Thanks Polaris.

But - and I hope I'm not being picky here, I asked where it was actually written down in these other RPGs. Admittedly I've only ever really played Shadowrun, apart from a brief encounter with AD&D2 and WH40K Rogue Trader, but I've been playing SR since V2 was just released and I've got just about every book bar some printed adventures and the two most recent expansions. I've never seen it written down that if there's no rule you can't do something. And you've not really answered that. I'm not having a go, I just want to know! If you want me to take your word for it, OK, no probs, but I was wondering where I could actually read it. It would certainly make everything a lot less interesting, if not a little dull. But if its printed somewhere, I'll happily admit its a house rule!

And I do know OR only exists for spells, not, say grenades! Barrier Rating examples are there for a very short list of substances/materials, and none really worn items, true, but the examples are not exhaustive, and I personally can see those examples easily lend themselves to being extended to cover items and objects. But I'm actually talking about spells, specifically elemental ones, not grenades or other collateral damage, cos again, its a whole other debate. I'm not talking about ceramic foci or fetishes, cos that's a whole different other debate too!

But I am talking about fetishes and foci in general: they have an OR, and elemental spells secondary affects are worked out on this basis. If the fetish or foci can be affected by the spell after it has been reduced by armour, and the character who is also behind the armour (and therefore on the far side of the fetish or foci), is taking damage, and the part of the target which has a foci between the armour and it is what's been aimed at, and you don't dodge, then why on earth can't it be damaged? It might not be damaged very often, or even damaged very much, but I just don't see where it says in the rules that they are not damaged, or where it says that things not covered specifically by the rules cannot happen.

If there is no such place in the books, website, errata, or what have you, then I'm still happy to call it a house rule, no problems - because you're right, it isn't covered, though i see it as an ommission not a rule in and of itself (or lack of self!) - on the proviso that the idea that you also accept that something not specifically covered is not allowed is also a house rule. It only seems fair!

In case its not clear, that last part is only half serious! But can you see my point, at least?

Spotlight,

Items can be damaged by elemental manips if said item is subject to damage from that element. No one disagrees with that. The rules exist for it, are reasonably clear, etc. The point of contention was whether or not some kind of fetishes could be damaged by elemental manips.

As for items, in DnD (for example), your items are explicitly excluded from damage except in very specific circumstances (some spells like MJD and rolling a natural one on a save vs elemental effects). In GURPS, your items are also considered protected except for shields and armor (and even then the degradation rules are optional).

It is a matter of fairness really. In most combat oriented RPGs, a character's gear is as important to survival as his personal attributes, and thus it should be hard to take that gear away. In addition, players have a right to know about any combat related houserules in advance (and gear/item breakage certainly qualifies).

In short, when you play a game of Shadowrun (or any RPG), you have a right to assume that the canonical rules and only the canonical rules are in play unless the GM specifically says otherwise. That means that if no rules exist that allow you to damage worn/carried items, then you can not, canonically?

I really don't understand the resistance here so such a simple and fair notion.
[Other than GMs that seek to screw their players which I personally would not put up with.]

-Polaris

Nindaru,

I would say consistency and fairness are the essential elements. If you were a stranger as a GM, and you said, "I reserve the right to break items if I feel it will advance the story" then I would have a long and pointed talk with you privately....or I would not play.

Why? The key issue is trust. It is far too easy for a GM to maliciously take stuff away with that rule in play and claim "it is advancing the story" and how could I argue differently? I couldn't and that has the potential of being grossly unfair.

OTOH, if you had a specific set of cases where gear might be destroyed, then that would be a different matter. Then too, if I knew how you GMed in general, that too would be different.

See my point? Players do have rights. The ultimate right, of course, is to walk away, but players have a right to anticipate a fair and consistant game....and that means that the game will follow the canonical rules unless the GM says otherwise (and combat is common enough in SR, that I would have every right and expectation to know about all your combat houserules in advance.....for situations that are uncommon, I would be more flexible). A GM that doesn't respect the rights of his players will not have players for very long IMX and IMHO.

-Polaris

Nindaru,

I really addressed that in my post above. The issue is consistancy and fairness. At least with the canonical rules, I know where I stand.

-Polaris

Assume that I had never read this thread.

If, in my first game with your group, we begin play and everything goes well... Then, during the first fight a character takes a bullet, destroying their pocket secretary (because I am trying to isolate them).

Is that trying to screw you because I said nothing about it before hand? I think not because prior to me reading this thread the topic had NEVER come up before in my games, nor had anyone ever taken issue with my actions in regards to collateral damage. There are so many aspects of this game that I have yet to touch upon, you cannot expect me to know them all AND have a list of specific situations where I have created house rules...

Nindaru,

Zazen,

That depends on the non-combat situation. Certainly if I failed a balance check when carrying an equipement bundle, and that bundle fell into molten pig-iron, then yes, I would agree that the budle is (literally) toast.

Likewise, I would agree that items can be stolen (and indeed there are rules and skills that cover this).

I never said that items could not be taken away. I said that it was rare and usually IMX contrived. You were the one that raised the spectre of collateral damage in combat.

-Polaris

OK, well... Uh, I don't want to sound like I'm being pedantic, but you didn't answer my question so I can only assume it isn't written down.

And in the nicest possible way, I beleive you have just contradicted yourself. In the same post you said that things which can be damaged by a particular effect do get damaged, and then said that the items you carry cannot be damaged because there is no rule to say you can. Well what about fetishes and other things getting damaged via OR and spells? They are items you can carry but if they can be affected, then they can be affected, QED. Why on earth would they suddenly not get damaged because they are behind basic body armour or under clothing? I don't get it!

I do get what you're saying about GMs screwing their players, however, and frankly it sounds like either you've had some very bad GMs, or you're incredibly insecure about trusting people. I hope someday you can work out both those issues out bud.

Feel free to come play at my table and see you get treated as fairly as everyone else. And I'll certainly warn you when you do, like I warn everyone else, that I use the odd house rule, and I'll tell you the ones I remember, so you can see its all fair and above board. But I can't possibly factor for everything that might happen, so everything else, I make up if the need arises and work out the kinks later when there's time and it won't slow everything down. The trick is going to be your opinion and mine about what is canon and what is important, and woe betide you if you argue with me during play to the point of holding up play. I'll listen to any query or challenge to a call, but then I'll think about it and make a call, and my players trust me enough to make that call, and once the decision is made, well, as the books say, frequently - GM's decision is final.

That's not harsh, or picking on people, imho, its one rule (another house rule, if you like) for all and if the majority of the players at the table protest? Heck, I'll even reconsider then as well, regardless of any 'final' decisions, because its just possible, given that I'm a human being, that I'll make a mistake. I can accept when i'm wrong, no worries!

In my game, which includes my gf, as it happens, and my friend's gf, (making the point that there are OOC serious emotions involved whether we like it or not, not that there are girls at the table, which should make no difference at all), nobody gets screwed over cos we all like each other. We're there to have fun, so why the hell would we screw each other over? player vs player (unless its an IC reaction, in which case go for it) or from the gm?

But do I accept that some GMs are very adversarial. Adversarial style isn't me, but some people dig that way of playing. Good for them. But to me its not about winning, its about fun, storyline, and big fragging guns. And that's a great combination, as far as i'm concerned!

Spotlight,

I generally hold my gripes until after the game. The only exception is when character/party survival is at stake and a good clear ruling is needed immediately.

That said, I have not contradicted myself. There are clear and canonical rules that permit elemental manipulations to damage your gear. This is a specific exception tied to a specific type of spell. Clearer? The catch is that only some types of materials are subject to damage by each individual Elemental Manip.

Likewise, specific and clear rules exist that allow Power spells to work on items provided it is a valid target.

What Zazen and Ninadaru are talking about, however, is entirely different. They are talking about collateral damage, and that is not canonical and no rules exist that cover it.

Thus I have not contradicted myself in the least. As for item destruction in combat, that is one area that I feel I do have a right to know about in advance since combat is common in SR and most runners depend on their gear.

-Polaris

Zazen,

A good standard rule of thumb is this (or so I have found):

If your character and/or party members are in immediate and dire danger, then it is probably a combat situation, i.e. you are being shot at.

-Polaris

You sound very bitter. Were you slighted by a GM in the past? Do you hate all GM's now due to that?

If my plot called for a situation where you would be isolated and I decided that your ability to contact the outside world should be hampered, I would do it. That's my call. If, after the game, you see that the situation made no sense and that I was being malicious, then call me on it then. I am not above apologizing for a mistake. But, my hope is that you enjoyed the plot twist and had fun anyway.

Seriously, when was the last time everything went RIGHT for the main character in a story? It would be a boring story, eh? I do little unexpected things to give life to the story.

This is the reason I do not run for stangers. My players can expect a fun game. A stranger would not know. My group knows that my game is centered around them and that, if I do something, there is a reason, and they will get returns on their investment. If they are not having fun, then what is the point?

Besides that, it is the realm of the GM to change things. In refernce to SR3, pg. 251 "If you decide to use an optional or variant rule, make sure you apply it in every appropriate situation. Keep special cases and exceptions to a minimum."

Pocket Secretaries are "...shock and water resistant..." but in no way are they Hardened. Personally, I carry my Palm pilot in my front inside pocket. But that gets into equipment locations which are not covered by the rules either, are they?

If you decided it was your place intercede whenever the story didn't mesh with the rules or whenever you felt slighted, I would ask you not to come back.

I think we can agree that our styles do not mesh.

Nephyte,

Given that attitude I am suprised you have any players at all. If you aren't perceived to be fair and impartial (and that means consistant), then IMX no one will play with you for long....and you can't GM alone.

The point here is that the players are just as important to the game as the GM, and that means that players have certain basic rights too....and the right to have house rules laid out in advance as much as possible is one of them.

I grant that no GM can anticipate every situation, and a good player should be flexible. However, the issue here is not a rare or unusual situation. Combat is common in SR, and if you have houserules that take away gear due to collateral damage, then you are obligated as the GM to tell you players in advance.

-Polaris

Nindaru,

I would consider that malicious and I would not come back. Screwing players for "plot developement" is a sign of a very poor GM IMHO (cf railroading). As I said before, one of the reasons rules exist is to protect players against such maliciousness.

Remember that an RPG is a GAME not a STORY. What works well in a novel is often a wretched and unfair idea in a game.

-Polaris

Nindaru,

You only have to lay out your houserules for collateral item damage once...at the start of the campaign. The idea that "you have too much on your plate" to worry about such things cuts no ice with me since this is a one-time investment of your time.

You are obligated to lay out the common houserules in advance. For example if you had a rule that said that the power of spell-drain was force rather than force/2, then you would be obligated to tell your spell slingers of that rules in advance. This is no different. Again, you plea of "I can't anticipate everything" cuts no ice. You can anticipate things that will come up on a continual basis....and you should.

Also an overemphasis on plot leads to railroading which is very bad for the game. Remember that what works in a *story* does not always work in a *game*.

IMX means "In My eXperience". Actually just because you have played with the same people for ten years, does not necessarily imply that you are doing something right. I have seen such groups and they (again IMX) can get very incestuous....to the point where other ways and approaches to gaming would not even occure to them....and also to the point where new players are actively unwelcome because they bring new (and unsettling) ideas. I am not saying that your group is like that necessarily, but it is possible.

In short, you need to evaluate how your style would fly with strangers and not just friends that know you.

-Polaris

Polaris, changing an existing rule would get addressed prior to the game beginning. Not addressing a non-existant rule will not.

And my friends were stangers once...

Also, what the hell is railroading??

Zazen,

I did answer your question. I will not expound on it further.

Nindaru,

You have never met me so you have no right to call me personal names (and I believe it is a violation of the ToS too). The fact is you have no idea how I am at the table. What I am talking about, it a malicious use of a houserule to take away a fetish just because the GM does not like it.

The same applies doubly to what you just said. Look, the rules exist for a reason. If you simply make it up as you go as you wish to satisfy your 'plot', then there is literally no point in playing....and I would suggest that you give up GMing and just write a novel. Perhaps you can get someone to pay you for it.

-Polaris

Nindaru,

Railroading: n, the act of forcing the players of a game along a predetermined (often plot driven) path generally regardless of player actions or wishes.

It is a very common term in gaming circles and I am astonished that you have never heard it before especially given the stated way you like to GM.

Also, the non-existance of a rule is a rule. If you intend to take away damage due to collateral damage then you had damned sure warn your players about that in advance....otherwise the players have every right to assume that you can't. [The absence of a rule is a rule in many cases.]

-Polaris

I did not state that you were anything other than who you are. I stated my opinion.

Also, the story is yours for the making. I have a few goals in mind when we begin, typcially based off of what the group consists of. But, you decide what your character does, and I react to that.

My games are not, "You walk into a room and see 'blah'; what do you do?"
My games are (from a player) "I walk into that room, what do I see?"
If they decide not to walk into that room, no one is forcing them..

They write the story as they go. I help them along. I also send twists their way. How is that in any way like me writing a novel?

Nindaru,

Calling someone a "munchkin" is generally considered to be namecalling...at least as I see it and where I am from.

If you do let the players drive the story and the plot, then you have no need to maliciously take away gear with collateral combat damage. If you want to isolate the party find another canonical way to do it. [May I suggest jamming?]

-Polaris

Zazen,

The scope of non-combat situations is too broad (unlike combat situations which are generally more prescribed) to give you a hard and fast rule. I do note that in non-combat situations there are prefectly valid and canonical ways to take away gear (such as stealing it). Not much else to say.

-Polaris

Nindaru,

Why?

May I point to 14 pages of which at least 11 pages concern rather acrimonious discussion about taking away gear in violation of a strict canonical interpretation of the ruleset?

That should be reason enough to stick to canonical solutions whenever you can.

-Polaris

Can you think of a non-combat situation in which the destruction of gear would be against the rules, then? Perhaps that would shed light on the issue and allow us to come up with a useful standard.

If not, then can we agree that your position is "combat situations do not allow gear destruction, but non-combat situations do"?

And here I'd almost gotten my faith in humanity restored.
Anyway, Nindaru, there are a lot of reasons for a pocket secretary to get destroyed. If someone took a bullet to the chest, I might destroy the pocsec in their inside breast pocket. That's a decently good reason.
On the other hand, having the pocsec get destroyed (or worse, having the bullet get fired) because you want to cut off a character from the group is a bad reason. If there's someone in the game itself that wants the character cut off, they can do it. You are the GM; you are not in the game. If you want the character cut off, too bad; there has to be a reason for it to happen in the game.

~J

Zazen,

I think it is more correct to say this:

"Combat situations do not generally allow for the destruction of gear (although some effects specifically dictate otherwise) while non-combat sitations may allow for the removal of gear."

-Polaris

That is no different than what you've said so far. I am asking how you determine if any particular non-combat situation may destroy gear.

Do you in fact have a way of determining this?

No.

I have already decided that you would be unwelcome in my game. You still give me the impression of a rules lawyer/munchkin. I cannot understand how someone actively looking for flaws in others can enjoy that same persons company.

I believe in a simple karma system. If I take something from your character, you will most likely get something back in return. Typically, the receiving of the new item is surrounded by excitement. I can picture you being bitter about it. Why do you play again?

Zazen,

There are perfectly valid non-combat skills and situations where gear can be removed going strictly by canon (stealing is the perfect example). What else is there to say? I leave specific non-combat situations as an exercise of the reader (it is not hard).

-Polaris

Nindaru,

You said,

If that is true, then I ask again if you can think of a non-combat situation in which destroying gear would be against the rules. You insist that it is not hard, and yet I find it hard.

Can you provide me with one, please?

Zazen,

I am not obligated to do that. Period.

-Polaris

Polaris, if you refuse to explain these rules to me, how can you profess to know them? Surely one who knows them can teach them to others, and should do so when there is as much doubt as is present in this thread.

Zazen,

There has never been any doubt with the ability to take away items in some non-combat situations although frankly most such situations are contrived.

Thus the problem only exists in your mind.

Combat, however, is a different kettle of fish because there is more at stake in a combat situation. [Even then there are ways items can be destroyed in principle....just not with collateral damage is all.]

-Polaris

Nindaru, I don't think our play styles are compatible. That's fine, as I'm unlikely to be playing in a game you GM anytime soon, but I consider what you describe to be on par with the munchkin who comes up with a background to justify the gear he has rather than getting the gear that fits his background.

~J

Nindaru,

The problem is one of attitude frankly. If you say, "I can create any reason I need", then you are in fact forcing the players to do what you want rather than what they want, and that is railroading.

-Polaris

I'm not even sure what you guys are talking about anymore, since I stopped reading at page 6 or so, but I noticed a tiny tidbit along the way:

A force 6 fetished spell is calculated as force 5, right? 5/2 = 2.5. But you round up in SR, hence the TN is 3, same as a force 6 spell.

That's all.

Backgammon,

Actually when you calculate the power of drain you always round down which is why fetish drained combat spells are so good and why IMX, in astral space you will generally see fetish-linked (drain) manabolts or the like because they have a force of six but only have a drain-code of two (which is important in astral space because you take physical drain that can not be healed with magic).

-Polaris

But, you see, I need to know how to determine which situations allow gear to be destroyed and which do not, so that I may implement them fairly in my games. Since you are unable to tell me a way to determine them for myself but you profess to know this way of determining, I will post some situations so that I might glean your method from the answers.


Please tell me which situations can potentially destroy a characters gear, and which cannot. If you consider any to be combat rather than non-combat situations, please say that as well.

The character is caught in an avalanche
The character falls from a tall building
The characters car explodes due to something faulty in the car
The character mishandles flame-thrower payload and sets himself on fire
A tree falls on the character