duct tape, when you've exceeded capacity... Options

[Ol' Scratch]

Why can't it? "Built-in" features still require tests to install them properly. A glitch indicates that something goes wrong; it could easily have been that, or at least some action that caused it to fail and fall off/stop working/otherwise become disabled. Or, what, do the rules have a hidden line that says that "built-in" features are immune to being part of a glitch? I'm also pretty sure it falls within his definition, too, since a flashlight failing/falling off/etc. on a gun would "suck" without being "disastrous." How exactly does using duct tape or not using duct tape change that?

And, incidentally, I was just replying in kind.

[Yerameyahu]

*shrug*. In English, 'integral' or 'built-in' usually means that it's not a separate piece that can fall off, as opposed to an accessory or taped-on item. Do whatever you want in your game.

[Ol' Scratch]

I'll have to remember that the next time a door knob falls off an old door, or I hear about someone losing or chipping a tooth when they accidentally bite into something hard, or a key randomly falling off a keyboard after a light bump, or a tail light going out on a car, or any other of the myriad examples of "integral" or "built-in" things falling off of things. We can just yell at God about how stupid he is as a GM of Real Life for including that as a glitch.

[TheOOB]

I'll have to remember that the next time a door knob falls off an old door, or I hear about someone losing or chipping a tooth when they accidentally bite into something hard, or a key randomly falling off a keyboard after a light bump, or a tail light going out on a car, or any other of the myriad examples of "integral" or "built-in" things falling off of things. We can just yell at God about how stupid he is as a GM of Real Life for including that as a glitch.

And we'll have to remember that your examples tend to lead into hyperbole and often have little regard for fact...and less to what has been said previously, and that if we disagree with you, it's only because we read what you said rather than what you intended.

[CanRay]

They don't build things like they used to. And, rarely, maintain them properly.

[Yerameyahu]

None of those are 'falling off from a glitch'. Sounds more like examples of damage. Anyway, we're playing Shadowrun. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Ol' Scratch]

And we'll have to remember that your examples tend to lead into hyperbole and often have little regard for fact...and less to what has been said previously, and that if we disagree with you, it's only because we read what you said rather than what you intended.

Okay, fine. I'll bite.

Feel free to cite the rule that stats that built-in modifications are immune to glitches. You can start on page 62 of the anniversary edition of the game. But don't really bother flipping to that page because there's no such rule there. However, it does include a list of things such as "a mistake, error, fumble, or random fluke." In fact, the example they give even includes an "integral" function of an item -- a bag -- failing (more commonly known as "breaking"). But that's probably just me relying on hyperbole with little regard for fact. Hmm, how about the rules for weapon modifications? I'm doing a quick scan starting on page 128 of Arsenal, but you know, I don't see any immunity clause here, either.

But nah, that's all me disregarding fact. It's definitely true; the only way to get a glitch is to use duct tape. If it's "built-in" and/or "integral" then it's completely immune. It's right there in black-and-white. Somewhere. I just don't know where, apparently, and am making things up as I go.

[Yerameyahu]

It's big of you to admit that ignorance. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Anyway, integral pieces are obviously less likely (approaching 100% less) to 'fall off' than taped-on pieces. They may fail in any number of other ways, including being broken off, but 'falling off' is something else. Nit picked! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[TheOOB]

Okay, fine. I'll bite.

Feel free to cite the rule that stats that built-in modifications are immune to glitches. You can start on page 62 of the anniversary edition of the game. But don't really bother flipping to that page because there's no such rule there. However, it does include a list of things such as "a mistake, error, fumble, or random fluke." In fact, the example they give even includes an "integral" function of an item -- a bag -- failing (more commonly known as "breaking"). But that's probably just me relying on hyperbole with little regard for fact. Hmm, how about the rules for weapon modifications? I'm doing a quick scan starting on page 128 of Arsenal, but you know, I don't see any immunity clause here, either.

But nah, that's all me disregarding fact. It's definitely true; the only way to get a glitch is to use duct tape. If it's "built-in" and/or "integral" then it's completely immune. It's right there in black-and-white. Somewhere. I just don't know where, apparently, and am making things up as I go.

I don't even have to make my own points, yeah! I make a post mentioning that falling off is a likely glitch for something with duct tape, you make a post that refutes that with no other information in the post whatsoever, leading to the assumption that you think it is an invalid glitch, it is pointed it it is a valid glitch, you mention a bunch of other glitches, that a)no one refuted(aside from someone saying that "falling off" is unlikely for a built in component, which it is), and b)once again dipped into gross hyperbole. I make a comment about how you don't pay attention to what people say in threads, even yourself, and use hyperbole a lot, and you respond by completely ignoring what other people are saying, and demanding other people site rules when it is a) everything rules wise that needs to be said has been said, and b) No one has voice a strong disagreement with your ideas of a glitch(least of all me).

Just...you know...read other people posts and work a little harder on your rhetoric.

[Ol' Scratch]

Who's the one making stuff up?

I at no point whatsoever said that a flash light duct taped to a gun wasn't a suitable target for a glitch. What I did say is that having one as an accessory or otherwise built-in wasn't immune to glitching. I even quoted that particular bit of text you wrote implying that very thing. Your exact quote, and I'm quoting so that you know I am in fact quoting by listing this quote, was "having a build in flashlight would work better...and wouldn't risk falling off if you glitch." As written, by you, in post #17 of this very thread. Unfortunately for you, I later even referenced the rules that discuss what glitches entail, and the example included an unrelated item breaking with other things falling off despite the integral nature thereof.

No one has voice a strong disagreement with your ideas of a glitch(least of all me).

Except, you know, yourself (that's a completely different post, by the way, from above, though admittedly you were arguing something that I never said myself; you know, kinda like you're accusing me of doing) and Yerameyahu.

Just...you know...read other people posts and work a little harder on your rhetoric.

Take your own advice.

[TheOOB]

Who's the one making stuff up?

I at no point whatsoever said that a flash light duct taped to a gun wasn't a suitable target for a glitch. What I did say is that having one as an accessory or otherwise built-in wasn't immune to glitching. I even quoted that particular bit of text you wrote implying that very thing. Your exact quote, and I'm quoting so that you know I am in fact quoting by listing this quote, was "having a build in flashlight would work better...and wouldn't risk falling off if you glitch." As written, by you, in post #17 of this very thread. Unfortunately for you, I later even referenced the rules that discuss what glitches entail, and the example included an unrelated item breaking with other things falling off despite the integral nature thereof.


Except, you know, yourself (that's a completely different post, by the way, from above, though admittedly you were arguing something that I never said myself; you know, kinda like you're accusing me of doing) and Yerameyahu.


Take your own advice.

((muses that it was mentioned that built in components falling off is unlikely for a glitch, but them malfunctioning in various ways wasn't which was the important meat of your post))

[Ol' Scratch]

"having a build in flashlight would work better...and wouldn't risk falling off if you glitch"

<muses that "wouldn't" has a very specific definition in the English language, or that one's context was crystal clear despite weak attempts to backpeddle in later posts>
<continues to muse that someone still didn't catch on to the fact that the entire thing he was arguing about revolved around the exact quote and concept above, but instead went off ranting about how stupid someone else was for saying that a duct-taped flashlight wasn't a potential target for a glitch despite, you know, that never having been said... ever... by anyone>
<muses just a little more about the sheer irony of said person bitching that someone -- anyone -- would dare misunderstand someone else>

(Hey, I can do that, too. Neat-o.)

[TheOOB]

<muses that "wouldn't" has a very specific definition in the English language, or that one's context was crystal clear despite weak attempts to backpeddle in later posts>
<continues to muse that someone still didn't catch on to the fact that the entire thing he was arguing about revolved around the exact quote and concept above, but instead went off ranting about how stupid someone else was for saying that a duct-taped flashlight wasn't a potential target for a glitch despite, you know, that never having been said... ever... by anyone>
<muses just a little more about the sheer irony of said person bitching that someone -- anyone -- would dare misunderstand someone else>

(Hey, I can do that, too. Neat-o.)

I guess I gave you too much credit, I assumed the point of your post wasn't that build in components are likely to fall out on a glitch(you know, the whole built in thing), but rather that built in components can malfunction on a glitch. You have an annoying tendency twords hyperbole. Actually saying that built in components are likely to fall off a gun on a glitch is silly, and your arguments are less for implying it. And your initial post in response to my, honestly halfway joking, post was a complete disagreement with my statement with no qualifying statements or efforts to explain yourself, the initial belief that you thought that a glitch would be less than something falling off was a completely viable interpretation.

Seriously, read posts, thinking about your arguments, and understand that words have objective meaning.

[Ol' Scratch]

<shrugs>

Think what you want, man. My post was quoting a very specific line, as quoted in the quote (just so you don't misunderstand that it was a quote), and the response was obviously and blatantly aimed at that quote by the very nature of quoting said quote. It also doesn't change the fact that you completely and utterly misunderstood said post, reading what you wanted to read rather than what was being said, and later ranted on about how stupid I was for saying something I in no way, shape, or form said, then proceeded to try to lambast me repeatedly without ever once having that gross mistake on your part dawn on you. If I wasn't such a huge fan of hypocrisy, I would have shut up long ago.

But, yeah. Think what you want. I don't feel like getting a warning over something so painfully stupid and there's no sense having a random person jump out and blame everything on me yet again. So, grats! I'm a big stupid doodie-head who can't read or understand anything. You win.

[TheOOB]

Apparently our definitions of what kind of effects a glitch include are drastically different.

Yes, misunderstood. Saying that my interpretation (and Yerameyahu's) of the above quote is a misunderstanding isn't just silly. It's wrong. If there was a "misunderstanding", it's because your post was woefully misleading. You're post above, in whole, was the response to my implication that a duct tape flashlight would likely fall off in a glitch. Can you honestly say that your comment is not worded in a way that would allow...no encourage us to believe that you thought the flashlight falling off was an inappropriate glitch, regardless of what your actual intent was?

I'll admit, this argument is silly, and I've probably helped it last longer than it should have, and I should let this die, but trying to put fault on other people for "misunderstanding" a quote that couldn't be more misleading if you tried is pretty low.

[capt.pantsless]

Apparently our definitions of what kind of effects a glitch include are drastically different.

Anything could fail as part of a glitch. That said, having something duct-taped on is SCREAMING for the GM to mess with you.

Hell, I might have a duct-taped thing fall off as a result of a different player's glitch.

[crash2029]

I have been watching too much Red Green show lately.

[CanRay]

I have been watching too much Red Green show lately.

No such thing. Especially if you're running a Ghettopunk campaign.

[phlapjack77]

Hell, I might have a duct-taped thing fall off as a result of a different player's glitch.

I whole-heartedly endorse this idea (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[stu_pie]

Id allow players to tape stuff to their helmets/guns/body... dont see why you wouldnt, yeah it could be abused, but it your job as GM to make sure its not abused and if a player attempts to abuse it then it simply fails to function or is a pain to use (like flash light gets tape over the on/off button and is stuck on, or batteries die and they have to spend several rounds un-taping it to get it working again).

I'd also suggest RP it, because the other runners probly think the character with a taped up gun n random bits stuck to his helmet is a fool