Full Version: Dice systems
| QUOTE (Patrick Goodman @ Apr 7 2005, 12:57 AM) |
| And this is an instance where, upon contemplation over the past several weeks, I can say that SR4 design and playtesting isn't all an echo chamber. I've been kind of on the fence about dice pools, but in general I disagree with their disappearance, for many of the reasons listed here. |
That's good to hear, from both you and DE.
| QUOTE |
| I think they're a pain in the ass from a GM standpoint, and I think there should be a uniform formula for their creation (as opposed to the hodge-podge that exists now), but I think they should remain. I'm not the control freak that some of the other guys are, but I do see the utility of the pools. I'm just thinking we don't need ten of the damn things to try and keep track of. |
Oh, don't get me wrong. I totally agree that the current method(s) of calculating them are not optimal, nor are they even close to being intuitive to the newcomer. A better calculation mechanic is very warranted. I also don't think it's necessary to have as many different Pools as there are in SR3. Even if there was only one overall Tactical Pool that could be used where and when the character wanted, it would make all the difference in playing style and feel.
exactly. the mechanic is flawed, but the concept is not only sound, it's necessary to the game.
I'm going to start by pointing out one line about Dice Pools my original post people have obviously missed...
| QUOTE |
| And yes, I quite liked them. |
At no point did I say they were pointless, or that they didn't serve a purpose and make combat more interesting. What I did say is that in practice the results are quite different. Its the implementation that never quite worked out.
I'm sure all of you can give me examples all day long to prove I'm wrong and for everyone of them I'd counter with example of my own. I don't think that's productive.
As to my players being skewed examples I'd offer only the following. I normally gamemaster a unbelievably typical 4-man team. There's always one sam, a shaman, a jack-o'-all-trades/techie/face and a rigger/decker. Two of my players would qualify as min-maxers although they're quite good at maxing-out their character concepts rather than go the full-blown min-maxer route and putting together the best stats rather than a character out. This means those street sams or shamans are pretty good at their roles - plus the players are bonafied tactical and creative thinkers (the type that came up with using Physical Barriers as escape ramps or bridges two months after 1st edition coming out).
In practice what this means (and I firmly believe this is representative of experienced players -the type that might use Combat Pool tactically - out there) is they rarely get into firefights unless they really screw up or I surprise them.
Now, when they do get in a firefight, I'm pretty strict (by the book) with modifiers and I don't pull punches (anyone who's read the IGTTM thread will know that), you make a serious mistake in combat in my game and you die. Target numbers for the fully decked out street sam average 5-6 in most of (our) "typical" combat situations (with cover being the biggest variable), obviously higher for everybody else. My players know this and build their characters accordingly.
Realistically this is what tends to go down. In 90% of the situations - minus ambushes (and excluding the run-in with the cyberzombie in First Run) the sam on the team wins initiative or surprises the opponents. The sam with all the tricks will average 2-3 successes (Skill 8, final modified TN# 5-6) on an attack without Pool. To have a reasonable chance at Dodging, their opposition (including most reflex-enhanced sams or mages) will have to use all their Pool to Dodge - my point above. Then on to the wired-jack-o-all-trades (boosted 3 - SMGs 6), the enhanced shaman and everybody else who are either going to use their Pool to increase their chances to hit or are going to average 1-2 successes (which the opposition being able to reroll their Dodge with a target number 5 (burst) to avoid getting hit - 2-3 successes needed - and they have nothing to lose by doing so since its their only chance of survival against that "wired guy who shot at them before they even saw him move" and who's sure to get another round of shots in SOON.
Regardless of when the opposition - note I also play the opposition realistically no standard security teams decked out with wired reflexes, etc) gets a turn (those that are still alive and haven't registered their companions deaths in the second that has zipped by), the same happens in return. A by-the-book unwounded (either because he Dodged or because the team is outnumbered) street sam or merc will average 2 successes in an attack (even if he has to Delay Action until the character pops up again to fire), a basic security guard/grunt/thug (Pistols or SMGs 3-4) will average (slightly under) 1, even if they have used up all their Pool. The players have to choose how much of their Pool to use to Dodge that counterattack. Usually I find they'll use at least 4 dice possibly 5 dice to ensure they get the 2-3 successes needed. For everybody but the tricked-out street sam this normally leaves them with 1 or 2 dice for their next move - the probability modifier that adds to their next offensive action is negligible... hence my comment above that in my experience Combat Pool (particularly; other Pools present other problems) "tactical" value is illusory.
Critias - Rest assured I am not a developer, I'm only a playtester and a recent one at that, and in fact I offered a suggestion for a Pool system to help with one of the issues I've found in playtesting.
i don't see that, synner. i see your players using their combat pool intelligently against opponents that don't stand a chance, pool or no pool. combat pool isn't going to allow a guard with 3s for stats, 4 or 5 for skills, and no cyber to have a snowball's chance against a well-equipped, prepared runner team. in your situation, combat pool provides no real tactical advantage to either side because the forces are so imbalanced. when your players start going up against more equal opponents, or opponents who outclass them, combat pool makes a huge difference.
I'll agree to disagree there. I've had situations like that too. And combat devolves into the street sam using as much of his Pool as he believes necessary to ensure a take down of the opposition's high-reflexes character(s) (knowing full well the opposition will use that Karma reroll if necessary) or alternately being forced to use most of it to Dodge the opposition's first strike (also backed by rerolls if necessary). Either way it gets used up in the first exchange just the same.
Note that I also think you're incorrect about the situation in my prior example. As I've noted there, I don't play down the opposition (these are security guards/grunts trained to fight superior enemies) and they are a threat. In most situations I give them backup and superior numbers to the players and have them use their homeground advantage to outmaneuver intruders. It's not the first time a coordinated team of (out-of-the-book) security guards (backed by passive or reactive magical defenses such as spirits and wards) have seriously hurt my teams.
Note that I also think you're incorrect about the situation in my prior example. As I've noted there, I don't play down the opposition (these are security guards/grunts trained to fight superior enemies) and they are a threat. In most situations I give them backup and superior numbers to the players and have them use their homeground advantage to outmaneuver intruders. It's not the first time a coordinated team of (out-of-the-book) security guards (backed by passive or reactive magical defenses such as spirits and wards) have seriously hurt my teams.
I was just halfway through typing what mfb just said.
The tactical value of combat pools is lessened when the player side already does hold the advantage, yes. The players don't need to be very tactical in a situation like that. Their tech, magic, etc. already places enough emphasis on their side. But that's not every situation, at least not in my games. Sometimes the runners are facing runner-quality opposition. Sometimes, they are just plain outclassed (Brainscan comes to mind here). Tactical emphasis becomes more important in these situations.
Another thing to consider is how often this tactical pool would refresh. If it refreshes every Combat Turn, there is a bit of a front-loaded bias, because if they can dominate this Combat Turn, regardless of how the situation shifts next combat turn, their pool will be back. Now, if the tactical pool refreshes each scene, then the guy who just dumped all his tactical pool on the security guard is in trouble if backup shows up (backup who has not used their tactical pools). Doesn't matter if it's a new Combat Turn when they show up, it's still the same scene. Now the street sam is tactically disadvantaged (and he'd better hope his gear, magic, and other advantages make up for that fact).
The tactical value of combat pools is lessened when the player side already does hold the advantage, yes. The players don't need to be very tactical in a situation like that. Their tech, magic, etc. already places enough emphasis on their side. But that's not every situation, at least not in my games. Sometimes the runners are facing runner-quality opposition. Sometimes, they are just plain outclassed (Brainscan comes to mind here). Tactical emphasis becomes more important in these situations.
Another thing to consider is how often this tactical pool would refresh. If it refreshes every Combat Turn, there is a bit of a front-loaded bias, because if they can dominate this Combat Turn, regardless of how the situation shifts next combat turn, their pool will be back. Now, if the tactical pool refreshes each scene, then the guy who just dumped all his tactical pool on the security guard is in trouble if backup shows up (backup who has not used their tactical pools). Doesn't matter if it's a new Combat Turn when they show up, it's still the same scene. Now the street sam is tactically disadvantaged (and he'd better hope his gear, magic, and other advantages make up for that fact).
If the refresh is on a thus-far arbitrary term such as "scene" there better darn well be a really good definition of what a "scene" is.
And, as a side note, some are likely to throw a fit about what the heck a term like "scene" has to do with SR (even though this is currently all just speculation).
And, as a side note, some are likely to throw a fit about what the heck a term like "scene" has to do with SR (even though this is currently all just speculation).
Jay - Agreed to a point. My example above was intended to show how a "standard foe" (and not even an equal enemy) can counter a character trying to use Pool tactically by using all his Pool (and NPCs Karma rerolls) to survive into his first action (effectively forcing the character who's playing the saving game to use his to Dodge an attack that might never have come if he "front loaded" in the first place to ensure take down).
I'm just saying the "front load" problem is much bigger than people are recognizing in both situations - the ones where you're facing many weaker enemies and the one where you're facing equal foes. It's one of several reasons why I believe the true edge given by the adept power First Strike is immense.
Like I indicated previously the problem with the Combat Pool was never the concept, but the implementation - particularly when you take into consideration the influence of stuff like NPC's Karma rerolls and SR3's Initiative system - which made the practical impact illusory, ironically especially among experienced players and gamemasters who use their NPCs full potential.
Note that the example above also plays on averages, variation is possible (but as we all know variation can be equally positive and negative). And to be perfectly honest (and undermine myself) I will add that my player's reaction is also influenced by an additional factor beyond the ones stated above (although those are completely valid):- I'm not an average roller, I've been known to regularly roll 2 sixes on 4 dice.
Now if, on the other hand, we have a certain type of Pool or something like it that refereshes every "scene" that might solve the problem - but I'm sure the developers have studied that possibility too.
I'm just saying the "front load" problem is much bigger than people are recognizing in both situations - the ones where you're facing many weaker enemies and the one where you're facing equal foes. It's one of several reasons why I believe the true edge given by the adept power First Strike is immense.
Like I indicated previously the problem with the Combat Pool was never the concept, but the implementation - particularly when you take into consideration the influence of stuff like NPC's Karma rerolls and SR3's Initiative system - which made the practical impact illusory, ironically especially among experienced players and gamemasters who use their NPCs full potential.
Note that the example above also plays on averages, variation is possible (but as we all know variation can be equally positive and negative). And to be perfectly honest (and undermine myself) I will add that my player's reaction is also influenced by an additional factor beyond the ones stated above (although those are completely valid):- I'm not an average roller, I've been known to regularly roll 2 sixes on 4 dice.
Now if, on the other hand, we have a certain type of Pool or something like it that refereshes every "scene" that might solve the problem - but I'm sure the developers have studied that possibility too.
If you wanted to get rid of the term "scene", you could use something that sounds more SR-appropriate, like "engagement." An engagement would basically be any self-contained period of time that included a continous series of opposed rolls. Climbing the face of a cliff isn't an engagement; there's no opposed rolls involved. Therefore you have no Tactical Pool use for it. Climbing the face of a cliff while security guards are shooting you is an engagement; opposed rolls are involved. If you kill one guard while climbing the cliff face but another just arrived, that's still the same engagement. If you kill all the guards, climb the cliff face, cross over to the fence, hop over it, and come across a basilisk, that's a new engagement. You've had a chance to reassess the situation (Tactics Pool refreshes). You could possibly say that to refresh the Tactics Pool requires a full Combat Turn where you have taken no opposed action (or opposed no action).
I'm just tossing out ideas here.
I'm just tossing out ideas here.
| QUOTE (kevyn668) |
| What will be, will be. To struggle, however, gives meaning to life. [ Spoiler ] |
"Que Sera, Sera" from "The Sound of Music"?
yes, most people spend the bulk of their combat pool on a single action--one dodge, or one shot, or one whatever. that doesn't change the fact that the decision of where to spend that cp is very important, tactically. you have to spend it on the right shot, the right dodge. spending it on the wrong roll is a tactical blunder that will, especially in the case of equal opponents, get you killed. your players consistently spend their combat pool intelligently, which is why they win. if they spent it unintelligently--and i've done so often enough to know--the wouldn't win as consistently.
mfb - You'll grant me that when the right shot or the right dodge is your first action (or reaction) more often than not (given the "front load" problem highlighted above), then there really aren't much tactics to the decision - you're dead if you don't.
In fact we've proven elsewhere (the IGTTM thread) that there's a very similar flaw with Decking Pool use in Cybercombat - which has the additional problem of making most Maneuvers redundant. As it stands in 90% of the Cybercombat situations you end up using the 2 Simple Actions to Attack option since its the best way to ensure the IC goes down right away - doing otherwise extends combat and risks increasing your Security Tally.
In fact we've proven elsewhere (the IGTTM thread) that there's a very similar flaw with Decking Pool use in Cybercombat - which has the additional problem of making most Maneuvers redundant. As it stands in 90% of the Cybercombat situations you end up using the 2 Simple Actions to Attack option since its the best way to ensure the IC goes down right away - doing otherwise extends combat and risks increasing your Security Tally.
I'll grant you that, Synner, and I saw it pretty often when I ran Brainscan for Critias and mfb. 
And it wasn't just them, it was me too, since I played all the opposition as having Combat Pools. There was plenty of front-loading, where Critias' sam or mfb's physad would dump as much as possible early, to geek the opposing mage right off, for instance. Or, if I managed to get the initiative on them, I'd try to have the opposition do the same. So much of the oomph of every combat engagement focused primarily on the first couple of people to act (if not just plain the first one), to the point where it was pretty boring if you didn't have super-initiative (if not fatal).
That's why I often smirk when I hear people complain about sams being brushed aside in SR. I'll be damned if it wasn't Connor (Critias' sam) or Italy (mfb's physad gunslinger) who weren't the stars of every engagement. The rest of the characters were mostly left with mopping up whomever those two decided to ignore. And I don't think Critias would deny how often I tried to throw roadblocks up against Connor because of it.
Now, I'll have to look at the way SR4 handles initiative and combat progression again, because I know some of those past concerns have been addressed. But that's one of the reasons I lean closer to the idea that the pool wouldn't refresh every turn, at least not without some conscious effort on the part of the player who wants to refresh it. So that players have to be a bit more conscious of how the flow of the entire fight will play out, instead of thinking on a round-by-round basis.
And it wasn't just them, it was me too, since I played all the opposition as having Combat Pools. There was plenty of front-loading, where Critias' sam or mfb's physad would dump as much as possible early, to geek the opposing mage right off, for instance. Or, if I managed to get the initiative on them, I'd try to have the opposition do the same. So much of the oomph of every combat engagement focused primarily on the first couple of people to act (if not just plain the first one), to the point where it was pretty boring if you didn't have super-initiative (if not fatal).
That's why I often smirk when I hear people complain about sams being brushed aside in SR. I'll be damned if it wasn't Connor (Critias' sam) or Italy (mfb's physad gunslinger) who weren't the stars of every engagement. The rest of the characters were mostly left with mopping up whomever those two decided to ignore. And I don't think Critias would deny how often I tried to throw roadblocks up against Connor because of it.
Now, I'll have to look at the way SR4 handles initiative and combat progression again, because I know some of those past concerns have been addressed. But that's one of the reasons I lean closer to the idea that the pool wouldn't refresh every turn, at least not without some conscious effort on the part of the player who wants to refresh it. So that players have to be a bit more conscious of how the flow of the entire fight will play out, instead of thinking on a round-by-round basis.
You guys seem to be working yourself closer and closer to one of Spycraft's core mechanics - Action Dice.
You get a number of dice at the beginning of each gaming session and you use them during the session to improve your rolls (or defense). They explode (that is, you re-roll and keep adding if they roll their high number), so they give at least a remote chance of getting difficulty numbers you couldn't normally roll. And they are used to activate various other in-game effects, like activating critical hits (possibly instantly killing your enemies), calling in favors, activating your enemy's fumbles, or using some special abilities. The GM awards more dice for doing cool things during play, and he has his own pool of dice that he uses for the same thing the players do - except all of his NPCs share the same pool.
It's a brilliant mechanic, especially in an essentially cinematic game. The players have to decide carefully whether any one roll is a good use of their limited dice, or they can pour as many dice as they have in trying to accomplish some goal. And they make the ultimate decision of weather a threat turns into a critical success or when the GM's error turns into a critical fumble.
You get a number of dice at the beginning of each gaming session and you use them during the session to improve your rolls (or defense). They explode (that is, you re-roll and keep adding if they roll their high number), so they give at least a remote chance of getting difficulty numbers you couldn't normally roll. And they are used to activate various other in-game effects, like activating critical hits (possibly instantly killing your enemies), calling in favors, activating your enemy's fumbles, or using some special abilities. The GM awards more dice for doing cool things during play, and he has his own pool of dice that he uses for the same thing the players do - except all of his NPCs share the same pool.
It's a brilliant mechanic, especially in an essentially cinematic game. The players have to decide carefully whether any one roll is a good use of their limited dice, or they can pour as many dice as they have in trying to accomplish some goal. And they make the ultimate decision of weather a threat turns into a critical success or when the GM's error turns into a critical fumble.
Note that all my posts assume the gamemaster makes full use of everything at the NPC's disposal in SR3 (after all they want to survive too) and plays them as intelligently as he expects the PCs to be played. The Combat Pool by itself might have worked, what really causes the front load problem is that it was designed within a wider framework which includes SR3's more friendly everybody-moves-in-the-first-Action-Pass Initiative system and that one Karma reroll all NPCs get.
And I'll go out on yet another ledge and confirm that yes, I believe some of them have been addressed - although the solution bears significant testing.
And I'll go out on yet another ledge and confirm that yes, I believe some of them have been addressed - although the solution bears significant testing.
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| mfb - You'll grant me that when the right shot or the right dodge is your first action (or reaction) more often than not (given the "front load" problem highlighted above), then there really aren't much tactics to the decision - you're dead if you don't. |
I don't even think that's true. The Sammie in your example could choose not to use CP, and instead use a point of Karma to re-roll failures with much the same results to the bad guy. He then still has his CP for use later in the round if he needs it against the other bad guy that might be hiding behind the wall.
| QUOTE (Demonseed Elite) |
| If you wanted to get rid of the term "scene", you could use something that sounds more SR-appropriate, like "engagement." An engagement would basically be any self-contained period of time that included a continous series of opposed rolls. Climbing the face of a cliff isn't an engagement; there's no opposed rolls involved. Therefore you have no Tactical Pool use for it. Climbing the face of a cliff while security guards are shooting you is an engagement; opposed rolls are involved. If you kill one guard while climbing the cliff face but another just arrived, that's still the same engagement. If you kill all the guards, climb the cliff face, cross over to the fence, hop over it, and come across a basilisk, that's a new engagement. You've had a chance to reassess the situation (Tactics Pool refreshes). You could possibly say that to refresh the Tactics Pool requires a full Combat Turn where you have taken no opposed action (or opposed no action). I'm just tossing out ideas here. |
Interesting idea. I wonder if it would be a useful mechanic to allow a refresh in "tactical pool" during combat, by spending an entire turn doing nothing but laying low and trying to figure out what's going on.
Karma use on the player side fits just as well as on the NPC's and it does increase the potential variance. However, the problem is the problem occurs both when you're acting and when you're reacting. If after the player does what you say, the first opponent who attacks all out (and if played intelligently will target either the mage or the most wired/hence most dangerous adversary), the player still has to use his Combat Pool for defense (basically he's placed in the situation I placed the security guards above). Admittedly this would allow him to save more dice to use "tactically" - but he does this because he used Karma to bolster his roll and not through any function of the Combat Pool.
And honestly, how often have you seen the sammie expend Karma like that in the first action of a firefight as compared to front loading his first Action Phase to remove the toughest opponents?
Demonseed has courteously indicated he's found this problem to be true with at least some characters and also with GMs. Despite people's assurances above, I've seen it happen numerous times in games right here on Dumpshock and games I've watched but not gamemastered as well as my own games.
And honestly, how often have you seen the sammie expend Karma like that in the first action of a firefight as compared to front loading his first Action Phase to remove the toughest opponents?
Demonseed has courteously indicated he's found this problem to be true with at least some characters and also with GMs. Despite people's assurances above, I've seen it happen numerous times in games right here on Dumpshock and games I've watched but not gamemastered as well as my own games.
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| mfb - You'll grant me that when the right shot or the right dodge is your first action (or reaction) more often than not (given the "front load" problem highlighted above), then there really aren't much tactics to the decision - you're dead if you don't. |
not at all. yes, pumping up your opening shot or dodge is often a wise move against a single powerful opponent. this is because if you put that opponent down on the first shot, you won't have to worry about anything else. you're basically talking about a variation on "shoot the mage first"; your first priority in any combat is to take down the opponent that poses the largest threat before he can bring anything to bear on you. that applies whether you're talking about a mage, a cyberzombie, or whatever.
however, let's look at a more interesting scenario: pit a few characters against a team of Piston's Tir Ghosts, or a team of similarly competent opponents. there is no longer any single dangerous opponent to take down; combat pool must be allotted carefully, or you're going to end up taking down one opponent, then getting taken down yourself before you can act again.
i think if you pit your characters against equal-rated or better-rated opponents more often, you'll see a change in how they use CP.
| QUOTE |
| Interesting idea. I wonder if it would be a useful mechanic to allow a refresh in "tactical pool" during combat, by spending an entire turn doing nothing but laying low and trying to figure out what's going on. |
At first glance, I could see that as a possibility, but I haven't yet considered how someone might abuse it.
But yeah, I would guess if a character spent a full Combat Turn and did no actions (and opposed no actions), they could refresh it. Like if they hide around the corner and take a full turn to reassess the tactical situation. Of course, while they are doing that, if the opposition finds a way to shoot at them, and they have to dodge or soak, they've blown the turn and didn't refresh their Tactical Pool.
Here's an idea where this would come up on an individual basis within a team. Let's say a team crossing a corporate compound has set off some alarms and the security guards are on them. The sam burns his Tactical Pool early to buy the decker time to cut through the door security and open the door to the building they plan to duck into. Now internal tension is building, the sam wants the decker to open the door now. So the decker burns his Tactical Pool on the test to hack the door. If he screws it up, or IC shows up, that's a big "oh shit" moment, as the decker and sam are tactically disadvantaged for the rest of the fight and aren't through the door.
Now, let's say he doesn't fail. Door opens, the team runs inside and closes the door. The decker works to keep the door closed for a full combat turn, trying to foil the efforts of the guards opening the door. He won't be able to refresh his Tactical Pool, he's too busy to spare the time. The sam though takes a moment to reassess the situation and refreshes his Tactical Pool. Alternately, maybe the mage was keeping the door closed by using some sort of spell barrier. The mage won't be able to refresh Tactical Pool, but the decker and sam could. Granted, not every single security guard is likely working to get the door open, so the ones who aren't get to refresh theirs too. They are reassessing the situation also.
This is also where things like a Small Unit Tactics skill or BattleTac might come into play, allowing a player who has had a chance to refresh their Tactics Pool to share Tactics Pool dice across their team. So while the decker might have been too busy keeping the door shut to reassess the situation, the sam did reassess things, and if they are all on BattleTac, the sam might be able to share some of his Tactical Pool with the unfortunately busy decker (this is respresented by the fact that the sam is either giving orders based on his reassessment--Small Unit Tactics--or sharing the reassessment over BattleTac).
Purely as an example of how a mechanic like that would work: Sam rolls his appropriate Attribute + Small Unit Tactics skill, fixed TN of 5. The number of successes he gets is how many dice of his Tactical Pool could be accessed by anyone on the BattleTac network. Now, if the mage reassesses the situation but doesn't have a Small Unit Tactics skill, they can default, but they just aren't as good at expressing the tactical situation they see to the rest of the network. But they still benefit their own Tactical Pool, from their own perspective, just fine.
| QUOTE (mfb @ Apr 6 2005, 06:35 PM) |
| however, let's look at a more interesting scenario: pit a few characters against a team of Piston's Tir Ghosts, or a team of similarly competent opponents. there is no longer any single dangerous opponent to take down; combat pool must be allotted carefully, or you're going to end up taking down one opponent, then getting taken down yourself before you can act again. |
You've missed my point.
Tactically alotting your Combat Pool is all good and well, it even works fine and develops into a nice moment of enemies dancing around one another - however, this tactical detente, like any detente, only works until someone allots all of his on his first (possibly only) strike (regardless of whether its you or the enemy) and forces everybody out of tactical allocation just to survive - granted this happens more often when someone (PC or NPC) in combat only has one action and wants to make the most of it (chances are he won't get another chance and his Pool refreshes next Turn as well), but it's a fact nonetheless. Since factors such as cover and visibility modifiers can greatly increase a character's chance of survival when doing this (since the statistical result is he'll be the first to go down) someone is bound to take the risk - after that the situation above applies.
I've actually seen this play out with Equal opponents and players so cautious they all went into Delayed Actions until the first one risked a potshot and then it degenerated from there. From then on every game I saw with those players they front-loaded their first action in every combat scene.
I'm also pretty certain you're underestimating the dynamics of inferior enemies in slightly bigger numbers to competent characters. The tactical situation only works until you get to the first opponent (weak or not) who makes an all-out attack. I've had security teams of 6-7 men (only one wired and a mage on the astral) give a 4 man min-maxed crew of runners a run for their money fight - and force them to use up their Combat Pool - all this in a standard (my definition) combat situation (corridors of a corporate facility on alert, emergency lighting).
I don't hope to change your mind, and I admitted up front I was speaking from personal experience, so I won't debate this further, but if you'd like to try a practical example elsewhere one of these days I'll be happy to attempt to prove my point.
| QUOTE (Little Bill) |
| You guys seem to be working yourself closer and closer to one of Spycraft's core mechanics - Action Dice. (snipped) It's a brilliant mechanic, especially in an essentially cinematic game. The players have to decide carefully whether any one roll is a good use of their limited dice, or they can pour as many dice as they have in trying to accomplish some goal. And they make the ultimate decision of weather a threat turns into a critical success or when the GM's error turns into a critical fumble. |
As someone who has both GMed Stargate (which uses Spycraft 1.5 mechanics) and used the regular Spycraft rules to run a D&D variant, I would certainly agree that Action Dice are a great mechanic. They're simple, work well, and are very cinematic.
Unfortunately, they are very cinematic. SR already has the karma pool, which is more abstract and works better -- for a multi-die, tiered-success system -- than Action Dice. The absolute last thing I'd want to see in SR is abilities that, like in Spycraft, cost dice from the KP to activate. Down that road lies Feats and Charms and all the nightmares that come with them.
And sign me up for the camp that will riot the day the term, "scene," shows up in SR. Spycraft/d20 and Exalted are already extremely cinematic systems. I like that sometimes, in context, but I like SR partially for its lack of such elements. Why would it be the case that your character can perform perfectly if an engagement/scene/whatever lasts for three seconds, but starts to suck when it streches out, assuming an Attention Pool that only refreshes each scene? Please don't say "fatigue" because that goes into the Condition Monitor. What would such a pool reflect, except for some sort of cinematic ability to stunt once per combat?
Also a big no thanks on a single Concentration Pool or Attention Pool. In anything but combat, it would just mean more dice thrown. Sometimes special casing is a good thing, especially when it concentrates complexity where it's needed, like where actions are happening in three second intervals, and keeps it away from where it's not, like the rest of the time.
| QUOTE |
| And sign me up for the camp that will riot the day the term, "scene," shows up in SR. |
You better start your rioting early, because I actually pulled the term out of SR.
Page 246, SR3, left column, fifth paragraph:
| QUOTE |
| Since Karma Pool reflects the mystical nature of luck, it does not refresh every Combat Turn like other dice pools. Instead, Karma Pools refresh on an abstract basis, determined by the gamemaster. The basis for refreshing the Karma Pool should be roughly every new "scene" within the game's storyline. This can mean every 24 hours of game time, or it can be a matter of hours or days. In most cases, Karma Pool should refresh at the beginning of each gaming session, and will likely not refresh until the beginning of the next gaming session. |
But, personally, I agree. After initially mentioning it, I favor the idea of the character having to consciously spend time to refresh the pool.
Just a thought while I'm skimming through everyone's replies......
What about modifying the Karma pool already in existance? Since the dice can be applied to any test, have it refresh faster (or not) and if necessary, start it with a generalized computation (current dice pool mechanics). This universal pool can be used for which ever test is necessary, and if it follows similar mechanics to the current karma pool, will increase as the character develops, representing greater abilities which the character is capable of. The general idea though is one pool to fit them all.....[ok, gratutious LotR reference)
[Edit]
Ok, it looks like others were commenting on this while I was writing, so ignore me....
What about modifying the Karma pool already in existance? Since the dice can be applied to any test, have it refresh faster (or not) and if necessary, start it with a generalized computation (current dice pool mechanics). This universal pool can be used for which ever test is necessary, and if it follows similar mechanics to the current karma pool, will increase as the character develops, representing greater abilities which the character is capable of. The general idea though is one pool to fit them all.....[ok, gratutious LotR reference)
[Edit]
Ok, it looks like others were commenting on this while I was writing, so ignore me....
Maybe a fundamental change to the core framework... something that melds the Karma Pool and the function, if not the form, of the various Pools - something like the Action Dice above or Willpower in Trinity or a Tactical Pool of some sort refreshing once per session/scene - there was even one arcane game system (I can't remember which but it involved Muskueteers) which had a "Combat Experience system" where you compared opponents' Combat Experience stat/pool, subtracted the values from one another and anyone with a positive result used that as bonus dice to all his rolls in combat.
The flaw I see in my own suggestion about a conscious effort to refresh the pool is that there are occasions where you have standalone opposed rolls. If Tactical Pool applies to an opposed roll, it'd be simple to get some bonus dice in these situations and then easily spend the time to refresh. In that situation, they become just bonus dice, which is lame.
It works in combat situations, even in the application of decking, rigging, and magic within a combat situation. Because if the character uses the Tactical Pool dice to augment, say, a spell, they don't have it available for anything else in the rest of the combat, whether it's shooting a gun or dodging.
But, say the same mage is casting an illusion spell against a crowd of unsuspecting people. Since the unsuspecting people do get to make a Resistance Test (at least in SR3), that's technically an opposed roll. The mage throws in Tactical Pool just for kicks, for free bonus dice. The illusion goes off and the mage easily has a combat turn worth of time to refresh the pool. That's not really a good situation, in that case, it's just free bonus dice.
It works in combat situations, even in the application of decking, rigging, and magic within a combat situation. Because if the character uses the Tactical Pool dice to augment, say, a spell, they don't have it available for anything else in the rest of the combat, whether it's shooting a gun or dodging.
But, say the same mage is casting an illusion spell against a crowd of unsuspecting people. Since the unsuspecting people do get to make a Resistance Test (at least in SR3), that's technically an opposed roll. The mage throws in Tactical Pool just for kicks, for free bonus dice. The illusion goes off and the mage easily has a combat turn worth of time to refresh the pool. That's not really a good situation, in that case, it's just free bonus dice.
Because in SR3 more sucesses on a ranged combat test are almost always better it usually is better to just roll all the dice you can on your first test. In SR2 this was far less true because once damage was staged up to deadly more sucesses did not matter. In sr2 there was no point in getting more than 2 or 4 sucesses on most ranged combat tests, thus it made a lot of sense to split up your combat pool across multiple actions depending on how sure you wanted to be to cause a lot of damage. You also never had to get 14 sucesses to avoid taking damage at all, 8 was always enough, so rolling only part of your combat pool to resist was common. This had its own problems, but pool was used in a much more varied way.
In sr3 though people still do use combat pool tactically a lot, thing is that usually there is one tactic that is best for a certain charachter most of the time. Fighting charachters usually want to use thiers on thier first attack and first couple dodges, non fighting charachters usually want to keep it all for dodging. Though it is also true that this is only the case when the game is run such that the pc's will win almost all fights. If they are expected to run away from superior opponants frequently they will sometimes be using all thier combat pool dodging, and other times be using it more offensively.
However I split up sorcery & spell pool differently frequently to emphasize spell effect or drain resistance. Sometimes you need the spell to work or you will be dead, sometimes you can't afford to take drain right now. Another way to do that, however, is casting at different force. Spell defense is another drain on that pool. Sometimes I extend spell defense to my teammates, sometimes I am using it all to do something. What would it be without pools? I am always spell defending the same number of people to the same degree? Spell defense doesn't exist?
Armed & unarmed combat in sr2 & sr3 both heavily encourage using all the pool you can on your first action.
Anyhow the fact that shadowrun combat is very often over very quickly in game time is important to the feel of the game. If combat becomes far longer in terms of phases & actions the feel of the game must be changed quite a bit.
In sr3 though people still do use combat pool tactically a lot, thing is that usually there is one tactic that is best for a certain charachter most of the time. Fighting charachters usually want to use thiers on thier first attack and first couple dodges, non fighting charachters usually want to keep it all for dodging. Though it is also true that this is only the case when the game is run such that the pc's will win almost all fights. If they are expected to run away from superior opponants frequently they will sometimes be using all thier combat pool dodging, and other times be using it more offensively.
However I split up sorcery & spell pool differently frequently to emphasize spell effect or drain resistance. Sometimes you need the spell to work or you will be dead, sometimes you can't afford to take drain right now. Another way to do that, however, is casting at different force. Spell defense is another drain on that pool. Sometimes I extend spell defense to my teammates, sometimes I am using it all to do something. What would it be without pools? I am always spell defending the same number of people to the same degree? Spell defense doesn't exist?
Armed & unarmed combat in sr2 & sr3 both heavily encourage using all the pool you can on your first action.
Anyhow the fact that shadowrun combat is very often over very quickly in game time is important to the feel of the game. If combat becomes far longer in terms of phases & actions the feel of the game must be changed quite a bit.
You know, I'm going to have to disagree. Often if there are already modifiers flying around it makes more sense to damage as many people as possible, splitting pool or saving it entirely for dodging, rather than killing individual ones; a few +2s across the board can be far more valuable than a dead enemy or two and a bunch of living, unhampered ones.
Unarmed combat against a single opponent, yes. You can get strategic once you've got the better TN, but it's dump time right off.
~J
Unarmed combat against a single opponent, yes. You can get strategic once you've got the better TN, but it's dump time right off.
~J
i misspoke earlier. if you change up the opponents, you shouldn't see a change in how CP is used; as Synner's noted, it tends to be used in one large shot, regardless. not always; as kage noted, sometimes handing out wound modifiers to a lot of people is more important than taking a single opponent all the way out of play. what you'll note, if you pay special attention to the pool, is its importance. i'm not saying that allocating all your pool to a single roll is tactically dumb. i'm saying that allocating all your combat pool to the wrong roll is tactically dumb, and that deciding which roll you're going to buff with CP is where game tactics come into play.
i'm not saying that the CP mechanic used in SR3 is perfect, even forgiving the way it's generated. you could probably get very similar results 85% of the time by simply allowing players to raise or lower the TN for a single roll every round. that doesn't change the fact that CP's effect on combat is not illusory at all. and even if it were, it's still valuable because it gives players at least a sense that the combat they're in is dynamic, that it's more than a simple i-roll-to-hit-now-it's-your-turn slugfest.
i'm not saying that the CP mechanic used in SR3 is perfect, even forgiving the way it's generated. you could probably get very similar results 85% of the time by simply allowing players to raise or lower the TN for a single roll every round. that doesn't change the fact that CP's effect on combat is not illusory at all. and even if it were, it's still valuable because it gives players at least a sense that the combat they're in is dynamic, that it's more than a simple i-roll-to-hit-now-it's-your-turn slugfest.
I'm having trouble figuring out what kind of scenes Synner's characters get into, what their skill and attribute levels are, and so on. Maybe they're just not very diverse, and that's what makes the "all pool at once" such an irresistible force and such a good strategy.
Personally, I like scenes that are all over the place. Maybe quite a few poorly trained people are shooting at you--so you allocate just enough combat pool to dodge their successes. Even if they dump all their combat pool at you, unless you're sitting there with a big "My Name Is: SHOOT ME" sign on your chest, they'll still be hard-pressed to get more than a success or two. And you might even want to soak one or two of the shots (you are wearing armor, right?) so you can dodge the sniper who is out of range of your weapons.
Or maybe you're expecting magical attack, so you place most of your spell pool in shielding until you come upon a really potent non-magical adversary, at which point you let fly with as many dice as you can manage on the success test...unless escaping is going to be hard, in which case you put as many as you can spare for the success test while still being reasonably confident you'll avoid drain.
Maybe your opponent's got a shotgun and is attacking you from long range. Are you going to blow your pool on trying to take him out, or plink him to death with the aid of your optical magnification, while using just enough pool to dodge his shots?
And the options for pool use just go up if one pool applies to everything.
I could go on and on and on, but apparently Synner's games are of a style where you almost always want to hit fast and hard at the beginning. In my games, sometimes you don't even know who you want to hit at the beginning; threats reveal themselves throughout the combat turn as opponents try to use positional advantage and surprise to overwhelm you and try to draw your fire against toughened targets while less-protected but dangerous people move into place. So unless Synner is saying that his style of game is the only style that should be played, I don't view it as a very strong argument against pools--not unless pools are really disrupting the typical style of play. And I've not yet heard a convincing argument for disruption.
I'm also not sure why extra dice are such a bad thing. It is true that one needs to own more dice in that case. But you can balance your system to take into account that extra dice can be used. It is an option. There just need to be tradeoffs for using the dice. For example, why is DE's scenario of a mage giving extra oomph to his illusion spell a bad thing? If he really isn't actively in danger, really doesn't need his pool for anything else, and really does care that the spell work and work well, it seems as though this is exactly the kind of situation that a player *should* have some control over. Hence, they can use their pool. If a member of the crowd is a masking initiate and doesn't take kindly to the spell? Well, sorry buddy, you spent your pool unwisely.
I'm less certain of the advantages and disadvantages of a short-timescale bonus and a long-timescale bonus, as are given by combat/spell/decking/etc. pools and karma pool, respectively. The problem with having your only pool refresh slowly is that except in dire emergencies, it's usually a bad idea to use it, because you have no idea whether you'll need it for a dire emergency later on. If you can't predict, to some level, whether you'll need the pool or not, it's hard to make good use of it. (Either you blow it early and die, or are too cautious and don't use it at all.)
Karma pool works fine as is, but it's rare for characters in my games to use all their karma pool. Usually, if they've used it all, they've screwed up and almost died. It's wonderful that there is a mechanic to save them (they are only almost dead, not completely dead!), but it doesn't come into play very often, so it's not very engaging. That's why I'd tend to favor both short-term and long-term pools. Long-term pools are something you invest in important outcomes, and they don't refresh until the outcome is no longer important (e.g. if people use karma pool to quicken a spell in my games, they don't get it back until the spell is dispelled, because the quickening-scene isn't over until the spell is finished). That long-term mechanic isn't really what I was thinking about here. It's the fast pools that add more dynamics to play, in my experience. The slow pools just make sure that you still have living characters at the end of the day after the usual assortment of terrible (or wonderful) rolls.
Personally, I like scenes that are all over the place. Maybe quite a few poorly trained people are shooting at you--so you allocate just enough combat pool to dodge their successes. Even if they dump all their combat pool at you, unless you're sitting there with a big "My Name Is: SHOOT ME" sign on your chest, they'll still be hard-pressed to get more than a success or two. And you might even want to soak one or two of the shots (you are wearing armor, right?) so you can dodge the sniper who is out of range of your weapons.
Or maybe you're expecting magical attack, so you place most of your spell pool in shielding until you come upon a really potent non-magical adversary, at which point you let fly with as many dice as you can manage on the success test...unless escaping is going to be hard, in which case you put as many as you can spare for the success test while still being reasonably confident you'll avoid drain.
Maybe your opponent's got a shotgun and is attacking you from long range. Are you going to blow your pool on trying to take him out, or plink him to death with the aid of your optical magnification, while using just enough pool to dodge his shots?
And the options for pool use just go up if one pool applies to everything.
I could go on and on and on, but apparently Synner's games are of a style where you almost always want to hit fast and hard at the beginning. In my games, sometimes you don't even know who you want to hit at the beginning; threats reveal themselves throughout the combat turn as opponents try to use positional advantage and surprise to overwhelm you and try to draw your fire against toughened targets while less-protected but dangerous people move into place. So unless Synner is saying that his style of game is the only style that should be played, I don't view it as a very strong argument against pools--not unless pools are really disrupting the typical style of play. And I've not yet heard a convincing argument for disruption.
I'm also not sure why extra dice are such a bad thing. It is true that one needs to own more dice in that case. But you can balance your system to take into account that extra dice can be used. It is an option. There just need to be tradeoffs for using the dice. For example, why is DE's scenario of a mage giving extra oomph to his illusion spell a bad thing? If he really isn't actively in danger, really doesn't need his pool for anything else, and really does care that the spell work and work well, it seems as though this is exactly the kind of situation that a player *should* have some control over. Hence, they can use their pool. If a member of the crowd is a masking initiate and doesn't take kindly to the spell? Well, sorry buddy, you spent your pool unwisely.
I'm less certain of the advantages and disadvantages of a short-timescale bonus and a long-timescale bonus, as are given by combat/spell/decking/etc. pools and karma pool, respectively. The problem with having your only pool refresh slowly is that except in dire emergencies, it's usually a bad idea to use it, because you have no idea whether you'll need it for a dire emergency later on. If you can't predict, to some level, whether you'll need the pool or not, it's hard to make good use of it. (Either you blow it early and die, or are too cautious and don't use it at all.)
Karma pool works fine as is, but it's rare for characters in my games to use all their karma pool. Usually, if they've used it all, they've screwed up and almost died. It's wonderful that there is a mechanic to save them (they are only almost dead, not completely dead!), but it doesn't come into play very often, so it's not very engaging. That's why I'd tend to favor both short-term and long-term pools. Long-term pools are something you invest in important outcomes, and they don't refresh until the outcome is no longer important (e.g. if people use karma pool to quicken a spell in my games, they don't get it back until the spell is dispelled, because the quickening-scene isn't over until the spell is finished). That long-term mechanic isn't really what I was thinking about here. It's the fast pools that add more dynamics to play, in my experience. The slow pools just make sure that you still have living characters at the end of the day after the usual assortment of terrible (or wonderful) rolls.
| QUOTE |
| You know, I'm going to have to disagree. Often if there are already modifiers flying around it makes more sense to damage as many people as possible, splitting pool or saving it entirely for dodging, rather than killing individual ones; a few +2s across the board can be far more valuable than a dead enemy or two and a bunch of living, unhampered ones. |
Which is what I've been saying for a couple pages now. Like I said -- when the numbers are in the character's favor (or when it's just a one on one shoot 'em up), yes, you'll often see Combat Pool blown all at once. But when some super badass loner street sammie tries the same trick and blows their wad all over just a gang leader, for instance, they'll find themselves helpless against all those gang members (for example).
There are times when it's still a chance worth taking -- as MFB and/or DE mentioned, it's often a good idea to kill the enemy mage, by whatever means necessary. That means taking a risk, and that means deciding if the risk is worth taking; that's one time you may see a major CP expenditure on a single roll. For most situations, however, anyone with an appreciable CP (and my primary character has a very, very, appreciable CP), it's much wiser to hoard it, spend a little here and a little there when you need a nudge, and hold onto the bulk of it 'till you need it.
Trust me, it works. It works better, in most cases, than tossing all your dice at once against the first bad guy you see. Combat Pool expenditures can be as simple or as compex as you want them to be -- but I think you'll find, given enough time and enough combats and enough NPC's heads exploding, that if one side spends it carefully, tactically, and purposefully, the other side is in trouble unless they do the same. Period.
Now, as to what could replace it? "Tactical pool" sounds just fine to me. I'm a big fan of Reaction as an attribute -- the blend of perceptive ability and hand/eye coordination should be very very important in 2070's combat (just like it is today). Linebackers don't win shoot-outs, quarterbacks do. I'd be fine with something even as simple as "Tactical pool = Reaction," to be honest (it'd be much simpler than all the math that's being done nowadays, and everyone from every archetype is likely to benefit -- street sammies and adepts tend to have high Quickness scores, mages and hackers would still have a good Reaction from a high Intelligence score, etc)...
I'm not insisting Combat Pool (or any of the other half dozen or so Pools) stay just like it is, in its current incarnation. Many of those pools seem redundant at worst, unnecessarily complex at best (astral, astral combat, etc). But I very, very, heartily think something besides just karma pool needs to exist, for the good of the system, and to preserve the feel of the SR mechanic.
Don't let it turn into yet another "just roll the dice the GM tells you, and cross your fingers" game. We've got enough of them.
If the mechanics are already far too set-in-stone, a pretty common option for adding flexibility that might hamper the play or rules comprehension of a certain subset of the gaming population is to include the flexibility in the form of optional advanced rules.
| QUOTE (Ellery @ Apr 6 2005, 09:04 PM) |
| I'm having trouble figuring out what kind of scenes Synner's characters get into, what their skill and attribute levels are, and so on. Maybe they're just not very diverse, and that's what makes the "all pool at once" such an irresistible force and such a good strategy. |
Ellery - I've shown mechanically how it works with straight out-of-the-book characters, my players characters are significantly more effective and more versatile than the archetypes which I've used in the examples (even though they've only earned about 20 karma in their latest campaign). I don't keep copies of my player's characters, but when they drop by this week I'll be sure to take some notes to post.
FYI and going from memory, I did however make it clear that the group includes: a souped up street samurai (with average initiative in the mid-20s, smartgun 2, every mod he can cram into an Ares Alpha, maxed recoil comp, spurs,artwinkilation, various bioware, retinal mods, Gun of choice specialization 8, Unarmed/spurs
, a moderately wired jack-o-all-trades/techie/face (with boosted reflexes, smartgun 2, cybereyes and lots and lots of bio), a tricked out shaman (magic skills at 6, Snake shaman, a couple of sustaining foci, lots of manipulations and health/enhancement spells, spirits on call, all spells exclusive or fetished, almost always Concealed when in action and not too bad with a gun either) and our decker/rigger (rarely goes for physical insertions uses drones and remote links to team to hack systems, all drones are decked out for combat and souped up with sensors and encrypted links, VCR2). They're also very creative players who think on their feet and throw me a lot of curve balls.About the overall scenarios I used, I resorted for example's sake to a typical setup (as I clearly explained) where a run goes bad (since more than once my PCs have gotten through a run without so much as a shot fired) and runners are caught by corporate security (6-7 man teams). Hence the references to using security guard stats and the odd merc/sam to fill out the ranks (normally backed by an astral mage who is physically off-site and several passive magical defenses). I've even given a typical set of specs for the example combat and the typical (high) TN# that apply in my game in those circumstances (I enforce all cover modifiers - attacker and defender -; all movement & terrain modifiers; all visibility modifiers and all enhancements meaning I play as close to the rules as it gets).
This seems to me to be a pretty reasonable and typical setup, but FYI I've just finished a shootout between two boats racing up the Amazon, I've done a low-powered campaign (90 BPs), a prison campaign (no real weapons, no cyber or magic augmentations working), a merc operation in Poland and Brainscan in the past couple of years alone - my evaluation is based on all that and everything else I've played in SR3, as well as my observations from the numerous forum-based games running on DSF (at least those involving dice rolling).
But as I've told mfb, feel free to contact me with what you believe is a typical scenario and we can run through it (I can play either side as you prefer since this doesn't affect the "front-loading flaw" described above)... although given my current assignments I'd ask you to hold off until next week.
Critias - This isn't about taking down the enemy mage either, it applies equally to a sam trying to knock out another sam, taking on two slower enemies or trying to spread around the damage and comparatively the minute effective probability increase granted by spreading your Pool around multiple actions (again admittedly for typical characters).
As I said above I'm not trying to convert anyone, I know better than that, this is Dumpshock. I was just pointing out that because of wider system issues the tactical use of CP is not all its racked up to be - and in fact that most players a system without an automatic Pool (as it currently stands) but with a dodge mechanic will be almost identical in results.
Wireknight & Critias - Regarding the substitute mechanic for a CP, I am by no means suggesting that SR4 developers haven't thought of something and personally I hope it exists, though in a lesser skewed form than the CP.
The real problem is, assuming these concerns are 100% ill-informed doomsaying, is that the latest FAQ release basically gave us enough rope to hang the developers with. If there aren't any mechanics that's solidified and proven to work very well, beyond the new static TN# system, it may have been in poor judgment to inform the public at large about it. It's cruel to release information that you can be pretty certain will make people freak out, without, in the same release, providing verifiable information that will address concerns and mollify their worries.
If such information exists, I think it should be mentioned (at least in a circumspect manner) in the next FAQ update, which should be soon, to head off outcry before it gets out of control. If we're only arguing and debating due to the vast majority of us having a very murky idea of what's coming to pass, it'd save both sides a lot of exaspiration and skullsweat to get that sort of pointless pontification done with.
If such information exists, I think it should be mentioned (at least in a circumspect manner) in the next FAQ update, which should be soon, to head off outcry before it gets out of control. If we're only arguing and debating due to the vast majority of us having a very murky idea of what's coming to pass, it'd save both sides a lot of exaspiration and skullsweat to get that sort of pointless pontification done with.
Synner: I'm not saying you're wrong, but in my experience GMing Shadowrun for many and various groups over the years, I have found that the 'front-loading' on the part of the PCs that you describe is nowhere near as ubiquitous as you make it out to be. I have seen much more in the way of tactical usage than all out full attacks at the first opportunity.
Granted that there are cases where front-loading does apply, especially when the characters know exactly what they are up against, or are fighting against a single or numerically inferior opponent, but when there are any kinds of unknowns thrown into the mix, the PCs tend to use caution when alloting their Combat Pools.
Add to this that we have only really been discussing the Combat Pool. When other Pools, specifically the Spell Pool, are added into the mix, it becomes a different story.
Granted that there are cases where front-loading does apply, especially when the characters know exactly what they are up against, or are fighting against a single or numerically inferior opponent, but when there are any kinds of unknowns thrown into the mix, the PCs tend to use caution when alloting their Combat Pools.
Add to this that we have only really been discussing the Combat Pool. When other Pools, specifically the Spell Pool, are added into the mix, it becomes a different story.
I don't believe in not convincing people. It's not worth my time to post if everyone's mind is made up. It's not worth my time to read if my mind is made up.
Anyway, Synner, I think I've suggested three scenarios already. Let's make them a little more specific. First: the runners are pinned down by a bunch of patrol cops backed up by a SWAT team sniper with mage support in a distant building. Maybe the runners need to hold the cops off until their rigger gets an armored getaway vehicle in place. Second: trying to steal an item from a wealthy businessman who has quite a bit of astral security and has a top-notch street sam as his right-hand-man / bodyguard. And a one-on-one shootout in an junky alleyway (with lots of cover) between a cybered sam with a handgun and a ganger with a shotgun and a lot of ammo, starting at about 50-60m range. I'm happy to play any of those out when you've got time. I'll take either side also.
Now, it's also possible that generic dodge could fix some of these situations, but that's not what's at issue here. The issue is whether pool dice are used tactically or not.
Let's consider the tricked-out street sam from your games. Suppose he turns a corner and finds himself facing four armored security guards with helmets, and he doesn't have APDS or AP ammo in his Alpha. He's pretty sure they're not near his caliber, but they're dangerous. What's he do?
I assume he has a smartlink and the encounter occurs at short range. He's going to have at least six dice to throw around and he'll be firing against TN2 (unless he uses burst fire and goes from one target to another, at which point the TN might get up there). But they're probably not going to be rolling against TN6 or higher for their damage resist. So, what's he do? He wins the initiative, of course. What's the best strategy?
Also, you make it sound like selecting a target to put all your combat pool on is a trivial thing. I don't always paint opponents with signs that say "high-reaction street sam" and "mage" and so on. Figuring out who the big bad target is who deserves all your combat pool is part of the challenge--do it wrong, and you can be in trouble. It's a way for your character to rise to the challenge of someone tough without always walking all over everyone who is weaker (cause you aren't going to spare the combat pool for them). So even in the case that you're describing, I think things would turn out quite a bit differently without combat pool. The street sam would either not be able to take out the other high-reaction guy (and with their lesser skills, neither would anyone else!) and everyone would be in trouble, or the street sam would be able to take him out really easily and then take out the other opponents even more easily.
Thus, the pool mechanic also makes more of the characters useful, even if pool is always only a one-shot deal.
Finally, I have thought of one compelling reason (not compelling to me, but possibly compelling to others) to abandon pool dice. Having pool dice makes it harder for the GM to know what's going to happen. It makes it harder for the players to achieve the best outcome--people who think about tactics might do better than people who don't. People who know the rules might do better than people who don't. That isn't always a fun experience for a new player. You can't jump in instantly and be as badass as someone who's been playing for years, even if you have the same character. As someone who is comfortable accounting for the effects of pool dice, and as an experienced SR player, this doesn't bother me. But to a newcomer, I could see it being frustrating. Not because the rules are all so complicated and they can't even remember them, but because they don't have the experience with how to use them to their advantage. If no advantage is available, frustration is less likely.
Anyway, Synner, I think I've suggested three scenarios already. Let's make them a little more specific. First: the runners are pinned down by a bunch of patrol cops backed up by a SWAT team sniper with mage support in a distant building. Maybe the runners need to hold the cops off until their rigger gets an armored getaway vehicle in place. Second: trying to steal an item from a wealthy businessman who has quite a bit of astral security and has a top-notch street sam as his right-hand-man / bodyguard. And a one-on-one shootout in an junky alleyway (with lots of cover) between a cybered sam with a handgun and a ganger with a shotgun and a lot of ammo, starting at about 50-60m range. I'm happy to play any of those out when you've got time. I'll take either side also.
Now, it's also possible that generic dodge could fix some of these situations, but that's not what's at issue here. The issue is whether pool dice are used tactically or not.
Let's consider the tricked-out street sam from your games. Suppose he turns a corner and finds himself facing four armored security guards with helmets, and he doesn't have APDS or AP ammo in his Alpha. He's pretty sure they're not near his caliber, but they're dangerous. What's he do?
I assume he has a smartlink and the encounter occurs at short range. He's going to have at least six dice to throw around and he'll be firing against TN2 (unless he uses burst fire and goes from one target to another, at which point the TN might get up there). But they're probably not going to be rolling against TN6 or higher for their damage resist. So, what's he do? He wins the initiative, of course. What's the best strategy?
Also, you make it sound like selecting a target to put all your combat pool on is a trivial thing. I don't always paint opponents with signs that say "high-reaction street sam" and "mage" and so on. Figuring out who the big bad target is who deserves all your combat pool is part of the challenge--do it wrong, and you can be in trouble. It's a way for your character to rise to the challenge of someone tough without always walking all over everyone who is weaker (cause you aren't going to spare the combat pool for them). So even in the case that you're describing, I think things would turn out quite a bit differently without combat pool. The street sam would either not be able to take out the other high-reaction guy (and with their lesser skills, neither would anyone else!) and everyone would be in trouble, or the street sam would be able to take him out really easily and then take out the other opponents even more easily.
Thus, the pool mechanic also makes more of the characters useful, even if pool is always only a one-shot deal.
Finally, I have thought of one compelling reason (not compelling to me, but possibly compelling to others) to abandon pool dice. Having pool dice makes it harder for the GM to know what's going to happen. It makes it harder for the players to achieve the best outcome--people who think about tactics might do better than people who don't. People who know the rules might do better than people who don't. That isn't always a fun experience for a new player. You can't jump in instantly and be as badass as someone who's been playing for years, even if you have the same character. As someone who is comfortable accounting for the effects of pool dice, and as an experienced SR player, this doesn't bother me. But to a newcomer, I could see it being frustrating. Not because the rules are all so complicated and they can't even remember them, but because they don't have the experience with how to use them to their advantage. If no advantage is available, frustration is less likely.
| QUOTE (Patrick Goodman @ Apr 6 2005, 04:57 PM) |
| I think they're a pain in the ass from a GM standpoint, and I think there should be a uniform formula for their creation (as opposed to the hodge-podge that exists now), but I think they should remain. |
That's not very hard to do. Allow each component of a test to be a pool, at player's/GM choice.
Let's say you shoot at someone, with 6 dices. You could choose to roll 4d, and keep 2 for later in the round when someone will shoot back at you. Basically, it's called shooting on the defensive.
You could do that for every test by the way, not only combat/decking/magic/etc as in SR1~3. Let's say you are in a corp party undercover, and you want to do 4 social test over the evening. One to bluff your way in, one to spot a viable target, one to get the number of the bimbo that find your slang quite exotic, and one to deal a agreement with your "target".
The first one is not very important since you have backup plans, so you keep dices from it. The second is average, no pool involved. The third is anecdotic, so you do it in "by the way" mode (hence keeping as much pool as you can), and the last is critical so you want to use all the pool you can gather before.
Since it's two different kind of refresh, you can call them "combat pool" (whatever pool that refresh each round, no matter what the test is, and "non combat pool" (how original
) that refresh after every "scene".Basically, pool are momentum you gain when the GM thinks you can do that. The basic test (with all your dices), is just that.. the basic test. Of course, you need some pool control, aka how much when and how you can transform dices into pool.
Another completely different way of looking at it is to forget about absolute pool (something that help make you better in absolute), but is pure tactics : threshold choice. It's an old rpg concept, under exploited. Basically, when someone want to do something that will be opposed (as in "opposed test") after him, that someone choose himself the difficulty of the task.
Let's say you want to loose someone in the traffic, with your motorbike. You could do that the classic way, or you could take insane risks so that your followers will probably crash themself is they dare try catch you (of course, if you are as good as you think you are).
The last way, probably the simpler way, is to allow an "action pool". Something that say the big guy can, the small ones can't. Arh, that's karma pool, isn'it ?
| QUOTE (Synner @ Apr 6 2005, 06:37 PM) |
| Critias - This isn't about taking down the enemy mage either, it applies equally to a sam trying to knock out another sam, taking on two slower enemies or trying to spread around the damage and comparatively the minute effective probability increase granted by spreading your Pool around multiple actions (again admittedly for typical characters). |
Then your sam isn't spending his CP very wisely. Let's run through this. It's gonna take a while, but you've brought it upon yourself. I'll pick at just the "taking on two slower enemies" bit (since "taking out another sam" one on one is something I've been saying changes all the CP conventional wisdom from day one, and spreading damage around multiple enemies would take too fucking long to break down and criticise).
What does he gain from blowing all his CP in that first attack, unless those two slower enemies are incapable of hurting him? Nothing, I say. Or, if not quite "nothing," then "nothing really worth talking about, which is what might make you think CP is worthless."
He's got an 8 in (apparently) his Ares Alpha spec, right? 16 dice on the attack, then, with full CP boost. We'll stick with your "average TN 6" bit (which I'm dubious about in the first place, if he's been smart enough to take appropriate vision enhancements), have him play smart enough to aim for a simple and fire a burst for a simple (making it TN 5, instead, which is exactly twice as good), since for some reason his whole point is to kill one guy right now. You're looking at a probaby about 5 successes, with 11S base damage. Your sec guard blows all his CP -- how? Does he use it to try and dodge the burst, or does he use it to boost his soak? What sort of armor has he got? What sort of Body score, what sort of CP anyways? Do you spend NPC's combat and karma pools wisely?
We'll assume for argument's sake the guard only has on, like, 5/3 (armor jacket, with the company logo) sort of stuff. TN 6 to soak, TN 5 to dodge, then. He'll dodge, spend all his CP (5-6, I'm assuming?). Six dice, karmic reroll, TN 5 - probably 4 successes. Depending on the TN of the sammie's shot, that'll mean the Guard is still soaking 12S + 1. Body of 4, maybe 5, then? A single success, let's say, on the soak test. He's still taking Serious damage.
Then what? The sammie's done, regardless of how much he won init by, until both guards have responded. Whatever it is they want to do to him, he's largely helpless. They've got -- again, what? Depends on your game, doesn't it, as to what sort of trouble the sammie is in, huh? Shotguns? A foursome of shotgun blasts (two from each guard) with CP spread between the shots is plenty to maul someone without any CP left. Assault rifles? A foursome of short bursts will mess someone up, too, or maybe a pair of long full auto bursts. Heavy pistols? Wow, what a challenging encounter this is (Captain Ares Alpha against guys with popguns) -- but without anything to dodge with, he'll still be in trouble against four incoming 9M base damage rounds, won't he? He's helpless. Completely helpless. He's used the only thing that could help him (combat pool) in a single-attack attempt at dropping someone, and failed.
Let's see how it could have gone, otherwise, though.
Compare their skill levels and Combat Pools, and think smart this time instead. Say the Sammie uses just his specialization of 8 to attack with. If his Alpha is as tricked out as you say, he could likely manage a six or eight round burst without recoil providing much of a TN hike (or, if he's smart, taking only a +1 TN mod from recoil and just letting that "average" TN of 6 get bumped to a 7, which there's no reason not to do). With 8 dice, he's still looking at a statistical likelihood of a single success. The hapless security guard is now looking at 14D or so base damage, with a TN of 6 (twice as difficult as that TN of 5) to dodge. He blows all his combat pool to attempt it, spends karma to get the successes he needs, and the sammie's action is over.
Or, wait, maybe the sammie fires a pair of 3-shot bursts, both at TN 6. A little over one success per burst on average -- how do you have the NPC dodge? He's looking at a TN of 5 or so on each dodge attempt. If he splits his dice between the two attacks, the best he can hope for is to be in the same boat as the above paragraph. If he does your "all out" and only dodges one (which seems to be what you claim happens, regularly), he's taking 11S from the second burst (at least), that he then has to worry about trying to soak without any CP to help (with 4-5 body dice at TN 6, he's still very likely to take the same Serious damage).
Worst case, Guard #1 is out of CP and KP, best (likely) case, Guard #1 has a sucking Serious chest wound (if he's not outright dead).
But pause it right there, and look again at the tactical options available to your sammie this time. He's still got 8 or 9 combat pool (at least, they can double that fairly easily) available to him for defense. As a group, your pair of security guards is out half it's CP and half it's KP, and he hasn't touched either of his. Given the scores you apparently give your average NPCs and the high TNs you claim are average in your game (especially if one of the guards is now at Serious), they're unlikely to score more than a success or two on any given attack (if that), right? It's not hard at all to manipulate 9 CP (especially with at least 2 karma pool still in the bank) properly to score a consistent pair of successes on any dodge attempts. Your sammie does so, then has two more combat phases in which to run amok unchecked, using his base skill of 8 and his overwhelming assault rifle to kill the guards with (since now they're out of CP and KP, but he's got a bigger gun, better skill, and more actions than them).
In fact, once he's certain his much higher initiative score has him into the latter parts of a round (and all they're doing is cowering and trying to soak damage), what reason has he got not move out of his cover and knock a few points off his TNs, making their death swifter and easier?
But, regardless. See that? He spent all his CP on his opening attack and -- from the looks of things -- it didn't do much compared to the time he didn't, right? That's because if he'd done what you say he does, he did it wrong/stupid/less than efficiently. I'm not surprised you think CP doesn't count for much, if your players don't do much with it. Carefully hoarded and spent, CP can do amazing things (especially with the high-TN zone you place your games in). When your NPCs have 3-4 in most combat skills and are looking at a 6+ TN, all a PC needs is about 2 CP per attacker to be almost completely safe. Run the numbers. Spent defensively instead of offensively, it lets your PC's sit back and rely on their higher skills to win the day for them.
Trust me, it works. I've been doing this with a 6L base damage Ingram SuperMach -- despite having an AR score of 6, Connor has yet to use his Ares Alpha -- for 250+ karma. And I call it a good day when I'm only fighting two security guards. Almost from the get-go I've been swapping fire with guys who outnumber me, half of whom are packing HV LMG's and other ridiculously dangerous shit -- it's why mfb and I (as the primary combat characters of anything like a regular team) have had to learn how to use CP well, to stay alive. When you're outnumbered and outgunned, you've got to think, not just toss the biggest handfull of dice you can.
I'm almost getting off topic here, but here. Have an example.
In the most recent large-scale firefight I can think of, as a for instance, our team of six runners got ambushed by eight Tir na nOg specops type soldiers (one a mage, two with HV LMG's, the rest with Ares Alphas). They had cover, ambush, the high ground, bigger guns than us, and better armor, and every single round they fired at us was EX or APDS. We were in street clothes, at best with an armor jacket and a 6M damage SMG (chosen for concealability, not my character's favorite weapon), and no special ammo amongst us. A few of us had on form fit, IIRC. We were scouting a warehouse in our civvies, they were waiting for us. Our mage's player dropped off-line and he was taken over by the GM -- who had him do nothing for us but turn invisible, cast combat sense on himself, and slink around. We had one adept pistoleer who never did manage to spot any NPC and in order to do anything (it was funny after about the fourth round, NPC's kept dying just as he spotted them). One adept spent the whole fight subduing one enemy soldier (so we broke even, there).
Call it three versus seven, then, after doing that math so far, right? There was a combat decker, mfb's adept character, and my street sam against an Initiate Combat Mage (invisible), two guys with a 8-skill APDS high velocity machineguns, and four guys with 8-skill APDS or EX Ares Alphas. The two LMG guys were cybered up with Betaware, the guys with "just" assault rifles were all Initiate Adepts. Hairy situation, where the GM just didn't really realize what monsters he'd pitted us against.
But we won. We won, because we didn't just spend all our CP on our first attacks each, trying to take out someone that that first attack alone wouldn't kill anyways. It's true that we're some pretty experienced characters, but these guys were based loosely on Piston's Tir Ghosts (the ones that got published), if you're familiar with that statline. They weren't a team of four security guards with 3's and 4's across the board. They should have won, but the GM for that game didn't use his CP well, and we did -- it was as simple as that, really. I'll try to poke around and find the OOC/dice page for that fight (and the IC page, for that matter), if you're interested in a play by play. We walked away with a Serious wound, they were all dead. CP counts.
Tactical thinking and tactical flexibility is very much a part of Shadowrun's combat system. You can claim it's an illusion, but I very devoutly beleive otherwise.
But, well, that's what I've been saying all along. It's there if you know how to use it, know how to get the most out of it, and bother to do so. Tactical thinking isn't for everyone. Just like in real life, there are people who don't worry about it. My beef is that because not everyone worries about it (your group, for instance, seems to be quite content with the "spend it all on the first attack" approach), all of a sudden in SR4 no one gets the option any more. And that's crap. Just because some people have never exercised the right to think before they grab the dice, the rest of us are losing the ability to do so -- because developers apparently think it won't be missed.
I completely agreed with you until the last paragraph. I really don't think combat pool disappeared in SR4 because some people had no idea how to use it. It is a cumbersome mechanic, and it does slow things down considerably with any inexperienced group. It isn't complicated in and of itself, but it does complicate everything it gets involved in. I've considered running AIM games before, and I've wanted to run mechanics transparent online games as well. Pools get in the way of the former and kills any chance of the latter. It was pretty much unavoidable that pools would be casualties of streamlining. They were an interesting mechanic, I'll admit, but I was never completely in love with them, and I will not be sad to be rid of the clumsiness involved in playing with them.
And, at that, given that the new mechanic in SR4 is entirely based on number of dice rolled, it will be beyond easy to houserule them back in if you like.
And, at that, given that the new mechanic in SR4 is entirely based on number of dice rolled, it will be beyond easy to houserule them back in if you like.
Dice pools ARE tactical. If one character is caught without pool dice when another shoots with all of his, it´s good night no matter what. They are just about the only thing making it important to plan your actions in combat. Please put a pool in there as an optional rule at least!
hey, they're still there! these are the pages tal is referring to. in the first round, my character (Italy) took an S wound in a single attack; 3-round burst to the chest. that was the first time i realized how far he'd come, as a combat badass. when he first started out, an attack like that would have killed him outright; in this fight, it didn't even slow him down (pain resistance 6 = teh win).
the first OOC/dice page
the second OOC/dice page
the first in-character page
the second in-character page
you know, at the time, i'm pretty sure i was pissed off for most of that fight. we had players screwing around doing the wrong thing (it was, by the way, three on seven; tal forgot our grenadier, who did a'ight for himself), the GM had pitted us against impossible odds--it was tough.
but now? damn, that was a good fight.
the first OOC/dice page
the second OOC/dice page
the first in-character page
the second in-character page
you know, at the time, i'm pretty sure i was pissed off for most of that fight. we had players screwing around doing the wrong thing (it was, by the way, three on seven; tal forgot our grenadier, who did a'ight for himself), the GM had pitted us against impossible odds--it was tough.
but now? damn, that was a good fight.
I didn't forget him, he was the "combat decker" I mentioned. I did forget he had his grenade launcher hidden up his butt, though. Like always.
But, yeah. It was just the first fight (I guess Choco-Tart coulda worked, too) that jumped into my head as a decent example of combat pool winning the day. Sarge tossed some hideous monsters at us, half our group didn't do anything, and we still managed to win -- 'cause one side used CP very carefully, and the other side didn't.
But, yeah. It was just the first fight (I guess Choco-Tart coulda worked, too) that jumped into my head as a decent example of combat pool winning the day. Sarge tossed some hideous monsters at us, half our group didn't do anything, and we still managed to win -- 'cause one side used CP very carefully, and the other side didn't.
oh, yeah. heh. i always forget about the decker part (which is okay, because at the time, so had he!)
incidentally, i think the first round of combat illustrates fairly well what happens when you spend all your CP at once. i spent a helluva lot of karma--most or all of mine, and a good chunk of my team karma pool--just to get that hit down below D. i'm not sure how i could have done it better (if i hadn't blown most of my CP on that first dodge, it'd have likely put me at S itself, meaning the next burst would have done S or D, likely killing me outright). but, well, that's what happens when you tell three specops badasses to shoot you.
incidentally, i think the first round of combat illustrates fairly well what happens when you spend all your CP at once. i spent a helluva lot of karma--most or all of mine, and a good chunk of my team karma pool--just to get that hit down below D. i'm not sure how i could have done it better (if i hadn't blown most of my CP on that first dodge, it'd have likely put me at S itself, meaning the next burst would have done S or D, likely killing me outright). but, well, that's what happens when you tell three specops badasses to shoot you.
I clearly noted that its irrelevant to my argument whether the sam (or anybody else) uses it for a first strike (which you seem to assume regardless of what I've posted) or a first defense - my argument is that it is most often all used up in the first action (or reaction), see my response to mfb. My sam would probably not boost his first attack, even if he's managed to drop at least one enemy then he will likely be using it to dodge counterattacks - so regardless it is used up before his second action. This being the case I see no true distinction between the end result of the CP mechanic and, for instance, a permanent "Dodge Skill" with a dice reduction default for every use (which iirc is what Trinity used).
Furthermore statistically dividing up even an 8 CP among more than 2 actions serious dilutes your actual chances of using it effectively. My point is that if you are "forced" to use for defense before your second action, its ultimately the same as stacking the first attack - there is no real tactical use other than going "full defense" or going "all out", which isn't tactical as most people have been suggesting.
Note - from experience I'd say my sam would have gone with two straight non-CP augmented bursts at the two adversaries and hold it to dodge the counterattack, but I'll ask him on Saturday.
As to the situation modifiers in the example I gave above were TN 4, Smartgun2 -2, Attacker cover +1/+2 (since I play movement by the book if the character has cover at any point between his intended first action and second action it applies), Attacker walking +1 (I apply this if there is any movement longer than 1m including, and I realize this might be excessive for someone else, if the character dodged at any point), Partial lighting +1 (emergency lights with artificial lowlight), Target's cover +2 (because I'm being nice and the opposition hasn't taken proper cover around corners, but are using doorsills and potted plants). Other modifiers depending on his choices might include Multiple targets and additional cover modifiers (only the first guards in the corridor have +2 cover, everybody else is positioned behind them so they're at least +4)
Furthermore statistically dividing up even an 8 CP among more than 2 actions serious dilutes your actual chances of using it effectively. My point is that if you are "forced" to use for defense before your second action, its ultimately the same as stacking the first attack - there is no real tactical use other than going "full defense" or going "all out", which isn't tactical as most people have been suggesting.
Note - from experience I'd say my sam would have gone with two straight non-CP augmented bursts at the two adversaries and hold it to dodge the counterattack, but I'll ask him on Saturday.
As to the situation modifiers in the example I gave above were TN 4, Smartgun2 -2, Attacker cover +1/+2 (since I play movement by the book if the character has cover at any point between his intended first action and second action it applies), Attacker walking +1 (I apply this if there is any movement longer than 1m including, and I realize this might be excessive for someone else, if the character dodged at any point), Partial lighting +1 (emergency lights with artificial lowlight), Target's cover +2 (because I'm being nice and the opposition hasn't taken proper cover around corners, but are using doorsills and potted plants). Other modifiers depending on his choices might include Multiple targets and additional cover modifiers (only the first guards in the corridor have +2 cover, everybody else is positioned behind them so they're at least +4)
to me, the argument here isn't about how much pool you use on a single roll. that's not the topic we should really be discussing, given that this thread is in the SR4 section of dumpshock. what we should be discussing is whether or not the tactical advantage provided by combat pool is illusory.
spending most or all of their CP is a tactic which apparently works for your group, Synner--but it's still a tactic, and it still provides them with an advantage. it doesn't really matter whether you choose to spend your CP in bits and pieces, or dump it all on a single important roll; that's a question that will have a different answer in different situations, even within a single gaming group. what doesn't change is the fact that CP provides a solid way for players to win fights through intelligent use of game tactics. and that is what i don't want SR4 to lack--that ability for players to choose how they fight.
spending most or all of their CP is a tactic which apparently works for your group, Synner--but it's still a tactic, and it still provides them with an advantage. it doesn't really matter whether you choose to spend your CP in bits and pieces, or dump it all on a single important roll; that's a question that will have a different answer in different situations, even within a single gaming group. what doesn't change is the fact that CP provides a solid way for players to win fights through intelligent use of game tactics. and that is what i don't want SR4 to lack--that ability for players to choose how they fight.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| <snippage>that ability for players to choose how they fight. |
Which does not absolutely require that the mechanic be Combat Pool, neh?
I like combat pool, and I like the degree of versatility it gives in combat...
But the use of combat pool does ultimately boil down to using it to kill people right bloody now!, saving it to dodge likely future attacks, and saving it to blow the hell out of people later, when they've run out of KP and combat pool.
A similar result could be achieved by simply having a character decide to act "offensively" or "defensively".
Or perhaps they can allocate some part of their total attacking dice pool to defensive actions...
(I can see complications with the last idea, as several people mentioned elsewhere, in that you might end up with people being able to dodge ranged attacks insanely well while using unarmed combat...)
I'm against just picking an "offense stance" or "defense stance" which several other games already offer. The benefit of Combat Pool is it's fluidity, to me. From phase to phase, not just round to round, you're emphasizing one over the other (or carefully hoarding your true potential). It's also capable of being used as a reaction to someone firing on you, which isn't exactly something you declare during your own action or anything.
Agreed, which is why I was bowing out of further discussion a while back.
I stand by my comments and my opinion that a one-time boost to either defense or attack doesn't count as tactical (or at least any more so than select use of Karma rerolls). Note I've not even touched the statistical ineffectiveness of dividing CP which is actually behind the loaded first action/reaction problem and my other major problem when it comes to compring effectiveness of the various distinct Pools. However these are my problems with the current system and don't necessarily reflect anyone elses - even though I believe the situations described are not a fluke.
mfb's absolutely correct though, this debate is neither here nor there at this point, and we should let it rest and wait to hear more on SR4.
As to some game mechanic replacing the "tactical function" of a CP, I can't really say at this point, but as I've pointed out other systems have other solutions which are as plausible and as functional depending on what the developers decide. I've still yet to find a fluid tactical system that doesn't have its advantages and weak points - which is why I actually like the CP.
I stand by my comments and my opinion that a one-time boost to either defense or attack doesn't count as tactical (or at least any more so than select use of Karma rerolls). Note I've not even touched the statistical ineffectiveness of dividing CP which is actually behind the loaded first action/reaction problem and my other major problem when it comes to compring effectiveness of the various distinct Pools. However these are my problems with the current system and don't necessarily reflect anyone elses - even though I believe the situations described are not a fluke.
mfb's absolutely correct though, this debate is neither here nor there at this point, and we should let it rest and wait to hear more on SR4.
As to some game mechanic replacing the "tactical function" of a CP, I can't really say at this point, but as I've pointed out other systems have other solutions which are as plausible and as functional depending on what the developers decide. I've still yet to find a fluid tactical system that doesn't have its advantages and weak points - which is why I actually like the CP.
For what it's worth, I don't remember you bowing out of any discussion, or I wouldn't have posted to you.
Well, okay, since you'd addressed me specifically, I probably still would have. But it might'a been shorter if I'd known you apparently had no interest in, or plans for, reading it.
And someone do me a favor. Chat with Rob for me, and let him know if there's a replacement for Combat Pool, and it's decided there's a name change, and the official new title is Connor Pool? I'll send him a fat check (I'm just trying to do my part and help come up with a good name for it -- and people could still use CP as an abbreviation!).
Well, okay, since you'd addressed me specifically, I probably still would have. But it might'a been shorter if I'd known you apparently had no interest in, or plans for, reading it.
And someone do me a favor. Chat with Rob for me, and let him know if there's a replacement for Combat Pool, and it's decided there's a name change, and the official new title is Connor Pool? I'll send him a fat check (I'm just trying to do my part and help come up with a good name for it -- and people could still use CP as an abbreviation!).
The only system I´ve had as much fun with, purely game-system-whise, is DeadLands when it still used cards and chips. I have manufactured "game panels" for Shadowrun, which is a peice of card board with a few dials that can be turned to indicate how much is left in different pools and clips (I especially like the big speed meter). We just like it.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.