Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: valeuj@*****.navy.mil (Valeu, John W. EM3 (AS40 R-3))
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 21:59:52 +0800
Ok, so we pretty much closed the thread on the Dragon thing with 20+ dice,
but this got me to thinking...
What would be a good skill limit?
I used to go off of 12 as a max (as they did on the SEGA version), but now
that seems a little excessive.
I don't know, 8 is supposedly world class, but it's also noted as 8"+".

Anyway, and another thing, when someone "Oooops" do you gauge the Ooops
based on the skill level?
Like a skill of 3 or less isn't as bad as an oops with a skill of 6 or
higher.
(Example: with a Pistol 1, Gun Jams. With Pistol 6, Gun explodes)
Message no. 2
From: SteveG@***********.co.za (Steve Garrard)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:18:05 +0200
Valeu, John W. EM3 wrote:
> Anyway, and another thing, when someone "Oooops" do you gauge
> the Ooops based on the skill level?
> Like a skill of 3 or less isn't as bad as an oops with a
> skill of 6 or higher.
> (Example: with a Pistol 1, Gun Jams. With Pistol 6, Gun explodes)

No, but it's not a bad idea. Actually I'd do it the other way around though,
since (to use your example) someone with a Pistols skill of 6 will likely
take better care of their firearm than someone with a skill of 1.


Slayer

"Beware my wrath, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
- Unknown Dragon



**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
Message no. 3
From: nightgyr@*********.com.au (GreyWolf)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 00:19:52 +1000
> Ok, so we pretty much closed the thread on the Dragon thing with 20+ dice,
> but this got me to thinking...
> What would be a good skill limit?
> I used to go off of 12 as a max (as they did on the SEGA version), but now
> that seems a little excessive.
> I don't know, 8 is supposedly world class, but it's also noted as 8"+".
>
> Anyway, and another thing, when someone "Oooops" do you gauge the Ooops
> based on the skill level?
> Like a skill of 3 or less isn't as bad as an oops with a skill of 6 or
> higher.
> (Example: with a Pistol 1, Gun Jams. With Pistol 6, Gun explodes)

I have not had any issues with the 8+ skill levels. If your players do
manage to aquire enough karma to make the increase, and you have let them
reach the point where that level of specialisation is affordable relative to
increases in other skills which might save their jobs/lives/paycheques, I
have a final suggestion to make.

Use the "time to increase skills" optional rules and tweak as required.

Increases to skills at those stratospheric levels of competeny take a very
long time. It will be an adventure in itself to locate a library or teacher
to aid you in the task if they exist at all. If none is forthcoming you
should remember that these characters are trying to increase their knowledge
or ability into areas few if any persons have been before in (non-magical)
living memory. It should not be easy by any stretch of the imagination. The
time requires should be significant. Having that level of prowess also has
its drawbacks. the characters get a reputation. They may even get
"extracted' themselves... most likley unwillingly and perhaps in the middle
of their own run against another target!

The possabilities are endless.

GreyWolf
Message no. 4
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 18:02:09 +0200
According to Valeu, John W. EM3 (AS40 R-3), on Monday 07 June 2004 15:59
the word on the street was...

> What would be a good skill limit?

I don't think one is needed. It's usually difficult enough to get a skill
up that high (in Karma cost and/or training time) that it usually isn't an
issue anyway.

> Anyway, and another thing, when someone "Oooops" do you gauge the Ooops
> based on the skill level?

Not really; I usually just have something bad happen, and it depends more
on the first bad thing that comes to my mind than trying to match it to
how many dice were rolled, or whatever.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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
Message no. 5
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
--- Steve Garrard <SteveG@***********.co.za> wrote:
> Valeu, John W. EM3 wrote:
> > Anyway, and another thing, when someone "Oooops" do you gauge
> > the Ooops based on the skill level?
> > Like a skill of 3 or less isn't as bad as an oops with a
> > skill of 6 or higher.
> > (Example: with a Pistol 1, Gun Jams. With Pistol 6, Gun explodes)
>
> No, but it's not a bad idea. Actually I'd do it the other way
> around though,
> since (to use your example) someone with a Pistols skill of 6 will
> likely
> take better care of their firearm than someone with a skill of 1.

I use a two part House Rule for this.

1. An "Oops!" happens when the dice come up with more 1's than the
skill rating of the character. (As opposed to only happening when
all the dice come up 1.)

2. The severity of an "Oops!" is based on the number of 1's.
Typically, this gives me a scale for the damage level of the "Oops!"
effect to people or gear. One 1 = L damage/mild effect. 3 1's = M
damage/moderate effect. Then 6, then 10.

I do this because using lots of pool dice (pushing the envelope of
your skill with raw ability) creates an inherent risk factor. Those
who can accomplish great things can also experience great failure.
This means that the guy with a skill of 2 in pistol cannot possibly
screw things up as badly as the guy with an 8. But, he will screw up
far more often than the guy with an 8. Then again, he can't hope to
pull off the stunts with his skill of 2 that the guy with an 8 can.
The guy with a 2 will not even be aware of all the risky ways he can
push the envelope. When the guy with an 8 in something decides to
live on the edge, his edge is a whole different world than for the
guy with a 2. Should he somehow fail (on the level of an "Oops!"),
he will fail spectacularly. An "Oops!" happens a lot more to those
with low skills, but the results tend to be minor. Critical failure
happens very seldom among the very skilled, but is often devastating
when it does.

E.G.

Jimmy the Slick is riding his new Rapier down the highway at cruising
speed. He decelerates and heads down an offramp to fuel up. A patch
of oil on the road presents a dangerous obstacle for the
inexperienced rider, and a Crash test is called for. Jimmy rolls his
2 dice, and comes up with 2 1's. Critical failure! A couple of L
wounds/ mild effects worth. He lays the bike on its side and skids
into the curb, more scared than anything else (L damage to bike, L
phys from road rash). Good thing he was only going 20 kph, neh?

Roxy the Speed Queen is tearing down the freeway on her tricked out
Aurora, weaving in and out of traffic... oncoming traffic! A driver
ahead of her panics at the sight of her racing up his lane, and loses
control of his car. It fishtails and begins to skid sideways towards
her. She avoids the car, streaking past it as it begins to roll.
The maneuver is a bit too tight, and she has to make a Crash test.
Smugly, Roxy's player tosses 8 dice... all 1's! The player pales as
Roxy brushes the median wall at 130kph. Sparks fly and Roxy's leg is
ground into the ferrocrete (S phys, L stun, and L damage to the
bike). Time for another Crash test... with some hefty TN penalties.

Important Note: When defaulting, a character is at even greater
risk. As a result, I subtract the defaulting penalty from the
skill/attribute rating used. The number of 1's rolled is compared to
this modified rating for purposes of an "Oops!" Suppose Jimmy the
Slick was using his hyped up Reaction of 8 to pilot his bike instead
of his low or non-existant bike skill. He tosses the dice and gets
1,1,1,1,1, 8, 15. Wow, success even with that +4 TN penalty! But
wait. We subtract 4 from his Reaction and find that he has rolled
more 1's than the modified attribute. An "Oops!" Jimmy learns the
hard way that his wired motor nervous system is no substitute for
skill as he slides into the curb and bounces up over the guard rail.
Instead of having a pair of L effects to contend with, he has an M
effect and a pair if L effects.

This tried and tested rule has kept my players cautious about tossing
around lots of pool dice or defaulting to attributes all the time.
It has also kept my reputation for Evil solidly intact. :>

======Korishinzo
--most dramatic "Oops!" ever? A pair of stacked Force 8 Fireballs
back in SR2, 7 Pool dice, and 6 extra dice purchased with karma... 21
dice in all... Sorcery skill of 9... 12 1's. Oops.




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Message no. 6
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 22:02:04 +0200
Le 7 juin 2004, à 21:48, Ice Heart a écrit :

> I use a two part House Rule for this.
>
> 1. An "Oops!" happens when the dice come up with more 1's than the
> skill rating of the character. (As opposed to only happening when
> all the dice come up 1.)
>
> 2. The severity of an "Oops!" is based on the number of 1's.
> Typically, this gives me a scale for the damage level of the "Oops!"
> effect to people or gear. One 1 = L damage/mild effect. 3 1's = M
> damage/moderate effect. Then 6, then 10.

Interesting. I'll keep that in mind.
Then again, an "Oops!" with a skill above 3 has never ever happened in
any of my games. The odds are just too small; and knowing me, my fellow
players and the fact that you just need to use (not even burn, *use*) a
Karma pool point to avoid a critical failure, I don't think that's
gonna happen anytime soon.

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 7
From: marc.renouf@******.com (Renouf, Marc A)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:38:59 -0400
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
> -----Original Message-----
> From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr [mailto:maxnoel_fr@*****.fr]
> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 4:02 PM
> To: shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com
> Subject: Re: Skills and such
>
> Interesting. I'll keep that in mind.
> Then again, an "Oops!" with a skill above 3 has never
> ever happened in
> any of my games. The odds are just too small; and knowing me,
> my fellow
> players and the fact that you just need to use (not even
> burn, *use*) a
> Karma pool point to avoid a critical failure, I don't think that's
> gonna happen anytime soon.

I had a player critically fail on a Quickness test last session.
His character had a Quickness of 4. It happens. Luckily, it happened at
the *beginning* of the run, rather than at the end, so he still had Karma in
his Pool.

Marc

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://warthog.dumpshock.com/pipermail/shadowrn/attachments/69a2d29f/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
Message no. 8
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
--- Max Noel <maxnoel_fr@*****.fr> wrote:
>
> Le 7 juin 2004, à 21:48, Ice Heart a écrit :
>
> > I use a two part House Rule for this.
> >
> > 1. An "Oops!" happens when the dice come up with more 1's than
> the
> > skill rating of the character. (As opposed to only happening
> when
> > all the dice come up 1.)
> >
> > 2. The severity of an "Oops!" is based on the number of 1's.
> > Typically, this gives me a scale for the damage level of the
> "Oops!"
> > effect to people or gear. One 1 = L damage/mild effect. 3 1's > M
> > damage/moderate effect. Then 6, then 10.
>
> Interesting. I'll keep that in mind.
> Then again, an "Oops!" with a skill above 3 has never ever
> happened in
> any of my games. The odds are just too small; and knowing me, my
> fellow
> players and the fact that you just need to use (not even burn,
> *use*) a
> Karma pool point to avoid a critical failure, I don't think that's
> gonna happen anytime soon.

How about this:

Each karma point temporarily spent eliminates one of the 1's, so an
"Oops!" might get very expensive to avoid if many 1's were rolled.

Hmmm... I like it. I'll go add that to my house rules. If fate
wants to frag you so badly that statistics warp to curse you, the
karmic cost of dodging should be high. :)

======Korishinzo
--Gamemaster




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Message no. 9
From: msde_shadowrn@*****.com (Mark Shieh)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
--- Max Noel <maxnoel_fr@*****.fr> wrote:
> Then again, an "Oops!" with a skill above 3 has never ever happened
> in
> any of my games. The odds are just too small; and knowing me, my
> fellow
> players and the fact that you just need to use (not even burn, *use*)
> a
> Karma pool point to avoid a critical failure, I don't think that's
> gonna happen anytime soon.

Sadly, the biggest oops we've ever seen was a skill of 4, trying to
stabilize deadly with a medkit. :( It happened several years ago, and
I still remember it, though I don't remember who was the lucky patient
any more.

Mark





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Message no. 10
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 01:15:59 +0200
Le 8 juin 2004, à 01:07, Mark Shieh a écrit :

>
> Sadly, the biggest oops we've ever seen was a skill of 4, trying to
> stabilize deadly with a medkit. :( It happened several years ago, and
> I still remember it, though I don't remember who was the lucky patient
> any more.
>
> Mark

Heh. The fact that it's an "Oops!" doesn't matter much in that
situation, I guess... Well, from a rules standpoint, at least.
Flavour-wise, the effect must have been quite... Graphic.
"Could you explain to me how an allergic reaction can be violent
enough to cause the patient to spontaneously combust!?"

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
(Gosh... And to think I have a character who could actually do that on
purpose... ;) )
Message no. 11
From: msde_shadowrn@*****.com (Mark Shieh)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
--- Max Noel <maxnoel_fr@*****.fr> wrote:
> Le 8 juin 2004, à 01:07, Mark Shieh a écrit :
> > Sadly, the biggest oops we've ever seen was a skill of 4, trying to
> > stabilize deadly with a medkit. :( It happened several years ago,
> and
> > I still remember it, though I don't remember who was the lucky
> patient
> > any more.

> Heh. The fact that it's an "Oops!" doesn't matter much in that
> situation, I guess... Well, from a rules standpoint, at least.

Well, you can normally follow up with a healing spell as your second
chance to prevent character reroll. We also generally allowed a 3rd
attempt if you can find a doc with a real facility before the character
in question completely overflows damage.

Mark





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Message no. 12
From: silvercat@***********.org (Jonathan Hurley)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 22:31:24 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Shieh
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 8:42 PM
To: Shadowrun Discussion
Subject: Re: Skills and such


--- Max Noel <maxnoel_fr@*****.fr> wrote:
> Le 8 juin 2004, à 01:07, Mark Shieh a écrit :
> > Sadly, the biggest oops we've ever seen was a skill of 4, trying to
> > stabilize deadly with a medkit. :( It happened several years ago,
> and
> > I still remember it, though I don't remember who was the lucky
> patient
> > any more.

> Heh. The fact that it's an "Oops!" doesn't matter much in that
> situation, I guess... Well, from a rules standpoint, at least.

Well, you can normally follow up with a healing spell as your second
chance to prevent character reroll. We also generally allowed a 3rd
attempt if you can find a doc with a real facility before the character
in question completely overflows damage.

Mark

-----Reply Message-----

I use a "Partial Rule of One" to make PCs wary of using extra dice. If more
ones come up than successes, a Bad Thing (tm) occurs AFTER the test has been
evaluated for success or failure. Most common occurrence, a firearm jams.
Drain has been known to bump power and (very occasionally) level on a
sorcery test. Contacts notice the food in your teeth, etc. Overall minor
effects (though depending on the weapon and circumstance, jamming the
firearm could be BAD news).
Message no. 13
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:01:53 +0200
According to Ice Heart, on Monday 07 June 2004 21:48 the word on the street
was...

> 1. An "Oops!" happens when the dice come up with more 1's than the
> skill rating of the character. (As opposed to only happening when
> all the dice come up 1.)

That's originally from Fields of Fire (although it says a fumble is when
the number of ones _equals_ or exceeds the basic skill level) and I also
still use it, for the same reason. It also makes using pool dice if you
only have a skill of 1 or 2 much less desirable, because your chance of
screwing up actually increases. My group once had a PC with Firearms skill
at 1 (this was in SRII), who normally used a shotgun loaded with shot
rounds, and habitually rolled his one die plus a Combat Pool die. I don't
think anyone in the group suffered as many mishaps as he did...

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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
Message no. 14
From: mestre_bira@***.com.br (Bira)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 12:32:48 +0000
Gurth wrote:
> According to Ice Heart, on Monday 07 June 2004 21:48 the word on the street
> was...
>
>
>>1. An "Oops!" happens when the dice come up with more 1's than the
>>skill rating of the character. (As opposed to only happening when
>>all the dice come up 1.)
>
>
> That's originally from Fields of Fire (although it says a fumble is when
> the number of ones _equals_ or exceeds the basic skill level) and I also
> still use it, for the same reason.


There are not enough critical failures in Shadowrun. I think I'd use the
White Wolf rules for this in my games - if you come up with no successes
and at least one die comes up a 1, it's a fumble. Its severity depends
on how many ones you got.

Of course, this would mean they'd be a tad more common than in the
Storyteller system, since we're rolling D6s instead of D10s.

---
Bira
Message no. 15
From: graht1@*******.com (David Buehrer)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 11:38:58 -0600
>From: Bira <mestre_bira@***.com.br>
>
>There are not enough critical failures in Shadowrun. I think I'd use the
>White Wolf rules for this in my games - if you come up with no successes
>and at least one die comes up a 1, it's a fumble. Its severity depends on
>how many ones you got.

It's been a *long* time since I looked at White Wolf. It's good to see that
they fixed their rule of ones. IMHO it should work fine for Shadowrun.

>Of course, this would mean they'd be a tad more common than in the
>Storyteller system, since we're rolling D6s instead of D10s.

Yes, but Shadowrun is a harsh world ;)

-Graht

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 9 Dial-up Internet Access fights spam and pop-ups – now 3 months FREE!
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/
Message no. 16
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 19:49:50 +0200
According to Bira, on Tuesday 08 June 2004 14:32 the word on the street
was...

> There are not enough critical failures in Shadowrun.

Agreed, which is why the FOF rule is a good thing to use.

> I think I'd use the
> White Wolf rules for this in my games - if you come up with no successes
> and at least one die comes up a 1, it's a fumble. Its severity depends
> on how many ones you got.

I'm not a big fan of that rule, although it's certainly better than the
original one (more ones than successes = fumble).

> Of course, this would mean they'd be a tad more common than in the
> Storyteller system, since we're rolling D6s instead of D10s.

The simple solution to that is to not make fumbles as bad as you would in
ST games.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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
Message no. 17
From: james@****.uow.edu.au (James Niall Zealey)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 09:56:11 +1000
> From:
> Bira <mestre_bira@***.com.br>
>
> There are not enough critical failures in Shadowrun. I think I'd use the
> White Wolf rules for this in my games - if you come up with no successes
> and at least one die comes up a 1, it's a fumble. Its severity depends
> on how many ones you got.
>
> Of course, this would mean they'd be a tad more common than in the
> Storyteller system, since we're rolling D6s instead of D10s.
>
> ---
> Bira
>

Then I seriously hope you enjoy rewriting the entire SR combat and task
system to cope with it.

WW is based on the idea that there are very few things which change your
target number, and that a task with a TN of 10 is virtually impossible.

In SR, TN's of over 6 are routine. Routine. Got that? In the average
night time firefight, cover and range will usually leave you with a TN
of around 8. Certainly more than 6.

Which means that using the WW rules, people shooting guns will jam their
gun (or have some other amusing mishap) more than 50% of the time. If
you use any kind of damage-causing mishaps, then firefights will devolve
into waiting for your opponents to kill themselves and not firing a shot.

In short - don't use it. It really doesn't suit SR.

Mishap rules which punish you for being good at whatever you're doing
are stupid. Suddenly because I'm GOOD at driving, that low-speed skid in
a puddle turns into a deadly wound? WTF?

The chance of a fumble should certainly NOT be based on the size of the
dice pool being added to the roll. Dice pools represent dividing the
character's attention between tasks. If someone concentrates on the
task, they're more likely to screw up?

What SHOULD happen is that a mishap is more likely if the task being
attempted is more difficult, or if the attemptee has no skill.

As a start, our standard house rule was that the penalty for defaulting
didn't add to your target number, it subtracted from your roll.

So if you rolled a 5, and you're defaulting to an attribute then you
subtract 4 and that dice is actually a 1. When defaulting to an
attribute, if you don't roll at least one 6, you have fumbled.
Defaulting to a related skill means if you don't roll at least one 4,
you've fumbled.

This modification has a positive effect - if you've got no idea what
you're doing, you're more likely to foul up. And having a skill of 1
actually makes you better than the joker with a stat of 6, because you
don't make elementary mistakes. Taking a skill of 1 making you worse at
a task (because you've got a 1/6 fumble chance) has always been a
problem with SR's skill and defaulting system.

In terms of broadening this to any skill whatsoever, that's a bit more
difficult. I might use something like "if no die rolls at least half the
target number, then you've fumbled". IOW - standard fumble rule remains
for TN's of 4 and 5. At tn 6 and 7, if your roll is all ones and twos,
you fumble, and so on.

The problem is - a lot of the more difficult rules have punishment for
failure anyway. SR has a built in clause that if you fail a task that
you can attempt again, you've already built up an additional +2 to tn's.

So - I'd stick with "defaulting penalties deduct from rolls", and leave
it at that. Fumbles are for those one-in-a-million foul ups (or much
better if you've got no clue). Normal consequences are more than enough
for most shadowruns.
Message no. 18
From: mestre_bira@***.com.br (Bira)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 01:01:31 +0000
James Niall Zealey wrote:
>> From:
>> Bira <mestre_bira@***.com.br>
>>
>> There are not enough critical failures in Shadowrun. I think I'd use
>> the White Wolf rules for this in my games - if you come up with no
>> successes and at least one die comes up a 1, it's a fumble. Its
>> severity depends on how many ones you got.
>>
>> Of course, this would mean they'd be a tad more common than in the
>> Storyteller system, since we're rolling D6s instead of D10s.
>>
>> ---
>> Bira
>>
>
> Then I seriously hope you enjoy rewriting the entire SR combat and task
> system to cope with it.

I tossed it all out long ago :).

If I ever go back to running SR, it will only vaguely resemble the
published game. I'll probably use the Exalted ruleset or one of its
close relatives, and make the setting be the bastard child of Transhuman
Space and Unknown Armies.

Bira
Message no. 19
From: graht1@*******.com (David Buehrer)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 10:32:12 -0600
>From: James Niall Zealey <james@****.uow.edu.au>
>
>>From:
>>Bira <mestre_bira@***.com.br>
>>
>>There are not enough critical failures in Shadowrun. I think I'd use the
>>White Wolf rules for this in my games - if you come up with no successes
>>and at least one die comes up a 1, it's a fumble. Its severity depends on
>>how many ones you got.
>>
>>Of course, this would mean they'd be a tad more common than in the
>>Storyteller system, since we're rolling D6s instead of D10s.
>>
>>---
>>Bira
>>
>
>Then I seriously hope you enjoy rewriting the entire SR combat and task
>system to cope with it.
>
>WW is based on the idea that there are very few things which change your
>target number, and that a task with a TN of 10 is virtually impossible.
>
>In SR, TN's of over 6 are routine. Routine. Got that? In the average night
>time firefight, cover and range will usually leave you with a TN of around
>8. Certainly more than 6.
>
>Which means that using the WW rules, people shooting guns will jam their
>gun (or have some other amusing mishap) more than 50% of the time. If you
>use any kind of damage-causing mishaps, then firefights will devolve into
>waiting for your opponents to kill themselves and not firing a shot.
>
>In short - don't use it. It really doesn't suit SR.

Bira is refering to their new Rule of One, not the old one (in which case a
1 countered a success).

With their new Rule of One 1s are only checked for if *no* successes are
rolled. So if a runner gets at least one success they don't have to worry
about the Rule of One rearing its head. However, if they fail *and* have
rolled some 1s (not counting 1s that occured for rerolling 6s), then a
critical fail occurs and the number of 1s determines the effect.

The old WW Rule of One did indeed suck, but the new one looks much better,
and IMHO would be a welcome addition to Shadowrun :)

-Graht

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Message no. 20
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 18:38:22 +0200
Le 9 juin 2004, à 18:32, David Buehrer a écrit :

>
> Bira is refering to their new Rule of One, not the old one (in which
> case a 1 countered a success).

Unless I read something wrong in both Vampire and Mage, in the new
rule of One a 1 *still* counters a success. It's just that critical
failures only happen when you have 1's and none of your dice came up as
a success. It works perfectly when all TNs are 10 or below (s/10/6/ for
SR), but in regular SR where TNs above 6 are the norm rather than the
exception, it's a Bad Thing (TM).

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 21
From: mikepaff@***.rr.com (Michael Paff)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 10:06:46 -0700
At 09:32 AM 6/9/04, David Buehrer wrote:

>With their new Rule of One 1s are only checked for if *no* successes are
>rolled. So if a runner gets at least one success they don't have to worry
>about the Rule of One rearing its head. However, if they fail *and* have
>rolled some 1s (not counting 1s that occured for rerolling 6s), then a
>critical fail occurs and the number of 1s determines the effect.
>
>The old WW Rule of One did indeed suck, but the new one looks much better,
>and IMHO would be a welcome addition to Shadowrun :)

James may have been a bit blunt in his criticism, but if you try to add
the new WW Rule of One to SR, I agree that things might not work out as
you expect.

A few examples:

A top-notch shadowrunner (skill 6+) takes a single shot at a target
under ideal conditions (TN 4 or less) - the odds of rolling no successes
is low, so no real change.

The same shadowrunner takes a pot-shot at a sniper with partial cover, at
extreme range and with poor visibility (TN 16+) - No successes is the
likely outcome and at least one "1" IS likely, so his gun will ALWAYS
jam/explode/etc???

A newby shadowrunner (skill 2) with smartlink, short range and ideal
conditions, (TN 2) will either hit, or suffer a critical failure, there
is no chance of a simple miss (not counting dodging).

Do these really seem reasonable to you?
Message no. 22
From: graht1@*******.com (David Buehrer)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 11:15:18 -0600
>From: Max Noel <maxnoel_fr@*****.fr>
>
>Le 9 juin 2004, à 18:32, David Buehrer a écrit :
>
>>
>>Bira is refering to their new Rule of One, not the old one (in which case
>>a 1 countered a success).
>
> Unless I read something wrong in both Vampire and Mage, in the new rule of
>One a 1 *still* counters a success. It's just that critical failures only
>happen when you have 1's and none of your dice came up as a success. It
>works perfectly when all TNs are 10 or below (s/10/6/ for SR), but in
>regular SR where TNs above 6 are the norm rather than the exception, it's a
>Bad Thing (TM).

Maybe I misunderstood Bira's post, but I was under the impression that Bira
just wanted to incorporate the Rule of One on a Fail part, which I think
would be fine. If that is a Bad Thing (TM), please explain why :)

-Graht

_________________________________________________________________
Looking to buy a house? Get informed with the Home Buying Guide from MSN
House & Home. http://coldwellbanker.msn.com/
Message no. 23
From: loneeagle@********.co.uk (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:10:12 +0100
At 10:54 PM 6/7/2004, Korishinzo wrote:
>Hmmm... I like it. I'll go add that to my house rules. If fate
>wants to frag you so badly that statistics warp to curse you, the
>karmic cost of dodging should be high. :)

Doh! Looks like Bast's going to be demolishing more walls then.
Are you sure I can't convince you to use our House Rule of One? :-p

For those interested we insist that two (or more) colours of dice are used
or that the skill and any other dice are rolled seperately, if all of the
skill dice come up ones then the character suffers an oops (or pays Karma
to avoid it) regardless of what the pool, Enhanced articulation,
karma...etc. dice yield. We've had significantly more incidences than prior
to the rule's introduction (including one on a damage resistance test and
two on First Aid checks (that character isn't allowed near the wounded any
more, the second biotech oops killed one of the team's primaries (BGing
job, team hired because all have at least basic medical training... the
player rolled the character's two dice (plus their three dice for their med
kit and their single die for their Medicine (Biotech Background) knowledge
skill... 3 sixes a four and two ones. unfortunately both ones were on the
skill dice... Deadly wound but stable to flatline in thirty seconds :-) )


--
Lone Eagle
"Hold up lads, I got an idea."

www.wyrmtalk.co.uk - Please be patient, this site is under construction

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d++(---) s++: a->? 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-----

GCC0.2: y75>?.uk[NN] G87 S@:@@[SR] B+++ f+ RM(RR) rm++ rr++ l++(--) m- w
s+(+++) GM+++(-) A GS+(-) h++ LA+++ CG--- F c+
Message no. 24
From: graht1@*******.com (David Buehrer)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 12:45:12 -0600
>From: Michael Paff <mikepaff@***.rr.com>
>
>At 09:32 AM 6/9/04, David Buehrer wrote:
>
>>With their new Rule of One 1s are only checked for if *no* successes are
>>rolled. So if a runner gets at least one success they don't have to worry
>>about the Rule of One rearing its head. However, if they fail *and* have
>>rolled some 1s (not counting 1s that occured for rerolling 6s), then a
>>critical fail occurs and the number of 1s determines the effect.
>>
>>The old WW Rule of One did indeed suck, but the new one looks much better,
>>and IMHO would be a welcome addition to Shadowrun :)
>
>James may have been a bit blunt in his criticism, but if you try to add
>the new WW Rule of One to SR, I agree that things might not work out as
>you expect.
>
>A few examples:
>
>A top-notch shadowrunner (skill 6+) takes a single shot at a target
>under ideal conditions (TN 4 or less) - the odds of rolling no successes
>is low, so no real change.

<nod>

>The same shadowrunner takes a pot-shot at a sniper with partial cover, at
>extreme range and with poor visibility (TN 16+) - No successes is the
>likely outcome and at least one "1" IS likely, so his gun will ALWAYS
>jam/explode/etc???

I always viewed the Rule of One as an Oops!, not as a God Doesn't Like You
So Something Goes Wrong. In my campaign things like guns jamming,
exploding, breaking don't happen on an Oops. It's more like... did you ever
see A Fish Called Wanda? In the movie a character is trying to assassinate
a little old lady, except that he keeps blowing it and ends up killing her
little dogs instead. His rifle doesn't misfire or jam, it goes off just
fine. Instead of hitting the lady he shoots the rope holding the block of
granite that is being raised to the second story of the building, sending
the block plummeting to the street below, landing on one of the little old
lady's dogs, crushing it. (For one 1 I might rule that the bullet took out
some poor innocent's TV in the next building/apartment over.)

Sometimes there isn't anything reasonable that could happen if there is a
critical fail result, in which case move on and keep playing the game. IMHO
it's just there to give the GM an opportunity to be creative.

>A newby shadowrunner (skill 2) with smartlink, short range and ideal
>conditions, (TN 2) will either hit, or suffer a critical failure, there
>is no chance of a simple miss (not counting dodging).

Yes, but he can't roll very many 1s, which means that the Oops! won't be
that bad. When I first started programming my critical failures didn't
result in anything Really Bad (TM). But now that I have some actual skill I
can really mess up a database ;)

>Do these really seem reasonable to you?

Honestly? Yes.

-Graht

_________________________________________________________________
Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage!
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/
Message no. 25
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 13:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
> Doh! Looks like Bast's going to be demolishing more walls then.
> Are you sure I can't convince you to use our House Rule of One? :-p

No. I like mine. :> Actually, Bast had the same number of 1's as
his skill rating, and hence only needed one KP point to make it a
failure instead of an "Oops!" Which is why I like my rule. It does
not change the dynamic of fumbles and karma all that much. All the
changes are minor:

1. A fumble happens whenever you roll as many 1's as your skill
rating (or default skill/attribute rating - defaulting penalty).
Hence, when not using pool dice, your odds of an "Oops!" are exactly
the same as they were before. All this rule does is make a person
wary about throwing piles of dice that don't come from their skill.

2. Because the severety of a fumble is based on the number of 1's
rolled, those most prone to fumbles are also typically committing
relatively small errors. Those statistically unlikely to suffer an
"Oops!" suffer more for those fuumbles. But...

3. Because you can "buy off" 1's with KP points, you can often avoid
an "Oops!" with a single karma point, just like the basic rules.
However, if you pick up a fistfull of dice, and roll a pile of 1's,
you need to have a large amount of karma to avoid the catastrophy.
Here is the best part. Usually, those characters with high skills
and piles of dice also have a large karma pool. So while those most
qualified to truly push the envelope are also those most at risk of
truly spectacular failure, they are also typically those with a lot
of stored "luck" to squeak out of the situation.

In regards to the idea of 1's countering successes, I think it is a
bad idea. Unlike WW Storyteller games, the margin for success and
error in SR is often much narrower. In fact, I have had people
succeed on a roll and still have an "Oops!" Think of it like
'complications' in the old WEG Star Wars system. You could be aiming
for some impossible shot, throwing a ton of pool dice, get a single
success, but also get an "Oops!" result. Your bullet hits its
target, great, but then it rips through your target and hits the
nearly empty fuel tank of a vehicle. Boom! Oops.

One last thing: the Flaw "Cursed Karma" is really, really dangerous
under my system for an "Oops!" Because the number of 1's is used to
determine the severity of the fumble, and because that flaw can
actually add 1's under my rule, you can actually buy your way into
worse trouble. This happened to a character in a recent table top
session. They had cursed karma, and had rolled just 2 more 1's (6)
than their skill of 4. They elected to spend 3 KP points to buy off
3 of the 1's, so that they merely failed, instead of having an
"Oops!" I smiled and askedthem to roll their cursed karma die, which
they had forgotten about. Doh! Failure. End result: the opposite
of their desired effect is applied. Three more 1's added to the
roll. Still a success, thanks to the 9 and the 11 they had, but now
an "Oops!" with nine 1's instead of six. They shot down the drone
that was flying in on their position. It crashed into them. First
time in any game where I've seen an unarmed spotter drone half kill a
PC. At least the drone controller never got a look at why he was
dumped. Kind of what they were going for. :>

======Korishinzo
--Evil GM (yep, I rolled all 1's on my ethics check)




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Message no. 26
From: mestre_bira@***.com.br (Bira)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 01:06:01 +0000
Max Noel wrote:
>
> Le 9 juin 2004, à 18:32, David Buehrer a écrit :
>
>>
>> Bira is refering to their new Rule of One, not the old one (in which
>> case a 1 countered a success).
>
>
> Unless I read something wrong in both Vampire and Mage, in the new
> rule of One a 1 *still* counters a success.

It doesn't - if you roll 5 ones and a single success, you succeed with a
single success. This is the rule used in Exalted (I don't know exactly
which one is used in the WoD books).

Bira
Message no. 27
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Skills and such
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:50:27 +0200
According to Bira, on Friday 11 June 2004 03:06 the word on the street
was...

> > Unless I read something wrong in both Vampire and Mage, in the new
> > rule of One a 1 *still* counters a success.
>
> It doesn't - if you roll 5 ones and a single success, you succeed with a
> single success. This is the rule used in Exalted (I don't know exactly
> which one is used in the WoD books).

The old WW rule was indeed that ones cancel successes, but in the new one
this is not the case anymore (IIRC; the only book I own that has that rule
in it, is behind my CD racks -- I don't play any WW games ATM :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Skills and such, 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!