Rules Pitfalls, What things should GMs and Players watch out for? Options

[nemafow]

Not the perfect example I was looking for (there are better ones if I can only remember), but how about a high level Knowledge softs for say: Gang Territories
Gang Territories change all the time due to wars/wipe outs ect, so unless the soft gets periodic updates, it can't be correct all the time.

[Cabral]

I believe there is a rule for degradation of skillsofts in Unwired unless legal (over-the-matrix updates from the publisher) or equivalent.

[Mäx]

5 BP for the Technomancer Quality -> Resonance 1
4 Essence points worth of Bioware/Cyberware -> Resonance -3
[Start of play]
Improve Resonance from -3 to -2: 10 Karma gained
Improve Resonance from -2 to -1: 5 Karma gained
Improve Resonance from -1 to 0: no cost
Improve Resonance from 0 to 1: 5 Karma cost
Improve Resonance from 1 to 2: 10 Karma cost

Final Resonance Rating: 2
net cost: 0 Karma

Congrulations, you just made the most useless technomancer ever, with zero complex forms to start with, this character fill never be an effective at any matrix tasks

[D2F]

Congrulations, you just made the most useless technomancer ever, with zero complex forms to start with, this character fill never be an effective at any matrix tasks

And you think the goal of such a build is to be good in the 'Trix, rather than to get 4IP at no Essence cost?

You cannot go below 0 Resonance... if you ever go to 0 Resonance, you lose all Resonance ability and can never raise it again...

Just like Magic...

Edit: Which has apparently already been said... Oh Well...

Keep the Faith

Find me a quote for that rule. I checked SR4A, and Unwired. There is no such rule for Resonance.

[DireRadiant]

You have a rules quote for that? I couldn't find one.

Not a good argument to use unless you also have a rules quote supporting negative attributes and gaining karma by raising them.

You are just using the fact that going outside the normal boundaries and applying the 5 * New Rating gives you a negative karma value for the Character Improvement cost.

Like I originally said, going outside the normal range of operations in a build is a problem with any character build, not just TMs.

For discussion you might want to look at the effects of a 0 Physical and Mental attribute.

From Decrease Attribute spell
"The target resists the spell using the attribute affected. If the caster
wins, the attribute is reduced by the spell’s net hits. If a Physical attribute
is reduced to 0, the victim is incapacitated or paralyzed. If a Mental
attribute is reduced to 0, the victim stands about mindlessly confused."

[DireRadiant]

And you think the goal of such a build is to be good in the 'Trix, rather than to get 4IP at no Essence cost?



Find me a quote for that rule. I checked SR4A, and Unwired. There is no such rule for Resonance.

I haven't found one, but this bit from latent Technomancer implies you need resonance of at least 1 to be a TM.

"Once the gamemaster had decided that the character’s abilities
have fully manifested, the character gains a Resonance attribute
of 1. If the character has an Essence of less than 6 at this point,
she still receives the Resonance attribute, although her maximum
Resonance is reduced accordingly. If her Essence has dropped
below 1, then she has no chance of ever being a technomancer."

[DireRadiant]

5 BP for the Technomancer Quality -> Resonance 1
4 Essence points worth of Bioware/Cyberware -> Resonance -3
[Start of play]
Improve Resonance from -3 to -2: 10 Karma gained
Improve Resonance from -2 to -1: 5 Karma gained
Improve Resonance from -1 to 0: no cost
Improve Resonance from 0 to 1: 5 Karma cost
Improve Resonance from 1 to 2: 10 Karma cost

Final Resonance Rating: 2
net cost: 0 Karma

BTW, you forgot all the free karma for all the negative complex forms. While you are at it, you might as well get all your karma for all the other negative karma stuff

[D2F]

Not a good argument to use unless you also have a rules quote supporting negative attributes and gaining karma by raising them.

You are just using the fact that going outside the normal boundaries and applying the 5 * New Rating gives you a negative karma value for the Character Improvement cost.

Like I originally said, going outside the normal range of operations in a build is a problem with any character build, not just TMs.

For discussion you might want to look at the effects of a 0 Physical and Mental attribute.

From Decrease Attribute spell
"The target resists the spell using the attribute affected. If the caster
wins, the attribute is reduced by the spell’s net hits. If a Physical attribute
is reduced to 0, the victim is incapacitated or paralyzed. If a Mental
attribute is reduced to 0, the victim stands about mindlessly confused."

All that gives you is a rule that is not applicable (as it pertains to a particular spell effect) and reducing the problem down to being able to Increase the resonance attribute back to 1 for measly 5 Karma, while still having 4 points worth of Essence in Enhancements. The main problem is that 0 Resonance does not mean you lose your technomancer abilities as opposed to Magic, where it is stated explicitly. Regardless of how you look at it, the rule is still fishy.

I haven't found one, but this bit from latent Technomancer implies you need resonance of at least 1 to be a TM.

"Once the gamemaster had decided that the character’s abilities
have fully manifested, the character gains a Resonance attribute
of 1. If the character has an Essence of less than 6 at this point,
she still receives the Resonance attribute, although her maximum
Resonance is reduced accordingly. If her Essence has dropped
below 1, then she has no chance of ever being a technomancer."

Implications give a hint at intentions. They have no impact on rules, though. While I completely agree with the intention, I am arguing the rule here. After all, this thread IS about rule pitfalls.

BTW, you forgot all the free karma for all the negative complex forms. While you are at it, you might as well get all your karma for all the other negative karma stuff

No Complex forms were purchased in that excemple. What other "negative karma stuff"?

[Yerameyahu]

Nope, there's a paragraph that says Resonance works the same as Magic, so it's all implied. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) As if we needed it and this weren't all a silly thought experiment.

[D2F]

Nope, there's a paragraph that says Resonance works the same as Magic, so it's all implied. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) As if we needed it and this weren't all a silly thought experiment.

Where? I asked for a rules quote before. Give me one and I am a happy camper!

[Yerameyahu]

I forget. It basically says, 'As Magic, Resonance …'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) That's not the point. The point is that you don't need one, and neither does anybody else. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Witch]

I'd just like to point out that this thread is about 'Rule Pitfalls', i.e. situations where there is actually a danger of a GM ending up in trouble due to badly written rules. Whatever D2F has been arguing for is something that every GM would ban the instant he heard it, and it is therefore quite irrelevant.

[D2F]

I forget. It basically says, 'As Magic, Resonance …'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) That's not the point. The point is that you don't need one, and neither does anybody else. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

That's not a valid counter, though. If you can't produce it, it doesn't exist. I've been looking for anything like that like crazy, but I couldn't find it, for the life of me. To my knowledge, and unless I see a quote that says otherwise, all that reducing resonance to 0 does it to limit all technomancer skills and abilities to a rating of 0. It doesn't say that you also lose your technomancer abilities.
It does so for Magic, not for Resonance.

If I am wrong and you can show me a oproper rules quote, I'd be very grateful!

I'd just like to point out that this thread is about 'Rule Pitfalls', i.e. situations where there is actually a danger of a GM ending up in trouble due to badly written rules. Whatever D2F has been arguing for is something that every GM would ban the instant he heard it, and it is therefore quite irrelevant.

I praise your omniscience, to know what every GM would do....

[Johnny B. Good]

That's not a valid counter, though. If you can't produce it, it doesn't exist. I've been looking for anything like that like crazy, but I couldn't find it, for the life of me. To my knowledge, and unless I see a quote that says otherwise, all that reducing resonance to 0 does it to limit all technomancer skills and abilities to a rating of 0. It doesn't say that you also lose your technomancer abilities.
It does so for Magic, not for Resonance.

If I am wrong and you can show me a oproper rules quote, I'd be very grateful!


I praise your omniscience, to know what every GM would do....

If I were GM I'd make you take the common sense quality.

[Yerameyahu]

I don't have to produce it, because I don't care. Not even a tiny bit. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) But, it's there, cuz I read it.

Every GM in history, present, and future, did ban, is banning, and will ban it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) Omniscience IS nice.

[BobChuck]

I'm going to side with Yerameyahu, here: saying "Resonance works like Magic" just makes sense. Actually trying to argue that the zero Karma Technomancer build is legit makes no sense at all, even in a missions game. It's absurd.

Congratulations, you found a hole in the rules that is really easy to close by making a basic logical assumption. Have a cookie.

[D2F]

I don't have to produce it, because I don't care. Not even a tiny bit. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) But, it's there, cuz I read it.

Every GM in history, present, and future, did ban, is banning, and will ban it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) Omniscience IS nice.

1.) Of course you don't HAVE to produce it. Neither would I want to force you (as if I even could). I was ASKING you to produce because I would like to read it for myself, to verify your claim. Which, to this point is nothing but conjecture.
2.) It's not "there because you read". You think you know you read it. Dissonance effects are a bitch. aren't they?
3.) Your assumption about omnisciene is unproven, unproveable and worthless. Hell, I am inclined to allow it, just to prove you wrong!

I'm going to side with Yerameyahu, here: saying "Resonance works like Magic" just makes sense. Actually trying to argue that the zero Karma Technomancer build is legit makes no sense at all, even in a missions game. It's absurd.

Congratulations, you found a hole in the rules that is really easy to close by making a basic logical assumption. Have a cookie.

Is there any particular reason you are patronizing me? The build would be legit. It would also be absurd. I would not allow it. Whether or not I or you would allow it is completely irrelevant, though. How about you simply say "yes, D2F, you are right" unless you can actually prove me wrong, instead of turning to personal insults?

[Witch]

I praise your omniscience, to know what every GM would do....

In cases as these, I take the 'reasonable person' standard. One doesn't need to be omniscient to apply this. Your rules wrangling isn't going to convince anybody. In some cases, rules lawyering can convince people. This isn't one of those.

[Mäx]

And you think the goal of such a build is to be good in the 'Trix, rather than to get 4IP at no Essence cost?

LOL and after how many points of karma is that.
I can do the same at chargen quite easily.

And hes patronizing you cos you act like a 5 year old,i'm sorry to say that but you really do.

And man i could maybe understand you if you were rules lawyering for a munching build, but this isn't even something that will ever be a desand character.

[Doc Chase]

I suggest the task at hand be tabled until the hymnals can be consulted, rather than have this useful thread degenerate into poo-flinging.

It stinks, even on the Internet. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Lansdren]

I'm going to say one thing and one thing only


"dont feed the trolls"

Even those if you dont think your trolling we can all see the horns and dermal deposits

[D2F]

In cases as these, I take the 'reasonable person' standard. One doesn't need to be omniscient to apply this. Your rules wrangling isn't going to convince anybody. In some cases, rules lawyering can convince people. This isn't one of those.

I am not trying to convince anyone. Why do you think I would?

And hes patronizing you cos you act like a 5 year old,i'm sorry to say that but you really do.

Because I ask for an actual rules quote rather than simply kowtowing to conjecture? Because I think the possible rule interpretation is absurd? Because I answered a request that has since been barraged with no actual counter-argument (with the sole exception of negative attribute values, which is a draw)? Because I questioned the nescessity for personal attacks?

Explain yourself! How am I "acting like a 5 year old"?

This is ridiculous! You can't prove me wrong and instead of simply saying "You're right, D2F, that possible, yet legal exploit is stupid", you resort to patronizing and personal attacks. And I don't even expected to be right. I don't even WANT to be right, because I think that rules exploit is retarded, which is why I was asking so often about a rules quote that would prove me wrong. And your answer to that are personal attacks? And you are calling ME "acting like a 5 year old"?

[Johnny B. Good]

I am not trying to convince anyone. Why do you think I would?


Because I ask for an actual rules quote rather than simply kowtowing to conjecture? Because I think the possible rule interpretation is absurd? Because I answered a request that has since been barraged with no actual counter-argument (with the sole exception of negative attribute values, which is a draw)? Because I questioned the nescessity for personal attacks?

Explain yourself! How am I "acting like a 5 year old"?

This is ridiculous! You can't prove me wrong and instead of simply saying "You're right, D2F, that possible, yet legal exploit is stupid", you resort to patronizing and personal attacks. And I don't even expected to be right. I don't even WANT to be right, because I think that rules exploit is retarded, which is why I was asking so often about a rules quote that would prove me wrong. And your answer to that are personal attacks? And you are calling ME "acting like a 5 year old"?

Sick and tired of this, don't care, moving on please.

So guys: Hardened armor. Controversial, yes?

[Doc Chase]

Sick and tired of this, don't care, moving on please.

So guys: Hardened armor. Controversial, yes?

It just means you need a nuclear bunker buster instead of your run-of-the-mill.

[Yerameyahu]

It's not that I don't understand your point, D2F, that RAW is occasionally (accidentally, meaninglessly) wrong. After all, you're the crazy person who argued contacts block Astral Perception. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) I just know how far to take a joke.