One thing we can all agree on is that Fourth Edition Shadowrun is a dramatic mechanical departure from it's predecessor. Some of us favor this change, and some of us do not. What I would like to believe is that those of us who are looking forward to it will not be so blind to believe it will not have it's own downfalls, while those of us who have reservations will not throw it out as unable to be saved. Perhaps, then, it is possible to address concerns, and find a happy medium?
Ideally, any change to the system should be a minor one, at best, that facilitates the 'feel' of the game, and rather seamlessly integrates itself inside, without detracting from the 'feel' in it's own rights. It should not be overly complex to overshadow other mechanics, neither should it be so shallow as to be ineffective. And as we, as gamemasters, have the final say on all products we allow into our games, despite a system we may not agree with -completely-, we retain full control in what is used, and what is not.
Perhaps we can use this opportunity to add constructive comments and points into this new system?
One thing that I've noticed being brought up is the attempt of One-Trick-Pony's at effectively 'breaking' certain supposed standards of performance, in their respective field of expertise. While I will save my opinion, at this time, on the creation or availability of said archetypes, I will present what I believe -could- be a viable solution, with an absolutely minimal amount of alteration to the structure of the game. Minimal, as in, hardly any at all.
And all of this, based solely in the linear properties of Shadowrun 4th edition.
Observe, as we pit one of our Beloved-One-Shot-Love-Stain against an entirely average Mook-Mookerson, in several different scenarios.
Scenario#1 (No atmospheric modifiers)
BOSLS: Agility:7 + Pistols: 7 + Smartlink: 2 + Aim: 1 + Adept Dice: 7
24 Total, Expected Successes: 8
MM: Reaction: 3
3 Total, Expected Success: 1
Net Difference: 7
Summary: It will be a given that in a normal situation, with that kind of power, a character that has nearly maxed out the system in a task will easily outperform the 'lesser mortals' that plague this earth. With that understood, there is no big surprise here.
Scenario#2 (Horrible atmospheric modifiers)
BOSLS: Agility: 7 + Pistols: 7 + Smartlink: 2 + Aim: 1 + Adept Dice: 7 - Mods: 12
12 Total, Expected Success: 4
MM: Reaction 3
3 Total, Expected Success: 1
Net Difference: 3
Summary: The crux of our presented problem, then, stems from the belief that despite somehow being 'skilled' far, far, far beyond mortal means, our character should still be bound inside a performance that is 'Reasonable' when a situation get's extreme. In this case, despite -HEAVY- penalties, our BOSLS still easily hits MM.
Scenario#3 (Horrible atmospheric modifiers, proposed solution)
BOSLS: Agility: 7 + Pistols: 7 + Smartlink: 2 + Aim: 1 + Adept Dice: 7
24 Total, Expected Success: 8
MM: Reaction 3 + Mods: 12
15 Total, Expected Success: 5
Net Difference: 3
Summary: By instead of applying penalties against the performance of our BOSLS, but applying them as a bonus to the performance of our MM, we find that the Net Difference should -average- (After an infinite number of tests) a net difference of 3. Like our previous test. However, we have mechanically altered the system fairly dramatically, in a minimal change: By decreasing the comparative difference between the number of dice thrown, we have introduced the possibility of more deviance from 'average' probability in the count of successes that were otherwise contained inside the result of one or two successes. The Net result has not changed, so far as averages are concerned, but our BOSLS no longer effectively throws 400% the amount of dice as MM. He'll now throw less than 200%. Where previously, our standard of deviation for the mook was a minute number of successes, it can potentially range much higher at a rate constant with expected averages. Ahh, fun with linearity.
To clarify, where previously our Mook could not possibly roll the same number of successes as the average roll of the BOSLS, now it is possible, but still retains the same linear curve as the previous system.
Scenario#4
BOSLS: Agility 7 + Pistols: 7 + Smartlink: 2 + Aim: 1 + Adept Dice: 7
24 Total, Expected Success: 8
MM: Reaction: 3 + Edge: 3 + Mods: 12, exploding.
18 Total, Expected Successes: 7
Net Difference: 1
Summary: After tweaking our linearity, we have further altered the system by introducing the exploding possibility of sixes, through edge. As our mook rolls 18 dice, 6 of which will likely be successes, three of which will likely explode, one of which will likely become another success, we see that the gap has closed further. Further, we have increased deviation -even farther-, leading to the possibility that throw the saving graces of the Dice Gods, our Mook may survive an encounter with a literal DemiGod. At least long enough to radio for backup.
In conclusion: I have not extensively playtested this at the broad levels of play experienced in this game. I do not know how it works at lower levels. I do not know how it works at mid range levels. But I do know that the mechanic is simple and nearly transparent to implement. And when their are instances when there are modifiers, not opponents, working against the character, the GM can neatly set aside a number of dice equal to the situational modifiers, and apply any successes against the player's total. A GM can let the player know what the modifiers will be, or now he can effectively apply 'secret' modifiers, unknown to the players.
-And- this will address the issue those of you have brought up, regarding players being simply unable to successfully perform an action, simply by not having any dice to roll, to begin with.
If I have made any oversights, by all means, please correct me. If anyone would like to run with this concept, or add additions of their own, by all means, please do so. And naturally, this alteration may not be necessary in the majority of games. It is, however, an entirely available tool to 'repair' what is perceived as 'broken'.
-RM
*EDIT: Adept Dice totals correctly changed to 7 in all scenarios.*
Full Version: ShadowRun Solutions...
That helps some--it's in the same spirit of the "make all penalties threshold increases" suggestions that have been made.
It only helps opposed tests, though. You need another mechanic to use on non-opposed tests. I suppose you could create a virtual opponent who rolls against you. Edit--whoops, as hobgoblin pointed out, you already suggested this.
It increases the number of dice, though, so if you're after really fast-playing games, it might not be such a good idea. For less frantic use, it could be a considerable help.
It only helps opposed tests, though. You need another mechanic to use on non-opposed tests. I suppose you could create a virtual opponent who rolls against you. Edit--whoops, as hobgoblin pointed out, you already suggested this.
It increases the number of dice, though, so if you're after really fast-playing games, it might not be such a good idea. For less frantic use, it could be a considerable help.
| QUOTE |
| It only helps opposed tests, though. You need another mechanic to use on non-opposed tests. I suppose you could create a virtual opponent who rolls against you. |
check the quote below. i think its allready coverd. and in a nice way to boot.
| QUOTE |
| And when their are instances when there are modifiers, not opponents, working against the character, the GM can neatly set aside a number of dice equal to the situational modifiers, and apply any successes against the player's total. A GM can let the player know what the modifiers will be, or now he can effectively apply 'secret' modifiers, unknown to the players. |
it even allows for a gm to load the dice so to speak. roll the dice behind a screen, but if the outcome may well ruin the story or similar, declare a diffrent result
Editted -- I screwed up the char gen math and now I'm at work and shouldn't posting here anyway
I guess I don't really understand the problem yet. Yes, this chracter is powerful, but he's also a one-trick-pony and, thus, has a number of weaknesses that could be exploited by a well organized team.
So far, Iīm not one of the lucky book owners. Did your example take the threshold into consideration? On the matter of variability, increasing the number of dice used (by keeping negative mod dice in game), should result in a reduced variability.
Big Bad gets even closer to 1/3 of his pool in hits, while MMs chances of hit numbers outside the norm are reduced.
Your argument of increased edge power is correct - I donīt like that at all, but my own SR3 characters come with a compulsive bad karma-flaw. YMMV.
Additionally, I am not concerned of one-shot-kills of unarmored, slow, not-even-dodging targets by extreme-end munchkins, regardless of condition. If you are, ban munchkin-builds from your game. A just-say-no solution like Dashifen said.
Big Bad gets even closer to 1/3 of his pool in hits, while MMs chances of hit numbers outside the norm are reduced.
Your argument of increased edge power is correct - I donīt like that at all, but my own SR3 characters come with a compulsive bad karma-flaw. YMMV.
Additionally, I am not concerned of one-shot-kills of unarmored, slow, not-even-dodging targets by extreme-end munchkins, regardless of condition. If you are, ban munchkin-builds from your game. A just-say-no solution like Dashifen said.
| QUOTE (Rolemodel) |
| One thing we can all agree on is that Fourth Edition Shadowrun is a dramatic mechanical departure from it's predecessor. Some of us favor this change, and some of us do not. What I would like to believe is that those of us who are looking forward to it will not be so blind to believe it will not have it's own downfalls, while those of us who have reservations will not throw it out as unable to be saved. Perhaps, then, it is possible to address concerns, and find a happy medium? |
Speaking personally Rolemodel I'm not sure that your worthy goal of a compromise is possible. The mechanics of SR3 and SR4 are too different. Many of the things which, if I have understood your posts on other threads correctly, you consider flaws in the SR3 system corrected in SR4; I consider strengths. I personally like a variable TN, I like the idea of dice pools (although I agree with you that their implementation in SR3 left a lot to be desired). I like the profound separation of Rigging and Decking, likewise Hermetic Mages and Shamen. In my opinion the changes introduced by FanPro were not those that were needed.
However, these points are now moot. SR4 is here, and this is the direction that FanPro are taking Shadowrun. As I believe that the fundamental change in the rules mechanics, variable to fixed TNs is a step in the wrong direction, I do not see how a 'minor' change in the SR4 mechanic could correct this.
This is of course only my opinion. I hope that you and others that feel the way you do can reach a compromise.
That is perfectly understandable. Shadowrun Third edition, afterall, is quite a fine game, and I can certainly understand reluctance to shift away from it. An objection to the system at it's most fundamental level suggests that it would require a change at the most fundamental level to correct.
While I won't offer any insight into it's -fundamental- change, I certainly think there may be room to improve aspects of it's surface. And I would be happy to see or read any suggestions that would address such.
And, naturally, I wish those of you that will maintain your loyalty to SRIII the best of luck. It is, as I've said many times, an excellent system, and what I believe to be drastically superior to many alternative systems out there.
-RM
While I won't offer any insight into it's -fundamental- change, I certainly think there may be room to improve aspects of it's surface. And I would be happy to see or read any suggestions that would address such.
And, naturally, I wish those of you that will maintain your loyalty to SRIII the best of luck. It is, as I've said many times, an excellent system, and what I believe to be drastically superior to many alternative systems out there.
-RM
| QUOTE (hahnsoo) |
| I personally think the best way to house rule the supposed problem of attributes being weighted higher than skills is to simply limit the net hits available by the skill being used (if any... there are several tests that don't use skills at all), as suggested by one of the folks earlier (can't remember who at the moment). This way, skill is valuable (you can't achieve extraordinary success without high skill), but attributes are valuable as well (a raw talent with a single skill point can still do a task pretty consistently). A similar mechanic already exists for Magic (net hits are limited by the spell's Force), so it's analogous to that. Best of all, you don't radically change the original dice mechanic. I think in my group, we are going to make it optional for the GM to impose that limitation. Call it an "Expertise Skill test", which simply means that the net hits are limited by the base skill, and use that for any technically limited tasks. |
I took the liberty of moving this quote over into this thread, as I believe it directly applies, and could be an excellent approach/alternative. Nice work, Hahnsoo!
Adding to it slightly, with an aim at reworking the effect exactly, I would propose another approach could be as follows:
Limit the -total- number of successes that can be acheived in skill test, prior to being compared for 'net' successes, to (Linked Attribute)/(2) + Skill rating.
This addresses several key issues that have cropped up, and serves in the following functions:
1) 'One Trick Ponies', as much as anyone else, will be limited to a total number of successes that excludes additional dice due to Adept Powers, Cyberware, Specializations, etc. Basing the -total- available level of success available to character on aspects that can be achieved outside of special abilities, levels the playing field, but by lowering the ceiling, leaves room open for these specialists to hit this cap more often, and retain effectiveness through consistency rather than overwhelming effect.
2) This will shift the weight effectively from attributes and skills by allowing for character's who are naturally talented to be appropriately successful, but forces that effectiveness inside a range comlimentary to their skill.
3) This mechanic is simple, effective, and seamlessly integrated into the system. Players simply note what their maximum success threshold is, and count successes until that threshold is reached, prior to application into an opposed test.
4) This mechanic can be transparently applied across the board, from mundanes to magicians.
5) It compliments the current standards imposed on Adept Dice, Cyberware, and Specializations.
6) It can fairly be applied across the board: An average attribute, average professional skilled NPC can achieve up to 5 successes on a threshold test; More than enough to accomplish even the most demanding tasks, with a little luck, inguinity, or patience.
7) This could introduce an additional feature of the edge attribute, allowing more deviation into the system: Overlooking this limitation at the expenditure of a single edge point.
-Rolemodel
"I haven't figured out how to say 'FUCK YOU' politely."
EDIT: *Note: Damage resolution tests, and Reaction tests due to combat -are not- skill based tests, and will not be subject to this mechanic. It is exclusive to tests involving degrees of skill, and not basic subject composition.
The idea has some merit, but it also has some flaws.
- The expected number of hits is only (attribute + skill + stuff)/3. When might you start reaching the cap often? When (attribute+skill+stuff)/3 = attribute/2+skill--that is, when stuff is more than attribute/2 + 2*skill. But that's pretty close to the limit already--attributes can't be raised by more than attribute/2, and adept bonuses can't (unless they've changed since SR3) exceed skill, and there's still another skill's worth of points left over! So the limit doesn't do much to one-trick ponies.
- It does shift the weight to skills more, at least when you have bonuses. When you have penalties, attributes reign supreme again, because the penalties will limit your hits anyway. This seems kind of backwards--the highly skilled do best in easy conditions? Seems to me I've heard someone argue against that before. Edit--if you mean to combine this with the "give penalties as bonuses to the opponent" mechanic, then it might work, but the opponent would then be in danger of exceedingly this limit, and a virtual opponent would have a limit of zero, which wouldn't work at all.
- The mechanic is fairly simple.
- The mechanic can be applied across the board.
- It sort of complements current standards, but that's what makes it partly redundant (see point 1).
- The application seems to allow sufficiently difficult tasks.
- The edge idea is interesting.
I absolutely love the idea of rolling modifiers and deducting hits. It effectively repairs the most broken part of the mechanics. As for not slowing down the game too much by having a bixillion dice to roll, I'm considering mixing the official mechanic with the one RM proposed. For example, modifiers could be deduced from the pool to roll until you reach a certain number of dice in the pool, say 12, and you roll the difference. For example, say, skill+attribute+bonuses=20, and there are 14 dice in negative modifiers. Then, the character could roll 12 dice and the GM rolls a modifiers pool of (14-(20-12)=) 6 dice.
The 12-dice limit is a number I pulled out of my a**. Different groups can decide whatever number of dice limit they are comfortable with, but in the example I gave, it would mean rolling 18 dice total instead of 34, and I think it could be a big time-saver over the course of a whole game. Sure, you have to count the dice, but it's not exactly advanced calculus either. Plus, it would limit the power of Edge a bit as you would reroll on 12 dice instead of 20. [EDIT FOR CLARITY: Only 12 explosive dice instead of 20+...]
It would reduce the variability of the test results a bit as there would be fewer dice, but I think a 12-dice pool is still variable enough to allow for extraordinary results to happen every now and then.
As for a limit on the number of hits linked to skill, I'm not sure yet. I'll probably want to use one in some way, but I don't know the rules well enough yet to figure out what kind of mechanic would be appropriate for that. (I still don't have the book.
)
Good job RM!
The 12-dice limit is a number I pulled out of my a**. Different groups can decide whatever number of dice limit they are comfortable with, but in the example I gave, it would mean rolling 18 dice total instead of 34, and I think it could be a big time-saver over the course of a whole game. Sure, you have to count the dice, but it's not exactly advanced calculus either. Plus, it would limit the power of Edge a bit as you would reroll on 12 dice instead of 20. [EDIT FOR CLARITY: Only 12 explosive dice instead of 20+...]
It would reduce the variability of the test results a bit as there would be fewer dice, but I think a 12-dice pool is still variable enough to allow for extraordinary results to happen every now and then.
As for a limit on the number of hits linked to skill, I'm not sure yet. I'll probably want to use one in some way, but I don't know the rules well enough yet to figure out what kind of mechanic would be appropriate for that. (I still don't have the book.
)Good job RM!
Hmmm... Instead of using the arbitrary number 12, I guess we could look at the probabilities of accomplishing various tasks under various conditions and levels of skill/attribute/bonuses. I won't try to do anything like that until I get the PDF though.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.