The rules explain pretty well the rules regarding what happens to vehicles when they crash, and how to resolve attacks vs. passengers rather than the vehicle, but it doesn't specifically talk about passenger damage from a crash. Or maybe it does and I just need some clarification.
This is how we understood it I think:
Treat the damage as ramming damage as if the vehicle rammed itself. In this case that would be 16P. The vehicle then resists 16P and anything over that is then resisted by the passengers using impact armor etc normally.
Sound right? Anything you guys add or take out?
Full Version: Resolving crashes
So treating the vehicle as a barrier? That sounds fine if they are all buckled up. But if there weren't wearing some sort of restraining harnesses and the vehicle crashed in a way that airbags are not likely to help much I'd be tempted to top it up with a few extra boxes of impact damage to simulate hitting the roof or getting tossed out a window.
Shadowrun turned into a public service safety announcement.
Shadowrun turned into a public service safety announcement.
I don't have the page quote handy, but at the end of the section about passangers & vehicles it says that in a crash, passangers take the same damage as the vehicle did.
It doesn't say that directly, but now I see how you get to that. This is all on page 162.
| QUOTE (Crashing) |
| Vehicles that crash suff er damage from whatever they collide with. Apply damage as if the vehicle rammed itself (see the Ramming Damage Table, p. 160). |
Then skipping down to the next section.
| QUOTE (Damage and Passengers) |
| If an attack is made against passengers--------------Additionally, the passengers gain protection from the vehicle’s chassis, adding the Armor of the vehicle to any personal armor the characters are wearing. In the case of ramming, full-auto and area-eff ect attacks, both passengers and vehicles resist the damage equally. |
I guess this means the passengers resist the damage using a dice pool consisting of their Body + personal armour rating + vehicle armor rating? That is pretty close to just resisting the damage that the vehicle hasn't resisted, but a little bit more because they still are subject to the damage that the vehicle's Body dice resisted.
Crash damage is regulated by a coefficent based on the speed of the vehicle when it crashed, table is on page 160. When you run into a wall or other barrier I suppose you could use the Structure Rating from page 157? I'm not sure what Body you are suppose to use for calculating the damage if there isn't really anything to run into except the ground when the vehicle rolls?
| QUOTE (Brahm) | ||||
It doesn't say that directly, but now I see how you get to that. This is all on page 162.
Then skipping down to the next section.
I guess this means the passengers resist the damage using a dice pool consisting of their Body + personal armour rating + vehicle armor rating? That is pretty close to just resisting the damage that the vehicle hasn't resisted, but a little bit more because they still are subject to the damage that the vehicle's Body dice resisted. Crash damage is regulated by a coefficent based on the speed of the vehicle when it crashed, table is on page 160. When you run into a wall or other barrier I suppose you could use the Structure Rating from page 157? I'm not sure what Body you are suppose to use for calculating the damage if there isn't really anything to run into except the ground when the vehicle rolls? |
You use the vehicles body for crashes that don't involve a barrier per se. Just as if the vehicle rammed itself.
| QUOTE (Solstice @ Feb 20 2006, 11:05 AM) |
| You use the vehicles body for crashes that don't involve a barrier per se. Just as if the vehicle rammed itself. |
That originally occured to me.
Unfortunately that doesn't jive with my painfully earned experience. Take something between a Yamaha Growler and a Suzuki Mirage compared to a Mercury Comet. I've headed off the road mostly straight into a ditch with roughly the equavilant of each of these. The difference was a 1m drop with the car to about 40cm with the bike, and at approximately 20kph faster with the car. I was actually speeding up slightly with the car in hopes of clearing the rise of the other side of the ditch, which mostly worked.
The car itself was beat up pretty good, with the frame twisted beyond economic repair. But the worst thing that happened in the car was the McDonald's sundae being eaten by guy in the backseat flying over the frontseat passenger, bouncing off the windshield, and splatting on the dash. The bike wearing a good helmet, leather, and boots? A few bruises, a bit of road rash, two months of physio for a 2nd degree sprain, and a number of years of pain dull aching pain whenever I let my left ankle get cold.
Yes they are different types of vehciles, and I know people that have literally walked away unscathed from 150kph road crashes with bikes. But I just don't see the Body of the vehicle working against you in the crash.
If we want to start pointing out places where the shadowrun rules don't match what we think things would be like in real life... we'd never finish. 
I think the above rule was meant mostly for the people in two cars, specifically, passengers in the car that is rammed.
For example, being in a car that is hit by a guy on a dodge-scoot wouldnt' be so bad, being in one hit by a semi means you're dead. But, by my interpretation of the rules, the guy driving the semi is probably smeared into his windsheild as well, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me (unless, of course, you have passangers only resist the damage that the vehicle ACTUALLY takes, after it soaks some with its armor/body)... this helps a little, and might be what was intended in the rules....
I think the above rule was meant mostly for the people in two cars, specifically, passengers in the car that is rammed.
For example, being in a car that is hit by a guy on a dodge-scoot wouldnt' be so bad, being in one hit by a semi means you're dead. But, by my interpretation of the rules, the guy driving the semi is probably smeared into his windsheild as well, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me (unless, of course, you have passangers only resist the damage that the vehicle ACTUALLY takes, after it soaks some with its armor/body)... this helps a little, and might be what was intended in the rules....
It is less that optimal but ok when there are two vehicles that accidentally collide. The guy in the transport takes damage based on the Dodge-Scoot Body less the transport's armor, and the Dodge-Scoot driver, so help him, takes damage based on the transport truck Body protected by the Scoot's armor.
The problem only comes up when it is a single vehicle crash when there isn't another vehicle and isn't really much there to run into. Single vehicle rollover is the term used in these parts.
I guess the Structure of the ground or pavement that it rolls on?
The problem only comes up when it is a single vehicle crash when there isn't another vehicle and isn't really much there to run into. Single vehicle rollover is the term used in these parts.
I guess the Structure of the ground or pavement that it rolls on?
| QUOTE (Brahm @ Feb 20 2006, 03:58 PM) |
| But I just don't see the Body of the vehicle working against you in the crash. |
To be specific. You could use
Ek=Er+Et
Where Ek=total kenetic energy
Et= 1/2m*v^2
m=mass
v=velocity
Er is constant unless the vehicle is rotating.
So Ek will be greater with a larger vehicle given a constant speed.
That is why drivers of larger vehicles will deal/take more damage unless a house rule is invoked providing them some sort of protection.
| QUOTE (BlackHat) |
| (unless, of course, you have passangers only resist the damage that the vehicle ACTUALLY takes, after it soaks some with its armor/body)... this helps a little, and might be what was intended in the rules.... |
That is what we did, and it seemed to work well.
| QUOTE (Brahm) |
| The problem only comes up when it is a single vehicle crash when there isn't another vehicle and isn't really much there to run into. Single vehicle rollover is the term used in these parts. I guess the Structure of the ground or pavement that it rolls on? |
Look the rules are abstract. Anyway if you want some kind of physics justification just think of it this way. The larger the vehicle, the more radical it behaves afterthe crash is intiated. By this I mean a larger vehicle will generate more force at a constant speed than a smaller vehicle.
| QUOTE (Solstice) | ||
To be specific. You could use Ek=Er+Et Where Ek=total kenetic energy Et= 1/2m*v^2 m=mass v=velocity Er is constant unless the vehicle is rotating. So Ek will be greater with a larger vehicle given a constant speed. That is why drivers of larger vehicles will deal/take more damage unless a house rule is invoked providing them some sort of protection. |
Err... no
The vehicle and its passangers are part of a single system. The vehicle's mass won't damage its passangers for the same reason you can't fly by grabing your belt and pulling up.
In a crash there are two things that cause injury. First is the way that the vehicle crumples. Poorly designed vehicles will crush passenger's legs and possibly the driver's chest. Most newer vehicles are designed to crumple in such a way that the passanger compartment remain's intact. Second is impact cause by one's own inertia. The car sows down but the passengers don't. As a result the passengers bang against the vehicle, are thrown out, ect. The damage here is determined by velocity and the passenger's mass. Vehicle mass has nothing to do with it. Also, this type of damage is easily resisted through use of an amazing munchkin tool called a seatbelt.
SR4 cars proably don't have seatbelts because they would be too gamegbreaking. It they do add 500 dice to the passenger's resistance tests when a seatbelt is worn.
In crashes between vehicles, mass only matters if there is a huge disparity. In such a case the less massive vehicle will take more damage and the more massive vehicle will take less. Consider a mototcycle vs a semi. A semi could hit a motorcycle without slowing down yet the motorcyclist is likely to take massive damage.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) | ||||
Err... no The vehicle and its passangers are part of a single system. The vehicle's mass won't damage its passangers for the same reason you can't fly by grabing your belt and pulling up. In a crash there are two things that cause injury. First is the way that the vehicle crumples. Poorly designed vehicles will crush passenger's legs and possibly the driver's chest. Most newer vehicles are designed to crumple in such a way that the passanger compartment remain's intact. Second is impact cause by one's own inertia. The car sows down but the passengers don't. As a result the passengers bang against the vehicle, are thrown out, ect. The damage here is determined by velocity and the passenger's mass. Vehicle mass has nothing to do with it. Also, this type of damage is easily resisted through use of an amazing munchkin tool called a seatbelt. SR4 cars proably don't have seatbelts because they would be too gamegbreaking. It they do add 500 dice to the passenger's resistance tests when a seatbelt is worn. In crashes between vehicles, mass only matters if there is a huge disparity. In such a case the less massive vehicle will take more damage and the more massive vehicle will take less. Consider a mototcycle vs a semi. A semi could hit a motorcycle without slowing down yet the motorcyclist is likely to take massive damage. |
They are the same system in the crash rules. I'm not trying to reproduce real life in the rules. I'm looking for some kind of justification for the current rule set.
You only have so many stats you can use and since body = mass it apparently needs to be a part of the equation therefore even if it doesn't matter IRL it does in the rules.
Great but uh....any suggestions for representing that in the rules? It's pretty easy to refute something and not come up with anything of your own.
So, passengers take damage = to the body of the vehicle?
or
Passengers take unresisted damage = to the body of the vehicle?
or
Something else?
Remember we are talking about a one vehicle crash here to the mass vs. mass angle doesn't apply.
We are only talking about one vehicle crashing at a given speed vs. another vehicle of different mass crashing at the same speed. So no head-to-head.
How about.
In crash the passengers are subject to damage based on the vehicles velocity and the lesser of the Structure struck in the crash or the Body of the vehicle that crashed. This is separate from any ramming damage caused by a prior collision with another vehicle, although that ramming may or maynot greatly reduce the velocity of the vehicle prior to the crash. Properly worn seatbelts and other crash devices may add extra dice to the passenger's damage resist roll.
After thinking about it a bit more I suspect the car versus motorcycle crash problem I described might be more an issue of armor. The occupant should not use the vehicle armor if they are outside the vehicle's frame unless they can maintain a position on the opposite side of the vehicle from the damaging force.
In crash the passengers are subject to damage based on the vehicles velocity and the lesser of the Structure struck in the crash or the Body of the vehicle that crashed. This is separate from any ramming damage caused by a prior collision with another vehicle, although that ramming may or maynot greatly reduce the velocity of the vehicle prior to the crash. Properly worn seatbelts and other crash devices may add extra dice to the passenger's damage resist roll.
After thinking about it a bit more I suspect the car versus motorcycle crash problem I described might be more an issue of armor. The occupant should not use the vehicle armor if they are outside the vehicle's frame unless they can maintain a position on the opposite side of the vehicle from the damaging force.
To make it simpler just have the runners resist falling damage as if they had fallen a number of meters equal to half the vehicle's velocity if they aren't wearing restraints and have them resist any overflow from the vehicle's condition moniter if they are restrained.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| To make it simpler just have the runners resist falling damage as if they had fallen a number of meters equal to half the vehicle's velocity if they aren't wearing restraints and have them resist any overflow from the vehicle's condition moniter if they are restrained. |
because you can go faster than terminal velocity while in a vehicle. There's that pesky force thing again. I'm still convinced that in a one vehicle accident the mass of the vehicle should come into play somewhere. That is why they use the ramming rules.
I think using the ramming rules (which take velocity into account) and having them resist overflow from the vehicle adding dice for restraints, is the best compromise. It may not be totally realistic but seems to be a happy medium between realism and ease of use.
SR4 falling rules don't take into account terminal velocity and they shouldn't. Terminal velocity is dependant on too many variables to be acounted for in an abstract system.
Using the falling rules is the most consistant and most uniform way to calculate all forms of acceleration damage including oddball stuff like launching trolls out of a trebuchet. 1/2 at^2 with t always set to 1 is the best way of converting velocity to height that doesn't require using calculus and pulling acceleration intervals out of the GM's ass. It is an ugly an dunrealistic aproximation, but that really doesn't matter given the abstractness of these rules. It is far more realistic than the rules are writen.
In a one vehcile accident the mass of a vehicle would help absorb damage, not cause damage. There are other factors involved like shape and crumple zones, but they shouldn't be taken into account.
Using the falling rules is the most consistant and most uniform way to calculate all forms of acceleration damage including oddball stuff like launching trolls out of a trebuchet. 1/2 at^2 with t always set to 1 is the best way of converting velocity to height that doesn't require using calculus and pulling acceleration intervals out of the GM's ass. It is an ugly an dunrealistic aproximation, but that really doesn't matter given the abstractness of these rules. It is far more realistic than the rules are writen.
In a one vehcile accident the mass of a vehicle would help absorb damage, not cause damage. There are other factors involved like shape and crumple zones, but they shouldn't be taken into account.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.