Broken Rules., Or where RAW just fails. Options

[KarmaInferno]

If it tends to generate endless raging arguments...

It's probably a broken rule, of the "needs clarification" variety.





-k

[StealthSigma]

From "Vehicle Combat" section of the BBB


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

You aren't encumbered. The car is encumbered. So the car suffers -1 Agility and Reaction for every 2 points of armor that exceed it's body x 2. Since vehicle lack either stat they suffer no penalty regardless of how much armor you stack on them (at least from encumbrance rules).

[sabs]

Although Vehicles can only have body x 2 armor
According to arsenal, though drones can have x3.. and they can also have smart armor on top of that.

[Saint Sithney]

You aren't encumbered. The car is encumbered. So the car suffers -1 Agility and Reaction for every 2 points of armor that exceed it's body x 2. Since vehicle lack either stat they suffer no penalty regardless of how much armor you stack on them (at least from encumbrance rules).

When you enter the vehicle, you gain the benefits of the vehicle's armor. If "functions the same as worn armor" means that all rules which apply to worn armor apply to vehicle armor, then you 1) only gain the benefit of the highest armor value and 2) all values are added when determining encumbrance.

This interpretation is quite obviously nonsense, as is Neraph's "animals with a stirrup are now vehicles" interpretation.

[Yerameyahu]

Actually, having the Stirrup doesn't make them into vehicles, only the act of connecting a Pilot program to the Stirrup causes that magical change. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[StealthSigma]

Emphasis mine.

EDIT: And that's not beneath me, that's RAW.

"Functions like a vehicle" emphasis is mine. Like brings this into the level of comparison and provides a distinct but subtle difference from "is a vehicle" that has downstream effects.

"Functions like" means it retains its characteristics but will utilize rules related to vehicles.

"Is a vehicle" means that it will lose its characteristics and gain characteristics as if it were a vehicle.

Since it only functions like a vehicle and is not a vehicle it does not gain a number of mod slots equal to its body or 4 (whichever is higher) and thus cannot be modified like a vehicle since it lacks the attributes required for modifications to be made. That does lead to a situation where you could conceivably overmod a biodrone but that is quickly addressed in the vehicle modification rules by the restrictions on what types of vehicles a mod can be placed on thus working back to the different of "functions like" and "is a vehicle". The object in question is still not a vehicle so it does not qualify for any vehicle mods.

--

When you enter the vehicle, you gain the benefits of the vehicle's armor. If "functions the same as worn armor" means that all rules which apply to worn armor apply to vehicle armor, then you 1) only gain the benefit of the highest armor value and 2) all values are added when determining encumbrance.

You gain the benefits of the vehicle's armor not the detriments. You situation would also be applied if you were shooting someone through a barrier.

Vehicle armor's statement "functions the same as worn armor" is for when attacks are made against the vehicle.

Beyond that encumbrance rules apply only for worn armor which the character does not wear a vehicle or barrier.

[Neraph]

"Functions like" means it retains its characteristics but will utilize rules related to vehicles.

Exactly - rules like Vehicle and Drone Modifications. That's my whole point.

[Yerameyahu]

No, not those rules at all. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Neraph]

"Functions like" means it retains its characteristics but will utilize rules related to vehicles.

Yes. Those rules would be included in "rules related to vehicles."

Unless you can actually show that Vehicle and Drone modifications are not rules that are related to drones and vehicles.

[Semerkhet]

Yes. Those rules would be included in "rules related to vehicles."

Unless you can actually show that Vehicle and Drone modifications are not rules that are related to drones and vehicles.

I came to this conversation late but I have to say, why is anyone still arguing this point with the obvious troll?

[Yerameyahu]

Nothing else to do. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Neraph, that's a false point. It doesn't say that it "will utilize rules related to vehicles". *StealthSigma* said that, and, like the book, he meant within the context of controlling the biodrone's actions. You really have to stop pretending that sentences exist in little bell jars.

[KarmaInferno]

The whole point of this thread is to identify rules that, as written, are broken.

AS WRITTEN, the biodrone rules clearly have a problem.

They can be interpreted as meaning something they really clearly should not mean.

The fact that you CAN ALSO interpret them as meaning something else, does not change the fact that they really need to be re-written to be clearer.




-k

[Yerameyahu]

I don't agree that this is the same class of Broken Rule. We can't start damning the writers for failing to make every sentence stand alone; that's not English. Earlier, my example of the Respirator 'broken rule' was ignored:

How about this: "The respirator adds its ratings to toxin resistance tests." That means it works against injection and contact, right? Nevermind that the previous sentence says it's for inhalation-vector only, because *this* sentence doesn't, right? ;D

Does anyone seriously think, A) that this says the respirator works on non-inhalation, B) that this is a 'broken rule'?

The biodrone rules have *other* problems, but this is certainly not one of them. This is just English.

[KarmaInferno]

Probably not on the same scale of rules that are broken AS DESIGNED, but I still classify them as "stuff that needs errata". I would also classify respirators in the same boat.

As I stated before, technical writing requires a higher standard of clarity and focus than day-to-day language.



-k

[Yerameyahu]

That's true. If the rules were actually in a 'proper technical writing' genre, it would help a lot. To me, that's more of a wish for the entirety than a point about specifics like this, though. Ideally, all crunch would be one color/face, and all fluff would be another, and the two would be logically connected. Ideally. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Failing that ideal, I think it's a mistake to deliberately misunderstand (the respirator example) and call it a writing failure. It's just evidence that the book isn't not technical writing, that's all.

[Mäx]

Probably not on the same scale of rules that are broken AS DESIGNED, but I still classify them as "stuff that needs errata". I would also classify respirators in the same boat.

As I stated before, technical writing requires a higher standard of clarity and focus than day-to-day language.

So you actually really want a 1000+ pages long rule books, as all conditions need to be stated in every sentence, not in just one sentence per rule.

[Mooncrow]

Probably not on the same scale of rules that are broken AS DESIGNED, but I still classify them as "stuff that needs errata". I would also classify respirators in the same boat.

As I stated before, technical writing requires a higher standard of clarity and focus than day-to-day language.



-k

Generally, when dealing with rules, if there are two ways to interpret something, and you can show that one way is consistent with the rest of the rules and one is not, then the first is the correct way to interpret it. So, while it might be nice to have clarification on some things, it's not really correct to say ambiguous rules are "broken".

[Neraph]

I don't agree that this is the same class of Broken Rule. We can't start damning the writers for failing to make every sentence stand alone; that's not English.

The paragraph itself is one describing what rules the 'drones use - it mentions skills, but the paragraph itself is not Skill-specific: it is the general ruleset that the biodrone uses. As such, that sentence can and does include all rules for drones.

[Yerameyahu]

Again, that's not true. The paragraph is about how the biodrone is controlled. … Even if we didn't already know that they're not vehicles. (Might as well re-mention that most obvious context).

[KarmaInferno]

So you actually really want a 1000+ pages long rule books, as all conditions need to be stated in every sentence, not in just one sentence per rule.

No, but both examples could have been very easily resolved by adding one or two words.

In fact, 90% of the "problem" rules in SR4A can be resolved in a similar fashion. I doubt the word count would rise from the corrections enough even alter the number of pages - at most you'd have to adjust some of the pretty margins a tiny bit.

Roleplaying games ARE technical manuals, more or less. They are instructional documents. As such, the writers CANNOT assume that their reader will "just understand" what they MEANT to say, and should take some care to make sure their text actually says what they meant.

Rules should say what they mean. It's a very simple idea.

But it's as much the job of the editors to catch this stuff as it is the writer's.

Compounding the problem is the agonizingly slow errata production on Catalyst's part. And FanPro/FASA before them.

Though I will say this isn't limited to Shadowrun - a lot of the RPG industry allows stuff that would get people in other publishing industries fired. And we, as the consumers, simply shrug our shoulders and say "eh" instead of demanding better service for our money.



-k

[Mäx]

The paragraph itself is one describing what rules the 'drones use - it mentions skills, but the paragraph itself is not Skill-specific: it is the general ruleset that the biodrone uses. As such, that sentence can and does include all rules for drones.

No, as has been said before that whole section is only about controlling bio-dorones and as such can only include rules pertaining to control of drones and nothing else.

[Yerameyahu]

After all, it's a paragraph about the Stirrup Interface modification. How could it have a scope outside of the Stirrup Interface itself? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[KarmaInferno]

Again, nobody's arguing that the rules shouldn't MEAN that it's talking about controlling drones rather than all drone rules in general, but that's not what the rules SAY.

There's RAI that's broken.

There's also RAW that's broken.

RAI is actually harder to fix. You need to do actual rules alteration and some playtesting to make sure the new configuration works.

RAW problems are just an editing job. Yet somehow it's taking just as long to see fixes there.




-k

[Yerameyahu]

He *is* arguing that the context of that paragraph is 'all rules', not 'Stirrup control rules'. That's false.

[Mäx]

Again, nobody's arguing that the rules shouldn't MEAN that it's talking about controlling drones rather than all drone rules in general, but that's not what the rules SAY.

Except that it is, as that quote is from a section that only talks about controlling of drones.