NEWS

My issues with 6th edition: "suspension of disbelief" vs. "the uncanny valley"

  • 399 Replies
  • 30923 Views

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 4026
« Reply #90 on: <07-15-19/1436:34> »
...
Seriously why does the design team thing grenades are the most dangerous weapon in the universe.

It's not like Grenades' massive damage compared to guns is a new thing to 6e.

They were ridiculously OP in 5e.  If anything, they've been toned down since 5e.
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.

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9681
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #91 on: <07-15-19/1438:36> »
Well, if you're close enough to be reliably on target, you're close enough to be blowing yourself up as well.  Generally you want to throw grenades a good ways AWAY from yourself :D

Truth! But you can make a specialist out of chargen that will statistically break even on the scatter chart at medium range. 21 dice (11 agility, 7 athletics, 1 reflex recorder, 2 specialization) averages 7 hits vs. the 2d6 scatter average.
Average rolls meaning no scatter is not the same as average no scatter. :P 2d6 and 21 dice eh... 44% at scatter, average 1.3 scatter so that's average 3m when there's scatter? And 2/9 chance at 3+ scatter.
« Last Edit: <07-15-19/1442:06> by Michael Chandra »
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2605
« Reply #92 on: <07-15-19/1440:00> »
...
Seriously why does the design team thing grenades are the most dangerous weapon in the universe.

It's not like Grenades' massive damage compared to guns is a new thing to 6e.

They were ridiculously OP in 5e.  If anything, they've been toned down since 5e.

Yeah it was terrible in 5e as well. I had hoped they’d have realized how bad it was by now.

BeCareful

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 160
« Reply #93 on: <07-15-19/1453:33> »
Anyway, a thing I read here once is that grenades (especially high-explosive ones), when brought up against the Barrier rules, can not only destroy nearly every cubicle in its blast radius, it can also blow apart cheap walls and even flooring.

So the question of, "Do you really want to cause indiscriminate property damage?" will cause people to pack flash-bangs instead. Or just save grenades for the Really Dangerous Stuff.

Don't count on that being a factor.

While all of the GMs I have ever played under (regardless of rules system) have, at the very least, a working knowledge of the rules the vast majority do not know drek about "the real world."

Bear in mind, must people get their knowledge from the movies where kitchen cabinets are bulletproof.

Unless the 6e rules blattantly, and in plain language, declare that grenades cause catastrophic collateral damage, it will hardly be enforced.  I mean, I often come across GMs who swear that standard hollow "stick" build dryway walls stop bullets.

Aw, really? I thought it was a popular tactic to share a micro-drone's feed/camera in your helmet/ ARO on a traced persona or something, and shoot your target through a wall. If you buy hits for barriers, the gunshot might do 2 or 3 less DV, but your target won't get a defense test!
I mean, it is easier, for simplicity's sake, to treat walls as indestructible unless you're intentionally trying to destroy one, but it's also more fun to show the destructive aftermath of these surprisingly dangerous explosives.
"Welcome to Shadowrun, where the biggest obstacle is you!"

Lormyr

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 794
« Reply #94 on: <07-15-19/1502:21> »
They were ridiculously OP in 5e.  If anything, they've been toned down since 5e.

They were very manageable in 5e because armor was actually armor. While the damage might have been toned down it is irrelevant because soak capacity has been eliminated, not just toned down.

Average rolls meaning no scatter is not the same as average no scatter. :P 2d6 and 21 dice eh... 44% at scatter, average 1.3 scatter so that's average 3m when there's scatter? And 2/9 chance at 3+ scatter.

Sure. If that probability is not sufficient for someone though make an elf adept instead, net another 3-4ish dice, and it will make the auto kill more reliable. That's just out of chargen too, you have another 3 dice coming from athletics raises.
"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

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9681
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #95 on: <07-15-19/1502:54> »
I've done that tactic, and so have my players. And yeah, in SR5 walls easily came down inside offices and such. Not sure about SR6, would have to check the numbers.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

Banshee

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 964
« Reply #96 on: <07-15-19/1506:30> »
Anyway, a thing I read here once is that grenades (especially high-explosive ones), when brought up against the Barrier rules, can not only destroy nearly every cubicle in its blast radius, it can also blow apart cheap walls and even flooring.

So the question of, "Do you really want to cause indiscriminate property damage?" will cause people to pack flash-bangs instead. Or just save grenades for the Really Dangerous Stuff.

Don't count on that being a factor.

While all of the GMs I have ever played under (regardless of rules system) have, at the very least, a working knowledge of the rules the vast majority do not know drek about "the real world."

Bear in mind, must people get their knowledge from the movies where kitchen cabinets are bulletproof.

Unless the 6e rules blattantly, and in plain language, declare that grenades cause catastrophic collateral damage, it will hardly be enforced.  I mean, I often come across GMs who swear that standard hollow "stick" build dryway walls stop bullets.

total tangent ...

amen ... bugs me to no fraggin end when players want to try and break in somewhere using the HVAC duct or sewers, etc ... not fraggin possible!!!! on the flipside though I have used  my real world knowledge to break a few GM's when I have had the chance to play by bypassing a security door by going through the wall right next to it (just need them to look up the barrier ratings of a standard wall vs a security door)
Robert "Banshee" Volbrecht
Freelancer & FAQ Committee member
Former RPG Lead Agent
Catalyst Demo Team

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2887
« Reply #97 on: <07-15-19/1638:43> »
Buildings, surprisingly fragile.  Ask any Sledgehammer. 

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2605
« Reply #98 on: <07-15-19/1654:42> »
Shadowrun where 2ounces of explosive in a metal ball does more structural damage than 4 bricks of c4 carefully placed for maximum destruction.

Finstersang

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 665
« Reply #99 on: <07-15-19/1655:43> »
If Edge really stays limited at 2 points per combat round, the most common abuse of the system will look like this once the players have gotten the hang of it:

"Hmmm, that guy already got his 2 Edge in his own turn. That means that I don´t have to worry about range, cover and armor, and I can use the hardest-hitting Firing mode without any backdraw."
2 Edge gained per combat round. They don't have to spend it, extra Edge is gone after the encounter.

I´m not sure if a) you have misunderstood what I was talking to about or b) if your answer, (especially the amphasis on gaining) includes the official(?) solution to the problem I was pointing at.

Here´s a more detailed example, to make it perfectly clear:

So let´s assume the following scene. There´s a big firefight going on. Ronnie the Streetsam is going against 4+ members of a street gang, all armed with Machine Pistols. Because of his superiour reflexes, Ronnie goes first; and because of his clever use of tactical circumstances and gear and by picking the right target, he managed to earn 2 Edge on his attack, which he spend right away to increase his chance to hit (for the sake of brevity, Ronnie only has one attack in this instance).

Now the gangers shoot back, one after another. An lo an behold: Because Ronnie already earned two Edge, he can´t get any more Edge from these Attacks, until the end of the round. Which means that the gangers don´t have to worry about probably being in a disadvantageous position or at an unvavorable range or about the recoil thats modelled into the AR reduction for firing bursts. All these negative circumstances are only represented by potentially giving the target an Edge (instead of modifiers like in previous editions). If the target has already already earned 2 Edge for the round, they are completely ignored.

That 2-Edge-Limit is by far the biggest problem of the edge system interacting with combat, and TBH, I´m pretty bemused about how many people (and especially CGL employees) either don´t seem to understand this problem, have contradicting interpretations or think that this is something that´s not going to happen often enough to make a real difference. It will happen. It will happen a lot. 2 Edge is earned pretty quick in any moderately complex fight, given all the different perks and circumstances that can grant you Edge in your andyour opponents turn. And it´s going to happen even more once people understand and start to abuse it. It´s a gamebreaking flaw in the core mechanic of SR6. 

However, for the two possible solutions to this, both of which might actually be RAI all along:
  • It´s 2 per turn and not per round. In that case, Donnie could still earn Edge from his opponents disadvantages when they try to shoot him. Apparantly, it was playtested this way, at least by some of the test groups. Switching turn VS round might even be an (understandable) editing mistake.
  • Another (re-)interpretation is that you can max. increase your Edge pool by 2 per combat round, but you can still get more than 2 Edge per round, if you spend it right away to stay below the limit (that´s why I´m so curious about your emphasis, @Fastjack!). In this case, Donnie could use all the Edge he gets from both his and his opponent´s Attacks right away, but he could max. transfer 2 of the earned points into the next round. This is a bit trickier to understand, but it has the benefit that it adds an incentive to use Edge right on the test where you actually earn it.

And this last part is why I´m so eager about this issue. I´m almost 100% GM, I can always just houserule this myself. But in this case, it looks a lot like this bad rule isn´t even bad by design, but by accident.   
« Last Edit: <07-15-19/1703:22> by Finstersang »
"Firing Line adds a ton of Perks that modify Attack and Defense ratings"

"Cool, does this mean that the whole AR/DR comparison has a bigger impact now?"

"Haha No :D"

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 4026
« Reply #100 on: <07-15-19/1705:31> »
Now the gangers shoot back, one after another.

This is the flaw in your analysis.  Ronnie's only facing 1 attack if 4 gangers are all shooting at him.  It's a 5e assumption to resolve each ganger's attack separately.  As a reminder, this WAS demonstrated in the SCN actual play.  Even if the attacks are from dissimilar sources (in that case, Demon rats and Devil rats) if they're all on the same target they're all rolled into one combined attack.
« Last Edit: <07-15-19/1707:59> by Stainless Steel Devil Rat »
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.

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2605
« Reply #101 on: <07-15-19/1715:50> »
Now the gangers shoot back, one after another.

This is the flaw in your analysis.  Ronnie's only facing 1 attack if 4 gangers are all shooting at him.  It's a 5e assumption to resolve each ganger's attack separately.  As a reminder, this WAS demonstrated in the SCN actual play.  Even if the attacks are from dissimilar sources (in that case, Demon rats and Devil rats) if they're all on the same target they're all rolled into one combined attack.

I’m not sure that’s a flaw in his analysis. So the whole group ignores tactics and fires as one. The situation seems the same. And I assume they have to be pretty close. If the gangers had a technomancer and a mage somehow I don’t think you’d roll the technomancers attempt to hack his cyber into the dudes shooting away with uzis. Yeah instead of not gaining 4 edge for 4 separate attacks he doesn’t gain 1 for one combined attack but he still doesn’t get edge to represent the combat situation.

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 4026
« Reply #102 on: <07-15-19/1726:16> »
I guess we just disagree then.

A) Missing out on 4 edge is indeed a bigger deal than missing out on 1 edge.  Now, it's possible that the wording will change for edge gain per action, but even if it doesn't...

B) If you already gained 2 edge on your own action, odds are good that you're outclassing the opposition.  You likely won't need that 1 edge you missed due to the edge gain cap.

C) You still have the capacity to infinitely deny edge. Ensuring the other guy(s) don't gain edge is usually at least as important as whether you gain it yourself. Let's face it.. usually when PCs face NPCs the NPCs are all in a case of use or lose on their edge.  They won't need to conserve edge expenditure for the "next scene".  Since they can spend it more freely, you're going to be concerned with preventing them from gaining any more of it.
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.

Moonshine Fox

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 589
  • Proudly serving our dragon overlords
« Reply #103 on: <07-15-19/1737:36> »
Well, if you're close enough to be reliably on target, you're close enough to be blowing yourself up as well.  Generally you want to throw grenades a good ways AWAY from yourself :D

M-203 I CHOOSE YOU!! *bloop*

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 4026
« Reply #104 on: <07-15-19/1746:31> »
Well, if you're close enough to be reliably on target, you're close enough to be blowing yourself up as well.  Generally you want to throw grenades a good ways AWAY from yourself :D

M-203 I CHOOSE YOU!! *bloop*

An inherently sensible solution to the "nuclear hand grenade" conundrum.
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.