 Stupid Deaths, Those Wacky Players |
  |
 Dec 23 2004, 03:58 PM
Post
#26
|
|||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 527 Joined: 30-January 04 Member No.: 6,043  |
Probably. :please: While it was a regular campaign for the rest of the players, it was a one-shot for that guy. @ Catsnightmare The real issue was plowing into that situation without a plan, and then the unbelievably flat-footed response to what wasn't necessary going to be a huge shoot-out. The deaths might not have even happened if they'd just worked together, but grenades and such started getting thrown around without much concern for where team members were. The land mines set by the defending gang inside the garage didn't help much, either. edit: Deaths. Multiple. |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Dec 23 2004, 05:38 PM
Post
#27
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 18-December 04 From: T.O. Member No.: 6,891 |
Ha Ha! That's funny! Actually, I'm usually very nice to the players. It was az mutual decision that things were generally to easy for us and life in 2064 involved more hardship than we had been giving eachother. I like the Idea of ending a run at 9 boxes stun and 9 boxes physical, while acomplishing your task and getting paid only half what you agreed to, half the time. It's about hair raising excitement. Although, you do need to have a few runs here and there where you reward the smarts of the players with a smooth run. But I also like to let the dice do a lot of the talking. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 23 2004, 05:44 PM
Post
#28
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
Dude, it says "If they [the PCs] don't sweat for every karma point and nuyen they earned, then you're not pushing them hard enough...their characters should face dangerous opponents and survive harrowing escapes in order to achieve their goals" in SR3. The PCs *should* be in a really bad spot if they go and kill 300 Ares guys. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 23 2004, 05:59 PM
Post
#29
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 870 Joined: 6-January 04 From: Idaho Member No.: 5,960 |
Hey congrats! Your post has just been selected for our Top 100 Stupid Posts of 2004. Please stay tuned for more info. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 23 2004, 06:06 PM
Post
#30
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 870 Joined: 6-January 04 From: Idaho Member No.: 5,960 |
WTF? Maybe you need to also read the manual for your bike. Apparently some people STILL do not understand the basic rules as set out in SR3 page 134. Try reading the first paragraph. I wouldn't try to argue that starting a bike is not a basic vehicle manipulation. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 23 2004, 06:17 PM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
Maybe he had to make the check for starting the bike and accelerating it (IE, starting to drive)?
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 23 2004, 07:06 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
starting a bike may be a non-test when all you do is walk over to it, sit down, put the key in and turn it. but when the same thing is happening while the person is being shot at after being badly mauled by a awakend pet i think its ok. the question is, is it a stressful situation or not?
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 23 2004, 07:11 PM
Post
#33
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 77 Joined: 5-December 04 Member No.: 6,869 |
Page 134? Where it says "Actions Performed During Combat: This modifier applies if the character is performing a standard vehicle action ... under gunfire or in combat." Or where on the chart for target numbers it says "Stressful Situation: GM Discression"? Under normal circumstances it wouldn't have been an issue. The first paragraph deals with every day tasks like joy riding or going to the movies. I felt that being hurt, without cover, being shot at, not being able to shoot back, and trying to ballance on a bike and get it started warranted a check. It was TN 4 and didn't take an action. It was a check to see if he could keep his cool under fire. Despite what you see in the movies, most people will do one thing while being shot at. Duck. Trying to do anything besides that (Even shooting back) in the real world isn't a simple task and I try to run my games real and lethal. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 23 2004, 07:28 PM
Post
#34
|
|||
|
Ain Soph Aur Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,477 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Montreal, Canada Member No.: 600 |
I can so see my players doing the same. They can't really stand not being the biggest cats on the block. Luckily, we're in a high-powered campaing, so they pretty much are the biggest badasses. Until we get to the Shutdown, anyway. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 23 2004, 08:02 PM
Post
#35
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
How about where it says "characters can automatically accomplish basic vehicle maneuvers, such as driving to the local Stuffer Shack, or taking the old helicopter for a little sightseeing hop. Any time a character attempts a difficult maneuver, however--such as negotiating a hairpin turn at 100kph, or jumping a Yamaha Rapier over four lanes of rush-hour traffic--he or she must make a Driving Test to determine sucess or failure." Please tell me how starting the engine is REMOTELY near either of those. Even under fire, I'd make it at the WORST a TN(2), and thats if you want to be a jerk. Seriously. Remember also, anyone can drive a car, boat, truck, plane, helicopter, any other vehicle goes here, without the skill. The skill is ONLY for combat related vehicle checks, and driving tests. Starting the engine isn't even driving it, does it have autonav 1? I'd say that could automatically start the engine for him, without any fuss ever, automatically, every time he wanted it to. Unless the engine was damaged. Most bikes have autonav 1, as it doesn't take a gyro-stabalizer to have it. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 23 2004, 08:32 PM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 18-December 04 From: T.O. Member No.: 6,891 |
I think the whole "vehicle check" discussion makes sense, and not, at the same time. Lemme esplain....
Yes a check could (like as in, if you feel you have to) have be warranted, but it should have been called something else, like a "willpower check to see if you remember where your keys are under fire", or "Intelligence check to see if you remember where the start button is" . Okay, I know these seem kinda dumb, but I think there may be some check (probably not my examples which are intentionally cheesy) that you could insert here. However, something more well thought out in terms of what checks are built into the game already, would be better, like..... "Driving check while attempting to serve out of the way of all those hundreds of bullets that are flying in your general direction right now". |
|
|
|
|
Dec 23 2004, 08:36 PM
Post
#37
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
Except that unless you have a control pool you can't attempt to dodge bullets while driving a vehicle, so unless he decided to plug into the bike, and drive off rigging it, that doesn't work either. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 23 2004, 09:18 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,073 Joined: 23-August 04 Member No.: 6,587 |
I would not require a roll for starting the bike.
The skill of the rider should mealy reduce the chance of failure (more dice) however remember a well tuned vehicle today will start first time every time. Modern computer controlled engines are almost imposable to flood. By the 2060s it should be harder If you look at the maintenance costs for vehicles the only way you can justify them is by keeping the vehicles in perfect condition. The only time I would consider a check to start a vehicle would be if it had not been properly maintained for quite some time. Edward |
|
|
|
|
Dec 23 2004, 09:24 PM
Post
#39
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 18-December 04 From: T.O. Member No.: 6,891 |
Quite right, I was thinking of swerving a lot to make yourself a tougher target to hit. But anyway, it's all anout one thing really.... if you're trying something abnormally hard or something that is not just a gimme, there is just cause to require some kind of roll. I never make a player roll without him being satisfied that there is a reason for it. But I'm only able to do this out of having gained my players respect as a GM. Why spend your time fighting over rules when you could be gaming. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 24 2004, 02:31 AM
Post
#40
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 870 Joined: 6-January 04 From: Idaho Member No.: 5,960 |
Notice the automatic part. I fail to see where anything that simple could require any kind of check. Unless someone was physically wrestling him away from it or otherwise keeping him from doing it. Poor decision it seems. I'm not a prick on purpose but I have developed a sort of personal crusade against this kind of thing after being abused by moronic powermongering GMs. I'm also not saying your one. Seems pretty cut and dried is all...and also makes common sense something that is severly lacking for some GMs. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 24 2004, 04:21 AM
Post
#41
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 18-December 04 From: T.O. Member No.: 6,891 |
Yeah. I won't play with a GM that can't take a little help from a player. I like to be in a game where there is open dialogue about interperating rules. I know GMs can't be up to speed on, or remember everything all the time. Also, as a GM, I encourage my players to contribute. I like to be kept sharp. A good gaming experience is made so by the creativity of both the GM and the Players, not everyone's knowledge of the rules. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 24 2004, 05:55 AM
Post
#42
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 24-November 04 Member No.: 6,847 |
I can see that. Though the rules don't say anything specific in regards to starting a vehicle, they do require a driving test for acceleration during combat, which means a character would need to pass a driving test before he can move anywhere. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 24 2004, 10:07 AM
Post
#43
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 475 Joined: 17-June 02 From: Concord University, Athens, WV Member No.: 2,880 |
Going back to the actual topic, there was a "you live so I don't have to hear you whine" moment in one of my games, months ago. There have probably been others deserving death, but this one stood out the most.
The rigger had Hunted 2, and was being followed all over Seattle by this other running group after him in a black van (they had a tracer on his bike, but he never figured it out, even after getting a hint every half hour or so). Every time they've shown up, they've attempted to kill him. Eventually, he thinks he's lost them because he managed to make sure there wasn't a bug in his cyberarm (he thought it was put there when he had his decker/techie contact work on it, despite the techie later disappearing and his apartment full of bulletholes with the door sliced in two), and so he goes out to check out a building that has to do with his most recent run. He parks his bike (the one witht he tracer on it) in an alley across the street, and goes to check things out. He sees a black van drive past while he's in there, and assumes it's just me (GMing) tring to mess with him, something I'm known to do to my players, thus ignores it. After he's done, he heads back to the alley where his bike is. When he gets to it, a black van drives up and parks at the end of the alley, blocking the exit. A shotgun, assault rifle, and SMG are extended through various small openings in the side fo the van. He forgets what color their van was (not that he ever asked), and assumes this is something else. He asks, "Can I help you guys with something?" because, like I said, he thought he lost them. They open fire. I let him use his bike for cover, and then let him manage to escape on the thing despite it barely being in condition to run. I'll not go into the time he began a covert operation by opening the target building's back door with a volley of minigrenades. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 24 2004, 10:30 AM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 486 Joined: 4-August 04 From: Fomorian Wastes Member No.: 6,538 |
Restarting a bike is the easy bit, the engine is already hot. Try to start a bike from cold that has been raced tuned in the morning and even with electric starters it can be a few goes and it might not fire properly for 5 minutes on a cold morning. Obviously if you follow the standard SR policy of if it is a bit iffy now 60 years or technology will make it perfect you will ignore that bit.
Having to take a test to see whether the bike stalls when it is first put into gear and the clutch released seems very valid. I view it as the final part of "starting the bike", just before "going somewhere". How many of you (drivers/riders) can honestly say you have never stalled a car when startled at a junction or have never seen a person "kangeroo" a car. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 24 2004, 04:14 PM
Post
#45
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 870 Joined: 6-January 04 From: Idaho Member No.: 5,960 |
again, per the rules: Driving normally (i.e. starting forward from a stop) does not require a test. Sheesh. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 24 2004, 04:48 PM
Post
#46
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 586 Joined: 22-November 02 From: Gordonsville, Virginia, U.S.A. (or C.A.S.) Member No.: 3,630 |
Sahandrian: This wouldn't be from my first 'run with our group, would it? If not, it sounds awfully familiar.... :P --Foreigner |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 24 2004, 05:12 PM
Post
#47
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 24-November 04 Member No.: 6,847 |
Starting forward from a stop would be acceleration and does require a test under the rules if it's done during combat. The Accelerating/Braking action is on page 142 of SR3. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 24 2004, 05:15 PM
Post
#48
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 870 Joined: 6-January 04 From: Idaho Member No.: 5,960 |
Basic driving manuvers: i.e. not Evel Kinevel, do not require a test. Nor would accelerating away from a pedestrian. You guys are skewing the meaning of the rules to win your little battles in GM vs. Players. Thats not what it's about.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 24 2004, 05:55 PM
Post
#49
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 24-November 04 Member No.: 6,847 |
I wasn't aware of any battles in GM vs. Players... so it's probably good that it's not what it's about. Heck, I don't even GM. It's about whether trying to hop on a motorcycle and drive off while somebody is actively trying to shoot you is the equivalent of taking a drive to the Stuffer Shack or vehicle combat. I would personally consider it the latter, it which case it deserves a roll. The pedstrian your trying to flee from isn't an old lady trying to cross the street... it's a guy with a gun sending bullets your way while you're sitting completely exposed atop a motorcycle. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 24 2004, 07:16 PM
Post
#50
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 475 Joined: 17-June 02 From: Concord University, Athens, WV Member No.: 2,880 |
That's the one. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 14th February 2025 - 01:39 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.