Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Matthew Waddilove <matthew@*********.U-NET.COM>
Subject:	SR3 damage system
Date:	Fri, 2 Oct 1998 14:45:14 +0100

Message no. 1 Does anyone know why in the new revised streamlined improved SR3 there are
two different systems for damage?

That is the matrix system and the ranged combat system

In the matrix system the attacker stages up the damage and then the defender
stages down the damage.
e.g. the attack is 6S the attacker rolls 3 successes and stages the damage
to 6D then the defender rolls 4 successes and stages the damage to 6M.

In the combat system the attack is staged by the net successes.
e.g. the attack is 6S the attacker rolls 3 successes and the defender rolls
4 successes so the net successes are -1 (from the POV of the attacker) and
so the damage stays at 6S.

I can't really see why they are different as they could with a Rules
revision such as SR3 have been unified quite easily

If anyone can enlighten me I would be greatful

-Matthew Waddilove

From:	TillK <kortuem@*******.DE>
Subject:	Re: SR3 damage system
Date:	Fri, 2 Oct 1998 15:59:25 +0200

Message no. 2 At 14:45 02.10.98 +0100, Matthew Waddilove wrote:
>Does anyone know why in the new revised streamlined improved SR3 there are
>two different systems for damage?
>
>That is the matrix system and the ranged combat system
>
>In the matrix system the attacker stages up the damage and then the=
defender
>stages down the damage.
>e.g. the attack is 6S the attacker rolls 3 successes and stages the damage
>to 6D then the defender rolls 4 successes and stages the damage to 6M.
>
>In the combat system the attack is staged by the net successes.
>e.g. the attack is 6S the attacker rolls 3 successes and the defender rolls
>4 successes so the net successes are -1 (from the POV of the attacker) and
>so the damage stays at 6S.

I never heard of this "matrix system", in my understanding, there is only
one system to deal with damage in SR3: the defender rolls against the
damage code, his successes are compared to those of the attacker, and the
damage is staged up or down, depending on who has more successes.
Sometimes, the base damage has a fixed code (like when running into
monowire etc), then it is only possible to stage down the damage. This can
be treated as "attacker as 0 successes".
Maybe I´m mistaken with this, but I think it is wrong to resolve damage
according to this "matrix system" (correctly it is 3-4 successes equals -1,
damage stays at S level); is the example taken out of the book?
Unfortunately I do not have a book handy, but in my opinion it just has not
been stated clearly that there is only one system to deal with damage (like
it is not stated clearly that you can fire a maximum of 10 bullets in FA
mode with a non-minigun, non-supermachinegun weapon).
TillK ]B-]
#674 of 1000
------------------------------
-> Into the Darkness <-
http://members.xoom.com/yclept
------------------------------

From:	Sean McCrohan <mccrohan@*****.OIT.GATECH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: SR3 damage system
Date:	Fri, 2 Oct 1998 10:44:25 -0400

Message no. 3 On Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 03:59:25PM +0200, TillK wrote:
> At 14:45 02.10.98 +0100, Matthew Waddilove wrote:
> >Does anyone know why in the new revised streamlined improved SR3 there are
> >two different systems for damage?
> <SNIP>
> >In the matrix system the attacker stages up the damage and then the defender
> >stages down the damage.
> <SNIP>
> >In the combat system the attack is staged by the net successes.
>
> be treated as "attacker as 0 successes".
> Maybe I�m mistaken with this, but I think it is wrong to resolve damage
> according to this "matrix system" (correctly it is 3-4 successes equals -1,
> damage stays at S level); is the example taken out of the book?

In fact, the original poster's example is taken directly from
the book - he is correct. I hadn't noticed that rules boggle until he
pointed it out, however. To make things worse, there are actually FOUR
damage systems:

Ranged: Attacker makes skill roll. Defender makes Body roll.
Damage is staged up or down based on net successes.

Melee: Attacker and defender make skill rolls. The winner stages
his/her weapon damage up based on net successes. The loser
then rolls Body and stages it down again. (NOTE: the
example clearly does NOT stage damage based on a net
comparison of the skill rolls and the Body roll).

Matrix: Attacker makes skill roll, stages damage up. Defender makes
Bod roll, stages damage down. (NOTE: Again, this is not,
in the example, a comparison of net successes).

Magic: For Combat spells, unclear, since they forgot to say that
Combat spells stage up damage, and had to add that to the
errata. At a guess, however, caster makes skill roll,
target makes Resistance (Will or Body) roll, damage is
staged up based on net successes if the caster wins, and
if the target wins, nothing happens at all (spell fizzles).
Damaging manipulations are resolved as Ranged Combat.

Okay, this isn't good. Personally, I'm in favor of staging based
on net successes in all cases - otherwise, 2 successes are just as good
as 3. It's also more streamlined. In fact, I think that's the way we've always
played...I'm a bit surprised to find that's not the way the rules are
writen :)

--Sean

--
Sean McCrohan (mccrohan@**.gatech.edu) | "He uses his folly as a stalking
Grad Student, Human-Computer Interaction | horse, and under the presentation
Georgia Institute of Technology | of that he shoots his wit."
http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~smccrohan | _As You Like It_, Act 5 Sc 4

From:	Paul Meyer <pmeyer@*******.COM>
Subject:	Re: SR3 damage system
Date:	Fri, 2 Oct 1998 14:04:24 -0700

Message no. 4 The same sort of "confusion" has, IIRC, existed in each edition of SR. I've
never considered these descriptions to be in conflict, however, because THEY
ALL MEAN THE SAME THING.

Argument 1:
The only way you could read them differently is to say that in the case
where the "staging up" and "staging down" are mentioned separately the
intention is to drop any extra single success between the "staging" steps.
(e.g. 4 net successes on attack stages up one level and drops a success,
then 2 successes on body stages down a level.) I've never interpreted the
rules that way because it introduces an unnecessary discontinuity in the
resolution, especially for people with, frex, skills at an odd multiple of
6, where with a target number of four they will quite often get an odd
multiple of 3 successes. (And since the average starting character has
skills of 6 in their main skills because the character generation system
strongly encourages it, this is very very common.)

Argument 2:
Instead of trying to read these as separate rules, what if you assume, based
on the clear intent of the text, that they are all trying to describe the
same thing, but using different wordings in case people don't understand one
or the other? Then you get the answer that when two "staging" steps are
mentioned instead of one, you still retain the occasional extra success to
offset successes on the body test the same way as when they talk about
comparing the successes then staging.

If you are the sort of person who thinks about numbers, probabilities, and
the mathematical logic behind game rules, Argument 1 is extremely
compelling. If not, then I offer Argument two based on the KISS principle.
("Keep It Simple, Stupid", the engineering equivalent of Occam's Razor, best
summarized by Scotty in his memorable line "The more they overtake the
plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain.") If you don't like either
argument, we are probably both glad we don't have to game together.

From:	Sean McCrohan <mccrohan@*****.OIT.GATECH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: SR3 damage system
Date:	Fri, 2 Oct 1998 17:19:12 -0400

Message no. 5 On Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 02:04:24PM -0700, Paul Meyer wrote:
> The same sort of "confusion" has, IIRC, existed in each edition of SR. I've
> never considered these descriptions to be in conflict, however, because THEY
> ALL MEAN THE SAME THING.

<Arguments snipped>

> the mathematical logic behind game rules, Argument 1 is extremely
> compelling. If not, then I offer Argument two based on the KISS principle.
> ("Keep It Simple, Stupid", the engineering equivalent of Occam's Razor,
best
> summarized by Scotty in his memorable line "The more they overtake the
> plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain.") If you don't like either
> argument, we are probably both glad we don't have to game together.

I think you misunderstood me. Both of your arguments are quite
reasonable, and that's why (as I said) we always play by the 'net successes'
interpretation - it makes more sense. However, the various different rules,
as written, do /not/ 'MEAN THE SAME THING', to borrow your phrase. They
very clearly mean different things, in my opinion, a fact which constitutes
either an editting error or a really bizarre decision on the part of the
designer.
When the rules say something stupid, we ignore them. But that doesn't
change the fact that the rules say something stupid :) I wasn't elaborating
on the topic because I think everyone ought to use the rules as written -
more because I was hoping it'd filter out to FASA and be added to the errata.

--Sean

--
Sean McCrohan (mccrohan@**.gatech.edu) | "He uses his folly as a stalking
Grad Student, Human-Computer Interaction | horse, and under the presentation
Georgia Institute of Technology | of that he shoots his wit."
http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~smccrohan | _As You Like It_, Act 5 Sc 4

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: SR3 damage system
Date:	Sat, 3 Oct 1998 13:42:09 +0200

Message no. 6 According to Matthew Waddilove, at 14:45 on 2 Oct 98, the word on the street was...

> Does anyone know why in the new revised streamlined improved SR3 there are
> two different systems for damage?
[snip]

What you describe comes straight from VR 2.0, where this same difference
exists. I put it down to Paul Hume confusing SR1 and SRII myself, and
nobody at FASA really noticing things are slightly different this way.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Nobody's going to murder anyone here even if it means I have to
kill someone!" --Kane, detective/rigger
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> 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:	Jhary-a-Conel <Jhary-a-Conel@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: SR3 damage system
Date:	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 18:05:57 +0100

Message no. 7 On 2 Oct 98, at 10:44, Sean McCrohan wrote:
[snip]
> Ranged: Attacker makes skill roll. Defender makes Body roll.
> Damage is staged up or down based on net successes.
>
> Melee: Attacker and defender make skill rolls. The winner stages
> his/her weapon damage up based on net successes. The loser
> then rolls Body and stages it down again. (NOTE: the
> example clearly does NOT stage damage based on a net
> comparison of the skill rolls and the Body roll).
SR3, p. 122, states 1. Attacker's test, 2. Defender's test, 3. compare
successes, 4. determine damage for mellee combat (->result of
attack). After that, defender rolls body to resist damage, so it's
exactly as in ranged combat.

Jhary
--
+---___---------+------------------------------------+------------------------+
| / / _______ | JaC / SP |"Things that try to look|
| / /_/ ____/ | Jhary-a-Conel@***.net | like things often do |
| \___ __/ | ICQ#: 7 517 216 | look more like things |
|==== \_/ ======|*Wearing hats is just a way of life*| than things. Well known|
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | fact." - E.Weatherwax |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary ---(T.Pratchett)-+

From:	Sean McCrohan <mccrohan@*****.OIT.GATECH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: SR3 damage system
Date:	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 23:03:09 -0500

Message no. 8 Quoting Jhary-a-Conel (Jhary-a-Conel@***.NET):
> SR3, p. 122, states 1. Attacker's test, 2. Defender's test, 3. compare
> successes, 4. determine damage for mellee combat (->result of
> attack). After that, defender rolls body to resist damage, so it's
> exactly as in ranged combat.

Sorry, you're wrong. Read that page again:
1. Attacker's Test
2. Defender's Test
3. Compare Successes
4. Determine Damage (Stage damage UP based on net successes of melee
rolls)
5. Resist Damage (Stage damage DOWN based on Body successes)

This is DIFFERENT from how it's done for ranged combat. In ranged
combat, damage is staged either up OR down, based on the NET RESULT of the
attacker's Firearms roll and the Defender's Body roll. The damage is only
staged once.
Personally, we've always ignored the book and staged melee damage
based on the difference between the winner's net Melee successes and the
loser's Body successes. It makes more sense that way...but that's not how the
rules go, officially.

--Sean
--
Sean McCrohan (mccrohan@**.gatech.edu) | "He uses his folly as a stalking
Grad Student, Human-Computer Interaction | horse, and under the presentation
Georgia Institute of Technology | of that he shoots his wit."
http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~smccrohan | _As You Like It_, Act 5 Sc 4

From:	"XaOs [David Goth]" <xaos@*****.NET>
Subject:	Re: SR3 damage system
Date:	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 01:17:59 -0600

Message no. 9 > Personally, we've always ignored the book and staged melee damage
> based on the difference between the winner's net Melee successes and the
> loser's Body successes. It makes more sense that way...but that's
> not how the
> rules go, officially.

I think this was covered in a FAQ. (As in, your method is actually the
'official' method).

-XaOs-
xaos@*****.net
-David Goth-

From:	Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject:	Re: SR3 damage system
Date:	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 17:17:58 -0600

Message no. 10 -----Original Message-----
From: Sean McCrohan <mccrohan@*****.OIT.GATECH.EDU>
To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Date: Friday, November 06, 1998 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: SR3 damage system

:Quoting Jhary-a-Conel (Jhary-a-Conel@***.NET):
:> SR3, p. 122, states 1. Attacker's test, 2. Defender's test, 3. compare
:> successes, 4. determine damage for mellee combat (->result of
:> attack). After that, defender rolls body to resist damage, so it's
:> exactly as in ranged combat.
:
: Sorry, you're wrong. Read that page again:
: 1. Attacker's Test
: 2. Defender's Test
: 3. Compare Successes
: 4. Determine Damage (Stage damage UP based on net successes of
melee
: rolls)

Also, succeses past those needed to stage damage up to deadly increase
the attack power.

: 5. Resist Damage (Stage damage DOWN based on Body successes)
:
: This is DIFFERENT from how it's done for ranged combat. In ranged
:combat, damage is staged either up OR down, based on the NET RESULT of
the
:attacker's Firearms roll and the Defender's Body roll. The damage is only
:staged once.
: Personally, we've always ignored the book and staged melee damage
:based on the difference between the winner's net Melee successes and the
:loser's Body successes. It makes more sense that way...but that's not how
the
:rules go, officially.
:
: --Sean
<add>
I think this was covered in a FAQ. (As in, your method is actually the
'official' method).
-XaOs-
<add>

We also used net successes for staging melee damage, but as a house
rule (and was in our FAQ, and maybe Wordmans). As written, the SR3 rules
have a similar effect, perhaps even better; Melee attacks could possibly
penetrate hardened armor that a similar ranged attack can't. The bit
about "extra" successes adding to power would not apply if you use net
successes.

Mongoose

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer