Broken Rules., Or where RAW just fails. Options

[Neraph]

Actually no. Even assuming the possibility that the paragraph is talking about only skill rolls (which it isn't - as soon as you jump in to the biodrone you have to be working off of the drone rules anyways, at least as far as Initiative, what Attribute is linked to the skill, ect.), the fact that it says "exactly like a regular drone" means that it now follows every single rule that normal drones use - which is the specific Vehicle rules. Which includes Vehicle Upgrades.

Which is broken.

[Yerameyahu]

Again, that is not at all what that sentence means. What's broken is your brain if you think it's correct to deliberately ignore context. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) If you're going to start saying that every sentence in the book has to stand alone without context, you're literally violating the basic rules of English. Don't cheat at English, Neraph. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) You've got plenty of broken rules in SR4 without inventing them. This is certainly not 'a place where RAW fails'.

'Functions as' is not 'is considered' is not 'is'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Neraph]

Actually, you're wrong.

If you need to, go look at the definition of "function." It means that you "use the rules for X."

In what reality does "function exactly like X" mean that we're only talking about skills? That sentence would be constructed radically different to have the meaning you're talking about.

Also, as I stated before, the paragraph is not about simply using skills at all. As soon as a rigger jumps in to the drone, all sorts of rules change. They work off of Matrix Initiative. They work off of Skill + Sensor (and how do you figure the Sensor rating of a panther?). They use Response (+ Dodge). That paragraph is talking about rules interactions in general. Animals use a radically different set of attributes as jumped-in riggers do.

[Ragewind]

Actually, you're wrong.

If you need to, go look at the definition of "function." It means that you "use the rules for X."

In what reality does "function exactly like X" mean that we're only talking about skills? That sentence would be constructed radically different to have the meaning you're talking about.

Also, as I stated before, the paragraph is not about simply using skills at all. As soon as a rigger jumps in to the drone, all sorts of rules change. They work off of Matrix Initiative. They work off of Skill + Sensor (and how do you figure the Sensor rating of a panther?). They use Response (+ Dodge). That paragraph is talking about rules interactions in general. Animals use a radically different set of attributes as jumped-in riggers do.

Hes technically right, no matter how you pretty it up the sentence is clear. They function exactly like drones. There is no leeway in that sentence, its not ambiguous, its not poorly worded, its not misspelled. Is it strange for a Bio drone to have vehicle armor? Yes, do the rules care? No. What that sentence needs is a amendment or a clarification to detail exactly what rules it follows, as it stands now it encompasses all aspects of the drone rules.

[Saint Sithney]

From "Vehicle Combat" section of the BBB

Vehicle Armor
Vehicle armor functions just like character armor

This means that you are now encumbered when you get inside of a car according to Neraph...

[Ascalaphus]

Stirrup Interface
This interface is based on an advanced move-by-wire system (p. 40) and provides all of the same bonuses and benefits, including the embessed skillwire system. Additionally, it adds a remote control rig adaptation that allows a rigger to both monitor the exact movements of the animal as well as to "jump in" and control it directly through full-immersion VR.
The subject animal may make full use of its own faculties and skills, except when the rigger is "jumped in." A rigger jumped into the recipient will use his own skills at a -1 dice pool penalty when performing any actions. The recipient can be controlled by a specialized Pilot program, but then functions exactly like a normal drone.

I'm not saying this rule is well-worked out, because it's not. It raises all manner of questions, like "would the Pilot also get -1 to skills?" or "What Response does a jumped-in animal have?". Most of these can be guessed, but it's a bit shoddy rules, that's certainly true.

But I think it's really doing injustice to English to interpret that last sentence as turning the animal into a lump of metal. It depends on how you interpret "Function Like":

A) Is the same kind of object type from a rules standpoint

B) Works the same from a user's perspective, such as a PC rigger. It's steered in a similar manner.
(For example, if I say that the old lady's car functions exactly like a shopping cart because that's all she uses it for, that doesn't mean the car is or becomes a shopping cart, just that it's handled that way.)

What the writer meant was likely option B; in that case the text makes sense. The animal didn't turn into a drone, but it's piloted like a drone. This is a case where the context of a sentence is required to determine it's meaning. That's not really bad English, use of context is perfectly allowed in natural languages. I doubt even Neraph thought it was supposed to mean A, so the writer's intention was expressed clearly enough.

[Smokeskin]

I also will be siding with Stealth here. One thing that many of my English professors (especially Dr. Savage) always drilled into me was that sentence structure and context were just as important as grammar. If I handed in an essay that was 100% grammatically correct, it would still come back covered in red saying things like "Did you eat the mouse or did the cat"? or something infuriatingly inane because I would write something that was grammatically correct and under the average listener's interpretation would say that the cat ate the mouse. However, his notes would point out how it could also be interpreted otherwise. Why he stressed this was because this sort of writing left to much interpretation to the listener/reader. The only reason that most people would interpret the sentence properly is because they would subconsciously disregard the other interpretation as being silly.

That's all well and dandy.

However, the Shadowrun rules are clearly not written with that sort of stringency, and it uses "and" in ways that should be "or".

If you want to delibaretly misinterpret the rules, go ahead and read it like it is written by a CS or English professor.

[Dakka Dakka]

However, the Shadowrun rules are clearly not written with that sort of stringency, and it uses "and" in ways that should be "or".

Which is plainly false, and should be corrected via errata. "And" can never be equal to "or", neither in common English nor in logic.

[sabs]

Which is plainly false, and should be corrected via errata. "And" can never be equal to "or", neither in common English nor in logic.

Example:
I can speak Spanish and English.
I can speak Spanish or English.

Both statements are correct.
Both statements mean the same thing.

The first one does not mean that I speak Spanish and English /at the same time/.

[Ascalaphus]

Example:
I can speak Spanish and English.
I can speak Spanish or English.

Both statements are correct.
Both statements mean the same thing.

The first one does not mean that I speak Spanish and English /at the same time/.

Well, not strictly.
"I can speak Spanish and English" informs us of an ability, "I can speak Spanish or English" is asking someone what language to address them in.

In the original text, it's not very neat phrasing, but I do think the intention is clear to most/all readers. It's not really such a big issue. You could also turn it around;
-1 die to Logic and Willpower tests
-1 die to Logic+Willpower tests
Are these really the same in meaning? I don't think so.

Of course the clearest phrasings would have been either:
-1 die to Logic+Willpower tests
-1 die to tests using Logic and/or Willpower <- what they intended
Because logical OR best translates to natural "and/or".

[Ascalaphus]

Anyway, another broken one: Turn to Goo. It fails to transform implants paid for with Essence!

[Stahlseele]

"A Red Samurai? Pappa needs a new Smartlink, get me a sieve! He'll be mortified when i'm done with him!"

[Dakka Dakka]

"A Red Samurai? Pappa needs a new Smartlink, get me a sieve! He'll be mortified when i'm done with him!"

Actually the "Goo" is pretty hard. Joe Average will be at least transformed into Average Material (Example: tree, furniture, plastiboard, ballistic glass). three net hits make him Heavy Material and so on. I doubt those materials go through a sieve easily.

[Stahlseele]

It's still a form of gel like liquid right?

[KarmaInferno]

Example:
I can speak Spanish and English.
I can speak Spanish or English.

Both statements are correct.
Both statements mean the same thing.

The first one does not mean that I speak Spanish and English /at the same time/.

Just because both are "correct" under normal conversational English does not mean both are suitable for use in a technical document. When writing an instructional piece, your standards for clarity and unambiguous choice in wording simply need to be higher.

Does a rule tend to create 13 different interpretations when viewed by 10 different people?

Then it's likely not a problem with the people, it's probably just badly written.



-karma

[Neraph]

I'm not saying this rule is well-worked out, because it's not. It raises all manner of questions, like "would the Pilot also get -1 to skills?" or "What Response does a jumped-in animal have?". Most of these can be guessed, but it's a bit shoddy rules, that's certainly true.

But I think it's really doing injustice to English to interpret that last sentence as turning the animal into a lump of metal. It depends on how you interpret "Function Like":

A) Is the same kind of object type from a rules standpoint

B) Works the same from a user's perspective, such as a PC rigger. It's steered in a similar manner.
(For example, if I say that the old lady's car functions exactly like a shopping cart because that's all she uses it for, that doesn't mean the car is or becomes a shopping cart, just that it's handled that way.)

What the writer meant was likely option B; in that case the text makes sense. The animal didn't turn into a drone, but it's piloted like a drone. This is a case where the context of a sentence is required to determine it's meaning. That's not really bad English, use of context is perfectly allowed in natural languages. I doubt even Neraph thought it was supposed to mean A, so the writer's intention was expressed clearly enough.

Except that's not what the paragraph was talking about. That paragraph is talking about what rules, overall, you're supposed to use with the biodrone.

If it's just the implant, they use all the rules for standard animals/critters. If you jump in, you use all the rules for jumping in and rigging, but with a -1 dicepool. If it's run by a Pilot program, it follows all the rules for drones.

That means that biodrones are, as a technicality of RAW, capable of sporting vehicle modifications and immune to stun. The paragraph was not simply talking about skill use, although it did mention skill use.

For example: what exactly does the sentence "The subject animal may make full use of its own faculties and skills..."? That is a clear implication of the biodrone using all the skills and rules associated with living subjects, critters, animals, or whatever you want to call them.

[Yerameyahu]

It's not clear that the Goo's armor rating is the same as rigidity.

Again, Ragewind (and Neraph), that "exactly" only means what you're saying if you ignore context entirely and pretend the sentence stands alone. That is obviously not the case. Even if that weren't true, you can't possibly argue that "functions exactly like a regular drone" means "is literally a drone vehicle".

Neraph, that paragraph is not "talking about what rules, overall, you're supposed to use with the biodrone". It's talking about what rules to use for controlling the biodrone. There are explicitly three options: A) Critter in control, B) Rigger Jumped-In, C) Pilot in control.

[Dakka Dakka]

Right . It isn't clear either how cohesive the goo is or how adhesive it is to the non-transformed cyberware. The 'ware and the goo may just be stopped by the sieve.

[Yerameyahu]

One thing is certain, though: essence-paid implants shouldn't be affected differently, as the Turn to Goo and Petrify spells specify. That's a fundamental principle of the magic system. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

[Dakka Dakka]

I totally agree that this shouldn't be the case.

[Ascalaphus]

Except that's not what the paragraph was talking about. That paragraph is talking about what rules, overall, you're supposed to use with the biodrone.

Actually, the paragraph is talking exclusively about how a biodrone is controlled. It's sorted in Biodrone Control Ware -> Stirrup Interface -> the modes that a SI allows. That's a very clear context.

"Functions exactly like" in this context is not "has the physical properties of", but "is controlled like". Within the context of the paragraph, it's perfectly clear.

For example: what exactly does the sentence "The subject animal may make full use of its own faculties and skills..."? That is a clear implication of the biodrone using all the skills and rules associated with living subjects, critters, animals, or whatever you want to call them.

No it's not. "Faculties" is another term for mental abilities. That means the animal uses the skills and mental abilities associated with animals.

[Jaid]

I'm not saying this rule is well-worked out, because it's not. It raises all manner of questions, like "would the Pilot also get -1 to skills?" or "What Response does a jumped-in animal have?". Most of these can be guessed, but it's a bit shoddy rules, that's certainly true.

But I think it's really doing injustice to English to interpret that last sentence as turning the animal into a lump of metal. It depends on how you interpret "Function Like":

A) Is the same kind of object type from a rules standpoint

B) Works the same from a user's perspective, such as a PC rigger. It's steered in a similar manner.
(For example, if I say that the old lady's car functions exactly like a shopping cart because that's all she uses it for, that doesn't mean the car is or becomes a shopping cart, just that it's handled that way.)

What the writer meant was likely option B; in that case the text makes sense. The animal didn't turn into a drone, but it's piloted like a drone. This is a case where the context of a sentence is required to determine it's meaning. That's not really bad English, use of context is perfectly allowed in natural languages. I doubt even Neraph thought it was supposed to mean A, so the writer's intention was expressed clearly enough.

actually, in describing that scenario i don't think i would ever use the word 'exactly', because the car clearly does not function exactly like a shopping cart. for example, 'exactly like a shopping cart' would imply that you push (or pull, i suppose) it down the aisles in a store and put goods that you intend to purchase within it, then bring it up to the front of the store, then unload everything onto the cashier's counter, then load everything back into it, then push (or pull) it out into the parking lot and either load everything into some other vehicle (such as another car) or container (such as a backpack) or push it home (much like you might do with one of those fold-up carts that you can buy for just such a purpose). it would further imply that the car itself has no ability to propel itself, because shopping carts don't do that. if the car is simply used for driving to and from stores and transporting purchased goods along the way, then it is in fact not really much like a shopping cart at all, and it would very inaccurate to describe it as being or functioning 'exactly' like a shopping cart.

the word exactly has a very specific meaning, for example:

"1. in an exact manner; accurately or precisely
2. in every respect; just it is exactly what he wants
sentence substitute
1. just so! precisely!"

if something is not the same in every respect, then it really isn't *exactly* the same, though it might be similar. by stating that it works *exactly* like a drone, they are implying that it is just like a drone "in every respect". if they had said it uses the exact same rules as you would for piloting a normal drone, that would be a much better way of saying it, because in this case you are telling them you use the exact same rules for piloting, not that the entire object is itself exactly like a drone.

[Yerameyahu]

It's not the best wording possible. That is a far cry from *meaning* what they're claiming. 'In every respect' is still subject to the scope imposed by context, and 'functions as' still doesn't mean 'is'. When a biodrone is controlled by a Pilot, that Pilot has 'exactly' the same control over it as a Pilot does for a vehicle drone.

[Sengir]

Actually no. Even assuming the possibility that the paragraph is talking about only skill rolls (which it isn't - as soon as you jump in to the biodrone you have to be working off of the drone rules anyways, at least as far as Initiative, what Attribute is linked to the skill, ect.), the fact that it says "exactly like a regular drone" means that it now follows every single rule that normal drones use - which is the specific Vehicle rules. Which includes Vehicle Upgrades.

So I guess when RW says that bandersnatchii "breed like horny college students", that means college students use all rules for bandersnatchii?

Oh well, English speakers and analogies...some things just don't mix (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Neurosis]

Man, this topic.