Rigging bikes Options

[_Pax._]

Show me where in the rules it says that it is so.

Sure - it explicitly omits any penalty, threshold increase, handling reduction, call for crash test, or anything else, in the event you are remote-piloting a riderless motorcycle.

It does the same, in the event you are remote-piloting a vehicle with a rider - whether the rider is conscious or not.

You yourself, claimed smugly that "You know, little things like physics" are necessary.

In response, IIRC, to the direct question of why a car being enclosed would make any difference in the need to secure a rider, compared to an open vehicle like a motorcycle.

In the enclosed car, you may get jostled around inside the compartment - but you'll still be inside that compartment (unless the jostling is severe, and puts you through a window, of course - but at that point, you're already crashing, so ... *shrug*.

Regardless, it was a direct answer to a single direct question. Not a general hue-and-cry for the whole discussion.

My view is that the RAS override will actually make your body move in such a way that the bike is not negatively affected by the body on it.

The RAS Override does not create movement. For that, you'd be looking at Skillwires. And I doubt you wish to suggest that having skillwires and slotting a "Ground Vehcles (Bikes)" skillsoft, are necessary prerequisites to VR piloting a motorcycle you're on.

Also, amusingly? RAW, the guy sitting on the bike does not have to be the driver.

[_Pax._]

Something which occurred to me, regarding the rigger-as-biodrone idea: is there a "combining-mecha" drone modification out there? Would applying such a modification allow for normal operation of the motorcycle/rigger unit?

No, there's no "Voltron" modification. It'd be cool, if there was, though. I can actually see a TOY company coming up with something like that, at least.

[Cochise]

Let's turn the question thing around: why is it so world-crushingly important that the RAS override have a special "out",only for piloting a motorcycle via VR while actually sitting on said motorcycle?

Maybe because I still see no reason to penalize a bike rigger with stuff that isn't RAW (despite your claims)!? Maybe because it isn't just a single "special out"?

1. standard bikes (where the rider also serves as the vehicle's drive)
2. various forms of aqua-gliders / jet skis
3. hang gliders
4. windsurfing boards (the "easy" one in that area)
5. hoverboards (just for the "lulz" of mentioning them)
6. the big can of worms: single person sailing boats - in particular single-person catamarans

What difference does it really make?

Quite obviously the difference between how "you" treat a rigged car in comparison to a motorbike when it comes ot necessary addons or imposed dice pool modifers.

[_Pax._]

Quite obviously the difference between how "you" treat a rigged car in comparison to a motorbike when it comes ot necessary addons or imposed dice pool modifers.

... I would make no die pool modifiers for the presence or absence of a passenger, on a rigger-modified cycle (or similar vehicle).

I would make no die pool modifiers for the physical activity or inactivity of a passenger, on a rigger-modified cycle (or similar vehicle, again).

...

Why, would you "gimp" (read: impose a die-pool penalty on) a purely remote-controlled, no-passenger or limp-passenger motorcycle (etc) .... compared to the RAW?

[DMiller]

I’m really starting to like Cochise and bannockburn’s interpretation of this rule because it means that my hacker while in full VR hacking and having Tac-Net running and shoot people right in the face with her pistol and can dodge attacks because that would be cool, and those are wanted movements.

Sweet, I may have to propose this to my group.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
*note: not really.

[DeathStrobe]

I’m really starting to like Cochise and bannockburn’s interpretation of this rule because it means that my hacker while in full VR hacking and having Tac-Net running and shoot people right in the face with her pistol and can dodge attacks because that would be cool, and those are wanted movements.

Sweet, I may have to propose this to my group.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
*note: not really.

You can do those things...you just suffer a -6 because your senses are being over whelmed with simsense data. Also, you'd probably be fighting blind so it'd probably be an int test instead of agi.

[_Pax._]

You can do those things...you just suffer a -6 because your senses are being over whelmed with simsense data. Also, you'd probably be fighting blind so it'd probably be an int test instead of agi.

You can do those things if you turn off the RAS over-ride.

And more, his point and mine would then lead to the question: "so why aren't you at -6 to drive the bike with your hands and legs and whatever, too?"

[DMiller]

You can do those things if you turn off the RAS over-ride.

And more, his point and mine would then lead to the question: "so why aren't you at -6 to drive the bike with your hands and legs and whatever, too?"

Exactally.


Can you VR rig a bike... Yes absolutly, turn off RAS override, and you can stay on the bike. As a VR rigger and strictly controlling the bike you are on through VR I would even go so far as to say you don't have to take the -6 (due to your senses being elsewhere, because you are rigging the vehicle), I would impose a -2 "distracted" penality to your rigging tests as you have to split your attention between hanging on in the meat world and actually rigging the vehicle. But for any of this to work you would have to disable RAS override.

Or as a rigger for a bike, add a side car and sit there... no hanging on, no issues.

[_Pax._]

Or, as I do, assume that the "rigger adaptation" includes electronically switchable Gecko contact points, which hold the rider in place (including on pedals and handles/grips). Now, your rigger can ignore their meat body (which has become so much cargo strapped across the bike's seat). And drive it at no penalty.

(Of course, as a player, I favor recumbant bikes for VR-rigging, anyway. Seems like it'd be easier to KEEP the body from shifting inconveniently, with so much contact area.)

EDIT: and, as a funny bonus feature ... using Gecko surfaces as part of an ANTITHEFT system, is great! Vehicle is programmed, if stolen, to immediately activate the gecko surfaces and drive to the nearest police officer, then play back (at volume) "HELP!! I AM A STOLEN VEHICLE!! HELP!! ^_^ Sucks to be the poor S.O.B. that tried to jack my ride, eh?

[DMiller]

Or, as I do, assume that the "rigger adaptation" includes electronically switchable Gecko contact points, which hold the rider in place (including on pedals and handles/grips). Now, your rigger can ignore their meat body (which has become so much cargo strapped across the bike's seat). And drive it at no penalty.

(Of course, as a player, I favor recumbant bikes for VR-rigging, anyway. Seems like it'd be easier to KEEP the body from shifting inconveniently, with so much contact area.)

I like it, simple and effective.

[DeathStrobe]

You can do those things if you turn off the RAS over-ride.

And more, his point and mine would then lead to the question: "so why aren't you at -6 to drive the bike with your hands and legs and whatever, too?"

You're not driving the bike with your arms and legs though. The bike is piloting "itself" with your brain. Its just that you are on top of it and holding on and shifting your body. That doesn't require a perception test for your physical senses because you're using the bike's senses.

[DMiller]

Or, as I do, assume that the "rigger adaptation" includes electronically switchable Gecko contact points, which hold the rider in place (including on pedals and handles/grips). Now, your rigger can ignore their meat body (which has become so much cargo strapped across the bike's seat). And drive it at no penalty.

(Of course, as a player, I favor recumbant bikes for VR-rigging, anyway. Seems like it'd be easier to KEEP the body from shifting inconveniently, with so much contact area.)

EDIT: and, as a funny bonus feature ... using Gecko surfaces as part of an ANTITHEFT system, is great! Vehicle is programmed, if stolen, to immediately activate the gecko surfaces and drive to the nearest police officer, then play back (at volume) "HELP!! I AM A STOLEN VEHICLE!! HELP!! ^_^ Sucks to be the poor S.O.B. that tried to jack my ride, eh?

_Pax._'s solution sounds like the correct one. If the body goes limp because of RAS override (which according to SR4 it does), then the simple solution is as posted. No extra costs involved, and from outward appearances it looks like the rider is actually piloting the bike physically while (s)he is piloting it via rigger control. Usually the simplest solution is the best.

If you can ignore RAS override to be able to ride a bike without problems, then you should be able to ignore RAS override to make any movements you want without problems, thus removing RAS override from the game world.

[KarmaInferno]

As I said, even if you take the idea that the body does NOT go limp, if that bike does ANYTHING but go in a straight line there's a good chance you'll get thrown off, since your ability to hang on or physically react to the motion is severely impaired.



-k

[_Pax._]

You're not driving the bike with your arms and legs though. The bike is piloting "itself" with your brain. Its just that you are on top of it and holding on and shifting your body. That doesn't require a perception test for your physical senses because you're using the bike's senses.

A few problems with that:

(A) Cochise has said that those movements are part of operating the motorcycle.

(B) The bike's sensors cannot tell you how much pressure your legis or isn't exerting against the side of the bike. It can't even tell if you've been dragging your foot over the pavement for the past six kilometers, leaving a trail of blood and tissue. Ergo, the bike's sensors do not counteract the -6 penalty imposed for being in VR, but trying to perceive/act in the real world.

© The book says "limp, likeyou're asleep" ... not "like you're an awake, aware, and active rider of your motorcycle".

(D) As KarmaInferno says: if the bike turns to one side - or hits a pothole for that matter - and you're not secured, you are going to have to make a roll to avoid falling off the bike - or perhaps more accurately, to notice you're ABOUT to fall off. -6 penalty, kiddos. Whether the sensory stimulus in question is wanted or not.

[Mach_Ten]

A few problems with that:

(A) Cochise has said that those movements are part of operating the motorcycle.

but the necessity of shifting weight is negated by the Gyro, that's what a gyro does

(B) The bike's sensors cannot tell you how much pressure your legis or isn't exerting against the side of the bike. It can't even tell if you've been dragging your foot over the pavement for the past six kilometers, leaving a trail of blood and tissue. Ergo, the bike's sensors do not counteract the -6 penalty imposed for being in VR, but trying to perceive/act in the real world.

I would assume the -6 applied to remote piloting tests if required, but tests are not required for normal operation until you hit terrain or combat ?

© The book says "limp, likeyou're asleep" ... not "like you're an awake, aware, and active rider of your motorcycle".

Limp, like you're asleep, as in muscles relaxed .. not unconscious... quite ambiguous but but I think falls on the side of awake rather than completely unaware of yuor own body. otherwise they would have just said unconscious and unaware of your physical form, like going astral?

(D) As KarmaInferno says: if the bike turns to one side - or hits a pothole for that matter - and you're not secured, you are going to have to make a roll to avoid falling off the bike - or perhaps more accurately, to notice you're ABOUT to fall off. -6 penalty, kiddos. Whether the sensory stimulus in question is wanted or not.

agreed, if a test is called for then you qualify for the -6 penalty. BUT if you are jacked in then you get the benefits too !

[_Pax._]

but the necessity of shifting weight is negated by the Gyro, that's what a gyro does

(A)(1) As I have no been reminded, the Gyro is not part of, nor required for, Rigger modifications
(A)(2) Then if they aren't necessary, why must they occur?

I would assume the -6 applied to remote piloting tests if required, but tests are not required for normal operation until you hit terrain or combat ?

No, the -6 applies to all actions you take outside of Virtual Reality.

It's not a penalty to remote operation of the bike. It would be a penalty to, say ... scratching your butt, while in VR. For that matter, a penalty to the Perception roll to even know that your butt is itchy in the first place.

Limp, like you're asleep, as in muscles relaxed .. not unconscious... quite ambiguous but but I think falls on the side of awake rather than completely unaware of yuor own body. otherwise they would have just said unconscious and unaware of your physical form, like going astral?

That's where the -6 penalty comes in. You can maybe fight your way through the VR, to sense the physical world - with a supreme act of will, and either really really good die pools, or, blow a point of Edge on a longshot test. (Most of Metahumanity would be stuck with the Longshot option, and nothing else.)

agreed, if a test is called for then you qualify for the -6 penalty. BUT if you are jacked in then you get the benefits too !

You get the benefits, for actions taken within Virtual Reality.

You get the penalty, for actions taken outside Virtual Reality.

It's not rocket science: if it involves moving yourphysical muscles, or using your physical senses: -6 penalty, and no VR bonuses.

[Mach_Ten]

(A)(1) As I have no been reminded, the Gyro is not part of, nor required for, Rigger modifications
(A)(2) Then if they aren't necessary, why must they occur?

didn't see that, but rigger adaption was not meant specifically for bikes, surely common sense applies in that a gyro is a requirement for the vehicle to be remote controlled. otherwise it falls over when stationary.
it's just one of those things that they didn't consider enough to write in the exception.

No, the -6 applies to all actions you take outside of Virtual Reality.
It's not a penalty to remote operation of the bike. It would be a penalty to, say ... scratching your butt, while in VR. For that matter, a penalty to the Perception roll to even know that your butt is itchy in the first place.

Hmmm, I think I was being overly specific in noting piloting tests as that is the example we are using,
I mean ALL tests but noted this specifically as it applies here.
What I was trying to say that ... it only applies if there's a test required, which leads to a whole new catch 22 :
do you need a test to stay on a bike ? no, but does staying on a bike while remote operating it ? doesn't say anywhere in RAW that I can see so ??

That's where the -6 penalty comes in. You can maybe fight your way through the VR, to sense the physical world - with a supreme act of will, and either really really good die pools, or, blow a point of Edge on a longshot test. (Most of Metahumanity would be stuck with the Longshot option, and nothing else.)

You get the benefits, for actions taken within Virtual Reality.

You get the penalty, for actions taken outside Virtual Reality.

Hmmm I might have ECS (edition crossover syndrome) here, this whole VR/AR thing loses me.
it's a flat +8 TN in 3rd for interacting while "Jumped in" to a drone but you can still do it.

Do you NEED to be in full VR to remote op drive your bike ?

**EDIT** just to address the last point, as far as I can tell the ONLY action you are taking outside of VR is staying in position on the bike.
everything else is done in VR to control and react to to stimuli.

so it boils down to, does the GM want to dick you over for rigging a bike or not ? if there's even the remotest chance you can hold onto the handle bars and strap your feet to the pedals you are good to go

[Stahlseele]

Hmm, if the Gyroscope is only active while the bike is stationary, it would not help with driving.
And technically, if the gryroscope is active while driving, it would create a problem, because the wheels create a gyroscopic force in one direction and the gyroscope would create a conflicting force in another direction. And bikes NEED tipping to make corners.

[Mach_Ten]

Hmm, if the Gyroscope is only active while the bike is stationary, it would not help with driving.
And technically, if the gryroscope is active while driving, it would create a problem, because the wheels create a gyroscopic force in one direction and the gyroscope would create a conflicting force in another direction. And bikes NEED tipping to make corners.

again, the assumption is that it is linked to the inherent gyro that is a bike and acts in concert, then goes overdrive when stationary to maintain vertical alignment.

unless you really want to overcomplicate it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

[_Pax._]

do you need a test to stay on a bike ? no, but does staying on a bike while remote operating it ? doesn't say anywhere in RAW that I can see so ??

*sigh* That's not what I asked.

If moving with the bike is not necessary for the bike to be piloted via VR (andpatently, explicitly, they AREN'T, as there is no penalty for remote-piloting the bike with NO rider at all) ... then why is ANY motion required?

it's a flat +8 TN in 3rd for interacting while "Jumped in" to a drone but you can still do it.

And it's a flat -6 Die Pool modifier, in SR4.

Do you NEED to be in full VR to remote op drive your bike ?

No. You can use AR. But then,you don't get the +2 dice for a Control Rig, and you don't get the extra Initiative Pass(es).

**EDIT** just to address the last point, as far as I can tell the ONLY action you are taking outside of VR is staying in position on the bike.

And I say, "that doesn't require movement on your part".

so it boils down to, does the GM want to dick you over for rigging a bike or not ?

No, it doesn't.

It boils down to, "some people want it both ways".

>_<

[_Pax._]

again, the assumption is that it is linked to the inherent gyro that is a bike and acts in concert, then goes overdrive when stationary to maintain vertical alignment.

unless you really want to overcomplicate it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

There isn't an inherent gyro.

[Stahlseele]

Every Bike with 1 or 2 wheels has one or two inherent gyroscopes.
Because as soon as the wheels are spinning, they are acting as such.

[Mach_Ten]

Every Bike with 1 or 2 wheels has one or two inherent gyroscopes.
Because as soon as the wheels are spinning, they are acting as such.

what I meant ^^

I've never ridden a bike BUT I have been a passenger, which is essentially what you are on a rigged bike.

and I got given a right royal bollocking from the rider at the time for trying to move around, the best bet was to try and hold as still as possible and let him and the machine do the work of turning.

I'd say the same applies here, if the rigger is as still as possible the Gyro works with the vehicle momentum to control direction etc. there is zero need for any body movement.
as it is actually counter productive.

**Edit** I think Pax you are under the impression I disagree with you on this, I don't ! ... but there are aspects that need some clarification, otherwise, suddenly Trolls (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Cochise]

I’m really starting to like Cochise and bannockburn’s interpretation of this rule because it means that my hacker while in full VR hacking and having Tac-Net running and shoot people right in the face with her pistol and can dodge attacks because that would be cool, and those are wanted movements.

Sweet, I may have to propose this to my group.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
*note: not really.

May I ask why you're putting words into our mouths there? Because our interpretation (or rather the solution to a contradictory and somewhat "unrealistic" or "unbelievable" situation) would nowhere allow to make such things, simply because "our" version of RAS would still "override" any form of movement not related to the task of "driving" the vehicle in question. That kind of (stupid) exaggeration and taking things out of context is something I would have expected from someone else in this thread, but not necessarily from you. So please: Keep it civilized.

_______

Yet another longer text, because people are quite obviously mixing and matching various different situations for sake of their argument, while randomly giving up initial claims, desires and assumptions.

First again some stuff about the driving physics:

1. A motorcycle does not have an inherent gyro stabilization unit. And no, the spinning wheels do not act as such either, allthough they (along with other aspects of the driving physics) produce an identical outcome under certain conditions. The relative stability when going forward comes mainly from inertia: As long as there are no "harmful" forces, the object will continue is current movement and the general mass and inertia based tolerance of the bike keeps it from instantly crashing to the side.
2. Gyro stabilization makes use of very specific physical forces in order to generate its effect. The same forces do occur under specific driving conditions automatically (the previously mentioned tendancy of going into upright position when accelerating), they do lack fine tuning however. The general stabilization and its willfull and controlled disruption in order to produce steering effect is still the driver's job.
3. Some of you seem to think that gyro stabilization on a bike would only be used for keeping the bike in upright position. However, explicit and controlled desyncing and resyncing within a gyro would cause similar (and sometimes identical) forces a physical driver would normally cause with the shifts of his body weight, thus overall providing the same effects, which in turn creates the basis for remote controlled driving.

Now for the various situations that have to be looked at, when trying to tell "how stuff works" in context of the SR universe and the involved gaming rules:

1. A physically driven motorcycle just with its driver: Not much to "see" here, a driver who maintains body tension and actively steers the machine. The driver is "the thing" that keeps the machine from falling down, by providing balance movement and also causes steering movement. The appropriate skill tests and modifiers due to outside effects and we're all happy.
2. A physically driven motorcycle with a driver and a passenger: Here we have the first variable in form of the passenger. Mach_Ten injected his(?) experience here, by his story about getting a royal bollocking when he(?) interfered with the drivers balancing and steering actions. The solution to the problem was: Keeping body tension up and moving as little as possible (Going limp would have been disastrous). In case of experienced tandem riders, this can also be changed to keeping body tension up and actively supporting the main driver's movements for quicker system responses. How will that translate into game terms? Arguably not at all or by the GM using his legitimate (and RAW abiding) option of imposing a varying pool modifier for situational difficulty (1 to 3 d6 IIRC) along with the standard skill tests of the previous situation.
3. A rigger-adapted bike with an VR-immersed driver that is physically sitting on the machine: For starters, various "facts" in terms of "realism", "believability", "logic", "RAW" and "suspension of disbelief":
   
   1. By RAW rigged bike in this situation does not require the bike to be fitted with the gyro stab upgrade, so the required balance and steering forces that were provided in the previous two situations do have do come from a different source.
   2. Rigger-adaption itself nowhere states that it provides anything beyond the man-machine interface and some automation towards the steering mechanism. Now this is the first point where believability and similar concepts raise their head, because while it's not too hard to accept that such a system would include servos below the bike's handlebar in order to provide the necessary fork steering it get's odd when thinking about the nature (and size + weight requirements) of a secondary system that provides mass shifts while not being a gyro stabilzation unit.
   3. In terms of design for such a system, it would be a rather normal concept to use something for steering and balance that is already present: the driver. This however leads to the (somewhat) contradictory situation with RAW that we have been discussing in length by now
   4. It is correct that there are options to deactivate RAS override and thus providing a RAW conform option of still physically interacting with the bike while also overall driving it from within VR. This particular design however doesn't seem to be the default assumption for rigged bikes in SR, otherwise RAW would have to mention it.
      
      Sidenote: It's somewhat inconsistant that Full-VR in conjunction with physical sensory input and unblocked movement is described as both sensory overloading and potentially dangerous to the user's physical well-being, yet deactivating RAS doesn't impose explicit modifiers.
   
   
   Now two obviously very different solutions for this situation have been brought up:
   
   1. A less literal interpretation of a very specific sentence within RAW which proclaims that under default RAS your body goes into a limp, sleeplike state. The less literal interpretation instead leans towards using a concept that utilizes the general purpose of RAS as safety meassure. Instead of overriding and thus blocking all movement, it's merely supposed to override and block movement that is not related to the task of driving the bike. Under such a RAS implementation you'd still face pool modifiers when trying to physically shoot someone while rigging the bike or do other unrelated stuff. The overall effect of this solution lets the rigger maintain most of his body tension / control for purposes of keeping grip, balancing and steering. The whole thing remains believable, doesn't interfere with suspension of disbelieve and while de-emphasizing (or rather contradicting) RAW in one aspect it also emphasizes the term "override" instead of "shutdown" for the RAS component.
   2. The other solution tries to enforce literal RAW, by stating that RAS will unconditionally render a rigger's body limp. As a result there is the assumption, that rigger-adaption for bikes automatically includes some form of strapping the near-unconcious driver onto the bike and making him into an "irrelevant" passenger. This particular solution bears the following side effects: Unless the strapped-on passenger isn't fixated to a rather extreme extend, his still free moving body parts (mainly upper Torso, upper arms and head) will start to be a source of disruption that could (or rather should) impose similar or due to limpness even more negative modifiers as the passenger did in situation 2 and sure as hell no-one wants to think about additional rules for harm in case of an accident. Additionally this solution does not explain in any way how (complete) balance and steering of the bike are maintained, since under the premise of canonical rigger-adaption there still is no gyro stab unit involved.
   
   
   In both cases the respective sides would not impose RAS-related modifiers to actions unless they involve things that do not relate to the act of driving itself.
   
4. A rigger-adapted bike that is remote controlled without a driver / passenger: This particular setup by RAW demands for a gyro stabilization unit to be installed into the bike. This solution again is rather easy. The gyro provides both balance and steering options and since nobody is on the bike, there are no potentially destablizing factors involved. Standard VR tests and modifiers here again.
5. A rigger-adapted bike that is remote controlled with a passenger: While obviously considered to be a clever question when compared to situation 3 for the sake of a snide comment, this situation is actually not different to situation 2, where the not RAS-influenced passenger maintains his full body control but can - depending on his driving experience as passenger - impose pool modifiers for the remote rigging driver and due to the remote control situation a gyro stab for maintaining balance and steering options would be included in the package as per situation 4.
6. A rigger-adapted bike with an VR-immersed driver that is physically sitting on the machine plus an additional passenger: The basic influence of the passenger remains the same as in situation 2 and 5, while the two heavily discussed options of situation 3 also stay the same as far as VR-driving is concerned.

I'll again let readers decide which of the two solutions for what I'll from now on call "RAS dilemma" really is "more complex" / "easier" in its design and effects and how much "handwavium" is required in order to maintain "suspension of disbelief" for either case.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

From what I can tell, Cochise and _Pax_ are arriving at the same position, though from different points of argument. One believes that the RAS allows "relevant" movments required to accomplish the task (of driving the motorcycle in VR), while the other does not really care to apply ANY penalties to the action (of driving the motorcycle in VR) because there are no relevant reasons to do so. And both have provided their relevant reasons for their positions

Either way, they seem to be arriving at the same place (no penalties to driving the motorcycle in VR). So, why all the arguments back and forth, since they both agree that there should be no penalties?

Or have I just missed the issue all together?