Stupid Martial Arts Maneuver Question Options

[Umidori]

So I seem to have a knack for finding these sorts of things...

Breaking an opponent’s weapon requires skill and, in some cases, brute strength. A character with the Break Weapon maneuver may make a Called Shot (see p. 149, SR4) with a +1 dice pool modifier to attack the opponent’s weapon; treat this as destroying a Barrier (see Destroying Barriers, p.157, SR4). At the gamemaster’s discretion, the remains of a destroyed weapon may still be used as an improvised weapon (see Improvised Melee Weapons,p. 17).

...and...

If a character is attacking a barrier with intent to destroy it (or create a hole), resolve the attack normally. Since barriers can’t dodge, the attack test is unopposed. The purpose of the attack test is to generate extra hits to add to the Damage Value. If a character got no hits, then only apply the base Damage Value. The only way a character could “miss” is if he got a critical glitch on the attack test. A character may use Demolitions as the attack skill if he has the proper materials and time to set charges.

What I'm taking away from a literal reading of this is that the Break Weapon maneuver can never miss? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/question.gif)

I'm kind of amazed at how many of these stupid rules end up this way. So many cases of failing to fully think through the implications of what the wording is actually saying in referencing other rules for newly added systems, all in the name of hitting those magical word count numbers.

I'm even more amazed no one's caught this before. They probably have, but a couple cursory searches didn't turn up anything.

~Umi

[almost normal]

A barrier *can't* dodge. A person can. GM's aren't stupid.

[Speed Wraith]

I can see how you take it that way, but I wouldn't have, and still don't, read it that way. I think the phrase, "Since barriers can't dodge" sort of trumps the assumption that you treat a weapon like a barrier in terms of making the attack. The weapon itself can't dodge (without a Pilot upgrade and some sort of motive system, that is), but the wielder can move the barrier normally.

I just happen to read it with those missing words, "treat damage resistance for the weapon as destorying..."

[bannockburn]

Barriers can't dodge. People wearing the weapon can.
If they parry though ... more fools them (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[ZeroPoint]

A barrier *can't* dodge. A person can. GM's aren't stupid.

Not to be a complete douche or anything but, technically your not attacking the person...your attacking what they're holding (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[almost normal]

I just happen to read it with those missing words, "treat damage resistance for the weapon as destorying..."

Not only did you break the weapon sir, you removed it from the story altogether!

[Speed Wraith]

Barriers can't dodge. People wearing the weapon can.
If they parry though ... more fools them (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

A parry could redirect the attack and soften the blow to the weapon; meeting the attacker's weapon before it strikes reduces the force behind the attack and may change the angle of the attack. I'd allow it to work just as well as dodge, but woe be unto you should you glitch.

[almost normal]

Not to be a complete douche or anything but, technically your not attacking the person...your attacking what they're holding (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Did they pay for it with essence?

[ZeroPoint]

I can see how you take it that way, but I wouldn't have, and still don't, read it that way. I think the phrase, "Since barriers can't dodge" sort of trumps the assumption that you treat a weapon like a barrier in terms of making the attack. The weapon itself can't dodge (without a Pilot upgrade and some sort of motive system, that is), but the wielder can move the barrier normally.

I just happen to read it with those missing words, "treat damage resistance for the weapon as destorying..."

Don't worry, I think your reading it right (missing words and all).

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I See it as 2 seperate things...

Attacking a Weapon (being wielded) with the intent to destroy it results in an opposed roll, Your attack vs the wielding character's defense. Net hit add damage to the Item you are attacking...

Attacking a Stationary Barrier results in no Defense (it cannot dodge) and you are just stacking net hits for damage purposes

*shrug* (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[ZeroPoint]

I See it as 2 seperate things...

Attacking a Weapon (being wielded) with the intent to destroy it results in an opposed roll, Your attack vs the wielding character's defense. Net hit add damage to the Item you are attacking...

Attacking a Stationary Barrier results in no Defense (it cannot dodge) and you are just stacking net hits for damage purposes

*shrug* (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Exactly. I mean, what would happen if suddenly that wall COULD dodge...it would not only be very surprising to the dumbstruck orc who watched the wall leap out of his way, but would reduce your net hits.

[Umidori]

My point was just that the rules say "Handle this as per the Destroying Barriers rules" in a blanket statement, when the rules for Destroying Barriers aren't designed to compensate for the fact that a person is holding the barrier.

How many words would it have taken to clarify? Replace...

"A character with the Break Weapon maneuver may make a Called Shot (see p. 149, SR4) with a +1 dice pool modifier to attack the opponent’s weapon; treat this as destroying a Barrier (see Destroying Barriers, p.157, SR4)."

...with...

"A character with the Break Weapon maneuver may make a Called Shot (see p. 149, SR4) with a +1 dice pool modifier to attack the opponent’s weapon; if the attack suceeds, the weapon resists damage as if destroying a Barrier (see Destroying Barriers, p.157, SR4)."

Seven additional words, fifty two additional characters, untold additional clarity.

~Umi

[All4BigGuns]

My point was just that the rules say "Handle this as per the Destroying Barriers rules" in a blanket statement, when the rules for Destroying Barriers aren't designed to compensate for the fact that a person is holding the barrier.

How many words would it have taken to clarify? Replace...

...with...


Seven additional words, fifty two additional characters, one hundred percent clarity.

~Umi

And more money spent for printing, which would raise the price of the book by probably another 10 to 15 bucks.

[Yerameyahu]

Yes. Seven words cost $15.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Yes. Seven words cost $15.

You know how it is... More money for the Writer, more for the Editor (assuming he is even paid, currently), layout re-design, etc. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[bannockburn]

Sorry to spoil the CGL bashing, but first you need to be aware of such a problem, before you can change the wording.
It is entirely possible that people think rationally and thus did not even see that there even IS a problem.

[All4BigGuns]

Yes. Seven words cost $15.

The 10 to 15 dollar price increase on each copy of the book would be to maintain a profit after taking into account the cost increase from the additional word count. Do you run a publishing company and thus know the exact costs of printing? I don't know specifics, but I do know that word counts are a determining factor in the cost to print.

[Umidori]

Sorry to spoil the CGL bashing, but first you need to be aware of such a problem, before you can change the wording.
It is entirely possible that people think rationally and thus did not even see that there even IS a problem.

You're building a rules system. You are creating the limitations of abstract mathematical relationships. Essentially you're creating a very large logic system. In doing so, you need to consider the effects of taking your rules to their logical extremes.

If a new rule wholesale references a prior rule, but the referenced rule was not designed to handle an additional aspect of the new rule, there is going to be room for logical ambiguity and confusion. You can't add a new element that the original rule was never designed to handle without clarifying how that new element ought to be handled via the new rule. This is just how rules design works, and it is an entirely predictable pitfall.

Am I asking for perfect rules? No, there's no such thing. But the longer I use the SR system, the more I pore over the rulebooks, the more I realize how many erratas have been put out, and erratas of erratas, the more I realize just how many holes there are in the rules, moreso than I would think reasonable or appropriate for the system.

Of course, that's merely my own amateur opinion. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

~Umi

[Umidori]

The 10 to 15 dollar price increase on each copy of the book would be to maintain a profit after taking into account the cost increase from the additional word count. Do you run a publishing company and thus know the exact costs of printing? I don't know specifics, but I do know that word counts are a determining factor in the cost to print.

Then cut out half the useless fluff text and images, for crying out loud. Better rules for less junk, please!

If you told me I could have a copy of just the rules with none of the story elements or superfluous filler for a cheaper price, I'd spring for that over the padded version any day. I don't want to read about stock characters in contextless non-adventures that are meant to be dime-novel levels of thrilling, I want to create my own characters and my own adventures using a ruleset that is clear, concise, accessible, and flexible. I don't want freelance convention table artist artwork of said stock characters, I want informative art that shows me what items and gear look like, what the various metatypes and metavariants look like, and actually useful images that augment the limited explanatory ability of text alone. I don't want the rubbish that marketers are convinced will make me buy the book, I want the stuff that actually enables the gaming experience the book is intended to provide.

~Umi

[All4BigGuns]

Then cut out half the useless fluff text and images, for crying out loud. Better rules for less junk, please!

If you told me I could have a copy of just the rules with none of the story elements or superfluous filler for a cheaper price, I'd spring for that over the padded version any day. I don't want to read about stock characters in contextless non-adventures that are meant to be dime-novel levels of thrilling, I want to create my own characters and my own adventures using a ruleset that is clear, concise, accessible, and flexible. I don't want freelance convention table artist artwork of said stock characters, I want informative art that shows me what items and gear look like, what the various metatypes and metavariants look like, and actually useful images that augment the limited explanatory ability of text alone. I don't want the rubbish that marketers are convinced will make me buy the book, I want the stuff that actually enables the gaming experience the book is intended to provide.

~Umi

You have to remember on this one, that there are those who like the 'fluff' aspects as much if not more than the rules information, and they have to put enough of that in there for them. Hell, I've seen people complain that there isn't enough of that aspect in any of the books that aren't entirely 'fluff'.

[bannockburn]

Of course, that's merely my own amateur opinion. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
~Umi

Of course you build a rules system that should be logical in itself. However, you're a games designer, and most likely not even that, but just some bloke writing up some stuff (at least it seems this way sometimes). You do not have a degree in logic.
Then there's the fallacy of proof reading: You look for typos, maybe find most of them. You read over the rules, but to you, they make sense, so you don't see a need to clarify it with further seven words.
Your playtesters playtest the rules. Attacking barriers is rather common, but attacking weapons not so much. They read the part, make sense of it in the formerly established rulebook (namely: close combat is an opposed test) and it goes unnoticed that the wording may be a bit off.

Just a possible scenario (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

The product goes to print. Stuff happens. A 2nd printing comes out. The wording is still just a bit off and no one has asked this yet. It still goes unnoticed. Then there's the player with the degree in logic who finds the issue and sighs "7 words would have made all the difference" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

But that is not really possible to correct in hind sight. And I'd wager that this wording would not even be changed, just cleared up with an FAQ, IF the question gets asked often enough.

And to clarify: I didn't want to accuse you of bashing CGL, that one was reserved for the 15$ hilarity. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

The 10 to 15 dollar price increase on each copy of the book would be to maintain a profit after taking into account the cost increase from the additional word count. Do you run a publishing company and thus know the exact costs of printing? I don't know specifics, but I do know that word counts are a determining factor in the cost to print.

Yes. Seven words cost $15. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) If you were intending to make a more nuanced statement, you should have done so. In no way did your comment refute Umidori's simple point that it would be nice to have clearer rules in some places. If, for example, you meant that adding 7 words to every paragraph would be more expensive, that would be true… except that wasn't suggested. Presumably, they could write more clearly overall without altering the overall word count. Either way, it's no reason to say, effectively, 'no, how dare you complain about the rules'.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Sorry to spoil the CGL bashing, but first you need to be aware of such a problem, before you can change the wording.
It is entirely possible that people think rationally and thus did not even see that there even IS a problem.

Very True... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Aerospider]

You're building a rules system. You are creating the limitations of abstract mathematical relationships. Essentially you're creating a very large logic system. In doing so, you need to consider the effects of taking your rules to their logical extremes.

If a new rule wholesale references a prior rule, but the referenced rule was not designed to handle an additional aspect of the new rule, there is going to be room for logical ambiguity and confusion. You can't add a new element that the original rule was never designed to handle without clarifying how that new element ought to be handled via the new rule. This is just how rules design works, and it is an entirely predictable pitfall.

Am I asking for perfect rules? No, there's no such thing. But the longer I use the SR system, the more I pore over the rulebooks, the more I realize how many erratas have been put out, and erratas of erratas, the more I realize just how many holes there are in the rules, moreso than I would think reasonable or appropriate for the system.

Of course, that's merely my own amateur opinion. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

~Umi

I have quite honestly in all my time on Dumpshock never come across a more non-issue nitpick of the book than in this thread.

Yes, rules in RPG systems should cross-reference with care and diligence.
And yes, going through a proof with the fine-toothed-editorial-comb expected by the average DSer (or hell, just the average player) is cost- and time-prohibitive.

But, as has been bandied about so many times before I feel it is once again necessary to stipulate that Shadowrun, like so many things in life, was not intended for use by people devoid of common sense and a child's experience of physical laws. You call this a hole? Logical ambiguity and confusion? Because RAW doesn't spell out something every player already knows?

I'm not incensed, just incredulous.

Seriously, where is the harm caused by this particular lack of service?

For the sake of courtesy, though, I'll indulge it and give my account, which is that there isn't an issue at all. The passage for the maneuver describes making a Called Shot and receiving a bonus to the attack roll, both of which require an attack roll. Therefore I would speculate that even those without common sense or a child's experience of physical laws would come down on the sensible side of things.

[Umidori]

For the sake of courtesy, though, I'll indulge it and give my account, which is that there isn't an issue at all. The passage for the maneuver describes making a Called Shot and receiving a bonus to the attack roll, both of which require an attack roll. Therefore I would speculate that even those without common sense or a child's experience of physical laws would come down on the sensible side of things.

Do also note that attacking to Destroy a Barrier requires an attack roll as well, one which is unopposed. Next time you want to couch your snide condescension and implied suppositions about people's sense and intellect in comparison to children in an air of logical superiority, please make an argument that holds water. Even if the entire topic IS utterly ridiculous - which I freely admit this one is - logic is still logic. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

The entire point of this thread is the same as the entire point of these forums - to discuss Shadowrun. That can range from asking for advice, to discussing theory, to examining the rules system, to making jokes and being absurd. This was something of an exercise in several of those things, most notably absurdity.

You don't care for useless nitpicks about the minor failings of the wording of the rules? That's fine. You're absolutely right, it's not "an issue", but then again really nothing about Shadowrun actually is, depending on your perspective. Still, for how inane and incredible it is to remark about this non-issue, it's likewise pretty inane and incredible to remark about how inane and incredible the non-issue is. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

~Umi