Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Game level
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
JonathanC
Umm...okay, I'm going to repeat it again.


If you're inside a vehicle, you have total concealment. The vehicle's armor is a barrier, not armor, as far as the people inside are concerned. The exception, of course, is if the people inside are hanging out the window shooting at something, or otherwise leaving the protection of the vehicle.

A Citymaster is a TANK. You cannot target the pilot of a tank, short of running up the side of it, opening the door, and tossing a grenade inside.
Cain
QUOTE
Wouldn't being inside of a Citymaster count as being behind a barrier, rather than being behind armor? Last time I checked, a called shot can't bypass a barrier. You have to shoot through it (good luck with that).

To pull a toturi, the answer is no. It's vehicular armor, not a vehicular barrier. Besides which, the rules for targeting a passenger are quite clear, even if they're nonsensical. They get armor, not a barrier rating, to defend themselves.
QUOTE
But you can't bypass all the armor in the case of the citymaster. The armor of the glass is in the way at all times, you can't "bypass" it, because there's no holes to shoot through, no appendages visible, basically no vulnerable spots.

There's always a thermal exhaust port. cool.gif
QUOTE
That's a good point. If a driver sees a gun pointing at him, he's likely to swerve to help the shot miss. The only way they wouldn't is if they're confident the armor would protect them, which in this case it pretty much would.

To notice anything physical requires a Perception test at -6. And may require an Observe in Detail action to perceive an AVS as a threat.

QUOTE
and Cain loves to ignore the rule that a called shot's effect has to "occur, at the players choice and with the gamemaster's agreement"  Again effectively negating the argument to GM fiat.

Someone always tries to bring that up, ignoring the fact that my whole point is SR4 requires too much GM fiat. That's basically saying: "We know this rule doesn't work, so it's your job to fix it anytime you don't like what happens. We can't be bothered."

What people dislike is the fact that the example works by canon. You have to start throwing in GM fiat and house rules in order to negate it. I have another example, which is almost as bad: the one-klick-out-to-sea shot, that's not only at -53 to hit, but is actually easier to make without aiming. The citymaster always seems to twist a bundle of panties, but it's the one people ask for.
Kyoto Kid
QUOTE (Cain)
QUOTE
But you can't bypass all the armor in the case of the citymaster. The armor of the glass is in the way at all times, you can't "bypass" it, because there's no holes to shoot through, no appendages visible, basically no vulnerable spots.

There's always a thermal exhaust port. :cool.gif:

...but what if it's ray shielded? Don't think Ares has perfected the Proton Torpedo yet. grinbig.gif
Konsaki
QUOTE (Kyoto Kid)
QUOTE (Cain)
QUOTE
But you can't bypass all the armor in the case of the citymaster. The armor of the glass is in the way at all times, you can't "bypass" it, because there's no holes to shoot through, no appendages visible, basically no vulnerable spots.

There's always a thermal exhaust port. :cool.gif:

...but what if it's ray shielded? Don't think Ares has perfected the Proton Torpedo yet. grinbig.gif

Use the force, Kyoto Kid!
JonathanC
QUOTE (Cain)
QUOTE
Wouldn't being inside of a Citymaster count as being behind a barrier, rather than being behind armor? Last time I checked, a called shot can't bypass a barrier. You have to shoot through it (good luck with that).

To pull a toturi, the answer is no. It's vehicular armor, not a vehicular barrier. Besides which, the rules for targeting a passenger are quite clear, even if they're nonsensical. They get armor, not a barrier rating, to defend themselves.
QUOTE
But you can't bypass all the armor in the case of the citymaster. The armor of the glass is in the way at all times, you can't "bypass" it, because there's no holes to shoot through, no appendages visible, basically no vulnerable spots.

There's always a thermal exhaust port. cool.gif
QUOTE
That's a good point. If a driver sees a gun pointing at him, he's likely to swerve to help the shot miss. The only way they wouldn't is if they're confident the armor would protect them, which in this case it pretty much would.

To notice anything physical requires a Perception test at -6. And may require an Observe in Detail action to perceive an AVS as a threat.

QUOTE
and Cain loves to ignore the rule that a called shot's effect has to "occur, at the players choice and with the gamemaster's agreement"  Again effectively negating the argument to GM fiat.

Someone always tries to bring that up, ignoring the fact that my whole point is SR4 requires too much GM fiat. That's basically saying: "We know this rule doesn't work, so it's your job to fix it anytime you don't like what happens. We can't be bothered."

What people dislike is the fact that the example works by canon. You have to start throwing in GM fiat and house rules in order to negate it. I have another example, which is almost as bad: the one-klick-out-to-sea shot, that's not only at -53 to hit, but is actually easier to make without aiming. The citymaster always seems to twist a bundle of panties, but it's the one people ask for.

If they're in a car, this might make sense. If they're in a tank, that's something else entirely. The chassis of your average car, even an armored car, is not the same thing as a tank. Furthermore, you're applying rules written for personal armor to vehicle armor, which is not only nonsensical, it's contrary to the letter and spirit of the rules.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Cain)

To notice anything physical requires a Perception test at -6. And may require an Observe in Detail action to perceive an AVS as a threat.

That doesn't matter at all. Even if he can't see the weapon, he still gets a dodge test and an opportunity to use full defense, unless he is surprised.
Kyoto Kid
QUOTE (Konsaki)
QUOTE (Kyoto Kid @ Jan 12 2008, 10:38 AM)
QUOTE (Cain)
QUOTE
But you can't bypass all the armor in the case of the citymaster. The armor of the glass is in the way at all times, you can't "bypass" it, because there's no holes to shoot through, no appendages visible, basically no vulnerable spots.

There's always a thermal exhaust port. :cool.gif:

...but what if it's ray shielded? Don't think Ares has perfected the Proton Torpedo yet. grinbig.gif

Use the force, Kyoto Kid!

...ahh but the Force is weak in this one.

...however... The Schwartz!...now you're talking.

[/הורד]
Cain
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Jan 11 2008, 06:54 PM)
QUOTE (Cain @ Jan 11 2008, 08:30 PM)

To notice anything physical requires a Perception test at -6.  And may require an Observe in Detail action to perceive an AVS as a threat. 

That doesn't matter at all. Even if he can't see the weapon, he still gets a dodge test and an opportunity to use full defense, unless he is surprised.

I'd call getting shot through a thermal exhaust port pretty surprising. nyahnyah.gif

QUOTE
If they're in a car, this might make sense. If they're in a tank, that's something else entirely. The chassis of your average car, even an armored car, is not the same thing as a tank. Furthermore, you're applying rules written for personal armor to vehicle armor, which is not only nonsensical, it's contrary to the letter and spirit of the rules.

First of all, a Citymaster isn't a tank, it's an APC. It's just an armored car on steroids. Furthermore, just because the rules are nonsensical doesn't mean the application is. As far as the letter and spirit of the rules go, I could pull the exact same trick with an anti-vehicular rocket and not get so much whinging... even though nothing is really any different. Basically, just because using the rules properly leads to wonky results doesn't mean the player is wonky.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Cain)
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Jan 11 2008, 06:54 PM)
QUOTE (Cain @ Jan 11 2008, 08:30 PM)

To notice anything physical requires a Perception test at -6.  And may require an Observe in Detail action to perceive an AVS as a threat. 

That doesn't matter at all. Even if he can't see the weapon, he still gets a dodge test and an opportunity to use full defense, unless he is surprised.

I'd call getting shot through a thermal exhaust port pretty surprising. nyahnyah.gif

True, but that doesn't change the fact that SR4 defines surprise in a very specific way. It only occurs if he scores fews hits on the surprise (initiative) test than the other character did.
Jhaiisiin
The part people seem to be ignoring is that when trying to bypass armor, you have to have a vulnerable spot, a weakness, or more importantly, at least LOS to the part you want to shoot. You can't shoot through the exhaust port if it's on top or behind the vehicle when you want to shoot the driver in the face. The windshield isn't going to have convenient holes for you to shoot through. Without any single LOS shot to the target, you have to fire *through* whatever is in the way, and that means firing through barriers.
Fortune
QUOTE (Jhaiisiin)
The part people seem to be ignoring is that when trying to bypass armor, you have to have a vulnerable spot, a weakness, or more importantly, at least LOS to the part you want to shoot.

Can you provide an actual book quote for what you are saying? I would relay love to see it in print. Don't get me wrong, it may be common sense and all, but with the abstract nature of Shadowrun (especially the combat system) it is not necessarily a given.
Cain
In addition to what Fortune said, I'll point out that the rules still allow you to shoot at someone in total cover, at only a -6 penalty. They don't get the benefit of a barrier rating, even if you have absolutely no LOS to your target.
Jhaiisiin
No, you get a -6 modifier because you don't know where exactly to shoot, but then you *still* have to fire through the barrier to hit the person on the other side.

Per SR4 pg. 157:
QUOTE
If a character wants to shoot through a barrier to hit a target
behind it, add the barrier’s Armor rating to whatever armor the
target already possesses. The attacker also suffers a –6 Blind Fire
dice pool modifier because he cannot see the intended target, unless
the barrier is transparent.


As to the finding a vulnerable spot in armor, here's the references:
Pg 149-150 in SR4 main book:

QUOTE
When a shot is called, either of the following may occur, at the player’s choice and with the gamemaster’s agreement.
• Target an area not protected by armor. The attacking character receives a negative dice pool modifier equal to the target’s armor (better armor is more difficult to bypass). If the attack hits, the target’s armor is ignored for the damage resistance test; the target rolls only Body.

The windshield/armor is completely covering the person, so there *is* no area not protected by armor, therefor you can't bypass it all.
toturi
QUOTE (Jhaiisiin)
The windshield/armor is completely covering the person, so there *is* no area not protected by armor, therefor you can't bypass it all.

Only if the GM deems that the windshield/armor completely covers the person. There are no hit locations in Shadowrun and there are no armor locations for vehicles. In Shadowrun, armor is either always completely covering a person(which makes the Called Shot to Bypass Armor moot) or there is always a spot to bypass with.
Cain
Vehicles don't provide Barrier ratings, though. I don't have my book handy, my hard drive just died, but I think it's page 162 that makes it clear that targeting a passenger does not incur the firing-through-barriers penalty. Technically, it doesn't provide cover bonuses either; I just tossed those in for fun. I'll also add that the rules presuppose that there is always a spot not protected by armor; otherwise the rules would have said: "Target an area not protected by armor if one exists."

You do not need a vulnerable spot, or even LOS, because the rules presuppose that vulnerable spots always exist. That's what the -20 penalty represents.
Jhaiisiin
Wait a sec. Even if the rule doesn't say it, you *can't* target an area not protected by armor if such an area does not exist. Holy bending-rules batman.

EDIT:

QUOTE ("SR4 pg 162")
If an attack is made against passengers, make a normal Attack Test, but the passengers are always considered to be under cover (partial cover at the least, though full cover/blind fire may apply as the situation dictates). Passengers attempting to defend an attack inside a vehicle suffer a –2 dodge dice pool modifier, since they are somewhat limited in movement. Additionally, the passengers gain protection from the vehicle’s chassis, adding the Armor of the vehicle to any personal armor the characters are wearing.


That's the rules from that page you mentioned. I don't see how if you're completely enclosed within the vehicle, how you can reasonably bypass *all* the armor.
JonathanC
And the rules are normally correct. It is likely that a windshield has a weak point that you could hit, or a place in the chassis where a bullet can penetrate.

But to apply rules that were intended to be used with cars to what is essentially a rolling tank is just silly. And in any case, long-shot tests are supposed to be more about luck than skill or realism anyway. If your players are constantly one-shotting Citymasters, houserule it. But the rule is there so that when your players have 8 boxes of lethal and are seconds away from being splattered across the sprawl, they have one last chance at survival. If you're playing with assholes who took a 6 in edge so they could breeze through combat and do stupid shit without getting nailed for it, then your problem is your players, not the system.

I'm not trying to be a smartass here, it's just that after years of wrestling with 'game balance', I realized a little while ago that what I was really fighting was my habit of inviting assholes to my gaming table.

And the reason I was suggesting barrier rules is that when you're inside a Citymaster, you're basically sitting inside of a small building that moves, not a 'vehicle' in the traditional sense of the word. But hey, your mileage may vary.
Jhaiisiin
Sorry, edited my last post while you were posting yours.

And that wouldn't be a house rule, that'd be a "Use logic when you try to do something" rule. I'm sorry, but when a person is inside an APC, a vehicle that is armored all the way around, you are not bypassing anything unless you are shooting into an open hatch or somesuch, which from head-on, is impossible and unreasonable. Any player who tried to suggest to me that they could bypass *all* the armor in a case like this would get laughed at hysterically.

Now, if they shoot the window out, *then* called shot the guy's face, now we've got a plausible scenario.
JonathanC
QUOTE (Jhaiisiin)
Sorry, edited my last post while you were posting yours.

And that wouldn't be a house rule, that'd be a "Use logic when you try to do something" rule. I'm sorry, but when a person is inside an APC, a vehicle that is armored all the way around, you are not bypassing anything unless you are shooting into an open hatch or somesuch, which from head-on, is impossible and unreasonable. Any player who tried to suggest to me that they could bypass *all* the armor in a case like this would get laughed at hysterically.

Now, if they shoot the window out, *then* called shot the guy's face, now we've got a plausible scenario.

I agree whole-heartedly.
toturi
QUOTE (Jhaiisiin)
Sorry, edited my last post while you were posting yours.

And that wouldn't be a house rule, that'd be a "Use logic when you try to do something" rule. I'm sorry, but when a person is inside an APC, a vehicle that is armored all the way around, you are not bypassing anything unless you are shooting into an open hatch or somesuch, which from head-on, is impossible and unreasonable. Any player who tried to suggest to me that they could bypass *all* the armor in a case like this would get laughed at hysterically.

Now, if they shoot the window out, *then* called shot the guy's face, now we've got a plausible scenario.

It would be a house rule. Because you are applying RL OOC logic to a Shadowrun IC situation.
kzt
QUOTE (Blade)
You can't compare Wushu's system to Shadowrun's. Wushu is simplistic, Shadowrun is simulationist.


Though SR expressly denies that it is simulationist. . . .
Jhaiisiin
QUOTE
It would be a house rule. Because you are applying RL OOC logic to a Shadowrun IC situation.

What boggles my mind is how anyone would be unreasonable enough to even try pulling a stunt like this. Moreover, what kind of GM would allow it? (I'm trying like heck not to be insulting right now)
Cain
QUOTE
That's the rules from that page you mentioned. I don't see how if you're completely enclosed within the vehicle, how you can reasonably bypass *all* the armor.

By the rules-- and remember, showing that the rules aren't reasonable is my point-- you can bypass all the armor by taking a high enough penalty. It also makes it clear that you don't get a barrier rating when firing at a passenger in a vehicle, APC or otherwise.
QUOTE (Jhaiisiin @ Jan 11 2008, 11:50 PM)
I'm sorry, but when a person is inside an APC, a vehicle that is armored all the way around, you are not bypassing anything unless you are shooting into an open hatch or somesuch, which from head-on, is impossible and unreasonable.  Any player who tried to suggest to me that they could bypass *all* the armor in a case like this would get laughed at hysterically.


Then you should be laughing hysterically at the core rulebook. When the rules say something, and physics say something else, does that mean physics are wrong?

Sorry, but having to apply common sense to fix a bad rule doesn't mean the rule was good in the first place.

EDIT:
QUOTE
What boggles my mind is how anyone would be unreasonable enough to even try pulling a stunt like this. Moreover, what kind of GM would allow it?

A desperate PC might just try this stunt. Moreover, a fair GM would allow it.
JonathanC
I don't know...I'd rather have a system where the improbably impossible is an option in dire circumstances than a system that is purely a simulation...that's why I've never tried to run Champions. What we have here is a situation where the rules sound ridiculous because they're being applied to something that clearly was not the intent. It seems fairly obvious that a rule that says it applies to "aiming for unarmored areas" is not going to be valid in a situation where armor coverage is perfect. Likewise, a system for shooting people inside standard vehicles is going to break down a bit when you apply it to the one vehicle in the game that is essentially a bunker on wheels. It's as thought you bought a soup spoon at the store and got furious when you discovered that stirring a pot of soup with it burns your hands because the handle is too short. It's meant for soup in a bowl, dammit.
kzt
Champions at least uses a 3d6 system, so a 1 in 216 chance is kind of unlikely at any given moment. Due to the statistical wizards who write SR, the minimum chance of a success (if there is any) is typically 1 in 3. The improbably unlikely is common is SR World.
Cain
No armor is perfect, though. That's what the -20 penalty represents: it's increasingly difficult to make the shot. Where the rules break down is that they apparently never considered the effects of Edge on these tests.

Since the Citymaster example seems to be causing its usual panty-twisting, I'll post the other one. The team's van is barreling up to the waterfront, only to discover their target's speedboat is already a klick out to sea, dodging its way at full speed through the Seattle waterfront traffic. The troll sam shouts: "Drek! I can't get a bead!" So, Mr. Lucky grabs the HMG from the troll, which he can barely lift, and takes a shot.

The conditions are bad: Extreme Range (-3), Partial light (-2), With Glare (-1) and Heavy rain (-4, this is Seattle, after all). Mr . Lucky is in a moving vehicle (-3) as is his target; the GM assigns an additional -3 to reflect the boat's speed and pitching. The target has total cover (-6), and since Mr. Lucky only has the vaugest idea what he's shooting at, he gets the -6 Blind fire penalty. To make, matters worse, MR. Lucky has two Serious wounds, for 9 boxes on both monitors (-6). He's never even picked up an HMG before (-1), but the thing is already set to full auto; so he goes for a narrow burst (-9, doubled to -18 because it's a heavy weapon and the gas-vent system is fouled due to an earlier critical fumble).

Mr. Lucky is at -53 to hit. He could try to aim, but since there's no point, he simply hauls the thing into the general direction and fires. He has a negative dice pool, so he spends a point of Edge, giving him 8 dice to roll. He could simply *buy* two successes with that; if he were to roll, he'd average 2.66 successes, rounded up to 3. Since his target is an average wageslave, he only has his Reaction of 3 to defend with, which will average one success-- not enough. And since Mr. Lucky called for a Narrow Burst, there's simply no way the target can soak.

On the one hand, this is a valid lucky shot. On the other hand, this is incredibly broken, an exploit running all the way down to the heart of the core mechanic. And let me also point out that this is actually a *more* difficult shot than the Citymaster example, so if you have a problem with that, you should really have issues with this one.
JonathanC
If you're going to ignore the role of GM common sense and say that long-shot applies to ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous, you might as well just say that the team could jump their van off the pier onto the boat.
Cain
Except the jumping rules actually define how far you can jump. And while the Shot Heard Round the Barrens is an exploit, it's also perfectly fair and legal. The only reason to ban it is because the GM personally dislikes it, not because of any physical or mechanical improbability. And that is a very bad precedent to set.
Jhaiisiin
Where I think the disconnect lies is in the idea that you seem to think the rules must explicitly and definitively outline not only the rule, but also the logic and common sense aspects which should be *automatic.* I just don't think that a rule that doesn't take time to detail common sense and logic is broken or bad. It's the game designers having even moderate expectations of the people playing the game. I guess I'm just expecting too much from people though.

And yes, I'd have a problem with dudar tryin' to fire that HMG as well. Barely able to lift it, the shots would go wild when he fired, simple as that. Granted, the rules allow for it in that instance because they have LOS to the target, there's no armored glass or anything getting in the way, and thus he's able to take that one in a billion shot. As a GM, I'm not sure I'd allow it though. When you're that far in the hole, you just miss, generally. Unless it'll have some cinematic effect or somesuch, in which case I may allow it, just for the sake of the story.

EDIT: And you don't ban the rule, you ban certain situations, or at least apply fair logic and rationality to them.
Cain
The disconnect lies in the fact that the rules force players and GMs to fix situations that would otherwise never come up if common sense had been applied to the rules in the first place.

Since the Shot Heard Round the Barrens is perfectly legal and by-the-book, simply refusing it because you have a problem with it isn't applying common sense, it's essentially pulling a house rule out of your ass just because you don't like the way the game is going. Railroading, in other words. And the rules that force you to railroad players isn't any better.
FrankTrollman
Again and still, the long shot rules do not allow you to target enemies whose locations are not known to you. If you had the same example, only the enemy boat was still barely visible for merely stupendous penalties, then yes, Mr. Lucky could spend an edge and get a hit in. Probably.

But you keep pushing things from the essentially impossible stuff that Edge actually lets you do (which gets some people offended anyhow), to the actually impossible things that Edge does not allow you to do.

Edge does not allow you to target an opponent whose location you don't know. Period. That's the targeting step and Edge hasn't come into play. There is no dicepool penalty for shooting in the wrong direction, your shot simply does not hit.


-Frank
knasser

To echo what Frank has said, it would be like making a hardware test to bypass a maglock, when you don't know where the maglock is.

And going back to the Citymaster, could someone please point out to me where in 4th edition RAW it states that Citymaster's have windows, because I don't remember reading that they do.

-K.
Jhaiisiin
Oh wow. So now if it's not specifically stated that a vehicle has windows, then it doesn't have them? What about tires? Exhaust pipes? Engines? For that matter, how do you know it even has doors? Access points could simply be open doorways you walk in and out of. Do you see how silly this gets?
FrankTrollman
Except in this case the example was pulled up as ludicrous because the vehicle in question is an air enclosed armored personel carrier where the driver operates it through a wired rigger link in the middle of the vehicle. It's a "far out" example because there is no line to pilot. He has a wall of plastisteel in every single direction and he is essentially passed out in shock gel. It's not pilotted by a guy behind the wheel or something.

That's the problem with all the "OMFG EDGE IS BREAKS THE GAME!!!11!" posts. They take things which are pretty silly (shooting a gy with a full auto long burst with a heay machine gun when you lack the strength or the skill to properly use a heavy machine gun in the first place and the target is over a thousand meters away and partially obscured in poor weather confditions) that the rules allow by spending an Edge but then they try to kick the silly up to 11 by throwing in the little bit extra that the rules don't allow (the part where in addition you don't know where the target is and are thus not entitled to any kind of shot long or otherwise).

The silliness of longshots goes up to 10. That's plenty silly, and some people don't like it enough to not allow Long Shots or to restrict the times at which longshots can be used. The obsurdity does not go up to 11 and people who are making arguments against longshots do their position and their personal credibility no favors by claiming that it does.

-Frank
knasser
QUOTE (Jhaiisiin)
Oh wow. So now if it's not specifically stated that a vehicle has windows, then it doesn't have them? What about tires? Exhaust pipes? Engines? For that matter, how do you know it even has doors? Access points could simply be open doorways you walk in and out of. Do you see how silly this gets?


Well I had my set-up ready, but Frank delivered the punch line. smile.gif Tell me why an APC should have windows with cannon SR2070 technology? Even if the pilot doesn't have a vehicle control rig which it's not unreasonable to think they might, it still makes much greater sense for them to jack in with trodes and drive it that way. Why have a windscreen at the front when you can have 360° vision with an AR overlay or targetting information, map directions and much, much more?

There's no reason the pilot to even sit in "the driver's seat." Certainly, they're not hauling the vehicle around without power-steering. The thing has a pilot rating of 3 - equal of any drone in the main book and can drive itself if it wants to. There's no good reason for a windscreen or a driver's position and, in something that has "a chemical seal" and a "twenty-hour life support system" plenty of reasons not to. Clearly security is paramount.

But by the same arguments that allow a character to shoot through bullet-proof glass and ignore any body armour worn without penalty, a called shot would also be able to target a rigger sitting in the middle of the completely sealed off APC with no windows at all. Yes, it would. What is the critical difference that allows someone to shoot someone through a vehicle with closed bullet-proof windows without penalty but does not allow someone to shoot an individual in a vehicle with no windows at all without penalty? If the latter is not possible, then the former is not possible, and if the former is possible then the latter is possible. The argument being used to allow the called shot encompasses both scenarios and if shooting someone sealed inside a sealed box of metal does not make sense then wookies live on Endor and you must aquit. It does not make sense and you must aquit.

Defense (of sanity) rests.

-Khadim.
Cain
QUOTE
Again and still, the long shot rules do not allow you to target enemies whose locations are not known to you. If you had the same example, only the enemy boat was still barely visible for merely stupendous penalties, then yes, Mr. Lucky could spend an edge and get a hit in. Probably.

Note that in the example, the boat was still in sight; the troll couldn't get a bead, not a shot off. However, remember that mechanically and abstractly, this was a more difficult shot than targeting the thermal exhaust port on the Citymaster. By the rules, there's no such thing as an impossible shot in these situations, there's only increasing penalties.

Knasser: We're not talking common sense, however. Were talking rules and their *lack* of common sense. You prove my point: if the rules had only said "if a vulnerable point exists", we wouldn't have that problem. Sorry, but you're demonstrating that I'm right: the rules are badly done, badly thought out, and show an astonishing lack of logic.
Whipstitch
Actually, I'd say the rules have an astonishing lack of an easily inserted qualifier. The rest is grasping at straws and histrionics.

I don't allow my players to fire a gun into the air and spend Edge in the hopes that the bullet will somehow speed up past terminal velocity on the way back down and kill the Oyabun so why should I let someone fire called shot at specific target when they're blindfiring in the general direction of a target that might not even be there? As Knasser pointed out, you can't even tell if a citymaster has a living, breathing pilot at all; for all you know they've got the Pilot program driving it with a Hacker/Rigger supervising and ready to jump in if the situation becomes critical. The whole situation is metagaming on a ridiculous number of levels and the devs realized this and made a special point to say that GMs should use discretion on this one.
Jhaiisiin
I don't think it's the rules that lack the logic and common sense. It's the players who try to bend the rules by *ignoring* logic and common sense that seems to be the issue.

And my bad for misunderstanding the meaning. I took "No windows" to mean gaping holes in the front side, whereas I now see that no windows meant Spirit of St. Louis kind of no windows. My apologies for my reaction on that.
knasser
QUOTE (Cain @ Jan 12 2008, 07:22 PM)
Knasser: We're not talking common sense, however.  Were talking rules and their *lack* of common sense.  You prove my point: if the rules had only said "if a vulnerable point exists", we wouldn't have that problem.


Don't be ridiculous. I'm not proving your point for you at all. I have shown that your argument would also apply to an even more obviously silly scenario to highlight the false premise underlying it - that one can both target what one cannot see and that totally enclosing barriers are armour that can be bypassed with good aim. I could make an argument that holding your gun by the barrel doesn't stop you shooting someone with as much basis.

You can argue your position if you want, but you're in a lonely, lonely place. The rest of us carry on without the need to (a) make up house rules that players can shoot people they can't perceive then (b) make up more house rules to say that they can't.

QUOTE (Cain)
Sorry, but you're demonstrating that I'm right: the rules are badly done, badly thought out, and show an astonishing lack of logic.


That's wrong and grossly unfair to something that works very well in actual game-play. To twist the following:

QUOTE
Characters who seek to target a specific location on the tar-
get
(the hole in an opponent’s armor, a held item, a vital area, etc.)
suffer a variable dice pool modifier. See Called Shots, p. 149.


and

QUOTE
Target an area not protected by armor. The attacking charac-
ter receives a negative dice pool modifier equal to the target’s armor (better armor is more difficult to bypass). If the attack
hits, the target’s armor is ignored for the damage resistance
test; the target rolls only Body.


... to twist these out of all sense and then condemn the rules as "badly done, badly thought out and showing an astonishing lack of logic" doesn't make sense. It betrays a determination to misinterpret what is written that staggers belief. It also shows a considerable lack of grace.

-K.
Apathy
SR cannot and should not try to accurately model every aspect of real life to determine 100% realistic outcomes. I don't want to have to break out physics, engineering, and ballistics books every time I have to take a shot at an opponent.

What SR should do is suggest general, easy to learn rules that model real-life outcomes with reasonable believability a significant portion of the time, and build enough discretion into the system that a rational GM and sane, mature players can identify those situations where the general rule doesn't fit and modify as necessary. I believe SR4 does this fairly well. I also believe that SR4 strikes a better balance on the simplicity-vs-comprehensive accuracy scale than the previous versions did.

Can anyone suggest a game that they think does a better job of both modeling realistic outcomes and being fun/easy to play? If so, have you tried playing the SR setting using their rules instead? How did it work? And for the people who think the SR4 rules are so atrocious, why are you still playing it?
Ravor
Because I think Fourth Edition Rules work just fine for the most part, provided that one stays within the limitations of the engine and shies away from large Dicepools. cyber.gif

*Edit*

AS for better systems out there, well personally I like GURPS ok with the exception of their suggested Magic Systems.
Kyoto Kid
...unfortunately the only systems that really tried to simulate realism that I have dealt with were either pretty much unplayable (C&S) or so cumbersome (Space Opera) they make SR combat look like that other game (the non d20 version). Keep in mind this was in the day when the 4k Trash-80 just barely came out (which cost more in the 1980s than the notebook am currently using). At that time we were still pretty much all using mainframes and Decwriters™ as terminals.

While GMing Space Opera For starship manoeuvring in relativistic space (sub FTL and thank the Great Mother they didn't allow for combat in hyperspace), I actually did use 3 dimensional coordinate plotting, vectors, and Newtonian physics. Made for some really whacked out ship to ship combats, but that was the way things really work in space.

Also played a game called Shooting Stars (I think it was Avalon Hill) which was a tactical combat game set in HE orbit where you also had to plot vectors and calculate thrust impulse just to make a simple turn.
Riley37
Are y'all having fun with this? Because if you're not, there's other threads too...
Cain
It's one thing for an abstract system to provide abstract results. And it's fine for a simulationist system to provide simulationist results. But for a simulationist system to provide abstract results? That's a lot of pain and agony for something so unclear. And before people start whinging about how SR4 isn't supposed to be simulationist, I'll point out that it is heavily on the crunchy side when compared to other games out there; and just because something is a badly done simulation doesn't mean it's not a simulation.

The whole point-- and one I see most people agreeing with-- is that the rules lack common sense. Instead of the rules providing it for you, which many systems do, it demands that you do it for the rules. The counterargument seems to amount to: "But it's not so bad!" That's not what I consider as a convincing argument. Basically, it is bad; people are just arguing degree.

When compared to other systems out there, these sort of loopholes really make SR4 look like it's poorly done. D20 has fewer loopholes (although D&D has more). When you look at it comparitively, the flaws in the system are huge and glaring.

QUOTE
Can anyone suggest a game that they think does a better job of both modeling realistic outcomes and being fun/easy to play? If so, have you tried playing the SR setting using their rules instead? How did it work?

Savage Worlds provides about the same degree of relastic modeling as SR4, and I've seen several attempts at a SR4 conversion. I've heard of cyberpunk settings going without a hitch using the Savage Worlds rules; I haven't seen it personally, since I'm not in a regular Shadowrun or Savage Worlds gaming group.

In terms of how it works, SW promises: "Fast! Furious! Fun!" As far as Fast goes, it makes SR4 look like a turtle on tranquilizers. Furious and Fun are more a function of the group than anything else, but the game lends itself to furious play quite easily. Fun is subjective, but I've always had fun when I've gotten to play.
FrankTrollman
QUOTE (Cain)
When compared to other systems out there, these sort of loopholes really make SR4 look like it's poorly done. D20 has fewer loopholes (although D&D has more). When you look at it comparitively, the flaws in the system are huge and glaring.


Sorry, that's just stupid. What you're going on about is not even the equivalent of the fact that any 10th level d20 character can take a swan dive from the sky onto concrete and get up and run the next round.

That's just how things work in d20. What you have been ranting and raving about for literally years is not even that interesting. Give it a rest.

I get it. You like Savage Worlds. I don't dike the d4 -> d6 thing. I think that's retarded, especially when you're better off with the d4 than the d6 against a TN of 6. That's stupid. But you know what you don't see me doing? You don't see me spamming discussions about Deadlands with rants about how that undermines the entire system and makes things clunkier than d20.

You don't see me doing that because that's juvenile behavior and I wouldn't be taken seriously if I tried.

-Frank
Apathy
QUOTE (Cain)
The whole point-- and one I see most people agreeing with-- is that the rules lack common sense. Instead of the rules providing it for you, which many systems do, it demands that you do it for the rules. The counterargument seems to amount to: "But it's not so bad!" That's not what I consider as a convincing argument. Basically, it is bad; people are just arguing degree.

I personally disagree with you. And that's fine; it's not like the game police are coming over to my house (or yours) to take my dice away because we can't agree.

This does lead me to ask my previous question again, though. I'm not trying to be a jerk or suggest that you shouldn't be on Dumpshock - you've got as much a right to be here as anyone else. But if you think it's such a bad game system why do you want to spend time on a forum devoted to that system? Why aren't you on the SW site talking about playing SW in a dystopian cyberpunk setting?

Spending so much time focusing on the negative is bad karma (IMO).
mfb
because the only things that can really piss a person off are things that the person has a strong attachment to in the first place. and when something pisses a person off like that, it takes a really, really, really long fucking time to get unpissed.
toturi
But it is also worth bearing in mind, most other people who are here have just as strong an attachment as well.
mfb
i didn't say they don't. i certainly won't claim that more attachment = happier with any particular aspect of SR, up to and including new editions of the game.
knasser
QUOTE (Cain @ Jan 13 2008, 02:40 AM)
And before people start whinging about how SR4 isn't supposed to be simulationist, I'll point out that it is heavily on the crunchy side when compared to other games out there; and just because something is a badly done simulation doesn't mean it's not a simulation. 


I think you're making up your own things to argue against. I don't think people here are whinging about SR4 not being supposed to be situationist (whatever that means). We seem mostly to be saying that when the rules say you can try to exploit a gap in the armour, it isn't unreasonable for a GM to say there isn't a gap in the armour sometimes. The weird thing you are doing which makes it look so much like you have an agenda, is that you're trying to state that a GM sometimes saying there isn't a gap in the armour is a house rule. Of course it isn't. The rules don't say there must always be a gap in the armour, they say that if there is one, a player might make a called shot to exploit it. That's explicitly written in the book. Your argument is not founded in the actual printed RAW. You are starting from your own house rules.

QUOTE (Cain)

The whole point-- and one I see most people agreeing with-- is that the rules lack common sense.


I really don't see this upswell of support for your point.

QUOTE

Instead of the rules providing it for you, which many systems do, it demands that you do it for the rules.


It really, really doesn't. Check the parts that I quoted earlier. There's nothing in there that says there must be an access route to a target that the attacker cannot perceive or that there must be a gap which can be exploited. They clearly say that this can be done when there is such an opportunity.

Your criticism of the SR4 rules is a two-step process.

1. Break with RAW by saying that you must be able to apply called shot rules to all situations even though the book says you apply it to situations where such an opportunity exists.
2. Present an absurd situation and condemn the rules for allowing you to use a called shot.

I notice that you didn't respond to my own post at all, instead responding to an argument that people haven't been making.

QUOTE (Cain)

When compared to other systems out there, these sort of loopholes really make SR4 look like it's poorly done.  D20 has fewer loopholes (although D&D has more).  When you look at it comparitively, the flaws in the system are huge and glaring.


Huge and glaring? That's absurd. You're arguing like a politican - just keep making the same statement again and again in the hope that if it's heavy enough it will stick. I really find this distortion annoying.

I'm going to repeat the question others have asked. You're not arguing from the basis of the actual rules in front of you, so why the endless condemnation of the SR4 rules? I see the same posts coming from your again and again over the course of years - always the same two flawed arguments about called shots on Citymasters and about Long Shots on unperceived targets. Your agenda is clear - rubbish the 4th edition rules, but your motive is beyond me. Where is this coming from? What sustains your years long hatred and blinds you to the logic of other GMs?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012