Quote Originally Posted by Pauly View Post
The problem with this approach is that inputs end up being more important than outputs. i.e. The designer spends so much time trying get the right number for each variable that the output (hit/miss the target; damage/not damage the target) that the overall outcome is wrong.

This type of simulation only really works with long range gunnery duels between targets with limited ability to hide -WW2 naval combat is the only example I can think of. Although space ship combat is also possibly another one.

If you want to simulate outcomes the better models use a target number based on the situation, and then apply a small number of modifiers, no more than 5. Usually 3 modifiers are enough.
For example in a d20 environment. You might say:
Target number is X.
Easy situation - no modifier
Moderate difficulty +2 to the target number
Difficult: +4 to the target number
Extreme difficulty: +8 to the target number.
Why is that a problem for the designer? This would be a selling point.
A games like Shadowrun has potentially alot more then 5 modifiers. Between the environment, skills, magic, cyberware
and wireless cyberspace for a given situation. And every potential modifier is a part of the setting and can have narrative importance. In my opinion Shadowrun is on the edge of too rule complex. Things like detailed hit locations and interesting criticals or critical malfunctions of gear or detailed wounds would bloat too much.
The hypothetical app supported ruleset would allow for all of this and more, while keeping the required fiddling pretty low.

A typical attack would need the following tags:
State of attacker relative to target; targets; firemode/strike type; distance of targets; state of targets relative to attacker