Chase Rules, Getting it right, wrong, or different Options

[hobgoblin]

*I don't know how those words became profanity, but when the rules in the books run out, that's when GM fiat takes over; when such a situation arises frequently, a group agrees to a rule to cover that eventuality, and that's houseruling. Big deal. But being accused of that stuff here is like being accused of eating babies, for some reason.

Best guess, when MMOs and WoD became popular. End result was that some wanted all RPGs to behave like animated spreadsheets (MMO) and others had bad experience with GMs using fiat to railroad the group into displays of GM sue characters (WoD).

[Mercer]

The idea that a combat turn is a few seconds and a chase turn is a few minutes doesn't offend me, but I do find it odd that it's pretty much the only time in the system the rounds change. Presumably characters in the vehicle are still doing stuff (covering perhaps as many as 60 actions) while the rigger is driving. That the sammie isn't going to be able to lean out the window and take his 60 IP's at the pursuing vehicles is understandable because with all the maneuvering he might have to pick his shots, but it seems like the mage (who only has to see a pursuing vehicle to cast a spell or direct a spirit at it) or the hacker would be taking those actions every combat turn within the larger chase framework.

Seeings how most combats are over before High Threat Response can even get their socks on, much less make it to the site of the combat, I wouldn't mind more areas of the system where the turns are more elastic in their time. It just seems a little odd that almost any action you take is measured in seconds until you start driving a car, and then it becomes minutes.

[hobgoblin]

Consider it ease of play. If not then astral and matrix combat would subdivide the normal combat sequence as well, given that both are thematically faster then physical activity...

There are plenty of places where SR4 puts ease of play before either internal or external "realism". Lets not forget that in the first couple of editions a properly wired sammie could empty, reload and empty again before anyone else could shout "hostiles!". Another something that got toned down in more recent edition to allow everyone to have some but of fun.

[Cain]

If the action defies common sense, Just say No.

That is the very definition of GM fiat. But thank you for finally admitting you use it, just like everyone else.

Regarding chase time: the biggest problem I have is that you actually end up traveling slower in chase time than in tactical. Speed is measured in meters/turn, which is nice and sensible in tactical combat. But you still use the same equation in Chase time, which is per minute. This leads to a lot of sudden changes in velocity. Basically, there's no need for the complication: you can run everything using the tactical rules, and use the opposed Handling test to determine pacing.

[UmaroVI]

Cain knows that's what you're doing. [It's probably what he does, too.] He's just calling "application of common sense when a rule doesn't cover a situation" something else: he's calling it "GM fiat" and "houseruling,*" because the implicit content of those words is insulting, and will make you debate him, despite the explicit content being factually correct, if inflammatory. Don't feed the troll.

*I don't know how those words became profanity, but when the rules in the books run out, that's when GM fiat takes over; when such a situation arises frequently, a group agrees to a rule to cover that eventuality, and that's houseruling. Big deal. But being accused of that stuff here is like being accused of eating babies, for some reason.

No, the problem is when people make houserules, but refuse to admit that they have houserules to cover a shitty part of the rules and then go on to defend those rules. Just because you can ignore stupid things in the rules doesn't mean that the stupid things aren't there. I really don't care how many houserules you run with but please just admit you are using them.

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

The idea that a combat turn is a few seconds and a chase turn is a few minutes doesn't offend me, but I do find it odd that it's pretty much the only time in the system the rounds change. Presumably characters in the vehicle are still doing stuff (covering perhaps as many as 60 actions) while the rigger is driving. That the sammie isn't going to be able to lean out the window and take his 60 IP's at the pursuing vehicles is understandable because with all the maneuvering he might have to pick his shots, but it seems like the mage (who only has to see a pursuing vehicle to cast a spell or direct a spirit at it) or the hacker would be taking those actions every combat turn within the larger chase framework.

Seeings how most combats are over before High Threat Response can even get their socks on, much less make it to the site of the combat, I wouldn't mind more areas of the system where the turns are more elastic in their time. It just seems a little odd that almost any action you take is measured in seconds until you start driving a car, and then it becomes minutes.

I agree that there should be more different time frames available for round based stuff. There are more problems with simultaneity in longer rounds, but even then there are ways go get around that (define more phases: Declaration, action, and application phase...)

No, the problem is when people make houserules, but refuse to admit that they have houserules to cover a shitty part of the rules and then go on to defend those rules. Just because you can ignore stupid things in the rules doesn't mean that the stupid things aren't there. I really don't care how many houserules you run with but please just admit you are using them.

This is true. Saying the rules are fine because you can house-rule them is clearly bad. And it's worsel if you're not even realizing you are house-ruling.

So, while I think that everyone can have fun their way, the initial step is still agreeing on that the rules are bad as they are. While some things might be fixed with stop-gap measures, a radical overhaul shouldn't be out of the question.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

That is the very definition of GM fiat. But thank you for finally admitting you use it, just like everyone else.

Regarding chase time: the biggest problem I have is that you actually end up traveling slower in chase time than in tactical. Speed is measured in meters/turn, which is nice and sensible in tactical combat. But you still use the same equation in Chase time, which is per minute. This leads to a lot of sudden changes in velocity. Basically, there's no need for the complication: you can run everything using the tactical rules, and use the opposed Handling test to determine pacing.

Wow, Just Wow... Know I know that you are Trolling... You do know that a GM is needed for a reason, right? If your definition of GM Fiat is a GM doing his job, then you are truly ignorant of why the game requires a GM.

Have a nice day...

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

You know what... Never Mind. This is going nowhere.

EDITED TO REMOVE POST.

[3278]

I really don't care how many houserules you run with but please just admit you are using them.

That's the funny thing about this "houserule is a swear word" situation: most of the time, the accused protests and foams and froths and will go through any kind of contortions to avoid giving an inch to their accuser, when in reality, they'd be better off just saying, "Yeah, that rule sucks, so I fixed it," or, "That rule works great for us, as long as we do X when it runs out." But because pride enters long before this stage, people just won't bend, for fear of "losing." Obviously, you see this all over the internet, in pretty much every conversation, but it's hilarious how far it's gone here with these terms.

And, of course, if you're a troll here, you've got ready made-hooks ready: even if the point they're making is a good one, holy shit will they bend over backward to avoid saying, "Yep, what's written in the book isn't quite enough at my table, so I fill in the blanks immediately with common sense, and over the long term with house rules." Which everyone does, but people don't want to admit if admitting it gains the "enemy" another inch.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

That's the funny thing about this "houserule is a swear word" situation: most of the time, the accused protests and foams and froths and will go through any kind of contortions to avoid giving an inch to their accuser, when in reality, they'd be better off just saying, "Yeah, that rule sucks, so I fixed it," or, "That rule works great for us, as long as we do X when it runs out." But because pride enters long before this stage, people just won't bend, for fear of "losing." Obviously, you see this all over the internet, in pretty much every conversation, but it's hilarious how far it's gone here with these terms.

It is entertaining (and frustrating), though, when you do use the Rules, straight out of the book with no change, and are still accused of "Houseruling." Which also happens here all the time... *shrug*

And when you tell someone that they can't do something because it is impossible (For example: Cain's Idea that you can't escape the Ground Pursuit by using a helicopter, when the ground pursuit has no means of truly following you), well, then you are guilty of GM FIAT, because you told the Player No. You've got to be kidding me...

[3278]

It is entertaining (and frustrating), though, when you do use the Rules, straight out of the book with no change, and are still accused of "Houseruling." Which also happens here all the time... *shrug*

That's the side-effect part I love! Like, two people will have two different ideas of how a rule works. Not "does this rule exist," but just interpretation of a vague rule. And each one, to demoralize the other, will call the opposition's rule "a house rule," because that's as good as dropping your pants and just shitting on the other guy's argument, because after all, the rules in the books are holy.* (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif) Obviously, what you have is a situation in which two people have different ideas, but you can't tell them that: the other side has a house rule, and their side is clearly correct; there's no doubt, no flexibility, because it's not about finding the truth, it's about kicking ass. Standard internet forum stuff, but this was my home for a long while, so it's much funnier here. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

*This just isn't a notion I share. I've met most of SR's writers, over the years. I've talked with almost all of them. I've been drunk with several. A few of them have been in my house. And I have to say, they're just people. Their writing is no better than half a dozen of the people here who aren't writing: their motivation is what sets them apart, not [just] their talent. They're just people, and what they've written isn't holy - although it's a good standard for disparate groups to agree on. So "house rule" isn't profane: it may well be holier than the stupid shit that made it to print.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

That's the side-effect part I love! Like, two people will have two different ideas of how a rule works. Not "does this rule exist," but just interpretation of a vague rule. And each one, to demoralize the other, will call the opposition's rule "a house rule," because that's as good as dropping your pants and just shitting on the other guy's argument, because after all, the rules in the books are holy.* (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif) Obviously, what you have is a situation in which two people have different ideas, but you can't tell them that: the other side has a house rule, and their side is clearly correct; there's no doubt, no flexibility, because it's not about finding the truth, it's about kicking ass. Standard internet forum stuff, but this was my home for a long while, so it's much funnier here. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

*This just isn't a notion I share. I've met most of SR's writers, over the years. I've talked with almost all of them. I've been drunk with several. A few of them have been in my house. And I have to say, they're just people. Their writing is no better than half a dozen of the people here who aren't writing: their motivation is what sets them apart, not [just] their talent. They're just people, and what they've written isn't holy - although it's a good standard for disparate groups to agree on. So "house rule" isn't profane: it may well be holier than the stupid shit that made it to print.

Heheheh... You may have a point.

As to the Holiness of the rules. I do not see them as Sacred Writ. It is more that I just do not want to take the time to disassemble and reassemble a better rule set. I can live with the drawbacks of the system. And yes, Shadowrun has a Lot of Drawbacks. But, I can live with them as they are. They do not interfere with the way I see a character, or the way I see a scenario. And rarely does it interfere with the fun that Get from playing the game.

That being said. My Current GM (That would be Te0dio) is looking at tweaking a few things, here and there, to streamline it more. Though I may not like it, I tend to go along with it, because he is running the game. And I far prefer playing than running.

The optimal soution to me is to just run Shadowrun with the Feng Shui Rules. But I have had some pushback (from my GM) about that, as he does not like that rule set all that much. And the flavor of the game would likely change a bit (though it would not have to if moderated properly).

[Cain]

Attempting to get things back on subject....

The problem is that the Chase rules are borked. They just don't work, at least not without redoing the ruleset from scratch. Call it what you will, but the fact is that the system requires a lot of fixing to be functional.

I agree that Feng Shui makes for a better basis for chases than SR4.5 does: it's designed for over-the-top action, and can handle some really wacky situations. That's because for Feng Shui, it's a feature and not a bug. I run my Shadowrun games more like that anyway, and it suits my game style better.

[fistandantilus4....]

Debate the rules, but stop with the finger pointing and name calling. It doesn't add anything worth while to the conversation. Please keep things civil and on the topic of discussion, not the posters.

[3278]

As to the Holiness of the rules. I do not see them as Sacred Writ. It is more that I just do not want to take the time to disassemble and reassemble a better rule set.

And when you've got a bunch of people talking online, they work like Missions: they give a solid shared pool of information that everyone can use as a reference point. Can you imagine these rules discussions if there weren't such a point of reference?! "No, obviously you should lose 3 dice for full darkness with thermo, not 2." Help me. So it's only natural that the rules would take on this aura of authority, but beyond their utility as a reference, the only thing the rules are good for is that I can pay someone else to do the part of the game I don't have that much interest in. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I can live with the drawbacks of the system. And yes, Shadowrun has a Lot of Drawbacks.

Well, SR4, yeah. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Sorry, couldn't resist.

The problem is that the Chase rules are borked. They just don't work, at least not without redoing the ruleset from scratch.

See, I would swear we just had this conversation, but in case that's my imagination, let me say again: they don't work for you. [Or me: I think they're ridiculous, unnecessary, and completely useless.] But clearly they do work for other people, sometimes with house rules, sometimes with application of GM common sense in the moment. I don't doubt that there are some people out there using the rules just as they're written and having a fine time doing so. But there's no objective quality of "borked," in this issue less than most. The chase rules do work...just not for you or I. But - and here's the part I know is incredible - you and I aren't the everyone.

[Cain]

See, I would swear we just had this conversation, but in case that's my imagination, let me say again: they don't work for you. [Or me: I think they're ridiculous, unnecessary, and completely useless.] But clearly they do work for other people, sometimes with house rules, sometimes with application of GM common sense in the moment. I don't doubt that there are some people out there using the rules just as they're written and having a fine time doing so. But there's no objective quality of "borked," in this issue less than most. The chase rules do work...just not for you or I. But - and here's the part I know is incredible - you and I aren't the everyone.

Let me try this again. With the exception of TJ, who claims he never uses house rules, no one here has reported that they use the Chase rules without heavy modification/house rules at the bare minimum. Many others have claimed that they simply don't work at all for what they claim to model--a high-intensity chase-- and even TJ admits he'd rather see a Feng Shui ruleset being used.

What I can show is that they rules completely fail to model what they set out to do: high intensity chases. If you have more than two vehicles involved, things get wonky really quickly, as others have explained. The jump from tactical time leads to all kinds of changes. Since I literally had a car jump to Mach 4.6 in a game, I think the rules should give the GM an automatic getaway without handwaving. However, the rules don't allow for that. That can be objectively shown, even if the word "borked" is somewhat subjective.

What I'd like to see is more discussion on what we could do to replace the Chase rules. Like I said, I just use opposed Handling tests for superior position, and then adjudicate the rest based on roleplay and fun. What do others do?

[3278]

Let me try this again.

I find the new try unobjectionable, and agree with the vast majority of it. To me, the chase rules feel like an afterthought, like the product of a late-night session in which someone realized that tactical combat was hard when you were trying to reproduce action movie car chases. And then, probably while mostly asleep and possibly being eaten by something rodential, someone threw out the chase rules, which are far as I can tell bear little to no relation to real-world activities or events. Not useful for me, for all they might be useful for others.

Since I literally had a car jump to Mach 4.6 in a game...

Vehicle rules in Shadowrun have always been like this, and I don't know why. The gun rules have often not made much realistic sense, but in many cases it seems as if the people writing the vehicle rules had "only heard of them by rough description." I don't know if not a lot of the developers over the years have been car nerds - none of them I've talked to have been - or what, but it just seems like often times, vehicles, riggers, and the rules to cover them, particularly in SR4, have been an afterthought. [But I could just feel that way because I'm a car nerd, and would place vehicles front-and-center in SR, on par with guns and magic and cyberware.]

What I'd like to see is more discussion on what we could do to replace the Chase rules.

Let me back a little further up and ask why we need them in the first place? That's not a Socratic question, but one of curiosity: I just don't understand what purpose they serve. Why not eliminate them entirely?

[CanRay]

Because my Trailer Trash Elf in a 2069 Dodge Charger pained up like the General Lee needs to have a chase scene in every Shadowrun or else he isn't happy?

[3278]

Chase scenes are pretty inevitable in many different styles of Shadowrun, but does that mean we need chase rules?

[Cain]

Let me back a little further up and ask why we need them in the first place? That's not a Socratic question, but one of curiosity: I just don't understand what purpose they serve. Why not eliminate them entirely?

That goes back to your point: we all play Shadowrun differently. Some of us want high-octane chase scenes in Shadowrun, and think the rules ought to support that. Not all of us do, of course; but for those who want it, there should be rules in place to help it.

Now, you and I are old-timers. We remember that in SR1-2, there weren't really any vehicle rules at all. At the tail end of SR2 and throughout SR3, we had the hideous maneuver score. I believe it was you, posting as Abortion_Engine, who complained that it was a lot of difficult concrete work for a very abstract result. So, IMO, the Chase rules of SR4.5 are a step in the right direction. However, they're still not very functional.

I'd like to see a vehicle system that's abstract enough to deal with many different situations without floundering, while having enough realism to be believable. And to make it an even taller order, it has to be fast and fun to play.

[3278]

That goes back to your point: we all play Shadowrun differently. Some of us want high-octane chase scenes in Shadowrun, and think the rules ought to support that.

I definitely get that, but why do we need chase rules? I guess what I'm asking is, what is missing from the tactical rules that requires a different mechanic to resolve actions in a chase scene?

At the tail end of SR2 and throughout SR3, we had the hideous maneuver score. I believe it was you, posting as Abortion_Engine, who complained that it was a lot of difficult concrete work for a very abstract result.

And unfortunately, if the vehicle rules in Shadowrun are [and have been] broken, I'm as much to blame as anyone else. I was the one person in the right place, at the right time, with the right information, and I wasted the opportunity. A lot of people feel like they got jilted by FASA; with me, I feel like it was the other way around. Mea maxima culpa.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

And when you've got a bunch of people talking online, they work like Missions: they give a solid shared pool of information that everyone can use as a reference point. Can you imagine these rules discussions if there weren't such a point of reference?! "No, obviously you should lose 3 dice for full darkness with thermo, not 2." Help me. So it's only natural that the rules would take on this aura of authority, but beyond their utility as a reference, the only thing the rules are good for is that I can pay someone else to do the part of the game I don't have that much interest in. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Yes, the Base Rules serve as your reference point. Always have and always will... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Well, SR4, yeah. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Sorry, couldn't resist.

I had many, many more issues with previous editions of Shadowrun than I currently have with SR4. Just wanted to say that. The move to SR4 (SR4A) was a great move in my opinion.

See, I would swear we just had this conversation, but in case that's my imagination, let me say again: they don't work for you. [Or me: I think they're ridiculous, unnecessary, and completely useless.] But clearly they do work for other people, sometimes with house rules, sometimes with application of GM common sense in the moment. I don't doubt that there are some people out there using the rules just as they're written and having a fine time doing so. But there's no objective quality of "borked," in this issue less than most. The chase rules do work...just not for you or I. But - and here's the part I know is incredible - you and I aren't the everyone.

I would be one of those who thing the Chase rules work well for what they intended. At least in my opinion. The Chase scenes we have been in were very high octane (So I know that they can be done, Cain), and were tremendous amounts of fun to play through. In the end, we still have a chase scene that is talked about. If you can just accept the drawbacks (and foibles) for what they are, instead of trying to make them work perfectly (or even better), then the system works fairly well. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[CanRay]

Some of us want high-octane chase scenes in Shadowrun, and think the rules ought to support that. Not all of us do, of course; but for those who want it, there should be rules in place to help it.

And the reason for that is because it's "Shadowrun", not "Shadowrideinthepark" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Cain]

I definitely get that, but why do we need chase rules? I guess what I'm asking is, what is missing from the tactical rules that requires a different mechanic to resolve actions in a chase scene?

Oh! Well, you're mostly right, I fold the chase rules into tactical combat anyway. The biggest issue is that tactical combat abstracts movement pretty weakly as is, adding in the much higher speed of vehicles requires a lot more than a few simple tweaks. The good parts of the chase rules-- the maneuvers, and opposed handling tests for better positioning-- do work well, it's just that the other parts don't. I just mix them into the existing rules.

I would be one of those who thing the Chase rules work well or what they intended. At least in my opinion. The Chase scenes we have been in were very high octane (So I know that they can be done, Cain), and were tremendous amounts of fun to play through. In the end, we still have a chase scene that is talked about. If you can just accept the drawbacks (and foibles) for what they are, instead of trying to make them work perfectly (or even better), then the system works fairly well. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The problem with the chase rules is that they're severely limited. There's some good ideas, but throw in a few complications, and the whole thing falls apart. For example, a high-skill rigger on a moped has a huge advantage over Joe Normal in a souped-up racecar. Or when you have more than two parties in a chase. Now, yes, you can houserule and interpret your way around the foibles; but honestly, why should we have to put up with it when there's a better alternative? Namely, fix tactical combat to handle vehicle speeds and maneuvers.

[hobgoblin]

Well it is a chase, not a drag race. As such, the improved reaction time of the rigger could allow him to make use of openings that a normal driver could not (never mind the issue of large vs small vehicles). Btw, SR4A (or 4.5 as some like to refer to it) did introduce modifiers for when there is a performance difference between the involved vehicles (basically bringing us back to SR3 style vehicle combat rules, funny enough).