Since I'm an American, I'll profess my ignorance. I don't get the metric system like I do the Imperial one, simply because I was raised with it. I can work with it, but it's harder to imagine distances that way. Blame the American educational system.

At any event, it's still a pain in the butt to convert meters/turn into something useful, like KPH or MPH. Then, you need to break it into actual distances covered for a given period of time. You can ignore and abstract this if you're not using a map; but if you are, you need to make sure distances are covered accurately. It's not enough to know how far a vehicle goes per turn, I need to break it up into distance per pass, in order to show it on a map.

The Shadowrun system was not designed for tactical miniature wargames. I don't like most miniature wargames, so this has never been an issue for me. But if I have to add maps and minis into the game in order to make things work, it will become an issue.

All of my American science courses from Elementary school through college taught in metric. Yes, we also learned the Imperial system for non-scientific usage, but the conversions are straightforward.

That said, it's easy enough to use 10' as a base measure of distance. 3m = 10' for all purposes that you will need in SR. (D&D when translated to French sets 5' = 1.5m so the folks on the other side of the pond are willing to stretch a bit with us.)

It's the 21^st Century. It might be time to learn.

I think if you're having a race along a highway, a highway that's straight with no turns, curves, bumps, or checkpoints, and none of the vehicles are required to maneuver, then yeah, the highest top speed wins. That's not on the rules, though, that's on the GM. If it curves at all (the standard curve on a US Interstate is rated for about 100 MPH, which is close to 135 meters per Combat Turn), or there are bumps or checkpoints, or there is any maneuvering (vehicles are not very stable at speeds in excess of 70-90 MPH), then yeah, I'd say chase combat is fair game.

However, if this isn't actually a discussion of when to use chase combat and when to use tactical combat, and I've instead intruded on a game of You Can't Solve My Problem, then please forgive me.

Hmmm... Rather than make some snarky comments about which parts of the country one can find "ignorant" Americans, I will simply state that where ever Cain was educated does not represent the schools that I, my friends, family, nor a significant portion of my countrymen have attended.

It is beginning to digress into yet another one of those threads, isn't it?

You're right, but that has nothing to do with the viability of Chase Combat vs. normal combat. You can achieve all that by using the normal rules with some house additions. It also doesn't solve the different vehicle type issue; as written, you can use Chase combat, and keep your Dodge Scoot in close range of a fighter jet.

This is the compromise thread, yes? My compromise is to erase Chase Combat entirely, and fold its more important functions into normal combat. Does anyone think that the rules work fine as written?


Look, they didn't even consider adding the metric system to the national school curriculum until the late 70's. For a few years, there was a big push to teach metrics to everyone, but it died out. So, if you're old enough to have gone to school before those years, you might not have encountered the metric system until college.

But to bring things back onto the subject at hand, Shadowrun is not the game to use if you require minis and maps for combat. If folding the Chase Combat rules into normal combat is going to require detailed tactical maps, then there's going to be an issue. Shadowrun simply does not support miniature play, unlike systems like D&D. This isn't a bad thing. But only by using Chase Combat can you legally abstract distances, instead of calculating them out. You can handwave a lot of this when you're not using a map; but when you start trying to get exact on things like position and movement, the system starts to break apart.

In other words, we need to find a way to continue to use abstract distances in normal combat. Shadowrun combat is supposed to be an abstract system anyway, so I'd think rules on how to handle distances without breaking out a measuring tape and slide rule would be useful for everyone.

I'm a might confused. No one's even suggesting that you break out minis, a tape measure, and to-scale accurate maps to use as a tactical wargame scenario. A poster above already mentioned limiting range changes to 1 category, maximum. That one change alone would fix some of your issues (like catching up instantly). Another suggestion was making it so vehicles with vastly different speeds aren't even *allowed* to engage in chase combat, at all.

I do like your idea of eliminating Chase combat altogether and folding some of their rules into tactical combat.

I can't vouch for the RAW rules one way or the other, as it's never come up in one of our games. (Very few chases, and most of them were ended with tactical combat in the way of disabling the chase vehicles)

I seem to recall that the rules state that the GM should apply modifiers based on speed as she feels appropriate (I want to say it's on p. 159 of your hymnal, but I might be off by a page or three). If the GM is not applying speed-based modifiers for Vehicle Tests in which speed is an issue (e.g. a highway rather than an arena), I'd say it's the GM's judgment that's flawed.


Yep. Even used 'em. In a three-way fight. Worked great.


Wow, you're older than I had assumed.

EDIT: I had more, but it was sincere discourse. I think I'm playing the wrong game, here, so never mind.

Just in case I did not express myself clearly (only the 4th time I´m saying it on this thread, IIRC): There are no real problems using the vehicle rules RAW. And we Germans take our fun damn seriously.

You Germans take everything damn seriously

Jawohl!

Sorry, I think it was Ryu who suggested using the normal combat rules, and changing the Break Off action into breaking LOS, and told me to use a map to determine LOS. I really don't like tactical wargames much, and Shadowrun isn't set up for maps, anyway.

The problem I'm having now is that normal combat requires more exact distances. Ranges for weapons are expressed in meters, and so you need to know the distance to determine what range you're in. The one thing I like about Chase Combat is that it abstracts all that. Maps are wonderful for giving you an exact distance, amount of cover, and the like; but Shadowrun is an abstract combat system, and doesn't work well that way. With everybody zipping around, it's hard enough to keep everyone's positions straight; I just tend to fudge it. Adding vehicles, however, will make that more difficult. I'm hoping to figure out a way to use abstract distances in normal combat.


*Scans pages*. I don't see it, I'm afraid. I do see that Vehicle tests should have a Threshold that's modified by difficulty, and I quite agree that going Mach 4.6 is probably going to significantly increase the Threshold on a test to make a tight turn. However, when you enter Chase Combat, you have to make an opposed vehicle test, and there are no thresholds in an opposed test. In fact, I think the only Vehicle Test modifier that applies to Chase Combat is Handling.


You haven't encountered *any* problems? You haven't been forced to switch back-and-forth between combat systems? You've never had to chase an opponent with a significant speed advantage? You've never had more than two entities in a chase? You've never had someone jump from Long to Close range instantly? (Aka, "The Picard maneuver" )

No, it's there on page 159 of your hymnal, under "Speed." If that's the one you're looking at, it doesn't say anything about modifying only a threshold, just adding modifiers, so that part of your argument seems to be a bit of a stretch.


That's an argument that is insulting to at least one of us, albeit probably unintentionally. I'm sure either of us (or just about any of us on DSF) could come up with at least one additional applicable modifier in under ten seconds. If this is your stance, you are by implication arguing that a GM may not impose modifiers based on her judgment of a situation; I'm not sure how many GMs would sign on to that theory.

If you do allow for GMs imposing modifiers based on their judgment of situations, then we're back to the speed thing, which leads to the GM being broken and not the rules.

I don't think it's talking about modifiers to other tests. Here's what I have:

So, it seems to say that the GM should apply appropriate modifiers to an attempt to go past your max speed. There is an alternate reading, which would suggest that going past your top speed might result in modifiers; but that doesn't apply to a Vehicle Test when everyone is under their top speed. So, we still have the Dodge Scoot chasing a fighter jet issue.


First of all, if I offended anyone, I apologize.

Second, that was my reading of the Vehicle Combat rules. Since we have an opposed test, threshold modifiers don't apply. Now, of the three tables we get, two only list Threshold modifiers; the third is the Handling modifier I previously mentioned. I tried to be specific and only mention the Vehicle Test modifiers; I didn't want to have to list every possible modifier from other parts of the game, such as injury modifiers.

Third, what I said amounts to: "I *think* this is how it works". I might be wrong, and I invite people to show me otherwise.

The first key: Tactical combat is the default, but not the only solution.



The second key: See Vehicle Combat, header of Speed. Going faster than your vehicle has any business going results in negative mods (pg. 158). Not being able to do a chase results in "no chase", not being able to break contact results in "no chase". Reality check first, application of rules second.



The third key: What I said was for your approach of going tactical-only. You´ll need a larger map than usual for that.

First of all, as far as I can tell, that only applies to a test to make your vehicle exceed its top speed. Going above your Speed rating should require a test; the faster you're trying to go, the harder the test should be.

Second, even if it does what you say it does (which I'll concede may be a valid interpretation), it only happens when you try and exceed your top speed. If the vehicle in question has a significantly higher Speed rating, there's no penalty. So if you have a moped chasing a souped-up sports car, all that matters are the respective Vehicle dice pools. It doesn't help fix the problem of when someone has a significant speed advantage. If anything, it'd hurt the faster vehicle.

Third, since it's an opposed test, a lot of penalties simply don't apply. Terrain, for example, is expressed as a Threshold modifier. The Vehicle test table, which sets the Threshold value for maneuvers based on difficulty, is a Threshold table. So, it doesn't matter what kind of terrain your scene is set in; the Terrain effects just don't come into play.

Finally, even if we do apply speed modifiers, it ends up hurting the faster car more. When I made our car go Mach 4.6, I fully understood and accepted that we would be facing stiff penalties to Vehicle tests. However, when you look at the huge difference in speed, we should have had some sort of advantage.

You have an advantage, and you can find it in the part you quoted.

If you are chasing an Eurocar Westwind on an Evo Orderly, all "chase" that happens ends on the first street. Now if you would be driving a souped up Shin-Hyung (sp?) in an urban environment, I would let you try, at a penalty for being slower (as you have to overextend the vehicle in order to keep up).


(You are again hurting one of your arguments by exaggeration. Just saying, even if I am not going to attack your argument on that base.)

I'll see what I can do. =i)


I can't agree with you, here. The entire paragraph is about going fast. There is within that paragraph one sentence about exceeding one's top speed. There is also a sentence about modifiers. The sentence about modifiers does not refer to the sentence about exceeding top speed; if it did, it would have a construction about "when doing so," or the like. Since its scope is not limited to the previous sentence, its scope is applied to the entire paragraph, which is about going fast.

Moreover, the only way for such a sentence to limit itself to a threshold modifier would be to actually mention thresholds. The closest appearance of the word "threshold" before the sentence in question is in Surprise Tests, several pages back. If we go forward, we enter an entirely different section, which describes a Vehicle Test threshold as being defined by the maneuver, not the speed at which that maneuver is attempted; the Vehicle Test Threshold Table supports this.

Back to the sentence in question. Since threshold or dice pool modifiers are not specified, I'd argue that the term can be used ambiguously: the GM may impose modifiers, and threshold modifiers and dice pool modifiers are both subsets of modifiers, therefore the GM may impose modifiers to either threshold or dice pool (or both!) due to speed. And since both modifiers apply, the argument ...


... is invalid, or at least entirely unsupported.

That's where I'm coming from. Your argument lacks evidence that speed modifiers are only applied to thresholds. If you could provide that evidence, it would go a long way toward convincing me of your point.

Going strictly by RAW, if the Evo Orderly wins the opposed test in the first round of Chase Combat, it starts within 5 meters or so of the Westwind. What happens next depends on too many variables to post, but it's possible that chase could continue. Now, you're saying that you would apply a penalty for the speed difference, which is fine. However, it is also a house rule, and you said the rules worked fine according to RAW. The same thing applies to simply handwaving the escape; that wouldn't be using the Rules As Written, like you said.


I'll acknowledge that this is a valid alternate reading, but it still doesn't help matters.

For an opposed test, threshold modifiers don't apply. Even if we allow for speed to apply as a dice pool modifier, it doesn't solve the problem of inequal speeds in chase combat. The super-fast vehicle would suffer penalties, while the slower vehicle would not. That would mean it's actually harder to get away by going faster, even when there's a tremendous difference in speeds.

I keep bringing this up, because it actually happened. When I made our car leap to Mach 4.6, I fully understood and accepted the fact that we'd be facing stiff penalties to vehicle tests. That's perfectly fair, and within both the letter and spirit of the rules. What isn't fair is that the other guys get a chance to keep up. In fact, by applying speed penalties, they have an even better chance of catching up, because they're not exceeding their top speed. Technically speaking, we would need to keep our speed up for a minimum of four minutes in order to escape. We would have been chased for 240km/150 miles, at the very least. If they were on racing bikes with a top speed of 200, they would have only gone 16km/10 miles in the same time frame.

Our GM's solution was to do what Ryu suggested: ignore the rules and handwave it away. I don't have an issue with that, but it does help illustrate my point that the Chase Combat rules don't work very well.

I'm sorry, I missed the part that stated that faster speeds always impose penalties. Perhaps you could offer a reference?

The problem is that the GM did not apply the Movement power properly. By RAW, the Movement power affects Movement Rates which people and critters have. Vehicles don't have a movement rating, they have a speed. The spirit could thus make the occupants run as fast as cars, but not turn cars into fighter jets.

(I would allow a spirit to have an effect on acceleration, but not speed. This was done in SR3 and given the wording, is equally valid in SR4.)

Beyond that, the description of Chase Combat say that it is designed for car chases or dog fights. It never suggests that you should combine them. If you are in a car, chasing a jet, you lose. End of story. Now if the jet was still on the tarmac, and you had to close to close range before it finished accelerating, that is a perfect case for a limited chase scene. You have two rounds before it stops being a ground vehicle and takes off.

According to the reading of the Speed rules you favor, if you exceed your vehicles' base speed, you incur dice pool penalties, right? I agree that's a fair reading.

The problem here is that means there's no incentive to go past your base speed in Chase Combat. In fact, you're penalized for doing so-- your dice pool for the Vehicle Opposed test, which is at the heart of the Chase Combat rules, is reduced. That means that the slower vehicles, who are remaining below their base speed, have an easier time catching up to you.


That's a mighty interesting reading. However, the rules on Acceleration (p 159) makes it clear that they do have movement rates. The acceleration rating indicates the vehicle's walking and running rates; additionally, it tells you how to increase them.


There's too many possible situations here to cover them all; but first of all, it's not impossible for a ground vehicle to chase an aerial vehicle. Let's say someone is trying to get away in a helicopter or dirigible. You're on the ground, and you want to follow them. It's not impossible for a car to keep up; it would depend on a lot of different things. However, even so, the aerial vehicle should have some sort of advantage. The Chase Combat rules doesn't allow for this, however.

Second, the Chase Combat rules don't work particularly well, even for straight chases and dogfights. The opposed test doesn't give the winner a superior position; it allows him to set the range. But in a dogfight, what happens if they both want to be within close range? Your superior skill becomes meaningless, because the weaker driver also got the range he wanted. What's more, the rules break down when there's more than two people involved. Since the winner gets to set the range, even if you come in second place, there's no guarantee that you'll be in a better position in relation to the loser.

For example, let's say you want to shoot down a drone before it can reach its controlling rigger's van. You roll your opposed test, and this is your results:

1. Opposing Rigger and his van.
2. You and your vehicle.
3. The drone, which rolls a botch.

By the rules, the opposing rigger gets to set the ranges. He puts his van and drone at Long Range in relation to you. Thanks to his superior skill at Ground Craft, his rotodrone is able to start getting away from you.

Third, the change in timeframe really scrambles things. What happens if someone summons a spirit? They can't participate in the combat at all, since they don't have a vehicle skill to roll for the opposed test. Ryu suggested that if this happens, you should cut to normal combat; but if you're yo-yoing back and forth between Chase Combat and normal combat, you're going to have a lot of timing issues.

No. Go back and read post #317 of this thread again, please. We can pick up again afterward.

and maybe move it to its own thread as this one is once again completely off topic?

[quote name='NightmareX' date='Aug 24 2008, 05:08 AM' post='715896']
Initially I would say my biggest issues are as follows:

Things that can be easily solved

* Lack of shadowslang



Frankly, I don't need any shadowslang to assist me in believing the world of Shadowrun. I can do without the 'frilling, drenning, fracking' or any other word that is substituted to make the world of Shadowrun unique. I like the game because it could be seen as an extention of our understood reality. I would think in the future curse words would probably be the same and the need to cheapen it just makes me cringe. How long has the f word been around, and why would that particularly change in the year 2070?

Watch it chummer before I kick your fragging hoop!

Shadowslang feels pretty silly, like the FCC was going to jump in and censor FASA and FanPro if they used contemporary profanity. It's not like the game was designed for children. But it's part of Shadowrun history and I think that could be respected on some levels. I don't mind mixing real and "future swears" in in-game dialogue.

You know, after 20 years of in-game time it might be time to make up some new shadow profanity. Oh snap, you doubleplus meatbag blenders!

A couple of thoughts on Shadowslang/shadow-profanity. The language we use, even in games, pervade our lives and became an integral part of our vernacular. The two primary issues with this when considering profanity are that it is considered unprofessional to use profanity in general speech and that it creates a barrier to the inclusion of teenagers. Argue as I am sure some will, it does not change the fact that mild violence is more socially acceptable than profanity. As a business professional, I would rather avoid accidental slips caused by becoming desensitized to profanity in casual vocabulary.

Also, the point of 'like it or not it is part of the Shadowrun history' is completely valid. In the end, your game is your game and my game is my game. For my game, we don't feel the need to cuss like sailors to have a good time or 'feel the genre'; Shadowslang works just fine.



Discussion of 2070 Shadowslang

First, Real world cursing is as out of place in Shadowrun as it would be in Star Trek, Red Dwarf, Farscape, etc.

" F*** you Mr. Spock!"

Second is does turn off a substantial crowd, particularly the parents of the under 18 crowd who are the ones you really want to get hooked on RPGs for the future of the industry. How many Dumpshockers started Shadowrunning in their teenage years?

Third, D&D and other RPGs do without the cursing (selling well) and people have no problem figuring out how to add it to the gaming table if they want it... in fact for most it is as simple as playing themselves. That is not a dig, it is simply truth that any of us not raised in a cloister can figure out how to add it to our game but taking away Shadowtalk and adding it back in isn't as simple.

Fourth, if you don't think cursing has changed in 20, 40, or 60 years then you haven't been around enough sailors. But since Shadowrun is supposed to be all "80s" here is a list of nasty 80s insults that are passe now:

Pecker head (I remember using this one at my sister's church to a lot of stunned silence... nobody cares any more)
Dork
Gaylord
Flee bag
Divvy
Spastic
scum
twot
norbert
johny no mates
dildo
douche bag (back, but passe thanks to John Stewart)

Regardless I'm a 1st through 3rd edition Shadowrun and to be Shadowrun I expect it still has Shadowtalk and doesn't sound as out of place as Mr. Spock cussing.