In SR3 a novice shooter (skill 2 pool 2) going from target 6 to target 4 will go from 2/3 of a success to 2 successes on average that is probably a wound if it is not dodged
A highly skilled shooter (skill 8 pool 6) will go from 2 ½ successes to 7 successes. That is probably a kill.
The scope gave the novis shooter 1 1/3 additional successes
The scope gave the expert 4 ½ additional successes
thus the expert got more benefit from eth scope than the novice.
Under the proposed SR4 mechanic a scope giving +3 dice is 1 success no mater what your skill is
As to the mechanics I don’t recall where I got them. I recall discussing possible rules with my GM and that was mentioned then but I don’t know if I saw a reference before that. I think that system would hold to the feel of SR better than a WOD rip of .
Remember at target 5 body 6 is only 2 successes, hardly safe from harm, weapon powers would probably go down (holdouts being 0 if not -1 and Aries predator probably coming in at 4 or 5. and armour values going up some.
Edward
Full Version: Implications on the core mechanic
| QUOTE (Edward @ Apr 30 2005, 12:06 AM) |
| The scope gave the novis shooter 1 1/3 additional successes The scope gave the expert 4 ½ additional successes thus the expert got more benefit from eth scope than the novice. |
But unless the GM has implemented damage staging past Deadly, with a sniper rifle those extra successes of the expert matter very little. They only represent a small increase in the probability of scoring at least one success.
EDIT: BTW for an untrained shooter that -2 TN can be the difference in whether or not the TN 8 requirement for attempting can be met. In your example the untrained shooter is at TN 10 without a scope, TN 8 with.
| QUOTE |
| Under the proposed SR4 mechanic a scope giving +3 dice is 1 success no mater what your skill is |
??? Either you or someone who has leaked info to you is seriously breaking the NDA; or this is wild, wild speculation.
EDIT: That is to say that a scope gives +3 dice is unbased speculation.
| QUOTE |
| As to the mechanics I don’t recall where I got them. I recall discussing possible rules with my GM and that was mentioned then but I don’t know if I saw a reference before that. I think that system would hold to the feel of SR better than a WOD rip of . Remember at target 5 body 6 is only 2 successes, hardly safe from harm, weapon powers would probably go down (holdouts being 0 if not -1 and Aries predator probably coming in at 4 or 5. and armour values going up some. |
Actually, -if- the dice are exploding then 6 die at TN 5 is an average of 2.4 successes....assuming that is how soaking is done.
| QUOTE (Edward) |
| Attack roll, dex + pistols + - mods. Dodge roll ???? Soak roll body + armour – power Net successes modify damage level in some way. |
It doesn't necessarily *have* to, you know. It could run the gammit, even to something like:
Attack roll: attacker's dex + pistols +/- mods vs TN 5, Threshold = Distance +/- mods
Dodge roll: Dex dice target had withhld from dice pools during his previous action +/- mods vs TN 5 Threshold = 1 +/- mods. Every (Threshold) successes reduces attacker's successes by X.
Soak roll: body +/- mods vs TN 5 Threshold = Power - Armor +/- mods. Every (Threshold) successes reduces attacker's successes by Y.
The neat thing about this is that the GM doesn't have to tell you a damn thing about the enemy's weapons or armor, or anything else that you wouldn't need to know about; all of that modifies the Threshold.
Some of you are closer than others, but I still have to sit here and play Sergeant Schulz for a while longer. Which is making me nuts.
Oh, Patrick, like you haven't been off your rocker for years already.
| QUOTE (Adam) |
| Oh, Patrick, like you haven't been off your rocker for years already. |
Yet he seems to fit in well around here. Now why would that be????
I do hope that with a fixed TN 5 that we won't have to do too many successes/2 anymore. That would oh so nice, not having all those "wasted" odd numbered successes. It's not a lot of math to do, but dividing by 2 all the time was kinda annoying.
You have a point....
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| But unless the GM has implemented damage staging past Deadly, with a sniper rifle those extra successes of the expert matter very little. |
Like I said before, only if the target is unaware, unarmed, and in plain view. Meaning that this works exactly the right way: for an easy kill, the expert's already got it handled. If it's a bit tough, the expert can use the scope to turn a hard job into an easy kill, while the non-expert can't really do it either way.
| QUOTE (Eyeless Blond) |
| Soak roll: body +/- mods vs TN 5 Threshold = Power - Armor +/- mods. Every (Threshold) successes reduces attacker's successes by Y. |
That sort of works. The consequence would be that you're in really bad shape if your armor is less potent than the weapon you're being attacked with, since you'd be unlikely to get more than two successes on a body roll. It does beg the question of how damage is decided, though. If the L/M/S/D staging is still around, it might work okay, since you'd only need a few successes to stage the damage down to something reasonable. If that's gone, I suppose reducing the attacker's successes by two or three per threshold might work (or really, reducing the amount of damage done). It kind of depends on how damage is handled. If there are still 10-box condition monitors, and you're rolling a test where you're lucky to get three successes in the very best possible conditions, and there are weapons that can come close to killing you (or kill you outright), then it's going to have to be 3+ boxes per success if armor is going to act effectively.
| QUOTE (Edward @ Apr 19 2005, 03:30 AM) |
| 1: defaulting is more attractive. 2: there is such a thing as impossible. 3: les for thought required. |
1 - Perhaps. We don't know that. Defaulting from attribute doesn't have to be a flat penalty over any skill, as in SR3.
You could get an increase of +1 success to the threshold of combat skill but of +3 to technical skills, for example. Or perhaps all defaulting cost an increase of 4 success to the threshold which would be considerably worse than the SR3 penalty.
We don't know.
2 - Now that really depends. If a 6 count as one success and can be rerroled, for example, than no, there is no such things as impossible. You could get 100 successes with 1 die. Again, we don't know.
Even if there are no way to get more success than you roll dice, perhaps you can use edge to roll more dice and thus push back what is impossible for your character a few notch upward.
Beside, somethings are impossible so it might be a good thing, depending on the common difficulties.
3 - There isn't that much forethought involved with the old pools in the first place. Yeah, it involves some strategy, but we're talking checkers here, not chess.
If the new system allows for some defensive/offensive postures, we'd be pretty much at the same level of strategy. I'm guessing the system will allow you to withold dice in exchange for various benefits. It could perhaps also allow you to gain dice in exchange for various penalties. We - don't - know.
We still know very little.
Your suggestions are plausible, but they do not fit with the stated goal of simplification. It's simpler, isn't it, to have one rule for defaulting than for it to vary skill by skill? And it is simpler, isn't it, to have a single pool to measure posture than to have a list of different offensive and defensive options each with their own bonuses and/or penalties?
If the motivation behind making the change was to simplify or streamline, your suggestions would be counterproductive. Thus, the original points are probably correct.
If the motivation behind making the change was to simplify or streamline, your suggestions would be counterproductive. Thus, the original points are probably correct.
unifiying game mechanics doesn't mean dumbing down options and minimizing modifiers.
D&D is more streamlined than AD&D, but it has a lot more options and situational modifiers than AD&D ever had. A lot.
I'm willing to bet you bragging right right now that we will be allowed to tweak with the amount of dice we roll in exchange for various effect.
I'm also willing to bet the same that defaulting won't be very different from SR3 in terms of attractiveness when you look at the odds of success. At least for technical skills.
And finally, I'm willing to bet that by the point a which a task becomes impossible, no one but a compulsive gambler will have problems with it. That's assuming there are no exploding dice mechanics.
D&D is more streamlined than AD&D, but it has a lot more options and situational modifiers than AD&D ever had. A lot.
I'm willing to bet you bragging right right now that we will be allowed to tweak with the amount of dice we roll in exchange for various effect.
I'm also willing to bet the same that defaulting won't be very different from SR3 in terms of attractiveness when you look at the odds of success. At least for technical skills.
And finally, I'm willing to bet that by the point a which a task becomes impossible, no one but a compulsive gambler will have problems with it. That's assuming there are no exploding dice mechanics.
Unifying game mechanics doesn't mean removing variable target numbers, either, yet they felt compelled to do it.
You could be right that they wanted to D&Dize the game, though; have the diversity in a billion things to tweak on top of one oversimplified mechanic, instead of a million things to tweak on top of a more flexible one. (Either could be preferable to a billion things on top of a flexible mechanic, since it's hard to remember what the billion things do in that case.)
You could be right that they wanted to D&Dize the game, though; have the diversity in a billion things to tweak on top of one oversimplified mechanic, instead of a million things to tweak on top of a more flexible one. (Either could be preferable to a billion things on top of a flexible mechanic, since it's hard to remember what the billion things do in that case.)
I know the scop giving 3 dice is pure speculation. It has been said however that the only change to difficulty will be the number of dice, there where 3 levels of scope before and there probably will be again, negating a penalty of 1, 2 or 3 dice (or 1, 3, 5 dice or 2, 4, 6 dice whatever I piked 3 because it is likely close to what will be available and easy to work out)
You don’t need any form of deadlier over damage for those extra successes to be useful. If the target is aware of you and thus gets dodge he may well strip a large number of successes before working out final damage code, true this will cause the novice to miss but that doesn’t change the fact that the
Eyeless Blond. That system dose have the advantage you give and I almost prefer it but I doubt it will be what is used. It doesn’t meet the stated aim of being a simplification.
Come on Patrick, if you tell me I promise I will buy the book anyway.
Edward
You don’t need any form of deadlier over damage for those extra successes to be useful. If the target is aware of you and thus gets dodge he may well strip a large number of successes before working out final damage code, true this will cause the novice to miss but that doesn’t change the fact that the
Eyeless Blond. That system dose have the advantage you give and I almost prefer it but I doubt it will be what is used. It doesn’t meet the stated aim of being a simplification.
Come on Patrick, if you tell me I promise I will buy the book anyway.
Edward
| QUOTE (Edward) |
| It has been said however that the only change to difficulty will be the number of dice... |
no, that's not what has been said at all. what's been said is that you will roll a number of dice equal to skill plus attribute, plus/minus modifiers against TN 5, and that more difficult tests will require more successes. nothing has been said about modifiers to dice pools being the only modifiers. modifers to the minimum number of It has been said however that the only the FAQs do not deny the possibility that some modifiers might affect the minimum number of successes necessary to succeed.
| QUOTE (Edward) |
| Eyeless Blond. That system dose have the advantage you give and I almost prefer it but I doubt it will be what is used. It doesn’t meet the stated aim of being a simplification. |
It does though. Simplification in this case means not having the GM telling everyone else which modifiers to add or take away from his test: they know the TN already, and they know the number of dice they roll based on their own character sheets. The idea here is that the character's skills, attributes, equipment and personal choices--the things under the player's control--affect the number of dice, while the environment, visability mods, etc--the things under the GM's control--affect the final Threshold Number. That way there's less necessary communication to determine the outcome of a test; the only number that needs to ever be communicated is the number of successes the player rolled. This makes things much simpler because there is no longer any haggling over modifiers; everything is handled on either one side of the GM's screen or the other, with no overlap (basically) other than the player announcing the number of successes.
| QUOTE (Eyeless Blond) |
| The idea here is that the character's skills, attributes, equipment and personal choices--the things under the player's control--affect the number of dice, while the environment, visability mods, etc--the things under the GM's control--affect the final Threshold Number. |
That'd make sense, but I worry that having GM controlled modifiers just affect the threshold doesn't leave the GM much wiggle room to adjust the probability of success before you hit rolls that are "impossible" when compared to the Skill+Attribute (+whatever else) that the players are going to be throwing.
My opinion, stated elsewhere, is that things that affect dice are general modifiers that applies over many tests while modifiers that affect successes are things that are situational and particular to that test.
It ends up close to the same thing, but not quite.
The point is that dice pools should remain as stable as possible from one round to the next for ease of use. It also limits the number of modifiers that increase threshold since you have a steeper limit to how much you can increase that parameter and still have chances to succeed.
I.E. : You have a M wounds, bad lighting conditions, the target has good cover and you are moving while making the shot. If these all provide an increased to the threshold, the shot will end up impossible for most PCs. +2 for Wound, +1 lighting, +2 cover, +1 moving : +6 success. You'd need 7 success which requires a lot of dice to pull off.
But of all these modifiers, only cover and moving are specific to that shot. Wound and lighting will apply to every shot that the PC make in that scene. So these could be taken out of the dice pool.
It ends up close to the same thing, but not quite.
The point is that dice pools should remain as stable as possible from one round to the next for ease of use. It also limits the number of modifiers that increase threshold since you have a steeper limit to how much you can increase that parameter and still have chances to succeed.
I.E. : You have a M wounds, bad lighting conditions, the target has good cover and you are moving while making the shot. If these all provide an increased to the threshold, the shot will end up impossible for most PCs. +2 for Wound, +1 lighting, +2 cover, +1 moving : +6 success. You'd need 7 success which requires a lot of dice to pull off.
But of all these modifiers, only cover and moving are specific to that shot. Wound and lighting will apply to every shot that the PC make in that scene. So these could be taken out of the dice pool.
| QUOTE (RunnerPaul @ May 1 2005, 05:04 AM) | ||
That'd make sense, but I worry that having GM controlled modifiers just affect the threshold doesn't leave the GM much wiggle room to adjust the probability of success before you hit rolls that are "impossible" when compared to the Skill+Attribute (+whatever else) that the players are going to be throwing. |
Well remember that the current TN-based system doesn't have much between pretty easy (TN 4) and really hard (TN 10), with 6-7 being the same thing. But you're right about that; one way to help alleviate this problem is to make all static TNs 4 instead of 5, and they honestly should've done that from the start as it widens the probability curves significantly. Making all TNs 5 really is kinda stupid when you look at the probabilities; just one of the things I have issue with about the very very little I've seen of the new system.
| QUOTE (Charon) |
| But of all these modifiers, only cover and moving are specific to that shot. Wound and lighting will apply to every shot that the PC make in that scene. So these could be taken out of the dice pool. |
Well lighting can change from round to round too, depending on who you're shooting at, how they've moved, if they shot out a street lamp above their heads, if a smoke grenade went off, etc. Wounds kinda do as well; though you won't generally see those modifiers going *down* as the combat progresses you will see them going up.
| QUOTE (Eyeless Blond) |
| Well lighting can change from round to round too, depending on who you're shooting at, how they've moved, if they shot out a street lamp above their heads, if a smoke grenade went off, etc. Wounds kinda do as well; though you won't generally see those modifiers going *down* as the combat progresses you will see them going up. |
Yeah, lighting could in theory change from shot to shot but it's not that common. GM don't usually needlessly mutliply the modifiers of a given encounter.
Af for the wounds, yeah, they can change. I didn't suggest perfectly static dice pools. Just to minimize the fluctuation. By and large, a wound penalty will carry into your next action. Let's say you have your dice pool in front of you, you should be rolling the same number of dice on your next shot. If you get wounded some more, you just retire one die from your pool and forget about it afterward.
| QUOTE (Edward @ May 1 2005, 12:52 AM) |
| I know the scop giving 3 dice is pure speculation. It has been said however that the only change to difficulty will be the number of dice, there where 3 levels of scope before and there probably will be again, negating a penalty of 1, 2 or 3 dice (or 1, 3, 5 dice or 2, 4, 6 dice whatever I piked 3 because it is likely close to what will be available and easy to work out) |
Target Numbers won't be getting modified...but dice pools will be. There will also likely be threshold modifiers, the number of hits you need to get a success. I don't think it was ever stated anywhere that the only modifiers would be to the number of dice.
| QUOTE |
| Eyeless Blond. That system dose have the advantage you give and I almost prefer it but I doubt it will be what is used. It doesn’t meet the stated aim of being a simplification. |
The more things change, the more they stay the same. You guys are reading way too much into things, I think.
| QUOTE |
| Come on Patrick, if you tell me I promise I will buy the book anyway. |
I can neither confirm or deny any of the speculation. Sorry.
| QUOTE (Ellery) |
| Unifying game mechanics doesn't mean removing variable target numbers, either, yet they felt compelled to do it. You could be right that they wanted to D&Dize the game, though; have the diversity in a billion things to tweak on top of one oversimplified mechanic, instead of a million things to tweak on top of a more flexible one. (Either could be preferable to a billion things on top of a flexible mechanic, since it's hard to remember what the billion things do in that case.) |
The system is not dumbed down, I assure you. If it were, I'd be one of the first ones yelling and screaming about it. The mechanic is easier and more straight-forward, but that does not mean that it's been over-simplified. I really think that some of you guys really are forgetting that this is our favorite game, too, and we wouldn't be doing this if we didn't think we could make it better, both for veterans and for new players. This is a version of the game that I think my fiancee could understand and play...and shortly, once I get confirmation that her NDA has been processed, she will be, and I'll get to see right off the bat how well things are working out.
| QUOTE (Patrick Goodman @ May 1 2005, 10:00 AM) |
| This is a version of the game that I think my fiancee could understand and play...and shortly, once I get confirmation that her NDA has been processed, she will be, and I'll get to see right off the bat how well things are working out. |
I hope your are ready for a good number of extra marriage proposals.P.S. You might want to beware of the ones that involve an August 22, 2005 date. I think they might leave you standing alone at the altar.
| QUOTE (Ellery) | ||
Like I said before, only if the target is unaware, unarmed, and in plain view. Meaning that this works exactly the right way: for an easy kill, the expert's already got it handled. If it's a bit tough, the expert can use the scope to turn a hard job into an easy kill, while the non-expert can't really do it either way. |
The exact circumstances that it occurs under is going to vary on GM rulings about being able to Dodge. Also keep in mind which advantage is more "important" is also dependant on a given characters goals.
I was just pointing out to Edward that under SR3 a scope isn't alway more adventagious to the expert than someone with midling skill level, or ever the neophyte. I did mention that i thought SR3 more or less "felt" right to me in this aspect, but i have limited knowledge in this area IRL.
P.S. My beefs with SR3 aren't with scopes. They lie elsewhere, such as the TN 6/7 goofiness.
| QUOTE (Patrick Goodman) |
| The system is not dumbed down, I assure you. If it were, I'd be one of the first ones yelling and screaming about it. |
I hope you'll forgive me if I'm not reassured. It has been announced that combat pool is gone. It has been announced that Edge functions like Karma Pool, making it of very limited use during a firefight unless it refreshes way faster tha Karma Pool did (and anyway, some people will have no edge, or only minimal edge, because they didn't have the points to buy it).
I consider removing a discretionary pool to be a dumbing-down specifically because the people who I game with repeatedly demonstrate that intelligent use of pool is superior to "blow all your pool on your first attack or dodge". Because they think about it, they're better than people who can't or don't want to. How is removing something like that not "dumbing down"? You make it so thinking less produces the same results--that's almost the definition of dumbing down.
(Of course, the myriad of separate pools got hard to keep track of, but there's a difference between consolidating pools and eliminating them. One retains tacitcs, the other doesn't.)
So, I ask you: is there anything in or planned for SR4 that replaces the kind of tactical choices you could make with combat pool (e.g. whether to fight defensively or offensively) that wasn't already in SR3? Hopefully a "yes" or "no" isn't an NDA violation.
| QUOTE (Eyeless Blond) |
| Well remember that the current TN-based system doesn't have much between pretty easy (TN 4) and really hard (TN 10), with 6-7 being the same thing. |
Yeah, I've always been annoyed that they had you add 6 instead of adding 5. But I find that the gradations between difficulty with the current TN system is usually okay--the real appeal is that the same gradations work for everyone, whether I'm playing high school kids fooling around after school with plastic bows and arrows, or Kim Ng, world Archery champion, 2061.
By making the change to fixed TN with dice and/or threshold modifers, they might make the game work just as well for an average runner doing average runner things, but it will probably work a lot less well for anyone else doing anything else, since you can only balance locally when changing the number of dice and threshold.
By making the change to fixed TN with dice and/or threshold modifers, they might make the game work just as well for an average runner doing average runner things, but it will probably work a lot less well for anyone else doing anything else, since you can only balance locally when changing the number of dice and threshold.
| QUOTE (Ellery @ May 1 2005, 03:27 PM) | ||
I hope you'll forgive me if I'm not reassured. |
Your prerogative, of course. I'm not out to reassure everyone, just state things as I see them.
i have to agree with ellery. if there's no mechanic beyond the existing modifiers and an equivalent of karma pool that rewards intelligent play, then the system has been dumbed down.
| QUOTE (Patrick Goodman) |
| I'm not out to reassure everyone, just state things as I see them. |
Fair enough. I'm just pointing out that other people may see things differently.
Patrick, any chance on answering the question Ellery asked (in the post you quoted a snippet of)?
I'd rather not at this time. I was walking a ragged edge with my NDA for a while, and I'd rather not get into something that would take me over that edge.
I worry about threshold modifiers for combat.
SR is and should remain deadly but survivable. Currently this is achieved with a damage staging mechanic based on eth number of successes. If there are a lot of things that increase threshold (which could ether subtract from successes before staging or modify the number of successes needed to stage) then even slightly bad conditions will make it almost imposable to stage damage.
There are 2 ways I see to fix this. While marinating threshold modifiers in combat situations.
1: remove damage staging and make all weapons deadly, making the weapon power a threshold for the damage resistance test. I don’t like this because it means there is no difference between a good hit and a near miss on the part of the attacker.
2: include in the system cyber and magical options that reduce the threshold (this would be a good job for a smart link) this of cause means that anybody without that bit of cyber wear or the equivalent magic is probably worse of than a mundane without a smart link in SR3
part of my difficulty accepting that the change will be for the better is probably that I had no trouble understanding eth system. Nether did most of the people I learned with. The few people I have seen struggle would struggle trying to learn go fish (slight exaduration) so I have difficulty seeing a need for a system that is easier to understand.
As to the confusion of pools the only pools I ever found confusing where task (you can have task pool from 3 sources that don’t get used for the same thing, task pool is effectively 3 different pools, when you realise that it gets easier) and astral pool (I never actually worked out what it could do).
In any situation there was really only one pool you could use so it wasn’t hard to work out which to use.
Edward
SR is and should remain deadly but survivable. Currently this is achieved with a damage staging mechanic based on eth number of successes. If there are a lot of things that increase threshold (which could ether subtract from successes before staging or modify the number of successes needed to stage) then even slightly bad conditions will make it almost imposable to stage damage.
There are 2 ways I see to fix this. While marinating threshold modifiers in combat situations.
1: remove damage staging and make all weapons deadly, making the weapon power a threshold for the damage resistance test. I don’t like this because it means there is no difference between a good hit and a near miss on the part of the attacker.
2: include in the system cyber and magical options that reduce the threshold (this would be a good job for a smart link) this of cause means that anybody without that bit of cyber wear or the equivalent magic is probably worse of than a mundane without a smart link in SR3
part of my difficulty accepting that the change will be for the better is probably that I had no trouble understanding eth system. Nether did most of the people I learned with. The few people I have seen struggle would struggle trying to learn go fish (slight exaduration) so I have difficulty seeing a need for a system that is easier to understand.
As to the confusion of pools the only pools I ever found confusing where task (you can have task pool from 3 sources that don’t get used for the same thing, task pool is effectively 3 different pools, when you realise that it gets easier) and astral pool (I never actually worked out what it could do).
In any situation there was really only one pool you could use so it wasn’t hard to work out which to use.
Edward
| QUOTE (Edward @ May 2 2005, 03:16 AM) |
| As to the confusion of pools the only pools I ever found confusing where task (you can have task pool from 3 sources that don’t get used for the same thing, task pool is effectively 3 different pools, when you realise that it gets easier) and astral pool (I never actually worked out what it could do). |
It's more of an accounting than confusion (although Task Pools have some intricacies), keeping track of the use of the pools. I didn't really find it that burdensome...because i didn't try do it. *shrug*
For combat choices there are others. Damage done increases with the number of successes past threshhold. This could be either 1 box per success, or 1 damage stage per success. Some sort check by the target, based on die from Body and Armor and perhaps another source, could reduce the attackers successes or perhaps boxes of damage. No more Dodge per say, it just becomes part of a single stage of damage reduction by the target. Under SR3 you couldn't combine Dogde and soak dice because they had different TNs. The two part weapon power would go away, replaced by either a weapon adding dice for the attack or stipulating the number of boxes of damage done per success.
If you increased damage by Light, Moderate, Serious, Deadly, but staged it down a box at a time, unless the target had a lot of dice on hand that would make combat extremely deadly.
If you moved up and down the Light, Moderate, Serious, Deadly scale by successes on other side that would lead to a volitile combat system.
Staging up and down by boxes would give you a smoother damage. How deadly would depend on potential dice counts on either side.
P.S. Even if damage is done by the box, I would expect Fanpro to keep the terms Light, Moderate, Serious, Deadly for nostalgic reasons. They would only keep one of their meanings, that of the current state of health.
| QUOTE (Edward) |
| 1: defaulting is more attractive. |
How could we say that ? There is a secret FAQ going on somewhere, that explain the final mechanism on defaulting ????
Same comment on the rest...
| QUOTE (Jérémie) | ||
How could we say that ? There is a secret FAQ going on somewhere, that explain the final mechanism on defaulting ???? Same comment on the rest... |
Well no but this is what happens based on what we have so far.
It is all meaningless conjecture but when you work nights and don’t want to reset your sleep pattern on your day off you need to find something to do in the early AM
| QUOTE (Edward) | ||||
Well no but this is what happens based on what we have so far. |
Actually Patrick skirted the NDA on that. He didn't say anything -directly-, such as what the downside(s) to Defaulting are, but.....
| QUOTE |
| It is all meaningless conjecture but when you work nights and don’t want to reset your sleep pattern on your day off you need to find something to do in the early AM |
You can use that time to go find Patrick's hint on the matter of Defaulting still isn't a free ride.
| QUOTE (Edward) |
| Implications on the core mechanic Stat + skill target 5. I finally got of my bum and read the SR4 FAQ and I noticed some implications of the core mechanic. Do you agree that they will occur and do you think that they will be bad. 1: defaulting is more attractive. In SR3 defaulting to stat 3 created a very low chance of success. Buy my maths you now have a better than 70% chance of success (if there are no other modifiers). For some things (pistols) I see this as a good thing, for others (cracking a mag lock) I see it as a bad thing. A rigger (specialist vehicle hacker) with no skill in computing but a high logic (I assume that will be the linked stat)will be a competent computer hacker (hell somebody with high int and no experience could pick up the tools and perform as well as a les intelligent person with significant experience) 2: there is such a thing as imposable. In SR3 no mater the penalties you could take a roll and have a chance of wining, even if the TN was 35 it could happen. Under SR4 these tasks will be imposable. This is fine for really hard things the difference is minuscule but consider a low skill use. Stat 2 skill 2 taking a shot at short range SR3 2 dice target 4, SR4 4 dice target 5. Now apply a 2 point glare and a 2 point range penalty. SR3 2 dice target 8 (achievable with luck) SR4 no chance. 3: les for thought required. Without pools that have to be spread out over multiple actions you wont need to consider latter needs for thinks like spell pool or combat pool, if the total pools do need to be split over multiple actions then what about a character that casts a spell with one action and then fires a gun. These use very different pools so he will evade the downside. This will be a non issue if the initiative system doses not grant multiple actions in a turn but that would return initiative to a D&D like importance, going often is a lot more significant than going first. That is all I can think of for now. Opinions pleas. Edward |
Regarding #1: As far as I know, we don't know that dice will 'explode' in the SR4 game mechanic. I haven't looked at the numbers in depth, but I imagine exploding dice could have the potential to create statistical significance. Regardless, I admit that making an attempt without having a skill but having a high rating may not be as stark a contrast to actually having the skill -unless- defaulting ends up altering the number of successes needed. For instance, if defaulting automatically removed say 2, or even 4 net successes as opposed reducing dice rolled, it might reintroduce the desired contrast. A person with a 6 attribute and no skill might need 3 or even 5 net successes to 'succeed' where as a person with a 3 attribute and 3 skill might only need 1 net success. I think it's important that we remember that the number of net successess scored will affect the level of success.
Regarding #2: In sr3, a TN can never be reduced below a 2. For all we know, a similar redefinition could apply to SR4 where the number of dice to roll can never be reduced below 1. In this way, something could be made near impossible, but never fully impossible. Your character might only have one die to roll, giving the possibility for only a single success....but the potential for the longshot/hail mary could still exist. Again, I think it's important that we keep in mind that the number of successes scored determines the level of success.
Regarding #3: I really haven't seen anything that gives a proposition on how combat initiative might occur in SR4. But I have a guess on how it might work. What if you roll your reaction attribute + modifiers (init dice would be modifiers...so that wired 3 sammy has +3 dice) and your total number of moves is the total number of successes scored against a TN of 5. The progression of actions goes from person with most successess to the person with the least. Those with ties go simultaneously....when everyone's taken an combat turn, you subtract one from the net successes and continue till there are none left <no more subtracting 10...just decrementing>. Instead of being a -# of dice for the test...health condition could automatically remove a number of successes....Say you have 4 sucesses and I have 2. You go first and you shoot me for a moderate wound....I now have no action. I'd say going first would be pretty significant in such a case.
Garwyn
Looked at this thread a bit and i am fairly sure that if they make tasks impossible (i.e dont have exploding dice or something like it where your runner can at least have the option of attempting the one in a thousand shot) then there are going to be some very pissed off people.... me included. Its roleplaying. I dont liike the idea of being told yes you can shoot at him, hes in range but its impossible for you to hit him.
Edit: just to add, about 4 years ago my sammie hit a mage whilst heavily wounded who was invisible, at long pistol range to kill him. The TN was huge, but that one miracle hit still makes me smile when i remember it. Im sure a lot of you guys have similar experiences.
Edit: just to add, about 4 years ago my sammie hit a mage whilst heavily wounded who was invisible, at long pistol range to kill him. The TN was huge, but that one miracle hit still makes me smile when i remember it. Im sure a lot of you guys have similar experiences.
| QUOTE |
| For all we know, a similar redefinition could apply to SR4 where the number of dice to roll can never be reduced below 1. In this way, something could be made near impossible, but never fully impossible. |
No, this doesn't work. The TN is 5. No matter how bad things get, and how unskilled you are, you'd always have a 1/3 chance of success! (Granted, only a single success, but that's likely to be enough for many applications.)
Back when I first heard about the new basic mechanic for SR4 one of the first ideas that occured to me for solving the problem of defaulting and still having a chance of near impossible tests were the use of exploding dice, after others suggested it here, and a threshold on successes based on skill level.
A character can get a number of successes in their tests up to their skill rating with no penalty, beyond that threshold their successes are halved, rounded down. So a character with an attribute of 6 and a skill rating of 3 can roll their nine dice, have three of them roll a five or better and get 3 successes no problem, but if they get 7 dice with a result of 5 or 6 they only get 5 successses. Thus a characters chance of success is always restrained by their skill rating, a character defaulting to another skill would calculate this skill threshold at lower than the defaulting skills rating and a character defaulting to attributes alone has a skill threshold of zero and so loses half of all their successes.
Of course for this to allow a character defaulting to their attribute alone to attempt some test with a high threshold and actually having a chance of success there needs to be an exploding dice game mechanic. I have to say that whilst I didn't think the SR game mechanics were in need of a complete overhaul I don't have any reason to feel the game is going to be worse for it, its the same company that has worked with SR3, I have at least some faith that they will keep the spirit of the game both in the setting and the rules. If the game had been handed on to a new company and they were doing a complete rewrite of the rules I would be a lot more circumspect.
Oh and Gambitt. I also have memories of one of those impossible odds, hail mary type success tests. Thing is I was the GM and it was one of my players that pulled it off. The Mantis shaman that had only moments ago had the characters at her mercy, then the reinforcements arrived and turned the tide, was making her escape as the PCs were getting to their feet and dealing with her spirits. To have a character with a broken arm leap over the attack of a mantis spirit, haul a sniper rifle up into a firing position as he hits the ground on his good shoulder and pull off a single shot through a doorway and past another insect spirit doing the bodyguard bit to take off the top of the shamans head left me gritting my teeth in frustration at the time. But it's an aspect of the game I wouldn't trade for anything.
A character can get a number of successes in their tests up to their skill rating with no penalty, beyond that threshold their successes are halved, rounded down. So a character with an attribute of 6 and a skill rating of 3 can roll their nine dice, have three of them roll a five or better and get 3 successes no problem, but if they get 7 dice with a result of 5 or 6 they only get 5 successses. Thus a characters chance of success is always restrained by their skill rating, a character defaulting to another skill would calculate this skill threshold at lower than the defaulting skills rating and a character defaulting to attributes alone has a skill threshold of zero and so loses half of all their successes.
Of course for this to allow a character defaulting to their attribute alone to attempt some test with a high threshold and actually having a chance of success there needs to be an exploding dice game mechanic. I have to say that whilst I didn't think the SR game mechanics were in need of a complete overhaul I don't have any reason to feel the game is going to be worse for it, its the same company that has worked with SR3, I have at least some faith that they will keep the spirit of the game both in the setting and the rules. If the game had been handed on to a new company and they were doing a complete rewrite of the rules I would be a lot more circumspect.
Oh and Gambitt. I also have memories of one of those impossible odds, hail mary type success tests. Thing is I was the GM and it was one of my players that pulled it off. The Mantis shaman that had only moments ago had the characters at her mercy, then the reinforcements arrived and turned the tide, was making her escape as the PCs were getting to their feet and dealing with her spirits. To have a character with a broken arm leap over the attack of a mantis spirit, haul a sniper rifle up into a firing position as he hits the ground on his good shoulder and pull off a single shot through a doorway and past another insect spirit doing the bodyguard bit to take off the top of the shamans head left me gritting my teeth in frustration at the time. But it's an aspect of the game I wouldn't trade for anything.
| QUOTE |
| 2: there is such a thing as imposable. In SR3 no mater the penalties you could take a roll and have a chance of wining, even if the TN was 35 it could happen. |
Not entirely so. If you only have one die, multiple success are impossible in SR3 (maybe not in SR4). In SR3, a lot of rolls require multiple succes, if not to succeed then at least to produce certain results, so some things are impossible. Its not unreasonable to assume this will also hold in SR4.
The only rolls I recall that require multiple successes are for system operations on certain hosts, and for breaking masking. With everything else, one success gives you success (although it may not be enough to do everything you were hoping for--you might be dodged, you might still take lethal damage, etc.).
Enhanced reallity for all does'nt mean smartlink for all ???
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.