If you have secret, non-open tests, you can't let the players roll them at all, because they might decide they wanted to reroll the failures, and then they'd usually be able to read off the target number based on the number of successes.
There is no need for secrecy with an open test.
But I agree that your method would streamline things, especially if the typical situation was where the players were making lots of rolls without knowing the target number (or now, I suppose, the threshold).
I'm just not sure that's worth the drawbacks. For example, if you're rolling 8 dice, then your chance to succeed is:
Full Version: Dice systems
| CODE |
| Threshold:1 success 2 successes 3 successes 4 successes 5 succ. 6+ succ. Chance: 96% 80% 53% 26% 9% <2% |
So you don't have a lot of control over the difficulty here--it's about the same as changing target numbers and having the person roll a single d4! And it only gets worse if they're rolling fewer dice.
| QUOTE (Ellery) | ||
| If you have secret, non-open tests, you can't let the players roll them at all, because they might decide they wanted to reroll the failures, and then they'd usually be able to read off the target number based on the number of successes. There is no need for secrecy with an open test. But I agree that your method would streamline things, especially if the typical situation was where the players were making lots of rolls without knowing the target number (or now, I suppose, the threshold). I'm just not sure that's worth the drawbacks. For example, if you're rolling 8 dice, then your chance to succeed is:
So you don't have a lot of control over the difficulty here--it's about the same as changing target numbers and having the person roll a single d4! And it only gets worse if they're rolling fewer dice. |
I concur on some tests like perception tests to determine if the PCs are surprised by some ambushers it's generally best to have secret tests.
Actually if you want to get really technical rather then grabbing the dice when there is a possibility of an ambush on the PCs almost always alerts Players that something is up so they almost always change thier tactics unless they are really commited to not using metagaming knowledge to effect PC actions.
One system that generally seems to work well in my experience would be for the characters to roll perception tests ahead of time and have the GM reference them during certain situations. Yes it would be hard to do if there are a ton of environmentally factors but you could in theory just subtract 1 from the successes rolled for each +/- 3 as penalty.
In general though using a method like this was not as workable in the old system unless you write down the results of all the dice ahead of time thus creating a big bookkeeping issue.
The other option is of course using a laptop and a dice program to roll secret tests as presumably this would give the players less of a clue. Of course it assumes that most GMs are going to use a laptop or PDA in thier sessions.
It's not necessary to inspect dice even with secret-TN public tests. Just have the players read off the results from high to low, incrementing until they drop below the TN.
~J
~J
| QUOTE (Patrick Goodman) |
| I'm actually fiddling with a couple of sample characters that are more artistically oriented. The Rocker is not an archetype that I consider out of the question. I think socially-conscious musicians have a place in the Sixth World. And no, I'm in no way being sarcastic. |
Bless you. I would love to see them back in the game.
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| I would love to see them back in the game. |
As far as I'm concerned, they never left. I've seen a lot of Rocker-type characters played in SR3.
I've got one in my current campaign group.
Especially fun with the rise of "Trog Rock."
I have to say though it might be time to either reunite Concrete Dreams or begin having the members keel of in 2070. Personally I'd like to see another product like shadowbeat even though I know that it's unlikely to sell. Maybe it could be a pdf only product?
The culture sections at the end of the SOTA books filled my fix for that.
same here. they've been some of my favorite parts of SOTA:63 and 64.
| QUOTE (Ellery @ Apr 15 2005, 09:50 AM) | ||
| If you have secret, non-open tests, you can't let the players roll them at all, because they might decide they wanted to reroll the failures, and then they'd usually be able to read off the target number based on the number of successes. There is no need for secrecy with an open test. But I agree that your method would streamline things, especially if the typical situation was where the players were making lots of rolls without knowing the target number (or now, I suppose, the threshold). I'm just not sure that's worth the drawbacks. For example, if you're rolling 8 dice, then your chance to succeed is:
So you don't have a lot of control over the difficulty here--it's about the same as changing target numbers and having the person roll a single d4! And it only gets worse if they're rolling fewer dice. |
I think those statistics looks fine. As long as there is some way of succeeding with tests were you have fewer dice than needed. And we know theyīre looking into that.
Equipment and spell effects needs small increments of effect to offer variaty. Thatīs were the difference is compared to rolling a single d4. What ultimatly effects your chance of success is your skills and your tools, after all. Situational modifiers donīt really need to be finely tuned. Iīm more or less satisfied with a threshold that reflects if the conditions are good, bad or terrible.
The problem with such coarse granularity is that it's hard for a lot of little factors to add up in any sensible way.
But maybe part of your point is that there shouldn't be so many little factors. Either it's a big factor, or don't worry about it; and if there are lots of little factors, well, you can surmount them all.
But maybe part of your point is that there shouldn't be so many little factors. Either it's a big factor, or don't worry about it; and if there are lots of little factors, well, you can surmount them all.
You got it 
Well, I have to admit that this is consistent with the SR4 philosophy, unless that philosophy doesn't include variable thresholds for minimal success. Of course, there is the problem that you can't give a bonus without making success automatic, but if you always start with one success needed under the "best possible conditions" and work down from there, I guess that's okay.
Thanks Ellery. Itīs not often you get basic recognition of your position being valid around here. At least not from someone who disagrees with you. I guess thereīs not much more to say. Wow. I think thatīs a first. 
yeah, but then you'd have to have penalties like "not using a laser sight".
Using a laser sight would give you extra dice.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.