Full Version: Astral Projection
| QUOTE (Nephyte) |
| 1 Success: Basic Outline 2 Successes: You'd know the answers to all the above, but not fully sure. |
I think you've missed the point. I need canon answers to those questions, not a way for my character to know those answers.
Let me try to elaborate: When the GM tells me that the food is special diced brine shrimp that costs 50 nuyen and needs to be kept refridgerated, I need to see the canon source for that ruling or I walk out of the game. In fact, unless he tells me that there is no food, any specifics assigned at all is a departure from canon, since no fish food information exists in a canon universe. And so, according to canon, fish food cannot have a property like price.
Which means that if Polaris's character were allowed to buy fish food at any price, it would represent an undiscussed house rule and force him to walk out of the game.
Polaris, we can't have a discussion if you won't answer questions that I pose. We especially can't have a discussion if my supposed flaw in logic keeps changing names and incarnations.
Unless something changes, I'm not going to continue.
Unless something changes, I'm not going to continue.
Zazen,
Now you are reaching and looking more than a little desperate. Let's compare the situations:
In combat, there is no rule (none, nada, zippo) that allows for collateral damage to your gear in standard combat.
Conclusion: Gear is not subject to collateral damage (unless an effect specifically says otherwise).
In non-combat, there are a wide variety of knowledge skills you can have to cover any situation with distinct guidelines as to what is and is not a valid knowledge skill. Furthermore, the GM is given specific and numeric guides as to what target numbers to use and what the number of successes mean.
Furthermore in equipement, you are given a general guide to price items not on the list in terms of nuyen based on today's prices.
Conclusion: You can feed tropical fish.
Thus your attempted reducto ad absurbum fails.
-Polaris
Now you are reaching and looking more than a little desperate. Let's compare the situations:
In combat, there is no rule (none, nada, zippo) that allows for collateral damage to your gear in standard combat.
Conclusion: Gear is not subject to collateral damage (unless an effect specifically says otherwise).
In non-combat, there are a wide variety of knowledge skills you can have to cover any situation with distinct guidelines as to what is and is not a valid knowledge skill. Furthermore, the GM is given specific and numeric guides as to what target numbers to use and what the number of successes mean.
Furthermore in equipement, you are given a general guide to price items not on the list in terms of nuyen based on today's prices.
Conclusion: You can feed tropical fish.
Thus your attempted reducto ad absurbum fails.
-Polaris
Zazen, here's the big difference.
Technically, you're right. Anything not specifically brought up in canon is a house rule, including the care and feeding of tropical fish.
However, the players have a right to know what rules apply when they get into certain situations. If you made it clear that you had an item damage houserule at the outset, Polaris or myself could chose to stay in the game or walk before making characters. If not, you'd be unfair, because what makes this grenade blast/hail of bullets/etc. different from the last one that didn't end up destroying gear. Such a houserule could even be "when I as the GM, trusted to be impartial, think the drek's too thick", so long as your impartiality were trusted and you made that clear at the outset.
I assume that the existance of tropical fish, as well as everything required for their upkeep, falls under "house rules most players accept as default". Subtle definiton that I can't nail down in lawyerese, but hopefully something that can be understood and explained better by someone else. Again, if I had a severe problem with tropical fish, I could walk out on any game that included them, but I could do the same for gravity (which is also not specifically mentioned in the rules). I'd be a grade-A prat for doing so, though.
The thing I think Polaris has a problem with, and that I have issues with also, is when rules for something you'd hopefully know change without your being aware (combat rules apply especially, since characters engage in combat quite often, and should know how the "laws of physics" in the world work), or else when the rules change arbitrarily and unfairly. It's not about house rules per se, it's about house rules that make one player feel unfairly picked on. (And also usually come as a complete surprise, something that rules shouldn't do.)
So I'd be quite fine playing in a game with tropical fish, as I would be if you applied some sort of equipment damage rule I knew about and agreed upon beforehand. If the rules for the care and feeding of tropical fish seemed to change randomly just to screw the characters, though, you can bet I'd be dissatisfied.
Think consistency. Think fairness. The rules as written at least theoretically have those going for them, and I have a right to expect similar out of any game I play in.
Technically, you're right. Anything not specifically brought up in canon is a house rule, including the care and feeding of tropical fish.
However, the players have a right to know what rules apply when they get into certain situations. If you made it clear that you had an item damage houserule at the outset, Polaris or myself could chose to stay in the game or walk before making characters. If not, you'd be unfair, because what makes this grenade blast/hail of bullets/etc. different from the last one that didn't end up destroying gear. Such a houserule could even be "when I as the GM, trusted to be impartial, think the drek's too thick", so long as your impartiality were trusted and you made that clear at the outset.
I assume that the existance of tropical fish, as well as everything required for their upkeep, falls under "house rules most players accept as default". Subtle definiton that I can't nail down in lawyerese, but hopefully something that can be understood and explained better by someone else. Again, if I had a severe problem with tropical fish, I could walk out on any game that included them, but I could do the same for gravity (which is also not specifically mentioned in the rules). I'd be a grade-A prat for doing so, though.
The thing I think Polaris has a problem with, and that I have issues with also, is when rules for something you'd hopefully know change without your being aware (combat rules apply especially, since characters engage in combat quite often, and should know how the "laws of physics" in the world work), or else when the rules change arbitrarily and unfairly. It's not about house rules per se, it's about house rules that make one player feel unfairly picked on. (And also usually come as a complete surprise, something that rules shouldn't do.)
So I'd be quite fine playing in a game with tropical fish, as I would be if you applied some sort of equipment damage rule I knew about and agreed upon beforehand. If the rules for the care and feeding of tropical fish seemed to change randomly just to screw the characters, though, you can bet I'd be dissatisfied.
Think consistency. Think fairness. The rules as written at least theoretically have those going for them, and I have a right to expect similar out of any game I play in.
Ok, aside from my thread degenerating into mad chaos, what the hell is "reducto ad absurbum"? I don't know Latin, but all I can come up with is "return of the missing". Am I that uncultured?
Nindaru,
Part of that may be my fault. I may have mispelled the latin. Reducto ad absurdum is a logical technique where you show a contradiciton (an absurdity) after removing all the verbal qualifiers. That is not an exact definition, but it is close enough for this thread.
In short, if you can show that a position is inherently self-contradictory, then that position is fundamentally illogical. cf. Euthyphro by Socrates where he shows that "good" and "evil" must have definitions independant of the god(s) (or of God in christian theology). He uses the above technique in his argument.
-Polaris
Part of that may be my fault. I may have mispelled the latin. Reducto ad absurdum is a logical technique where you show a contradiciton (an absurdity) after removing all the verbal qualifiers. That is not an exact definition, but it is close enough for this thread.
In short, if you can show that a position is inherently self-contradictory, then that position is fundamentally illogical. cf. Euthyphro by Socrates where he shows that "good" and "evil" must have definitions independant of the god(s) (or of God in christian theology). He uses the above technique in his argument.
-Polaris
the description of powerbolt/ball in SR3 says that it affects both living and non-living targets. it says nothing about excluding gear carried or worn by someone hit by a by powerball. therefore, gear worn by someone in the effect area of a powerball is affected by that powerball. how it's affected is a question left unanswered by the rules, but it is affected. same goes for grenades; the 'blasts against barriers' rules prove that grenades can affect objects, and a character's belongings are objects, QED. again, the question is how those objects are affected, not whether or not they are.
who here is saying that a GM should be able to just randomly sit up and say "your focus/cyberdeck/whatever was destroyed by that last burst of gunfire", and expect his players to stick around for another session? i'm not, and i don't think anyone else is, either. what we're saying is that gaps in the rules should be filled with common sense, not stupidity.
who here is saying that a GM should be able to just randomly sit up and say "your focus/cyberdeck/whatever was destroyed by that last burst of gunfire", and expect his players to stick around for another session? i'm not, and i don't think anyone else is, either. what we're saying is that gaps in the rules should be filled with common sense, not stupidity.
Mfb.
You said:
You said:
| QUOTE |
who here is saying that a GM should be able to just randomly sit up and say "your focus/cyberdeck/whatever was destroyed by that last burst of gunfire", and expect his players to stick around for another session? i'm not, and i don't think anyone else is, either. what we're saying is that gaps in the rules should be filled with common sense, not stupidity. |
John Cambell, Zazen, and others have said pretty much precisely that, i.e. that any part of your gear should be destroyed at the GM's whim if you take any damage at all.
As for Powerball, that depends on how you read the rules. Do you consider items to be seperate from the character? The precedence from other rules w/r/t combat indicates that you do not, but the rules are unclear as I admitted several posts back. However, if items that you are carrying can be affected (a point I dispute), then they would be subject to the same rules as normal items w/r/t power spells.....and most SR gear would have ORs of 8 or even 10...and thus probably would survive.
-Polaris
Edit: In addition not all gear would be affected in any event. If you wear an FFBA, that will not be affected, nor will fetishes and foci if worn under the armor (as I always do). For that matter, your backup pistol (if stored and holstered) won't be affected either....and possibly not your pack depending on the mage's LoS. The common theme is LOS. A powerball can not affect items (or people) outside the mage's LoS even if they are within the nominal area of effect.
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| John Cambell, Zazen, and others have said pretty much precisely that, i.e. that any part of your gear should be destroyed at the GM's whim if you take any damage at all. |
I'd intended to respect Nindaru's request to let this stupid argument die, but I cannot let this pass.
Back up this assertion with a quote or retract your lie.
explain to me, polaris, how it's disputable that the items you carry are not automatically unaffected by area-effect spells, grenades, and the like. show me in the rules where objects are excluded simply because you're carrying them.
| QUOTE (Polaris @ Oct 21 2003, 02:21 AM) |
| In combat, there is no rule (none, nada, zippo) that allows for collateral damage to your gear in standard combat. Conclusion: Gear is not subject to collateral damage (unless an effect specifically says otherwise). |
Gear destruction isn't limited to combat, and fish tending isn't limited to noncombat. Even if they were, there's no rule-difference between the two because there are no rules for them at all. This entire rebuttal makes no sense.
But since you can't get past the irrelevant distinction between combat and noncombat rules, I'll just change my example so that the discussion can move on.
In combat, there is no rule (none, nada, zippo) that allows me to pull a rug out from under an opponent.
Conclusion: No one can be unbalanced by having a rug pulled out from under them.
Now, if someone succeeded at this, would you walk from the table? Would you consider it a departure from canon?
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| saying that your fetishes--or any other equipment--stands a chance of being damaged or destroyed when you're hit by an explosion / powerball / spray of autofire is not being an unreasonable ass. |
While this may be true... I'd expect it to be applied equally to the whole team. What about the decker's deck? The rigger's deck? The face's tres chic clothing? Everyone's comm gear? The sammy's grenades? So long as it's not just fetishes that are being singled out, I personally wouldn't have a problem with this. However, games where expensive and difficult to replace items are constantly being destroyed often aren't much fun.
| QUOTE (motorfirebox) |
| fetishes--or any other equipment |
MFB, my comments were complimentary to yours, not contradictory. In my experience, many GMs are perfectly willing to hose a 500 
fetish but balk at blasting a 500,000 cyberdeck with the same ruling. Or killing the sammy. Or anything else serious that comes from the ruling, for that matter. If it's consistantly applied, I can't argue with the ruling. If the ruling makes the game seriously unfun (particularly when it is done maliciously or excessively), then I can certainly find another.
fetish but balk at blasting a 500,000 cyberdeck with the same ruling. Or killing the sammy. Or anything else serious that comes from the ruling, for that matter. If it's consistantly applied, I can't argue with the ruling. If the ruling makes the game seriously unfun (particularly when it is done maliciously or excessively), then I can certainly find another.
This topic got me pondering as to wether or not it is possible to hit hidden fetishes using a powerball. In theory fetishes, as enchanted objects (p180, BBB), are magical things and thus will have auras visible from the astral plane (p171,BBB). It would then be possible to obtain LOS to it via its aura if the caster was astrally percieving (in the same manner that an invisible character can be targeted) thus it would be a valid target for the spell.
Anyway: your statement that it would be hard to affect OR8 to OR10 objects is a bit off. Using a force 5 deadly powerball (maybe exclusive limited for drain): I need to roll one die up-to the OR to do deadly damage to them. Even if you're rolling 6 dice on the casting test, you have about a 40% chance of destroying any OR10 objects and about a 60% chance of destroying any OR8 objects in the area. Not that I've ever seen any GMs play this, in the same way that I've never seen a GM hand out equipment damage on anything less than a botch or contact with acid ETC.
Anyway: your statement that it would be hard to affect OR8 to OR10 objects is a bit off. Using a force 5 deadly powerball (maybe exclusive limited for drain): I need to roll one die up-to the OR to do deadly damage to them. Even if you're rolling 6 dice on the casting test, you have about a 40% chance of destroying any OR10 objects and about a 60% chance of destroying any OR8 objects in the area. Not that I've ever seen any GMs play this, in the same way that I've never seen a GM hand out equipment damage on anything less than a botch or contact with acid ETC.
Just an FYI, LOS for a fetish requires true LOS, so if a fetish is under clothing (as most players do wear theirs) then no, you can't target it with a Powerball. That's why Elem Manip's were so talked about in this thread, only they can effect items you can't see.
Sphynx
Sphynx
| QUOTE |
| While this may be true... I'd expect it to be applied equally to the whole team. What about the decker's deck? The rigger's deck? The face's tres chic clothing? Everyone's comm gear? The sammy's grenades? So long as it's not just fetishes that are being singled out, I personally wouldn't have a problem with this. However, games where expensive and difficult to replace items are constantly being destroyed often aren't much fun. |
Actually I do do this somewhat. If a party is hit with a powerball, grenade, fireball or similar They pretty much have to buy new armor, clothing, and whatever they were wearing on the outside, because it's frigging destroyed, degraded and cosmetically useless. It looks now like it was toasted, roasted or hit with shrapnel. Makes it very hard to be inconspicuous. [edit] It still may be functionally useful, but that doesn't mean they aren't going to want or need to replace it.[/edit]
I never have issues with more expensive equipment like cyberdecks and RCD's because riggers in my game always use headware RCD's and no PC's play deckers.
In fact, I won't even argue the point that a combat spell cannot hit a fetish under armor, because by the rules it cannot. Same with a ceramic fetish not being affected by manipulations. (Although I believe there would be a chance for anythign with the Blast Effect to crack or shatter it, but it's unlikely, probably impossible behind some impact armor).
By that same token noone in my game has ever tried to use a fetish in this manner because One of those fetishes would cost a ludicrous amount because it would have to be custom made and is very, very difficult to make because of the rules for creating them. It would also cost a proverbial fat pile of cash. Since it is also so unusual, it would also be memorable and relatively easy (relatively, still pretty dificult) for an dedicated enemy to gain info about if they wanted to hurt the PC. Thats one of the consequences of doing something very unusual and consequently memorable.
I do think that the argument that all equipment is imvulnerable because the character is holding it is absolute bull. If you don't want your cyberdeck damaged, buy an armored case for it, and make sure your body, or someone else's is between it and the people that are gonna shoot at you. There are no free passes, and noone has provided a rule saying "Equipment cannot be damaged". That makes it a house rule. The book says "equipment can be dameged in these circumstances" the book does NOT say "equipment can ONLY be damaged in these circumstances".
I never have issues with more expensive equipment like cyberdecks and RCD's because riggers in my game always use headware RCD's and no PC's play deckers.
In fact, I won't even argue the point that a combat spell cannot hit a fetish under armor, because by the rules it cannot. Same with a ceramic fetish not being affected by manipulations. (Although I believe there would be a chance for anythign with the Blast Effect to crack or shatter it, but it's unlikely, probably impossible behind some impact armor).
By that same token noone in my game has ever tried to use a fetish in this manner because One of those fetishes would cost a ludicrous amount because it would have to be custom made and is very, very difficult to make because of the rules for creating them. It would also cost a proverbial fat pile of cash. Since it is also so unusual, it would also be memorable and relatively easy (relatively, still pretty dificult) for an dedicated enemy to gain info about if they wanted to hurt the PC. Thats one of the consequences of doing something very unusual and consequently memorable.
I do think that the argument that all equipment is imvulnerable because the character is holding it is absolute bull. If you don't want your cyberdeck damaged, buy an armored case for it, and make sure your body, or someone else's is between it and the people that are gonna shoot at you. There are no free passes, and noone has provided a rule saying "Equipment cannot be damaged". That makes it a house rule. The book says "equipment can be dameged in these circumstances" the book does NOT say "equipment can ONLY be damaged in these circumstances".
John Campbell,
Please do not call me a liar unless you know for a fact it is true. It isn't.
Here is a quote from Zazen's original post that started this digression:
Please do not call me a liar unless you know for a fact it is true. It isn't.
Here is a quote from Zazen's original post that started this digression:
| QUOTE |
On the topic, fetishes are not indestructible. In the heat of battle you very well may get hit with an acid stream, called shot to the neck, incendiary grenade, or other fetish-unfriendly influence. If you wore them on your torso, I'd probably make you roll for the damn things even without a called shot. This seems to make them a significant enough disadvantage to balance their benefit. |
That pretty much backs up my contention that Zazen does think he can arbitarily take away gear due to collateral damage if you take any damage in combat.
-Polaris
er, actually as long as he does that with any other relevant equipment that is by no means arbitrary. It is entirely reasonable that if a bullet hit a ceramic bauble that the item be destroyed. It is also reasonable that if someone gets shot there is a chance (Although horribly, horribly almost riciculously low) that the bullet impacts said item. This means That the decision is not arbitraty, it is not on a whim. It is based on a realistically possible sequence of events, regardless how unlikely. Furthermore, he said that there would be a roll involved, not that it would happen automatically. You are exaggerating his statement to invalidly to make a point.
Let's comapre quotes:
Let's comapre quotes:
| QUOTE |
| Zazen said (emphasis mine): On the topic, fetishes are not indestructible. In the heat of battle you very well may get hit with an acid stream, called shot to the neck, incendiary grenade, or other fetish-unfriendly influence. If you wore them on your torso, I'd probably make you roll for the damn things even without a called shot. This seems to make them a significant enough disadvantage to balance their benefit. |
Then, with a very slanted exaggeration...
| QUOTE |
| Polaris said they said: John Cambell, Zazen, and others have said pretty much precisely that, i.e. that any part of your gear should be destroyed at the GM's whim if you take any damage at all. |
Zazen is allowing for the opportunity for this to happen. Nowhere did he say that anything should be destroyed, or that it was at a GM's whim. He said that it "may get hit" and he will "Probably make you roll" allowing for the possibility of that event happening. There's a pretty strong difference between saying something should happen and it's on a whim and something may happen, but a roll would be involved to determine if it does or does not, if the roll is even necessary, which it may not be.
In one case it allows for the possibility, and in the misquote is suggests the possibility should be the case on a whim.
Polaris please stop misquoting. You exaggerate quotes to make a line of argument easier to attack.
See also "The Straw Man Fallacy" from my sig line, defined as: when an arguer distorts an opponent's argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it.
Bitbasher,
That was not a misquote. What I said was true and I stand by it. By "allowing the possibility" with no warning and nothing in the rules to support it, he is saying that he would take away gear at whim.
Reread Zazen's and John's early posts and you will find that this is exactly their attitude. Just you wait until I get an answer back from WizKids.....
-Polaris
That was not a misquote. What I said was true and I stand by it. By "allowing the possibility" with no warning and nothing in the rules to support it, he is saying that he would take away gear at whim.
Reread Zazen's and John's early posts and you will find that this is exactly their attitude. Just you wait until I get an answer back from WizKids.....
-Polaris
Guys,
There is another reason why I am probably right about carried items w/r/t Powerball and the like.
Consider the difference between a Powerball and a Fireball. In the case of the fireball, the spell description goes well out of it's way to allow for damage to worn items including special rules for such effects.
Now if items could always be affected in the area of the spell, such language would not be needed.
The implication should be obvious: Because Fireball has to be given special language (and special rules) to affect worn items, spells that lack such language (Powerball) can not.
-Polaris
There is another reason why I am probably right about carried items w/r/t Powerball and the like.
Consider the difference between a Powerball and a Fireball. In the case of the fireball, the spell description goes well out of it's way to allow for damage to worn items including special rules for such effects.
Now if items could always be affected in the area of the spell, such language would not be needed.
The implication should be obvious: Because Fireball has to be given special language (and special rules) to affect worn items, spells that lack such language (Powerball) can not.
-Polaris
Actually it's listed that way because elemental effects have special rules on what they can damage and what they cannot while combat spells affects all items across the board based on OR. The rules on how items are damaged from combat spells are clearly illustrated, as I am sure you will agree Polaris. I am not referring specifically to damaging items being worn, but any items in general.
And polaris, as you may have noticed in the past not too many of us care what FanPro says. Most of us prefer a game enjoyable to our groups, regardless of the idiosyncharacies of the rules.
And polaris, as you may have noticed in the past not too many of us care what FanPro says. Most of us prefer a game enjoyable to our groups, regardless of the idiosyncharacies of the rules.
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| All I am saying is that in combat, there is no way you can do collateral damage to gear strictly according to canon unless a specific effect says otherwise. Elemental Manips do....but in a very limted way. |
I agree with the point that no collateral damage to gear happens unless a specific effect says otherwise.
Elemental Manips, Area effect physical combat spells (though combat spells don't generally get past OR), and explosives all would have a chance of damaging gear (some more than others). Do you agree?
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
As for MIPS, there is no rule in MIPS that forbids you from having a fetish of OR 10 either.....read the rules there carefully please (already covered in any event). |
1. I assume MIPS is a typo? If not, what is that an abbreviation for?
2. I never argued this point. And John conceeded the point, so who are you arguing this point with? (To my knowledge, John was the only one who argued this point.)
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
I am right. I am not saying you might not houserule, but if you took away festishes because of collateral damage without any preexisting houserule to that effect, I would walk right off the table....and I would have every right to. [For the same reason if you destroyed a Sammie's gun with no preexiting houserule, he would have every right to walk away from the table.] |
I'm guessing you mean collateral damage from firearms? If that is the case then I agree with you. Rules for firearms are covered quite clearly.
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
P.S. This is indeed groupthink in action. If the rules don't make sense, then petition WizKids to change them but don't trot out your houserules and somehow claim they are canonical because they ain't. |
Just because we don't agree with you doesn't make it groupthink.
So, I just love it when my post gets ignored(by pretty much everyone but tinkergnome). Polaris, would you mind addressing the example I gave below?
| QUOTE (IcyCool) |
| Polaris, did you get a chance to check out a copy of MitS? Those rules supercede the rules in the SR3 main book. On the subject of "lack of rules = proof". Riddle me this, rulesman (). There exists canon ruling on firing at a vehicle, correct? This would also include such things as firing a grenade launcher, or tossing a grenade at said vehicle, correct? Now, there also exist rules for firing or throwing a grenade at a person. Let's take the following example: Gary Ganger is showing off his new Yamaha Rapier to his pals. One of them decides to chuck a grenade at Gary's bike (with Gary still on it). Does Gary get hit by the blast, since his bike was targeted by the grenade? How about if Gary is two feet away from his bike, and the grenade lands between them? According to your interpretation of the rules, only one OR the other would get hit by the blast, correct? If not, what's the difference between this, and having the grenade blast damage the shiny predator(as there are rules for attacking objects) in Gary's hand? |
| QUOTE (TinkerGnome) |
I was under the impression that the major discussion was collateral damage to gear. If the gear is being targeted, it's not collateral damage. |
Very true. Please read my example again.
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| Please do not call me a liar unless you know for a fact it is true. It isn't. |
I know for a fact that it's true, because I'm the one you're lying about. You're misrepresenting my position, you're saying that I said things that I never said. This is not the first time, either, but I let it slide before because I could see how you could have been honestly incapable of understanding what I wrote. This I cannot see as anything other than a deliberate distortion of my position to further your agenda. In other words, a lie.
| QUOTE |
| Here is a quote from Zazen's original post that started this digression: [...] That pretty much backs up my contention that Zazen does think he can arbitarily take away gear due to collateral damage if you take any damage in combat. |
(emphasis added)
Leaving aside your biased exaggeration of Zazen's statement for a moment, let me point out that I am not Zazen. Despite all your ad hominems about "groupthink", Zazen does not do my thinking for me, he does not do my posting for me, he does not speak for me. Even if your assertion about Zazen were true, which I am not granting, quoting Zazen would not do one damn thing about proving your assertion about me.
Again: prove it or retract it, liar.
Leaving aside your biased exaggeration of Zazen's statement for a moment, let me point out that I am not Zazen. Despite all your ad hominems about "groupthink", Zazen does not do my thinking for me, he does not do my posting for me, he does not speak for me. Even if your assertion about Zazen were true, which I am not granting, quoting Zazen would not do one damn thing about proving your assertion about me.
Again: prove it or retract it, liar.
I normally try to stay out of bloodbaths like this thread, and likewise, I try not get all preachy, but ultimately, I feel the need to say something.
Right now, there are at least several posts on this thread made by someone on the verge of seething anger, because someone disagrees with their viewpoint on whether or not an imaginary object can be damaged by shooting the imaginary person wearing it with an imaginary bullet. Likewise, there are other posts on this thread written in self-righteous anger, because someone they probably never met disagreed in a rather vehement manner with their own opinion on said imaginary objects, characters and bullets.
Now I realize that this is snafu for these boards, but, on this one thread, couldn't we calm down, agree to disagree, and maybe get back to the interesting discussions of the first 3-4 pages?
Right now, there are at least several posts on this thread made by someone on the verge of seething anger, because someone disagrees with their viewpoint on whether or not an imaginary object can be damaged by shooting the imaginary person wearing it with an imaginary bullet. Likewise, there are other posts on this thread written in self-righteous anger, because someone they probably never met disagreed in a rather vehement manner with their own opinion on said imaginary objects, characters and bullets.
Now I realize that this is snafu for these boards, but, on this one thread, couldn't we calm down, agree to disagree, and maybe get back to the interesting discussions of the first 3-4 pages?
You think it'll work?
John,
You said:
You said:
| QUOTE |
I haven't complained when my equipment's been damaged by explosions or other excessive applications of brute force, either. That's common sense, though, and not explicitly outlined in the rules, so I couldn't expect munchkin rules lawyers to understand my position on that... |
That sounds like you support the arbitary destruction of gear due to collateral damage too. Thus I did not lie and I did not misrepesent your fundamental position. Please do not claim otherwise just because it has become untenable.
-Polaris
| QUOTE (IcyCool @ Oct 21 2003, 01:53 PM) | ||||
Very true. Please read my example again. |
My reply was to a different post segment
But, anyway, grenades are special in that they don't exactly target a being or object, but a point in space from which an effect emenates. Once that's determined they affect all potential targets within their area of effect according to well defined rules. I did notice on a reread that there's no explicit specification of what constintutes a "target". The blast would go against Gary and the bike, obviously, but there's nothing explicit on whether or not a weapon in his hand would be considered a seperate target from Gary.Common sense is another animal, which would dictate that, indeed, the blast would affect the handgun as a seperate target. But does that mean you have to target every other item on his person, as well? What about items under his armor jacket, or behind him, but in radius? What about a handgun stored in an armored compartment of the bike?
These are all GM calls. By a strict view of canon, there are no rules for damaging these items. For a more realistic view of canon, each GM is expected to rule however he or she deems best for damaging these items.
TinkerGnome,
OTOH both playability and precedence (see my point about elemental manips) would indicate that you do not consider the gun to be a seperate target from Gary (or the rest of his gear). Otherwise grenades become far too deadly and problematic....and the game stops being fun and playable (since no gear will survive a chunky-salsa effect).
I don't think this is what the designers intended, and all other precedence both in the combat rules and fiction surrounding it seem to indicate otherwise as well.
I admit in this case (damage emanations both from Power Ball and Grenades) that the rules are unclear. With that caveate, as far as I can tell you err on the side of keeping your gear.
-Polaris
OTOH both playability and precedence (see my point about elemental manips) would indicate that you do not consider the gun to be a seperate target from Gary (or the rest of his gear). Otherwise grenades become far too deadly and problematic....and the game stops being fun and playable (since no gear will survive a chunky-salsa effect).
I don't think this is what the designers intended, and all other precedence both in the combat rules and fiction surrounding it seem to indicate otherwise as well.
I admit in this case (damage emanations both from Power Ball and Grenades) that the rules are unclear. With that caveate, as far as I can tell you err on the side of keeping your gear.
-Polaris
Polaris, it all depends on what the positioning is, and why I listed the runaway train of items you have to roll for and the fact that the GM has to make a decision on which items are affected and which are not. If I'm riding on a motocycle and aiming my gun dead ahead, behind the handlebars and a grenade lands in my lap, the three obvious things that are going to be taking damage are my bike, me, and the gun (which is hovering with a foot of air between it and the blast). There's no rule that says the gun will or even should take damage, but it is a logical deduction.
How do you damage a gun? There aren't any rules for it. Does it have a barrier rating? If so, how does the damage affect it? Again, the world of GM calls and outside of canon. The two views of canon are both perfectly valid. The strict view is that since there are no canon rules, nothing happens to it. The other view is that since there are no rules, the GM is responsible for making rules to cover it (or making a rule that says "items aren't affected").
In any case, I wouldn't lump grenades and area effect spells into the same bucket, since they're fairly different in nature and application.
How do you damage a gun? There aren't any rules for it. Does it have a barrier rating? If so, how does the damage affect it? Again, the world of GM calls and outside of canon. The two views of canon are both perfectly valid. The strict view is that since there are no canon rules, nothing happens to it. The other view is that since there are no rules, the GM is responsible for making rules to cover it (or making a rule that says "items aren't affected").
In any case, I wouldn't lump grenades and area effect spells into the same bucket, since they're fairly different in nature and application.
TinkerGnome,
Here's what decides it personally for me:
The strictly canonical way handling it (i.e. no damage to carried objects) is also the simpliest and most fun. That means in a game it is better almost by definition.
-Polaris
Here's what decides it personally for me:
The strictly canonical way handling it (i.e. no damage to carried objects) is also the simpliest and most fun. That means in a game it is better almost by definition.
-Polaris
More fun for you, because you get to munch out without taking any negatives for all the positives you want to stack on a character.
Much less fun for me as the GM, because the game loses grittiness as the characters become super-human machines that need nearly a literal army of opponents to even challenge them.
Quite frankly, it's always been my experience that there are far more players looking for a game to join then there are GM's looking for players to sit at their table. Thus I believe as a GM, my personal view is far more important. However, if you as a player find the game utterly un-enjoyable because you can't munch out, I freely invite you to look for another table to play at, which will fit your style better. That may all be personal experience however. Maybe someone elses gaming area include 30 GM's with only 20 players. I dunno. I do know however that if that is the area you live in, you really should send an E-mail to Blackjack and let him know. The poor guy is always the GM, and I really think he'd like to play more often.
[disclaimer] The use of the word "you" was not meant to be associated with any particular person or entity. It was rather a encompassing "you" meaning all people who aren't me, or don't have the same opinion as I do.[/disclaimer]
Much less fun for me as the GM, because the game loses grittiness as the characters become super-human machines that need nearly a literal army of opponents to even challenge them.
Quite frankly, it's always been my experience that there are far more players looking for a game to join then there are GM's looking for players to sit at their table. Thus I believe as a GM, my personal view is far more important. However, if you as a player find the game utterly un-enjoyable because you can't munch out, I freely invite you to look for another table to play at, which will fit your style better. That may all be personal experience however. Maybe someone elses gaming area include 30 GM's with only 20 players. I dunno. I do know however that if that is the area you live in, you really should send an E-mail to Blackjack and let him know. The poor guy is always the GM, and I really think he'd like to play more often.
[disclaimer] The use of the word "you" was not meant to be associated with any particular person or entity. It was rather a encompassing "you" meaning all people who aren't me, or don't have the same opinion as I do.[/disclaimer]
Okay, now, let's compare what I said with what you're claiming that I said.
Actual quote from me:
Actual quote from me:
| QUOTE (John Campbell) |
I haven't complained when my equipment's been damaged by explosions or other excessive applications of brute force, either. That's common sense, though, and not explicitly outlined in the rules, so I couldn't expect munchkin rules lawyers to understand my position on that... |
Lie about me (at least I assume he's talking about me, despite his inability to spell my name):
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
John Cambell, Zazen, and others have said pretty much precisely that, i.e. that any part of your gear should be destroyed at the GM's whim if you take any damage at all. |
Do you see the difference between "damaged by explosions or other excessive applications of brute force" and "destroyed at the GM's whim if you take any damage at all"? Do you see the difference between being caught in a grenade blast, or an area-effect elemental manipulation, or similar effect, and maybe taking an L from a light pistol? Do you see the difference between using the rules for objects taking damage when they could reasonably be considered to be in the effect radius of such things, and simply destroying things at the GM's whim?
My position is not, as you misrepresent it, that things should be destroyed on a whim if you take any damage at all, it's that there are circumstances in which fetishes (and other equipment) can be damaged, even when they're not specifically targeted. My actual position is, incidentally, not "untenable", but fully supported by the canon rules, as I pointed out in my very first post. The entire rest of the thread consists of dancing around mostly irrelevant side issues that do not change that fundamental fact.
And your choice of weasel-words in your original assertion shows that you knew that you were lying when you wrote it. If you didn't, you wouldn't have needed to qualify it with the words "pretty much". "Pretty much" means "not really".
yeah, "pretty much precisely"? what does that even mean?
As someone who qualifies almost everything whether or not they know themselves to be right, I also have to challenge your last assumption there, Campbell.
~J
~J
polaris, i've already proved that your 'no damage to carried objects' idea is not canon; your counterpoint about elemental manips was shot down by bitbasher. and as for being 'more fun', that's a personal opinion on your part that i, and several others here, disagree with. i enjoy a dash of realism in my games.
Polaris, just a central point here please provide a direct quote from the book stating that "items are immune to damage unless otherwise directly stated" and we're good to go. Not inferred from something unrelated, like specifics of elemental damage and their special rules. I would like a direct quote please to that effect, referring to items and worn equipment in general. This is what you keep insisting.
Either say:
a) "No, there is no direct quote to that effect."
or
b) "Yes it is, here is the book and page number."
Please no sidestepping, explanations, dissertations or use of the word "but", "imply" or "reasonable" or their synonyms.
This is a simple multiple choice question. Thank you.
Either say:
a) "No, there is no direct quote to that effect."
or
b) "Yes it is, here is the book and page number."
Please no sidestepping, explanations, dissertations or use of the word "but", "imply" or "reasonable" or their synonyms.
This is a simple multiple choice question. Thank you.
yeah, i mean, something like that is pretty important. had that been the intent of the designers, i think it pretty much definitely would have been written down in black and white somewhere.
ialdabaoth: "do you think it'll work?"
answer: nope!
Geez guys, when it comes down to it, does it really matter? I know everyone's got their back up, but I've just read everything here for the first time and this is what I think:
What Polaris calls 'canon' is not necessarily what everyone else calls canon. His definition seems to be a very definite, logical, step by step, and possibly even a little anal (no offence is meant, but will probably be taken anyway), others seem to have a more open one, which allows them to extend canon to fit circumstances not covered by the rules. Neither is 'right' and its down to personal taste. I would say the latter is actually more fun, but that too is personal choice.
Finally, in my personal opinion, the wording repeated throughout the books sums it up for me. Using Polaris' approach, the immortal words 'the GM's ruling is final' make absolutely anything you choose to do canon, backed up by that statement. Two GMs may disagree, but that doesn't change the statement. At least, not the way some of you guy's have been arguing!
Shadowrun is not a video game. The improvisations that are necessary do not represent a 'whim'. At the start of my campaign I tell people that if I don't know where to find a rule I'll improv and look it up later, and they'll have to live with it. Never had a problem yet.
Just chill, everyone, ok?
answer: nope!
Geez guys, when it comes down to it, does it really matter? I know everyone's got their back up, but I've just read everything here for the first time and this is what I think:
What Polaris calls 'canon' is not necessarily what everyone else calls canon. His definition seems to be a very definite, logical, step by step, and possibly even a little anal (no offence is meant, but will probably be taken anyway), others seem to have a more open one, which allows them to extend canon to fit circumstances not covered by the rules. Neither is 'right' and its down to personal taste. I would say the latter is actually more fun, but that too is personal choice.
Finally, in my personal opinion, the wording repeated throughout the books sums it up for me. Using Polaris' approach, the immortal words 'the GM's ruling is final' make absolutely anything you choose to do canon, backed up by that statement. Two GMs may disagree, but that doesn't change the statement. At least, not the way some of you guy's have been arguing!
Shadowrun is not a video game. The improvisations that are necessary do not represent a 'whim'. At the start of my campaign I tell people that if I don't know where to find a rule I'll improv and look it up later, and they'll have to live with it. Never had a problem yet.
Just chill, everyone, ok?
it's less polaris' stance on damage to items than his intimation that any GM who'd dare allow some minor annoyance--like a high-force powerball, or a grenade going off in one's pants--to affect a character's gear is a bad GM.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| As someone who qualifies almost everything whether or not they know themselves to be right, I also have to challenge your last assumption there, Campbell. |
You have a point, but I don't think it's applicable in this case. Polaris does not appear to be a person who qualifies almost everything. He has, as demonstrated earlier in this thread, a tendency to make absolute, unqualified assertions of correctness, even when he is not obviously correct, and sometimes even when he is obviously not correct. I tend to think that, that being the case, when he starts qualifying himself, it's because he's aware that the unqualified statement would be clearly and obviously wrong.
And, y'know, if it'd been just the qualification, I wouldn't be calling him a liar. I'd've just pointed out that he was mistaken in his interpretion of my words. It's the combination of the qualification with the word "precisely", after which I would expect a direct quote, not a heavily biased paraphrase. "pretty much precisely" looks to me like he's trying to get the absolutely confident sound of claiming that it's "precisely" what I said, while leaving a hole to squirm out of when it's pointed out that, in fact, I never said what he's claiming that I said.
And the irony is that this is the same guy who, earlier in the thread, said, "I suggest you read what I write carefully and not claim I said somthing that I did not. That is rude." (And that is precisely what he said. Typos and all.)
| QUOTE |
| Polaris I will concede that the canonical rules can be read that way. However, that assumes that you treat your items as seperate from yourself, and that is not the way the combat system is geared. The moment you no longer possess an item, it is not part of you and thus a seperate (and valid) target. If you do possess it, then it is considered part of you. At least that is how I read the combat system (and I feel I am on fairly firm ground on this). |
By your interpretation, when the person takes damage all carrier gear would too (if one and gear are treated as "the target"). This is not the case, IMO.
I will make an example scenario here; assume all conditions required for casting and targeting are met (LOS, Area Affect Range, Force, Successes, ect).
If one were to cast Powerbolt at the Gun held in an Assailants hand, would both the Gun and the Assailant take damage? (No)
If one were to cast Powerbolt at the Assailant, would the Gun in the hand take damage? (No)
If one were to cast Powerball at the Gun held in an Assailants hand, would both the Gun and the Assailant take damage? (Yes)
If one were to cast Powerball at the Assailant, would the Gun in the hand take damage? (Yes)
| QUOTE |
| spotlite Geez guys, when it comes down to it, does it really matter? |
Um, it's a game. Not just Shadowrun, but the entire "debate" between the forum. Who fragging cares if it matters? I think most of us are enjoying playing. Personal insults and misrepresenting people's posts run counter to how the "debate" game is played and border on Trolling and Flaming (both prohibited by TOS).
Damnit people, do you all realize that you have been arguing for days over a f'ing game??? Take it somewhere else. I'll even start the thread for you...
This thread used to have good, informative content...
This thread used to have good, informative content...
Nindaru, you'll probably have to get used to it. You can't moderate your own topics. And besides, it is actually "fun." Do you reilize your getting upset over a forum about a game taking about the game?
Mfb,
My stance on elemental manips has been vindicated in the past page or two. Judging by the posts in the past two pages, there has been a general consensus here that ceramic fetishes are both possible and would not be damaged by standard elemental manips....and this point was conceeded even by those that strongly disagree with my item stance in general.
You will find that when it comes to rules dicussion, I am generally correct by the strictest canonical standard. If you don't like that, then houserule your own games and get FanPro to change the rules (SR is in dire need of a fourth edition btw). However do not go trotting around houserules as though they are canonical rules when they are not.
What would get under my skin really fast is the suprise application of a houserule that damaged gear (in this case fetishes) when (to my knowledge as a player) no such house rule existed before. I consider that an Ex Post Facto rule, and I would and have walked from such tables over such things....and with good reason I think.
-Polaris
My stance on elemental manips has been vindicated in the past page or two. Judging by the posts in the past two pages, there has been a general consensus here that ceramic fetishes are both possible and would not be damaged by standard elemental manips....and this point was conceeded even by those that strongly disagree with my item stance in general.
You will find that when it comes to rules dicussion, I am generally correct by the strictest canonical standard. If you don't like that, then houserule your own games and get FanPro to change the rules (SR is in dire need of a fourth edition btw). However do not go trotting around houserules as though they are canonical rules when they are not.
What would get under my skin really fast is the suprise application of a houserule that damaged gear (in this case fetishes) when (to my knowledge as a player) no such house rule existed before. I consider that an Ex Post Facto rule, and I would and have walked from such tables over such things....and with good reason I think.
-Polaris
Obviously not
K-T, you're right. My bad.
<walks away...>
<walks away...>
Bitbasher,
Can you provide a quote from anywhere in the canon material that allows for a carried object to be damaged by collateral damage unless a spell or ability specifically said otherwise?
I am still waiting.
-Polaris
Can you provide a quote from anywhere in the canon material that allows for a carried object to be damaged by collateral damage unless a spell or ability specifically said otherwise?
I am still waiting.
-Polaris
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| Mfb, My stance on elemental manips has been vindicated in the past page or two. Judging by the posts in the past two pages, there has been a general consensus here that ceramic fetishes are both possible and would not be damaged by standard elemental manips....and this point was conceeded even by those that strongly disagree with my item stance in general. |
Your stance has been vindicated? By whom? Also, the point that ceramic fetishes are possible was conceeded by John, the only one to disagree with you on that. The "point" of ceramic fetishes not being damaged by standard elemental manipulation spells has not been conceeded, and definitely not vindicated.
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
You will find that when it comes to rules dicussion, I am generally correct by the strictest canonical standard. If you don't like that, then houserule your own games and get FanPro to change the rules (SR is in dire need of a fourth edition btw). However do not go trotting around houserules as though they are canonical rules when they are not. |
Are you using the term 'generally correct' in the first sentence of this paragraph to mean 'correct a majority of the time'? In reference to the "trotting around houserules" comment, I can only say, "Likewise".
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
What would get under my skin really fast is the suprise application of a houserule that damaged gear (in this case fetishes) when (to my knowledge as a player) no such house rule existed before. I consider that an Ex Post Facto rule, and I would and have walked from such tables over such things....and with good reason I think. -Polaris |
I agreed with you that if the GM were picking on just you, that you should bring the issue up with the GM. In my opinion, walking away from a game that you play with friends over something that ... minor, is a bit over the top. But maybe you act differently with your friends. But as there is no canonical rule that states your gear is invulnerable, I'm surprised that you'd have this reaction, much less call it a houserule.
Then again, your reading of a rule in Shadowrun (and thus what you believe is the strict canon rule.), and my reading of the same rule are vastly different, and I don't know why. (Ref. Armor Layering)
IcyCool,
Both Sphynx and TinkerGnome (and if I am leaving others out then I apologize) have both stated (and Sphynx did so flat out) that in fact Ceramic Fetishes are immune from standard elemental manips (fire, acid, electricity). The others here have not disagreed with them since those posts were made....thus my position here has been vindicated.
As for items in general, the default assumption in any game (including RPGs) is this:
Unless the rules say you can do something, then you can not.
I fully grant that houserules exist, and in unusual situations, I fully agree the GM needs to have enough flexibility to make the call.
This, however, is not an unusual situation and since combat occures in SR on a fairly fequent basis, then your players have a right to know about any and all combat houserules up front including those that damage items. [It is that last part that would cause me to walk.]
The point is that going strictly by the rules, your carried items can not be damaged since no rule exists that allows it (and as Nephyte has already stated rules are enablers). If you impliment such a rule, then by definition you are making a combat related house rule, and the players have a right to know about it before the game begins....before character creation even.
-Polaris
Both Sphynx and TinkerGnome (and if I am leaving others out then I apologize) have both stated (and Sphynx did so flat out) that in fact Ceramic Fetishes are immune from standard elemental manips (fire, acid, electricity). The others here have not disagreed with them since those posts were made....thus my position here has been vindicated.
As for items in general, the default assumption in any game (including RPGs) is this:
Unless the rules say you can do something, then you can not.
I fully grant that houserules exist, and in unusual situations, I fully agree the GM needs to have enough flexibility to make the call.
This, however, is not an unusual situation and since combat occures in SR on a fairly fequent basis, then your players have a right to know about any and all combat houserules up front including those that damage items. [It is that last part that would cause me to walk.]
The point is that going strictly by the rules, your carried items can not be damaged since no rule exists that allows it (and as Nephyte has already stated rules are enablers). If you impliment such a rule, then by definition you are making a combat related house rule, and the players have a right to know about it before the game begins....before character creation even.
-Polaris
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.