Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (LeBlanc, Lange)
Subject:	Contradictions (another long one)
Date:	Thu Nov 29 08:30:00 2001

Message no. 1 Damion Milliken wrote:

<a number of inconsistent rules>

man, although I knew of and chuckled at the ones I recognized, there
were a number of them I had never thought of 'till I read them, and they
were kind of scary ...

I think any of us who have been gamemastering for any length of time
have learned that no matter how much players want to use 'broken' rules
to their advantage (I got a "bad" player in my group who keeps trying),
we have also learned the value of house rules. Does any one know of a
game/campaign where there are NO house rules? I think most of us can
agree that a game can only go so far without rules to fix what we as GMs
(and players for that matter) don't like. And what we don't like is
going to differ for each of us. Hell, the most inconsistent rule I'm
about ready to fix is the use of a D6 and the target numbers of 6-7.
Nothing frustrates me more than giving a target number on the fly, based
on difficulty, and the player smirks because I gave them a target number
of 7 in the heat of the moment. They now know the task is SUPPOSED to be
on the difficult side, but they have the same chance to succeed as if it
were a 6. All this just to say that any game system can be improved
apon, and we as GMs do it all the time. Nothing worse than a player
knowing a "broken" rule better than you do, and holding up the book, all
smiles, proving his/her point. I've done it myself (been a while though,
and I've learned to value the game and story more than survival and
having an edge)

As a side note, has anyone tried using the D8 option presented in The
Shadowrun Supplemental? finding it easier? or just more of a pain to
convert? I like the theory behind it, but does it look as good in
practice?

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject:	Contradictions (another long one)
Date:	Thu Nov 29 09:15:01 2001

Message no. 2 LeBlanc, Lange writes:

> <Snip house rule's are everywhere!>

<grin> Aren't they what? I know a number of different SR groups, and they
all use the printed rules to different degrees.

> Hell, the most inconsistent rule I'm about ready to fix is the use of a D6
> and the target numbers of 6-7. Nothing frustrates me more than giving a
> target number on the fly, based on difficulty, and the player smirks
> because I gave them a target number of 7 in the heat of the moment. They
> now know the task is SUPPOSED to be on the difficult side, but they have
> the same chance to succeed as if it were a 6.

Well, I don't exactly agree here. Most of the things in the game (such as
weapon Powers) have been selected with this in mind. And, remember, to a
Lightly wounded character a TN of 7 _is_ worse than a TN of 6, because their
wound modifies it to 8. In a situation where there are no TN modifiers, a TN
of 6 is the same as a 7, but I find that it's rare for there to be no
modifiers.

OTOH, I can see your point. It irked me for a while too, but I figured that
everyone knew this, and the designers knew this, and the game was designed
with this in mind. Thus everything balanced out and was even in the long run.

As for the D8 thing, by using D6's, SR has a somewhat limited range of
variation. I've found that if anything reaches a value of 12 (two sixes),
then it just about completely breaks the game. And it's not too difficult to
get to 12, really. Thus I, too, can see merit in the D8 system (although a
D10 or D12 might have been better - shifting SR from D6 to D12 would have
been easier than to D8, and it would have doubled the resolution of possible
Ratings and TNs).

Hmm, I might have to check out the D8 system and see if I can corrupt it
into a D12 conversion. I really see some merit in this!

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Danyeal De La Luna)
Subject:	Contradictions (another long one)
Date:	Thu Nov 29 12:55:01 2001

Message no. 3 If you want to avoid the 6=7 problem, then make the tn 8 if it is supposed
to be harder than 6...sheeze...it ain't that hard people!!!

Lunatec

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject:	Contradictions (another long one)
Date:	Thu Nov 29 13:10:01 2001

Message no. 4 > If you want to avoid the 6=7 problem, then make the tn 8 if it is
supposed
> to be harder than 6...sheeze...it ain't that hard people!!!
>
> Lunatec

It's an outrage! Everyone get him! Oh....sorry...LOL...but yeah...how
dare you suggest we "simplify" it...next thing you know you'll be trying
to tell me that I can't use standard modifiers for sniping someone at
extreme range with my Barrett...Psh! LOL
Well anyway we mostly do do that however once in a while it's a little
tougher, personally I think we should switch the system to a D100 system
that way there's no overlapping of the TN's and make everything a
percentage that you've gotta top. Each level of a skill would give you
such a percentage bonus and stuff...anyone think it sounds like an
interesting attempt? If so I'll actually go through and design the rules
for it and send it out. (did it for D&D once so it shouldn't be too
hard)

Derek

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Graht)
Subject:	Contradictions (another long one)
Date:	Thu Nov 29 13:15:14 2001

Message no. 5 At 12:02 PM 11/29/2001 -0800, Danyeal De La Luna wrote:

>If you want to avoid the 6=7 problem, then make the tn 8 if it is supposed
>to be harder than 6...sheeze...it ain't that hard people!!!

I've found a better way.

Use 8-sided dice, but count 8s as 0s. This creates a range of 0-7 (0, 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Replace the Rule of Six with the Rule of
Seven. Replace the Rule of Ones with the Rule of Zeros. A target number
cannot be lower than 1. A dice that comes up 0 is always counted as a
failure. Do not make any other adjustments to the rules.

My group has been using the above method for over a year and it works great :)

To Life,
-Graht
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader II
--

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (LeBlanc, Lange)
Subject:	Contradictions (another long one)
Date:	Thu Nov 29 13:20:01 2001

Message no. 6 Derek Hyde said:

<snip>
>Well anyway we mostly do do that however once in a while it's a little
>tougher, personally I think we should switch the system to a D100
system
>that way there's no overlapping of the TN's and make everything a
>percentage that you've gotta top. Each level of a skill would give you
>such a percentage bonus and stuff...anyone think it sounds like an
>interesting attempt? If so I'll actually go through and design the
rules
>for it and send it out. (did it for D&D once so it shouldn't be too
>hard)

Now there's an idea. I already run a WFRP game, which is based almost
entirely on d100, and to a lesser degree, D6. The game mechanics work
very much like you suggest, with percentage bonuses for skills. Should
be easy enough to convert. Why hadn't I thought of that b'fore? oooooh,
a new project ;-)

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject:	Contradictions (another long one)
Date:	Fri Nov 30 05:50:01 2001

Message no. 7 According to Derek Hyde, on Thu, 29 Nov 2001 the word on the street was...

> Well anyway we mostly do do that however once in a while it's a little
> tougher, personally I think we should switch the system to a D100 system
> that way there's no overlapping of the TN's and make everything a
> percentage that you've gotta top. Each level of a skill would give you
> such a percentage bonus and stuff...anyone think it sounds like an
> interesting attempt? If so I'll actually go through and design the rules
> for it and send it out. (did it for D&D once so it shouldn't be too
> hard)

I think the problem with turning SR into a D100 system is that you won't be
able to deal with high numbers. You have to set _something_ as being equal
to 100%; since a level of 6 means you're pretty damn good at a skill, maybe
that would be a good starting point -- for ease, call it 15% per skill
level, so level 6 is 90%. Fine, but what about that Strength 18 cybered
troll? That's a 270% chance of success at average tasks...

Maybe the best way to do this would be to not use a straight percentage per
skill level, but use a Phoenix Command-like way of handling this. In that
system, you first add up all your modifiers and things, which you then look
up in a table that tells you which percentage chance goes with the total.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"I know you're expecting me to take that as good news," Randy says.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL 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:	shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject:	Contradictions (another long one)
Date:	Fri Nov 30 17:25:01 2001

Message no. 8 > I think the problem with turning SR into a D100 system is that you
won't
> be
> able to deal with high numbers. You have to set _something_ as being
equal
> to 100%; since a level of 6 means you're pretty damn good at a skill,
> maybe
> that would be a good starting point -- for ease, call it 15% per skill
> level, so level 6 is 90%. Fine, but what about that Strength 18
cybered
> troll? That's a 270% chance of success at average tasks...
>
> Maybe the best way to do this would be to not use a straight
percentage
> per
> skill level, but use a Phoenix Command-like way of handling this. In
that
> system, you first add up all your modifiers and things, which you then
> look
> up in a table that tells you which percentage chance goes with the
total.

I've actually just ran into that issue....the way I'm handling it is
that each "1" on the TN I'm making equal to 10 percent, so the average
task by someone with a skill of 6 in something is next to impossible to
screw up as the book labels a level 6 skill as being innate then I'm
varying it from there. You have a base percentage for each attribute
and then you add on about 15% per level of skill (a level 6 skill at 15%
per skill would be 90% plus the basic percentage for the attribute BUT
I'm charging 10% per TN so if you've got a difficult task it's still
going to be difficult BUT whereas you've got a very high level of skill
it wouldn't be as difficult for you as it would for someone who had a
lesser skill. The major problem that I've come across would be
mages....an initiate would have a higher magic attribute and well lets
face it, the way I figured it with my NPC Mage who is an 8th Initiate
would have about a 180% chance to cast a Force 20 Manaball BUT only a
40% chance to resist the drain from it so in a round about way it's just
as good for a mage cause while it may be easier for them to cast
something they sure as heck won't think about resisting it. (btw he's
the contact for selling magical stuff so don't start on me about how
he's WAY too powerful for a run or any crap like that, I'm using my most
powerful mage in the game as an example)

The only thing I'm really hanging up on is how to handle the pool dice
cause you're not going to add extra rolls of the percentile dice you're
just going to add a little to the chance of success and it's kinda tough
to fine tune it without playtesting it and I'm short two of my 4 gamers
at the moment cause of temporary deployments for training in the army.

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer