I take it this outcome would be a combo of the threshold for a successful vehicle action being high because of mods, while the dicepool being small and so statistically likely to produce a critical glitch after few rolls. End result being that one is more likely to roll a critical glitch then the needed threshold on repeated attempts at vehicle actions.

Note that i am unsure why the section in dota1 reference the vehicle test when it talks about spending a action to keep the vehicle under control, as i never got the impression from the SR4 text that said action involved any kind of test. Only if one forgo said action, or use it as part of a "stunt", would one be forced to do a test (with the potential for a crash, as mentioned earlier). One simply spent the action, and the vehicle stayed on the road. Not that i am sure if the glitch outcomes apply for the pr round opposed test either, given that it is a opposed test rather then a threshold test (tho still referenced to as a vehicle test). Both of those assumptions would make chase combat much more safer then alluded to with the reference to dota1.

Without taking anything away from any one for whom the Chase Rules work well, I'll say the reasons I don't care for them is basically twofold. They tend to be vague where the rest of the combat system is detailed, and they tend fall into SR's tendency for mini-games (like astral or hacking) where only one one or two character types can contribute to the action.

I think you can look at the mini-games as either a feature or a bug; it's good that various character types have different things that they shine at, but I also think it's better overall when the game engages as many of the players at the table as possible (ideally, all of them).

Getting back however briefly to the topic at hand, one thing about my kitbashed, on-the-fly house ruling of the vehicle combat system, I'd like for the size of the vehicle to be a factor in maneuvers. Body and Armor is roughly equivalent to the size and mass of the vehicle, so it would make sense to me for the higher B/A vehicles to have modifiers-- penalties to maneuvers perhaps but bonuses to forcing smaller vehicles off the road. I don't know if this would be dice penalties (like Handling) or a modifier to the Threshold. Off the top of my head, it might be something as simple as B/A 1-10: -1 threshold, 11-20: +/-0 threshold, 21-30: +1 threshold and so on.

@hobgoblin: What if controlling the vehicle worked like Dodge; the driver devotes one IP to controlling the vehicle? This doesn't require a test but allows the driver to roll his full pool on subsequent control tests that come up in the round (like when other drivers try to ram them, or the woman with the stroller wanders into the crosswalk). Drivers who are too busy doing other things (shooting or texting) to devote that IP only roll base Reaction when reacting to the various control tests that come up over the course of the round.

Err, to me that is basically what the rules already do. If you can't dedicate that one complex action that turn you roll a vehicle test next turn or the vehicle crashes. And your mixing two issues there, as the lady with the stroller is part of the terrain threshold modifier. This is what is talk about earlier when i wonder if people are clashing with the rules not because of the rules directly, but because of mismatched visions of the scene the rules are supposed to solidify. And i would have loved to point you to "evasive driving" for the ramming bit, but that is the one thing it is specified as not usable against.

I guess it is the age old problem that while the rules are linear, the events all happen at the same time. That is, be it tactical combat or chase combat, the basic idea is that all events happen at more or less the same "instant" in time. But they are spaced out in a linear fashion for ease of resolution. This is why movement becomes so often confused. Because that 1 IP dude do not stop running when the IP over, he keeps running for the whole turn and only at the end of turn do he get to the end of his movement distance. But the 3 IP dude, because of his improved reaction time, can stop and go again in the same time frame. So from the perspective of 1IP, 3IP is "fast", while 3IP see 1IP as "slow". Not because of physical movement, but because 1IP will go "what happened" when 3IP takes down someone that came out of hiding during pass 2 of the turn and 1IP notice the body on the floor turns end.

Similarly, that one chase turn holds multiple events of swerving thru traffic, with the sammie trying to take a shot out the window but pulling back right before being squashed by a passing vehicle, wall or some other solid object, mage getting bumped out of his spell or summoning (or in the case of astral projecting, suddenly found himself inside a station-wagon and face to face with some snot nosed troll kid. This because, dude, he is intangible!). similarly a spirit may find itself dodging vehicles and other objects, trying to hold on to or keep up with the target vehicle. Also i am unsure if even the RAS override would keep the movements of the vehicle from disturbing a hacker, and have you ever tried to operate a handheld device while inside a vehicle moving in a non-linear fashion? I suspect AR use under such conditions would induce motion sickness for quite a few.

And all this under the assumption that at least one vehicle is trying to get as far away from the others as possible, and so the driver is trying to find the path that will allow him to maintain maximum speed. If not, why are they not simply stopping and trading shots?

So every action taken during a chase turn should be described by the GM as involving various curses, yells about keeping things steady and other events appropriate for trying to do anything but sitting in the seat during the vehicles travels.

Ok, so in order to arrive at something better, perhaps we should first collect everything that wrong with the current rules:

My suggestions:
- The emphasis on teamwork, i.e. multiple vehicles, is too high, also, teamwork can replace skill
- The emphasis on individual speed is too low
- There is no emphasis on individual terrain incorporating different movement modes, or even the ability to take the same route at all
- There are no dramatic elements, for instance random occurances, etc.
- character actions don't interact well with vehicle actions

So now there are two routes:
a) try to fix what's wrong while keeping most of what's there
b) write something new

If b) is the option of choice, perhaps we should collect some design goals for the revision.

Pull out the Car Wars rules when you need to do a chase?

I will grant you that it may be a problem at some, if not a lot of, Tables, but we have yet to run into these instances "where the whole thing falls apart." The scenes where we have a chase are usually filled with a lot of what Hobgoblin details in his last post (Post 78, 3rd Paragraph and below). Lots a random action, yelling, dodging and whatnot, punctuated by the actual rolls when they are performed. A lot of problems can be mitigated with adequate scenery detail within the "mini-game" of the Chase. I am fortunate that our table has an exceptional storytelling GM, who is very quick on his feet. Details are rampant, from both the GM side of things and the Player side of things, throughout the scenes of a chase.

As for why we put up with it? Because honestly, there is nothing better in the game currently. For a better alternative, we have to either come up with it ourselves (a lot of work, that may or may not pay off), or change systems (a Hassle for some). Both of these solutions are non-starters at this point in time. Especially since we do not experience the problems that you (and others) seem to experience.

I'm not sure why that would be. This is another problem we don't run into, and I'm not sure why. Our group is so idiosyncratic anyway that a lot of times it's difficult for me to get a grasp on what experiences others might be having.


Is there a reason this couldn't be the ideal solution? Take the good parts of the chase rules and integrate them into the main game, rather than create a secondary mechanic [or "mini game"].


Well, that sentence probably needs to start off, "My problem with the chase rules," or, "The problem my group experiences with the chase rules," but let's glide right past that.


I'm not sure what the problem is with that. When I drove a BMW instead of a Wrangler, I raced in traffic all the time [because I'm rude, stupid, and irresponsible], and I regularly beat guys in much more powerful cars, because my skill [such as it is] was greater than theirs. If you put me in a Ferrari and handed Tanner Foust a Honda Civic, he's almost certainly going to beat me in any kind of urban chase scene. Now, in a situation in which you've just got two cars on a wide open road, sure, I'd kick his ass [eventually], but if you're on a wide open road, you don't need to use the chase rules, anyway: the faster car gets away, unless its driver just crashes or something. Can you help me understand what the problem is with chase combat making skill differences such a powerful advantage?

Hey, here's a question: if I have five drones and a car in the combat, why don't I have to take a complex action for each of my drones, lest they crash?


The other things you said seemed reasonable, but I'd object to "random occurrences" in Shadowrun. From my perspective, the GM is there for a reason: he doesn't need a table to tell him it's time for a lady with a stroller to enter the street. Less subjectively, it wouldn't really fit with Shadowrun's existing mechanics, which don't do "random encounter" kinds of things, as a rule.

Why would you. The Pilot takes care of that for you (Since you cannot Remote/Rig them all simultaneously). The PILOT would have to use one of ITS actions to maintain control. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Ah, but that's just it: why doesn't the car's Pilot just use one of its actions to maintain control, as the drone would? The only [relevant] difference [that I can think of] between the two [in SR4] is whether or not they take passengers.

As a general rule, Shadowrun does not do detailed movement. Shadowrun combat is always abstract when it comes to distances, you don't ever need a grid and minis, and the rules don't support that kind of play anyway. Really, that's a strength of the system IMO; you get cinematic combat instead of tactical, which I prefer. Rather you consider it a feature or a bug is up to you, but it is true: movement in Shadowrun has always been abstract.

The problem here is that while distances can be easily abstracted in tactical combat, and can be mangled for the current Chase combat, they don't mesh well together. "Close enough" for a pistol is way different than "close enough" for an assault cannon, and both change when you start involving vehicles moving at speed. So, if you want to fold vehicle combat into tactical combat (like I do) you need to be able to deal with the different distance scales presented.


That's what I'm trying to do, honestly. I'm looking to see how other people handle this sort of thing.

Skill is, and should be, a powerful advantage-- but it should not be the *only* factor. Raw speed should count for something. Going back to the Mach 4.6 sportscar, there's simply no way anybody could keep up with us on a motorcycle, even if they're better drivers. Handling should also be a factor: you're not outracing anybody in an urban environment in a school bus, regardless of skill. (I used to be a bus driver, the skill is in not hitting anything, not going at speed.)

Another problem is different types of terrain: the helicopter vs. a ground car, for example. The helicopter can travel above the buildings, allowing it greater room to maneuver and fewer buildings and obstacles to deal with. One thing that popped up in my games was the rigger using a much slower aerial drone to follow cars. He could do that because speed wasn't a factor in the chase, but skill and lack of obstacles was. Now, a mini-blimp simply can't keep up with a fast-moving car IRL, but it made for a fun chase, so I let it happen.

Because in most circumstances, the car's Pilot has fewer dice than a good wheelman Rigger. If you want to be able to do fancy maneuvers, you need a lot of dice, and the rigger usually has more.

Becauase the Car is not controlled by the PILOT. The Driver is controlling the car. You cannot have it both ways. Either the character controls it (Directly, Command, or Rigged) or the Pilot Controls it. Either way, a control action is required every Turn in certain circumstances (Like Chase Scenes). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

However, there is NO WAY that a driver can control a ground vehicle that travels at Mach 4.6 (No matter how you rationalize it). You would be dead before you even realized there was a problem. Edge cases are not the best way to make a point.

I think it is a combination of factors. Terrain, Congestion, Manueverability of vehicle, Speed of Vehicle, Skill of Driver, Etc. At its core, the Chase rules cover all these, if only abstractly. That is good enough for most things, at least in my opinion. Yes, you will have a small disconnect when you start trying to engage an enemy with various weapons using the generic Range Increments in the Chase Rules. That is where your GM has to step in and arbitrate. Not really a problem, though, that is his job after all... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

You definitely don't need a grid and minis, but the rules definitely support that kind of play - we have a dry-erase grid, and spindles - because Shadowrun combat is rarely abstract when it comes to distances. Explosives blast radius, vehicle movement, weapons ranges, spell areas of effect, character walk/run speeds, these things [and way, way more] are all meter-specific.


Well, I like to start with meters and work from there. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) I'm not sure what you mean. Like, vehicles and characters and drones and spirits and animals all have movement rates, right? In tactical combat, I mean. Now, some of those things can move a lot faster than others, but I'm not sure how that messes up the rules, or rather the way they work in the game.


My concern would be that Shadowrun really is abstract about a lot of things: it's left to the GM to make a lot of calls about, well, pretty much everything but shooting a gun, which is probably the best-honed mechanic in the game, for obvious reasons. I'm not saying that accurate modeling of reality isn't a laudable goal, I'm just uncertain as to whether or not Shadowrun can take into account all these factors and not be unmanageable. There's a reason people avoided using all the vehicle rules in Rigger 3. I'm all for it, mind you, I'm just not sure it's possible. Which is in no way a good reason not to try. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


And is that "house ruling," or "GM fiat?" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)


Oh, no, I'm sorry, that's not what I mean. I mean that there's this rule that when you're driving you have to take at least one of your actions to drive, or else next turn you have to make a crash test. But drones don't have this restriction, as I understand it - which could well be very poorly; SR4: not my game! - which doesn't make any sense to me. What's the difference between me remote controlling a car and sitting in it, in terms of being required to make a Handling test? I think the problem might be that I'm not understanding the rule, so I'm hoping someone else has noticed this, too.

Because driving 5 drones by SR or VR is basically impossible? Instead your sitting back, passing orders to the drone pilots and let them handle it?

Ah, i see there has already been a response to that. And yes, unless the driver has more IPs then the drone pilot one may well be better of letting it handle things. Hell, i suspect there is more then a few people getting around town by way of a car but with no drivers license. This because the automated systems have becomes so good at handling the daily commute.

May even mean that one can have inner city shuttles that come and pick up you if your along their route and have a destination that can fit into their existing passenger route, but has no physical driver. Is there not even a Seattle taxi driven by a AI in one of the books?

I'm not sure why. Why?

Anyway, then change the number to three drones, or one: it doesn't matter. That's not the nature of the question: the question is, why don't I need to spend one action every turn "driving" my unmanned vehicles, but I do have to spend one action every turn driving a vehicle I'm in. [Or just a vehicle that will take people; I'm not really clear which.]

Is it possible I'm doing a terrible job of asking the question? Everyone knows which rule I'm talking about, right?

Where did you get the impression that doing it remotely removes the requirement for spending a complex action?

I run the game very abstractly. Since exact movement is highly paradoxical in SR4.5 (it's broken up among your IP's, so the less you have, the further you move per action) I find it easier to deal with an abstract method. However, trying to determine what range a fast-moving vehicle is in relation to, say, a shooter, is very tricky to adjudicate. The tactical rules were designed around pedestrian speeds, while the Chase rules were designed around abstract distances. That's what needs to be resolved for the two systems to work together fully.

"Rule of Cool" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Oh, the drone's Pilot (or car's) has to spend an action on a Handling test as well. It's just that you can't have a vehicle controlled by both a Drone Pilot and a living Rigger. It's one or the other.


You can only be "jumped in" to one vehicle at a time; thus being in full VR. You can command multiple vehicles, but they're using their Pilot + Autosoft in place of your skills.

Anyway, no snark, but I'm not sure I understand your question. I *think* you may have missed the part where drones need to spend actions controlling themselves, just like riggers or drivers do. But I'm not entirely sure. So, if I haven't cleared up your question for you, would you mind clearing it up for me? No sarcasm, I honestly think I can help answer this one.

I may be wrong but I don't he means being jumped into 5 drones rather issuing commands to 5 drones?

Well, that's the question I'm asking. Do you have to do it with drones? Do you have to do it with remote-controlled passenger vehicles [drones with passenger compartments, effectively]? If not, why not?

Okay, sure. But that's not the same as Shadowrun "always being abstract when it comes to distances." That's just the way you're running your game [and probably how some other people run their games]. It's probably best to point out when you mean "I" and when you mean "Shadowrun."


The tactical rules, though, contain specific speeds for vehicles in tactical combat, as well, exactly as it does for individuals, even using the same mechanic [unhelpfully, in my opinion]. There's no resolution necessary, then: they both already use the same system, if you stick to tactical combat. I don't know; clearly I'm missing something in the problem you're having, because it seems to me like mechanics already exist for this - Shadowrun's specific speeds and distances - and that you're just not using them because you "find it easier to deal with an abstract method." So more rules probably isn't going to help you, unless they're abstract rules, and that combination of abstraction and specificity is the problem I have with the chase rules. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Might work for you, though!


That seems perfectly reasonable to me, too, but why is the rule only mentioned for passenger vehicles and not drones? Or am I missing the rule as it relates to drones?

And since all vehicles have Pilots, then the passenger vehicle's Pilot can be the one who takes the Handling action, right? So I could be driving my car down the road while my drone is flying overhead. I've got 3 IPs. The first pass, I shoot the car's guns. The second pass, I jump into the drone, and observe. The third pass, I shoot the drone's guns. But while I was "out," the Pilot on each vehicle can be the one making the Handling test, right?

All of this should be pretty clearly enumerated somewhere, if that's the case: does anyone know where?


Right, but that doesn't stop you from jumping into multiple vehicles in a single turn. You can easily jump into 5 different vehicles in a single turn, can't you? Certainly, even without the IPs and Qualities you need to do that, you can jump into 2, so the issue remains.


That's exactly why I'm asking! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) I absolutely assume that my understanding of the situation is incomplete. I'm hoping someone who's done SR4 more than I have will know what I'm talking about, and be able to explain.

This particular example? Yes, that is squarely the fault of SR4.5. Other places, maybe it's just me. However, it's indisputable that the slower character can run faster than the speedier one.

Let's take two humans, both walking (for simplicity's sake) and trying to grab something 10 meters away; the only difference is that one has 4 IP's and one has 1. The guy with 4 IP's will probably win initiative, and go 1/4 of this total distance: 2.5 meters. Now, the slow guy goes. He travels his full distance, 10 meters, and is able to reach whatever he needs long before Fast Guy can get close. Those are the RAW rules, from p 149 in your hymnal. Since this is effectively the SR4.5 version of Xeno's Paradox, I think it's pretty clear that either the dev's wanted us to use abstract distances, or really had it in for runaway turtles. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Now, let's apply that piece of silliness to vehicle combat. Chase distance is abstract, but if we used concrete distances, we could have a moped overtake a sportscar, simply because the sportscar driver has *more* IP's-- he's faster, and thus covers less ground.


That is true. However, the drawback is that once you get into chase combat, you become really dependent on being able to win the opposed Handling test. That means you (assuming you have the best dice pool) have to be "in" whatever vehicle you want to win the chase. It's difficult to afford the actions to jump from vehicle to vehicle.

Well, not 5, at least not effectively. But two? Assuming you have the IP's sure. Just remember that jumping in, IIRC, is a complex action; so you can't jump in and give orders in the same IP. So, what would happen is this: Jump in, do something, jump in, do something, out of IP's. It's possible, it's just not very efficient.

No, No, No, No, MO. The 1 IP guy is not faster than the 4 IP guy is. It is very disputable, as is directly countered by the Book you tell everyone else to look in. They BOTH move the same 10 Meters in the same time span (1 Turn). If there are 4 passes, movement is divided by 4 FOR EVERYONE in the pass. SO they both move 2.5 Meters per pass. We have gone over this a million time here on Dumpshock. ICan't believe that you have missed each and every time this has come up.

From the Hymnal you hold is such high esteem...



Which means you divide by the Number of Passes that exist in the turn (ie. the Fastest persons IP's), Not the IP's of each individual, to get the movement distance of each individual. This works this way for ALL movement (Including Vehicluar, if using Tactical Movement).




Again, that is blatantly wrong. You really need to re-read the ruling. I provided the quote above for ease of reference.

Three points: first of all, you did highlight one important thing: the rules say to be abstract "unless it becomes important". Otherwise, it's clear the intention was to wing it, which answers 32's question about rather movement was meant to be abstract or concrete. Thank you.

Second, you're still causing "Picard maneuver" lightspeed jumps in movement. Your movement is spread out across the pass, but only calculated on your turn (usually, for simplicity's sake. This is what I meant by gridded combat being virtually impossible, your movement is constant, not sequential.)

Third, that rule only applies if you mix modes of movement: e.g., you want and run in the same turn. If you just walk, you could argue the rule applies; but because calculating movement on the IP is easier (and also supported by some reads of the rules), you get the Xeno's paradox.

It should be abstracted, unless it matters. Most of the time, it will not matter

There is no Picard style movement going on. All it means is that the faster guy acts more times, THROUGH HIS MOVEMENT, than the slower guy does. Time does not come to a standstill in between. Slow Guy does not exist in 2 distinct places at once at any given point along his movement. Yes, it is calculated at each PASS in the Turn IF IT MATTERS. In your example case, it would Matter. So you calculate speed per pass, which is accurate.

It does not only apply if you mix modes. It applies if you need to know exact amounts of distance over a Turn. If you must know, then you break it up. The fact that both characters STILL only move 10 Meters, and that that movement completes AT THE END OF THE TURN, still means that your example is flawed. They BOTH reach the Item about the same time, and the guy with the higher initiative (IP 4 Guy, by your example) gets to grab it first.