NEWS

Combat is SR6?

  • 309 Replies
  • 6131 Views

Marcus

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2710
  • Success always demands a greater effort.
« Reply #120 on: (13:04:31/07-12-19) »
2 Edge per turn is a bit easier to manage and explain, and would allow for a "bait & punish"-playstyle for tanky characters - which TBH wouldnīt be entirely realistic, but pretty fun.       

The spending edge to negate edge is a terrible idea.  It's internally self defeating.  It's going to make many player sit on edge. Which in turn means those players aren't going to enjoy it. Choices that cause option paralysis by generating a model where players are left to choose between playing not to lose instead of playing to win is an example of bad game design.  GM are going to have edge in superior amounts. Why? b/c NPC can always out numbered PCs, this means even if the PC have higher starting edge each NPC can generate edge and over all generate more. It's not hard to see this model come totally off the rails. Sure that may not be the intended design of the system, but GM choices are not always reasonable or in line the systems intent.

*Play-by-Post color guide*
Thinking
com
speaking

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2303
« Reply #121 on: (13:14:29/07-12-19) »
Any game system where you can dodge bullets is automatically de-prioritizing realism.

In 5e, where you can dodge bullets AND get bogged down in "realistic" modifiers is schizophrenic. 6e aims to remove that conflict 5e has with itself.

I never once viewed it as dodging bullets but as making yourself a harder target.

That's fine to do, but you need to recognize that that's doing mental gymnastics to accommodate the inherent disconnect with realism where the game allows you to literally dodge bullets.

No I donít, because you arenít literally dodging bullets. You are rolling a defense test creating a threshold your opponent must exceed to hit you.

This becomes very tenuous with adept skills that make you better at doging bullets and have forever being themed as 'what if the matrix but an elf'.

Adept skills were themed as seeing moments into the future so you are literally moving before the person shoots, aka not dodging a bullet but making yourself harder to hit.

« Reply #122 on: (13:24:23/07-12-19) »
Any game system where you can dodge bullets is automatically de-prioritizing realism.

In 5e, where you can dodge bullets AND get bogged down in "realistic" modifiers is schizophrenic. 6e aims to remove that conflict 5e has with itself.

I never once viewed it as dodging bullets but as making yourself a harder target.

That's fine to do, but you need to recognize that that's doing mental gymnastics to accommodate the inherent disconnect with realism where the game allows you to literally dodge bullets.

No I donít, because you arenít literally dodging bullets. You are rolling a defense test creating a threshold your opponent must exceed to hit you.

This becomes very tenuous with adept skills that make you better at doging bullets and have forever being themed as 'what if the matrix but an elf'.

Adept skills were themed as seeing moments into the future so you are literally moving before the person shoots, aka not dodging a bullet but making yourself harder to hit.

The line between "I can see into the future so I don't get hit" and "I dodged a bullet" is literally just an extra layer of description on the same core concept: People in Shadowrun can dodge bullets.

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2458
« Reply #123 on: (13:29:12/07-12-19) »
The line between "I can see into the future so I don't get hit" and "I dodged a bullet" is literally just an extra layer of description on the same core concept: People in Shadowrun can dodge bullets.

And it's been that way since 1st edition.
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.

sn0mm1s

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 246
« Reply #124 on: (13:46:56/07-12-19) »
Any game system where you can dodge bullets is automatically de-prioritizing realism.

In 5e, where you can dodge bullets AND get bogged down in "realistic" modifiers is schizophrenic. 6e aims to remove that conflict 5e has with itself.

I never once viewed it as dodging bullets but as making yourself a harder target.

That's fine to do, but you need to recognize that that's doing mental gymnastics to accommodate the inherent disconnect with realism where the game allows you to literally dodge bullets.

No I donít, because you arenít literally dodging bullets. You are rolling a defense test creating a threshold your opponent must exceed to hit you.

This becomes very tenuous with adept skills that make you better at doging bullets and have forever being themed as 'what if the matrix but an elf'.

Adept skills were themed as seeing moments into the future so you are literally moving before the person shoots, aka not dodging a bullet but making yourself harder to hit.

The line between "I can see into the future so I don't get hit" and "I dodged a bullet" is literally just an extra layer of description on the same core concept: People in Shadowrun can dodge bullets.

Yeah, I am not a huge fan of the level of abstraction that the new Edge system seems to imply (though I will obviously wait until the CRB is out to make a decision) *BUT* saying SR isn't about dodging/soaking bullets is disingenuous. IMO, with the way the system is set up, all that needs to be added is a threshold modifier that applies to *all* PCs/NPCs in opposed tests up to the discretion of the GM based on perceived difficulty. That eliminates the bazillion little modifiers and the Edge system would still be applicable and useful.

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2303
« Reply #125 on: (13:55:37/07-12-19) »
The line between "I can see into the future so I don't get hit" and "I dodged a bullet" is literally just an extra layer of description on the same core concept: People in Shadowrun can dodge bullets.

And it's been that way since 1st edition.


And thatís still not dodging bullets. Dodging bullets is shot has been fired you see it and move out of the way. Moving right before they shoot throwing off their shot is entirely different and is actually feasible. Erratic moving targets are hard to shoot. Is it an abstraction sure, all the rules are to some degree. But itís not supposed to represent actually dodging bullets.

« Reply #126 on: (14:00:19/07-12-19) »
The line between "I can see into the future so I don't get hit" and "I dodged a bullet" is literally just an extra layer of description on the same core concept: People in Shadowrun can dodge bullets.

And it's been that way since 1st edition.


And thatís still not dodging bullets. Dodging bullets is shot has been fired you see it and move out of the way. Moving right before they shoot throwing off their shot is entirely different and is actually feasible. Erratic moving targets are hard to shoot. Is it an abstraction sure, all the rules are to some degree. But itís not supposed to represent actually dodging bullets.

Look all the people talking about edge have taught me that if you use the word abstraction then you're playing a game for people who like Men in Black and not shadowrun.  ;)

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2354
« Reply #127 on: (14:08:22/07-12-19) »

So there are two fundamental problems here...  The first is the interaction of probability...  Larger pools have larger deviation (i.e. they are wider) allowing for a player to get very hot or very cold...  15 dice expect 6 hits but they can get 15.  6 dice expect 2 hits.  Is that 33% as effective?  Now add in the effects of edge or buying successes.  You can do so much more with 15 dice than you can with 9 when you start adding +1 to a die or exploding 6s.  How much edge do I need to avoid getting hit if you have 6 dice?  What about if you have 15?

Then add in what those probabilities mean...  If I want to soak damage I have a pretty static dice pool.  Now I care a whole lot about reducing the number of successes you could have had by reducing your dice pool.  The amount of potential incoming damage matters a lot to all parties involved and it impacts how a party needs to be built to be effective.  Want to try running without healing?

And then let's talk about the tactical impacts of those probabilities...  If I am a mage running with a bunch of melee-focused street samurai is it possible for me give them cover while they close with a bunch of CorpSec with guns?  I create smoke or darkness...  If my side tries to shoot everyone has the same problem so nobody gets edge but if my side tries to close they have edge (but still get shot by big dice pools, see above)?  Why can't I make a tactical choice to shut down ranged combat?  Maybe I know that CorpSec doesn't carry 250 lbs of ammo the way my insane friend does...  I'm happy to drag combat out and see who runs out of ammo first...  No longer an option.  Ohhh, look...  That guys over there has white phosphorus rounds (or lightning or electricity or ice or...) and now I care a whole lot about not getting hit...

Tactically speaking, anything that I want to accomplish other than shooting someone is now a GM fiat or a house rule.

Quack.

adzling

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3195
  • Telling it like it is
    • Building Better Security
« Reply #128 on: (14:19:42/07-12-19) »
that's just it though, are they both effected the same offensively yes, can hey both see just fine and etc yes ... but you are all glossing over some of the obvious stuff ... does the attacker have any way of mitigating the high winds? Is the defender effected by the winds? In this case I would assume both answers are no ... means the environmental advantage goes to the defender and he gets an edge point (same would apply when roles are reversed so you effectively just trade edge back and forth unless you change it up). It's all about who has the "tactical" advantage based on the action being taken. The fact that both attackers do not have their dice pool reduced does not statistically matter in the exchange, but how you make use of the situation to your advantage does.

also, while I do agree that the new edge system takes a lot of the punch out of the impact the previous modifiers provided but the the tactical choices are still there. So, yes while it is not nearly as in depth as a tactical simulation as it used to be it is still very viable to make effective use of tactics ... just in a different way and with different results.

So there are two fundamental problems here...  The first is the interaction of probability...  Larger pools have larger deviation (i.e. they are wider) allowing for a player to get very hot or very cold...  15 dice expect 6 hits but they can get 15.  6 dice expect 2 hits.  Is that 33% as effective?  Now add in the effects of edge or buying successes.  You can do so much more with 15 dice than you can with 9 when you start adding +1 to a die or exploding 6s.  How much edge do I need to avoid getting hit if you have 6 dice?  What about if you have 15?

Then add in what those probabilities mean...  If I want to soak damage I have a pretty static dice pool.  Now I care a whole lot about reducing the number of successes you could have had by reducing your dice pool.  The amount of potential incoming damage matters a lot to all parties involved and it impacts how a party needs to be built to be effective.  Want to try running without healing?

And then let's talk about the tactical impacts of those probabilities...  If I am a mage running with a bunch of melee-focused street samurai is it possible for me give them cover while they close with a bunch of CorpSec with guns?  I create smoke or darkness...  If my side tries to shoot everyone has the same problem so nobody gets edge but if my side tries to close they have edge (but still get shot by big dice pools, see above)?  Why can't I make a tactical choice to shut down ranged combat?  Maybe I know that CorpSec doesn't carry 250 lbs of ammo the way my insane friend does...  I'm happy to drag combat out and see who runs out of ammo first...  No longer an option.  Ohhh, look...  That guys over there has white phosphorus rounds (or lightning or electricity or ice or...) and now I care a whole lot about not getting hit...

Tactically speaking, anything that I want to accomplish other than shooting someone is now a GM fiat or a house rule.

excellent post exposing the core flaw of 6e's relative-advantage edge system replacing real world modifiers.

who cares what physics or actual hit probability is, that's all irrelevant now.
tactics based on the combat environment? that's out the window too
tactical choices having a real effect on outcomes? gone

man this is actually so much worse than i had first thought

and it didn't have to be this way

if only the playtesting had involved people with a strong enough knowledge of game mechanics to challenge the designers
if only they had taken the good parts of 5e, fixed the borked drek and streamlined the overly complicated bits
if only...

adzling

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3195
  • Telling it like it is
    • Building Better Security
« Reply #129 on: (14:23:44/07-12-19) »
Real world scenarios like a troll in an armoured leather jacket shooting fifty cal rounds from the hip with his smart linked sniper at a dragon?

it should be obvious but i'll just leave this here, again, cause you didn't see or read it the first time i guess
---
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 is 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.

No one's asking for Phoenix Command realism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Command) but having some semblance of, or connection to, reality is critically important.
Realistic inputs provide believable outputs.
Substituting fully-abstracted relative-advantage mechanics (see 6e's edge) results in the insanity folks are noting around this forum and elsewhere where outcomes bear little or no resemblance to what happens IRL.

Banshee

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 415
« Reply #130 on: (14:32:13/07-12-19) »

if only the playtesting had involved people with a strong enough knowledge of game mechanics to challenge the designers


this could not be farther from the truth if you tried
Robert "Banshee" Volbrecht
Freelancer & FAQ Committee member
Former RPG Lead Agent
Catalyst Demo Team

« Reply #131 on: (14:33:22/07-12-19) »
Real world scenarios like a troll in an armoured leather jacket shooting fifty cal rounds from the hip with his smart linked sniper at a dragon?

it should be obvious but i'll just leave this here, again, cause you didn't see or read it the first time i guess
---
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 is 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.

No one's asking for Phoenix Command realism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Command) but having some semblance of, or connection to, reality is critically important.
Realistic inputs provide believable outputs.
Substituting fully-abstracted relative-advantage mechanics (see 6e's edge) results in the insanity folks are noting around this forum and elsewhere where outcomes bear little or no resemblance to what happens IRL.

Realism is a poor argument when your response is just "no but I wanted a 2 on the realism scale, not an 8.8"

If realism is a meaningless metric (because the whole setting is camp nonsense) with an arbitrary scale then throwing the word around like a snob insisting people are listening to the wrong music just makes you look silly and doesn't serve to actually communicate anything outside of "I don't like this and sensible, correct people wouldn't like this either! Nyea!"

And I say that as someone not overly enthused by 6th edition at all.

adzling

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3195
  • Telling it like it is
    • Building Better Security
« Reply #132 on: (14:43:28/07-12-19) »
if the game does not reflect how things work irl at even a basic level then it's lost a critically important connection to telling stories grounded in meaning.

it becomes an abstract game more akin to a board game than an RPG.

that's ok, plenty of people enjoy that type of thing.

i dont.

im not judging YOU for enjoying that, I'm upset that the game has radically changed so I no longer enjoy it.

I just went and read the designer's notes on combat and here's the money shot that shows 6e is working exactly as intended by the designers:

"If weíre shooting and dodging in the same rainstorm, no one really has an advantage, so why toss modifiers on both sides that just shift dice pools in the same way?"

We've shown in this thread how this fallacy is incorrect and will negatively impact the game.
We've seen Banshee and Fastjack (you guys are fine people, no personal attack here) have reiterated this fallacy despite having it categorically shown by multiple people that it's just that, a fallacy.

The TL:DR here is that the game designers for 6e made a critical mistake when attempting simplification that will negatively impact gameplay by divorcing outcomes so far from reality that stuff just stops making sense.

That's sad, because it did not have to be this way. The goals of simplification and streamlining could have been achieved while still retaining the relation to reality. Instead, i'm 100% guessing here, the designers got distracted with the shiny advantage/ disadvantage mechanic without properly understanding the impact of it. Then they restricted play-testing to folks who did not know enough to challenge them. The outcome is a product that destroys any attempts at black trenchcoat play style, enshrining play based on a mostly meaningless advantage system.

I'm not judging anyone if they like 6e, I'm judging 6e.

adzling

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3195
  • Telling it like it is
    • Building Better Security
« Reply #133 on: (14:44:43/07-12-19) »

if only the playtesting had involved people with a strong enough knowledge of game mechanics to challenge the designers


this could not be farther from the truth if you tried

I'll take your word Banshee cause I respect you.
I guess they were overruled then? (no need to answer that, I know you're tied by NDA).

duckman

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 23
« Reply #134 on: (14:47:33/07-12-19) »

if only the playtesting had involved people with a strong enough knowledge of game mechanics to challenge the designers


this could not be farther from the truth if you tried

Be that as it may, there are still a number of us looking at this and wondering how to make specific types of things matter.  My post gave a number of examples of essentially defensive play which seem to have been thrown out the window in the name of streamlining.  Refuting this one comment but saying nothing about the post that gave rise to the comment is not reassuring.

Does the system provide a mechanic for doing any of the things I suggested?  Getting the opponent to use up ammo on poor shots?  Defending myself from multiple attackers with effects I don't want to get hit by?  Shutting down ranged combat to enable my team to close?  Are *any* of these possible within the mechanics or am I reliant on a GM house-ruling a situation "reasonably" so that everyone is having fun?  In my gaming group I can count on that GM but I am blessed to be in a group with 150+ years of GMing experience at the table every Friday night.  I can't normally get that at a con event or in any random group and I am hoping that tactical play is not reliant on it.

(Heck, even if this kind of stuff is still behind an NDA, a statement that it has not all been swept away into the edge system, especially one that is limited to two edge per combat round, would be helpful.)