IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
ShadowDragon8685
post Jun 23 2005, 04:41 PM
Post #1


Horror
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,322
Joined: 15-June 05
From: BumFuck, New Jersey
Member No.: 7,445



Okay, so I'm running a minigame for a friend of mine. I'm having six guys about 20 meters from her rough up an old woman to kidnap the girl the woman is charged with. It's late at night, there's a dim lightpost above the kidnappers and the woman, producing Partial Light conditions, and a bright streetlight above my player, producing Glare conditions.

So I figure, perfect way to prevent my friend from picking a fight with six guys armed with Remmington Roomsweepers. Produce unfavorable combat conditions. Then I remember, she has not only a Smartlink, but Cybereyes with both low-light AND Flare Comp.

So I try to tell her that the systems are mutually incompatable, she dosen't buy it. So I rule that while she can try to use both, she's reducing the penalty from the low-light to +1, and gaining +4 from the glare, which is then reduced to +3. Or she can use the Glare Comp, and soak up the +2 from Low Light.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jrayjoker
post Jun 23 2005, 04:45 PM
Post #2


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,453
Joined: 17-September 04
From: St. Paul
Member No.: 6,675



Unless the rules state the 'ware is incompatible, it isn't. Welcome to canon. Don't be a railroading GM, you won't have players for long if you do.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ShadowDragon8685
post Jun 23 2005, 04:51 PM
Post #3


Horror
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,322
Joined: 15-June 05
From: BumFuck, New Jersey
Member No.: 7,445



It's the start of the fragging sologame storyline, and I want to try and persuade my friend to not get her character killed by massed shotgun fire in the first twenty minutes of play.

But I ruled that, while not technologically incompatable, they are functionally incompatable - like trying to look through a night vision scope, with sunglasses on. Did I handle it right by computing the +3 if you use both?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Slacker
post Jun 23 2005, 04:51 PM
Post #4


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,420
Joined: 30-October 03
Member No.: 5,776



I have to agree with Jray. There is nothing that says the 'ware is incompatible, so its a bit overbearing to rule that they can't work together.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jrayjoker
post Jun 23 2005, 04:53 PM
Post #5


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,453
Joined: 17-September 04
From: St. Paul
Member No.: 6,675



QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685)
It's the start of the fragging sologame storyline, and I want to try and persuade my friend to not get her character killed by massed shotgun fire in the first twenty minutes of play.

You didn't say that before, now did you? Don't expect me to read your mind.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ShadowDragon8685
post Jun 23 2005, 04:50 PM
Post #6


Horror
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,322
Joined: 15-June 05
From: BumFuck, New Jersey
Member No.: 7,445



I didn't. Like a sunglasses and night-vision scope aren't technically incompatable, you can TRY. But you're better off with one or the other.

I think. That's how I read the low-light and glare rules.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jrayjoker
post Jun 23 2005, 04:50 PM
Post #7


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,453
Joined: 17-September 04
From: St. Paul
Member No.: 6,675



Sorry, let me rephrase and ask a question...

It seems like houseruling to me, so do what you want.

Do you mean glare comp or flare comp?

This post has been edited by Jrayjoker: Jun 23 2005, 04:52 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Slacker
post Jun 23 2005, 04:54 PM
Post #8


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,420
Joined: 30-October 03
Member No.: 5,776



If you want to make the player avoid dangerous situations like that, give her an Intelligence test to realize that she has not a chance in Hell of surviving the encounter.

Giving new players a bit of guidance is a much better choice than forcing house rules on them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jrayjoker
post Jun 23 2005, 04:53 PM
Post #9


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,453
Joined: 17-September 04
From: St. Paul
Member No.: 6,675



QUOTE (Slacker @ Jun 23 2005, 10:54 AM)
If you want to make the player avoid dangerous situations like that, give her an Intelligence test to realize that she has not a chance in Hell of surviving the encounter.

Giving new players a bit of guidance is a much better choice than forcing house rules on them.

Yes, that would have been a better response from me in the first place... :)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jrayjoker
post Jun 23 2005, 04:57 PM
Post #10


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,453
Joined: 17-September 04
From: St. Paul
Member No.: 6,675



I don't have my books, so I forget if flare comp affects glare conditions if at all,and to what degree if it does...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shanshu Freeman
post Jun 23 2005, 05:00 PM
Post #11


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 777
Joined: 18-February 03
Member No.: 4,110



I tend to aggree with those saying you can't just make stuff up as you go along. There's nothing cannon that I know of saying that those items are at all incompatible, functionally, technically, or otherwise. If cannon didn't want them working together, it would explicitly state such, as it *does* with image magnification and smartlink.

If I were you and I had your intentions, I would have asked the player to roll intelligence, and use it as an opportunity to warn them off. If they want to risk the odds, let them. The point of this game is to be somebody else and take chances we wouldn't take in real life. If the players win against the odds, through planning or sheer luck, the game is that much more satisfying. If they soak some lead, they'll be writing up new character sheets.

That's my two nuyen :nuyen: , and your mileage may vary.


edit: damn, beaten like a red headed step child. :(
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Jun 23 2005, 05:05 PM
Post #12


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



so, lemme get this straight. you're starting a game, and in order to convince the player to act in the way you want her to act, you change the rules of the game? no, i'd have to say you pretty much didn't handle that right.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ShadowDragon8685
post Jun 23 2005, 05:08 PM
Post #13


Horror
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,322
Joined: 15-June 05
From: BumFuck, New Jersey
Member No.: 7,445



I'm not changing the rules of the game. She's trying to use a light-enhancer, under a glare condition, and a glare filter at the same time.

Those are confusing and conflicting rules. It states in the book that using light-enhancing under Glare conditions raises the TN by 4. But it dosen't give me a number for flare comp's reduction on Glare.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jrayjoker
post Jun 23 2005, 05:15 PM
Post #14


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,453
Joined: 17-September 04
From: St. Paul
Member No.: 6,675



OK, now that we have a stated rule, could you give us a book and page number so we can pick it apart appropriately? I don't recall that rule off hand, so I am not in a position to debate it at this moment. (no books as stated before)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Jun 23 2005, 05:24 PM
Post #15


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



they may be slightly confusing, but they're not conflicting. M&M page 49 says that the modifier for glare with cybernetic low-light is +4. SR3 page 299 says that flare compensation cyberware eliminates penalties for glare. ergo, the +4 doesn't apply, and only the +1 from partial light with cybernetic low-light is counted.

how does it work? who knows? maybe it edits the glare out digitally. maybe it replaces the retina with a structure that is less prone to being overwhelmed by high light levels.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Slacker
post Jun 23 2005, 05:23 PM
Post #16


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,420
Joined: 30-October 03
Member No.: 5,776



I am in the same boat as Jray, don't have my books so I can't back it up with quotes, but I would say that the glare is nullified by the flare compensation, thus the low-light vision isn't being used under a glare condition.

Possibly if the flare comp doesn't handle all of the glare, you could still modify the low-light by something like +2, but that would really be up to the GM.

Personally, that is not what I would do though.

edit: Looks like mfb beat me to it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John Campbell
post Jun 23 2005, 05:31 PM
Post #17


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 9-November 02
From: The Republic of Vermont
Member No.: 3,581



QUOTE (SR3 @ p.299)
Flare Compensation: This accessory protects the user from blinding flashes of light and simple glare. It also protects users with thermographic vision from heat flashes or glare from infrared lighting. Flare compensation eliminates vision modifiers for glare.
(emphasis mine)

The visibility table provides a modifer (+4/+2) for low-light vision and glare. This modifier is, per the rule quoted above, eliminated by flare compensation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Angelone
post Jun 23 2005, 05:29 PM
Post #18


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,286
Joined: 24-May 05
From: A 10x10 room with an orc and a treasure chest
Member No.: 7,409



Another thing you could have done is have more thugs (or Lonestar if in a decent hood) approach from the side or behind and warn her off. Most characters won't like caught in a cross fire (especially with cops on one side). Have the cops lose as she watches from an alley and presto.

<-- In the don't mess with cybereyes unless you want to get hit by something large and blunt school.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Method
post Jun 23 2005, 05:33 PM
Post #19


Street Doc
*******

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,508
Joined: 2-March 04
From: Neverwhere
Member No.: 6,114



I've always thought of Flare Comp as a logical extension of Low-Light. Think about it. You are a shadowrunner running around in the dark with your low light vision and shooting a gun (muzzle flash). You'd be blind in every other turn if you didn't have some system to compensate.

The way I see it LL and FC MUST be compatible...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SpasticTeapot
post Jun 23 2005, 05:36 PM
Post #20


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 560
Joined: 21-December 04
Member No.: 6,893



From what I understand, flare comphensation is a digital filter that keeps the overall light level as close to a given average as possible. If something's too bright, it makes it darker; if something suddenly flashes, it reduces the brightness. Low-light vision is an upgrade to the camera itself, which makes the whole thing more sensitive, and therefore more prone to problems, so, realistically, flare comp. would be a necessity.
(This is all stuff inferred from playing with video cameras and software, so ignore me if you like.)

Also, if 6 guys are standing in one place...
Why not just drop a canister of knockout gas on 'em?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ShadowDragon8685
post Jun 23 2005, 05:36 PM
Post #21


Horror
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,322
Joined: 15-June 05
From: BumFuck, New Jersey
Member No.: 7,445



Yeah, but it still seems cheap.

Anyway, I've set a precedent: Glare Compensators are worth -2 to TNs in Glare conditions. Glare harsher than that still applies. I'll stick with it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jrayjoker
post Jun 23 2005, 05:37 PM
Post #22


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,453
Joined: 17-September 04
From: St. Paul
Member No.: 6,675



QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685)
Yeah, but it still seems cheap.

Anyway, I've set a precedent: Glare Compensators are worth -2 to TNs in Glare conditions. Glare harsher than that still applies. I'll stick with it.

Yeah, to be internally inconsistent would suck if you are playing the same campaign for a long time. If you start another campaign Iwould go with the canon explanatin though.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ShadowGhost
post Jun 23 2005, 06:40 PM
Post #23


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 376
Joined: 14-July 03
Member No.: 4,928



QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685)
It's late at night, there's a dim lightpost above the kidnappers and the woman, producing Partial Light conditions, and a bright streetlight above my player, producing Glare conditions.

Here's one big problem the light producing the "glare" is above the player's head.... All it's going to do is make the sidewalk and street around the player nice and bright. It will only cause a glare in the player's field of view if they actually look at the source of the light. As it is now, the light won't hit the players eyes, so glare does not even apply.

If parked beside the woman and thugs, you had a car with its high beams on, pointing at the player in question, you would definitely have glare modifiers.

Shoehorning players to fit your storyline is always a bad thing. Maybe it's necessary at times, but then you should A) tell your players this a plot device, and B) make sure that plot device doesn't screw your players over.... i.e. "You're walking down the street, and suddenly your left hand is blown off by sniper fire. After you get to a hospital, they are able to replace it with a new hand, vat-grown and cloned from your skin cells. You get a mysterious phone call telling you to do a special job, or else the kink bomb implanted in your new hand will explode, killing you."

There are always ways to have players observe things while preventing them from acting upon it - suppression fire is a good, background counts and wards to prevent magic, searching fire, etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lollerskates
post Jun 23 2005, 06:55 PM
Post #24


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: 22-June 05
From: Candyland
Member No.: 7,454



wait, if six guys armed with shotguns wouldn't deter your friend from engaging in combat, what makes you think a streetlight would? :huh:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CoalHeart
post Jun 23 2005, 07:18 PM
Post #25


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 280
Joined: 22-October 03
Member No.: 5,757



Easy peasy, mother fragger.


First thing you do is get cover.

Second thing you do is shoot out the light both above you, and above them.

Third thing you do is ....

Fourth thing you do is profit.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th July 2025 - 04:50 PM

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.