mfb

There most probably are ways to fix this problem, but I'll need to think about it some more, and I suspect the solutions to be somewhat dependant on what the circumstances are, i.e. what it is that you really need to succeed. In the above example, how would you even know that there is something to shoot at if you can't see anything and the thing is at long range? How far is long range for a rifle? 301 to 700 meters for a sniper in SR3... Let's say you heard the guy yell in the distance and have a general idea of his location because of it. A 78% chance of hitting the guy - if he doesn't know you're shooting at him, he can't dodge, right? - seems much too high.

We need a mechanic that allows for slim chances of success out of sheer luck, as you said, and slightly better chances of success for people with higher skill, but we need to avoid the type of situation mentioned above.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by diminishing returns on skill though. I think there are circumstances where there is increasing returns, other with constant returns and yet others with diminishing returns. Hmmm... I don't know enough about the particulars of SR4 yet to see how it does on this point.

I'm with you 100% on the shot-in-the dark thing. I wonder why they ever put a modifyer for blind fire inro SR (3 as well as 4). As a GM I would only allow that shot if the attacker has a good chance of guessing where the opponent is because he saw him run behind a wall for cover or can hear him talking behind a door. A yell in the distance is not enough information to know where to aim a gun unless you are a bat.

What I meant with diminishing returns has something to do with that problem (the term is borrowed from Ellery IIRC). It means that as you get better i.e. your dice pool becomes bigger, you will feel the benefit from each additional die less and less. In SR3 that means for a TN of 3 your chance of success will go up 25% if you have 1 die and add another one. If you have 10 dice, the eleventh will not get you 25% nearer to your goal but more like 0.05%. Each additional die will improve your chances but by a smaller and smaller fraction. That way you can never reach a 100% chance.
In a d20 system getting better and better at something will eventually accumulate enough boni so that you can attempt certain things with impunity because they just can't go wrong. Every point increases your chance by exactly 5% - even up to 100%.

I think the modifier is exactly for such "good chance of guessing" situations.

It's another point of negative modifiers that can be ignored. Already it's possible to build people who can shrug off massive wounds and total darkness, for example. A few more levels and you can be tap-dancing on top of it all.

~J

I'd disagree with you on that point but thats me. My views on the subject have been tossed down for thinking abstractly and not just completely at the numbers.

Eh...I think its prety much there but once again my view relies on abstract thought.

Yup thats in sr4 with longshot tests and edge.

well the horribly flawed example from the next guy that you agree'd with would certainly show thats possible in sr4.

Well I honestly am not sure what you mean by that.

Assuming you're meaning stat wise, I'd prety much say its there in sr4 ut then again i think theres more to character development than just you know writing stats on a piece of paper. Oh wait, sorry thinking abstractly again.

Its there in sr4.

There in sr4,3,2 and 1

That I don't completely agree with. Here's why. If you make adepts just like sammies without technology, then realy whats the difference? Yes I think theres should be a little more ballance, but making them the same is not a good solution. Each path should have its own distinct advantages and disadvantages.

Such as? To me theres plenty of different ways you can use the sr4 system as is to acomidate a wealth of different playing styles. From the guy who wants to play the burned out mage, or up and coming mage. To the guy who wants to play detective. To even the guy who wants to play the grizzled combat vet (yeah i know some of you don't think that thats possible).

Passed them off many times. Got yelled at that it gives the GM power, and thats apparently a bad thing. My ideas involve actualy roleplaying.

Such as the difference with skill and attribute costs and the benefits and whatnot. Training times, justification Higher something gets, more time that you need to train.

Or lets even just think of what skills mean. Skills are a measure of how much you know in a subject. Just because you have the same dice pool does not mean you are equal. Such as Logic 4 computers 1 vs Logic 2 computers 3. Same dice pool. And so far 99% of the people here have argued that they can do the exact same thing.

Attributes represent natural tallent. Skills measure experiance and practical knowledge. Tallent is no replacement for actual knowledge. I'd argue that the person with computers 3 could do a few things and know a few more things than the guy with computers 1 but logic 4. But the response I got from the majority of people is that thats bad GMing because they have the same dice pool. I shouldn't give someone the advantage of practical knowledge and such.


As for character development, roleplaying. What is a character? Is he just numbers on a page? Which seems to be the popular thought here. Or is he more. Same with NPC's. I've learned alot from my friend who's my exalted GM by being his player. NPC's aren't just nameless faceless cardboard cutouts. NPC's have lives, motivations, goals. Especialy antagonists. PC development isn't just raising skills, it isn't just adding numbers on the page. Its also growing that resentment towards trolls, or that thirst for revenge against the guy who's been screwing them outa nuyen.