Good grief. This thread has more than the usual share of mathematical confusion, plus a good dose of illogic to boot.
Full Version: Why SR4 ?
| QUOTE (Earthwalker) |
| I believe that a modifier to a situation should always be applied equally to all rolls. In my example of spell casting this is clearly not the case as changing TNs from 4 to 6 is much worse then from 6 to 8. |
Sure, but this isn't an argument against variable TNs. No system lives up to this. With DC in D&D, you get out of range of the d20, after which the modifier does nothing. When you get close, you're drastically off in rates of success--for example, if you need 18 you'll succeed three times as often as if you need 20, but if you need a 6 you'll only succeed 15% more often than if you need an 8. Pretty weird. With a fixed TN of 5, adding or subtracting three dice to someone who only has four to roll gives them either one die (where they'll get 1/4 as many successes as usual), or seven (where they'll get 75% more on average). But if another person can muster 16 dice, their number of successes will only change by about 20%.
In fact, there does not exist a function that does what you want. An exponential distribution is close, but the function has to increase to infinity to have the property you described, and that means it isn't a probability (which is restricted to values between 0 and 1).
However, variable TN comes the closest to what you say, because every factor of 6, regardless of the existing TN, makes the task exactly 6x more difficult. So a six is a six is a six--no matter what your TN, you're always getting 6x fewer successes with a TN penalty of 6.
In fact, there does not exist a function that does what you want. An exponential distribution is close, but the function has to increase to infinity to have the property you described, and that means it isn't a probability (which is restricted to values between 0 and 1).
However, variable TN comes the closest to what you say, because every factor of 6, regardless of the existing TN, makes the task exactly 6x more difficult. So a six is a six is a six--no matter what your TN, you're always getting 6x fewer successes with a TN penalty of 6.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Say I'm trying to shoot someone. Not too hard. Now break one of my arms and give me a moderate-depth stab wound to the torso plus miscellaneous slashes and bruises. Now it's harder. Now make it dark. Is it really as much harder, keeping in mind that we're already starting from a significant disadvantage, as it would be if I were healthy and undistracted? I submit that it is not, and that the SR3 scale reflects this well. |
This is occasionally true by accident, and isn't a good argument for a variable TN system because sometimes it works exactly the opposite way. Anyway, yes, if something is harder, it should be harder as long as the ways in which it is becoming harder affect you independently.
If you really want a system that has the property you described, you have to have a nonlinear combination of penalties, i.e. a penalty of N combined with a penalty of M is not a penalty of (N+M)--a flat penalty of (N+M) is worse.
The problem with the SR3 system is that the progression in relative difficulty isn't what you'd like:
If you really want a system that has the property you described, you have to have a nonlinear combination of penalties, i.e. a penalty of N combined with a penalty of M is not a penalty of (N+M)--a flat penalty of (N+M) is worse.
The problem with the SR3 system is that the progression in relative difficulty isn't what you'd like:
| CODE |
Target number: TN6 TN7 TN8 TN9 TN10 TN11 TN12 TN13 Fractional reduction in successes: 0% 16% 20% 25% 33% 50% 0% |
If your extra wound moves you from TN11 to TN12, you lose 50% of your successes. If you drop from TN7 to TN8, you only lose 16%. Only adding 5 instead of adding 6, or skipping over 6, 12, 18, etc., will fix the worst offender in the list (TN 6n to TN 6n+1).
| QUOTE (Earthwalker) |
| In my spell example one spell is going to be weaker because it will be cast last. The tactical decision there is what spell someone can afford to have weaker. In the SR3 rules there is no tactical in character decision as anyone casting the barrier first is needlessly crippling themselves. |
Depends. Do you want a really strong barrier and not care so much about the levitation? Then you should cast the barrier first, even so. The principle stays the same--first cast the one you want to work well, and then cast the other. It's not as smooth as one might like, but again, adding 5 instead of 6 goes a long way towards fixing that.
| QUOTE (Gort) |
| I agree that the 6-7 target number thing is bad, and also that variable modifiers (where +1 doesn't necessarily mean the same as +1 in another situation) is a flaw of SR3, and I'm interested to see how it all works in SR4. From what I've seen so far, I'm encouraged. |
I think you'll find the "gee, losing 2 dice when I'm rolling 4 is a disaster vs. who cares if I have 12" is just as bad a flaw, if not worse, unless you always play characters with nearly average stats. If everything has between 6 and 10 dice, it's no big deal.
| QUOTE (Eldritch) |
| I'm no mathematician, but I really don't see a huge difference between variable target tumbers and variable dice. |
There are some things you can only conveniently do with variable TNs, such as allowing tasks where you perform well (high number of successes) reliably (most every time you roll). TN5 might be good for a chaotic ranged combat situation, but if you're doing a long jump or something, you can't say "roll athletics vs. TN 2". So you have to end up applying a bunch of static modifiers to things and have the dice ride on top of that, and then you have a custom rule where a simple mechanic would have worked.
| QUOTE (Earthwalker) |
| Two swords masters are dueling. One has a scratch on his hand thats effecting his ability to fight. Its only a light wound but its going to cost him the fight. |
A light wound isn't a "scratch". Ten light wounds and you're dead (incapacitated to the point where you are utterly unable to care for yourself, and will die without immediate attention). Light wounds are serious. And you bring up the 6/7 thing yet again, but we've already found a one-letter fix for that (replace the "6" in "add 6" with "5").
| QUOTE (Nerbert) |
| Variable TN systems are twice as complex as Fixed TN systems. You cannot argue this. There are always two rules for every roll. The rule to figure out how many dice to roll, and the rule to figure out how hard it should be. |
Except you have to do both those things for fixed TN, except "how hard" means "how many successes"! In SR3, the number of successes needed isn't often varied, because the varying TN can take care of it. In SR4, I expect it'll be used a lot more. If you do a bad job of game design, and apply each of the three factors--TN modifier, dice modifier, and # successes needed modifier--at random, then yes, it's 50% more to keep track of than if you only apply two of those at random. But what if you do it consistently--for example, things that affect a character's abilities intrinsically and permanently (something they'd write down on their sheet) change the number of dice they have; environmental factors alter the TN (which the GM has to decide); and the amount that needs to be done alters the number of successes needed. You have to think about all three things in both systems anyway, so there isn't any more work unless keeping track of three numbers is horribly burdensome as compared to keeping track of two. And given that we've got two new numbers in the form of attributes, I'm not buying that an extra number is that bad.
| QUOTE (Shadow) |
| It's shoot/soak now. If there is some sort of dodge test, they haven't anounced it. |
They haven't announced anything about the combat system aside from the lack of combat pool. You could have one opposed roll: shoot with attribute+skill and soak with body + armor (or body + dodge with armor vs. weapon comparison determining the base damage, or whatever. You could have two: shoot vs. dodge to hit, then damage vs. soak to wound. You could have three: aim vs. dodge to hit, weapon vs. armor to determine damage, damage vs. body to soak. And so on.
What we do know is that you don't get to dynamically decide where your dice go throughout a combat turn. Maybe instead of having one pool they will have a giant table saying things like "aggressive stance: add two dice to your firearms test but subtract two dice from your next dodge test" as a tactical action you can take. That's not really a simplification.
Gah, I ran out of time. Anyway, statistics isn't obvious stuff! Think a bit more before posting.
What we do know is that you don't get to dynamically decide where your dice go throughout a combat turn. Maybe instead of having one pool they will have a giant table saying things like "aggressive stance: add two dice to your firearms test but subtract two dice from your next dodge test" as a tactical action you can take. That's not really a simplification.
Gah, I ran out of time. Anyway, statistics isn't obvious stuff! Think a bit more before posting.
The problem is, so much of all these conversations is revolving around things we don't know anything about. The more I hear about other people's opinions about what they're "sure" is going on, the more perplexed I get about how things could possibly be working.
| QUOTE |
| There are some things you can only conveniently do with variable TNs, such as allowing tasks where you perform well (high number of successes) reliably (most every time you roll). TN5 might be good for a chaotic ranged combat situation, but if you're doing a long jump or something, you can't say "roll athletics vs. TN 2". So you have to end up applying a bunch of static modifiers to things and have the dice ride on top of that, and then you have a custom rule where a simple mechanic would have worked. |
Maybe I missed something in your post - but where does the custom rule come into play?
And that still doesn't help me see that there is any sort of huge difference between the systems - they still seem to even out in the end.
Except where in the new system, you can have your dice all taken away and your skill is 0 - where I assume you will still have one die to roll, and that effects the 2 die guy the same as the 8 die guy. That dosent' make sense. And is in fact unfair to the player of the 8 die guy.
And, without exploding dice, some tasks will be impopssible. Yeah, my baby can't thread a needle, and my sammie cant' survive a fall form a 100 story building no matter hom many dice he rolls - gimmie a break - that's not what we're talking about with 'impossible tasks' - we're talking about:
SR3: biotech, one die, tagert number 10. Possible.
SR4: Biotech 1/int 1, 3 success threshold needed. Impossible.
Yeah, we don't have all the data on the system, we're counting on them to do the right thing. Oops - too Late
a long jump doesn't have a lot of variation IRL, eldritch. if you want to model than in a static TN system, you'll have to do some real mathematical gymnastics--ie, a custom rule that applies only to jumping.
Er, I thought the SR COmpanion had some basic rules for jumping?
Or am I completley missingthe point?
Or am I completley missingthe point?
How nice that they couldn't be bothered to put the jumping rules in the core book.
I digress.
I digress.
SRComp has the jumping rules for SR3 (and they're pretty terrible rules, to be honest). SR4 rules will be different, though probably not better, given the static TN thing.
| QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0) |
| How nice that they couldn't be bothered to put the jumping rules in the core book. I digress. |
Agreed - there is a slew of rules int the Comp that should be in the basic book.
And yeah, they're not great - but minimally easy - just to get you by - or give you a base to build your own.
"Not great" is a ridiculous understatement. The jumping rules are an open test. Which means the Olympics would be a lot more fun to watch, but retarded.
Easier rules - even a bit dumber, but more logical, will help good GM having a fluent story, and good GM will be able to adapt some particular rules on the fly.
When the system is to complicated, it is much more harder to adapt, otherwise you need to overrule the whole system, not just applying a patch ...
I must admit I am just a SR player. If I would master that game, I won't give a chit off the rules, but only off the character description ...
Because no real system is often more logical that rules - and always more fluid.
I pretty sure a lot of you disagree ...
Have fun anyway !
When the system is to complicated, it is much more harder to adapt, otherwise you need to overrule the whole system, not just applying a patch ...
I must admit I am just a SR player. If I would master that game, I won't give a chit off the rules, but only off the character description ...
Because no real system is often more logical that rules - and always more fluid.
I pretty sure a lot of you disagree ...
Have fun anyway !
| QUOTE (Ellery) | ||
Sure, but this isn't an argument against variable TNs. No system lives up to this. With DC in D&D, you get out of range of the d20, after which the modifier does nothing. When you get close, you're drastically off in rates of success--for example, if you need 18 you'll succeed three times as often as if you need 20, but if you need a 6 you'll only succeed 15% more often than if you need an 8. Pretty weird. With a fixed TN of 5, adding or subtracting three dice to someone who only has four to roll gives them either one die (where they'll get 1/4 as many successes as usual), or seven (where they'll get 75% more on average). But if another person can muster 16 dice, their number of successes will only change by about 20%. In fact, there does not exist a function that does what you want. An exponential distribution is close, but the function has to increase to infinity to have the property you described, and that means it isn't a probability (which is restricted to values between 0 and 1). However, variable TN comes the closest to what you say, because every factor of 6, regardless of the existing TN, makes the task exactly 6x more difficult. So a six is a six is a six--no matter what your TN, you're always getting 6x fewer successes with a TN penalty of 6. |
Well your right there I still can`t escape the things I see as "wrong" in the variable target numbner system as it is.
As for a +6 always being contant thats true but a +2 isn't.
Finally this is more a general comment. I started this thread as I do like a move to a fixed target number system, it is clear allot of people do not. I have given different reasons why I like the change and allot of people have pointed out that my concerns aren't that serious. Or that there are suitable reasons why the rules can work the way they do.
I think I will enjoy seeing what a new fixed target number system is like. I hope it fixes things for me and that in doing so it doesn't destroy the feel of the game. I guess I will have to see how things shape up between SR4 and SR3. Of course I think time will be the best judge.
I think one issue that this resolves around is the a fixed target number system is simpler to understand (or I hope the implementation is) and that at the end of the day I will like things to be simpler as I said. Let me make tactical decisions for my character and not worry about the math.
[edit]
Oppps forgot to say. Thanks to Kage for giving me realistic ways in which the numbers can be interpreted in the examples I gave, in some ways i think I was just lost in the numbers for some of them.
| QUOTE (Eldritch) | ||
Agreed. I think my strongest feelings towards Fanpro is Disappointment. And while SR3 has it's flaws, there isn't a game sytem out there that doesn't - I'd consider your examples very minor in the grand scheme of things and not worthy of tearing down the entire system and rebuilding it. Yeah, decking needed sopme work - in particular a method to bring them more 'into the fold' of the group. And rigging needed some work. |
I think this sums it up well. disappointment and what seems to be just a money grab.
As for changing variable targets to fixed, it see it as an advantage. it should be harder to hit a moving target thatn a still one, you moving too is going to make it worse.
i wouldn't call it a money grab. neither line development nor freelancing is a job you get into for the ferraris. it does seem pretty disappointing so far, though.
Of course it's a money grab. It's a money grab just like SotA:2064 was a money grab, and Magic in the Shadows is a money grab, and my going to work every day was a money grab until I went back to being a full-time student.
~J
~J
| QUOTE (Earthwalker) |
| [QUOTE=Ellery] In fact, there does not exist a function that does what you want. An exponential distribution is close, but the function has to increase to infinity to have the property you described, and that means it isn't a probability (which is restricted to values between 0 and 1). [edit] |
Actually this is not quite correct. There IS a function that does what you want. But only in a certain range.
If the difficulty is dealt with fixed TN and adding/subtracting dices, you can have a decent range from say 5 to 12 dices initial pool, with a subtle effect on mods. And that range seems pretty good because most of the test will follow it (because you will add the linked attribute). Problems will occur out of that range, if no patch fix issues like impossible test when statistic should be only very low.
The trouble with SR3 was the very short range of situation the design worked out without flow, because adding even just 1 to TN can cause very big variations on statistic (half the probability), or nothing. And those flows come in game very VERY often.
You just outlined the problem; the limited range of usefulness. Five to twelve dice is not a particularly useful range. If characters want to truly perform exceptionally in a fixed-TN# system with 5+ being the goal, they will be rolling more than 12 dice, be they from innate skill and ability or from all the proper combinations of benfeicial modifiers. Likewise, if a character possesses passable but not average/normal ability within a certain skill, or is being heavily penalized due to environmental factors, they might end up rolling 4 or less dice. If the system herds most characters into the 5-12 die range, there will not be very much point in being exceptional or legendary, rather than good. There'll be almost as little point being good, versus average. The system will hold up, at the cost of most characters performing within the same relatively dull range of mediocrity. If someone gets very good, the system breaks. If someone is really bad, the system breaks.
Is the price in variance and scalability worth the resulting stability?
Is the price in variance and scalability worth the resulting stability?
| QUOTE (Wireknight) |
| There'll be almost as little point being good, versus average. |
??? For sure you are wrong. Because damage will probably depends on hits, and because in opposition rolls adding 1 dice TN5 is a real advantage, and because all hit counts in quality of success (want to open an electronical look - ok in how much time ?)
Someone with 4 dices (a beginner) TN5 often trying to have a succes with a 3 dices penalty (hard test) could be call a daredevil ... or a foolish jerk.
Figure out that some action are IMPOSSIBLE not in nature but because of the character trying - I can't jump 6m long. May be I could with training.
Still without modification there can sometime be a break with impossible test trying to figure out low probability action.
For an instance of where being "excellent" doesn't matter versus being "good" or "average," just look at the World of Darkness. Comparisons between the two systems have been made ever since the new die mechanic (Att + Skill) and the static TN (a 1/3 chance of success, about the same as WoD games) were announced. The SR4 system is, in short, very, very, similar to the established WoD stuff. And I've never liked the WoD stuff.
When a single die has only a 1/3 chance of bringing home a success (and every single die, ever, will now have exactly a 1/3 chance of bringing home a success), a single die doesn't really count for much. There's not any sort of reliable difference between having 6 dice for a test, and having 7. Or 7 to 8. Or, for that matter, 6 to 8. Single-die jumps are no big deal, in practice. In theory, there's a world of difference between a novice (Skill 2) and an expert (Skill 4) at something. In practice, using a die mechanic like this one, there's just not much there.
The problem is, beleive it or not, added to by the skill + stat mechanic. The importance of a skill is dulled by that formula. Attributes begin to directly affect quite a bit more than they used to -- an athletic kid with no real idea how to use a sword (Quickness 6, Edged Weapons 1) suddenly finds himself doing pretty well against an average joe who's been into fencing for half his life (Quickness 3, Edged Weapons 4). Where text descriptions in any game using this sort of mechanic will make a huge deal about the differences between a 1 and a 4 in a given skill, the fact is it's just not always there.
For a good laugh, go read the text/flavor descriptions of some skills in a WoD book. Then work some probability based on average difficulty tasks, an average attribute, and the "world class, olympic level" skill numbers.
When a single die has only a 1/3 chance of bringing home a success (and every single die, ever, will now have exactly a 1/3 chance of bringing home a success), a single die doesn't really count for much. There's not any sort of reliable difference between having 6 dice for a test, and having 7. Or 7 to 8. Or, for that matter, 6 to 8. Single-die jumps are no big deal, in practice. In theory, there's a world of difference between a novice (Skill 2) and an expert (Skill 4) at something. In practice, using a die mechanic like this one, there's just not much there.
The problem is, beleive it or not, added to by the skill + stat mechanic. The importance of a skill is dulled by that formula. Attributes begin to directly affect quite a bit more than they used to -- an athletic kid with no real idea how to use a sword (Quickness 6, Edged Weapons 1) suddenly finds himself doing pretty well against an average joe who's been into fencing for half his life (Quickness 3, Edged Weapons 4). Where text descriptions in any game using this sort of mechanic will make a huge deal about the differences between a 1 and a 4 in a given skill, the fact is it's just not always there.
For a good laugh, go read the text/flavor descriptions of some skills in a WoD book. Then work some probability based on average difficulty tasks, an average attribute, and the "world class, olympic level" skill numbers.
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| 1 In theory, there's a world of difference between a novice (Skill 2) and an expert (Skill 4) at something. In practice, using a die mechanic like this one, there's just not much there. (...) 2 an athletic kid with no real idea how to use a sword (Quickness 6, Edged Weapons 1) suddenly finds himself doing pretty well against an average joe who's been into fencing for half his life (Quickness 3, Edged Weapons 4). |
For the first point, the number of dices as the same influence than in sr3 when the TN was 5, less than sr3 TN <5, and more in TN >5
Sometimes it is more logical than variable TN, sometimes not. but it is always simpler.
Second, you are right. But this point is not such an issue, because in the new system few character will have qck6, and having 3 qck and edge weapon 4 will be so much cheaper.
In Sr3 there was no difference between a guy with qck6 str6 bd6 and another one with qck1, str3, bod1 since both have athletics 3.
Do you think that flaw is now has bad as the one just above ?
The truth is : you can't make a rule that distinguish situation were skill is more important than attribute, and were it is not.
The Vampire RPG has sort of the same machanics (attribute+skill) and I think it works out allright.
Some differences:
I like when attribs. are expensive to raise... In SR3 all characters have body 6 after a few games. In fact now thinking about it I like the idea of have the attribs. more or less static. It gives you some weaknesses.. good for poleplaying...
Some differences:
- it is that it very expensive to raise the attributes
- att. and skills ranges are from 1 to 5
- the dice has 10 sides
I like when attribs. are expensive to raise... In SR3 all characters have body 6 after a few games. In fact now thinking about it I like the idea of have the attribs. more or less static. It gives you some weaknesses.. good for poleplaying...
| QUOTE (Mr.Cato) |
| The Vampire RPG has sort of the same machanics (attribute+skill) and I think it works out allright. Some differences:
|
Attributes are...what...cheap, in SR? Bull. I've got a 250+ karma street sam who still hasn't raised his Bod to a 6. There's always something else, something more directly related to whatever your character is supposed to do, that's more worth karma. I dunno what game you play in where "everyone has Body 6 after a few games," but it's not mine.
And, I just disagree on your assessment of the WoD "working pretty well," also. That's a game that's so very, very, character-and-plot-and-roleplay-and-angst-and-moan driven that they've outright stated in interviews, etc, before that their die mechanic (and especially combat mechanic) was almost an afterthought. Maybe your Shadowrun games are soap operas where sometimes a trigger gets pulled, but if you ever tried to run a combat-heavy Vampire game you'd have something besides the eternal hungry of the all-consuming beast within to moan about. It's a horrible system for combats. Absolutely horrible.
It was quite easy to begin with most of the attributes at 6 ... Just need to pick up A for that ...
Quite cheap to raise the low ones.
I think I do not understand rules and stats the same way you do do Critias
Quite cheap to raise the low ones.
I think I do not understand rules and stats the same way you do do Critias
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| And, I just disagree on your assessment of the WoD "working pretty well," also. That's a game that's so very, very, character-and-plot-and-roleplay-and-angst-and-moan driven that they've outright stated in interviews, etc, before that their die mechanic (and especially combat mechanic) was almost an afterthought. Maybe your Shadowrun games are soap operas where sometimes a trigger gets pulled, but if you ever tried to run a combat-heavy Vampire game you'd have something besides the eternal hungry of the all-consuming beast within to moan about. It's a horrible system for combats. Absolutely horrible. |
I guess ones style of play just adapts with the rules of the game. I have fond memories of Vampire. It might be right that the system works better outside of combat... As I wrote the prev. post I sat with a feeling that there was something "off" with the combat system, but couldn't put my finger on it. ...still quite can't .. it's been awhile
I still hope they raise cost of attrib advancement in SR4, but mostly of all I'm just happy that this great SR Universe is still alive
| QUOTE |
| In Sr3 there was no difference between a guy with qck6 str6 bd6 and another one with qck1, str3, bod1 since both have athletics 3. Do you think that flaw is now has bad as the one just above ? The truth is : you can't make a rule that distinguish situation were skill is more important than attribute, and were it is not. |
Sure there is - it's harder for the all ones guy to raise his athletics skill - he has to spend more karma raising a skill that is higher than the linked attribute. The all 6 guy raises his athletics with much less 'effort', (Spending of karma) than the Little Guy.
Is that a perfect mechanic - No - but none of them are.
Admittedly the last I plaed WOD was back when it first came out, but from what I remember combat stank.
honestly, the attribute+skill mechanic is one of the things i do like about SR4--or, rather, i think it's one of the things that could be implemented well. i never liked how little impact attributes had on characters in SR3.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| honestly, the attribute+skill mechanic is one of the things i do like about SR4--or, rather, i think it's one of the things that could be implemented well. i never liked how little impact attributes had on characters in SR3. |
Due to the effects of karma cost on skills I think attributes has a pretty strong effect in SR3. Just my opinion though.
only in the long run, which--according to the polls i've seen posted on here--very few games ever extend into. as i recall, most people retire their characters for one reason or another after ~30 karma. that's not nearly long enough for attributes to have very much impact.
In my experience attributes have a much stronger effect than skills. Between skill costs, pools, derived attributes like Reaction, Attributes being used as TNs for opposed tests, and all of the other functions, I've seen very few characters without high Attributes and more than a few with only a few high Skills.
~J
~J
| QUOTE (Taki) |
| There IS a function that does what you want. But only in a certain range. If the difficulty is dealt with fixed TN and adding/subtracting dices, you can have a decent range from say 5 to 12 dices initial pool, with a subtle effect on mods. |
If you limit something to a narrow enough range, almost any function will do the job. Percentile dice do well between 40% and 60%. d20 does well between 7 and 14. SR3 does well between 2 and 4, and between 8 and 10, and bewteen 14 and 16, and (etc.).
If you're going to limit the range, the question is: once you are limited, is the range useful?
As others have argued, having all rolls consist of between 5 and 12 dice doesn't make for a very useful system. For one thing, the worst possible skill is only about half as bad on average as the best possible skill. For another, trying to fit all the variations in bonuses, penalties, skill, and attributes into a 7-point range is pretty difficult. Maybe you can assign 2 points of variability to each. (i.e. your attribute can either be Okay, or Bad, or Good (4, 3, or 5) as can your skill; and then you can have Bad, Okay, Good, and Fantastic conditions--that keeps you in the 5-7 range. More than that, and you go out).
I don't want a system that only works for average runners doing average things. What happens if I want to throw a bunch of crazed chipheads at them? The system breaks? What about if I want to pit them against a powerful and cunning foe? The system breaks?
I'll take a system that is a little glitchy for everyone over one that is fine for average folks and broken for anything unusual any day.
The unusual is often the highlight of the story. Having the system fall apart in your face under those conditions really detracts from the mood. And then you have to cheat to save your NPC. No thanks.
Some of us prefer sticking with only the unusual, too.
Sorry if someone already mentioned this...skipped some of the posts due to boredom of bickering.
I myself like the variable target number system, but am willing to give the new system a shot. I agree the 6/7 target number thing is a bit of nonsense sometimes but lets look at the other really lame situation for a mage. (from a drain view point)
Drain codes equation (F/2) and (F/2)+1 can sometimes equal the same ammount. So, why does casting a Force 1 spell (F/2) = 2 and a Force 1 spell (F/2)+1 also = 2? (minimum target number has to be 2 remember...not me having bad math) The second spell is supposed to be more complex. So, if you think lame force 1 spells are just that easy, how about a Force 2 spell (F/2) also = 2 and Force 2 spell (F/2)+1 =2. Here, many advantages for the mage for choosing force one over/under the force 2, but the drain is just as easy for either force. Now, a F3 spell (F/2) will also = 2, but no drain change till the equation goes to (F/2)+1 for a F3 which would then be = to 3.
So in this scenario, all low level spells (1-3) would be just as easy to cast until you get to a force 3 spell that had the drain code of +1. ( excluding the ones that may have +2 or higher because that changes the results and the actual drain codes of light, moderate, serious and deadly of course, but you get the point)
I personally feel mages should take a heftier drain for casting because I rarely have troubles with my mage having high target numbers due to drain and can cast most of the day away. Especially for low force spells that are just pimp with high successes. cough imp. invis. cough cough
I myself like the variable target number system, but am willing to give the new system a shot. I agree the 6/7 target number thing is a bit of nonsense sometimes but lets look at the other really lame situation for a mage. (from a drain view point)
Drain codes equation (F/2) and (F/2)+1 can sometimes equal the same ammount. So, why does casting a Force 1 spell (F/2) = 2 and a Force 1 spell (F/2)+1 also = 2? (minimum target number has to be 2 remember...not me having bad math) The second spell is supposed to be more complex. So, if you think lame force 1 spells are just that easy, how about a Force 2 spell (F/2) also = 2 and Force 2 spell (F/2)+1 =2. Here, many advantages for the mage for choosing force one over/under the force 2, but the drain is just as easy for either force. Now, a F3 spell (F/2) will also = 2, but no drain change till the equation goes to (F/2)+1 for a F3 which would then be = to 3.
So in this scenario, all low level spells (1-3) would be just as easy to cast until you get to a force 3 spell that had the drain code of +1. ( excluding the ones that may have +2 or higher because that changes the results and the actual drain codes of light, moderate, serious and deadly of course, but you get the point)
I personally feel mages should take a heftier drain for casting because I rarely have troubles with my mage having high target numbers due to drain and can cast most of the day away. Especially for low force spells that are just pimp with high successes. cough imp. invis. cough cough
| QUOTE (Gilthanis) |
| Drain codes equation (F/2) and (F/2)+1 can sometimes equal the same ammount. So, why does casting a Force 1 spell (F/2) = 2 and a Force 1 spell (F/2)+1 also = 2? (minimum target number has to be 2 remember...not me having bad math) The second spell is supposed to be more complex. So, if you think lame force 1 spells are just that easy, how about a Force 2 spell (F/2) also = 2 and Force 2 spell (F/2)+1 =2. Here, many advantages for the mage for choosing force one over/under the force 2, but the drain is just as easy for either force. Now, a F3 spell (F/2) will also = 2, but no drain change till the equation goes to (F/2)+1 for a F3 which would then be = to 3. So in this scenario, all low level spells (1-3) would be just as easy to cast until you get to a force 3 spell that had the drain code of +1. ( excluding the ones that may have +2 or higher because that changes the results and the actual drain codes of light, moderate, serious and deadly of course, but you get the point) I personally feel mages should take a heftier drain for casting because I rarely have troubles with my mage having high target numbers due to drain and can cast most of the day away. Especially for low force spells that are just pimp with high successes. cough imp. invis. cough cough |
For one thing your drain calculations are off, IIRC.
(F/2)+1 and cast at Force 1 would = 3
Again IIRC there was an official ruling that the +1 in that drain code is added after dividing the spell force by two and reached a final number (which the minimum drain code is always 2) thus the drain force would be 3
If I'm wrong feel free correct me, if I'm can you quote the source.
| QUOTE |
| I personally feel mages should take a heftier drain for casting because I rarely have troubles with my mage having high target numbers due to drain and can cast most of the day away. |
The drain codes may need to be adjusted in some cases.
However, I rarely have trouble with my street sam taking drain when shooting most of the day away. Or sneaking most of the day away in a ruthenium suit. And they don't even suffer a sustaining penalty while doing so.
So I'm not sure that every spell--or even every quite useful spell--needs to come with a drain code that is challenging to resist.
However, I rarely have trouble with my street sam taking drain when shooting most of the day away. Or sneaking most of the day away in a ruthenium suit. And they don't even suffer a sustaining penalty while doing so.
So I'm not sure that every spell--or even every quite useful spell--needs to come with a drain code that is challenging to resist.
| QUOTE (Ellery @ May 28 2005, 02:23 AM) | ||
The drain codes may need to be adjusted in some cases. However, I rarely have trouble with my street sam taking drain when shooting most of the day away. Or sneaking most of the day away in a ruthenium suit. And they don't even suffer a sustaining penalty while doing so. So I'm not sure that every spell--or even every quite useful spell--needs to come with a drain code that is challenging to resist. |
Not to get back on the ever so popular debate on what characters are better, but what you just said goes the same for ALL characters whereas a mage on top of that has more with his spells. Not being able to disarm a mage is a huge advantage and their is always the on going debate of balancing such character types anyways.
| QUOTE (Catsnightmare @ May 28 2005, 03:34 PM) |
| For one thing your drain calculations are off, IIRC. (F/2)+1 and cast at Force 1 would = 3 Again IIRC there was an official ruling that the +1 in that drain code is added after dividing the spell force by two and reached a final number (which the minimum drain code is always 2) thus the drain force would be 3 |
It is the final Target Number that cannot be lower than 2 in SR3. A (F/2)+1 spell cast at a Force of 1 (or even 2) will have a final Drain Code of 2, not 3.
You can't disarm a martial arts expert either. Or, you can disarm a magician by using a magemask, if necessary. And magicians suffer losses if they use tech that other characters can use to improve their abilities (and it's hard to disarm cyberspurs, dermal plating, etc.).
There may need to be some rebalancing, but if every spell has a good chance of drain, the weaker spells need to be more potent than they are now. I suppose being wounded could matter a lot less in SR4 so that a caster with M wounds wouldn't be at much of a disadvantage over one who is unwounded.
There may need to be some rebalancing, but if every spell has a good chance of drain, the weaker spells need to be more potent than they are now. I suppose being wounded could matter a lot less in SR4 so that a caster with M wounds wouldn't be at much of a disadvantage over one who is unwounded.
| QUOTE (Gilthanis) |
| I personally feel mages should take a heftier drain for casting because I rarely have troubles with my mage having high target numbers due to drain and can cast most of the day away. |
Fine. So your GM should use the optional rule presented right there in the BBB, where Force doesn't get cut in half for the purposes of formulating drain codes. It doesn't mean the whole system needs to be re-written from the ground up about how magic works.
Boy for every time I here someone say.... "Well then your GM blah blah blah".... we are talking about a new system that IS being made and what we would like to be in it. I have loved the game and thought it worked a lot better than others for quite some time. But, after all....it was brought up that certain target numbers are skewed from others and just pointed out an additional scenario. (and my own opinion) You might as well just said "Don't change a thing", not to mention someone could tell you to use the SR3 varient while playing in the SR4.
I hope Drain continues to have about the same impact on characters as it currently does, perhaps just being a touch more difficult (but not much so). If you suffer drain with every single spell you cast (which is pretty much a guarantee at Force), you'll be all but useless on a run except as a one-trick pony.
It would be similar to expecting the samurai to only be allowed to shoot one or two rounds from his Predator before he's exhausted.
Now making it so that you can only use Willpower to resist Drain (under the current system), and not Spell Pool, totemic, or Sorcery dice? I wouldn't mind that at all.
It would be similar to expecting the samurai to only be allowed to shoot one or two rounds from his Predator before he's exhausted.
Now making it so that you can only use Willpower to resist Drain (under the current system), and not Spell Pool, totemic, or Sorcery dice? I wouldn't mind that at all.
Perhaps you've stumbled upon the explanation for the canon mass of ammo?
~J
~J
Hehe, perhaps. 
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| Now making it so that you can only use Willpower to resist Drain (under the current system), and not Spell Pool, totemic, or Sorcery dice? I wouldn't mind that at all. |
Well since dice pools are gone then you wont have extra dice to resist. But who knows if they are even going to have drain anymore. They did come up with a new magic system for their shiny new core mechanic.
... I don't think dev have change that deep the magic theory ... It is not only rules, but background that say casting a spell gives drain to the awakened.
May be you now need to use orichalcum powder to cast any spell
?
May be you now need to use orichalcum powder to cast any spell
?
There's no way to even theorize how Drain will work until we know how damage is resolved. If they are streamlining the game, it's highly doubtful they'll continue on the 9M-style route (I remember that when I was first learning the game, that was the one part I had the most trouble grasping). So worrying about it being Force or half-Force is kind of moot until we know how that mechanic works to begin with.
But idealistically I'd want it the equivalence of the target numbers to remain about the same, just with fewer dice to throw. Six Willpower dice against a 3M Drain for a standard Force 6 spell feels right for me; that's an average of 3 successes, meaning half the time you'll be taking at least Light Drain.
But idealistically I'd want it the equivalence of the target numbers to remain about the same, just with fewer dice to throw. Six Willpower dice against a 3M Drain for a standard Force 6 spell feels right for me; that's an average of 3 successes, meaning half the time you'll be taking at least Light Drain.
| QUOTE (Shadow) |
| Well since dice pools are gone then you wont have extra dice to resist. But who knows if they are even going to have drain anymore. They did come up with a new magic system for their shiny new core mechanic. |
They have stated that drain will still be part of the new system. How it is implemented is, of course, a matter for rampant speculation.
| QUOTE (Jrayjoker @ May 31 2005, 08:07 AM) | ||
They have stated that drain will still be part of the new system. How it is implemented is, of course, a matter for rampant speculation. |
They also said that they were keeping dice pools, but changing everything about them so they didn't even remotely look or sound like current dice pools.
They kept humans too... and air... the game is still set in the future!
Hey now - not too fast there - nobody said nuttin about Air!
You need to retract that statement, then fire off an apology to any Devs, play testers or free lancers that may think you are putting words in their mouth!
You need to retract that statement, then fire off an apology to any Devs, play testers or free lancers that may think you are putting words in their mouth!
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| But idealistically I'd want it the equivalence of the target numbers to remain about the same, just with fewer dice to throw. Six Willpower dice against a 3M Drain for a standard Force 6 spell feels right for me; that's an average of 3 successes, meaning half the time you'll be taking at least Light Drain. |
Well you can't have that, the TN's now are only 5. 5 is all thew target numbers, with 5 being the number of the counting. Therefore the whole idea is verily right out.
Fixed TN's are like that, the only thing that can change on a test is the number of dice and the threshold in SR4.
I'm aware of that. That's why I specifically used the word "equivalence." Or, in other words, I'd like it so that someone with a Willpower of 6 and all other standard Drain-related abilities togther would be able to cast a standard Force 6-equivalent spell (3M Drain currently) with only a 50% chance of taking the equivalence of Light Drain, as that feels just right to me.
Ooops wrong thread.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.