Well, I guess that depends on the team. I'm not saying that your system isn't fair and equitable, but it's simply not the only way things are done. The arrangement between members of a group performing a shadowrun is inherently going to depend on the personalities and preferences of those members. Not all groups are teams, and not all teams are made up of people who consider "fair and equitable" to be desirable characteristics of an arrangement. Your sort of criminals sound quite noble, but it would be ill-considered to think they're the only sort of criminals in the game.

Exactly. I run my games as if all of the really juicy pay data are on wired networks that require either a physical switch to be flipped to enable the data to be temporarily connected to the matrix for transfer or require a hacker to physically access the network to get to it.

Drone control is a completely different matter. How do you control remote devices without wireless? That is the optimum technology for riggers. We use it today in one form or another with drones over hotspots, satellites in orbit, etc. All of which are theoretically hackable given the ability, time, and inclination.

It makes sense in my mind that one day hackers would one day start hacking into the ever-expanding world of computerized transportation technology. How far off are we that the computerized systems in our cars can just pull into a mechanic and have their ECU read wirelessly instead of plugging into a service jack? I can see it coming, seriously. And at that point... That point is where the exploitation begins. You just know that some enterprising hacker will find a way to at least scan the data.

That's mostly a post-character creation viewpoint, my concerns stem at character creation. My concern is that you cannot create a drone rigger at creation that is at the same levels of efficiency or self-reliance as characters of other archetypes. So in the face of these inherent weaknesses, what does the drone rigger gain? Is it potency later on? How much of karma investment or nuyen investment is required down the line to reach that level? Basically, are the negatives that you have at character creation offset in a timely fashion that is in line with the effective penalties you have to take?



It comes down to how many people can use the object you're pitching in for. If multiple people can use it, then it makes far more sense for the group to contribute. If only one person uses it, and it will go away if that person leaves, why in the world would you chip in an equal share for it? If there's 5 people on my team, and the street sammy wants to get wired reflexes III, am I going to pay 20,000 for him to get it? Hell no. If he's a few thousand away from buying it, I'll float him a loan, but I expect to be repaid. Drones fall into a gray area. They're definitely not a consumable like ammunition, and they're definitely something that only one character will use to efficiency. However, mutual team contributions should not be utilized in determining the balance of an archetype. There's nothing requiring teams to split the costs on resources, so when considering balance between archetypes you should be looking at it from a self-reliance perspective.

This creates a basic dual situation. Either the drone rigger is dependent on the team to provide the drones (via donating nuyen) which make him effective, or he finds another way to acquire drones either by purchasing them with just his nuyen or hijacking drones.

Further, since you're talking about splitting profits.... during a run things are going smooth so the Rigger takes a little time to hijack a few utility drones that are zipping about to sell them. Should the rigger split the profits from selling the drones with the other players? What's to stop a rigger from hijacking drones in his spare time just to fence them or scavenge them for parts to repair his drones?

Agreed, very nobel criminals indeed, especially since most SR teams start out as "Hey, I got some random people together, go do something for me now." in which case there is even less reason for people to be footing team expenses.

Still, Tachi, you misunderstood my post, as the part you rallied against (Using the expensive ammo/foci) was an extreme example used for the sake of pointing out the potential advantages/disadvantages of both.



I think the question here is where does personal gear end and special gear begin? I view ammo as personal gear, I view drones as personal gear, I view bound spirits and disposable foci as personal gear. Now, if the plan includes the rigger purposefully putting a drone in a suicide situation for the mission, that would be 'special' gear, but if his drone gets damaged as a normal part of the run... I'd view that as a personal expense, just like I'd view using ammo as a personal expense.

As I figure it, anything that you would buy as part of character creation falls under 'personal gear' and isn't a group concern (Unless maybe your a demo expert and would buy high grade explosives for 'just in case' situations). I personally don't see a Rigger's drone as being any different from a Sammy's Wired Reflexes. Both are needed in order to properly complete a run, but for some reason everyone figures that the drone should be covered out of group expense while the Sammy is expected to fork up his own earnings on the reflexes.

Personally, when playing a character I never expect to be reimbursed for anything used during the run, with the possible exception of medkit refills. You see, the mage chooses to get disposable foci instead of a permanent one. If it was permanent, he would have to pay for it himself, but if it is disposable, then suddenly the group is willing to pay for it. If I chose to take a nano-mask over a latex mask, why should the group have to pay for me giving myself a better bonus?

Now, like I said last time, both have advantages and disadvantages, and honestly they likely both work out to about the same thing in the end. I suppose I'm just one of those "Everyone knows best what to do with their own money." (Even though they really don't in real life) sort of people as far as a game goes. Just give everyone an equal share of the reward, only thing that comes off the top is legwork and run specific gear (Suicide drone, explosives, etc but not gear that is simply used as part of a mission).

Anyway, how to divide loot isn't really the point of the thread. It may have some barring on the viability of Rigger as an archetype, but with either division you have a problem with the Rigger (If the OP is correct about constant massive drone loss) If everything is divided evenly then the Rigger will generally be earning less per mission than anyone else, and if drones are considered a group expense, then -everyone- is getting less per mission than they would be with a non-rigger who fills a similar position (ie, an extra sammy vs a rigger with a doberman)

I think this issue deserves a separate thread. Thanks for the inspiration folks!

Which issue?

Like I've said, I've seen a huge cost for Riggers with a perception that they aren't as effective as other archetypes at creation. I want to drill down and find out how long it takes till the Rigger becomes as efficient as other archetypes and if the Rigger becomes -more- efficient to offset their lower efficiency at creation. It's all about balance. Does what you gain later on offset the costs and vulnerabilities you accept now?

Who pays for what! And when!

Ah, yeah, it's important to the issue I brought forth, but the details of it are a bit extraneous.

Thus the reason for a new thread.

Whether a rigger is cost effective also depends on the GM. I played with a GM who did not like to kill PCs but it seemed like he went out of his way to blow up the vehicles and drones. It got to the point where we all knew that if we brought a drone or vehicle into conflict it was probably going to get destroyed.

I run a game now where the technomancer, who is trying to build up a drone fleet has lost three drones but has jacked two, he also stole a car that he sold to a chop shop. All in all he has actually come out ahead.

I run a lot of drones in my game. I figure it is a cheap tech that has become ubiquitous. But for what ever reason, not everyone is secure minded. A security team will probably run the best automated defenses in the comm that the drones are slaved to, but a ganger may not. A paramilitary unit's rigger may have hard defenses as well as the skills and programs to jump into cybercombat.

As the GM it is my job to be fair. It's too easy to just kill all the drones, as the player you have to have some trust that the GM won't gimp you for your choice to play a rigger. If you find yourself in a game where the team seems untouched in every encounter, but your drones are all in pieces, and every opponent's drones are being controlled by Dodger, then I suggest you don't play a rigger.

Here's a particularly egregious example of overuse of wireless technology: when the winch hook is connected to the vehicle via a cable, why make the release wireless, and thus vulnerable?

Because 1. It says can be, not has to be, and thus the wireless could be turned off, 2. It is really convenient, and 3. John Q Public is not ultra paranoid about being hacked constantly.

Honestly I think even most SR players are over paranoid (And thus make their characters so) about the constant threat of hackers. As though a 9 skill hacker with all 7 rating gear is watching you 24/7 just waiting for you to put out a wireless signal.

That's one interpretation, and I'd buy it for my game: the hook can be released wirelessly, or the wireless link can be disabled and a wired link used, instead. I don't take that as being read in the rules, but I would certainly accept it.


I don't see how it's any more convenient to send a wireless signal to something that has a wire connecting to it. I guess if you're concerned about being able to release the hook even in case of a cable break, that's convenient, but how likely is that?


Well, it's more than just the possibility of hacking: interference, active jammers, even ECM could all foul the wireless release, while a wired release can't be fouled by anything other than a cable break. If you have your 10 ton winch cable break, I think you have bigger problems than whether the remote hook will release.


Two of the factors in the equation of paranoia are relevant here: the likelihood of an event, and the negative effects of the event. When failure brings such a high cost, criminals are well to be "paranoid," even if the event is somewhat unlikely. In this case, anyone with a jammer can prevent you from releasing your winch load; I call that both likely and severely negative, and by the simple expedient of using an optical cable or electronic wire, it can be utterly eliminated. The possibility your winch release might get hacked is just icing on the cake, for me.

I would like to see how they would run a 2-wire cable along the length of steel cable. Especially given that when it is spooled under load, the stress of the load pressing the electronic control cable between the steel cable and the spool and/or the steel cable it is wedged between, it would literally crush the control cable and any insulator it was contained in. Being a 2-wire control cable sandwiched between segments of steel cable under 10 tons of load does not make for a long-lasting control cable. For this element, wireless makes sense. That and they really are talking about an electrically activated gecko patch used for emergency rescue, like pulling a car out of a river, and not hijacking an armored car using a cargo-chopper-mounted winch. I would imagine that a regular old hook would still retain its old fashion charm or this purpose..

Two methods occur to me; the first would be a standard coaxial cable down the center of a single-braid steel or synthetic cable, the second would be to use a double-braid cable with an insulative layer between the braids, one positive, one negative. That said, it makes much more sense to use a single braid metal or synthetic cable with a fiber optic core; the flexible optical fiber will only take crushing force under load, and then it'll be a nearly perfectly even compression due to the nature of the weave.


It reads to me like they're talking about both: "an automatic hook that has to be attached manually, but that can be released via wireless command," in the case of the base winch, and "an enhanced version commonly found in rescue vehicles, in which the hook is replaced with an industrial strength gecko patch that can be activated via wireless command."

You're using knowledge of current materials and ignoring the increased strength of composites and other materials available in 2070. Submarine communication cables can withstand large amount of stress on them, and they are only 2.7" in diameter. If you consider that a winch cable is likely 1" in diameter, that's not a HUGE leap to make in size reduction. Further, these cables are durable enough to be pulled up to the surface for repairs. That's actually exhibiting far more pressure on the cable than if you were pulling on it. So in reality, we very well may be capable of making winch cables with an internal wire to issue commands to the grip using current day materials and methods.

Introducing a weaker conductive cable into a braided steel cable would reduce the effective tensile strength of the steel cable. Not to mention that steel cables will actually stretch and compress under load, and most conductive wires will have less tolerance to stretching than a braided steel line that is designed to stretch a little. Think of a Chinese finger cuff. The more force that is applied along the length of the braid, the tighter it compresses on what is inside in addition to its braids stretching lengthwise. Sure, on a steel cable, it has less noticeable stretching than a Chinese finger cuff, but it does indeed stretch.

We use a variety of speaker hanging assemblies at work and the conductive core speaker support cabling has FAR less strength than its dedicated steel braid counterpart.

Not saying that it is impossible, only that introducing conductive pairs into the inside of a steel cable is not a cure-all. Better to run a steel cable out from the winch and then a separate gecko hook control cable if you want to not go wireless.

Hmmm, very good point. I had not thought of that angle.

Though actually, older towed arrays are not quite the same thing. Up until relatively recently, they used an oil-filled rubberized sheathing to protect its coaxial pairs, quite similar to the sheathing used for underground fiber runs except a little beefier. (Some of the older boats still use the hoses) The sheathing is designed to withstand its normal strain but the interior is still mostly hollow to allow for flex and stretch. Some of the newer fiber optic array cables have a strengthened steel core with the fiber transducers embedded in an external urethane 'skin'. This last option would apply for this winch technology, definitely.

A standard steel winch cable is tightly-wound steel cabling designed to support a lot of weight, give a little bit to prevent snapping. By design, it will compress and crush anything within its braids when under the load of lifting a 2-6 ton vehicle out of a ravine. However, use that same 3/8" steel braid cable as the core of a cable based on the fiber array technology, replacing the fiber elements with braided copper, and then the resulting cable should still offer the tensile strength to pull a heavy load and offer a protective transport medium for a wired signal.