Muspellsheimr:
You have a bad track record on this... start citing chapter and verse for your exotic interpretations none of us have heard of before. IE: actually reading the book in detail. Or please don't post and lead people astray.

To take the basic example...
You have 2 essence worth of cyber. (including cyber hole if any)
You have 2 essence worth of bio. (including bio hole if any)
Your total essence is 3 = 6 - 2 - (2/2).

If either goes to 2.5, your new essence is still 2.5 == 6 - 2.5 - (2/2). The combined essence score still doesn't obviate the need to track both totals separately and doesn't care if you have a bio/cyber flip. I want a chapter and verse cite if you're going to argue that.

The game never makes you pick one as the great or lesser though they're equal. Technically neither is greater nor lesser as they're equal so neither would technically RAW qualify for preferential treatment. (EG: essence ends up being 2, not 3). Though no GM I've ever known has ever done that.

p128 augmentation has nothing to even infer your wierd handling of essence holes.


I quote:
"Essence Losses from cyberware and bioware are tracked separately. Only the higher of the two totals deducts from Essence in full, with the other deducting at half."

It then even goes further and gives an example.
"For example, if a character has an Essence loss of 1.5 from cyberware and 2.5 from bioware, then the character's Essence is 6 - 2.5 (full bioware) - 0.75 (half cyberware), or 2.75."

It then even states... "Characters should keep track of both, as it's possible one can outpace the other as the character implants more cyber or bio into his body."

It doesn't say to keep track of one at half the other, it says to keep track of both, and the second sentence details how to calculate the characters essence at this moment. That text doesn't change in SR4a.


Look at the example... right there in the example... the Essence loss from cyber is stated outright as 1.5, Not as 0.75 which is the final effect it has on your essence score. Again, it's tracked at full cost. Any essence hole incurred would stay as part of the total cyber essence loss.

Please Cite your references...
It is not as clear cut as you would have us believe, as a good number of people disagree with your assessment...
References to support your interpretation might help your argument out...

My two cents...

So... what's the point of the essence hole rules anyway? It seems like an awful lot of work for who-knows-what kind of gain. I'm inclined to just ignore them, judging by the debate.

That, in a nutshell. You don't get Essence back when you take out cyber (you would need Revitalization, AUG, p.88), so it's basically a reminder that you can fill in that "hole" before you start losing more Essence when you put new 'ware in.



And yeah, you could pretty much ignore them. You can pretty much ignore anything if you don't want to use it in your games. I think the detailed 'ware rules are fun from a resource management and nitty-gritty-how-the-world-works perspective, but they never seem to come up in my games that often. Generally, in my experience people are almost always losing more Essence overall when they jockey their 'ware around. I'd be surprised if very many people are using this rule at all even if they would theoretically use it in their game.

And for Pete's sake, there's not really a debate about it. The Essence hole rules never come into play in the example Mus keeps giving. He may not like it, but that's how it is. You're not removing anything==no Essence hole. It doesn't get much simpler than the sentence


And nowhere in figuring Essence cost when you're simply adding on something new do you ever remove anything. The Essence hole rules come into play if you remove ware. Period.

edit to add:


Oh gods. Now we're going to get a wave of people arguing that you count the full value of both, since one isn't lower than the other. See what you've done?? You bastard!!

Guys, can we let it go? He doesn't have a leg to stand on, and we know it. If he replies, it will be with the same baseless interpretation he's already given us, because there's no basis for it. We're just wasting time on this one, we should agree that he's wrong and move on. There's no need to try and coax him to stir up even more controversy on this topic, which I'm sure has already been litigated and re-litigated in countless other threads as it is.

Not entirely without basis. As an example assume a character has bought 5.9 essence worth of cyberware. If he removes 2 points worth he has still got 3.9 points of cyberware and an essence hole of 2 points which can only be filled with more cyberware. If he then tries to buy 2 points of bioware it cannot be placed in the essence hole he gained and he is now at -.9 essence (6-5.9 cyber-2/1 bio) thus needing cybermancy to survive. Have I accurately stated your position Muspellsheimr? If I've missed some subtlety I apologise.

No, we all understand that. Essence holes mean that even when you take cyberware out, you don't get the essence back, that hole can only be filled with more cyber. What Mu has been failing to prove is that when your cyber essence is higher than your bio, and then you get more bio so the cyber is now the lowest, you create an essence hole because you regain 1/2 of your cyberware value. Based on that premise, he uses an example where you have 3.0 cyber and 3.1 bio, and a 1.5 essence hole, and you die. Which is wrong, because you only create essence holes by removing cyber, the rules are very specific on this. You never gain or lose essence by dividing one of your totals in half, this is a calculation that applies after totaling up your cyber and bio essence. You still have 3.0 of cyber and 3.1 of bio, you haven't gained or lost anything, you simply change the calculation for which one counts as half. His entire argument is based on a flawed premise which has no precedent whatsoever in the rules. Can we be done with this now? I mean seriously, this is like a fire with turds as the fuel. No more fuel please, it's really starting to stink.

Ah, my apologies, I'd failed to accurately parse the issue under discussion, I see no argument with the rules as you have stated them.

Mu what are you smoking man? hehe

But essenced loss is NOT quantifiable in scientific terms. It changes, depending on what other implants are affecting essence. A subject comes in for modifications. The mage sees that the subject has full Essence. The subject wants Cat's Eyes (E 0.1), and a Rating 2 Adrenal Pump (E 1.5), which comes out to an Essence loss of 1.60. The subject then has an arm replaced with a full cybernetic arm. From previous experience, the mage knows this costs 1 full point of Essence. However, after the surgery, the total loss is only 2.10. The full arm has only cost 0.50 Essence. Later, the subject gets a second arm replaced. The mage sees that the essence loss is now 2.80, which means the second arm cost 0.70 Essence. Eventually, we can assume that the mage will figure out the equation that all PLAYERS know. I don't think it is that exact, however. Shadowrun makes it clear that magic is NOT science, or scientific. We use the numbers for our (i.e. the players) game mechanics, but I see the in game affect as the surgeons consult with a mage, who then determines how the implants may affect the subject. They have more intuitive reasoning, backed by their experience and understanding of how magic works, but to say that the mage sees the Essence in terms of numbers is ridiculous.

Think of how Body is reduced to a single score. Science has methods of determining a persons health, but there is no one score. There are in fact, many, many scores, such as how long a person can hold their breath, their colesterol levels, family history, etc. The game mechanics boils it down to an easy to use abstract number, but that is all it really is. I don't see why Essence is any more precise. Even Strength, probably the least abstracted number, is still an abstraction. There are strong people who don't use their strength efficiently, while someone of lesser strength knows a better way to lift, pull, or shove the same weight.

Trying to argue how the exact equation used by players fits into the Shadowrun world is like trying to figure out how First Aid can heal magical drain. We can guess, but there is no way of knowing, because we can't test it. How much damage does a bullet do? It depends on Foot/pounds, velocity, deformation of the bullet, and where it hits the body, how the body reacts, how the injury is treated, and many other factors. All this is abstracted.

Let the game mechanics give a structure, but let the creativity describe the effects.

Yes the stats are aproximations but so are several real life variables, which can effectively be used. If the Approximation is good enough for the rules why wouldn't it be good enough ingame? Of course you can describe Essence 5 differently if it is observed on a junkie, someone with Bioware or someone with a standard cybernetic limb. But nonetheless the observer knows that the observed impurities all mean that the subject has lost exactly one point of essence.

If it wasn't the developers intention to let the characters know the essence score of an assensed subject, why is the essence score supplied by a suffiently good roll? Why is there no indication in the books that this should not be obtainable information? If someone can perceive it, it is there, just like someone can see that a steel lynx is a wheeled vehicle with a remote controlled turret.

If essence is not scientifically measurable, why are there aura cameras? Why can you deduct the essence score from a picture taken with such a camera? I admit it is difficult, but possible.

Magicians can, with a really good assensing test, tell EXACTLY how much essence something has left . . Yes, that means they get to say things like:"you are 1.25% away from being dead"

Of course, there's no real reason why a mage would describe it in terms of a score out of 6. They might consider it a percentage, or some other arbitrary number. I think to assume that all mages consider it to use the same meta-mechanic as we players do is rather dry.

Why can we not divorce mechanics from the story?

I think that is the RAI for movement.

Ironically enough, the two sides of this argument are actually generating the same result, just describing the mechanics differently.

Dakka Dakka, following your logic, a mage with the appropriate spell can tell that a person has taken exactly 3 boxes of damage, and they are probably suffering a penalty of -1. I'm not saying there isn't a categorical system for describing changes in Essence, or how much certain implants affect certain subjects, but I have trouble believing that it is as simple as our game mechanics.

Perceiving a change in Essence of .1, which approximately 1.7% change can be done with game mechanics, but describing it in game as a .1 essence loss seems, well, bland. Comparing the measurement of Essence in a body to the quantity of liquid in a 2 liter bottle is possible. I did some calculations and figure that each 2% difference in a 2 liter bottle is about 5mm (close to 0.2 inches). Estimating by eye whether someone has 500mL or 495mL maybe possible with training. (I don't know - anyone have an answer for that?)

I am not trying to say we shouldn't use game mechanic terminology in our in game language. It is easier for players to mix the two, speeding up game play and allowing the game to move forward. Originally, I was focusing more on the effects of individual implants and the different effects of cyberware and bioware, than on the relative differences between individuals. In game, it wouldn't be as simple as adding up a bunch of numbers, then using a simple calculation. In game mechanics, this is exactly what it is.

I am just pointing out that, becaues of the abstraction of the game system, we should not assume that in game reality mirrors the details of the mechanics. Yes, the players can agree there is one pistol on the table, and yes the mage can say the subject has exactly 3.0 essence, because he rolled well, but that doesn't translate into 1 full arm always equalling 1 full Essence point, or 16.67% of the total Essence in a person. The rules and the players may say it, but the mage probably wouldn't.

Well, it's not so much that the same ware has different impacts on essence. I think everyone in the science/magic community agrees that installing a cyberarm always has the same impact on a normal person. The issue is more like why don't you lose essence from having your arm chopped off? There's less body for the spirit to live in, so shouldn't there be less spirit? But for some reason, there isn't. I could cut off your arm and crudely jam a cyberarm into the hole, and you would not lose essence. But the minute I do microsurgery to attach the arm to your body and allow you to control it, you lose essence. I could also cut off your arm and replace it with a cloned arm that is 100% artificial because it's been cloned in a vat, and you wouldn't lose essence. So it's not even about hooking artificial things into the body. It is mystical, it is nonsensical. It is a game mechanic, it just works, deal with it! If you don't like how it defies explanation, you can replace it with whatever you want -- I'd suggest a Humanity system like CP2020 has. But people shouldn't pretend like essence is a problem with SR4. It's a legacy aspect of the system, it wouldn't be Shadowrun without essence, so we keep it even if the original idea behind it is deeply flawed. You gotta remember, it was invented in the 80's, and people were frickin' crazy back them.

Yeah, because people are so much more sane, these days ... [Editted for the sake of safety and reason!]

Going to head this off at the pass. Do not get into a political wank that causes us to have to warn people and lock the thread. Thanks.

@ Writer & Ornot: Ah, I think i misunderstood what you were trying to say. I agree with you that simply saying that a person has Essence 5 is bland. I thought you argued against a mage knowing that a person still has a certain percentage of his being left and can therefore install so and so much additional 'ware. I'm also for describing this fact more interstingly and, if the information is available, more quantitatively than "Damn you don't need a doctor, you need a mechanic!"

Sweet. One of my threads almost got locked.

Let's see... we have covered quite a few topics already, but let me bring up a few we haven't touched on:

1. Edge recovery. I am making this an Essence + Charisma test, usable once per mission (or at most once per game session). You usually need 8 hours of rest to make this test. Edge is automatically recovered between missions.

2. Technomancer build costs! I like the Unwired rule about treating their CFs like spells. That saved me a LOT of points (10 CFs cost 20 BP, rather than 50 BP), which lets technos explore other non-techno areas.

3. Standardizing contacts. Contacts do not have messy stat blocks. All tests are made with 6 + Connection rating. When opposing the player, the contact rolls 6 + Connection vs player's Test + contact's Loyalty.

4. +1 IP for all. Came up in this thread.

5. Grenade and rocket blasts. It's a little more complicated than this, but essentially every character caught in a blast can roll Reaction + Edge. Each hit lets the character move 1m away before rolling damage resistance, but they also fall prone.

6. If the modified DV of an attack is less than or equal to the modified Armor, the defender chooses whether to suffer Physical or Stun damage, instead of suffering only Stun damage. This makes trolls fall unconscious from being stunned to death less often, and instead they can wrack up insane Wound penalties (like -6).

7. Only one Sprinting test allowed per Combat Turn.

8. Roll Agility + Gymnastics to avoid Interceptions, with a threshold equal to the number of foes you are trying to push past. Failure means you get attacked normally, while glitching means you fall prone. Gymnastics is not used for Full Defense tests.

9. Matrix program limitations. If you try to use a program with a rating that exceeds your Logic, you take a -2 penalty on the test.

10. Direct spells & riggers. If a rigger is jumped into a vehicle (or drone) while attacked by a Direct Combat spell, he can choose to ignore the Object Resistance Test and instead roll the vehicle's Body as an Opposed Test. This roll can be improved by a friendly magician's Counterspelling dice or the rigger's Edge dice. (I made this rule before Object Resistance was cranked to 5+/6+)

11. When jumped into a vehicle (or drone), all tests use the rigger's skill + the vehicle's Response or Sensor rating. If that vehicle attribute exceeds the rigger's Reaction or Intuition, respectively, apply a -2 penalty to the test. In addition, if your commlink's Response is lower than your vehicle's device rating, apply a -2 penalty to the test.

12. Armor penetration. If an attack has a positive AP, the bonus dice given to the defender cannot exceed the defender's current armor. For example, if you shoot flechette (+5 AP) at an opponent wearing a leather jacket (2 ballistic armor), he rolls Body + 4 to resist, not Body + 7.

13. Reverse the Concealability charts (i.e., SMGs are now -4 and light pistols are now +2). Higher is better. It makes more sense to get a bonus/penalty to your Palming test, because there's no reason that the searcher should "know" he's getting a penalty (in the case of players patting down NPCs).

14. Cyberlimbs. You ALWAYS round the attributes of your 4 limbs and torso. It's too much work to figure out what body parts you're using for each test, and open to too much argument. This way you just write a nice number on your character sheet and use that one, always.

seems to me like mundanes get the hose compared to mages again.

care to elaborate?

No, that would be an ESS + MAG test.

Last time I checked mundanes can have good CHA scores.

Would it be too hard to just use the lowest of the stat and program/vehicle-stat? As-is you upgrade your Sensor attribute and you start doing worse, then just as good then, finally, better. That's retarded.



And 0 Essence dice. It doesn't even make unwared mundanes useful, because they're still acting half as many times as the sam and Edge is an expendable resource, unlike enhancements.

Maybe. Some of my rules try to help out non-cybered or lightly cybered mundanes, so that was the intention of using Essence. Charisma is another under-represented score among non-faces and non-shamans, so I wanted a way to encourage a decent Charisma score for everyone.

Let me think. Roll Magic + Initiate rating if you're a mage/adept (Resonance for technos), or Essence + Charisma if you lack those qualities? That way most players would be in the ~5-6 dice pool range, I think.


From my house rules:

Cyberlimbs
* Cyberlimbs boost your augmented attribute rather than replace it.
* For Body, Strength, and Agility, take the sum of each limb (two arms, two legs) and torso attribute. When counting a real body part, use your character's actual attribute. Divide this sum by 5. Round this averaged value to the nearest whole number, which becomes your new augmented attribute.
o Ex. Tom Tinman has a cyberarm with Agility 6 installed. His unaugmented agility is 1, and he has Muscle Replacement (R1) installed, which improves all non-cybered body parts to 2. The Agility of his two regular legs (2+2), torso (2), and left arm (2) are added to the Agility of his right cyberarm (6) for a total of 14. Divide this by 5, and he ends up with 2.8, which rounds off to 3. Tom's Agility is 1(3). If he decides to replace his left arm with another Agility 6 cyberarm, his Agility would average out to be 3.6, or 1(4).


I'm not sure if that's a pejorative or a legitimate descriptor.

I figured someone with 2 Logic who buys a nice Edit 6 program should get some bang for the buck. Make it equivalent to an Edit 4.

Compare it to a soccer mom using Microsoft Word to make fliers. She won't know all the spiffy features, and what she makes will probably end up pretty terrible, but it will be light-years beyond what she can do in Microsoft Notepad

(i.e., she could probably figure out font sizes, colors, and pictures, even if she doesn't understand the complexities of table alignments and column wrapping... but if using Notepad, she'd be stuck with one font, one color, and no pictures)

And Edit 3 is the same as Edit 1, whereas Edit 2 is Edit 2.

See the flaw? By going up a level you lose a die.

Using Essence + Charisma to refresh Edge is just a giveaway to Mr. Lucky. Mr. Lucky is already pretty uber, insofar as he can add 8 dice to anything. His one disadvantage is that he can only do that 8 times per session at the most. If you give him a way to refresh Edge, he'll just take minimal cyber, a good Charisma, and he'll be even more sick and wrong than he already is. No thanks.

Ever tried to get someone to use Office 2007 but hated the interface because it didn't look like the old Office?

While I am fine with Logic capping Program rating (or at least I wouldn't go so far as call it "retarded"... you people need to chill out), I really don't see a problem in giving the dumb Logic 1 troll a rating 6 program and actually letting him get some use out of it. The team hacker could show him a few tricks, teach him what buttons to press and a few simple commands, and suddenly the troll can hold his own in a cyber-brawl. He won't be as good as the hacker, but if he's got a decent commlink and a good enough program, he should be able to act at least like an Agent.

Hackers can act as backup gunslingers in the real world, so why can't gunslingers be backup hackers in the Matrix?

From a fluff perspective, I imagine high-level programs still have wizards and basic modes for new users. Some people just "don't get" computers, no matter how hard you try to teach them (low Logic), but the program should be smart enough to predict what the user wants with some degree of accuracy.

So that's what the -2 represents. If your panties are still in a ruffle, then make it -1.

I understand where you're coming from, but mechanics wise it doesn't work. A logic 5 person would never be able to get full use out of a Rating 6 program, despite being in the top 20th percentile for intelligence.

I've already been using rule #12 and I am stealing #13 from you for my new game.

As for hacking and logic: I just cap successes at Logic*2.

And last but not least: Indirect combat spells get a flat -2 to their drain DV.

I will apologise in advance for throwing out a colour-explosion response, but it's easier to colour-code bits of text and append my response so that you can see the context of the statement. I've tried to minimise the eyebleedingness, but I've no guarantee that it will be sufficient. To those of you who are colourblind, I further apologise for any confusion.



Actually, I was insulting the people who made the Programs in your version of the setting. They keep putting the default settings at stupid values that requires someone smart do some trivial (to a smart enough person) mathematics to get the right values (hence requiring logic at certain levels). This is a perfectly valid assumption to make, since people in real life make programs that have stupid defaults, and force the user to do things that could be automated.

Glad to see we're in agreement. So can you please throw away penalties for low Logic users and move to a Carrot system where you give people bonuses for having high Logic? Low DPs are one of the problems with the Matrix as it stands (i.e. a "top scientist" equivalent Hacker with equipment that is nearly top end of the normally available set expects to bounce off any security system more than half the time, which is ridiculous) and more penalties just makes the whole thing worse.

They always could. Until you came along and dropped a -2 penalty on them, rendering your Logic 1 Troll nearly useless with any Program. The only impediment beforehand was their skill selection, which you've still got as a problem. You're going to see that Troll buying an agent more often under your rules because he's less useful now than before.

I've always considered UI a function of Rating anyway. If anything a low Logic character should be better with a high Rating program than a low Rating program. Which they are under the normal rules.

That's better, more like the defaulting penalty.


By the way, you're the one whose houserule involves making your "dumb"er characters worse using programs. I just suggested an alternative that doesn't mean you lose dice when making your program better - which is counter-intuitive and bad because it's difficult to see beforehand and totally binary. I go in for Stat + Skill + Program, and let Hackers throw down DPs in the same ranges as Sams in their chosen role.

man, that post looks like i'm tripping on something good o.o
munchies too . .

WOW...... Look at all the pretty colors...

All valid points, Heath. I don't like the default system, because Logic has no use.

But saying that Logic caps Program rating (or vice-versa) means Logic 1 Troll can't tell the difference between MS Paint and Photoshop (both would act like Rating 1). Maybe he can't, but just pressing random buttons is sure to get him some effective difference (hence the -2). So if Logic 1 Troll uses an R6 program, it's treated more like an R4 program to him.

So I tried to aim for a middle-ground rather than all Logic or no Logic.

The other popular choice is using Logic or Program rating to cap the number of *hits*, and I don't like that because it makes your randomly awesome successes (8 hits! Woo!) lose steam. Plus I like dicepools I can write down without having to remember additional rules about them later, because more often than not players forget all the details after char-gen.

In the end I will probably stick to one of the Unwired optional rules, because it's more familiar and a little simpler. Thanks for the comments. Helps me think things through.

Do you still find this necessary after the SR4A changes to Direct Combat spells?

Many people don't seem to like them, but they seem fine if you let the player ignore unwanted net hits.

Sorry to post three times in a row, but this just popped in my head.

Okay, I like Logic + Skill (limit hits to program/CF rating). It seems elegant on the surface, because you only have to remember one dice pool. If you roll a lot of hits, that's when the GM asks "So what's your program rating again?"

But, how does that affect riggers? Do they then roll Reaction/Agility + Skill for jumped-in tests and Logic + Skill for remote-control tests (along with Intuition + Perception for Sensor tests). What exactly are their hits limited to?

Technomancer threading gets a little gimped too, right? Boosting your possible hits doesn't help at all.

Program + Skill (limit hits to Logic) might be better, but it just ends up complicating the system with a new limitation to worry about, rather than simplifying things (which is my intention).

The only change that is standard now is the new OR table (the Direct Combat Spell changes are in the Errata as optional), and while that gives magicians a bit more reason to use them - I still think they could use a more direct boost.

Direct Spell Drain
Direct spells involve creating some kind of mana channel through which you push the effect. Things bounce back up the channel, though. This sets up a fluctuating feedback effect that means that the more you push in, the more painful the feedback.

All Direct Spells add the number of Hits used (selected after they've seen the results of their Sorcery roll) to their Force when calculating the Drain Value.

So when you throw a Direct Spell at a Counter-Spelled, Magic-Resistant Dwarf Sam you're gonna be hurting hard. Except when they fail to punch through, which I'm fine with.


Jumped-in Riggers are uncapped and roll their normal pools. Remote-control Riggers use Attribute+Skill, capped by Command.

There are still a number of things that are based off the Rating of the relevant Program, like Encryption strength, ECCM, Data Bombs, Tracing/Perception Thresholds. Threading is weakened but by no means dead.

(My current GM is using this rule, so I've had a look through what it ends up affecting)

From the SR4A changes document, found here.



Emphasis mine.

If you read closely you'll notice a major difference from the SR4A rule and the one I just proposed. Like, one that will dramatic reduce complaints about overcasting being distinctly better, and another that will remove the problems with multiple targets. It also applies to more than Combat spells.

Sorry, I didn't realize that was a rules proposal.

That'll teach me for not reading.

Yes, we understand your point, however in so using a -2 you're using an extreme example (1 logic, rating 6 program) and forgetting the average/above average values (Say Logic 5, rating 6 program).

Hence I would suggest:

Rating > Logic:
Rating -2 OR Logic, whichever is higher.

Or possibly Rating > Logic * 2:
Rating -2 OR Logic*2, whichever is higher.

By using the first you're capping to Logic anytime that the program exceeds Logic by only 1 (granting a +1 over the Rating -2 method) while still having the benefit of the edge case Logic 1, Rating 6.

By using the second method we've eliminated the Exceedingly Smart People Unable to Utilize Very Sophisticated Programs issue (i.e. Logic 7 can't use Rating 9 programs), while still "penalizing" low Logic characters. Min Logic*2 again, or a Logic 1 character would still have an effective Rating 1 program while using Rating 3, but Rating 2 and Rating 4 both work as Rating 2.

I really don't like this. If it's a known fact that trolls don't die as easy as squishier races, but have jaws that are made from the same glass, then they should take steps to utilize this instead of making choices that are designed to knock someone out rather than kill him.

Simply put, someone wears a modern kevlar vest knowing that instead of getting killed they will get knocked out (yes, this is a simplified example, but the point remains so please don't get into the science of kevlar and ignore the point). This is basically converting physical damage to stun damage. This is a choice that is made because getting dead is bad, you make a choice to keep yourself from getting dead.

Back to the troll. If the troll is more worried about getting knocked out instead of getting dead, then he shouldn't be doing things that make it more likely for him to get knocked out. AKA, he should a little bit of armor off. Yes, he is bigger and tougher and therefore capable of wearing more armor. This is fine, as it keeps him from getting dead, again this is bad. However, making the choice to keep from getting dead at the risk of getting knocked out is something that they do on their own. If they'd rather risk physical damage, since they are tougher that way, then that is a risk they can take without having to try to rework how armor works.

In my opinion, this rule is in place to help keep trolls (or really anyone with a higher body) from just wearing absurd armor and stacking body modifiers so that they can become walking tanks. They are not tanks, they are metahumans. Bullets hurt metahumans. You can choose to wear armor to reduce this, but it runs the risk of knocking you out. If you are more worried about getting knocked out than getting dead, well then take some of that armor off. As with all things, there is a point of balance to be struck. Excess is never healthy, and an excess of armor has it's own unhealthy risks associated with it (getting knocked out easier).

Maybe I sound like an old codger, but I miss lethal combat in Shadowrun. I miss a troll getting dropped from a single shotgun blast (admittedly, that was based on bad luck more than anything) since it gave a real risk to things.

[codger voice]
Back in my day, combat was something to be scared of. People died when they got shot. Thats the risks we faced, and we liked it!
[/codger voice]

My GM likes the fact that a troll in body armor is going to fall unconscious FAST.

Actually, the rule doesn't really keep anyone from being a walking tank. It just prevents them from getting full use out of their Condition Monitor. No matter how you slice it, it's better to have lots of damage resistance dice but fewer boxes than it is to have lots of boxes and fewer dice. Now, the stun damage rule seems a little unfair to trolls because they pay points to have such high Body and thus such an amazing number of boxes, but they can't even use them. But honestly, they can cry me a frickin' river, they're pretty powerful as it is.

What I object to with that house rule is that it breaks realism so much more than this system already does. It would mean that you could fire two identical bullets at two copies of a heavily armored guy, and based on their own personal choice, one suffers bruising and the other one gets severe lacerations? That's going too far, for me.

That was sort of the point I was getting at.



Agreed. Making a special rule for armor just to make trolls, or wannabe trolls, even tougher isn't something I'd use in my game.



I actually meant to touch on that, but got carried away with being goofy. Thank you for also mentioning this.

I should mention that he likes it as a player, as a GM, and as a story teller.

Quite frankly... I don't like any of your house rules Heath. If I hand a toddler an ultra fancy cable tester, I don't expect him to be able to do anything more than plug it in and see if it shines green or red. I don't expect him to be able to use the more advanced diagnostics functions such as a TDR or the like. Same goes for software... yeah drawing w/ the mouse is easy, now making full use out of all the bells and whistles is hard. I also disagree SEVERELY w/ your suggested drain mechanic.

I also really dislike your thoughts that all systems should be trivial for a hacker out of chargen to bust into. Really they should bounce back a lot more than that. And I say that as someone who has worked in computer security and has had to harden systems and have them tested by professional hackers trying to crack them.


Of the decking house rules listed... I like these suggestions:
Logic + hacking... capped by program rating. (it just makes a lot of sense). Especially if people can edge for more hits than allowed when needed.

Though for the related question as regards rigging tests... especially in relation to the command program. I'd probably take a page from astral space... and use mental attributes for VR activities. (Logic -> agility, intuition -> reaction, bod -> wil, cha -> str). Though that gets complicated because for a lot of things response is used instead of reaction (EG: defense against attacks). The only two skills I can think of w/o checking my books would be affected would be gunnery (agility), and vehicle (reaction/intution).

Defeats the purpose if it's going to be so complicated.

For now, I'm dumping the Logic thing. It sounds simpler for hackers, but it just makes figuring out what riggers do even more difficult, and technomancers take an even bigger hit. I'm already against riggers needing a bunch of real-world skills to rig their drones, so I don't want them also needing a bunch of real-world attributes. One is fair, but agility, reaction, and logic together seems like overkill. If they're rolling Agility + Gunnery for a drone attack test, they might as well just be a street sam.


(EDIT) Having to find a sweet spot is too metagamey for me. (/EDIT) If someone's wearing good armor and has a high Body, I expect them to have more "hit points." Before they go down, I want to see them limping, bloodied, and unable to see straight. Getting knocked out from Stun damage reminds me of a mixture between fainting and being bludgeoned by a whiffle bat. I have difficulties imagining that happening to a troll.


I made armor encumbrance kick in at Strength + Body (x1.5 if Milspec) rather than Body x 2. Plus I took the rule from Arsenal where you can wear one piece of armor without penalties. Plus I'm doing karmagen and still charging trolls a 40 karma racial cost, and on top of that you get a +1 bonus to shoot large dudes, like trolls.

So I feel bad for the big fellas at this point.


I'm not concerned with realism. I'm more concerned with making the game work as one would expect it to. For me, that means a troll in good armor should be able to wrack up more wound modifiers before going down, compared to someone else.

In hindsight, I should remove the "choice" part from the house rule. There's really only one choice someone would make, and that's the one that leads to not dying. I don't think it's worth getting hung up on the wording, though.

Well, it would make a lot of sense if hackers were sitting at a PC with a keyboard and mouse. But when they're flying around in hot sim VR, it might not. I think that the rule you mention is a good idea if you feel it's important to make logic worthwhile, because as is, it's the worst stat in the game (maybe neck and neck with strength). But it's not a reality objection.

If you think that hackers in 2070's Net do the same thing that today's hackers do, I think that's a failure of imagination. Look at it this way: when you use your armor prog, do you pull up a config screen in your firewall and set the values to defeat the enemy's attack? Hell no! You pull out your virtual shield, and the enemy's attack goes 'ping' right off it, based on how good the code is. When you exploit, you pull out your virtual hound dog and he starts sniffing for a rabbit hole. Your skill is a factor because you need to know how to handle the hound dog, and make sure he doesn't get stuck in a corner or something. The inner workings of programs in VR are totally opaque. The user uses them like he does a gun, he pulls it out, aims it, and pulls the trigger.

At least, that's how I explain the disconnect between attributes and hacking. The only people who need Logic are the ones that design the hardware and software. It's not like modern hacking, where everything you do is based on understanding the inner workings of code. Maybe it's an unrealistic vision of the future. Hell, I'll be surprised if it turns out the way that Shadowrun predicts. The whole concept was pioneered by Gibson in the 80's, when many computers didn't even support graphics. His idea was that a program did the work, and the netrunner just drove it like a virtual car, or something. The point is, logic and hacking aren't necessarily connected. They can be if you want to house rule the game, but don't feel like there's no rational explanation for the system as is. I think people who know about computers want to change the rules because they have a personal bias against script kiddies, not because the system as it stands is bad. They just hate the idea of hackers being script kiddies who don't write their own software or even know how to write it. My suggestion is, play a hacker, see if it's fun, and only house rule it if you just can't deal with it.

It's not a bias against script kiddies that I have, but rather that Logic isn't needed damn near anywhere in the game. Plus, it does take some intelligence to use computer programs, anyone can Search Google (Rating 5 Data Search program?) but it takes some skill and some logic to know how to use it in such a way to get good results.

For example, this Google Search:

intitle:index.of +�last modified� +�parent directory� +(mp3|wma|ogg) +"The Beatles" -htm -html -php -asp

Will find mp3s, wmas, and oggs of songs by the Beatles in open HTTP directories. Getting that string doesn't require skill, it requires Logic and some knowledge.