Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Why SR4 ?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Earthwalker
Well in a few posts about the new system and the hate it is causing requests have been made as to why do we need a new system. Basically asking what is wrong with the current system, as the question has been asked I will try to put an answer here.

The most basic flaw with Shadowrun 3 and in fact this is common to all of the first three editions of Shadowrun is the variable target number system. Well not variable target numbers as such more the fact a target number modifier isn’t a constant modifier. That might sound like nonsense so I will try to explain using a magical example.

If Billy Mage was wanting to cast a invisibility and a personal bullet barrier on himself and sustain them. He gets much better benefits for casting the invisibility first.

Ok so working with my limited stats knowledge (sorry but if I make mistake) and using average success here is how it works out.

Invisibility First

Cast invisibility 12 dice against target 4 = 6 successes
Cast barrier 12 dice against a target of 8 (base 6 + 2 for sustaining) = 1 successes
Total successes 7

Barrier First

Cast Barrier 12 dice against target 6 = 2 successes
Cast Invisibility 12 dice against target of 6 (4 + 2 for sustaining) = 2 successes
Total Successes 4

That’s a difference of 3 successes, and its all because making a 4 to a 6 is much worse then making a 6 to an 8.

Now SR4 is trying to address this and make it all equal as the target number will always be 5 and you will just need more successes for casting a spell while sustaining, or perhaps have less dice. The point is that the spell you want the most successes on will be the spell you cast first.

Now I am sure I aren’t saying anything here we all don’t already know. The variable target numbers has been an issue in Shadowrun from day one. So has the fact that 7 is basically the same target number as 6.

So there is my one reason to change. I may be able to think of more as more FAQ is released.
Crimsondude 2.0
It's not hate.

Fuck.

And if there is any, I'd say that in my case it's directed at people who keep calling any criticism or concern "hate."
Critias
The flaw with our argument -- from start to finish -- is that it's based on the assumption that the variable TN is a problem. There are many of us, in many cases those of us with a handle on basic probability and an enjoyment for logical, tactical, practical, thinking, that think the variable TNs are a positive aspect, and one of the most unique, in the SR1-3 system.

I guess we'll find out when they launch SR4 whether or not it was a strength or a weakness, won't we? Along with pools, and everything else that made you think before you rolled.
Crimsondude 2.0
Well, you can still think and use some probability to determine whether you have 3 times the number of dice as the success threshold to succeed a test on average.
Critias
Yeah, but to what end? From what they've told us, you'll have exactly one thing you can do to then influence that, after you're one with your thinking (IE, dividing by 3). You can spend Edge (if you choose to invest in that attribute with any given character points, instead of others). That's it, really, from what we know thus far.

You can think, but you no longer have to.

In the above invisibility/barrier example -- so what? Maybe mages should just be smart enough to realize that certain spells are more difficult to cast than other spells (especially if you've already invested a portion of your concentration on sustaining a nother spell), and it's assumed that they're smart enough to cast them in the "right" order?
Ellery
What you've shown is that the variable TN system gives you more successes if you focus on the easy spell first (and do really well there), and then focus on the hard spell. Why is this broken? That seems exactly right--if you take something easy, and concentrate on only it, you should be able to do really well, whereas if you concentrate on something hard, you won't be able to do all that well, plus if you're then distracted by it, you won't be able to do all that well on other things.

One could use your example to make a case against variable TN as implemented, but you didn't do it. I'll let you try again.
Earthwalker
First an apology, I am sorry if it seemed I implied that people who criticise SR4 hate SR4. I certainly didn’t want to give that impression, hate was only mentioned as a reference to the Why all the hate thread.

I love SR3 and still I criticise it.

As for the matter is this really a flaw I will try one more example to explain what I mean as a flaw.

I will start with the premise that shooting in bad light should be more difficult then in normal light. So we have two elves with natural low light vision working in partial darkness. This is expressed by the rules as a +1 target modifier. (No books here but one light range is +1 TN for natural low light cant remember off the top of my head which)

I believe that if it the system states that shooting in bad light is more difficult it should ALWAYS be more difficult.

Now if you have two elves one with a smartgun link and one without shooting at long range. You have a test something like this.

To shoot in normal light Smart gun elf looks for a target of 4. with bad light he shoots looking for 5. His shoot got more difficult because of light.

Now non smart elf has to shoot he is looking for 6 normally with bad light he is looking for a 7. The target has changed but if you roll a 6 it is the same as a 7. The light has in no way effected the shot.

If there an in game reason for this ? NO. It is just because 6 and 7 are the same number.

To me when a modifier is applied that should change the outcome of a roll. If a modifier is applied and nothing happens that is a flaw in the system.

Like you say it is me assuming that, but I think it is a pretty safe assumption that when you apply a modifier to a roll it should make a difference to the outcome.
Critias
The TN 6/7 thing has long been a bane of the game (for those who choose not to just play smart and take what luck they can get) -- I hardly think it's the sole reason they're redesigning the mechanic from the ground up. If it's such a huge problem for you, just house rule it so that TNs skip 7, 13, 19, etc, as if the numbers were not there. Poof. Much easier fix than making a whole new game.
Jrayjoker
Why SR4?

Why not?

I am sure the developers did not come to their conclusion to revamp an established game lightly. I think the biggest issue that was to be addressed is the rules bloat and consistency across disciplines. A perennial concern has been integrating deckers and riggers well.

Perhaps it was decided that it wold be simpler to rewrite the rules to accomplish this goal.

A side benefit wold be resolving the 7,13,19... issue.
Earthwalker
QUOTE (Critias)
The flaw with our argument -- from start to finish -- is that it's based on the assumption that the variable TN is a problem.  There are many of us, in many cases those of us with a handle on basic probability and an enjoyment for logical, tactical, practical, thinking, that think the variable TNs are a positive aspect, and one of the most unique, in the SR1-3 system.

I guess we'll find out when they launch SR4 whether or not it was a strength or a weakness, won't we?  Along with pools, and everything else that made you think before you rolled.

I think your right here it is a flaw in the argument and I would do better presenting facts why I believe that the fixed target number system is better then the variable one as presented in SR3.

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.

I honestly believe any tactical advantaged gained in the game should because of in character decisions and not on a players skill at math.

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.
Eldritch
QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)
It's not hate.

Fuck.

And if there is any, I'd say that in my case it's directed at people who keep calling any criticism or concern "hate."

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.

Kagetenshi
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.

Whereas I disagree. 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.

~J
Eyeless Blond
Hey Kag, how's the SR3R project coming along? Or did it die already?
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 most of us agree that decking and rigging have problems that need sorting out quite badly. They are so bad that my Shadowrun group has never seen a dedicated decker, and we simply ad-lib vehicle combat. It will be very nice to see the re-writes of these rules, and to actually have a "classic" shadowrun team (you know, sammie, mage, decker) like in the stories.

I also want to see improvements in the weapons department - rebalancing things like worthless light pistols, heavy pistols that penetrate armour better than rifles, and knives that are on the whole less lethal than fists. (I also kinda hate the way reach is implemented, and the way that melee and ranged combat are so different mechanically, but those are more debateable)

I have lots of gripes with SR3 and from what I've seen SR4 is examining them and going in a good direction.

And hey, even if it turns out not to be your cup of tea, it's still a good source of houserules, yes?
Catsnightmare
QUOTE (Eyeless Blond)
Hey Kag, how's the SR3R project coming along? Or did it die already?

And if it's not dead, could you post a link.
Earthwalker
QUOTE (Eldritch)
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.

I am trying to advocate a fixed TN system over a variable one. If you are going to change that basic game mechanic you are going to have to visit and modify every element of the rules system arent you ?
Eldritch
QUOTE (Earthwalker)
QUOTE (Eldritch @ May 25 2005, 05:24 PM)
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.

I am trying to advocate a fixed TN system over a variable one. If you are going to change that basic game mechanic you are going to have to visit and modify every element of the rules system arent you ?

That is true, However I don't consider variable target numbers a flaw. I've played it for 15 years now. No problems. I've never even really considered the 6/7 thing a flaw. I just gave it to my Players, and used it against them as a GM - It all balanced out in the end, and we all had a good time.

I'm no mathematician, but I really don't see a huge difference between variable target tumbers and variable dice.

Alert! This is pure speculation based on the little amout of info I have been given!

SR3: you have a +1 mod to your target number if you are lightly wounded.

SR4: -1die if your are lightly wounded. ( <==Pure speculation here)

Sorry, I don't see a big differnece there - as a player or a gm.

So why make the change?

Now please, don't start throwing a bunch of odds, probabilities, and percentage of success based on either system - my eyes will just glaze over and i'll skip that part - that's why i've stayed away from all of the hard core mechanics threads.

"Me Grok!" *Slams Club* "Variable target numbers work just fine!"

Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Eyeless Blond)
Hey Kag, how's the SR3R project coming along? Or did it die already?

Not dead, not going to die, just suffering the project-leader-is-hitting-other-deadlines blues.
QUOTE
And if it's not dead, could you post a link.

The main thread, with all links at the top.

~J
nezumi
I'm with Eldritch. I actually LIKE the variable TN. It makes sense.

The number of dice you throw is how good you are with the tools you have. That'll always be the case.

The TN is how tough the challenge is, given the tools you have.

Life is nice and easy. It would be a little cleaner if wound modifiers subtracted from your dice instead of added TNs, but that's okay. As a GM, it makes things very easy to plan out, and it gives me more complete control over the probability (since adding +1 to the TN is a more fine adjustment than +1 die to the player). Granted, the math is a LITTLE more difficult, but unless I'm really getting out my Statistics book, it's pretty easy to eyeball it, and as I said, it's more precise (which means it can be more realistic) without being significantly more difficult to understand.

I like it. I may keep it, even if I start playing SR4. But I suppose that begs the question, if I like the variable TNs and I like pools, why change over at all, right?
Gort
QUOTE (nezumi)
But I suppose that begs the question, if I like the variable TNs and I like pools, why change over at all, right?

Indeed.

I personally do not like the variable effect TNs, but I hope that combat pool, if only for dodging attacks, is retained in SR4.

There's something good about ranged combat in SR3 - the roll to hit, then the roll to dodge, then the roll to damage. It's far superior to D&Ds roll to hit, roll to damage.

Also, karma is a good way of ensuring that the players can often at least get out of a situation alive, just because they're the heroes. This is something other systems often lack.
Earthwalker
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
QUOTE (Earthwalker @ May 25 2005, 09:50 AM)
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.

Whereas I disagree. 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.

~J

In a lot of ways I can see your point but I still believe in a fixed TN system. I will try another counter example.

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. After all he is now going for 5s as a TN and his opponent is going for 4s.
So on average thats

12 dice looking for a 4 = 6 successes.
12 dice looking for a 5 = 4 successes.

Wounded swords master gets all deaded in the end as his target numbers rise from more wounds.

Now the same fight but this time at dusk. So an extra +2 for light. The target numbers are 6 and 7 and the fights all open again. Even if I said it was +4 for light the scratch means next to nothing in the fight now. How come changing the light equally for both contestants did the odds for the fight swing so much.

I am interested in what you think of my second premise Kagetenshi namely that tactics are about in character actions not player maths. And how that fits with a simpler fixed TN system to a variable one.
Kagetenshi
Let's take your counterexample and change one thing: the fight's at dusk, and the area the fight is in is floodlit. However, the power to the floodlight is within reach—a single risk-free swipe could turn the lights off, leaving only the natural lighting (+2).

Swordmaster 1 has a medium-depth gash in his left arm (Light wound). Swordmaster 1's player knows that if he cuts the lighting, the TN plateau makes the fight even again. The first question is, is this reasonable.

I submit that it is. Comparative darkness means more uncertainty, means less ability for an opponent to specifically attack a weakness. Suddenly Swordmaster 2, who was previously able to attack 1's left side to his heart's content, needs to keep watch for the start of a blow that might otherwise go unseen in the gloom. Having a weak point is suddenly much less of a disadvantage, because it can't be singled out for attack to nearly the same degree.

The second question is, is it reasonable that Swordmaster 1 would be able to consider these factors? I submit that, once again, it is. Obviously there's a certain amount of fudge factor—I don't think Swordmaster 1 would differentiate easily between a change that results in TNs of 6/7 (fight is equal) or TNs of 7/8 (fight is unequal, but less so than 4/5 or 5/6). On the other hand, consider this: most games aren't enumerated in that much detail because of the abstraction that makes the game easier to play. In general, more attention is paid to the fact that someone has a Light Wound than to the fact that they've got an injured left arm, and more is paid to the fact that someone's staging an attack with a lower TN than their opponent than that they're specifically attacking weak points. In order to not become a study in sword techniques, the game turns to odds. In-game, the swordmasters consider the former. We, the players, quite reasonably model this by considering the latter.

~J
Nerbert
Here's the problem with the variable target number system. It has nothing to do with probability and statistics.

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. And if you're not obeying both rules, simultaneously, chances are you're making up the TN out of your own head. Which, as far as I'm concerned, negates the whole purpose of having those rules to begin with.

This continues on into every other aspect oif the game. A piece of equipment could modify your dice pool, or it could modify your TN. Each with a different statistical impact on the game.

This is clearly more complicated.

Now, many people seem to think that complexity = depth. And I'm not sure this is the case. I believe that it is possible for a Fixed TN game to have just as much tactical depth as the currect iteration of Shadowrun, but without the unnecessary complexity.
Shadow
QUOTE (Gort)
I personally do not like the variable effect TNs, but I hope that combat pool, if only for dodging attacks, is retained in SR4.

They "claim" to have kept dice pools. But they changed the definition of them. There are no more combat pools, karma pools etc. There are dice pools, which are made up of whatever dice you are throwing at the moment.
Gort
Well, I'm just hoping for the retention of the three-roll "shoot-dodge-resist damage" system, (which currently involves Combat Pool) and the "oh crap I really need a reroll right now, cause I'm a player and we're meant to win" system. (which currently involves Karma Pool)

Whether these are known as pools or the Edge attribute or whatever, doesn't matter. I just like the feel it gives the game.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Nerbert @ May 25 2005, 02:55 PM)
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.  And if you're not obeying both rules, simultaneously, chances are you're making up the TN out of your own head.  Which, as far as I'm concerned, negates the whole purpose of having those rules to begin with.

What's that, Lassie? A static-TN game can have the number of dice or the number of successes needed modified, making it two rules for every roll? Quick, to the well!

~J
Nerbert
Kagetenshi, I have no idea what you're trying to communicate with your nonsensical remark. If you're implying that there's nothing inherently bad about variable TN dice systems, I agree with you.

Saying that something is more complicated then something else is a non judgemental assesment of an easily provable phenomenon.
Earthwalker
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
I submit that it is. Comparative darkness means more uncertainty, means less ability for an opponent to specifically attack a weakness. Suddenly Swordmaster 2, who was previously able to attack 1's left side to his heart's content, needs to keep watch for the start of a blow that might otherwise go unseen in the gloom. Having a weak point is suddenly much less of a disadvantage, because it can't be singled out for attack to nearly the same degree.

Yeah there is some truth in what you say. It gets to the point where the darkness makes it so that the injury is no longer making any difference in the fight. The target numbers are 6 / 7 and that extra uncertainty means that the wound is ignored.

Now if we add more uncertainty and make the modifier for dark +4 then all of a sudden the wound does effect the fight again. as it becomes 8/9

Now this is just a certain thing about the numbers involved but to me it still seems just wrong.
Shadow
QUOTE (Gort)
Well, I'm just hoping for the retention of the three-roll "shoot-dodge-resist damage" system, (which currently involves Combat Pool) and the "oh crap I really need a reroll right now, cause I'm a player and we're meant to win" system. (which currently involves Karma Pool)

Whether these are known as pools or the Edge attribute or whatever, doesn't matter. I just like the feel it gives the game.

No thats pretty much gone. It's shoot/soak now. If there is some sort of dodge test, they haven't anounced it.
nezumi
QUOTE (Nerbert)
Here's the problem with the variable target number system. It has nothing to do with probability and statistics.
...
Now, many people seem to think that complexity = depth. And I'm not sure this is the case. I believe that it is possible for a Fixed TN game to have just as much tactical depth as the currect iteration of Shadowrun, but without the unnecessary complexity.

I'd like to see your support for your first statement. Quite a few people have shown that the ability to change the TN DOES change the probability in smaller degrees than changing the number of dice thrown. Use the search function if you'd like to see examples, as I'd really prefer to steer this away from math.

I didn't say complexity adds more depth (although in this case it does). Rather, my point was precision allows for more depth, and variable TNs offer more precision.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Nerbert)
Kagetenshi, I have no idea what you're trying to communicate with your nonsensical remark. If you're implying that there's nothing inherently bad about variable TN dice systems, I agree with you.

Saying that something is more complicated then something else is a non judgemental assesment of an easily provable phenomenon.

What I'm saying is that I most certainly can argue that variable-TN systems are twice as complex, simply because to keep fixed-TN systems from being uselessly simplistic you're still going to be juggling the same number of variables, only with further-reaching effects (as the number of successes required approaches the number of dice being thrown difficulty skyrockets into literal impossibility—a +2 Threshhold is nothing to someone with eighteen dice, but makes a task literally impossible for someone with two dice.

Or they could have some other way, but damned if I can fathom what it might be.

~J
Nerbert
But why is such a degree of precision necessary? What purpose does it serve? It doesn't add any more "realism" as can be demonstrated by the regular Shadowrun forums, and any discussion concerning firearms.

Its true that the ability to more precisely control variables increases strategy. But it also increases complexity. When does the complexity of a system make its strategic nuances meaningless?

There seem to be two schools of thought. The first is that the level of complexity in SR3 is fine and that it merely needs to be refined. The second is that refining the system isn't enough, and that the basic fundamentals of the game must be rebuilt from the gound up.

FanPro seems to have chosen the latter tactic. I happen to be on their side. I think the ability to enjoy SR3 as a RolePlaying game is diminished by the complexity of the system. But I can also appreciate that the complexity lends itself very well to an roleplaying Game.

My personal hope is that FanPro achieves a balance between complexity and depth, and that everyone will be able to appreciate the results.
Nerbert
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
QUOTE (Nerbert @ May 25 2005, 03:30 PM)
Kagetenshi, I have no idea what you're trying to communicate with your nonsensical remark.  If you're implying that there's nothing inherently bad about variable TN dice systems, I agree with you.

Saying that something is more complicated then something else is a non judgemental assesment of an easily provable phenomenon.

What I'm saying is that I most certainly can argue that variable-TN systems are twice as complex, simply because to keep fixed-TN systems from being uselessly simplistic you're still going to be juggling the same number of variables, only with further-reaching effects (as the number of successes required approaches the number of dice being thrown difficulty skyrockets into literal impossibility—a +2 Threshhold is nothing to someone with eighteen dice, but makes a task literally impossible for someone with two dice.

Or they could have some other way, but damned if I can fathom what it might be.

~J

In order for your last statement to be valid, you're going to have to describe to me how Fixed TN systems are "uselessly simplistic". You don't have to go into great depth about it here, but you should definitely link me to a thread somewhere that supports your claim.

Unless of course "uselessly simplistic" is merely your own opinion on the subject, in which case it has no bearing on whether or not Variable TN systems are more complicated or not.

As for avoiding the "impossible" TN problem, its very, very, very simple. Reroll 6s. Thats it. Thats all it takes. Its not even an extra rule because it already exists in SR3.

So you condense all of the other rules into about half of their complexity, and you add... nothing.

So, now I'm really looking forward to hearing your arguments on how thats not any less complicated.
Eldritch
QUOTE
Variable TN systems are twice as complex as Fixed TN systems. You cannot argue this.

Oh yes we can - here at DS we can argue anything!

QUOTE
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.


The rule to figure out how many dice to roll?? You mean your skill? That's not a rule, that just is. Nutting complex about that, look at char sheet and roll that many dice.

Yeah, you need to figure the target number out - look at the base and add/subract based on modifiers.

Okay, new system - fixed target number. Easy enough. Dice to roll - skill + attribute. Okay. +/- dice based on modifiers.


Not really anymore complex form system to system - but throw in thresholds - and yeah, now there is a whole other set of rules - now there's another rule you need to look at - so we go from figuring the base target number to figuring out threshold.

Not clearly more complicated - either one.

See I can Argue that point.

And the new system sounds like it may be completley impossible to perform tasks if you don't have enough dice. That's just not fun. I like the idea, that even throwing one die, I may be able to succeeed. wheter it be that target number 12 biotech roll to save my chumer, or that 200 yard shot, through the fog, in the dark, by the moonlight to save my chummer.

Kagetenshi
If you're going with a static-TN system in which you only alter one variable, you've got two choices for what that variable is: it can be either the number of successes needed to succeed, so to speak, or it can be the number of dice.

Say you add or subtract dice for your modifiers. Congratulations, your minimum change of success is 33%.

Say you instead change the number of 5+ rolls needed to succeed. Suddenly you need to either be rolling a lot of dice, or any meaningful modifiers are going to make tasks impossible for some characters. For example, take an Attribute 2, Skill 2 character: 4 dice. Now have a +4 Threshold modifier, for a total of five successes required. Five success on four dice has what chance of happening again?

As for making the dice exploding, maybe that's the answer, but they're not doing that (well, they might be, but they've already said they're modifying both total dice and required successes—"hits", in the new parlance).

~J
Nerbert
Kagetenshi, obviously someone rolling 4 dice isn't the best person to be trying to accomplish this task. You don't have your Qui 1, Pistols 1 Twinked out UberMage try to sharpshoot, now do you? What is your point?

And by the way, I've seen people get 5 or 6 successes against a TN 8 on 4 d10s by rerolling 10s, so don't knock it.

edit - Ok, a "twinked out ubermage" would proabbly have Qui higher then 1 for purposes of initiative, but lets not split hairs.
Kagetenshi
Of course they aren't going to be the best person to do the task. Is someone with Pistols 1 the best person to take on a TN 20 shot? Of course not.

The question remains: if they're all there is, is it possible for them?

~J
Nerbert
And the answer is... Yes! Statistically it is possible!

I'm not doing the math, so I can't tell you if 1 die vs TN 20 is the same probability as 4 dice vs TS 5. But you seem to be implying that 1 die vs TN 20 is somehow more wholesome or nutritious.
Shadow
I haven't noticed anything about if you are going to need variale successes in the new system. Or if one success is good enough for the whole shabang.

The problem as I see it in SR4 is that it is a new system for the sake of a new system. Liking or disliking variable TN aside the basic mechanic works great.

I suppose the variable dice static TN will work fine. But you can only have so many variables before they flatten out.

Heres an example.

Caracter A:

Quick (or whatever it is in SR4) 4
Pistols (or whatever) 4

Total dice pool: 8

Character B:

Quick: 2
Pistols: 2

Total Dice Pool 4

Situational modifier -7 dice

Now both characters get the same amount of dice to shoot with. 1.

So all of A's skill don't really mean anything.
Nerbert
This is how that kind of thing works in nWoD, using d10s. You add all positive modifiers, and then subtract all negative modifiers. If you're reduced to zero dice, you can roll a "chance die". One die is different from a Chance die in the following ways. A chance die can only succeed on a ten, whereas a normal die succeeds on an 8, 9 or 10 and a chance die is a critical failure when it rolls a 1, whereas on a normal die, there's no penalty for rolling a 1. Thus, being reduced to zero is substantially worse then being reduced to one.

However, we have no information on how this will be handled in SR4.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Nerbert)
And the answer is... Yes! Statistically it is possible!

I'm not doing the math, so I can't tell you if 1 die vs TN 20 is the same probability as 4 dice vs TS 5. But you seem to be implying that 1 die vs TN 20 is somehow more wholesome or nutritious.

Really? It's possible to get five success on four dice? Explain this magic formula to me, please. For reference, the probabilities:

1 die, TN 20: .3%

4 dice, TN 5, threshold 5: 0%

As I said, though, the entire line of discussion is irrelevant because they are using changes in both threshold and die pool.

~J
Eldritch
QUOTE
Q. What is the basic mechanic?
A. Basic success tests are made rolling your dice pool against a fixed target number of 5. The target number never changes. So each 5 or 6 that you roll equals a “hit.” Success is determined by the number of hits rolled. More difficult tests require a higher number of hits to succeed


This is what we know - Fixed target, 'dice pool' based on skill + attribute, and a threshold.

They have yet to say anything about exploding dice or a 'chance' die if your dice pool is reduced tio 0 or less.

Though even that's crappy - a negative ten modifier will leave the Pistol 5/Quick 5 gunner in the same boat as a Quick 1/pistol 1 mage? Yeah that is an extreme example, so use a -6 mod and P3/Q3 vs P1/Q1. I'd rather have a higher target tumber, than less dice.

Disliking SR4 aside, I still don't see one systems advantage over the other.
Gort
Is there a big problem with some things being impossible to some people?

A newborn baby successfully threading a needle COULD happen, but the chances of it actually occurring are so vanishingly small that they really don't matter in an RPG.
Gort
QUOTE (Shadow)
No thats pretty much gone. It's shoot/soak now. If there is some sort of dodge test, they haven't anounced it.

Unannounced is not the same as nonexistant.

I shall wait on more info.
Nerbert
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ May 25 2005, 04:52 PM)
QUOTE (Nerbert @ May 25 2005, 04:38 PM)
And the answer is... Yes!  Statistically it is possible!

I'm not doing the math, so I can't tell you if 1 die vs TN 20 is the same probability as 4 dice vs TS 5.  But you seem to be implying that 1 die vs TN 20 is somehow more wholesome or nutritious.

Really? It's possible to get five success on four dice? Explain this magic formula to me, please. For reference, the probabilities:

1 die, TN 20: .3%

4 dice, TN 5, threshold 5: 0%

As I said, though, the entire line of discussion is irrelevant because they are using changes in both threshold and die pool.

~J

Kage, we're talkign about rerolling 6s right? You reroll any 6s and you potentially get more successes? Are you following me here? You asked how they could handle the impossibility factor, and here's my answer.

They havn't anounced it yet, you're right. Which is why all of this discussion is moot.

[edited for propriety]
Kagetenshi
No, they have announced it, and it does use multiple variables. Read the text Eldritch quoted.

~J
Nerbert
Multiple variables? What does that have to do with rerolling 6s to avoid having impossible tasks?

[edit]

I understand what you're trying to say. You're saying that calculating the modifiers to the dice pool is one source of complication, and that calculating the threshold of successes needed is another source of complication, one no better then calculating a variable target number.

Why all the screaming about "impossiblity"?

[edit for thought]

And anyway, threshold was something that had to be delt with in SR3 anyhow. You'd still have cases where you needed multiple successes, and you'd still have to figure out what multiple successes meant.
Kagetenshi
Because you challenged (not without reason) my assertion that a single-variable fixed-TN system is too simple to be viable. The fact remains that even if it is viable, that's not what they're doing, and that's really the core of the discussion.

The reason I refuse to consider exploding dice is because I believe that, under normal circumstances, that's not what they're doing. I have my own reasons for that, and freely admit that I can't defend it without further FAQs (which may also invalidate my position, potentially). It's not a direction of conversation that I should have gone in in the first place; I blame insufficient sleep last night.

~J
Nerbert
Well, if they're not using exploding dice, I'm just going to be really perplexed.

And I do stand corrected concerning my single variable statement. What I should have said is that SR3 is actually a three variable system and that fixing the dice TN would reduce it to two.
Shadow
I am farely certain they are not using exploding dice. While it hasn't been anounced in a FAQ I have seen discussion that indicates that they are not.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012