch
QUOTE
Your reality is thus a bit faulty.


Erg! Yes it is - sorry. I had my filters on - only looking for 5's.

Oops.

Sorry for taking your time, thanks for pointing it out.

Continue on.

*****************************


Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
3rd ed is a different game from AD&D Second Edition.

That don't bother me, I happen to think 3rd Ed D&D is also far superior to 2nd Ed.

QUOTE (Pthgar)
We don't know that, maybe weapon power adds to the number of dice rolled (I don't particularly like that idea but it's a possibility.)

If weapons still have a 2-part "Damage Code" in SR4, the two figures are most likely Dice Amount Modifier and Success Requirement Modifier. However, not knowing exactly how the dice mechanic and successes, let alone dodging, damage resistance, armor, etc., work, this is just idle speculation.
Demonseed Elite
QUOTE
There's also the point that the 3rd edition D&D system is much better than AD&D 2nd edition. In my opinion, of course.


Oh, but yet when D&D3E was announced, the cries against change deafened the ones you see on this board about SR4. And there are still people who hate D&D3E. As there always will be, I'm sure.

And Kage, that you consider D&D3E a wholly different game than D&D2E is an entirely valid opinion. And it makes sense, given that you're obviously very mechanically-minded. But on the other side of things, I've seen players who hardly blinked at the transition to 3E, and feel that it's still Dungeons and Dragons, and roll up their fighter and go clobber some orcs in some good old hack and slash action.

And it certainly hasn't hurt D&D.
Pthgar
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
If weapons still have a 2-part "Damage Code" in SR4, the two figures are most likely Dice Amount Modifier and Success Requirement Modifier. However, not knowing exactly how the dice mechanic and successes, let alone dodging, damage resistance, armor, etc., work, this is just idle speculation.

Yeah, I liked the old damage system. It made sense that the number was the penetration power and was reduced by armor. Maybe in the new system the power of the weapon will subtract dice from the damage resistance test. Bah, it's useless to speculate.
Shadow
QUOTE
Shadow, it's flattering that you put so much of the decision making on me, but I'm not involved in writing SR4's rules, nor am I playtesting it, nor was I the one who decided there should be an SR4 (hell, I only knew about it three days before the general public did).


Well I meant you in the general Fanpro sense. But didn't see you say you were writing System Failure?

QUOTE
And the people who did decide upon SR4 have better access to feedback than even I do. They know the game's sales, they know whether or not there is a market. They are personally at the conventions.


I know you need feedback from people who don't play the game, about how they percieve the game. But I don't want the game "fixed" to please someone who has never played. People who have never played SR, who have a negative impression of SR arn't going to suddenly spring for $40 dollars worth of rule books. They did for D20 because AD&D was so incredibly bad that any changes were an improvement.

QUOTE

The functioning and uncumbersome parts of the Shadowrun rules system are being kept.


Really? Which peices are bing kept? Character creation? No. Combat.. again no. Matrix? Riggers? No, no.

Magic then maybe?

What exactly is staying in? The base mechanic? Nope. Well I know Fanpro is keeping the D6. But the rules in 4 seem to me to be a whole new system.

QUOTE
That said, is SR4 going to be a whole new game? No, not really. It will be different, but it will be familiar. How much familiar is kinda subjective. Is d20 a whole new D&D? Well, I dunno. It's definitely new, but its still got the same attributes on a 18-scale, its still got alignment, armor class, rolls a d20 for resolutions, has saving throws, etc.


Yes D&D kept the 18 point scale, atcually they increased it to infinity, which I thought is great. My understanding is that in SR4, 6 will be the Attribute absolute maximum, is that incorect?

D&D3 did not keep the same AC or to hit, but changed it to the other TSR systems, Gamma World.

And SR4 rolls a D6 for resolutions sure, but that doesn't mean it has anything in common with current SR. I went from SR2 to 3 rety easilly, all the changes made sense to me and they seemed to flow. I guess I am looking for the same thing in SR4
Zeel De Mort
QUOTE (Demonseed Elite)
QUOTE
There's also the point that the 3rd edition D&D system is much better than AD&D 2nd edition. In my opinion, of course.


Oh, but yet when D&D3E was announced, the cries against change deafened the ones you see on this board about SR4. And there are still people who hate D&D3E. As there always will be, I'm sure.

Well of course. But then there are far more D&D players than there are SR players, so they're bound to be louder eh? smile.gif

What I'm saying is that the changes were necessary there, and, to my mind, made the game much better as a result.

That doesn't mean I think the SR rules don't need to be changed, in some areas. But I am concerned they'll be over-simplified, or some parts will be changed or removed when a lot of people (on dumpshock at least...) would prefer them not to be (e.g. combat pool).

On the other hand (I'm running out of hands here!) I don't find the SR3 rules as woefully bad as 2nd ed AD&D (in fact I rather like them), so if the developers pull off the same kind of thing that was done with D&D we'll be in for some goddamn kickass rules. The small amounts of evidence aren't too encouraging yet, but then I'm sure the same sort of thing happened with D&D at this stage.
RunnerPaul
QUOTE (Bigity)
No more dodging bullets it would seem.

Seeing as how alocating combat pool for dodge tests was never intended to represent "dodging the bullet" statements like the above really tickle my funny bone.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (Pthgar)
Maybe in the new system the power of the weapon will subtract dice from the damage resistance test.

Yeah, that's actually what I meant by "Dice Amount Modifier", I forgot to clarify it.
blakkie
QUOTE (Pthgar)
Frankly, the thing I liked about changing T#s was that the environment should affect my chances, not my skill level. With the new system, it sounds like rainy weather will make my skill dice go down. SR will become even more abstract, if easier to explain to new players.


The environment doesn't nessarily affect the number dice. In fact removing dice to roll for negative situation modifiers would be a very bad thing for the system to do for a number of reasons.
1) The veil of the GM screen is pierced. He has to effectively give you all the situational modifiers, not just the ones your PC can precieve.
2) As the number of dice you have left nears 1 each situational modifier has much greater impact on the statics of whether or not you succeed/fail at the task. This was a issue with the old SR3 system too, only not as pronounced as this would be.
3) Related to #2, it creates chunky probability curves. So modifiers that are absolutely crippling for a 3 Attribute/3 Skill character would become near trivial to a 4 Attribute/5 Skill character.

Another possible way that the system could handle this is for negative situational modifiers increase the number of TN5 successes required and positive situational modifiers could add dice for use. Because you are starting with a good sized pool of dice (Attribute + Skill) the number of successes required has a bit more wiggle room for the negatives, and the positive modifiers have a decreasing weight as they grow. This is especially true if Weapons and other tools all give positive modifiers of one sort or another.
Menrakion
Hi, first time around...

First of all, the setting is as important as the game mechanics ! Ever played FenShui (or something like that) ? I think the setting is really cool and creative but the mechanics... arrrggg...

The first time i've heard of SR4, i was hoping to see a polished version of SR3 which i believe is still a fairly good game ! There are some things which definitively need improvement like all the "Rigger" rules... but killing the "pools" is, in my opinion, killing a major part of Shadowrun. So many times my characters have been saved by those dices... (and it worked out for the GM too !).

In my experience, you will always have new ideas in managing/controling/... things but you have to stop somewhere ! If you keep on changing things, you will be overwhelmed and they won't work (even if the new ideas were really good). I think that it is the main problem with SR in general and probably created by the freelancer/designer ratio being too high ! New people = new ideas = always changing things over...

My hope in SR4 was to have a clean sweep of old things, polished rules and new setting stuff. Basically: "put back the clock to 00:00" but it seems that they are changing the clock instead !

I'll give SR4 a try for sure (give them a chance, you never know) if it's only to see what's happening by 2070 !
Lucyfersam
If their new "dice pools" function in the same way as SR3 dice pools, then we have a real problem, as that brings us very near to the old WW dice splitting problem, which was even worse than the current system (which still sucks). This would be terrible. In all the people I have ever introduced to the system over the years, I have never had some one say "Hey, dice pools are too complicated." I've heard a lot of other complaints about rule complexity (rigging especially), but not that one. As for knowing the calculation for every dice pool off hand, I know most of them, and really don't mind looking them up during chargen if I need to, I look stuff up for chargen in every other system I play, why should it be so hard to look up a calculation for dice pools? They are a whole lot easier than putting together all the mods I usually have to my Attack Modifier on the rare occaisions I'm stuck playing D20. This is what I meant by throwing out the good with the bad. The developers seem to be deciding too many things are cumbersome and complex, and that is problematic. If I saw even a hint that there was something to replace dice pools rather than redefining them (which I consider to be rather annoying, use a different term if the meaning is different), or having them function like current dice pools and have to split them across actions I would be a whole lot happier with the situation.
Demonseed Elite
Also, lemme clearly mention that I'm not trying to come off as a FanPro partisan on this. Like I mentioned, I'm not a playtester, nor one of the designers making the rules. I've seen a form of the playtester rules, which are not set in stone yet, but I haven't even had a chance to read them all (I'm consumed in SR3 land, trying to make sure System Failure comes out good). I can also say I haven't fully agreed with everything I have read and had a feisty disagreement with one idea on the rules a few days ago, and hope that my input is considered even though I'm not officially a playtester. But that's part of the process; good game mechanics don't usually come down from on high, whole and finished, like the ten commandments. wink.gif

QUOTE
I know you need feedback from people who don't play the game, about how they percieve the game. But I don't want the game "fixed" to please someone who has never played. People who have never played SR, who have a negative impression of SR arn't going to suddenly spring for $40 dollars worth of rule books.


They may. Hop over to RPG.Net and check out the threads on SR4 there. There are quite a few people saying "I might pick up Shadowrun now" or "I haven't played SR in forever, but I might go back to it now with these changes." And if I could find more people who wanted to play Shadowrun because their heads won't hurt while trying to figure out the rules, they will probably buy some books.

And you absolutely do have to make changes based on people who have never played. More specifically, based on the reasons they have never played. That's not unique to SR. It's not unique to the roleplaying game industry. Don't you think Hollywood studios consider the people who did not go see their movie when they make future ones? Don't you think video game designers consider the people who did not play their last game when they make the next one? Doesn't Ford consider the people who are not buying their cars when they plan the future of their car manufacturing? They certainly don't say, "we're only making cars for the people who already own Ford cars!"
RunnerPaul
QUOTE (Demonseed Elite)
good game mechanics don't usually come down from on high, whole and finished, like the ten commandments.

So does anyone have a Golden Calf I can smash this "Thou Shalt Have No Dice Pools" thing against before it becomes part of the canon?
Mieric
QUOTE (Zeel De Mort @ Apr 5 2005, 12:02 PM)
There's also the point that the 3rd edition D&D system is much better than AD&D 2nd edition.  In my opinion, of course.

Then again there are still some of us grognards that think 1e AD&D is the superior D&D game system.

Finding books that are in decent shape is a PITA though.

I'll be buying and hording copies of the main SR3 books up until August (so I don't have to spend a fortune later getting what I want.) After that, Fanpro ain't getting any more of my Ĩ.
Pthgar
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
QUOTE (Pthgar)
Maybe in the new system the power of the weapon will subtract dice from the damage resistance test.

Yeah, that's actually what I meant by "Dice Amount Modifier", I forgot to clarify it.

Ah. Thanks.
Bigity
QUOTE (RunnerPaul)
QUOTE (Bigity @ Apr 5 2005, 09:41 AM)
No more dodging bullets it would seem.

Seeing as how alocating combat pool for dodge tests was never intended to represent "dodging the bullet" statements like the above really tickle my funny bone.

I don't know why, seeing how this test was called the Dodge Test.

It may not be Matrix-like, and no-one suggested it was, but the end result of a very successful Dodge Test was that the bullet missed completely. Thus, the bullet was 'dodged'.

Pthgar
QUOTE (blakkie)
Another possible way that the system could handle this is for negative situational modifiers increase the number of TN5 successes required and positive situational modifiers could add dice for use. Because you are starting with a good sized pool of dice (Attribute + Skill) the number of successes required has a bit more wiggle room for the negatives, and the positive modifiers have a decreasing weight as they grow. This is especially true if Weapons and other tools all give positive modifiers of one sort or another.

I didn't think about doing it that way. That makes a lot more sense. Thanks for the thought.

Yes, I see it now variable T#s are basically replaced with variable success numbers.
blakkie
QUOTE (Mieric)
Then again there are still some of us grognards that think 1e AD&D is the superior D&D game system.

Surely you mean to say "1e AD&D, with very extensive house rules that fixes all that terribly messed up crap"? wobble.gif
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (blakkie)
3) Related to #2, it creates chunky probability curves. So modifiers that are absolutely crippling for a 3 Attribute/3 Skill character would become near trivial to a 4 Attribute/5 Skill character.

I had considered that previously, but didn't have a nice table at hand to figure out the actual curve even for a simple One Success Required test.
Guy 1: 6 dice (e.g. Attr3/Skill3)
Guy 2: 8 dice (e.g. Attr4/Skill4)
Guy 3: 10 dice (Attr5/Skill5)
Guy 4: 12 dice (Attr6/Skill6)
CODE
Dice# Mod       Guy 1 (6d6)     Guy 2 (8d6)     Guy 3 (10d6)    Guy 4 (12d6)
None            91.2%           96.1%           98.3%           99.2%
-1              86.8% (-4.4%)   94.1% (-2.0%)   97.4% (-0.9%)   98.8% (-0.4%)
-2              80.2% (-11.0%)  91.2% (-4.9%)   96.1% (-2.2%)   98.3% (-0.9%)
-3              70.4% (-20.8%)  86.8% (-9.3%)   94.1% (-4.2%)   97.4% (-1.8%)
-4              55.6% (-35.6%)  80.2% (-15.9%)  91.2% (-7.1%)   96.1% (-3.1%)
-5              33.3% (-57.9%)  70.4% (-25.7%)  86.8% (-11.5%)  94.1% (-5.1%)
-6              33.3% (-57.9%)  55.6% (-40.5%)  80.2% (-18.1%)  91.2% (-8.0%)
It's not that bad, and you can't say SR3 doesn't have its fair share of freaky probability curves. With a fair amount of tweaking (and I'm sure the developers will be busy doing just that), it seems pretty nice.
Mieric
QUOTE (blakkie @ Apr 5 2005, 12:51 PM)
QUOTE (Mieric @ Apr 5 2005, 11:38 AM)
Then again there are still some of us grognards that think 1e AD&D is the superior D&D game system.

Surely you mean to say "1e AD&D, with very extensive house rules that fixes all that terribly messed up crap"? wobble.gif

Nope.

We play almost exactly by the book, there's really no major need to houserule any of it. In fact, when we first started I used to houserule stuff all the time - but as I've gotten older I find less and less need to houserule anything.

But that's neither here nor there.

I've suffered through a dramatic system change in trying to go from 2e AD&D to 3e D&D - I hated it. It definately wasn't the same game after the change.

Now that it looks like SR is going to suffer the same fate - I'll just play the older versions.

After august (and the end of my buying splurge) all my money will be going to the half-priced book stores instead of Fanpro.
blakkie
Aren't those percentages for a single TN5? They are going to have to require multiple TN5s to signify successes, at least for some tasks. Otherwise you pretty much get to do whatever you say you want to.

P.S. Yes, SR3 had some brutal probability curves. None worse that Open Tests, but any Opposed Skill test was rough.
Vuron
Yes fundamentally this is a shift to a Margin of Success style mechanic in which numbers of successes needed indicate the relative difficulty of the task at hand.

So a routine task might require 1 success meaning someone with three dice in the pool should succeed 100% of the time. A hard task might require 3 successes and a suitably heroic task might require 5 success to achieve the effect.

Granted this is hard to tell because we don't know what will comprise the skill test as it could be dice equal to skill + attribute or skill + attribute modifer or simply skill. Further we don't know if the scale of 1 skill point in the current system remains the same or if what would be 2 skill points becomes 2 dice for tests.

Fundamentally though having fixed target numbers and presumably no exploding dice (on a d6 system having extra successes for 6s is a bit too often) allows the GM to guess probabilities easier and to have less control over truly unusual results. Granted you won't neccesarily have novices pull of truly phenomenal results unless there is a mechanic for adding dice to the test (karma usage would come to mind) but you'd have more predictable results which isn't inherently bad.

Yes this almost certainly means damage codes are changing because body tests would likely be against this fixed TN of 5 but I'm not sure that is such a bad thing.

Personally this does sound like a more elegant method of test resolution than the current system and depending on how it is hashed out could be a very positive improvement.
Pthgar
@ Mieric

Ah, a fair and open minded assesment based on the volumes of information we have an SR4. wink.gif
Austere Emancipator
Yeah, those are for a single success. I don't have a clue what kind of formula you can use to get the probability of # or more successes.

QUOTE (Vuron)
So a routine task might require 1 success meaning someone with three dice in the pool should succeed 100% of the time.

Well, not exactly. P(1 or more successes with 3 dice against TN 5) = 0.703703703...

QUOTE (Vuron)
Fundamentally though having fixed target numbers and presumably no exploding dice [...] allows the GM to guess probabilities easier and to have less control over truly unusual results.

Once the required amount of successes gets over 2 and the amount of dice rolled is significant, calculating the probability is actually much more difficult under the new system than calculating the probability of a single success under the old system. In SR3, all you need to do is 1 - (1-P(Hitting TN with 1 die))^(# of dice).

Still, it's fair to say accurate estimation of the probability of success is almost impossible without a calculator in either system.
blakkie
QUOTE (Mieric @ Apr 5 2005, 01:12 PM)
QUOTE (blakkie @ Apr 5 2005, 12:51 PM)
QUOTE (Mieric @ Apr 5 2005, 11:38 AM)
Then again there are still some of us grognards that think 1e AD&D is the superior D&D game system.

Surely you mean to say "1e AD&D, with very extensive house rules that fixes all that terribly messed up crap"? wobble.gif

Nope.

We play almost exactly by the book, there's really no major need to houserule any of it. In fact, when we first started I used to houserule stuff all the time - but as I've gotten older I find less and less need to houserule anything.

That gives me this vision of a group of 4 wrinkled old men sitting around a retirement home table. Which one are you, the guy that fell asleep with his head slung back and is now snoring while a puddle of drool forms on the floor behind his wheelchair? grinbig.gif

I do get the preference of the "feel" of previous versions to 3E. I don't share it mind you, and would be loath to EVER go back, but I get it. However I don't get playing 1E straight up. In fact I think you are the only one i've ever heard that from.
Vuron
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
Yeah, those are for a single success. I don't have a clue what kind of formula you can use to get the probability of # or more successes.

It's not exact but you can pretty much guesstimate that for 1 success is added for every 3 dice in the pool. If the mechanic is attribute + skill (assuming current scale) then average people 2 attribute + 2 Skill would average slightly more than one success and decently skilled people 4 attribute + 5 skill would average 3 successes.
Mieric
QUOTE (Pthgar @ Apr 5 2005, 01:06 PM)
@ Mieric

Ah, a fair and open minded assesment based on the volumes of information we have an SR4. wink.gif

Who said anything about being fair?!

I'm not buying the game to support Fanpro. I'm buying the game to support my gaming group.

Selfish? Yep, you bet. But I'm done with games that switch systems and invalidate all previous material.

Porting characters/monsters/items/spells/etc from 1e to 3e and 3e to 1e was a big enough pain - I have no intention of doing it yet again for another system, I'll just stick with the older system.

QUOTE (blakkie)
I do get the preference of the "feel" of previous versions to 3E. I don't share it mind you, and would be loath to EVER go back, but I get it. However I don't get playing 1E straight up. In fact I think you are the only one i've ever heard that from.


Try asking around here. wink.gif There are a few of us old fogies around there.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (Vuron)
It's not exact but you can pretty much guesstimate that for 1 success is added for every 3 dice in the pool.

It's actually a really long way from exact, as witnessed by the fact that 3d6 vs 5 = 70.4%, and it'll get a lot worse when you get more dice and more required successes.

Note that in SR4 canon average people (meaning humans) apparently have attributes of 3.
Eugene
QUOTE (mintcar)
Lucifersam: Have you not listened? The dice pools are still there!!! They have not gone away. In fact. Every skill test is made with a dice pool now. Read the blog again.

It's not the same, though. The nifty thing about Pools was that, in combat anyway, you could use SOME of it for one action, and SOME for another.

In the old system, you could JUST roll your Guns skill if you wanted to save that Combat Pool for dodge, or go all out and risk being hit later.

If you just call the dice you roll a "pool", it isn't the same thing.

This new system (as presented in the FAQ, anyway), is basically the WOD way but with d6s. Everything's there - Skill + Attribute, static target #s, counting successes.
Pthgar
QUOTE (Mieric)
QUOTE (Pthgar @ Apr 5 2005, 01:06 PM)
@ Mieric

Ah, a fair and open minded assesment based on the volumes of information we have an SR4. wink.gif

Who said anything about being fair?!

I'm not buying the game to support Fanpro. I'm buying the game to support my gaming group.

Selfish? Yep, you bet. But I'm done with games that switch systems and invalidate all previous material.

Porting characters/monsters/items/spells/etc from 1e to 3e and 3e to 1e was a big enough pain - I have no intention of doing it yet again for another system, I'll just stick with the older system.

Ah, so it's not really about not liking new rules but a matter of not wanting to deal with changeover. I can respect that, but then if you want any of the new stuff you have to back-convert it anyway. I know I would last until a really interesting SR4 product came out then I would do the conversion anyway. I am going to bite the bullet early.
blakkie
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
Yeah, those are for a single success. I don't have a clue what kind of formula you can use to get the probability of # or more successes.

.....

Once the required amount of successes gets over 2 and the amount of dice rolled is significant, calculating the probability is actually much more difficult under the new system than calculating the probability of a single success under the old system.

I've got the calculation in an Excel sheet I once posted here in regards to Open Tests. I'll see if I can dig it up.
mfb
indeed. a fence--chainlink, stretches across your backyard--is hardly the same thing as a fence--seedy, sells things that you stole. SR3 dice pools are a whole different animal from SR4 dice pools, despite the fact that they share the same name.
Pthgar
QUOTE (Eugene)
This new system (as presented in the FAQ, anyway), is basically the WOD way but with d6s. Everything's there - Skill + Attribute, static target #s, counting successes.

Hence the name of the thread.
mmu1
QUOTE (Pthgar)
QUOTE (blakkie @ Apr 5 2005, 01:26 PM)
Another possible way that the system could handle this is for negative situational modifiers increase the number of TN5 successes required and positive situational modifiers could add dice for use. Because you are starting with a good sized pool of dice (Attribute + Skill) the number of successes required has a bit more wiggle room for the negatives, and the positive modifiers have a decreasing weight as they grow. This is especially true if Weapons and other tools all give positive modifiers of one sort or another.

I didn't think about doing it that way. That makes a lot more sense. Thanks for the thought.

Yes, I see it now variable T#s are basically replaced with variable success numbers.

Actually, doing things that way would make for a crappy system with very little "wiggle room" and an extremely screwy probability distribution.

Let's look at a typical combat situation: You might have penalties for range, movement, lighting and cover... You either have to ignore some of those entirely, or apply them - at a minimum of +1 extra success required per modifier. This will have the effect of very quickly making many combat rolls made in imperfect conditions damn near impossible, as you start asking people for 4 or 5 successes vs. TN 5 (assuming you want a little more complexity than having only one penalty for shooting at any range beyond short, only one penalty for lighting that's less than full, only one penalty regardless of whether you wal or run...).
mfb
minor deterrents--poor lighting, etcetera--could reduce dice, instead. major deterrents would increase the number of successes required.
Backgammon
You know, this new method takes await a lot of the drama of SR. I mean, with the new system, if you need 5 successes and you only have 4 dice, you lose. you CANNOT make it, no point in rolling.

But in SR3, even if your TN is 24,you have a *chance* of hitting that. Hell, we've all seen some of those rolls.

Now that's gone. No more madly rolling 6s again yelling "coooome on 24!!" as everyone watches in disbelief you roll another 6, getting closer to that impossible shot.
Austere Emancipator
Continuing with Vuron's "3 dice per success" idea, it does work in other ways than what I was thinking about. The mean amount of successes rolled against TN 5 with 3 dice = 1, and while I'm not willing to do the long form math involved I'm willing to bet it's 2 with 6 dice, etc.

I have to agree with mmu1 in that increasing the amount of successes necessary to actually succeed is much more limiting than reducing the amount of dice available. Again, I can't be bothered to try and prove it mathematically, but I think this is true for all dice amounts. Thus I also agree with mfb.

Backgammon: If nothing of the sort makes it into canon SR4, house rule it so that 11 (or 12) is 2 successes, 17 (or 18) is 3 successes, etc. [Edit]Although, based on Patrick Goodman's comments below, I suppose something of the sort will make it into canon SR4...[/Edit]
Patrick Goodman
QUOTE (Backgammon)
You know, this new method takes await a lot of the drama of SR. I mean, with the new system, if you need 5 successes and you only have 4 dice, you lose. you CANNOT make it, no point in rolling.

This has not been my experience playing the new system so far. There are mechanics in place, or being tested, to allow for long shots and such.

Why is it that no one believes us when we tell them that we're thinking of things like this?
Mieric
QUOTE (Pthgar)
QUOTE (Mieric @ Apr 5 2005, 03:23 PM)
QUOTE (Pthgar @ Apr 5 2005, 01:06 PM)
@ Mieric

Ah, a fair and open minded assesment based on the volumes of information we have an SR4. wink.gif

Who said anything about being fair?!

I'm not buying the game to support Fanpro. I'm buying the game to support my gaming group.

Selfish? Yep, you bet. But I'm done with games that switch systems and invalidate all previous material.

Porting characters/monsters/items/spells/etc from 1e to 3e and 3e to 1e was a big enough pain - I have no intention of doing it yet again for another system, I'll just stick with the older system.

Ah, so it's not really about not liking new rules but a matter of not wanting to deal with changeover. I can respect that, but then if you want any of the new stuff you have to back-convert it anyway. I know I would last until a really interesting SR4 product came out then I would do the conversion anyway. I am going to bite the bullet early.

We like the mechanics as they are - that was part of the reason that we migrated back to 1e from 3e - the entire game was set for a different playstyle than we enjoy. I'd much rather have a game system that suits us than try to shoehorn an unknown and changing system around our playstyle.

All in all, I've been screwed over by other game publishers too many times to be bothered with converting all my custom campaign material, figuring out the new game system, deciding if I actually like the changes, or determining if it suits our playstyle - I'll just stick with SR3.




Shadow
QUOTE (Patrick Goodman)
QUOTE (Backgammon @ Apr 5 2005, 12:33 PM)
You know, this new method takes await a lot of the drama of SR. I mean, with the new system, if you need 5 successes and you only have 4 dice, you lose. you CANNOT make it, no point in rolling.

This has not been my experience playing the new system so far. There are mechanics in place, or being tested, to allow for long shots and such.

Why is it that no one believes us when we tell them that we're thinking of things like this?

Probably because everything you have told us about the new system makes us think it is just a rip off of WoD with D6's.

What people are bitter and angry about is FanPro chucking the old ruleset and creating a new one from scratch (or converting WoD's). And if you say it is the same rules... read my post above about what has changed.
blakkie
QUOTE (Backgammon)
You know, this new method takes await a lot of the drama of SR. I mean, with the new system, if you need 5 successes and you only have 4 dice, you lose. you CANNOT make it, no point in rolling.

But in SR3, even if your TN is 24,you have a *chance* of hitting that. Hell, we've all seen some of those rolls.

Now that's gone. No more madly rolling 6s again yelling "coooome on 24!!" as everyone watches in disbelief you roll another 6, getting closer to that impossible shot.

Exploding dice is what can overcome that. Someone mentioned exploding dice on d6 can lead to a of extra successes. To limit the variance you could make them no recursive exploding (maximum of one extra success per die). However that would definately curb the feeling of mounting excitement you were mentioning, and would be kinda silling too as exploding would occur for about 1/2 of the original success, but stop there.

QUOTE
minor deterrents--poor lighting, etcetera--could reduce dice, instead. major deterrents would increase the number of successes required.


I considered that, but it complicates things. That would mean not just remembering amounts of subjection/addition but also whether it was a dice or a success adjustment. Defeats the streamlining goal.
Catsnightmare
Echo what someone else has already said earlyer, No more of my money to Whiz Kids/Fan Pro after August, Half Price Books is getting my dollars.

You can call me an asshat if you want to, but the only way I'll ever look at SR4 is off a P2P network to reverse engineer any new gear/cyber.
Spookymonster
QUOTE (blakkie @ Apr 5 2005, 02:42 PM)
QUOTE (Backgammon @ Apr 5 2005, 12:33 PM)
You know, this new method takes await a lot of the drama of SR. I mean, with the new system, if you need 5 successes and you only have 4 dice, you lose. you CANNOT make it, no point in rolling.

But in SR3, even if your TN is 24,you have a *chance* of hitting that. Hell, we've all seen some of those rolls.

Now that's gone. No more madly rolling 6s again yelling "coooome on 24!!" as everyone watches in disbelief you roll another 6, getting closer to that impossible shot.

Exploding dice is what can overcome that. Someone mentioned exploding dice on d6 can lead to a of extra successes. To limit the variance you could make them no recursive exploding (maximum of one extra success per die). However that would definately curb the feeling of mounting excitement you were mentioning, and would be kinda silling too as exploding would occur for about 1/2 of the original success, but stop there.

Hmmmm... so the Rule of Six might not be entirely dead yet?

Ro6: I'm not dead yet... I think I'll go for a walk.
Fanpro: You're not fooling anyone, you know.
Ro6: I feel happy! I feel happy!

We all know how that ends, of course wink.gif.
mfb
well, calling you an asshat would be rude, which i never am. so i'll refrain. it is, however, worth pointing out that one of the hallmarks of asshattery is hating things you've never actually seen or experienced.
mintcar
I feel there must be a lot of missconceptions here (mine included, when I said the new dice pool was just like the old). You are discussing things you have made up instead of the things that have been announced. We donīt know that they wont have any tactical choices in combat, we do know what the skill check system will look like. I would be very disapointed if the new system did not include tactical elements. Itīs rather obvious that itīs something people like with the current system, so why would they remove it? You say there is nothing that indicates anything replacing the dice pools. Well, thereīs a lot we donīt know yet. People assume the worst all the time, it seems. How can you hope to offer constructive criticism when you are critisizing mere assumptions?
mmu1
A bunch of Shadowrun players assuming the worst. I mean, what are the chances of that? nyahnyah.gif
Backgammon
QUOTE (Patrick Goodman)
QUOTE (Backgammon @ Apr 5 2005, 12:33 PM)
You know, this new method takes await a lot of the drama of SR. I mean, with the new system, if you need 5 successes and you only have 4 dice, you lose. you CANNOT make it, no point in rolling.

This has not been my experience playing the new system so far. There are mechanics in place, or being tested, to allow for long shots and such.

Why is it that no one believes us when we tell them that we're thinking of things like this?

I try so hard to have faith in you guys, since I KNOW you guys are good. I'm the one trying to calm my group that SR isn't "ruined". But see, how could I know "something" was being worked on to fix the no-more-longshots problem? The update didn't say that. You did, just now, and I do feel better.

So we're supposed to either have blind faith that you guys are gonna give us a golden, shiney, perfect SR4, or read the updates and go "this sucks". Maybe it's the way information is being communicated that is screwing the pooch...

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012