IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Should Bikes (real bikes not motorcycles) be brought into the canon?
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 85
Guests cannot vote 
b1ffov3rfl0w
post Apr 8 2008, 01:25 AM
Post #51


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 464
Joined: 3-March 06
From: CalFree
Member No.: 8,329



QUOTE (Tunnel Rat @ Apr 7 2008, 07:13 PM) *
While the driver might not intend to hit anyone, the guard power should still not be able to do anything about it. Why does it matter what the driver's exact intentions are? As long as he has intentions, the guard power should not be able to interfere. What you're doing is looking at every situation, divining 'exact intentions', and then allowing the guard power to interfere with free will if they don't 'intend' to be reckless or 'intend' to cause harm.

The driver is making a choice of his own free will. It doesn't matter that he's making that choice in ignorance. A choice is a choice is a choice. The guard power can not interfere with the choices of others, period.

First off, I'm not sure where you got the notion that Guard, as a spirit power, cannot interfere with free will.

Secondly, and more importantly maybe, the driver's choice is to drive somewhere (even blindfolded). He still gets to do that. It just doesn't result in him running over the invisible cyclist. As his intention was not ever to run over an invisible cyclist, his will is in no way thwarted. How could it be, when he didn't even know there was a cyclist there?

You really can't talk consider free will a meaningful concept and then put scare quotes around "intention". Free will is entirely contingent on intent.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
b1ffov3rfl0w
post Apr 8 2008, 01:34 AM
Post #52


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 464
Joined: 3-March 06
From: CalFree
Member No.: 8,329



QUOTE (Lyonheart @ Apr 7 2008, 08:37 PM) *
You need rules for this... Why? It's a bike, you bike on it, there arn't shadowrun stats for hairbrushes ether but you don't assume they do not exist.


(Why? It's a car, you drive it, why do you need rules for it?)

Okay, let's see. You're planning a run where you might have to make a getaway on busy streets maybe. You realize that your Westwind 3000 and your Bulldog Step-Van are bad choices as getaway vehicles (assume Log>1) and you don't have access to aircraft, and you have noticed bicycle commuters as well as bike messengers moving through traffic in a dangerous but relatively fast manner.

So it might just come up that you're riding a bike and need to know how fast you can go, to see if you can get out of SMG range, or go faster than some flying drone or whatever, and so it might be nice to have talked with other gamers about how you'd model a bike fairly and somewhat realistically. It's pretty unlikely that you'll need to know how fast you can brush your hair.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WearzManySkins
post Apr 8 2008, 01:36 AM
Post #53


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,159
Joined: 12-April 07
From: Ork Underground
Member No.: 11,440



QUOTE (Fortune @ Apr 7 2008, 08:15 PM) *
Only immediately after an accident, before he gets around to having it straightened out. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Ah ok Google RecumBent bicycle then unenlightened one. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

WMS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
masterofm
post Apr 8 2008, 03:23 AM
Post #54


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,058
Joined: 4-February 08
Member No.: 15,640



Ok then why not just link it to Strength. Say for every one point of Str. you move at 10 mph w/o exerting yourself. So someone with an average strength of 2 can move @ 20 mph. Lets say then you calculate this from feet to meters per second. 3.2808399 feet = 1 meter so therefor if only have a Str of 1 you move at 4.47 meters per second (5280 feet per mile going at 10 mph is 14 and 2/3rds feet per second) so lets just say 4.5 meters per second. If every combat round takes three seconds that means you can move 13.5 meters per every three seconds of combat for every point of strength you have (assuming you are already moving at full speed.)

I don't even want to deal with the acceleration, but to throw out some numbers say.... 7.5 and then 15 if exerting yourself.

There you have your speeds for a bike.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Larme
post Apr 8 2008, 03:50 AM
Post #55


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,653
Joined: 22-January 08
Member No.: 15,430



The only rules that skates get is that they increase running multipliers, and at GM discretion there will be a penalty for doing certain things or going over certain terrain. Bikes should probably have the exact same rules. In fact, all human powered vehicles should probably have the exact same rules. Instead of getting all complicated, you can take the rules that already exist, give them minor tweaks, and there you go.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DocTaotsu
post Apr 8 2008, 09:35 AM
Post #56


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,991
Joined: 1-February 08
From: Off the rock! Back In America! WOOOOO!
Member No.: 15,601



Calculate walking/running speed (provided in the BBB), figure out how much a mode of transportation doubles, triples or whatever said speed. Write down new walking/running speeds. Apply standard vehicle rules (speeds over X speed/acceleration require a vehicle handling check) also apply athletic skill (To go over X speed you need to make checks vs Athletics/body else you pass the hell out. Like running).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pendaric
post Apr 8 2008, 03:38 PM
Post #57


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 993
Joined: 5-December 05
From: Crying in the wilderness
Member No.: 8,047



Looks good. Well done.
And this is my point. A rule external to the books is by definition a house rule because it is not RAW. Even a good house rule shared on a forum, is still a house rule that you choose to use. And not to Disrespect the Doc's work but anyone of you could of done it, two pages ago.

Now am all for the use of the forum for conceptual inter-exchanges, stylistic advise and thearetical advances in undocumented areas. Even the constant RAW debates/flames sometimes get there.
BUT why bicker, on the net? In an unrelated thread over spirit powers? For example.
It is a ref call made at every table and your opinion will not effect someone else's game. Your just assertinging that your more important than they are and that is pointless.
Perhapes its because I think everyone's opinion is important and therefore read their post that I find mindless juvenile drivel exhausting. So do an old man a favour and keep to the point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fool
post Apr 8 2008, 05:58 PM
Post #58


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 588
Joined: 27-February 06
Member No.: 8,316



just to throw some fuel on the fire, here's a list of records for speeds, both short term and long term.
http://www.ihpva.org/hpva/hpvarech.html
N.B. this is for various human powered records, and includes things like air speeds and water speeds.
Part of my point in this thread is that there are options out there for transportation that are useful for runners (kayaks anyone?) that haven't been covered in the raw ever really. Bikes are a really important one to me, but that was why I included the whole part about (meta)human powered vehicles.
I agree that things like good matrix rules are important, I think that covering what is realistically available as transportation options for runners is also a good thing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fool
post Apr 8 2008, 06:24 PM
Post #59


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 588
Joined: 27-February 06
Member No.: 8,316



QUOTE (Larme @ Apr 7 2008, 05:58 PM) *
There's no rule that you have to conduct a scientifically valid poll on Dumpshock. But I would assume that if you do a poll, you want to know peoples' honest opinions. You don't have to phrase the questions in an elaborate way. The elaborate discussion part is what the thread is for. There doesn't need to be an argument in each question, in fact, there shouldn't be. So failure to think of a reason to exclude bikes is not a valid reason for giving a slanted response option. That is, if you want to know everyone's honest opinion. If you're just conducting a poll to grandstand, to make fun of the other side, or to "prove" how wrong the other side is with suggestive responses, then it's just a troll, and you don't need to post it. What is wrong with "Yes," "No," and "I don't know?"

Should Bikes (real bikes not motorcycles) be brought into the canon?
Should Bicycles be added to the canon?
Yes, they can be a useful transportation choice for certain Running situations. [ 9 ] ** [17.65%]
No, Bicycles are useless and don't belong anywhere in Shadowrun. [ 7 ] ** [13.73%]
yes and they should have other muscle powered vehicles, like hover boards, skate boards, etc. [ 35 ] ** [68.63%]
I'm sorry, but these responses don't seem to me to be suggestive.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Daddy's Litt...
post Apr 8 2008, 07:21 PM
Post #60


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 976
Joined: 16-September 04
From: Near my daughters, Lansdale PA
Member No.: 6,668



I could not choose any of these. I cannot see me using a bike on a run but I could see the uses undercover-a bike messenger, or mountain biking in the hills.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kyoto Kid
post Apr 8 2008, 07:29 PM
Post #61


Bushido Cowgirl
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,782
Joined: 8-July 05
From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats
Member No.: 7,490



...you haven't been on a run with the Short One...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sponge
post Apr 8 2008, 07:29 PM
Post #62


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 433
Joined: 8-November 07
Member No.: 14,097



QUOTE (fool @ Apr 8 2008, 01:24 PM) *
Should Bikes (real bikes not motorcycles) be brought into the canon?
Should Bicycles be added to the canon?
Yes, they can be a useful transportation choice for certain Running situations. [ 9 ] ** [17.65%]
No, Bicycles are useless and don't belong anywhere in Shadowrun. [ 7 ] ** [13.73%]
yes and they should have other muscle powered vehicles, like hover boards, skate boards, etc. [ 35 ] ** [68.63%]
I'm sorry, but these responses don't seem to me to be suggestive.


The complaint is that you've attributed your own reasons ("They are useful", "They are useless") to the Yes and No options. Someone might want to vote Yes for a reason other than "They might be useful on a run", or similarly someone think bicycles are useful, but still vote No for other reasons.

DS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lyonheart
post Apr 9 2008, 12:12 AM
Post #63


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 85
Joined: 22-October 07
Member No.: 13,837



QUOTE (fool @ Apr 8 2008, 01:24 PM) *
Should Bikes (real bikes not motorcycles) be brought into the canon?
Should Bicycles be added to the canon?
Yes, they can be a useful transportation choice for certain Running situations. [ 9 ] ** [17.65%]
No, Bicycles are useless and don't belong anywhere in Shadowrun. [ 7 ] ** [13.73%]
yes and they should have other muscle powered vehicles, like hover boards, skate boards, etc. [ 35 ] ** [68.63%]
I'm sorry, but these responses don't seem to me to be suggestive.


Why do you assume Bikes are not cannon?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Larme
post Apr 9 2008, 12:47 AM
Post #64


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,653
Joined: 22-January 08
Member No.: 15,430



QUOTE (Sponge @ Apr 8 2008, 03:29 PM) *
The complaint is that you've attributed your own reasons ("They are useful", "They are useless") to the Yes and No options. Someone might want to vote Yes for a reason other than "They might be useful on a run", or similarly someone think bicycles are useful, but still vote No for other reasons.

DS


Exactly. Your responses were suggestive because the "no" option is only available if the person is willing to say that bikes everywhere and always should be excluded, which few people are likely to think. This suggests to the respondents that the "correct" answer is one of the other two.

Also, because people who don't want rules for bikes are not that likely to think that they should NEVER appear in the game, only people who like bikes are going to respond. Therefore, this poll's respondents self-select and are not a valid sample of the Dumpshock population.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
b1ffov3rfl0w
post Apr 9 2008, 11:30 PM
Post #65


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 464
Joined: 3-March 06
From: CalFree
Member No.: 8,329



QUOTE (Lyonheart @ Apr 8 2008, 08:12 PM) *
Why do you assume Bikes are not cannon?


If they were cannon, they'd use the Heavy Weapons or Gunnery skill.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaid
post Apr 9 2008, 11:40 PM
Post #66


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,089
Joined: 4-October 05
Member No.: 7,813



QUOTE (b1ffov3rfl0w @ Apr 9 2008, 07:30 PM) *
If they were cannon, they'd use the Heavy Weapons or Gunnery skill.

i dunno, i think the bike cannon would definitely be an exotic ranged weapon. you'd only use gunnery if it was mounted on a vehicle, and heavy weapons would never apply (IMG:style_emoticons/default/silly.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tunnel Rat
post Apr 10 2008, 02:49 AM
Post #67


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 58
Joined: 17-August 07
Member No.: 12,700



QUOTE (b1ffov3rfl0w @ Apr 7 2008, 08:25 PM) *
First off, I'm not sure where you got the notion that Guard, as a spirit power, cannot interfere with free will.

Secondly, and more importantly maybe, the driver's choice is to drive somewhere (even blindfolded). He still gets to do that. It just doesn't result in him running over the invisible cyclist. As his intention was not ever to run over an invisible cyclist, his will is in no way thwarted. How could it be, when he didn't even know there was a cyclist there?

You really can't talk consider free will a meaningful concept and then put scare quotes around "intention". Free will is entirely contingent on intent.


Well, for starters, the guard power stops accidents. Free will kinda implies that it was done intentionally. Since the guard power only works on accidents, it kinda naturally flows that the guard power doesn't stop someone from purposefully doing something to kill you. Thus, if someone wants to run you down with their car, the guard power won't stop it at all.

Next, I would like to remind you of what you seem to be forgetting. It's just four little words tucked into the Street Magic book.

Magic is not intelligent.

Sure, magic can be guided, but it's not intelligent on its own. Once you use a spell or a power, the magic isn't going to be making any decisions. I agree, the driver didn't intend to run down an invisible cyclist. But magic doesn't know that. Magic is not intelligent. Magic can not decide what the driver's intent is after all. The power is limited in that it can not prevent something from being done intentionally. After all, the guard power stops you from having accidents, not from making mistakes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
b1ffov3rfl0w
post Apr 10 2008, 03:08 AM
Post #68


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 464
Joined: 3-March 06
From: CalFree
Member No.: 8,329



QUOTE (Tunnel Rat @ Apr 9 2008, 10:49 PM) *
Well, for starters, the guard power stops accidents. Free will kinda implies that it was done intentionally. Since the guard power only works on accidents, it kinda naturally flows that the guard power doesn't stop someone from purposefully doing something to kill you. Thus, if someone wants to run you down with their car, the guard power won't stop it at all.


Ergh, if someone wants to run you down with their car, and then tries to run you down with his car, he is doing it on purpose. But we were not talking about the Guard power protecting against someone trying to murder you (obviously it doesn't do that). We're talking about vehicular manslaughter. If he is just driving and runs you over accidentally, because he didn't notice you or because his brakes suddenly failed or because you were Concealed, IT IS A FRUNCKING ACCIDENT.

How does Guard work when you're, for example, walking along a narrow and crumbly ledge and might put your foot in the wrong place? (It really doesn't matter how it works, but the power protects you from stepping on the crumbly bit and falling to your death, and it doesn't protect you from someone intentionally shoving you off the ledge).

Okay, that's the same way it works to protect you from other accidents. Very simple. There's no need for the power to be like "let's see, is this big heavy thing being controlled by someone with free will? are any of us truly free? blah blah blah". It stops accidents. That's the power's nature. That's how it works. It doesn't have to be "smart" to do that, any more than water needs to be "smart" to flow down a hill.

The spell Detect Enemies won't detect someone about to drive into you accidentally, not because it has to figure out the guy's motivations, but just because he isn't your enemy. In the same way, the Guard power does not protect you against enemies. Except, of course, enemies using the Accident power on you. But that's another story.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Snow_Fox
post Apr 10 2008, 03:18 AM
Post #69


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,577
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Gwynedd Valley PA
Member No.: 1,221



they have uses but are extraordinarily limited. nearly silent, no power contraints, portable over rough ground and virtually no therographic sig. BUT limited in speed/carrying capacity and endurance.

I'd see usuing one as long as you could pick the route-like a mountain bike used for a meet on a hillside-baddies block the roads and you go offroad fast.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tunnel Rat
post Apr 10 2008, 07:38 AM
Post #70


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 58
Joined: 17-August 07
Member No.: 12,700



QUOTE (b1ffov3rfl0w @ Apr 9 2008, 10:08 PM) *
Ergh, if someone wants to run you down with their car, and then tries to run you down with his car, he is doing it on purpose. But we were not talking about the Guard power protecting against someone trying to murder you (obviously it doesn't do that). We're talking about vehicular manslaughter. If he is just driving and runs you over accidentally, because he didn't notice you or because his brakes suddenly failed or because you were Concealed, IT IS A FRUNCKING ACCIDENT.

How does Guard work when you're, for example, walking along a narrow and crumbly ledge and might put your foot in the wrong place? (It really doesn't matter how it works, but the power protects you from stepping on the crumbly bit and falling to your death, and it doesn't protect you from someone intentionally shoving you off the ledge).

Okay, that's the same way it works to protect you from other accidents. Very simple. There's no need for the power to be like "let's see, is this big heavy thing being controlled by someone with free will? are any of us truly free? blah blah blah". It stops accidents. That's the power's nature. That's how it works. It doesn't have to be "smart" to do that, any more than water needs to be "smart" to flow down a hill.

The spell Detect Enemies won't detect someone about to drive into you accidentally, not because it has to figure out the guy's motivations, but just because he isn't your enemy. In the same way, the Guard power does not protect you against enemies. Except, of course, enemies using the Accident power on you. But that's another story.


Again, you're missing the point. What is the difference between purposefully running someone down, and running someone down 'accidentally'? Intent. In order for the guard power to understand the difference between a driver purposefully running someone down and accidentally running someone down would call for the power to judge the intent of the driver.

Let me put it this way. We see a man running out into the street only to be hit by a car changing lanes only a few short seconds ago. On one hand, the driver could have purposefully changed lanes in order to strike the pedestrian. On the other hand, the driver could have been not paying attention, and was merely changing lanes. How do you decide if this was murder or an accident?

Stepping on a ledge, however, calls for no decisions. Why doesn't the ledge break when you step upon it? Because the guard power reinforces its strength. It didn't need to make that decision because the guard power would reinforce where you step automatically, even if you were on completely solid footing.

Finally, the Detect Enemies wouldn't detect someone accidentally about to run you over because the driver doesn't intend to cause harm towards the subject of the spell, and not because you aren't an 'enemy'. The term 'enemy' is a concept thought up by intelligent beings, and you have to apply judgement to determine if someone is an 'enemy'. Magic can't make decisions. What it can do is this:

QUOTE (BBB)
The subject can detect living targets within range who have hostile intentions toward him.


So, again, you're granting magic intelligence when it has none. It's like computers. People think that computers are smart when they aren't. Computers appear smart because they've been given instructions, but they can't judge those instructions. Magic is a lot like that,except that it doesn't have the benefit of allowing huge amounts of instructions that grant it limited decision making ability.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Critias
post Apr 10 2008, 07:50 AM
Post #71


Freelance Elf
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714



I chose not to vote on this one, 'cause -- much as it pains me to agree with Larme (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) -- I think it's a poorly crafted poll. I don't think it's all that big a deal, because I don't think polls on Dumpshock are all that terribly important, but I would've felt much better with an option that wasn't all that rabidly pro-or-against.

"Sure, make rules if you want to but we haven't had them for the last twenty years or so so who really cares real strongly either way?" maybe, as an option four, would've gotten my vote.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fuchs
post Apr 10 2008, 09:15 AM
Post #72


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,328
Joined: 28-November 05
From: Zuerich
Member No.: 8,014



QUOTE (Jaid @ Apr 10 2008, 01:40 AM) *
i dunno, i think the bike cannon would definitely be an exotic ranged weapon. you'd only use gunnery if it was mounted on a vehicle, and heavy weapons would never apply (IMG:style_emoticons/default/silly.gif)


Anyone mention bike cannons?

ACMA troupes aéroportées Mle. 56

Museum
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wesley Street
post Apr 10 2008, 04:20 PM
Post #73


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,851
Joined: 15-February 08
From: Indianapolis
Member No.: 15,686



I want to know HOW they compensated for recoil. I see one of those things firing and the bike doing a backflip.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fuchs
post Apr 10 2008, 05:34 PM
Post #74


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,328
Joined: 28-November 05
From: Zuerich
Member No.: 8,014



The recoilless cannon was fired from a tripod. The vespa was just to transport it (check the link).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kyoto Kid
post Apr 10 2008, 05:42 PM
Post #75


Bushido Cowgirl
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,782
Joined: 8-July 05
From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats
Member No.: 7,490



...used to play Car Wars. Mounted a Surplus Tank Cannon on a school bus which pointed out the rear emergency door. Got 3 -4 hexes of acceleration every time it was fired. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th June 2025 - 04:19 AM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.