Full Version: Astral Projection
| QUOTE (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). 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. |
Eh? I don't recall agreeing with that one, but I guess I don't have a problem with the statement. If you can manage to make a fetish out of a high grade ceramic (which actually takes a house rule, seeing as how MitS doesn't cover using anything other than refined magical materials for fetish making), it would be mostly immune to many of the elemental manipulation sideeffects.
As for missing rules...
| QUOTE (SR3 @ p252) |
If a player wants to do something not explicitly covered in the rules, don't just refuse on principle. |
It goes on to mention that game masters should make up their own rules for situations where the rules don't quite cover what's going on. It's not exactly canon (depeding on interpretation) but there IS a canon directive to fill in holes in the rules with your own.
TinkerGnome,
I agree with that little quote, but that is not quite the same thing that we have been discussing here.
1. Does the GM have the right to include rules for collateral damage for gear?
Yes. That said, the players have rights too, and one of those rights is knowledge that such a house rule exists before play begins.
If no such rule is made, then a player is perfectly within his rights to draw the same conclusion that I have: That according to strict canon, items can not be hurt with collateral damage unless the effect specifically states otherwise. Thus I stand by my general position that unless the rules (especially in combat) say you can do something, the baseline assumption is that you can not.
2. Does the GM have the right and obligation to fill in holes in the rules?
Absolutely. I have never questioned that. However, the player has the right to expect that all such rules will be handled in an impartial and fair manner.
As for the fetish thing, I apologize. After reviewing the thread again, you did not explicitly agree that ceramic fetishes would be immune from the common elemental manips....I was thinking of others (although in my own defense Sphynx did say that so I was at least partially right). I add this to show that I do attempt to be fair.
-Polaris
I agree with that little quote, but that is not quite the same thing that we have been discussing here.
1. Does the GM have the right to include rules for collateral damage for gear?
Yes. That said, the players have rights too, and one of those rights is knowledge that such a house rule exists before play begins.
If no such rule is made, then a player is perfectly within his rights to draw the same conclusion that I have: That according to strict canon, items can not be hurt with collateral damage unless the effect specifically states otherwise. Thus I stand by my general position that unless the rules (especially in combat) say you can do something, the baseline assumption is that you can not.
2. Does the GM have the right and obligation to fill in holes in the rules?
Absolutely. I have never questioned that. However, the player has the right to expect that all such rules will be handled in an impartial and fair manner.
As for the fetish thing, I apologize. After reviewing the thread again, you did not explicitly agree that ceramic fetishes would be immune from the common elemental manips....I was thinking of others (although in my own defense Sphynx did say that so I was at least partially right). I add this to show that I do attempt to be fair.
-Polaris
That's the basic crux of the issue, isn't it?
From Polaris' point of view, the world is destroyed and re-created with only what is listed in the source book as defining any and all interactions. If it's not listed in the book, it doesn't happen.
The other point of view superimposes personal experience to fill the void of where the rules leave off, presumeably because we don't expect the rules system to be so thoroughly complex as to address any and all possible considerations, implications and scenarios.
-Siege
From Polaris' point of view, the world is destroyed and re-created with only what is listed in the source book as defining any and all interactions. If it's not listed in the book, it doesn't happen.
The other point of view superimposes personal experience to fill the void of where the rules leave off, presumeably because we don't expect the rules system to be so thoroughly complex as to address any and all possible considerations, implications and scenarios.
-Siege
Siege,
I don't entirely disagree with that assessment. Let me put it like this:
The rules dictate the physics of the world in the game. Those things that will come up on a regular basis need to be outlined and understood by all that play the game.
Given that rules as written often have counter-intuitive but correct (as determined by the game designers) results, common sense while a valuable aid should not in general circumvent the written rules.....and any "common sense" rules that get added into common occurances (such as combat) need to be understood by all participants in advance. I don't see myself as unreasonable by taking a hard line stance on this issue.
Thus, unless the GM says otherwise (a houserule), then in general if a rule doesn't allow for it to happen especially in combat (where the character's lives are on the line), then it should not be allowed to happen. If such houserules exist, then all participants should know about them....and it should be understood that they are in fact houserules.
Clearer?
-Polaris
I don't entirely disagree with that assessment. Let me put it like this:
The rules dictate the physics of the world in the game. Those things that will come up on a regular basis need to be outlined and understood by all that play the game.
Given that rules as written often have counter-intuitive but correct (as determined by the game designers) results, common sense while a valuable aid should not in general circumvent the written rules.....and any "common sense" rules that get added into common occurances (such as combat) need to be understood by all participants in advance. I don't see myself as unreasonable by taking a hard line stance on this issue.
Thus, unless the GM says otherwise (a houserule), then in general if a rule doesn't allow for it to happen especially in combat (where the character's lives are on the line), then it should not be allowed to happen. If such houserules exist, then all participants should know about them....and it should be understood that they are in fact houserules.
Clearer?
-Polaris
| QUOTE |
| Polaris Said: 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? |
No, but the difference between me and you is that I never claimed that I had a canon quote to support that. That makes what I do a house rule. Likewise I still ask for a canon quote directly stating your side, or that also is a house rule. I'm not arguing that my side is canon, just that your side is not. I still await an answer to my question... which was:
| QUOTE |
| 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 |
Which you failed to answer in the slightest, and instead asked me a question which I have shown to be irrelevant to what I was talking about. So... an answer please?
I am, also still waiting for a respons from you to kanda ten when he asked what happens in these scenarios:
I am, also still waiting for a respons from you to kanda ten when he asked what happens in these scenarios:
| QUOTE |
| Kanada ten said: 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) |
So please, at your convenience...
Hmm... what's the OR of a skillchip? 8 or 10+? Methinks it's a big stick for the skillchip wennies.
Bitbasher,
The burden of proof is on you and not me. Unless you can show a rule that explicitly allows for collateral damage to gear, then the baseline assumption is that gear is not subject to that kind of damage. That is borne out by the fact that certain effects (elemental manips for one) go out of their way to give explicit rules for just that. This assumption (in combat unless the rules say you can do something, then you can not) is generic in all RPGs that I have ever seen.
As for Powerball, I did say many times that the rule could be read the way Kanada was reading it. However, it could also be read to exclude carried objects too. I remind you that a vehical (for example) has to be targeted as a single target and not by individual parts of the vehical. The same logic could (and IMHO does) apply to a character and his gear.
Thus, this is a case where the rules are unclear. The case of Powerbolt is very clear, however. If you target the person, you do not affect his gear,
-Polaris
The burden of proof is on you and not me. Unless you can show a rule that explicitly allows for collateral damage to gear, then the baseline assumption is that gear is not subject to that kind of damage. That is borne out by the fact that certain effects (elemental manips for one) go out of their way to give explicit rules for just that. This assumption (in combat unless the rules say you can do something, then you can not) is generic in all RPGs that I have ever seen.
As for Powerball, I did say many times that the rule could be read the way Kanada was reading it. However, it could also be read to exclude carried objects too. I remind you that a vehical (for example) has to be targeted as a single target and not by individual parts of the vehical. The same logic could (and IMHO does) apply to a character and his gear.
Thus, this is a case where the rules are unclear. The case of Powerbolt is very clear, however. If you target the person, you do not affect his gear,
-Polaris
TinkerGnome,
I would say that a skillchip is a highly processed technological item.
OR 10
-Polaris
I would say that a skillchip is a highly processed technological item.
OR 10
-Polaris
polaris, you misunderstood. i'm not talking about ceramic fetishes, or whatever. i'm talking about your assertion that because elemental manips included effects on personal gear and combat spells did not, combat spells (and other effects) automatically had no impact on carried gear.
so, like i said--the rules and description already allow for collateral damage to worn/carried gear:
1. a piece of gear is an object
2. there are rules for damaging objects with area effect spells, grenades, etc.
3. there is no language in the book which disincludes worn/carried gear from area effect spells, grenades, etc.
4. therefore, gear can--by the rules--be damaged by area effect spells, grenades, etc.
the only question is how one would determine which worn/carried gear is affected, and what the effects would be. that part would be a GM ruling/house rule; if the GM decided that every time polaris's character got hit with a grenade or area-effect spell, he lost a fetish, then i'd support polaris's decision to walk from the table.
so, like i said--the rules and description already allow for collateral damage to worn/carried gear:
1. a piece of gear is an object
2. there are rules for damaging objects with area effect spells, grenades, etc.
3. there is no language in the book which disincludes worn/carried gear from area effect spells, grenades, etc.
4. therefore, gear can--by the rules--be damaged by area effect spells, grenades, etc.
the only question is how one would determine which worn/carried gear is affected, and what the effects would be. that part would be a GM ruling/house rule; if the GM decided that every time polaris's character got hit with a grenade or area-effect spell, he lost a fetish, then i'd support polaris's decision to walk from the table.
I have no burden of proof this is not flow or LD debate here Polaris. It is not formal. If either case is unproven, then it is just that, unproven. Especially seeing how I am not trying to prove anything, just show that you also have no proof.
| QUOTE |
| Thus, this is a case where the rules are unclear. The case of Powerbolt is very clear, however. If you target the person, you do not affect his gear |
Then please provide a direct quote to this effect. I can provide a direct quote that says a powerball affects all valid targets in it's LOS. Unless you can show that there is an exception to the all-encompassing word, or an explicit quote explaining why equipment is not a valid target, then the word all is going to be a problem for you.
Bitbasher,
*sigh* Once more, the rules for Powerball are unclear. However, the argument I would use is quite simple. Your carried gear is not a valid target for a powerball for the same reason that a visible police siren (the kind cops toss on a roof with stickum) is not a valid target for a powerball.
In both cases, I would argue that your gear (like that siren) is part of one single target: you (in the case of the gear) or the car (in the case of the siren).
As for games, I have not yet heard back from Wizkids, but I am sure I will soon. That said, the standard for combat rules in any RPG has been the one I espoused:
If the rules don't say you can do it, then in general you can not. The rules act as enablers.
Thus the burden of proof is on you, and I will not be swayed to try to prove a negative especially when I don't have to.
-Polaris
*sigh* Once more, the rules for Powerball are unclear. However, the argument I would use is quite simple. Your carried gear is not a valid target for a powerball for the same reason that a visible police siren (the kind cops toss on a roof with stickum) is not a valid target for a powerball.
In both cases, I would argue that your gear (like that siren) is part of one single target: you (in the case of the gear) or the car (in the case of the siren).
As for games, I have not yet heard back from Wizkids, but I am sure I will soon. That said, the standard for combat rules in any RPG has been the one I espoused:
If the rules don't say you can do it, then in general you can not. The rules act as enablers.
Thus the burden of proof is on you, and I will not be swayed to try to prove a negative especially when I don't have to.
-Polaris
| QUOTE |
| Polaris In both cases, I would argue that your gear (like that siren) is part of one single target: you (in the case of the gear) or the car (in the case of the siren). |
But in that case the siren takes the same damage as the vehicle. When the vehicle takes deadly the siren takes deadly.
Kanada,
Actually the vehical just takes deadly which admittedly implies that the siren wouldn't work either. My point is that the rule can be read in a way to exclude objects. I also point out though that the vehical's armor helps protect the siren even though it is outside the vehical proper.
Even if you read it the other way, I remind you that only objects that are visible and in line of sight can be affected by a Powerball....and that is more restrictive than one might imagine.
In the case of fetishes, the fetishes would be unharmed in any event (this was discussed pages and pages ago and I think everyone agrees) because they are generally worn under the armor. For that matter those runners that layer armor (which is most) and those that use FFBA (which again is most IMX) would not lose all their armor either.
Because the rule can be read both ways with equal validity, in the case of a powerball, it is unclear.
The case of items in general suffering collateral damage is another matter. There is no mechanism that allows this for generic attacks thus items are generally immune from such collateral damage.
-Polaris
Actually the vehical just takes deadly which admittedly implies that the siren wouldn't work either. My point is that the rule can be read in a way to exclude objects. I also point out though that the vehical's armor helps protect the siren even though it is outside the vehical proper.
Even if you read it the other way, I remind you that only objects that are visible and in line of sight can be affected by a Powerball....and that is more restrictive than one might imagine.
In the case of fetishes, the fetishes would be unharmed in any event (this was discussed pages and pages ago and I think everyone agrees) because they are generally worn under the armor. For that matter those runners that layer armor (which is most) and those that use FFBA (which again is most IMX) would not lose all their armor either.
Because the rule can be read both ways with equal validity, in the case of a powerball, it is unclear.
The case of items in general suffering collateral damage is another matter. There is no mechanism that allows this for generic attacks thus items are generally immune from such collateral damage.
-Polaris
| QUOTE |
| Polaris The case of items in general suffering collateral damage is another matter. There is no mechanism that allows this for generic attacks thus items are generally immune from such collateral damage. |
Actually, it is the same if we use the Powerbolt example as you interpret it. Start with Powerbolt and the Car and the Siren. Replace Powerbolt with Missile. If the Car and Siren are treated as the same Target then both suffer equal damage from the Missile, as well. Now extend this to Grenades. Now extend this to Elemental Manipulations. Now extend it to people and their gear...
The way I see it, it is better to treat "non integral" items (cloths, armor, guns, ect) separately because it is harder to affect them than the soft target wearing them.
polaris, show in the books where personal gear is distinguished from any other objects. you're creating a false distinction; there is no canon rule that says rules apply differently to an object in someone's hand than they do to an object sitting by itself. the burden of proof isn't on us, to show that there's no ruling; it's on you, to show that there is a ruling. the rules for powerball are very clear, unless you introduce a fictional division between carried objects and unattended objects--a division not supported by the rules, and therefore not canon.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| polaris, show in the books where personal gear is distinguished from any other objects. you're creating a false distinction; there is no canon rule that says rules apply differently to an object in someone's hand than they do to an object sitting by itself. |
There is only one distinction made that I know of; and that is for Indirect Illusion spells ("cast around a person") which seems not apply to any other situation.
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| Reread Zazen's and John's early posts and you will find that this is exactly their attitude. |
I think you've got my attitude all wrong. I am not interested in fucking with peoples fetishes to get back at them for using fetishes. I think that notion is rooted in your game where, as you have said, an adversarial relationship exists between the players and GM. I avoid that "me versus them" attitude, and so I keep things objective when it comes to gear destruction.
I also noticed that you ignored my rug example. It isn't subject to your combat/noncombat "refutation", so I'm curious what you think of it. You should, according to your previous arguments, rule that it is impossible to pull a rug out from under someone. Do you?
| QUOTE |
| If the rules don't say you can do it, then in general you can not. The rules act as enablers. |
| QUOTE |
| SR3 BBB pg182 left column 2nd parragraph, 1st sentence: An area effect spell affects all valid targets within it's radius |
There is canon proof that a powerball will affect all valid targets. Please now offer a specific quote that makes a specific exception for personal equipment. After all rules are enables, this rule enabled me to damage all valid targets unoquivocally. All in not ambiguous. "All" includes everything. Your gear is part of everything.
[edit] incidentally the burden of proof in organized deabte falls on the affirmative. You are trying to prove a case exists, and I am trying to disprove it, in formal debate this means the burden of proof falls on you. Look it up. In reality here there IS NO BURDEN OF PROOF BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A FORMAL DEBATE.[/edit]
Bitbasher,
The key word is "valid" and that is in doubt in the case of a powerball. It is also a moot point going waaaaay back to the original side-discussion because fetishes can (and usually are) hidden and thus not subject to a powerball.
I am not making an 'affirmative' position. My position in debate terms is quintessenially negative. I am saying that without a rule to support collateral damage to items, items do not suffer from collateral damage.
That is a negative position (in terms of debate). You have to show that such a rule exists. You have in part with Powerball which is why it hinges on what is and is not a valid target. You have not w/r/t random gunfire or even grenades.
-Polaris
The key word is "valid" and that is in doubt in the case of a powerball. It is also a moot point going waaaaay back to the original side-discussion because fetishes can (and usually are) hidden and thus not subject to a powerball.
I am not making an 'affirmative' position. My position in debate terms is quintessenially negative. I am saying that without a rule to support collateral damage to items, items do not suffer from collateral damage.
That is a negative position (in terms of debate). You have to show that such a rule exists. You have in part with Powerball which is why it hinges on what is and is not a valid target. You have not w/r/t random gunfire or even grenades.
-Polaris
i'll allow that a fetish kept out of sight somewhere--in a pocket, or somesuch--might not be a valid target. a fetish in view, however--or a weapon, or a cyberdeck, or what have you--would be a perfectly valid target.
So I'm a little slow and I'm still hung up on the behind armor protecting a fetish completely from elemental manipulations and the ceramic tooth compartment idea.
Both acid elemental effects and metal elemental effects specifically state they can degrade armor(Mits pg 52). If the armor was completely degraded by the attack would you insist that the fetish that was under the armor still couldn't be affected by the same attack? It seems to me if you degrade armor to 0 its not protecting anything, which would mean anything under it could be affected by the spell.
As for the ceramic tooth would you say that a elemental manipulation of metal, would be unable to damage the ceramic because it does not specifically say metal can damage ceramic?
Just some questions since I'm interested in the answers.
Namer18
Both acid elemental effects and metal elemental effects specifically state they can degrade armor(Mits pg 52). If the armor was completely degraded by the attack would you insist that the fetish that was under the armor still couldn't be affected by the same attack? It seems to me if you degrade armor to 0 its not protecting anything, which would mean anything under it could be affected by the spell.
As for the ceramic tooth would you say that a elemental manipulation of metal, would be unable to damage the ceramic because it does not specifically say metal can damage ceramic?
Just some questions since I'm interested in the answers.
Namer18
stuff like that is very much in the realm of GM call. arguing it here is just gonna confuse the issue.
actually, come to think--motion on the floor, calling to move this whole discussion to a new thread. second the motion?
actually, come to think--motion on the floor, calling to move this whole discussion to a new thread. second the motion?
Namer 18,
You are getting two seperate issues confused (which is understandable).
If the fetish is worn under the armor, it is never a valid target for a mana or physical type spell (such as Powerball). That is because there is no Line Of Sight.
A ceramic fetish is protected from standard elemental manipulations not because it is hidden under armor (since elemental manips can affect hidden items) but because ceramic can not be flash burnt, is immune from acid, and does not conduct electricity. Basically there are no standard elemental spells that can damage ceramic items.
The point of contention then is can gunfire cause damage to your items as a secondary effect (what I call collateral damage)? Since there is nothing in the rules that breathes a word about this, the canonical answer is that you can not. [The absence of a rule is a rule by direct implication.]
Clearer?
-Polaris
You are getting two seperate issues confused (which is understandable).
If the fetish is worn under the armor, it is never a valid target for a mana or physical type spell (such as Powerball). That is because there is no Line Of Sight.
A ceramic fetish is protected from standard elemental manipulations not because it is hidden under armor (since elemental manips can affect hidden items) but because ceramic can not be flash burnt, is immune from acid, and does not conduct electricity. Basically there are no standard elemental spells that can damage ceramic items.
The point of contention then is can gunfire cause damage to your items as a secondary effect (what I call collateral damage)? Since there is nothing in the rules that breathes a word about this, the canonical answer is that you can not. [The absence of a rule is a rule by direct implication.]
Clearer?
-Polaris
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| actually, come to think--motion on the floor, calling to move this whole discussion to a new thread. second the motion? |
Second.
right. that part--hitting something with stray gunfire--would be a house rule, albeit a perfectly logical one.
| QUOTE |
| The key word is "valid" and that is in doubt in the case of a powerball. |
So give me a book quote as to why it is not a valid target. still waiting. Something specifically regarding personal or carried equipment. If you cannot provide one then you have no canon basis.
Bitbasher,
I am not arguing with you w/r/t Powerball other than to say that (using vehicals as an example) the spell could be read the other way.
The rule is unclear in the case of powerball. We also decided pages and pages ago that w/r/t foci, powerball was a moot point since the fetishes need not be exposed....and no LOS means no Powerball.
-Polaris
I am not arguing with you w/r/t Powerball other than to say that (using vehicals as an example) the spell could be read the other way.
The rule is unclear in the case of powerball. We also decided pages and pages ago that w/r/t foci, powerball was a moot point since the fetishes need not be exposed....and no LOS means no Powerball.
-Polaris
| QUOTE |
| I am not arguing with you w/r/t Powerball other than to say that (using vehicals as an example) the spell could be read the other way. |
How? is "all" ambiguous? How is there any interpretation to an absolute? Still waiting for a quote so support this.
| QUOTE |
| The rule is unclear in the case of powerball. We also decided pages and pages ago that w/r/t foci, powerball was a moot point since the fetishes need not be exposed....and no LOS means no Powerball. |
Since I havent mentioned this for pages, I don't care. ALL I am refering to is the way you seem to think that a powerball can harm carried or worn equipment in plain sight. I havent mentioned a fetish in pages, stop falling back to that just to have somehting to say.
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| I am not making an 'affirmative' position. My position in debate terms is quintessenially negative. I am saying that... items do not suffer from collateral damage. |
That is most certainly a positive assertion, that the rules say X. It only seems negative because of the reasoning you use to support it.
I would really like for you to reply to my rug question, though. Do you consider rug-pulling impossible according to canon?
Bitbasher,
If you will recall, this discussion is all about fetishes (and originally how you could carry your fetishes into astral space). The original contention was that fetishes were inferior because they could easily be destoryed and/or taken away.
I contended that this was not true. Powerballs were one of the first things mentioned in that discussion, but that was quickly shot down.....because fetishes can be worn under armor (or even clothing) and thus would not be subject to such spells. This also nixed magic fingers and other such tricks.
*THAT* was when the discussion turned to elemental manipulations (since they can affected hidden items), but then too, I showed convincingly that ceramic fetishes would be immune from all the standard elemental manips.
It was then that Zazen said (paraphrasing) that he would have such foci broken on as collateral damage on stray gunfire....and that was what started this contentious chain of posts about item and gear integrity.
Look, I am not disputing that Powerball can be read they way you say. I do say that if you do read it that way, only a small percentage of the runner's actual gear will actually be affected. Even worse, as I player I can demand strictly according to canon that the individual TNs for my items be adjusted for the amount of cover (how easy it is for the mage to see) my items have *if* they can be affected at all. [And as we agreed pages and pages ago, hidden fetishes can not be affected by powerballs.]
The real issue is not powerball, but adversarial GMs that attempt to take away fetishes because they don't like them....and I point out correctly that items including fetishes are exempt from collateral damage unless the affect specifically states otherwise.
You have made a good canonical argument w/r/t Powerball. I have never said otherwise (although LOS and other considerations above come into full fore). This does not ipso facto extend to grenades, or even area affect elemental manips (other than the rules for elemental manips themselves). There are no rules that govern how a grenade damages your gear. None. Thus the default assumption is that it does not.
-Polaris
Edit: Zazen, yes, I would not allow it (the rug pulling). Happy?
If you will recall, this discussion is all about fetishes (and originally how you could carry your fetishes into astral space). The original contention was that fetishes were inferior because they could easily be destoryed and/or taken away.
I contended that this was not true. Powerballs were one of the first things mentioned in that discussion, but that was quickly shot down.....because fetishes can be worn under armor (or even clothing) and thus would not be subject to such spells. This also nixed magic fingers and other such tricks.
*THAT* was when the discussion turned to elemental manipulations (since they can affected hidden items), but then too, I showed convincingly that ceramic fetishes would be immune from all the standard elemental manips.
It was then that Zazen said (paraphrasing) that he would have such foci broken on as collateral damage on stray gunfire....and that was what started this contentious chain of posts about item and gear integrity.
Look, I am not disputing that Powerball can be read they way you say. I do say that if you do read it that way, only a small percentage of the runner's actual gear will actually be affected. Even worse, as I player I can demand strictly according to canon that the individual TNs for my items be adjusted for the amount of cover (how easy it is for the mage to see) my items have *if* they can be affected at all. [And as we agreed pages and pages ago, hidden fetishes can not be affected by powerballs.]
The real issue is not powerball, but adversarial GMs that attempt to take away fetishes because they don't like them....and I point out correctly that items including fetishes are exempt from collateral damage unless the affect specifically states otherwise.
You have made a good canonical argument w/r/t Powerball. I have never said otherwise (although LOS and other considerations above come into full fore). This does not ipso facto extend to grenades, or even area affect elemental manips (other than the rules for elemental manips themselves). There are no rules that govern how a grenade damages your gear. None. Thus the default assumption is that it does not.
-Polaris
Edit: Zazen, yes, I would not allow it (the rug pulling). Happy?
Since I never really have anything outstanding to add, I just wanted to say this...
| QUOTE |
| adversarial GMs that attempt to take away fetishes because they don't like them |
Then they should not have been given.
Nindaru,
I completely agree with you. If you go waaaay back when I mentioned (casually at the time) that most mana bolts were fetish-linked (drain) and thus had a drain code of 2 (at force 6) [thus making them reasonable to cast even when astral], I also mentioned that the next time I ran a game, I would not allow fetishes because they were too good for too little effective cost.
-Polaris
I completely agree with you. If you go waaaay back when I mentioned (casually at the time) that most mana bolts were fetish-linked (drain) and thus had a drain code of 2 (at force 6) [thus making them reasonable to cast even when astral], I also mentioned that the next time I ran a game, I would not allow fetishes because they were too good for too little effective cost.
-Polaris
Then we pretty much agree.
I agree with nindaru too.
In my game since fetishes, along with all equipment is fundamentally destructable, and my players are okay with this. It changes some things like fetish usage, pretty damn drastically.
I agree with nindaru too.
In my game since fetishes, along with all equipment is fundamentally destructable, and my players are okay with this. It changes some things like fetish usage, pretty damn drastically.
Bitbasher, Nindaru,
Is it possible that we will actually end this discussion with a positive tone and some sort of agreement?!
-Polaris
Is it possible that we will actually end this discussion with a positive tone and some sort of agreement?!
-Polaris
Well that's like saying that hiroshima and nagasaki was an "up note" because they caused peace eventually.
But yeah
But yeah
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| *THAT* was when the discussion turned to elemental manipulations (since they can affected hidden items), but then too, I showed convincingly that ceramic fetishes would be immune from all the standard elemental manips. It was then that Zazen said (paraphrasing) that he would have such foci broken on as collateral damage on stray gunfire.... |
You might want to reread the thread. My post was the first to bring up fetish destruction at all. You also paraphrased poorly, replacing "fetish" with "foci" and distorting my ruling from the possibility of damage to absolute destruction.
| QUOTE |
| Edit: Zazen, yes, I would not allow it (the rug pulling). Happy? |
Yes. If you genuinely believe that the rules state that it is impossible to pull a rug out from under someone, shoot a skylight to shower someone in broken glass, spit in someones eye, and every other possible nonstandard combat activity, then nothing I can say will change your mind.
I'm happy to help you reach that conclusion and end the discussion.
Then after that comment everyone's happy... one of us in a short bus riding to Chuck E Cheeze kind of way, but happy none the less... 
Amen!
| QUOTE |
| There are no rules that govern how a grenade damages your gear. None. Thus the default assumption is that it does not. |
This is a false assumption, and I am happy. Damaging anything non living with a grenade is covered looking at grenade, blast, and barrier rules. Your gear has OR and Barrrier ratings. It can be damaged.
Kanada,
What barrier ratings? How do you determine that?
You can't. There are no canonical rules that cover how your personal gear is damaged either by collateral damage or by grenades. I thought that was accepted by everyone....and just when I thought this was ending on a pleasent note too. *sigh*
-Polaris
What barrier ratings? How do you determine that?
You can't. There are no canonical rules that cover how your personal gear is damaged either by collateral damage or by grenades. I thought that was accepted by everyone....and just when I thought this was ending on a pleasent note too. *sigh*
-Polaris
like i said, there are rules that say your gear can be damaged, but none that say how to determine that damage.
Polaris, that's what you get for thinking...
Maybe I've missed something here.
But Polaris said that in every (I think s/he used that word, I could be wrong) RPG s/he's played, the lack of rules about a thing means you cannot do that thing, and that this is accepted or definate in those games. Can I just ask (and I'll probably regret it): where does it say that, in any of the games in question?
I'm not looking to kick anything off. I'm not looking for someone to pipe up about Polaris and point out why s/he might be wrong or might not be wrong. I'd just like Polaris to tell me. I've never seen it written down, and you seem to place a lot of faith in things that are, and make assumptions about things that are not and claim that this is how things are done. Have you written (professionally I mean) for a games company and this is how they've breifed you? Or is this something you have decided/worked out for yourself? If it is, could you explain why? And don't bite my head off please mate, I'm only asking.
I know you've asked fanpro about one of the topics in this thread ( I forget which its been so hectic!), but I have a suggestion - perhaps we should ask them if the absence of a rule means that something cannot be done. Would that settle things a bit? Perhaps - just perhaps, mind - Shadowrun is different from other RPGs you've played where the absence of a rule doesn't automatically invalidate things which are not explicitly covered? Its just a thought.
Anyway, my personal take - its not a definate answer, its not canon perhaps - is that Object Resistance exists in the game world for a reason. Examples of what fits what OR levels are given. Armour (hardened armour notwithstanding) can be degraded, (which is both an object and equipment carried by a character) and only reduces the power of a damaging attack anyway, rather than making the owner immune to damage. This implies that some of the damage, be it kinetic, elemental effect or whatever, gets through. The staged damage level, as opposed to Power rating, is unaffected and this has a direct impact on the OR test.
So, it doesn't specifically state that equipment IS damaged/destroyed, but the rules exist to work out how to do it (using OR, damage level, and perhaps a called shot if the NPC is clever and can work out where to throw the spell). So i see lots of evidence that it is possible, though I don't see any evidence of precisely how to work out what gets hit under what circumstances. But surely that just means there's a hole in the rules, not that it is against the rules to do it?
Do feel free to pick all that apart and tell me why its wrong. I won't take offence unless someone gets personal. As I said, its just my personal take on the matter.
Again, sorry if I've missed the point, but Polaris seems to be arguing from a very black and white viewpoint and i'd like to try to understand why - without upsetting him/her or anyone else if possible!
But Polaris said that in every (I think s/he used that word, I could be wrong) RPG s/he's played, the lack of rules about a thing means you cannot do that thing, and that this is accepted or definate in those games. Can I just ask (and I'll probably regret it): where does it say that, in any of the games in question?
I'm not looking to kick anything off. I'm not looking for someone to pipe up about Polaris and point out why s/he might be wrong or might not be wrong. I'd just like Polaris to tell me. I've never seen it written down, and you seem to place a lot of faith in things that are, and make assumptions about things that are not and claim that this is how things are done. Have you written (professionally I mean) for a games company and this is how they've breifed you? Or is this something you have decided/worked out for yourself? If it is, could you explain why? And don't bite my head off please mate, I'm only asking.
I know you've asked fanpro about one of the topics in this thread ( I forget which its been so hectic!), but I have a suggestion - perhaps we should ask them if the absence of a rule means that something cannot be done. Would that settle things a bit? Perhaps - just perhaps, mind - Shadowrun is different from other RPGs you've played where the absence of a rule doesn't automatically invalidate things which are not explicitly covered? Its just a thought.
Anyway, my personal take - its not a definate answer, its not canon perhaps - is that Object Resistance exists in the game world for a reason. Examples of what fits what OR levels are given. Armour (hardened armour notwithstanding) can be degraded, (which is both an object and equipment carried by a character) and only reduces the power of a damaging attack anyway, rather than making the owner immune to damage. This implies that some of the damage, be it kinetic, elemental effect or whatever, gets through. The staged damage level, as opposed to Power rating, is unaffected and this has a direct impact on the OR test.
So, it doesn't specifically state that equipment IS damaged/destroyed, but the rules exist to work out how to do it (using OR, damage level, and perhaps a called shot if the NPC is clever and can work out where to throw the spell). So i see lots of evidence that it is possible, though I don't see any evidence of precisely how to work out what gets hit under what circumstances. But surely that just means there's a hole in the rules, not that it is against the rules to do it?
Do feel free to pick all that apart and tell me why its wrong. I won't take offence unless someone gets personal. As I said, its just my personal take on the matter.
Again, sorry if I've missed the point, but Polaris seems to be arguing from a very black and white viewpoint and i'd like to try to understand why - without upsetting him/her or anyone else if possible!
Until you call someone an out-and-out fraghead, you'll be fine.
-Siege
-Siege
Spotlight,
The problem is that ORs exists only for spells. That is because you can do collateral damage with elemental manips according to very specific rules in the book (and we generally agree on that in principle).
Likewise it is possible to target individual items using "power" spells, provided it is a valid target and a Line-Of-Sight exists.
However, go check out pretty much any RPG out there. Unless rules specifically state you can do something in combat, you can not. That is especially true when it comes to items that you carry.
You will find no rules or even guidelines to how much body various items have, what their hardness (barrier) ratings will be, etc etc. Certainly you will find nothing that even hints that collateral damage (say from gunfire) will damage your items (so any such rule is automatically a houserule).
In short, I feel like I am on very firm ground here and stand by it. I am not disputing your right to make houserules....as long as you admit that they are in fact houserules and thus not canon.
I also want to leave everyone here with a thought: On the WOTC boards there is something called "The Oberoni Fallacy". It goes something like this:
"Just because you (the GM) can fix it with a houserule, does not imply that the fundamental rule (or item, spell, ability, etc) is not broken."
Seems obvious doesn't it? Unfortunately, at least here that is precisely the sort of error I have seen poster after poster make here. Just because you can fix something with a houserule has no impact in a criticism of the rules as they are written canonically.
-Poalris
The problem is that ORs exists only for spells. That is because you can do collateral damage with elemental manips according to very specific rules in the book (and we generally agree on that in principle).
Likewise it is possible to target individual items using "power" spells, provided it is a valid target and a Line-Of-Sight exists.
However, go check out pretty much any RPG out there. Unless rules specifically state you can do something in combat, you can not. That is especially true when it comes to items that you carry.
You will find no rules or even guidelines to how much body various items have, what their hardness (barrier) ratings will be, etc etc. Certainly you will find nothing that even hints that collateral damage (say from gunfire) will damage your items (so any such rule is automatically a houserule).
In short, I feel like I am on very firm ground here and stand by it. I am not disputing your right to make houserules....as long as you admit that they are in fact houserules and thus not canon.
I also want to leave everyone here with a thought: On the WOTC boards there is something called "The Oberoni Fallacy". It goes something like this:
"Just because you (the GM) can fix it with a houserule, does not imply that the fundamental rule (or item, spell, ability, etc) is not broken."
Seems obvious doesn't it? Unfortunately, at least here that is precisely the sort of error I have seen poster after poster make here. Just because you can fix something with a houserule has no impact in a criticism of the rules as they are written canonically.
-Poalris
| QUOTE |
| Certainly you will find nothing that even hints that collateral damage (say from gunfire) will damage your items (so any such rule is automatically a houserule). |
Not entirely correct, there are rules for gunfire degrading armor.
| QUOTE (spotlite) |
| Perhaps - just perhaps, mind - Shadowrun is different from other RPGs you've played where the absence of a rule doesn't automatically invalidate things which are not explicitly covered? |
The absence of a rule is the realm of the GM and it is up to them to decide what they want to do about it. I think the big concern here is whether or not the GM is going to notify his group of how they prefer things to be handled. Of course, that assumes that the GM is even AWARE of the issue and has planned for it. More likely, the GM has never run across it before and will have to make something up on the fly, possibly angering his group. Then again, a good GM would know his group well enough not to anger them.
Personally, I destroy player equipment all the time. In our last game, two characters decided to race down Casino Road in Everett. They were hauling arse and went into a turn. One player failed a test and crashed into the other player, sending them both off of the road and into a house. I counted both vehicles badly damaged, but salvageable. Their actions created a whole adventure about trying to recover their vehicles from the local LS impound. Once there they decided to leave their vehicles and claim better running ones. I made them work their arse off for them, but I allowed them to have better vehicles. They got no loot, no
, nothing other then the vehicles and it took the entire game session to plan it out and make it work. It even interrupted my planned session, but it was fun anyhow! My point is this, the GM will not always be able to notify a player before a game.
Oh, and to Polaris, if a situation is not specifically listed in the rules, it is GM territory, agree?
If you agree, who are you to argue how another GM may handle that situation in their own game?
If you agree, who are you to argue how another GM may handle that situation in their own game?
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| In short, I feel like I am on very firm ground here and stand by it. I am not disputing your right to make houserules....as long as you admit that they are in fact houserules and thus not canon |
Who said is was canon?
Bitbasher,
The rule on page 96 of the Cannon Companion is clearly labeled as an "Optional" rule. Thus it is not official.....putting in the same status as Deadlier Overdamage, an officially suggested houserule. In fact Cannon Companion goes well out of it's way to explain that none of these options were official rules, but rather some possible houserules only that both the GM and the players should agree upon in advance.
-Polaris
The rule on page 96 of the Cannon Companion is clearly labeled as an "Optional" rule. Thus it is not official.....putting in the same status as Deadlier Overdamage, an officially suggested houserule. In fact Cannon Companion goes well out of it's way to explain that none of these options were official rules, but rather some possible houserules only that both the GM and the players should agree upon in advance.
-Polaris
Nindaru,
Not necessarily. In general things not covered by the rules are GM territory, but players have certain rights too....and houserules that affect a character's survivability (esp w/r/t combat, equipment, and the like) need to be laid out in advance.
Otherwise, the player has every right to expect that the rules as listed in the book are the ones being played under....and that means no collateral damage to gear.
In short, as a player you have a right to assume a strictly canonical game until and unless the GM says otherwise in advance.
-Polaris
Not necessarily. In general things not covered by the rules are GM territory, but players have certain rights too....and houserules that affect a character's survivability (esp w/r/t combat, equipment, and the like) need to be laid out in advance.
Otherwise, the player has every right to expect that the rules as listed in the book are the ones being played under....and that means no collateral damage to gear.
In short, as a player you have a right to assume a strictly canonical game until and unless the GM says otherwise in advance.
-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.