NEWS

Combat is SR6?

  • 311 Replies
  • 6731 Views

Serbitar

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 49
« Reply #45 on: (17:18:24/07-11-19) »
On the flipside of realism, how much FUN is it to deal with a diminished dice pool that renders the sniper a smaller dice pool?

I think we all get it.  6e is less simulationist.  The disagreement we seem to have is whether fun is more important than realistic accuracy. Opinions aren't wrong, they're opinions.

Less simulationist (modifiers) and mor gamist (edge). Fun can aslo result from more accuracy (and thus more choices and consequences), it need not be in competition to that. So we do not disagree about fun, we disagree what IS fun. Apart from that, agreed.

adzling

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3204
  • Telling it like it is
    • Building Better Security
« Reply #46 on: (17:19:06/07-11-19) »
If streamlining crunch negatively affects either playstyle more than the other, its the Pink Mohawkers who have to play more Black Trench coat now without all the numbercrunching and the loss of 5e's soak pools.

huh? sorry this makes no sense to me, perhaps it's a definition thing?

to me pink mohawk means RULE OF COOL trumps REALITY whereas black trenchcoat means REALITY trumps RULE OF COOL.

with the above definitions it should be clear what i mean when i say "6e is for Pink Mohawk players and tells the black trench players to get lost".

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2356
« Reply #47 on: (17:37:14/07-11-19) »

Diminishing dice pools arenít the only way to show difficulty. Even in a narrative system harder tasks are supposed to be harder. If it does t actually show difficulty itís doing a poor job telling the narrative of it being a difficult task.

But it's NOT harder under the metric that 6e uses, that's the rub.  That's really the rub. If snipers A and B are suffering equally(or near enough to equally), THAT is what matters.

You're comparing a shot through a hurricane to a shot that's not through a hurricane.  It's a purely academic and functionally meaningless exercise.  The 6e paradigm is to compare sniper A's shot to sniper B's shot.  Not sniper A's shot to sniper A's shot under hypothetically different circumstances.

Iím not sure how else to explain it but things should be difficult in their own right. Not just comparatively to your opposition.

In this hypothetical hurricane you should be rarely hitting when you do itís probably a grazing hit. Him being in the same boat should mean he misses often as well not you both pop head shots left and right.

Letís say I want to lift object x itís really heavy so should be hard to lift. I also want to lift object y and itís pretty lite. Theoretically it might be a different threshold to lift each item based on my strength/body in 5e I need 8 hits for x and only 1 for y. You are basically saying why does it matter that one object is heavier you only need 1 hit for both of them.

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2749
« Reply #48 on: (17:45:18/07-11-19) »
In 5e, trying to hit a marksman's target during a hurricane would be reflected by dice pool penalties and possibly by an increased threshold.  If the target were instead an opposing sniper, the mechanics change and you go from a success test to an opposed test.  The mechanics change for completely meta reasons.

In 6e, if you're trying to hit a bull's eye and trying to hit an opposing sniper again the mechanics change for completely meta reasons.  For the success test, sure there'll probably be GM-invented penalties to the dice pool and/or an increased threshold.  But for the opposed test, the edge mechanic kicks in instead.

It's not inherently better or worse than 5e... both cases have completely meta reasons for the mechanics themselves suddenly changing for no in-universe reason.
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, youíre fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2356
« Reply #49 on: (17:49:34/07-11-19) »
Except one meta reason reflects difficulty one doesnít. The rules can help set the story and setting. If difficulty vanishes on opposed tests it changes the setting and story.

adzling

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3204
  • Telling it like it is
    • Building Better Security
« Reply #50 on: (17:58:08/07-11-19) »
Except one meta reason reflects difficulty one doesnít. The rules can help set the story and setting. If difficulty vanishes on opposed tests it changes the setting and story.

this 100%

hence my comment that 6e is now all MiB where rule of cool trumps any semblance of reality.

make no mistake 5e was NOT a combat reality simulator (see the old Phoenix Command for what that looked like) but it had some connection to reality with a nice dose of rule of cool via edge.

6e completely tosses out any semblance of reality replacing it ALL with rule of cool.

If you like that then 6e is for you. No judgement everyone get's their kicks in different ways.

If you don't then 6e is going to drive you nuts in very short order as all kinds of ridiculous stuff that ruins immersion starts happening on a routine basis.

Moonshine Fox

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 589
  • Proudly serving our dragon overlords
« Reply #51 on: (18:10:13/07-11-19) »
You all saying that because dice pool modifiers "don't exist" (which isn't true, there's just less of them) that you can't make things "more difficult". Y'all do realize there's the whole Threshold thing right? Like, it's even laid out in the QSR. Sniper trying to shoot through a hurricane, Attribute + Skill (5) roll to do it. Want to try and follow that ninja across an icy beam? He rolls Agility + Athletics (2) while you roll Agility + Athletics (4). This isn't even a new thing, thresholds have existed for several editions.

As for the whole "losing "realism"" thing, I may get in trouble for saying it but, tough drek. "Realism" is for when I go to the day job. The game is when I want to be a chromed up weirdo who gets paid to have questionable and loose morals. There are plenty of players, probably a majority of them judging by the trends in gaming, who favor simpler more streamlined rules that they can then modify in a way best for their table. Removing base hardware level rules from a numbers heavy game is far harder then adding software level patches to a more streamlined rule set to add in the complexity you want.

4th edition D&D was simulationist and rules heavy, while 5th edition is simplified and streamlined. Player base has expanded. 7th edition Warhammer 40k had MASSIVE rules complexity bloat that put a Plague Marine's belly to shame. 8th is streamlined and introduced newer even simpler ways to build armies. Player base has grown significantly and a lot of older players are returning to both game and hobby. A lot of us gamers are old, and have families and lives, we don't want to waste hours of what game time we get looking up charts of numbers to figure stuff out.

And yes, Shadowrun has always veered more to the Pink Mohawk side of the spectrum. There's drive-by-fireballings by elven gangers and dragons who became President. You want to claim that 6th is destroying your black trench coat style play, while I way the slight tongue-in-cheek humor loss with 5th (and maybe 4th I don't know on that one) was what destroyed the game for me. So I guess we can both just be disappointed in an edition and play the one we like.

adzling

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3204
  • Telling it like it is
    • Building Better Security
« Reply #52 on: (18:31:35/07-11-19) »
As for the whole "losing "realism"" thing, I may get in trouble for saying it but, tough drek. "Realism" is for when I go to the day job.

No one's saying what you like is wrong (see repeated denials of same from all involved).
What we're saying is that 6e does not look like it has room for our kind of fun in the way that 5e does.
A better built system could support both playstyles.
Moreover 6e seems redundant given the existence of Anarchy.

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2356
« Reply #53 on: (18:44:07/07-11-19) »
Fox that is literally what Iíve been asking for. A threshold system for opposed tests. But their blog/post whatever itís called,  today explaining combat said as long as both sides are penalized itís just a wash and there is no edge, dice pool changes, threshold modifiers etc.  and Iíve seen nothing to indicate a threshold modifying system for combat at all yet. Against the environment sure, combat not yet.


Iron Serpent Prince

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 381
« Reply #54 on: (18:45:30/07-11-19) »
You're comparing a shot through a hurricane to a shot that's not through a hurricane.  It's a purely academic and functionally meaningless exercise.

And here is where you are failing to see what is being said.

Allow me to simplify (read: streamline ;) ) the example a bit.

Instead of two snipers in a hurricane, let's use two opposing forces (can be anything (really) having a gunfight in a warehouse.
The terrain effects both sides equally.
- In 6e, this results in no change in the rules.
- In 5e, there might be situational modifiers applied to both sides.

Now, the fear - and I will say it: the possibly unfounded fear - is that when you introduce something into the combat that affects both sides equally, 6e won't reflect that.

In the warehouse example, what happens when someone "drops smoke" either through a smoke grenade, spell, spirit power, whatever?
- In 6e, as long as neither side has Thermographic vision:  Nothing changes.  At all.  In spite of their being...  Well, situations that equally blinding both sides would be beneficial, in 6e there isn't any change to how the game plays.
- In 5e, both sides get Blind Fire penalties (if neither side has Thermo) allowing your side an easier time withdrawing - or even advancing to a better position.

So comparing shots in and out of a hurricane doesn't have to be academic at all.

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2356
« Reply #55 on: (19:14:53/07-11-19) »
As a aside. I donít think anyone is asking for realism. It is a setting with magic, cyber etc. what some people are asking for it for it to make sense in the context of the setting.

The setting presumedly gravity works the same there as here. While we donít need accurate per second tracking of distance falling, a system that said no matter how far you fall it takes 2 combat turns to hit the ground would have streamlined the falling rules to where they donít make sense anymore.

If my threshold to shoot a man sized target in a hurricane is 5. but once it is an opposed test the threshold is generated by 6 dice when shooting at a normal person trying not to get shot the issue isnít realism. it is that it no longer makes internal sense in the setting. It should be 5+hits scored by the rando trying not to get shot. As that makes internal consistent sense in the setting.

Moonshine Fox

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 589
  • Proudly serving our dragon overlords
« Reply #56 on: (19:30:48/07-11-19) »
As for the whole "losing "realism"" thing, I may get in trouble for saying it but, tough drek. "Realism" is for when I go to the day job.

No one's saying what you like is wrong (see repeated denials of same from all involved).
What we're saying is that 6e does not look like it has room for our kind of fun in the way that 5e does.
A better built system could support both playstyles.
Moreover 6e seems redundant given the existence of Anarchy.

Maybe I'm the only one who feels that way, but it sure seems like that's what you're saying despite denials. You keep talking about how your style of play is lost, and have been dismissive to the point of rudeness when others of us talk about how we like what we're seeing and how it can improve our table, or when games with other players have left people overall positive.

Even just from the quick start rules I can see a lot of ways to make things very black trench when I want to. I'm sure there'll be even more things I can find once I get my paws on a CRB.

Moonshine Fox

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 589
  • Proudly serving our dragon overlords
« Reply #57 on: (19:36:25/07-11-19) »
Fox that is literally what Iíve been asking for. A threshold system for opposed tests. But their blog/post whatever itís called,  today explaining combat said as long as both sides are penalized itís just a wash and there is no edge, dice pool changes, threshold modifiers etc.  and Iíve seen nothing to indicate a threshold modifying system for combat at all yet. Against the environment sure, combat not yet.

All right, the QSR doesn't outright say that thresholds are (or can) be present on opposed rolls like I was thinking it did. I can see them having left it out of there, but otherwise it makes too much sense to not have that. Granted in the example used I'd just rule that neither can take the shot, modifiers be fragged.

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2356
« Reply #58 on: (19:46:11/07-11-19) »
Fox that is literally what Iíve been asking for. A threshold system for opposed tests. But their blog/post whatever itís called,  today explaining combat said as long as both sides are penalized itís just a wash and there is no edge, dice pool changes, threshold modifiers etc.  and Iíve seen nothing to indicate a threshold modifying system for combat at all yet. Against the environment sure, combat not yet.

All right, the QSR doesn't outright say that thresholds are (or can) be present on opposed rolls like I was thinking it did. I can see them having left it out of there, but otherwise it makes too much sense to not have that. Granted in the example used I'd just rule that neither can take the shot, modifiers be fragged.

Sure the example was absurdist exaggeration but plenty of other basic penalties could get lost. I think the example in the post where itís a wash was like fog or rain.

I donít think Iíd have a hard time house ruling it but I think itís clear from what they have said that it would be a Blake rule and is not core.

duckman

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 23
« Reply #59 on: (19:51:28/07-11-19) »
I don't know how comfortable people are with house rules so I kinda have to ask this of the people concerned about the "realism" argument.  We've had multiple examples including characters running across an icy beam (ok, this is going to require the GM to create a threshold so no problem) and the shooters in a blizzard or even the shooters in a warehouse where someone has dropped smoke...

First, I am coming at this from the perspective of someone who *expects* a GM to be adding modifiers based on his/her perception of the situation so even if you want to call it house ruling, I am comfortable expecting a GM to say "you're going to lose a (hit/die) on this test."  Second, I respect the idea that you want to reward making choices that impact play or reflect awareness of the setting and the impact it should be having (i.e. stop trying to shoot through the blizzard and close or do something else to be more effective).

To that end, I fully expect to see penalties either in the form of dice pool penalties or thresholds applied to these situations.  I'm not sure what the concern about it is unless you are really voicing a concern that it really is up to the GM to set those penalties and you cannot rules-lawyer around them because they really are GM fiat.  This *does* lead to the situation where a person who jumps from GM to GM (typical for con-goers for example) doesn't have a good idea what to expect from one GM to another and I totally get that.  Given that the rules allow a GM to apply thresholds and I fully expect a GM to dole out penalties at will, is there something aside from the consistency issue that causes problems here?