Every time dice are rolled in any RPG it is to determine the outcome of a situation that isn't completely predictable.
What rules try to create is a "realistic" probability model of a given situation. And you can do that in many ways.
The classic D20 systems have only one number - the TN - to measure all applicable factors (ability, difficulty, circumstances etc). Everything is added or subtracted to create one total. That has its advatages. A GM knows that by imposing a TN modifier of 1 he changes the probability of success by exactla 5%. It's easy to judge situations that way. The clear disadvantage in my view ist, that you can't satisfactorily see how well a char has performed. There's only success and failure.
In SR3 there are three numbers that determine the probability of the outcome: number of dice, TN and sucesses needed. All of these numbers can be influenced by a variety of factors. It's hard to keep track of whether a speciel set of circumstances will give you extra dice or reduce the TN. What is more, it's very hard to get a feel for what it does to the probability of success if a GM grants a player an extra die or if he require him to have one more success - even without the unpleasant phenomenon that TN 6 = TN 7.
The basic philosophy behind all that seems clear: the number of dice indicates a char's basic ability, the TN indicates how difficult the task at hand is, and the number of successes tells me how well he has performed in it. Unfortunately that basic idea seems to have gotten a little muddled. And sometimes it's hard to decide, which area is affected. Does my totem give me extra ability at performing certrain spells or does it help me directly whenever I perform one of those spells? In other words: Should it affect the skill or the difficulty?
In SR4 we are led to believe the TN will be fixed at 5. As a simulation of an unpredictable situation that will certainly do just as well as all of the others. The rules and the GM can affect the probabilty of the outcome by influencing the two remaining numbers. Maybe it will be easier to get a feel for probabilties then - it certainly won't be harder.
The critics of SR4 have attacked many (practically all) aspects of the new rules we know of so far. I'm not saying I disagree with them on all aspects. The TN however seems to be of no big importance to me.
Full Version: Fixed TN - what's the big deal?
I believe the question is granularity.
Adding or subtracting an entire die or entire success makes things much more or less difficult than adding or subtrating a point of TN. SR4 will restrict the ability to lightly adjust a difficulty up or down by these small amounts.
Adding or subtracting an entire die or entire success makes things much more or less difficult than adding or subtrating a point of TN. SR4 will restrict the ability to lightly adjust a difficulty up or down by these small amounts.
| QUOTE (Little Bill @ Jun 25 2005, 01:03 PM) |
| I believe the question is granularity. Adding or subtracting an entire die or entire success makes things much more or less difficult than adding or subtrating a point of TN. SR4 will restrict the ability to lightly adjust a difficulty up or down by these small amounts. |
Which isn't actually the case at all....if you use the fixed TN in the way it works best instead of trying to use it like it was a variable TN. The key is to design the system around multiple hits mean success and opposed rolls. EDIT: And more hits means more of a success.
The illusion of d20 is that you actually know what is happening when the probability of success changes by 5%. When something changes from 5% probability to 0% probability, you've just changed a "slim chance" to "none at all". This can lead to undesirable effects in, say, combat, because someone has now become invulnerable. Alternatively, if you change from 5% to 5% (i.e. you don't change), then bonuses that used to make a huge difference (+3, from 20% to 5%!) now don't matter at all.
So although it's easy to understand that the probability change is 5%, it's hard to know what the impact will be on your game, because that impact varies dramatically depending on where in the 1-20 range you already are. A +3 bonus might be a huge win (in the 15-18 range), largely insignificant (in the 3-6 range), or completely irrelevant (at 20).
It's harder to compute the probabilities for TN5 with variable numbers of dice, and a little harder still with variable TN and variable numbers of dice. The problem, though, with TN5 is that it has the same flaw as d20, just disguised. A static penalty of 4 dice is a huge deal if you're rolling 6 dice, since you'll go from an average of 2 successes to an average of 2/3 of a success--and your failure rate will go way up. However, a static penalty of 4 dice is not so important if you're rolling 18 dice; generally, if 6 successes will get the job done, 4 2/3 will usually get it done as well. And we also have the problem of penalties leaving you with one die (1/3 chance!) or zero dice (no chance!) which is a huge difference; or with penalties always leaving you with one die, giving you a 1/3 chance of accomplishing the most ridiculously difficult tasks. The problems are less severe if you only give dice bonuses, and account for penalties by increasing the number of hits you need to get a success, but the same problems remain.
The advantage of the variable TN system is that a +1 penalty to the TN equates, on average, to about 25% fewer successes. The disadvantage is that it actually ranges from 50% (TN 5 to 6) to 0% (6 to 7). There are a number of ways to partially compensate for this unevenness. The advantage of this unevenness, though, is that it's not systematic--you don't always have penalties becoming more or less important as the TN rises. But it will tend to average out to 25%, since other modifiers will move the TN around. (For some things, like resisting spells, it does cause a strange phenomenon where force 6 spells are the thing to have--again, this could be fixed.)
Some of us play characters of widely different power levels, at which point it's nice to have the system behave consistently at all levels. One of my characters is a nine year old street urchin named Jane; if she picks up a gun and aims at someone, she will, on average, get 33% more successes (133% = 1/75%) than if she doesn't aim. I also have a character who is part of an elite anti-shadowrunner and counterintrusion group; if she picks up a gun and aims at someone she too will get on average 33% more successes. The system scales.
So, to me, that's the big deal about a fixed TN of 5. It just doesn't scale with the same grace as variable TN.
Incidentally, you already explained the three aspects of determining success: the difficulty of the action (maps to TN), the ability of the character (maps to # of dice), and how well the character performed (maps to # of successes). If the game designers religiously followed that breakdown, it'd be quite a bit easier to keep track of the different numbers. It's not too far from that now--generally, the player knows their ability, and keeps track of the # of dice; the GM knows the difficulty and states TN modifiers (although the player may have augmentations that also reduce difficulty); and the # of successes determines the outcome according to a simple table or scaling or opposed contest. Fixing this up to be more consistent shouldn't have been that hard.
So although it's easy to understand that the probability change is 5%, it's hard to know what the impact will be on your game, because that impact varies dramatically depending on where in the 1-20 range you already are. A +3 bonus might be a huge win (in the 15-18 range), largely insignificant (in the 3-6 range), or completely irrelevant (at 20).
It's harder to compute the probabilities for TN5 with variable numbers of dice, and a little harder still with variable TN and variable numbers of dice. The problem, though, with TN5 is that it has the same flaw as d20, just disguised. A static penalty of 4 dice is a huge deal if you're rolling 6 dice, since you'll go from an average of 2 successes to an average of 2/3 of a success--and your failure rate will go way up. However, a static penalty of 4 dice is not so important if you're rolling 18 dice; generally, if 6 successes will get the job done, 4 2/3 will usually get it done as well. And we also have the problem of penalties leaving you with one die (1/3 chance!) or zero dice (no chance!) which is a huge difference; or with penalties always leaving you with one die, giving you a 1/3 chance of accomplishing the most ridiculously difficult tasks. The problems are less severe if you only give dice bonuses, and account for penalties by increasing the number of hits you need to get a success, but the same problems remain.
The advantage of the variable TN system is that a +1 penalty to the TN equates, on average, to about 25% fewer successes. The disadvantage is that it actually ranges from 50% (TN 5 to 6) to 0% (6 to 7). There are a number of ways to partially compensate for this unevenness. The advantage of this unevenness, though, is that it's not systematic--you don't always have penalties becoming more or less important as the TN rises. But it will tend to average out to 25%, since other modifiers will move the TN around. (For some things, like resisting spells, it does cause a strange phenomenon where force 6 spells are the thing to have--again, this could be fixed.)
Some of us play characters of widely different power levels, at which point it's nice to have the system behave consistently at all levels. One of my characters is a nine year old street urchin named Jane; if she picks up a gun and aims at someone, she will, on average, get 33% more successes (133% = 1/75%) than if she doesn't aim. I also have a character who is part of an elite anti-shadowrunner and counterintrusion group; if she picks up a gun and aims at someone she too will get on average 33% more successes. The system scales.
So, to me, that's the big deal about a fixed TN of 5. It just doesn't scale with the same grace as variable TN.
Incidentally, you already explained the three aspects of determining success: the difficulty of the action (maps to TN), the ability of the character (maps to # of dice), and how well the character performed (maps to # of successes). If the game designers religiously followed that breakdown, it'd be quite a bit easier to keep track of the different numbers. It's not too far from that now--generally, the player knows their ability, and keeps track of the # of dice; the GM knows the difficulty and states TN modifiers (although the player may have augmentations that also reduce difficulty); and the # of successes determines the outcome according to a simple table or scaling or opposed contest. Fixing this up to be more consistent shouldn't have been that hard.
My biggest problem is simple: with one dice and a TN of 16, you can still theoretically succeed. With one dice, set TN 5 but 3 hits needed, you can't... suddenly the "not likely" becomes "not possible", and that's not really the spirit of things.
| QUOTE (sanctusmortis) |
| My biggest problem is simple: with one dice and a TN of 16, you can still theoretically succeed. With one dice, set TN 5 but 3 hits needed, you can't... suddenly the "not likely" becomes "not possible", and that's not really the spirit of things. |
Apparently that is where Edge comes in. I was sad to see that most rolls won't have exploding 6's, which would have addressed that, but at least Edge will.
Ellery:
Among other things, you seemed to have forgotten with variable TN that in fact a penalty/benefit can mean little or in fact absolutely nothing. Variable TN often hits it's hard cap, TN 2. As well just a plus TN +/-1 or 2 can mean a huge swing in probability for for multiple successes.
There is also the benefit of being able to treat success totals of rolls from different sources equally. This allows you to do things like combine multiple rolls into one (such as Dodge and Soak rolls) where previously the penalties/benefits for each roll was different so they had to be kept separate. It also aids in comparing to each other rolls made at two different times that you didn't know in advance were going to be compared. Such as opposing a spell cast several hours past. If the hits become the Force of the spell you can do this.
Now the later can be done in variable TN by using the same base TN throughout the magic system and having it all work on comparing successes of opposed rolls. But opposed rolls are fixed TNs strength, not variable TNs.
P.S. You need to be more careful about talking just averages hits of a roll of dice for a fixed TN, not how the full curves of how many hits there are. There is a difference there.
Among other things, you seemed to have forgotten with variable TN that in fact a penalty/benefit can mean little or in fact absolutely nothing. Variable TN often hits it's hard cap, TN 2. As well just a plus TN +/-1 or 2 can mean a huge swing in probability for for multiple successes.
There is also the benefit of being able to treat success totals of rolls from different sources equally. This allows you to do things like combine multiple rolls into one (such as Dodge and Soak rolls) where previously the penalties/benefits for each roll was different so they had to be kept separate. It also aids in comparing to each other rolls made at two different times that you didn't know in advance were going to be compared. Such as opposing a spell cast several hours past. If the hits become the Force of the spell you can do this.
Now the later can be done in variable TN by using the same base TN throughout the magic system and having it all work on comparing successes of opposed rolls. But opposed rolls are fixed TNs strength, not variable TNs.
P.S. You need to be more careful about talking just averages hits of a roll of dice for a fixed TN, not how the full curves of how many hits there are. There is a difference there.
Having a limit of TN2 is somewhat annoying, but a lot less annoying than most other limits since you are very nearly performing at the limit of your ability with TN2. You'll note that I didn't really complain about this limit for D&D either (I didn't bemoan the difference between 1 and 1-3, for instance). Generally, it's more important for games to have rare success than rare failure.
Also, there's no reason why you can't combine the totals of rolls with variable TN, if it's a sensible thing to do. Likewise with remembering the number of hits and using it in an opposed test. These are very often not sensible things to do (e.g. just adding successes from centering to the successes from a main test makes centering as important as skill, which is probably not desired), but they're still options if you want them.
Finally, the difference in coefficient of variation between two dice and six dice is also more than the difference in c.v. between fourteen and eighteen. The same point applies. I didn't mention it this time because it's complicated enough to be distracting and doesn't change any conclusions.
Also, there's no reason why you can't combine the totals of rolls with variable TN, if it's a sensible thing to do. Likewise with remembering the number of hits and using it in an opposed test. These are very often not sensible things to do (e.g. just adding successes from centering to the successes from a main test makes centering as important as skill, which is probably not desired), but they're still options if you want them.
Finally, the difference in coefficient of variation between two dice and six dice is also more than the difference in c.v. between fourteen and eighteen. The same point applies. I didn't mention it this time because it's complicated enough to be distracting and doesn't change any conclusions.
| QUOTE (Ellery @ Jun 25 2005, 02:41 PM) |
| The illusion of d20 is that you actually know what is happening when the probability of success changes by 5%. ... The advantage of the variable TN system is that a +1 penalty to the TN equates, on average, to about 25% fewer successes. The disadvantage is that it actually ranges from 50% (TN 5 to 6) to 0% (6 to 7). There are a number of ways to partially compensate for this unevenness. The advantage of this unevenness, though, is that it's not systematic... |
Oh come on.
So an increase of 5% in D20 gives the illusion that you know what's going on, but the 5-6-7 idiocy of SR is an advantage because the unevenness isn't systematic?
An increase of 5% in D20 means exactly that ; you are 5% more likely to succeed. On 20 rolls, you'll get one more success on average. Sure, if you had only 5% odds of success to start with and now have 10%, your odds of success have doubled (or have been halved in the reverse example). So what? Same things happen in SR when you lower TN from 6 to 5. Your odds of success on each die has increased by 16.66% but since they were only of 16.66% to start with, they have now doubled to 33.33%. Same bloody thing.
Except of course, D20 avoid the 5-6-7 madness. The "20 always hit" and "1 always fail" are not nearly as annoying because when they are invoked, someone is so grossly outmatched that these rules barely matter.
First SR session I had in a while, a player was shooting at TN 5 with recoil compensated. He of course elected to shoot twice with two SA. Then he gets wounded. shooting at the same target, the TN was now 6. He elects to aim and use more combat pool on that one shot. Makes sense, with a target that has a decent armor, there's no point in scratching him twice when you can hit solidly once. Then he gets wounded again and TN climbs to 7. Well, now there is no point in aiming and he is back to shooting twice. Very logical. We had a good laugh at that but none of the new players were very impressed.
I've played SR and I've played Trinity (Fixed TN of 7 on D10). Trinity works much better IMO.
I know it's kind of off-topic, but I would submit that there is an easy way to solve the 6/7 problem. Enforce the 1 is always a failure idea. If you have a TN of 7, roll the die again. On anything except a one, you succeed. To balance this out (because it is a disadvantage for the roller), spending a karma pool lets you reroll the failures from the last "six" multiple they had.
Example: Target number is thirteen, and you roll two sixes, one turns up 4, one turns up six, then you roll a one, you fail. But, you can spend a karma pool and reroll one die from 6, and one from 12 -- the second die will generate a success on anything but a one, and the other will have to roll a six and then anything but a one.
I think that gets rid of the 5-6-7 thing, and in a fair and reasonable manner, myself.
As a player of AD&D and SR (and a bit of oWoD), I cannot overstate how important having a variable TN to indicate degree of difficulty AND multiple dice for degree of success is. Simple pass/fail is a very poor method, imho, and so is not having the ability for someone to succeed by freak chance no matter how sucky that person is at the task in question.
Example: Target number is thirteen, and you roll two sixes, one turns up 4, one turns up six, then you roll a one, you fail. But, you can spend a karma pool and reroll one die from 6, and one from 12 -- the second die will generate a success on anything but a one, and the other will have to roll a six and then anything but a one.
I think that gets rid of the 5-6-7 thing, and in a fair and reasonable manner, myself.
As a player of AD&D and SR (and a bit of oWoD), I cannot overstate how important having a variable TN to indicate degree of difficulty AND multiple dice for degree of success is. Simple pass/fail is a very poor method, imho, and so is not having the ability for someone to succeed by freak chance no matter how sucky that person is at the task in question.
I really liked the fluidity of the old system, it allowed for 2 different ways to establish a success.
1) by varying the TN or
2) varing the number of successes at a tn.
1) by varying the TN or
2) varing the number of successes at a tn.
| QUOTE (Ellery @ Jun 26 2005, 08:03 PM) |
| Also, there's no reason why you can't combine the totals of rolls with variable TN, if it's a sensible thing to do. |
You can add the total hits from each roll, but you can't combine the rolls into one roll to avoid having to bring the successes forward.
| QUOTE |
| Finally, the difference in coefficient of variation between two dice and six dice is also more than the difference in c.v. between fourteen and eighteen. The same point applies. I didn't mention it this time because it's complicated enough to be distracting and doesn't change any conclusions. |
As you increase in skill individual environmental factors mean somewhat less than your skill as you are able to compensate more for them and compensate for more environmental factors. Your results are somewhat less erratic, as a percentage of total effects you enact, from senario to senario. *shrug* Doesn't seem that wrong to me?
Besides once you put it into the system itself it can end up very different, depending on design. For example if success requirement for extended rolls are expressed as Threshhold/Total where the number of hits over Threshhold for each roll are added to a running total till it reaches Total, then when attempting a task that is the same difficulty relative to your ability level (be it high or low) the modifiers are somewhat near the same power at the high and low levels.
Once again if the system uses the strengths then it'll be fine.
Here's where I'm having an issue. Fewer variables means the modifiers get crammed further into fewer categories, potentially meaning more math needs to be done to figure out what needs to be rolled. What's more, possibly more of the onus will land on the players.
For example, under SR3, only the GM needs to come up with the TN. The players only need to keep track of their own dice rolled. Under d20, the players and GMs both need to keep track of the TN modifiers. This leads to situations like the one I encountered not long ago, which went something like this: "Okay, I add 6 for my BAB... minus two because he's twenty feet away... plus one because he's less than thrity feet away... minus four because he's in melee... plus three from my dexterity... minus two since I'm rapid-firing... plus one 'cause I'm using a dagger.... etc, etc.
Now, before you say this happens in SR3, let me point out again that the modifiers are calculated by the GM. That speeds things up a lot more, since the GM is the only one who needs to know every last modifer.
Also, don't forget that d20 has its own probability blips. In combat, the odds of hitting or missing can never go below 5%. You could be half-blind, one armed, both legs broken, against an opponent in Ultimatium full-plate armor, and throwing the halberd with your teeth; you keep the 5% chance of hitting (and scoring a crit). Out of combat, that +1 could shift the odds from 5% to impossible, if the new TN exceeds 20+Modifiers; and calculating those modifiers becomes a more complicated, cooperative task.
For example, under SR3, only the GM needs to come up with the TN. The players only need to keep track of their own dice rolled. Under d20, the players and GMs both need to keep track of the TN modifiers. This leads to situations like the one I encountered not long ago, which went something like this: "Okay, I add 6 for my BAB... minus two because he's twenty feet away... plus one because he's less than thrity feet away... minus four because he's in melee... plus three from my dexterity... minus two since I'm rapid-firing... plus one 'cause I'm using a dagger.... etc, etc.
Now, before you say this happens in SR3, let me point out again that the modifiers are calculated by the GM. That speeds things up a lot more, since the GM is the only one who needs to know every last modifer.
Also, don't forget that d20 has its own probability blips. In combat, the odds of hitting or missing can never go below 5%. You could be half-blind, one armed, both legs broken, against an opponent in Ultimatium full-plate armor, and throwing the halberd with your teeth; you keep the 5% chance of hitting (and scoring a crit). Out of combat, that +1 could shift the odds from 5% to impossible, if the new TN exceeds 20+Modifiers; and calculating those modifiers becomes a more complicated, cooperative task.
| QUOTE (Cain @ Jun 27 2005, 11:59 AM) |
| Here's where I'm having an issue. Fewer variables means the modifiers get crammed further into fewer categories, potentially meaning more math needs to be done to figure out what needs to be rolled. What's more, possibly more of the onus will land on the players. For example, under SR3, only the GM needs to come up with the TN. The players only need to keep track of their own dice rolled. Under d20, the players and GMs both need to keep track of the TN modifiers. This leads to situations like the one I encountered not long ago, which went something like this: "Okay, I add 6 for my BAB... minus two because he's twenty feet away... plus one because he's less than thrity feet away... minus four because he's in melee... plus three from my dexterity... minus two since I'm rapid-firing... plus one 'cause I'm using a dagger.... etc, etc. |
You don't have all that stuff pre-Gened at each level increase for Feat use and such? Ya, if you were adding/subtracting all that stuff on that fly it would be onerous. BTW we usually leave range modifiers to the GM, just handing off the attack roll before that. Ranged also has some other wierdness we leave the GM to figure out, such as shooting at an opponent that has cover from the shooter's ally.
| QUOTE |
| Now, before you say this happens in SR3, let me point out again that the modifiers are calculated by the GM. That speeds things up a lot more, since the GM is the only one who needs to know every last modifer. |
Depends. The GM still has to cough up the TN to the player or they'll have to look at the dice and mention which dice need rerolling. The GM also has to keep track of all the modifiers from that PCs 'ware, Edges/Flaws, magical abilities, etc. That is one person tracking all the data for 4, 5, 6, or more players at the table on top of the NPCs. Offloading a bunch of that would seem to me a good thing. The GM can then relay any environmental modifiers that might apply (senseware is still an issue here) and the player can adjust their dice accordingly, roll, and give the GM back the hit count.
EDIT: What would be nice is if they managed to figure out a way to have the player only modify the dice count for stuff that was obvious to them. Then they wouldn't even need to wait for the GM. Not sure that would be possible though.
| QUOTE |
| Also, don't forget that d20 has its own probability blips. In combat, the odds of hitting or missing can never go below 5%. You could be half-blind, one armed, both legs broken, against an opponent in Ultimatium full-plate armor, and throwing the halberd with your teeth; you keep the 5% chance of hitting (and scoring a crit). |
Besides the highly popular Optional Rule that '20' is actually a '30' rule, plus the fact '20' is only threat, a second hit has to be scored for critical, aren't you getting OT? SR4 isn't remotely d20 (please see note about Edge).
| QUOTE |
| Out of combat, that +1 could shift the odds from 5% to impossible, if the new TN exceeds 20+Modifiers; and calculating those modifiers becomes a more complicated, cooperative task. |
I wouldn't call it complicated at all. The GM calls for a skill check. The player rolls and adds(substracts) the precalculated modifier from their sheet, and gives that number to the GM. The GM then compares it to the DC that she set. That seems vastly simpler GM-player communication than SR3 and whatever SR4 is likely to be, along with a nice offloading of some of the accounting from the GM.
While its true that a penalty of 1 die is vastly different if you have 2 or 10 dice total, you seem to be forgetting that SR4 will have Attribute+Skill as base dicepool for each test.
Assuming attribute 3 is still average, and skill 3 is still average, most normal people, doing normal things, will have 6 dice in their test.
Beginning runners will laikely have some attributes in the 6's, and skill to match, making it 12 dice.
Stronger characters are likely to have upwards of 20 dice in their core specialties.
Basically this means that you will rarely, if ever, have someone rolling a pathetic 1 die in a test. They'd have to be defaulting to a low attribute to be in that situation, a situation in which failure is likely to be expected.
Also, the way I read it, even a single success means the test is some kind of success. Extra successes just mean you got the business done even better.
Fx if my character shoots another character and I end up with 1 net success, then the other guy is hurting atleast a little.
Point being, you are correct that the method of removing/adding dice can get skewed at the low end, but upwards it scales pretty well. Although, yes, you will hit a point where you can expectedly deliver 5 successes or more every time you use the skill. However, whether this situation is attainable or not depends wholly on the price in karma to achieve it, and if its even possible to "cap out" within the game rules.
Most tests will likely be within the 6-15 dice in the pool range.
Assuming attribute 3 is still average, and skill 3 is still average, most normal people, doing normal things, will have 6 dice in their test.
Beginning runners will laikely have some attributes in the 6's, and skill to match, making it 12 dice.
Stronger characters are likely to have upwards of 20 dice in their core specialties.
Basically this means that you will rarely, if ever, have someone rolling a pathetic 1 die in a test. They'd have to be defaulting to a low attribute to be in that situation, a situation in which failure is likely to be expected.
Also, the way I read it, even a single success means the test is some kind of success. Extra successes just mean you got the business done even better.
Fx if my character shoots another character and I end up with 1 net success, then the other guy is hurting atleast a little.
Point being, you are correct that the method of removing/adding dice can get skewed at the low end, but upwards it scales pretty well. Although, yes, you will hit a point where you can expectedly deliver 5 successes or more every time you use the skill. However, whether this situation is attainable or not depends wholly on the price in karma to achieve it, and if its even possible to "cap out" within the game rules.
Most tests will likely be within the 6-15 dice in the pool range.
| QUOTE (weblife) |
| Also, the way I read it, even a single success means the test is some kind of success. Extra successes just mean you got the business done even better. |
Actually, there has been some discussion about thresholds. Thresholds have been interpreted as the minimum number of successes needed to achieve your objective. Which could indeed be as consistently low as one, or it could be significantly higher.
| QUOTE (Nerbert @ Jun 27 2005, 04:00 PM) | ||
Actually, there has been some discussion about thresholds. Thresholds have been interpreted as the minimum number of successes needed to achieve your objective. Which could indeed be as consistently low as one, or it could be significantly higher. |
Hopefully a lot of the time it will be threshholds created opposed rolls, because then the +/- dice modifiers will scale fine then too, outside of the problems with - modifiers dropping the dice count so low you stop at 1 dice.
| QUOTE |
| You don't have all that stuff pre-Gened at each level increase for Feat use and such? |
Can't. Some stuff, like calculating for weapon focus: dagger and dex bonus, you can do in advance; but stuff like range modifers, in-melee penalty, rapid-shot feat usage, and so on are all situational. That has to be calculated on the fly every time.
| QUOTE |
| Depends. The GM still has to cough up the TN to the player or they'll have to look at the dice and mention which dice need rerolling. |
Not really. If you're doing hidden TNs, all you need to do is tell them to reroll all sixes. Even if the modified TN is a 4, you make them reroll all the sixes.
| QUOTE |
| The GM also has to keep track of all the modifiers from that PCs 'ware, Edges/Flaws, magical abilities, etc. That is one person tracking all the data for 4, 5, 6, or more players at the table on top of the NPCs. Offloading a bunch of that would seem to me a good thing. |
If GMing were easy, there would be a whole lot more gamers out there. At any event, a GM has to keep track of all that anyway, just to make sure the TNs are set at the appropriate difficulties. You can't really offload any of it.
| QUOTE (Charon) |
| So an increase of 5% in D20 gives the illusion that you know what's going on, but the 5-6-7 idiocy of SR is an advantage because the unevenness isn't systematic? An increase of 5% in D20 means exactly that ; you are 5% more likely to succeed. On 20 rolls, you'll get one more success on average. Sure, if you had only 5% odds of success to start with and now have 10%, your odds of success have doubled (or have been halved in the reverse example). So what? Same things happen in SR when you lower TN from 6 to 5. Your odds of success on each die has increased by 16.66% but since they were only of 16.66% to start with, they have now doubled to 33.33%. Same bloody thing. Except of course, D20 avoid the 5-6-7 madness. The "20 always hit" and "1 always fail" are not nearly as annoying because when they are invoked, someone is so grossly outmatched that these rules barely matter. |
You just said that d20 is the "same bloody thing" as 6 to 5, and it avoids the "5 6 7 madness". Maybe you can explain why this isn't half the madness.
Also, you failed to address my point that as TNs vary, the penalty averages out to 25%. It's a system that is okay on average, but has problems from roll to roll, instead of a system that has problems on average (and on every roll).
Anyway, if the 567 thing really bothers you, fix it. There are a number of relatively straightforward fixes that even out the probabilities and leave the advantages fully intact. I've never seen a fix for d20 because the core mechanic just isn't that powerful. For a single-die-roll mechanic, it's pretty good. But there's only some much you can do by rolling a single die. (Hint: this is why damage is not rolled only with d20.)
I guess you've never had your 10th level characters, say, protect a town from an army of goblins. It can be a lot of fun, but most of your opponents have to roll 20 to hit you.
Anyway, I don't really want to do a statistical analysis of d20 games and run scenarios and all, because for better or worse, SR4 is not using the d20 mechanic.
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| As you increase in skill individual environmental factors mean somewhat less than your skill as you are able to compensate more for them and compensate for more environmental factors. Your results are somewhat less erratic, as a percentage of total effects you enact, from senario to senario. *shrug* Doesn't seem that wrong to me? |
It doesn't seem that wrong to me either, if it's kept within a sensible range. It's hard to be in a sensible range, though, if you try to do something with low skill (or, alternatively, characters are remarkably skilled at everything thanks to their attributes). If there are only dice bonuses and threshold penalties, then it's sort of bad, but often tolerable. If there are lots of dice penalties, the situation will appear quite a bit more often. Unfortunately, you give up a lot of granularity in the magnitude of penalties if you only raise the threshold. So dice penalties are tempting, but then slightly sub-par people who are not too skilled will be rolling only 4 dice, which makes 3 dice of penalties a huge deal. I don't think having slightly sub-average rolls are that unusual, so I forsee this actually coming up fairly often in games.
So I do think having only threshold penalties is slightly better, but you don't get it for free--a bunch of little annoyances can no longer add up into a big problem, except by GM edict.
| QUOTE (cain) |
| For example, under SR3, only the GM needs to come up with the TN. The players only need to keep track of their own dice rolled. Under d20, the players and GMs both need to keep track of the TN modifiers. This leads to situations like the one I encountered not long ago, which went something like this: "Okay, I add 6 for my BAB... minus two because he's twenty feet away... plus one because he's less than thrity feet away... minus four because he's in melee... plus three from my dexterity... minus two since I'm rapid-firing... plus one 'cause I'm using a dagger.... etc, etc. Now, before you say this happens in SR3, let me point out again that the modifiers are calculated by the GM. |
I wonder how your GM does that. He needs to know exactly what kind of cyberware and weapons' modifications (among many other things) a char has. Has he got natural or unnatural IR-vision? How much damage has he got at the moment? It goes on for ever. In all groups I've played with, the GM only described the circumstances: "The Troll is 60yds away, he's behind half cover and it's completely dark." Then the players can do their individual math.
The advantage is: They can all do it at the same time. That way gaming is faster.
Something I always found terrible about the varying TN is the case of the hidden TN. Where the GM says: "I need a perception roll from all of you." and what he gets as answers is something like: "I've got six successes at TN 3, four at 4, two at 5 and, wait, one at 11." And that from every single player. You must admit that lacks a certain elegance.
| QUOTE (Cain @ Jun 27 2005, 08:46 PM) | ||
Can't. Some stuff, like calculating for weapon focus: dagger and dex bonus, you can do in advance; but stuff like range modifers, in-melee penalty, rapid-shot feat usage, and so on are all situational. That has to be calculated on the fly every time. |
Range is situational (like i said we leave that to the GM). Flanking, prone, blind, etc. sure but that comes up so often (giving or recieving) the players quickly know about and can identify them. If they don't the player is going to get their ass kicked anyway.
But why not have Rapid Shot, Flurry of Blows, Rage, etc. pregened? They aren't situational as much as the PC selected actions. I suggest you look at doing that.
| QUOTE | ||
Not really. If you're doing hidden TNs, all you need to do is tell them to reroll all sixes. Even if the modified TN is a 4, you make them reroll all the sixes. |
Huh? I found hidden TNs the worst, especially when the player is at the other end of the table. Heaven help you if they were using those 6mm dice.
Players generally ended up calling out all their results to the GM. Two 11s, one 7, two 5s, three 3s....| QUOTE | ||
If GMing were easy, there would be a whole lot more gamers out there. |
I would hope so.
| QUOTE |
| At any event, a GM has to keep track of all that anyway, just to make sure the TNs are set at the appropriate difficulties. You can't really offload any of it. |
On the fly detailed knowledge? Er, nooo. Hell in the current D&D campaign there are some character sheets that i have NEVER looked at as they were created under the previous GM. I know kinda roughly where they are because, for example, i'm constantly reminded that one of them had a Keen battle axe as they kept criticalling my baddies.
But i don't know all the exact details and i don't need to know them.EDIT: I couldn't even give the character level for all the PCs. I don't bother use precise level calculations for XP as by book i'm allowed a fudge factor anyway.
| QUOTE (Ellery) | ||
It doesn't seem that wrong to me either, if it's kept within a sensible range. It's hard to be in a sensible range, though, if you try to do something with low skill... |
... with lots of negative environmental factors then shit is going to be hard to do. Life sucks and you'll need to burn Edge if you want it done. If it is performing something critical then you shouldn't be playing a kid/gimp in an adult's world or attempting something you aren't very good at in much less than ideal circumstances. *shrug*
| QUOTE |
| ...(or, alternatively, characters are remarkably skilled at everything thanks to their attributes). |
Only if they are doing things that require trivial ability (in relation to themselves) or are up against opponents of trivial ability (in relation to themselves). *shrug*
I keep most of the target numbers hidden in my games. What I do is have players group and call out their die results, starting with the lowest. It would look something like this:
Player 1: I shoot the guard.
GM: Roll your pistols skill.
Player 1: I get one 2, two 4's, one 5, one 7, and three 8s.
I know the TN for this test is 5, so I start counting at 5. That gives him 5 successes. It's not as slow as you might think. Though my players are in the habit of sorting their dice immediately after rolling them, so I don't really have to wait too long for them to do it .
Here's a tangent...if the TN in SR4 is fixed at 5, and all that really changes is the number of dice rolled, how can you have any hidden tests? Won't the players ALWAYS know exactly how many successes they get on a given test? I suppose opposed rolls is one way, and maybe having a hidden success threshold is another, but otherwise the players always know how well they do on every test. I suppose it will speed things up substantially, which is a good thing.
Player 1: I shoot the guard.
GM: Roll your pistols skill.
Player 1: I get one 2, two 4's, one 5, one 7, and three 8s.
I know the TN for this test is 5, so I start counting at 5. That gives him 5 successes. It's not as slow as you might think. Though my players are in the habit of sorting their dice immediately after rolling them, so I don't really have to wait too long for them to do it .
Here's a tangent...if the TN in SR4 is fixed at 5, and all that really changes is the number of dice rolled, how can you have any hidden tests? Won't the players ALWAYS know exactly how many successes they get on a given test? I suppose opposed rolls is one way, and maybe having a hidden success threshold is another, but otherwise the players always know how well they do on every test. I suppose it will speed things up substantially, which is a good thing.
| QUOTE (TheOneRonin) |
| I suppose opposed rolls is one way, and maybe having a hidden success threshold is another, |
I figured those would take care of that. It could get a bit messy at times, we'll see.
My concern are the hidden influences to difficulty that the PC is not aware of. The classic D&D example is the cursed weapon. They think it is +1, you know it is -2. For those the modifier will have to either go into the opposer's roll or as a hidden threshhold. Not sure how well that will play out, but at least traditionally in SR hidden TNs modifiers have been more external so that they'd more easily fall into that catagory.
| QUOTE (ellery) |
| Also, you failed to address my point that as TNs vary, the penalty averages out to 25%. It's a system that is okay on average, but has problems from roll to roll, instead of a system that has problems on average (and on every roll). |
I still don't quite understand that point.
I've done a few calculations, to judge the change of probability with varying TNs for a certain number of dice and a threshhold of 1.
What I found is, that an increase of 1 in the TN translates to very different things depending on where your starting TN is and especially on how many dice you use.
Going from TN 2 to TN 3 means the probability goes down by 16.5% if you use 1 die, about 1% if you use 4 dice, and 0.02% if you use 8 dice.
Going from TN 5 to TN 6 reduces the probability by 16.5% if you use 1 die, 28.5% if you use 4 dice (!), but only 20% if you use 8 dice.
The table doesn't scale at all. And I didn't even begin to look a t the 5-6-7 problem.
After calculating probabilities for TN 5 and varying threshholds I found that this mechanism seems to scale much better. If you increase the threshhold for any number of dice, the probabilty goes down. It doesn't do so in a straight line like a D20 would, instead it has its steepest fall in the middle with flatter areas at both ends.
That means if you increase the threshold by one for easy tasks, it will not affect the probability as much as if you do it in the middle range, where the threshhold is about 1/2 the number of dice. In the area of very high threshholds the effect of threshhold +1 again becomes smaller. In a game context that could result in a situation like this:
Runners A, B, and C are trying varying tasks in a room. Suddenly the light goes out. Runner A is doing something easy. His task becomes harder now, but not too much. Runner B is doing something damn difficult. His chances of success go down quite a bit. Runner C is attempting something nigh impossible, his already slim chnaces go down but not too much.
In my eyes that seems a reasonable distribution of probabilty.
If you want numbers, here they are. The first row is for 2 dice, the second for 3 etc. The left column gives the probabilty for one hit, the second that for two etc.
55,6% 11,1%
70,4% 25,9% 3,7%
80,2% 40,7% 11,1% 1,2%
86,8% 53,9% 21,0% 4,5% 0,4%
91,2% 64,9% 32,0% 10,0% 1,8% 0,1%
I have to admit though that one weakness seems to be the fact that it is just impossible to score more hits than you have dice. I hope they make clever use of the new Edge-attribute to allow for that cinematic stroke of luck where the underdog defeats the arch villain.
One thing that might help to patch the "fewer dice than required sucesses" problem is that it is a skill + attribute system, which can mean more dice in general being rolled (for non-combat tests anyway). If you really have an attribute of 1 and a skill of 1 applied to some test it might be reasonable that you are so bad at it that you would never succede at a more difficult test (ie the difference between your odds of success and zero is small enough that a game system can overlook it).
Some kind of exploding dice would have been nice, however.
Some kind of exploding dice would have been nice, however.
| QUOTE |
| But why not have Rapid Shot, Flurry of Blows, Rage, etc. pregened? They aren't situational as much as the PC selected actions. I suggest you look at doing that. |
Because then I need to have pregenned Regular attack, Full Attacks, full attacks with Rapid Shot, full attacks within 30 feet, full attacks when fighting defensively, full attacks with daggers, full attacks with other weapons, full attacks with daggers with rapid shot, full attacks with daggers and rapid shot within thirty feet, full attacks with the various magical weapons, etc, etc.
By the time I get done pregenning every possible occurance, I'll have so many numbers on my sheet that I'll spend as much time looking them up as I would calculating them. And that's just the ranged attacks.
| QUOTE |
Huh? I found hidden TNs the worst, especially when the player is at the other end of the table. Heaven help you if they were using those 6mm dice.  Players generally ended up calling out all their results to the GM. Two 11s, one 7, two 5s, three 3s.... |
That's the way I like it, personally. It's really useful for perception tests, especially against multiple stealthing opponents. You'll get a lot of successes against Joe Clumsy, but not so many against super-stealthy cyber-ninja.
| QUOTE |
| I wonder how your GM does that. He needs to know exactly what kind of cyberware and weapons' modifications (among many other things) a char has. Has he got natural or unnatural IR-vision? How much damage has he got at the moment? It goes on for ever. In all groups I've played with, the GM only described the circumstances: "The Troll is 60yds away, he's behind half cover and it's completely dark." Then the players can do their individual math. The advantage is: They can all do it at the same time. That way gaming is faster. |
Generally, I'm the GM. I tend to keep track of it all in my head, abstracting as necessary. There aren't many devices that a player can have that alters his TN, and I have to keep track of his wound levels. (I also tend to disallow the Aptitude/Incompetence edges/flaws.) I also have to adjudicate lighting conditions for the NPCs anyway. Since I have to keep track of all that for the NPCs, I think of it as a community service to do it for the PCs as well.
| QUOTE (Cain @ Jun 28 2005, 12:30 PM) | ||
Because then I need to have pregenned Regular attack, Full Attacks, full attacks with Rapid Shot, full attacks within 30 feet, full attacks when fighting defensively, full attacks with daggers, full attacks with other weapons, full attacks with daggers with rapid shot, full attacks with daggers and rapid shot within thirty feet, full attacks with the various magical weapons, etc, etc. By the time I get done pregenning every possible occurance, I'll have so many numbers on my sheet that I'll spend as much time looking them up as I would calculating them. And that's just the ranged attacks. |
Think of it as your spell list. But you don't need to do nearly as many as you are suggesting. Weapons i have Focus or Finesse in, that are different than standard weapon, i do. Regular attack and Full attack are the same thing, so need for an extra line there.
Rapid Shot, Many Shot, etc. i have seperate lines for. But just a note about Point Blank being applicable (so yes, under 30' you have to +1).
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| .. with lots of negative environmental factors then shit is going to be hard to do. Life sucks and you'll need to burn Edge if you want it done. If it is performing something critical then you shouldn't be playing a kid/gimp in an adult's world or attempting something you aren't very good at in much less than ideal circumstances. *shrug* |
See, I don't view this as a situation where the appropriate response is, "you suck, you shouldn't be playing that character". I view these things as interesting roleplaying challenges.
Or, I view these things as NPCs doing the best they can manage in an unexpectedly difficult situation.
I'm not entirely satisfied with the way SR3 handles this, but from all appearances, SR4 will handle it quite a bit worse.
In D&D, it doesn't matter too much if you seem to always be running into bands of ogres where you once ran into bands of kobolds. It's kind of a fantasy game anyway, and people probably don't bother thinking about how the kobolds and ogres breed, whether the birth rate can compensate for the number killed by adventurers, why selective breeding doesn't generate less violent kobolds and ogres, and so on. However, in SR, if the runners are wandering around interacting with normal people, they're often going to be around people with low stats and skills. If something unexpected happens--they're wandering through a homeless camp in the barrens at night and a pack of ghouls attack, or something--I want the rules to support the scene, not fall all over the floor in an ugly mess.
Or, I view these things as NPCs doing the best they can manage in an unexpectedly difficult situation.
I'm not entirely satisfied with the way SR3 handles this, but from all appearances, SR4 will handle it quite a bit worse.
In D&D, it doesn't matter too much if you seem to always be running into bands of ogres where you once ran into bands of kobolds. It's kind of a fantasy game anyway, and people probably don't bother thinking about how the kobolds and ogres breed, whether the birth rate can compensate for the number killed by adventurers, why selective breeding doesn't generate less violent kobolds and ogres, and so on. However, in SR, if the runners are wandering around interacting with normal people, they're often going to be around people with low stats and skills. If something unexpected happens--they're wandering through a homeless camp in the barrens at night and a pack of ghouls attack, or something--I want the rules to support the scene, not fall all over the floor in an ugly mess.
| QUOTE (El Ojitos) |
| I still don't quite understand that point. I've done a few calculations, to judge the change of probability with varying TNs for a certain number of dice and a threshhold of 1. |
Your calculations look like they're probably correct, but they're not what I'm getting at.
Even in SR3, many tests are opposed, and it is with opposed tests that flaws most readily become ridiculous (e.g. the sharpshooter who turns off the floodlights so that the criminals only roll 1 die due to darkness penalties, while the sharpshooter is still left with 6). I'm considering the percentage change in the expected number of successes with a given number of dice and a given starting TN.
I'm not choosing this metric to be difficult, or because it supports my point of view, but because this is the place I most commonly run into problems in other systems. The nice aspect of SR3 is that, to a first approximation, changing conditions for everyone affects everyone equally. If your opponent outclassed you ten-to-one before the lights went out, he still outclasses you by ten-to-one. This means that you don't turn out the lights simply to gain a statistical advantage--you turn them out if you can see in the dark, or if not being hit is more important to you than hitting them, or they won't be able to see their target but your target will still be illuminated, etc..
For what it's worth, for difficult tasks, those needing a single test also scale probabilties by a factor of 25% each TN point (e.g. it'll go from a 4% chance to a 3% chance, a decrease of 25% of 4%, when the TN goes up by one). So you have the same type of scaling there, too. (On average, as the starting TN varies--as I said before, as it stands it ranges from 0% to 50%.)
Even in SR3, many tests are opposed, and it is with opposed tests that flaws most readily become ridiculous (e.g. the sharpshooter who turns off the floodlights so that the criminals only roll 1 die due to darkness penalties, while the sharpshooter is still left with 6). I'm considering the percentage change in the expected number of successes with a given number of dice and a given starting TN.
I'm not choosing this metric to be difficult, or because it supports my point of view, but because this is the place I most commonly run into problems in other systems. The nice aspect of SR3 is that, to a first approximation, changing conditions for everyone affects everyone equally. If your opponent outclassed you ten-to-one before the lights went out, he still outclasses you by ten-to-one. This means that you don't turn out the lights simply to gain a statistical advantage--you turn them out if you can see in the dark, or if not being hit is more important to you than hitting them, or they won't be able to see their target but your target will still be illuminated, etc..
For what it's worth, for difficult tasks, those needing a single test also scale probabilties by a factor of 25% each TN point (e.g. it'll go from a 4% chance to a 3% chance, a decrease of 25% of 4%, when the TN goes up by one). So you have the same type of scaling there, too. (On average, as the starting TN varies--as I said before, as it stands it ranges from 0% to 50%.)
| QUOTE (Ellery @ Jun 28 2005, 09:20 PM) | ||
See, I don't view this as a situation where the appropriate response is, "you suck, you shouldn't be playing that character". I view these things as interesting roleplaying challenges. |
So what do you think is the source of it being a "roleplaying challenge"?
I didn't say you suck, i said trying to do something that it hard should end up being, you know, HARD. Don't like that your character gets kicked in the nackers everytime the going gets tough? Then stop doing it by either bumping up the attributes from what you'd think they'd be and handle the characterisation by simulating through you own play, or just stopping trying to play a hard to play character.
Otherwise just keep trying to have your weak character stay in conditions where the positives outweigh the negatives and they have the tactical advantage they need....which is kinda wack in regards to your PC being weak unless your character has some superior cunning aspect. I guess you could be trying to do a Pink Panther type. *shrug* In any event think of it as a....challenge.
As a player, I don't normally get to bump up my character's stats when I think I ought to have a chance, but I've gotten into an unexpected situation.
I'll try to run that by my next GM. Care to guess what the response will be?
Anyway, my point is that SR4 makes it unreasonably difficult on these characters (or, possibly, unreasonably easy if they always have a die to roll and thus always have a 1/3 chance of getting a single hit). I'm not saying it shouldn't be hard--I'm saying that I want that end of the scale represented sensibly, and SR4 will apparently make it insensibly hard.
(The way in which it will be insensible depends on how they handle having fewer than one die to roll, if they go for reducing the number of dice.)
I'll try to run that by my next GM. Care to guess what the response will be?
Anyway, my point is that SR4 makes it unreasonably difficult on these characters (or, possibly, unreasonably easy if they always have a die to roll and thus always have a 1/3 chance of getting a single hit). I'm not saying it shouldn't be hard--I'm saying that I want that end of the scale represented sensibly, and SR4 will apparently make it insensibly hard.
(The way in which it will be insensible depends on how they handle having fewer than one die to roll, if they go for reducing the number of dice.)
This table shows the change in %, that the number of average successes get at a given amount of dice.
That is, if I have 6 dice, I have an average of 4 successes, TN5, and if you give me one extra die, my number of successes becomes 17% better.
Most runners will be using 10-15 dice pr. roll, covering attribute 5/skill 5, to attribute 6/skill 8.
Adding or removing a single die in this area will modify the number of successes by ~10%, which, to me, seems like a fairly good increment. Better than moving TN from 5 to 6 or the ridiculous 6 to 7 TN move.
That is, if I have 6 dice, I have an average of 4 successes, TN5, and if you give me one extra die, my number of successes becomes 17% better.
Most runners will be using 10-15 dice pr. roll, covering attribute 5/skill 5, to attribute 6/skill 8.
Adding or removing a single die in this area will modify the number of successes by ~10%, which, to me, seems like a fairly good increment. Better than moving TN from 5 to 6 or the ridiculous 6 to 7 TN move.
- Dice Succes Delta%
- 1 0,67 100
- 2 1,33 50
- 3 2,00 33
- 4 2,67 25
- 5 3,33 20
- 6 4,00 17
- 7 4,67 14
- 8 5,33 13
- 9 6,00 11
- 10 6,67 10
- 11 7,33 9
- 12 8,00 8
- 13 8,67 8
- 14 9,33 7
- 15 10,00 7
- 16 10,67 6
- 17 11,33 6
- 18 12,00 6
- 19 12,67 5
- 20 13,33 5
Yes, that's nice. I've been complaining the whole time about the system because once you have someone other than a typical runner using their favored skills, the system doesn't work so well. If you are content to only play typical runners against somewhat equivalent opposition, then you won't encounter the problem. But if you do that, almost any system can work well.
| QUOTE (weblife @ Jun 28 2005, 11:56 PM) |
| That is, if I have 6 dice, I have an average of 4 successes, TN5, and if you give me one extra die, my number of successes becomes 17% better. (...) Most runners will be using 10-15 dice pr. roll, covering attribute 5/skill 5, to attribute 6/skill 8. |
How do you get average 0.67 hit by die (edit) with TN5 ?
here is my calculation for d6 TN5 and the 6s exploding (result = average 0.4 hit/die)
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?act=...ndpost&p=276080
How do you make an 'average' runner with 6/6 in skill/attribut, if the rules make them more expensive to buy them above 3 ?
I bet you have never seen a runner with less than 6 dice in his chosen speciality. Under the new system, the number of dice is 12 for a new character.
Average being 6 dice.
Average being 6 dice.
Yes I have seen some runner with 5 as max skill in sr3. It can be interesting for a character with wide skill area.
In sr4 a lot of beginner will probably begin with 4-5 max in their attribut, for the skill I am not sure.
But the 0.67 ?
In sr4 a lot of beginner will probably begin with 4-5 max in their attribut, for the skill I am not sure.
But the 0.67 ?
| QUOTE (weblife) |
| That is, if I have 6 dice, I have an average of 4 successes, TN5... |
This is just plain incorrect. Someone better at it than me can show you how your math is flawed -- I'm not sure how you did it, but you're wrong.
Every die, individually, has a 1/3 chance of succeeded. I don't know how you're getting an average of 4 successes out of 6 dice. You should be looking forward to (on average) 2 successes with just your 6 dice. It'd take (about) 12 to get 4 successes (again, on average).
Generally, and very very simply, speaking, it takes 3 dice to get 1 successes at TN 5.
| QUOTE (weblife @ Jun 29 2005, 12:06 AM) |
| I bet you have never seen a runner with less than 6 dice in his chosen speciality. Under the new system, the number of dice is 12 for a new character. Average being 6 dice. |
That was due to a couple of things. First from the POV of otimizing BP or Skill point use at Chargen you took a 6 because 5 to 6 was one point, but after Chargen going from 5 to 6 was much more expensive than at any one increase from 0 through 5.
The same was true with Attributes.
The FAQ is suggesting that above average Attributes (a 3) are going to be rare, inferring it will be costly to raise above 3 (before racial mods).
So basing such assumptions on the SR3 Chargen is rather dubious.
| QUOTE (Ellery @ Jun 28 2005, 11:05 PM) |
| Yes, that's nice. I've been complaining the whole time about the system because once you have someone other than a typical runner using their favored skills, the system doesn't work so well. |
Well you had been bitching that you couldn't play kids very well (in SR3 and expecting not in SR4). I thought this was more whining in that vein.
But still i really don't see much of an issue if that isn't what you are worried about. You are using a weak skill in a hard situation. If you could expect success and an easy time under those conditions why bother have a team with different specializations?| QUOTE |
| If you are content to only play typical runners against somewhat equivalent opposition, then you won't encounter the problem. But if you do that, almost any system can work well. |
If you want to play rankly atypical runners that are way, way overpowered or outclasses relative to their surroundings things things will get ugly in pretty much all systems. They sure as hell did in SR3. Few systems have as a design priority to support a battle of Marvel Heros vs. The Sims.
| QUOTE (blakkie) | ||
You are using a weak skill in a hard situation. If you could expect success and an easy time under those conditions why bother have a team with different specializations? |
You are entirely, completely, and totally missing the point--or entirely, completely, and totally not addressing it.
A good gaming system should be able to handle characters with a wide range of skill levels, because last I checked, there are a wide range of skill levels in the world.
I don't want it easy. I want it non-broken. I want it hard where is should be hard, and I want it to get harder in a sensible way as conditions get worse.
If you are not going to address this point, why bother quoting what I say and typing your text after it?
A good gaming system should be able to handle characters with a wide range of skill levels, because last I checked, there are a wide range of skill levels in the world.
I don't want it easy. I want it non-broken. I want it hard where is should be hard, and I want it to get harder in a sensible way as conditions get worse.
If you are not going to address this point, why bother quoting what I say and typing your text after it?
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| If you want to play rankly atypical runners that are way, way overpowered or outclasses relative to their surroundings things things will get ugly in pretty much all systems. |
Pretty much all except for SR3, perhaps. Don't forget that we are comparing SR3 to SR4. SR3 handles this pretty well.
| QUOTE (Ellery @ Jun 29 2005, 09:38 AM) |
| I don't want it easy. I want it non-broken. I want it hard where is should be hard, and I want it to get harder in a sensible way as conditions get worse. If you are not going to address this point, why bother quoting what I say and typing your text after it? |
I'm addressing it by pointing out it appears to me you are twisting in knots over some issue that doesn't seem to be there. It would seem that Low ability + Hard task/difficult environment + Little or no relavent bonus from tools/ware + Edge = Remotely Possible. So what exactly are the requirements for passing Ellery's non-broken test that i'm missing here?
I don't really see a substantive issue other than the possibility that once your penalties outweigh benefits enough that you'd have less than 1 die to roll that you don't get to roll that one die, and just aren't allowed to roll (although with Defaulting....). Or that only 1 die gives you an insanely high chance of some fatal glitch. Although given that you apparently can glitch AND succeed with the same roll even the latter doesn't seem even that bad. EDIT: Hell even the former wouldn't be that bad if there was a floor on how many penalties negative you could go and still roll, like the SR3 no Default roll allowed over TN 8.
EDIT: Perhaps the viability of Edge over the longterm could be questioned. *shrug*
| QUOTE | ||
Pretty much all except for SR3, perhaps. Don't forget that we are comparing SR3 to SR4. SR3 handles this pretty well. |
If you consider it handled well in SR3 then then i don't see how it couldn't be handled well in SR4 given what we have seen so far. Will it be? *shrug*
P.S. But then again it isn't a very high bar to pass when you have non-optimized start-up 14 Body troll soaking pretty much everthing a street ganger would be expected to fire at them (short of street gangers with TOWs or suicidal gangers with several kgs of backpack explosives), and then turning around and soaking up the damage from pistol suicide attempt.
EDIT: Also the high risks of using Skill(2) and the Rusian Roulette (1 in 6 rocks fall, you die) that is using a Skill(1) without some other source of dice helps keep that bar fairly low.
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| It would seem that Low ability + Hard task/difficult environment + Little or no relavent bonus from tools/ware + Edge = Remotely Possible. So what exactly are the requirements for passing Ellery's non-broken test that i'm missing here? |
Succeeding at a remotely possible test should not be edge-dependent unless edge refreshes really fast. Otherwise, once someone is out of edge, it's not even remotely possible.
Let's consider the options for someone with a low skill, low attribute roll with penalties. Let's suppose they have 4 dice and they should be getting 4 dice of penalties. Maybe they're lightly wounded, walking, and they're trying to shoot someone who is running. Firstly, note that an expert who can normally toss 12 dice is going to be tossing 8, and thus still making the shot almost every time. Then, note that our fellow here is going to be tossing--well, how much will he be tossing? If he's tossing 1, then he has a 1/3 chance to hit (not counting possible dodge). If he's tossing 0, then he has zero chance to hit. The latter is "broken" by my criteron, since there is no chance, which means that the runner is safe from arbitrarily many such shooters (an absurd result).
Okay, so he's tossing 1 die. Now, suppose the lighting is poor, and he gets 2 more dice of penalties. Um, okay, now he's still tossing 1 die. The penalties haven't made things worse--the chance of hitting is still 1/3! That's also broken.
Now let's suppose that we raise the threshold number of hits needed for success instead. Being lightly wounded isn't a big enough penalty, nor is walking, nor is the opponent moving, nor is the slightly worse lighting. So now they take no penalty at all, despite having a bunch of factors hampering them. That's broken too. Or, they take 4 dice in penalties, which is okay here, but by extension, if you're badly wounded and the opponent has cover, you may as well give up and go home because the penalties will be so severe.
It's a no-win situation. The least-losing situation is probably having threshold penalties and just not worrying when someone is hampered by a bunch of minor things, but you can hardly expect me to be excited about that when SR3 already does a substantially better job of it.
And that's the least bad situation just taking this one issue into account. If we take the whole game design into account, maybe one will have to use another option instead, and that would make this aspect still worse.
Let's consider the options for someone with a low skill, low attribute roll with penalties. Let's suppose they have 4 dice and they should be getting 4 dice of penalties. Maybe they're lightly wounded, walking, and they're trying to shoot someone who is running. Firstly, note that an expert who can normally toss 12 dice is going to be tossing 8, and thus still making the shot almost every time. Then, note that our fellow here is going to be tossing--well, how much will he be tossing? If he's tossing 1, then he has a 1/3 chance to hit (not counting possible dodge). If he's tossing 0, then he has zero chance to hit. The latter is "broken" by my criteron, since there is no chance, which means that the runner is safe from arbitrarily many such shooters (an absurd result).
Okay, so he's tossing 1 die. Now, suppose the lighting is poor, and he gets 2 more dice of penalties. Um, okay, now he's still tossing 1 die. The penalties haven't made things worse--the chance of hitting is still 1/3! That's also broken.
Now let's suppose that we raise the threshold number of hits needed for success instead. Being lightly wounded isn't a big enough penalty, nor is walking, nor is the opponent moving, nor is the slightly worse lighting. So now they take no penalty at all, despite having a bunch of factors hampering them. That's broken too. Or, they take 4 dice in penalties, which is okay here, but by extension, if you're badly wounded and the opponent has cover, you may as well give up and go home because the penalties will be so severe.
It's a no-win situation. The least-losing situation is probably having threshold penalties and just not worrying when someone is hampered by a bunch of minor things, but you can hardly expect me to be excited about that when SR3 already does a substantially better job of it.
And that's the least bad situation just taking this one issue into account. If we take the whole game design into account, maybe one will have to use another option instead, and that would make this aspect still worse.
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| it isn't a very high bar to pass when you have non-optimized start-up 14 Body troll soaking pretty much everthing a street ganger would be expected to fire at them |
Only with armor. And then, try a headshot.
The problem I forsee is that, if it's total darkness, you're running, etc, etc, etc... you're going to end up with a dice pool of one die. If the system is built to make this useless, then it'll be desired to set up fights in a situation where most opponents will be utterly unable to succeed in attacks against you. If the system is built with a one die limit actually being able to accomplish something, then why not stand on your head and shut your eyes, and make a called shot to a specific cranial nerve? It won't make your shot any harder than it already is, at one die available. It just seems like it'll be too easy to abuse.
| QUOTE (blakkie @ Jun 28 2005, 11:50 AM) | ||||
Think of it as your spell list. But you don't need to do nearly as many as you are suggesting. Weapons i have Focus or Finesse in, that are different than standard weapon, i do. Regular attack and Full attack are the same thing, so need for an extra line there. Rapid Shot, Many Shot, etc. i have seperate lines for. But just a note about Point Blank being applicable (so yes, under 30' you have to +1). |
Actually, regular attack and full attack aren't the same thing, but I don't think I made it clear enough. My character's BAB, before attribute modifers, is 6/1. So, I'd need the modifiers for first shot, second shot, first shot with rapid shot, third shot with rapid shot, first shot with dagger, second shot with dagger, first shot with dagger and rapid shot, etc, etc. I also have the Throw Anything feat, so I'm constantly using improvised throwing weapons; I can't just use the dagger calculation for everything. And as you pointed out, I've simply got to add Point-Blank shot into those calculations, which gives me yet another modifier to figure. And then there's the GM-imposed penalties that I have to calculate, such as Target in melee and cover.
| QUOTE |
| If you consider it handled well in SR3 then then i don't see how it couldn't be handled well in SR4 given what we have seen so far. Will it be? |
As Ellery pointed out, the difference between the proposed system and the current one is that SR3 has a working mechanic for the longshots. Someone could have a TN of 28 and still have a chance, however slim, of pulling it off.
If SR4 has a threshold of 2 hits, and the character only has 1 die, there's no way he can pull off the shot. As Ellery pointed out, that's incredibly broken, and effectively kills dramatically-tense moments by replacing them with fatalism. Just tonight, I had players staring and praying that their sixes managed to reroll just high enough for them to live-- the tension was amazing, as was the intensity. I'd hate for that to be replaced with: "It takes how many successes? Never mind, I'm dead, just hand me a new character sheet."
Yes, you can correct for this, like nWoD did-- if you're reduced to one die, you get to roll it. If you score a 10, you succeed; roll anything but a 1, you fail, and roll a 1 and fumble. However, the odds of fumbling aren't any greater than before; and the odds of succeeding never goes below 10%. So, you could have a blindfolded guy, hopping up and down on one leg, in high winds, singing the Ankh-Morpok national anthem while playing tiddlywinks, aiming his bow at the dragon's left eyelash-- he has a 10% chance of pulling it off, and possibly slaying the dragon. He'd have exactly the same chance as a kid trying out the bow for the first time. This, also, is incredibly broken.
This, of course, assumes that you can't be dropped below 1 die. Which may not be the case; but then Scenario 1 gets invoked. If you're dropped to zero dice, then you can't pull it off, regardless. The player and character only get to sit there, which is an incredibly boring way to game.
| QUOTE (Ellery @ Jun 29 2005, 03:49 PM) |
| Succeeding at a remotely possible test should not be edge-dependent unless edge refreshes really fast. Otherwise, once someone is out of edge, it's not even remotely possible. |
Keep living on the Edge and it will catch up to you. *shrug*
| QUOTE |
| As Ellery pointed out, the difference between the proposed system and the current one is that SR3 has a working mechanic for the longshots. Someone could have a TN of 28 and still have a chance, however slim, of pulling it off. |
How often does a longshot test, say TN9+ in a weak skill, like that come up where it is remotely important muchless critical? [edit]And there is no other alternative action possible.[/edit] If it is coming up more than twice/session, maybe three/session, your character is likely screwed anyway because he isn't going to keep making them.
How about in SR3 where you don't have any skill, Defaulting? Newer characters this can easily happen with. Older characters not so much. No long shots allowed there at all, either, ever. With the TN modifier just for Defaulting it takes very few penalties to hit TN9. *shrug*
EDIT:
| QUOTE |
| This, of course, assumes that you can't be dropped below 1 die. Which may not be the case; but then Scenario 1 gets invoked. If you're dropped to zero dice, then you can't pull it off, regardless. The player and character only get to sit there, which is an incredibly boring way to game. |
EDIT: Ya, that is why i specifically mentioned that possibility would kinda suck. But there is nothing suggesting they will do that, nor anything inherent in fixing the TN at 5 that forces you to remove all the dice.
| QUOTE | ||
Only with armor. And then, try a headshot. |
Making it much more Dodgable (cybered Trolls sure can move quick for big fellas). Top it off with dermal sheathing/plating.
I was talking about a pistol to a non-helmeted forehead for suicide.
| QUOTE (Cain @ Jun 29 2005, 09:56 PM) |
| Actually, regular attack and full attack aren't the same thing, but I don't think I made it clear enough. My character's BAB, before attribute modifers, is 6/1. So, I'd need the modifiers for first shot, second shot, first shot with rapid shot, third shot with rapid shot, first shot with dagger, second shot with dagger, first shot with dagger and rapid shot, etc, etc. I also have the Throw Anything feat, so I'm constantly using improvised throwing weapons; I can't just use the dagger calculation for everything. And as you pointed out, I've simply got to add Point-Blank shot into those calculations, which gives me yet another modifier to figure. And then there's the GM-imposed penalties that I have to calculate, such as Target in melee and cover. |
This is more than a bit of a tangent to the thread, but i'll give this last post, assuming you have Quickdraw, for unlimited thrown daggers, and Weapon Focus(Thrown Dagger):
Basic Melee +8/+3
Longsword: +8/+3, 1d8+2, crit: 19-20
Dagger(Finessed): +10/+5, 1d4+2 crit: 19-20
Basic Ranged: +10/+5
Dagger(thrown): +11/+6, 1d4+2 crit: 19-20
Dagger(Rapid Shot): +9/+9/+4, 1d4+2, crit: 19-20, range increment 10'
Longbow: +10/+5, 1d6, crit: x3
Longbow(Rapid Shot): +8/+8/+3, 1d6, crit: x3, range increment 100'
Longbow, MW Composite Mighty +2 : +11/+6, 1d6+2, crit: x3
Longbow, (Rapid Shot) MW Composite Mighty +2 : +9/+9/+4, 1d6+2, crit: x3, range increment 110'
Notice that you only need to list the Full Attack because a standard action Attack uses the first number of the Full Attack (barring some strange oddity). Now put that all in appropriate text/spacial formating and it is a quick reference. Not only that, but i find it is easier to memorize.
YMMV of course.
P.S. Yes D&D weapons can become a large field of weapon stats for fighter types. Like i said earlier think of it as the fighter's equivalent to a spell list. Also the game and it's historic roots are in many ways light table-top tactical battle rules.
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| Keep living on the Edge and it will catch up to you. *shrug* |
And as I've explained, that's broken. It means that, for example, if a skilled sam shoots out the lights of the four Lone Star squad cars, or throws a few smoke grenades, he'll have Immunity To Normal Cops once they run out of edge, at which point he can just walk around, shooting them accurately even though he can't see them and getting, oh, two successes on average while they can't get any, ever. They could fire ten thousand rounds at him and never hit. And that's with a starting street sam.
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| Making it much more Dodgable (cybered Trolls sure can move quick for big fellas). Top it off with dermal sheathing/plating. I was talking about a pistol to a non-helmeted forehead for suicide. |
Trolls run out of combat pool for dodging if they're facing too many people. The suicide thing is broken. But fixing that doesn't have anything to do with fixed vs. variable TNs.
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| I was talking about a pistol to a non-helmeted forehead for suicide. |
By canon, a character may inflict any desired damage level on themselves with any weapon at hand. It's unrealistically easy for an übertroll to commit suicide, not unreasonably difficult.
~J
Where's that rule printed?
Page 134, Magic in the Shadows.
~J
~J
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.