Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Callum Shaw cshaw@***.com.au
Subject:	Centering vs Penalties
Date:	Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:15:35 +1000

Message no. 1 I've been going over the rules for centering vs penalties lately and it
seems to me that the system is slightly out of whack.

here is the example

A Person with average centering skill (4) is trying to center away a 1 point
penalty, the base target number 4 + 1, the average number of successes they
get is 1.3. As they require 2 successes to get rid of 1 point of penalties
this ain't gunna happen all that often and forget it if they are trying
higher penalties.

Example 2

An expert at centering (skill 7) is trying to center away a 2 point penalty,
base target number 4 + 2, the average number of successes they get is 1.15.
Once again as they need 2 successes to get a 1 point reduction in penalties
they get nowhere.

Now this doesn't seem quite right to me, I would expect the average person
to be able to deal with a 1 point penalty most of the time and an expert to
be able to knock down the 2 point most of the time, but as we use 6 sided
dice and the base target numbers go up from 5 for this task it seems that
the skill level required to be effective are out of balance with what the
skill levels are supposed to equate to in terms of a persons ability. 4 is
an average level of skill when it comes to any other skill listed in the
book yet for this skill on average it wont get you anywhere.

Does anyone else think the rules in this case are in need of a good whacking
or am I completely and utterly reading them the wrong way.

Comments would be appreciated.

Callum
(long time lurker, short time poster)

From:	Chris Maxfield cmaxfiel@****.org.au
Subject:	Centering vs Penalties
Date:	Mon, 23 Aug 1999 12:20:27 +1000

Message no. 2 At 11:15 23/08/99 +1000, Callum Shaw wrote:
>Does anyone else think the rules in this case are in need of a good whacking
>or am I completely and utterly reading them the wrong way.

Don't forget to subtract the Initiate's grade from the CAP target number.

Chris

From:	LOSLOBOS5@*.com LOSLOBOS5@*.com
Subject:	Centering vs Penalties
Date:	Mon, 23 Aug 1999 00:56:16 EDT

Message no. 3 You forgot the one other thing that needs to be done. The target number for
reducing the penaltyis actually (base target+ modifiers - initiate grade),
never lower than the original target. That makes it a bit more useful.

Los Lobos

From:	Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject:	Centering vs Penalties
Date:	Mon, 23 Aug 1999 12:34:17 +0200

Message no. 4 According to Callum Shaw, at 11:15 on 23 Aug 99, the word on
the street was...

[snip centering examples]
> Does anyone else think the rules in this case are in need of a good whacking
> or am I completely and utterly reading them the wrong way.

My guess to what's happening here is that you're doing statistics on the
rules, while the original author, whoever that may have been (Paul Hume,
Steve Kenson, or whoever) did not -- they IMHO are much more likely to
have written down something that felt right within the Shadowrun rules,
rather than try to figure out precisely how likely it is that a penalty of
X would be centered away by someone with a Centering skill of Y.

FWIW, much the same is to be the case with the Analyze Device spell --
every two successes give one point of skill. Try casting it on anything
worth analyzing, and you're looking at a TN of 8 or higher. Unlikely you
get even one success, let alone two or more. That means that the only
things you can really use the spell for, are those low-tech objects whose
function or method of operation is probably apparent anyway.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
De plaag is terug...!
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

From:	Lars Ericson lericson@****.edu
Subject:	Centering vs Penalties
Date:	Mon, 23 Aug 1999 09:15:46 -0500

Message no. 5 Gurth wrote:

> My guess to what's happening here is that you're doing statistics on the
> rules, while the original author, whoever that may have been (Paul Hume,
> Steve Kenson, or whoever) did not -- they IMHO are much more likely to
> have written down something that felt right within the Shadowrun rules,
> rather than try to figure out precisely how likely it is that a penalty of
> X would be centered away by someone with a Centering skill of Y.

That doesn't discount the ineffectiveness of the rules though. A game
designer needs to be acutely aware of probabilities, realism, and
game-balance when writing rules because otherwise they won't be used
(and hence don't add anything to the game) or will be abused.

I would sure hope that everyone that designs supplements and writes
rules in FASA or any game either does extensive out-sourced playtesting
or extensive in-house playtesting. They should also be familiar with
PLAYING the game and not just writing it.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Lars Ericson: Professional Vagabond
Smalley Research Group, Rice University
E-Mail: lericson@****.edu
WWW: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lericson/

Life is like a Wankel Engine. In between the emptiness of boredom and
despair, and the compression of stress in one's life, there's that one
spark of enjoyment that keeps you going.

From:	Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject:	Centering vs Penalties
Date:	Mon, 23 Aug 1999 19:33:12 +0200

Message no. 6 According to Lars Ericson, at 9:15 on 23 Aug 99, the word on
the street was...

> That doesn't discount the ineffectiveness of the rules though. A game
> designer needs to be acutely aware of probabilities, realism, and
> game-balance when writing rules because otherwise they won't be used
> (and hence don't add anything to the game) or will be abused.

Realism? In a magic system? LOL! <GridSec>Nobody shall even try to make a
"real life magic(k)" thread out of this -- and I mean it.</GridSec>

> I would sure hope that everyone that designs supplements and writes
> rules in FASA or any game either does extensive out-sourced playtesting
> or extensive in-house playtesting. They should also be familiar with
> PLAYING the game and not just writing it.

I'm sure most of them are (sourcebook authors, anyway; about the novel
authors, well, going by some of the novels, I'm pretty certain the author
has never played SR). But I have a feeling most of them try to write up
rules that "feel right" rather than ones that _play_ right. If you're a
good game designer, then those two will very often be the same thing. It
may need some tweaking based on actual use (read: testing) of the rule,
but often enough they should work pretty well.

However, I don't think every rule can be playtested. Think about the
amount of books that get written for games for a moment. Just the sheer
volume rules out extensive playtesting of every rule, either by the game
company or the author (especially the most prolific authors -- I doubt
they have the time to test everything even if they want to). Game
companies will want to play-test books that are very rules-heavy, but
apart from that...? Also, I doubt playtesting can cover everything --
problems are bound to appear even after a given set of rules has been
thoroughly tested.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
De plaag is terug...!
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

From:	Lars Ericson lericson@****.edu
Subject:	Centering vs Penalties
Date:	Mon, 23 Aug 1999 12:52:26 -0500

Message no. 7 Gurth wrote:

> However, I don't think every rule can be playtested. Think about the
> amount of books that get written for games for a moment. Just the sheer
> volume rules out extensive playtesting of every rule, either by the game
> company or the author (especially the most prolific authors -- I doubt
> they have the time to test everything even if they want to). Game
> companies will want to play-test books that are very rules-heavy, but
> apart from that...? Also, I doubt playtesting can cover everything --
> problems are bound to appear even after a given set of rules has been
> thoroughly tested.

I agree, but I can always hope for consistent and well playtested rules.
I guess that's what house rules are intended for.

If anyone's curious, I use an extensive amount of house rules that can
be found at:
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lericson/sr3house.html

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Lars Ericson: Professional Vagabond
Smalley Research Group, Rice University
E-Mail: lericson@****.edu
WWW: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lericson/

Life is like a Wankel Engine. In between the emptiness of boredom and
despair, and the compression of stress in one's life, there's that one
spark of enjoyment that keeps you going.

From:	Ereskanti@*.com Ereskanti@*.com
Subject:	Centering vs Penalties
Date:	Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:48:40 EDT

Message no. 8 In a message dated 8/23/1999 12:33:57 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
gurth@******.nl writes:

>
> However, I don't think every rule can be playtested. Think about the
> amount of books that get written for games for a moment. Just the sheer
> volume rules out extensive playtesting of every rule, either by the game
> company or the author (especially the most prolific authors -- I doubt
> they have the time to test everything even if they want to). Game
> companies will want to play-test books that are very rules-heavy, but
> apart from that...? Also, I doubt playtesting can cover everything --
> problems are bound to appear even after a given set of rules has been
> thoroughly tested.

Gurth is quite correct here. The idea of thoroughly playtesting every
possibility of a given rule, let alone a collection of rules, would be
mindboggling. That is part of the reason that playtesting groups (PLURAL)
are sought after. The trick is finding a good balance between your sampling
of groups and the efficiency of working out kinks that appear.

MitS is an example of this. Big sample group, and there were still the
occasional kink that appeared.

-K

From:	Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject:	Centering vs Penalties
Date:	Tue, 24 Aug 1999 13:09:17 +0200

Message no. 9 According to Lars Ericson, at 12:52 on 23 Aug 99, the word on
the street was...

> I agree, but I can always hope for consistent and well playtested rules.

In that case, what are you complaining about the MITS rules for? :)
They're consistent with the other SR rules, and AFAIK have been play-
tested to a large degree (just look at the credits).

> I guess that's what house rules are intended for.

Well, if you want to make Centering more powerful (after all, that's what
started this), you could always consider making the TN 2+mods instead of
4+mods. This should give you much better chances at removing penalties to
magic use.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
De plaag is terug...!
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

From:	Richard Tomasso rtomasso@*******.com
Subject:	Centering vs Penalties
Date:	Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:11:39 -0400 (EDT)

Message no. 10 Lars Ericson wrote:
>
> Gurth wrote:
>
> > My guess to what's happening here is that you're doing statistics on the
> > rules, while the original author, whoever that may have been (Paul Hume,
> > Steve Kenson, or whoever) did not -- they IMHO are much more likely to
> > have written down something that felt right within the Shadowrun rules,
> > rather than try to figure out precisely how likely it is that a penalty of
> > X would be centered away by someone with a Centering skill of Y.
>
> That doesn't discount the ineffectiveness of the rules though. A game
> designer needs to be acutely aware of probabilities, realism, and
> game-balance when writing rules because otherwise they won't be used
> (and hence don't add anything to the game) or will be abused.

Whoever said Centering was supposed to be a sure thing? Or even easy?

Magic is still hard to do. I think there's that line about a moment of
sheer insanity in the book. In the SR rules, even reducing a TN by 1 is
a big bonus. By 2 and your change of success doubles.

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer