Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Shadowdancer <BRIDDLE@*****.VINU.EDU>
Subject: Botch
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 12:53:02 EST
An idea that i was toying with. This idea came about while my group
was on the last run. Seems that they get rather lucky way to often.

The idea is this: The current botch rules in SR say that a botch
occurs when a player rolls all ones. So far, no one in the group has
rolled all ones, yet on two seperate occasions, the NPCs have
botched twice. I was thinking on using the botch rules in the White
Wolf "World of Darkness" series of games. For those of you who do
not know what these rules are, they state: For every one the player
rolls, it negates one success. If this reduces successes to nothing,
then the action has failed. If at any time there are more ones then
successes, the roll results in a botch.

Considering karma pools, this seems to be a good ruling. What do
you think?(People who play with me, we will discuss this later.)


-----------------------------------------|
*****************QUOTE:***************** |
-----------------------------------------|
"Don't move!"
"Nonsense, by all means, move."-Tombstone

Shadowdancer<BRIDDLE@*****.VINU.EDU>
|Geek Code| GB d--(-d+) H+ s:+>s g+>!g p? au-- a-- w+++
v+ c+(++++) U--- P? !L !3 E? !N K- W M-- !V -po+ Y+ t !5
j R++ G+ tv+ b++ D+ B--- e+ u---(**) h f r++ !n y++(**)
Message no. 2
From: Jan-bart van Beek <flake@***.DDS.NL>
Subject: Re: botch
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 19:11:10 +0100
Seems like pretty darn right idea. Have you tested it lately.

Another thing, what is it with karma. The rules state that you may use a
single karma pool dice to reroll all of your failures. If that's right
then what's the use of using a KPD as an extra dice in any test.
Why would you want A single extra dice if you can throw all of your
failures all over for the same price.


--------------------------------------------------------------
| Beware of what you ask for you may recieve it |
--------------------------------------------------------------

**** The Cornflake Killer Strikes again ****
Message no. 3
From: "Wesley W. Walker" <wwalker@****.UARK.EDU>
Subject: Re: Botch
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 12:10:19 -0600
Shadowdancer wrote:

> An idea that i was toying with. This idea came about while my group
> was on the last run. Seems that they get rather lucky way to often.

[stuff about botch rules used in WW]

> Considering karma pools, this seems to be a good ruling. What do
> you think?(People who play with me, we will discuss this later.)

I think that it's actually a pretty good idea... then again, I haven't
played much of SR. but it works well in WW. The thing in SR, though..
The better you are.. represented by the number of dice you have, the less
likely you are to *REALLY* F**K up. If you only have two dice in a
skill, then you have a pretty good chance of rolling two ones and blowing
it... But if you have six dice, ie a *very* good rating in a skill then
you are *WAY* less likely to blow your self up setting that bomb.

Besides, in WW, there is only a 1 in 10 chance of rolling in one, whereas
in SR, there is a 1 in 6 chance! Yeesh! But both systems support the
number of successes, but WW is strictly successes (determining how well
you did it), whereas SR is target numbered (I'm talking about the target
numbers of ten on *really* difficult rolls) with the 'Rule of Six', ie,
either you did it or you didn't. Simple as that. I don't know. I'd
like to hear how it works out for you though. :)

\||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||/
- Wes W. Walker (wwalker@****.uark.edu) * "...in large, friendly letters -
- CSCI Major and General Slave * were the words 'DON'T PANIC'." -
- Artiste Wanna-be (accepting donations)* -Hitch Hiker's Guide -
/||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||\
Message no. 4
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Botch
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 14:04:12 -0500
>>>>> "Shadowdancer" == Shadowdancer
<BRIDDLE@*****.VINU.EDU> writes:

Shadowdancer> I was thinking on using the botch rules in the White Wolf
Shadowdancer> "World of Darkness" series of games.

Don't; they're seriously hosed. The problem is that at the higher
difficulties (7+), your chances of botching actually increase with the
number of dice you roll. Ie, a "master" rolling 10 dice at a T#9 is more
likely to botch than a novice rolling 3 dice at the same T#.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> |Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox|unknown glowing substance which fell to
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! |Earth, presumably from outer space.
Message no. 5
From: Shadowdancer <BRIDDLE@*****.VINU.EDU>
Subject: Re: botch
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 14:30:36 EST
Jan-bart again:

> Another thing, what is it with karma. The rules state that you may
use a
> single karma pool dice to reroll all of your failures. If that's right
> then what's the use of using a KPD as an extra dice in any test.
> Why would you want A single extra dice if you can throw all of your
> failures all over for the same price.
>

Are you playing first ed.? In SRII, one Karma pool point could be used
to reroll one failure, not one point for many failures. And buying dice
is a cheap way to roll more successes then you have. Say your
character gets hit with a predater, and the attacker gets 8 successes.
That is a deadly wound with four extra. Your character has a Body of
two, karma of six. You could either by six dice, have eight to roll, or
you could by six success. The first way guarantees that you will still
have karma pool after the encounter, whether or not you live, the
second way leaves you karma-less, yet you will live.(This scenerio
assumes the use of the over-kill rules in FoF, and that the recieving
character has not been injured.)


-----------------------------------------|
*****************QUOTE:***************** |
-----------------------------------------|
"Don't move!"
"Nonsense, by all means, move."-Tombstone

Shadowdancer<BRIDDLE@*****.VINU.EDU>
|Geek Code| GB d--(-d+) H+ s:+>s g+>!g p? au-- a-- w+++
v+ c+(++++) U--- P? !L !3 E? !N K- W M-- !V -po+ Y+ t !5
j R++ G+ tv+ b++ D+ B--- e+ u---(**) h f r++ !n y++(**)
Message no. 6
From: Chris Lubrecht <lubrecht@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Botch
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 07:44:04 -0500
On Fri, 11 Nov 1994, Shadowdancer wrote:

> An idea that i was toying with. This idea came about while my group
> was on the last run. Seems that they get rather lucky way to often.
>
> The idea is this: The current botch rules in SR say that a botch
> occurs when a player rolls all ones. So far, no one in the group has
> rolled all ones, yet on two seperate occasions, the NPCs have
> botched twice. I was thinking on using the botch rules in the White
> Wolf "World of Darkness" series of games. For those of you who do
> not know what these rules are, they state: For every one the player
> rolls, it negates one success. If this reduces successes to nothing,
> then the action has failed. If at any time there are more ones then
> successes, the roll results in a botch.
>
> Considering karma pools, this seems to be a good ruling. What do
> you think?

I have played in games that use this system. (Shadowrun games taht is).
I find it makes everything a whole lot deadlier, and also causes the game
to drag out more. Less actions get accomplishes, ect. The only problem
I can see with useing the WW system is that they base thier whole system
on d10, SRII is based on d6. Different odds make it harder to get PC to
actually gain successes. Try instead a rule that is mostly ones (what I
use). ex. PC rolls 6 dice, 4 come up 1, PC botches. It works for me,
I dunno, just my thoughts.

Nigel
Message no. 7
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Botch
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 00:00:06 +1100
One of the optional rules in FoF deals with a different method of
determining if characters botch rolls or not. It seemed pretty OK, although I
can't see it making an awful lot of difference. It went something along the
lines of if a character rolled ones on dice equal to or exceeding the base
number of skill dice used, then it was a botch. Now, that being about as
clear as mud, I'll further explain, through the use of examples, what
exactly it is. Say I had a firearms skill of 5, and was fireing with 4 dice
from my combat pool. That gives me a total of 9 dice, with a base number of
skill dice equal to 5. So if of the 9 dice, 5 or more come up ones, then I
rooted up. This still means that someone with a skill of 6 is pretty safe,
but it does increase the chance of them stuffing up. Actually, if they throw
in lots of Pool dice and Karma dice, then the chance of stuffing up actually
increases. Bit strange that. I wonder if FASA considered that when they put
the rule in.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong e-mail: u9467882@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+(d) H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v(?) C+(++) US++ P? L !3 E?
N K- W+ M@ !V po@ Y(+) t+ !5 !j R+(++) G(+)('') !tv(--)@ b++ D+
B? e+ u@ h* f(+) !r n--(----) !y+
Message no. 8
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Botch
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 23:46:57 +1100
Shadowdancer suggests:

> For every one the player rolls, it negates one success. If this reduces
> successes to nothing, then the action has failed. If at any time there
> are more ones then successes, the roll results in a botch.

Aargh! No!

This would _severely_ distort the system, making everything harder.
Especially since the expected number of 1's equals the expected
number of 6's. As a simple example, skill 6 degrades to skill 4
(one 1 will cancel one 6). The rules as written often require a
certain threshold to be achieved before you get an effect. You'd
be warping the whole system.

When we played Vampire, it seemed that the more dice I had to roll,
the worse the result I got (yeah, I'm good with dice - not).

Do you see that the results of the rolls become far more variable?
And simple failures and poor successes become much more likely, too.

Using these rules, whenever you try a difficult task, you're likely
to fumble! And this is not for very difficult tasks - it's true
even for tasks with a TN of 6.

I know of no perfectly satisfactory rule for fumbles - though our house
rule of "half or more of all dice rolls coming up 1's", is not too bad.
We had 3 fumbles in our last game, for instance. (I even once
managed to fumble a spell cast with 14 dice - I told you I was good
with dice!)

At the worst, I'd suggest: more 1's rolled than 4-and-above; but
without the success-cancelling properties of the White Wolf scheme.

So, if you rolled 1, 2, 2, 3, 3 then you've fumbled. But 1, 2, 3, 3, 4
you haven't. In fact, if the TN was 4, you got a bare success.

It's a bit more complex than _our_ house rule, but it doesn't have
bad properties (like extremely likely fumbles when target numbers
are high, nor increased chance of fumble the more dice you use).
And it gives a higher chance than our house rule (which makes it
still quite rare, but not as astronomically rare as the standard rule).

luke
Message no. 9
From: Matt Hufstetler <gt2778a@*****.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: botch
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 14:15:30 -0500
> Jan-bart again:
>
> > Another thing, what is it with karma. The rules state that you may
> use a
> > single karma pool dice to reroll all of your failures. If that's right
> > then what's the use of using a KPD as an extra dice in any test.
> > Why would you want A single extra dice if you can throw all of your
> > failures all over for the same price.
> >
Shadowdancer Writes:
>
> Are you playing first ed.? In SRII, one Karma pool point could be used
> to reroll one failure, not one point for many failures. And buying dice
> is a cheap way to roll more successes then you have. Say your

I believe that you get to re-roll all your failing dice for one point.
However it takes two more points to reroll again. Six points of karma
pool to roll three extra times.
Message no. 10
From: Shadowdancer <BRIDDLE@*****.VINU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Botch
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 12:53:55 EST
More debate:

> On Fri, 11 Nov 1994, Shadowdancer wrote:
>
> > An idea that i was toying with. This idea came about while my
group
> > was on the last run. Seems that they get rather lucky way to
often.
> >


> actually gain successes. Try instead a rule that is mostly ones
(what I
> use). ex. PC rolls 6 dice, 4 come up 1, PC botches. It works for
me,
> I dunno, just my thoughts.
>
In essance, this is the same system. I am just trying to make it
harder on the PCs without haveing to upstage the adventures. Like
haveing 60 trolls with bodys of 16, milspec armor, wired three with
tacs, and vindicators with APDS explosive whatever.


-----------------------------------------|
*****************QUOTE:***************** |
-----------------------------------------|
"Say Hello Riff!!!"
"Hello."-Rocky Horror Picture Show party.

Shadowdancer<BRIDDLE@*****.VINU.EDU>
|Geek Code| GB d--(-d+) H+ s:+>s g+>!g p? au-- a-- w+++
v+ c+(++++) U--- P? !L !3 E? !N K- W M-- !V -po+ Y+ t !5
j R++ G+ tv+ b++ D+ B--- e+ u---(**) h f r++ !n y++(**)
Message no. 11
From: Erik S Jameson <esj@***.UUG.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Botch
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 12:41:26 -0700
Okay, time for me to weigh in here...

We have been using a very similar system down here in Tucson for quite a
while now, and it works very well. Ones are failures, and if you get
more ones than failures, you do an "oops". Such as having your gun jam
or something (right Mike?). However, we also say that on TN of less than
6, all sixes rolled are rerolls. Not adding to the number, but true
rerolls. So it is possible, by having only four original dice to roll,
to end up having 5 or more. It's a very easy and workable system. Maybe
makes it a little more deadly thouhgh...

Erik, a.k.a. the Whistler
Message no. 12
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Botch
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 16:18:29 -0500
On Mon, 14 Nov 1994, Shadowdancer wrote:

> In essance, this is the same system. I am just trying to make it
> harder on the PCs without haveing to upstage the adventures. Like
> haveing 60 trolls with bodys of 16, milspec armor, wired three with
> tacs, and vindicators with APDS explosive whatever.

Looks like I'll have to go on this rant again...

You don't NEED to have 60 trolls of monumental hugeness to challenge your
party. Shadowrun is deadly enough, especially if you use ALL of the
target number modifiers (in my campaign, the typical fire-fight target
numbers average around 8, 'cause EVERYBODY uses what little cover they
can find, half the time the light conditions suck, and the rest of the
time people are moving. Just like real combat...go figure.) It gets
fairly difficult even for skilled experienced characters to "walk all
over" the opposition.
The most challenging opponent for the typical party of PC's is
one that THINKS. Don't have your goons charge openly into combat. Most
people have a fairly strong self-preservation instinct that will
generally make them use any cover they can find. Better still, play them
in a tactically sound manner. Security guards do receive a bit of
tactical training now. Imagine what the corporate security forces of
2055 are taught ("...and that, men, is how you flank and encircle.")
You will find that if you are smart with them, you can make a
squad of armed sec-goons a serious force to be reckoned with.

BTW, I posted it a while back, but it might have been before you
subscribed. It was a blurb on the basic principles of tactical urban
combat. If you want them let me know, and that goes for anybody else,
too. I guarantee, your players will hate you for them. ;)

Marc
Message no. 13
From: Matt <mosbun@******.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Botch
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 17:18:59 EST
>
> BTW, I posted it a while back, but it might have been before you
> subscribed. It was a blurb on the basic principles of tactical urban
> combat. If you want them let me know, and that goes for anybody else,
> too. I guarantee, your players will hate you for them. ;)

Sure, post 'em or E-mail them to me.

Matt
Message no. 14
From: Shadowdancer <BRIDDLE@*****.VINU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Botch
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 17:53:38 EST
Damion writes:

> but it does increase the chance of them stuffing up. Actually, if they
throw
> in lots of Pool dice and Karma dice, then the chance of stuffing up
actually
> increases. Bit strange that. I wonder if FASA considered that when
they put
> the rule in.
>
Maybe they are trying to lessen the effect of pool and karma dice?
This sounds reasonable. I did not read all of that rule the first time. I
will test both to see which one will work better.


-----------------------------------------|
*****************QUOTE:***************** |
-----------------------------------------|
"Say Hello Riff!!!"
"Hello."-Rocky Horror Picture Show party.

Shadowdancer<BRIDDLE@*****.VINU.EDU>
|Geek Code| GB d--(-d+) H+ s:+>s g+>!g p? au-- a-- w+++
v+ c+(++++) U--- P? !L !3 E? !N K- W M-- !V -po+ Y+ t !5
j R++ G+ tv+ b++ D+ B--- e+ u---(**) h f r++ !n y++(**)
Message no. 15
From: Shadowdancer <BRIDDLE@*****.VINU.EDU>
Subject: Botch
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 19:10:08 EST
Sorry to Whoever. I was under the impression that the reroll was for
any failures in that scene, not for rerolling individual dice. In
essance:

One failure reroll = One Karma
One failure = however many dice.

Basically "what Damion said"(Think we can Trademark this??)


-----------------------------------------|
*****************QUOTE:***************** |
-----------------------------------------|
"Say Hello Riff!!!"
"Hello."-Rocky Horror Picture Show party.

Shadowdancer<BRIDDLE@*****.VINU.EDU>
|Geek Code| GB d--(-d+) H+ s:+>s g+>!g p? au-- a-- w+++
v+ c+(++++) U--- P? !L !3 E? !N K- W M-- !V -po+ Y+ t !5
j R++ G+ tv+ b++ D+ B--- e+ u---(**) h f r++ !n y++(**)
Message no. 16
From: Nightfox <DJWA@******.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Botch
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 18:04:29 -0700
Erik, a.k.a. the Whistler writes:
>or something (right Mike?). However, we also say that on TN of less than
>6, all sixes rolled are rerolls. Not adding to the number, but true
>rerolls. So it is possible, by having only four original dice to roll,
>to end up having 5 or more. It's a very easy and workable system. Maybe
>makes it a little more deadly thouhgh...

another variation on this thought is to give an extra success for those times
when you double (or maybe even triple the TN). I tend to do this only in
situations when its needed or when the player rolls REALLY good.

Like the one player who used to roll 15+ almost everytime the dice hit the
table. It can get messy for combat with the large amounts of dice, but it
works really well for other tests without Dice pools like Electronics. I tend
to think of it as the player exceding his normal capabilities.

Nightfox
Message no. 17
From: "David L. Hoff" <DLHOFF@****.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Botch
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 21:48:00 CDT
Nightfox writes:

[stuff about rolling multiple times the TN gives extra successes]

Problems with something like this are that you have to do it all the time,
with every success test, to make it fair. Also, combat will be a _lot_
deadlier.

In a somewhat related manner, my old group had an interesting house rule.
Whenever rolling successes, you kept re-rolling until you found out what
the highest number was... for example, if your TNs were only fours, but you
rolled some sixes, you would roll them over, even though you knew they were
already successes. You would keep following the rule of six, till you found
out what the highest success was. If it was the highest one done so far by
anyone in the group, then the test was automatically a "complete success",
kind of the opposite of a botch. Something *Really Good* would happen,
determined by the situation.

Just for those who may be curious, I believe the highest total for a single
success in our group was a 45.

--Phoenix
dlhoff@****.wisc.edu
Message no. 18
From: Paul Finch <pfinch@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Botch
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 15:53:57 -0700
On Mon, 14 Nov 1994, Matt wrote:

> >
> > BTW, I posted it a while back, but it might have been before you
> > subscribed. It was a blurb on the basic principles of tactical urban
> > combat. If you want them let me know, and that goes for anybody else,
> > too. I guarantee, your players will hate you for them. ;)
>
> Sure, post 'em or E-mail them to me.
>
> Matt
>
Iwantonealso!!!!!BeingthecombatguruIwishiam!:)
Edge
Message no. 19
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Botch
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 11:32:49 -0500
On Tue, 15 Nov 1994, Paul Finch wrote:

> Iwantonealso!!!!!BeingthecombatguruIwishiam!:)

What? Explain please. I think I missed something in the (lack of)
translation...

Marc
Message no. 20
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Botch
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 14:16:57 +1100
Marc writes:

> > Iwantonealso!!!!!BeingthecombatguruIwishiam!:)
>
> What? Explain please. I think I missed something in the (lack of)
> translation...

I want one also!!!!! Being the combat guru I wish I am! :-)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong e-mail: u9467882@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+(d) H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v(?) C+(++) US++ P? L !3 E?
N K- W+ M@ !V po@ Y(+) t+ !5 !j R+(++) G(+)('') !tv(--)@ b++ D+
B? e+ u@ h* f(+) !r n--(----) !y+

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Botch, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!