NEWS

6E - The Priority Table: Open discussion

  • 65 Replies
  • 993 Views

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6188
« Reply #30 on: <05-04-21/0231:39> »
Changing the order of operations during chargen prevented a loop hole though (in 5th you could go adept D, get 2-4 points worth of augmentations and then increase your magic rating from 0 to 2 or 3 for free adept powers). This was a good change in SR6.

Prio table. The bad thing with it is that it doesn't feel like a consistent feeling. Shift around the numbers to make them into sequences that make more sense across the board.
  • D should just be slightly better than E and A should be much better than D (this is not the case for Magic, see my suggestion above on how to fix that).
  • Metatype bonus adjustment points per rank need to have an exact correlation to Attribute bonus attribute points per rank (at least at higher ratings where most of the points will almost always go into physical or mental attributes, and not special attributes)
  • There need to be a metatype adjustment point option that give exactly 6 points (to align with mundane human's max of 7 edge)
  • Shadowrunners that don't focus on Attributes at all should still end up with a *minimum* attribute average of say... 2.5 (today you end up with an average of just 1.25)

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9753
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #31 on: <05-04-21/0456:18> »
(Honestly, 7 Edge is a trap. You constantly have to spend the Edge after you first miss a chance to gain it due to being at your limit.)

I must admit, I disagree with Attributes E being bad. Attributes D is still an average citizen, Attributes E is a dumpstat that really forces you to spend Karma or suck it up. If citizen average was still 3, yes, D and E would be low. But citizen average is 2, and you can see that in grunt blocks. As such, I don't see the problem with Attributes E being a real painful thing. Pick your poison, everything at a price.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

Lormyr

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 816
« Reply #32 on: <05-04-21/0551:12> »
Attributes of 2 being average is fine conceptually for an average person, but Shadowrunners are hardly average. Additionally, once we leave the realm of conception, attributes of 2 would leave most characters with what I consider a shit dice pool unless perhaps they ultra min-maxed the one or two skill based pools they wanted to be their focus.

Attributes E is the worse possible selection imo. Most of the other problems with the disparity of this particular priority chart have already been touched on, in particular as relates to Magic.
"TL:DR 6e's reduction of meaningful choices is akin to forcing everyone to wear training wheels. Now it's just becomes a bunch of toddlers riding around on tricycles they can't fall off of." - Adzling

MercilessMing

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 252
« Reply #33 on: <05-04-21/1450:52> »
I must admit, I disagree with Attributes E being bad.
Oh boy.  Ok, you win, most unpopular opinion.

Quote from: Lormyr
Attributes of 2 being average is fine conceptually for an average person, but Shadowrunners are hardly average. Additionally, once we leave the realm of conception, attributes of 2 would leave most characters with what I consider a shit dice pool unless perhaps they ultra min-maxed the one or two skill based pools they wanted to be their focus
Yeah, although I respect that SR6 wanted to lower the starting power level by declaring that "2 is the new average", the game does not actually support this idea.  The dice pools you make with a rating of 2 do not indicate any kind of base level competency at anything.

Like I said originally, the authors seriously undervalued Attributes when creating the priority table.  It is the most valuable stat type.  Yet they seemed to be under the impression that reducing the skill list to 17 made them equal value.  The progression from 2 to 24 stinks of someone making an "elegant formula" and falling in love with the math instead of looking at the actual values and putting them to use.  No seriously, do the math.  Skills and Attributes follow identical progression, and you get 8 more skill points than attribute points on any given letter.  Since you start with 1 in each of the 8 attributes, the end result is an equal number of attribute and skill points across each of the priority levels.  Giving skills and attributes equal value is the root cause of this problem.  The author literally did not realize that attribute points would be worth more than skill points.

Of course they are!  Obviously, attributes have much more utility than skills (with the exception of STR - ha!).  But the author is wrong in more ways.  Attributes and skills are not spent in the same way on the low end.  If you take E skills and get 10 skill points, you are not going to take 1 skill at 3 and 7 other skills at 1.  That would be incredibly inefficient.  But that IS what your attribute array will look like at E attributes.  So I would accuse the author of not only undervaluing attributes but also just plain not understanding the right way to create characters in a game that rewards specialists and has a 1:1 point buy chargen with exponentially rising costs in character advancement.



Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6188
« Reply #34 on: <05-04-21/1625:46> »
citizen average is 2, and you can see that in grunt blocks.
Citizens are typically poor mundane humans with perhaps 7-8 extra attribute points and perhaps 6-12 skill points. Which, if they were to use the priority table, would roughly translate into a priority array of 5 E's.

If a Shadowrunner don't prioritize magic then she will be mundane like most citizens. If she don't prioritize resources then she will start with 8.000 nuyen which mean you are poor like most citizens. If she don't prioritize skills then she will only get 10 (or perhaps 12) skill and be as unskilled as most citizens. If she don't prioritize attributes at all then she should at the very least get 8 (or perhaps 12, not just 2) extra attributes so she at the very least have the same low average attribute array as most regular citizens.

Also, by increasing the attribute value of the minimum attribute priority you indirectly also reduce the value of the maximum attribute priority. Instead of dropping 8 points going from attributes A to attributes B (24 -> 16, which is huge and make attribute priority A hands down best option) you might perhaps just drop 3-4 points going from attribute A to attribute B (24 -> 20 or perhaps 21). Or (same thing) the opportunity cost of going from attribute B to attribute A is very low if the difference is a staggering 8 attribute points. The opportunity cost of going attributes A will be inherently much higher if the difference is only 3-4 attribute points.

Wakshaani

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2207
« Reply #35 on: <05-04-21/1919:11> »
I must admit, I disagree with Attributes E being bad.
Oh boy.  Ok, you win, most unpopular opinion.

Quote from: Lormyr
Attributes of 2 being average is fine conceptually for an average person, but Shadowrunners are hardly average. Additionally, once we leave the realm of conception, attributes of 2 would leave most characters with what I consider a shit dice pool unless perhaps they ultra min-maxed the one or two skill based pools they wanted to be their focus
Yeah, although I respect that SR6 wanted to lower the starting power level by declaring that "2 is the new average", the game does not actually support this idea.  The dice pools you make with a rating of 2 do not indicate any kind of base level competency at anything.

Like I said originally, the authors seriously undervalued Attributes when creating the priority table.  It is the most valuable stat type.  Yet they seemed to be under the impression that reducing the skill list to 17 made them equal value.  The progression from 2 to 24 stinks of someone making an "elegant formula" and falling in love with the math instead of looking at the actual values and putting them to use.  No seriously, do the math.  Skills and Attributes follow identical progression, and you get 8 more skill points than attribute points on any given letter.  Since you start with 1 in each of the 8 attributes, the end result is an equal number of attribute and skill points across each of the priority levels.  Giving skills and attributes equal value is the root cause of this problem.  The author literally did not realize that attribute points would be worth more than skill points.

Of course they are!  Obviously, attributes have much more utility than skills (with the exception of STR - ha!).  But the author is wrong in more ways.  Attributes and skills are not spent in the same way on the low end.  If you take E skills and get 10 skill points, you are not going to take 1 skill at 3 and 7 other skills at 1.  That would be incredibly inefficient.  But that IS what your attribute array will look like at E attributes.  So I would accuse the author of not only undervaluing attributes but also just plain not understanding the right way to create characters in a game that rewards specialists and has a 1:1 point buy chargen with exponentially rising costs in character advancement.

Question: How much more valuable do you think an attribute is than a skill? If a skill costs, say, 5 points, how much should an attribute cost? Twice as much? Four times? Ten times? Toss a rough idea out there.

(I have a personal formula, didn't know if anyone else had a general feel on it.)

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Coordinator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
« Reply #36 on: <05-04-21/1944:48> »
Given a potential alteration-to-6e context?  Personally, I think dropping skills to 4/level would be about right.  Maybe even 3/level... that would accelerate skill development noticeably from current state and have the nice synergy of being the same cost to start a new skill as buying a new knowledge skill.

But that's a band aid.

I think, in theory, it's actually fine to have the skills and attributes cost the same to advance. 1 point in either still gives the same net result in a dice pool, after all.  Yes, there's a valid point in that certain attributes flatly are more valuable than skills... but that's imo because skills weren't better balanced, nor were there sufficient ways the weight of a skill was made relevant.

Which is better? spending X karma to advance Agility 1 point, or the same amount of karma to increase (insert skill here) 1 point?  As things are, it's virtually always better to take that 1 point in Agility if the karma cost is the same, because that same die can be used across so many skills as well as in potential attribute-only tests, to boot.   Frankly, there needs to be more cases where "agility" skills use something other than Agility.  Athletics has the example of being "agility", but linking with Strength in certain cases.  Skills would be much more valuable, karma point for karma point, if they weren't so strongly linked (or arguably, implied to be linked) to an unbalanced assortment of attributes.  Take Close Combat, for example.  You roll STR instead of AGI when you're trying to smash or break through a barrier.  That's not enough reason to bring any kind of parity between the decision to invest in Agility or Close Combat.  But if the GM can insist you have to roll STR instead of AGI a large amount of the time (with a big weapon, whenever you're fatigued, whenever you're trying to knock someone over, etc etc etc) the value of putting a point into Close Combat goes up dramatically, as that die will always be available no matter what attribute is being invoked.  Similarly, there's a few mechanics that key off the number of skill ranks (teamwork, dodging, blocking).  If there were more of those kinds of rules, the value of investing in skills would also increase in relative value.

RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

MercilessMing

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 252
« Reply #37 on: <05-04-21/2002:10> »
Quote from: SSDR
If there were more of those kinds of rules, the value of investing in skills would also increase in relative value.
Very true but perhaps harder to implement at this point?  Maybe maybe not.  Clearly though AGI is the king attribute for getting physical things done, and that's really unfortunate.  I would have much rather seen a split between AGI and STR; AGI for ranged combat, STR for melee and throwing.

Quote from: Wakshaani
Question: How much more valuable do you think an attribute is than a skill? If a skill costs, say, 5 points, how much should an attribute cost? Twice as much? Four times? Ten times? Toss a rough idea out there.
Put a gun to my head and make me pick a number, I'd say 50% more valuable than a skill point.  I wouldn't go all the way to 2x.  Too many other factors at play - all attributes and skills are not equally useful to a character.  But they are clearly more valuable, and it's a mistake to price them equally.  I house rule karma costs at 5x for attr and 3x for skills.

Tecumseh

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3906
« Reply #38 on: <05-04-21/2019:15> »
Question: How much more valuable do you think an attribute is than a skill? If a skill costs, say, 5 points, how much should an attribute cost? Twice as much? Four times? Ten times? Toss a rough idea out there.

I tossed out 2:1 earlier in the thread in the context of but that's too probably too low because if someone offered me two skill points for one attribute point I'd tell them no.

3:1 is closer to the mark, but I'm probably still going to say no. At 4:1 I'll probably start considering it.

Again, the exchange doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be viable. High Attributes + low Skills vs. low Attributes + high Skills? It doesn't matter if they net out precisely the same, but I hope they're at least within the same ballpark so that the mechanics can support both characters/stories.

After chargen, the costs for advancement are a different story. I'm thinking that Wakshaani is asking about chargen specifically, but if he's interested in a broader answer then I'll take a stab at one.

Wakshaani

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2207
« Reply #39 on: <05-05-21/0039:38> »
Question: How much more valuable do you think an attribute is than a skill? If a skill costs, say, 5 points, how much should an attribute cost? Twice as much? Four times? Ten times? Toss a rough idea out there.

I tossed out 2:1 earlier in the thread in the context of but that's too probably too low because if someone offered me two skill points for one attribute point I'd tell them no.

3:1 is closer to the mark, but I'm probably still going to say no. At 4:1 I'll probably start considering it.

Again, the exchange doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be viable. High Attributes + low Skills vs. low Attributes + high Skills? It doesn't matter if they net out precisely the same, but I hope they're at least within the same ballpark so that the mechanics can support both characters/stories.

After chargen, the costs for advancement are a different story. I'm thinking that Wakshaani is asking about chargen specifically, but if he's interested in a broader answer then I'll take a stab at one.

Combo platter. In theory, there should be zero space between chargen costs and post-chargen costs, so for purposes of this, assume that the cost would be the same. IE, if a skill cost 5 points a rank, regardless of that rank (so, rank 1 = 5 pts, rank 2 = 10 pts, rank 3 = 15 pts, etc, non-additive (IE, it isn't 5, 15, 30, but 5, 10, 15) … assuming a progression like that, regardless of if in chargen or in regular play, what would a fair cost be for an attribute? 10? 15? 30? 50? Just spitballing here.

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9753
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #40 on: <05-05-21/0351:11> »
Honestly, Attributes are already at the max cost I'd give them, what with 1->2 already costing you 2 runs. With suggested karma down compared to SR5, I strongly oppose making them more expensive. I'd lower skills to 4 (or maybe 3) myself, make it cheaper to pick them up. 5->9 costs 150 karma right now, while an Attribute 4->6 costs 55, and the Attribute likely boosts multiple skills.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6188
« Reply #41 on: <05-05-21/0659:47> »
Question: How much more valuable do you think an attribute is than a skill? If a skill costs, say, 5 points, how much should an attribute cost? Twice as much? Four times? Ten times? Toss a rough idea out there.
From a karma cost point of view feel 5 Karma x new rating (same as Attributes) is actually spot on.

But from a prioritization table point of view I think you should get more skill points for each priority rank (delta between the ranks) than you get from attributes.

Example:

Attribute
E = 12
D = 15 (increase of 3)
C = 18 (increase of 3)
B = 21 (increase of 3)
A = 24 (increase of 3)

Skill
E = 12
D = 17 (increase of 5)
C = 22 (increase of 5)
B = 27 (increase of 5)
A = 32 (increase of 5)

Or

Attribute
E = 12
D = 14 (increase of 2)
C = 17 (increase of 3)
B = 20 (increase of 3)
A = 24 (increase of 4)

Skill
E = 12
D = 14 (increase of 2)
C = 18 (increase of 4)
B = 24 (increase of 6)
A = 32 (increase of 8 )
« Last Edit: <05-05-21/0907:40> by Xenon »

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2935
« Reply #42 on: <05-05-21/0901:56> »
For Advancement I'd go something like, Skills Rank 1 through 6 cost 5 plus the Rank you're going to.  Rank 6 to 12, 10 plus the Rank you're going to.

Attributes I'd go with 10 plus twice what you're going to for value 1 to 5.  6 and up 15 plus double what you're going to. 

Lets characters fill in the low spots quicker, and keeps the costs more in line with Initiation. 

I would also let people buy more "Max Essence" as a mundane parallel to Initiation.   

Lormyr

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 816
« Reply #43 on: <05-05-21/0919:01> »
Yeah, although I respect that SR6 wanted to lower the starting power level by declaring that "2 is the new average", the game does not actually support this idea.  The dice pools you make with a rating of 2 do not indicate any kind of base level competency at anything.

Precisely. Regardless of any other sentiment about the matter, this is the bottom line.
"TL:DR 6e's reduction of meaningful choices is akin to forcing everyone to wear training wheels. Now it's just becomes a bunch of toddlers riding around on tricycles they can't fall off of." - Adzling

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2935
« Reply #44 on: <05-05-21/0924:02> »
There's not a lot of point to Metatype C
The reason would be to walk out of chargen with Edge 7 instead of Edge 5.

(I don't know anybody who likes throwing away the extra couple adjustment points).
It is still an increase of 2 Edge (which in this case is a post chargen value of 65 karma).

But yes, it would make a lot more sense if metatype adjustment points instead gave you for example 1, 3, 6, 9, 13 adjustment attribute points.

And you also need to have a correlation between metatype points and attribute points. If you go Meta A and Attribute B or Attribute A and meta B should not matter. You should probably end up with the same character.

Using the same delta between the points (+2, +3, +3, +4) translated to attributes (and starting with a baseline of 2.5 average attributes) you might end up with something like this; 12, 14, 17, 20, 24.

But to be honest, since there is no real opportunity cost to pick a metahuman I think it would not be more than fair that Humans also get to spend adjustment points on regular attributes. Otherwise metahumans will just be straight up better (in most scenarios they probably will be anyway since they also get free racial qualities).


I don't especially like that you can have some magic abilities almost for free.
...
So I guess I'd rather Magic/Resonance D was still Mundane.
Agree.

All other priority categories start out bad and then get slowly better and then really good.
Magic start out bad, but then immediately get super good. Then just add 10 karma worth of spells and 1 adjustment attribute point worth of magic per category on top of that which honestly is not really worth it. For adepts it is basically only 1 adjustment attribute point worth of magic per category which mean there is virtually no point at all at going higher than D if you plan on going Adept.

Instead magic D need to be just slightly better than Magic E and Magic A need to open up a lot more options for an awakened character than just Magic priority D. Progressie distribution like the other categories.

Perhaps something like this; E = Mundane, D = Weak Aspected Magician, C = Weak Adept/Techno or Strong Aspected Magician, B = Strong Adept/Techno or Weak Full Magician/Mystic Adept, A = Strong Full Magician/Mystic Adept.


That being the case...  Why not take 2 spells or 1 point worth of adept powers plus Edge 2 (metatype Priority E), instead of Edge 5 (metatype priority D)?  Surely that bit of magic or couple of powers could offset the extra few starting Edge.
Cause unless that was their concept, they're probably going to lose that Magic rating when they start putting in ware.
I think he mean that starting the game with Edge 5 + forever Mundane (Magic E, Meta D) is pretty bad compared to starting the game with Edge 2 (that you can raise to 3 with 15 customization karma) but you are now also fully Awakened or fully Emerged... and perhaps also get a couple of free spells or complex forms as an added bonus (Magic D, Meta E).

Even if you don't really plan on being a magician, adept or technomancer there is still very little reason to not go Magic D during chargen.


I'd turn it à la carte.   
E gets nothing. 
D gets a starting Magic/Resonance of 1 and 4 Awakened Points and the ability to buy one Awakened Talent.
C gets a starting Magic/Resonance of 1 and 8 Awakened Points and the ability to buy up to two Awakened Talents.
B gets a starting Magic/Resonance of 1 and 10 Awakened Points and the ability to buy up to three Awakened Talents.
A gets a starting Magic/Resonance of 1 and 12 Awakened Points and the ability to buy up to Four Awakened Talents.

Awakened talents for Magic are:
Astral Projection (Includes Astral Perception) cost 1.
Enchanting cost 1, 4 Preparations known.
Spell casting, includes Ritual Magic cost 2, 4 Spells known.
Summoning and Binding cost 2, if Binding Materials are purchased you may start with bound Spirits using the Buying Hits rule.
Adept Powers Cost 3.

Resonance:
Living Persona cost 1.
Threading cost 2, 4 Complex Forms known.
Compiling cost 2.
Registering cost 2, start with Registered Sprites using the Buying Hits rule.

You can use your Awakened Points to buy Magic or Resonance one for one or purchase an Awakened Talent.

No SAPs or Metahuman Adjustment points for increased Magic / Resonance.  Can be increased with Karma.