Cain, how can you simultaneously complain that there is "no meaningful difference" between medium sized dice pools and large dice pools and complain that Calling Shots for extra damage is obviously broken and unnecessary?

People with a large dice pool relative to the defense of the target can afford to spend a few dice for bonus damage, and people whithout cannot. Two of the "problems" you complain about actual fit together into an effective and interesting tapestry of choices and viable options.

-Frank

I'm not. The difference between a functional dice pool (5-10 dice) and an expert's dice pool (15-20 dice) is large enough to assume the 3 to 4 successes I suggested as a "meaningful difference". At any event, the problem still exists that to go for the +4/-4 option gives you a 12 die numerical advantage. That's hardly balanced.

?

It doesn't give you a 12 die numerical advantage. It gives you 4 extra DV. At the cost of it being easier to Dodge. 12 dice would not only give you 4 DV, it would make dodging virtually impossible.

It's not the same thing at all. It's a method for people who are already virtually assured of hitting (Street Samurai or Snipers, for example) of dishing out enough damage to one-shot people. It's not an "unbalanced" option because it doesn't happen all the time and isn't being compared to anything. It's not like people have to choose whether they can take called shots or wear pants or something - called shots is an option available to everyone and is used whenever and only when your dice pool compares extremely favorably to the target's defense pool or the target has sufficient hardened armor that you need the DV and are willing to accept missing.

Your argument here doesn't make sense. There's nothing for called shots to be unbalanced with.

-Frank

Successfully dodging without going Full Defense against a base 15 dice is nearly impossible anyway. But, for the tradeoff of 4 dice (which equals about 1 success) you get +4 hit points of damage. Which, by the odds, you normally could only do if you had 12 more dice to roll. It's only for damage, but it makes the shot almost impossible to soak; and it doesn't alter the dodge odds by much more than 1 success.

This whole discussion wasn't totally useless, I can finally understand Cain's position toward SR4.
SR4 is a semi-open game system in the way that it is rule-heavy (closer to simulationism) but it lets the GM adapt the rules to his liking - which explains why there are so many thread about house rules, not necessarily because the game is broken, but because it's flexible enough so that someone who wants more realistic weapons, or more tactical combat can tweak the rules easily without breaking the game -.

But compared to trendy "indie" games (though I'd tend to consider that apart from WW and WotC (or whoever does D&D now) all games are pretty indie), SR4 doesn't go the step further to allow players to twist the rules, except in a very limited way with Edge (which is essentially a mechanism to be able to limit the randomness of dice rolls).

Since Cain likes it when the players can twist the rules, he doesn't like SR4 which has GM-only rule twisting.

So in the end, it's just a matter of personal taste rather than something about the quality of the system.

Evading a shot delivered with 11 dice is VERY possible. Even those with Reaction 4 using edge suddenly have a statistically significant chance. Some difference to 15 dice attacks. In a firefight, anyone should either be running or in cover, so it´s either +2 defender or -4 attacker.

What I would not allow is called shots against something you can´t see. No discussion about "not forbidden" please, I want to know what a char is doing. Then we look what the rules say about it. We do not look at the optimal rules interaction and than represent that in the game. No aiming = no aiming. Aiming requires knowledge of the targets whereabouts, hitting by luck does not.

Can we have another thread for the scenario Kremlin?

Wait a minute, there are a lots of sidebars in the Shadowrun 4-books detailling rules-twisting officially.

Shadowrun simply isn't a game that works when the person driving is asleep at the wheel. The GM has to pay attention and has to take action to make sure the game stays fun. It will be just as lame if the players can use loopholes in the rules to do unrealistic things as if the GM prevents them from doing legal things just out of malice. Cain can state that this is bad however much he wants, but it comes down to his subjective judgment. We've heard it, and we've heard it, and we've heard it. Cain doesn't like GM's being put into the role of preventing the system from being broken. But we shouldn't confuse his statements as arguments. We should respond with as much logic as he's using. "Oh, that's nice," we should say, because you can't argue with statements which are based on subjective judgments and not objective facts.

I think the problem might be that for many of us, we don't see the game as "GM vs. Players". The GM doesn't try to beat the players, he's trying to make the game fun for the players, and they trust him. So, having the GM make such calls is no problem, it's - as Monte Cook I beleive said it - even a feature we like.

If you're playing the "the GM does his best to kill us, we do our best to kill the NPCs" game, then of course GM calls about vulnerable spots and such are problematic.

This moderator post is directed not so much at the immediate discussion as the postings around pg 15.

PM Warnings will be going out shortly to various posters for Personal Attacks and general Trolling behavior. Obviously the Mr Lucky/City Master topic has been bludgeoned to death and reanimated and there are many posters who feel strongly about the topic and the discussion of it. It is getting to the point however where most of the posters are simply arguing about how they are arguing, which serves very little purpose after three pages of it. The back and forth flaming is not helping matters. Keep the personal attacks off the boards. You know the rules.

I am sure that, overnight, there are a host of new posts, so I'll do this one while its fresh:

While I certainly agree that Exalted does empower players more than WoD, even over some people's take on D&D that is hardly the same thing as 'Shared Narrative'.

Motivations and intimacies are no more or less narrative control than allowing a player to define who their contacts are. Its a part of designing a character that happens to have some rules umph behind it. Other games will allow you to define people you know (contacts) without rules umph, and I've never even heard of a game that wouldn't allow you to decide what your character likes and dislikes... while exalted is somewhat (only somewhat) unique for putting rules to it.

Ditto Perfect defenses. Its an existing mechanic that any character can access and use if they built in into your character, just like 'Dodging' is a mechanic. The fact that, unlike dodging, it is fully useable against 'rocks fall everybody dies' is a refection of the power scale of the game, not 'shared narrative'.

I can't speak to Fair Folk Charms, I was so disgusted with the first chapter of the book I've never been able to read it since. But as charms, that is specific powers they have access to they are no more, or less, shared narrative than a mind control spell would be... I suspect.


Here is the thing: Being able to define your character within game mechanics, being able to access powers and rules that are built into the setting does not make a game 'shared narrative'.

Being able to alter the scene, or NPC's without recourse to specific powers or 'in setting' mechanics, if you will, starts pushing the shared narrative. However, in Exalted, if the GM says 'The Scarlet Empress attacks you with her Jade Daiklaive of Soul Reaving', well you can't go

"I think she's the GREEN Empress, and she tickles my ass with a feather"... With stunting you MIGHT be able to say 'I leap off a boulder and backflip away from her attack', for the bonus stunt dice for describing the attack well, but then the GM is perfectly within his rights to say 'There are no boulders lying around in the Empresses palace, bonehead', and really, just describing your attacks is something that's been encouraged by games going back to, again, D&D.

In fact, on that topic, the Action Point mechanic that has filtered into newer editions of D&D is more (or some iterations is more..) narrative control than anything in Exalted. TO be fair, the most common uses for AP have been as dice adders and fuel for high level class abilities instead.

Though really, discussing Exalted is rather off topic, so I'll leave it alone now.

Very high DP characters can, at the cost of a free-action, do lots and lots of damage. Check.
Low DP characters shouldn't try stunts, they should take their base damage and be grateful. Check.
Somewhere in the middle moderate DP characters can risk the stunt for extra damage, but they might miss. Check.
I don't see brokenness. I see an argument that -4/+4 isn't the ideal exchange rate, but the fact that very high DP characters can reliably one-shot people isn't inherently broken.

Meh - the most broken thing in his examples is that a called shot to avoid armor and a "lucky ricochet" style longshot are logically inherently incompatible...it's the same kind of flawed reasoning that thinks "I cast invisibilty on the door, then powerball everyone inside" is valid.

You really can't aim and hope something interferes with that aim at the same time

By his reasoning, you can do a called shot at a person inside an airtight bank vault. And the GM who disallows it (airtight means no holes big enough for bullets!) is guilty of the sin of 'fiat.'

Sort of. My problem with SR4 is that it's not simulationism exactly. It's an attempt at simulationism masquerading as gamism. I mean, the game is too abstract to be simulationist, too simulationship to be abstract, and too much of both to be gamist. SR4 would be better served picking one, and doing it well, than doing a mediocre job at all three. My preference would be for it to be more narrativist, of course.


The difference between what you're describing and what a narrative game does boils down to a concept from Wushu: The Principle of Narrative Truth. Basically, instead of saying: "I try to quick draw my gun and shoot the guard", you say: "I whip out my trusty Predator, and quickly squeeze out two shots, one hitting him in the arm and the other in the chest, accompanied by a spray of blood." Basically, instead of trying to do something and then rolling the dice, you say what you just did and roll dice to see how effective you were.

In Adventure!, another White Wolf game, you essentially spend points to alter the game world. The important thing here is, things have always been the way you describe; it didn't just pop in out of the blue.

(EDIT to leave only relevant point.)

And secondly - I am actually not on coke. True.



-K.

This seems to be a wonderful arguement thread so for the sake of arguement. What exactly is incorrect in this example?

If said door is indeed invisible, the mage can indeed see though the invisible door why can the same mage not target the persons on the opposite side that he can see with an AoE spell?

I have yet for players to try this specifically, but off-hand it seems to appear a valid tactic.

Cain - can I trouble you for a definition of the various terms: simulationist, gamist, etc. ? I am merely a practicing GM, not a theorist.

-K.

Gah, debates about the exact definitions of the three terms has caused many a flame war. Battles still rage over it. However, I can give you this essay which originated the terms. Basically, here's the general idea:

• Gamism is expressed by competition among participants (the real people); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters, both short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people's actual play strategies. The listed elements provide an arena for the competition.
• Simulationism is expressed by enhancing one or more of the listed elements in Set 1 above; in other words, Simulationism heightens and focuses Exploration as the priority of play. The players may be greatly concerned with the internal logic and experiential consistency of that Exploration.
• Narrativism is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are often considered co-authors. The listed elements provide the material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense of literary analysis).

Now, these terms aren't mutually exclusive per se. But they do tend to oppose one another. Picture it as a triangle, with games being graphed into it in accordance with how they match up to each of the points. It's also very difficult to have a "pure" game of one stripe or another; you're going to have elements of each in any RPG.

To bring this back to Shadowrun and obvious rules conflicts, the Citymaster is only a major problem if you're playing a simulationist game, or a mixed sim/gamist one. Shadowrun pretneds like it accepts "the abstract nature of rules", whichis a gamist distinction; however, the fact that breaking the fourth wall is such a huge problem for the average Dumpshocker, shows it to be much more simulationist. And a heavy reliance on benevolent GM fiat is generally a property of a narrative game, although many games are getting away from that. So, it looks awfully like SR4 took the worst elements of each of the three.

Because pre-SR4 (and in rather a LOT of SR4 houserules,) invisibiliity is a mind-affecting illusion, not something that actually affected light itself. Invisibility on a door, would, effectively, make you overlook the door - but not see through it - a blank wall, rather than a window. Basically, it had the same flaw as D20's "light" spell when it was an illusion, rather than an evocation. By SR4 RAW though, invisibility would have this problem, while improved invisibility would actually "bend" the light - the only spell which works completely differently depending on the mana/physical variable.

n/m

For the record, that site, and those defitions are highly controversial and most of the old time internet gamers seem to feel they are vastly inferior to the GDS that came out of Usenet that they are derived from.

The entire premise is based on the idea that the three types of gaming are incompatable and shouldn't be mixed, which is a major sticking point. Further, the author has a strong bias towards Narrativism and a distinct bias against 'simulationism', which further renders the theory invalid.

Never mind that even THEY have left the GNS stuff behind in favor of something they call the 'Big Model', which essentially lays out a schematic of communication at the game table. Some people find it valuable, certainly, but that hardly makes it a given underpinning for game design or evaluation.


Sorry its taking so long, Cain, but I promise to rebut your rebuttal of the Citymaster rules. Sadly I saw it at work, and while I've just redownloaded the PDF so I can quote text here, I actually don't have time.

However, I should warn you that my rebuttal was made with the rulebook in hand last night, and the words in front of me. I regret that I was too lazy to retype them with references at that time. In short, yeah, I figured this was coming.

No worries, I know you'll get to it when you get to it. For now, though:

Didn't I say that? I thought I had made that point clear, but maybe I messed up. At any event, the definitions are controversial, as is the whole GNS model. But it makes for a useful starting point for a discussion into the types of rules systems.

I've found that they are not, partly for the reasons I outlined, partly because they are so controversial and based on a language of incompatability and judgement.

I might be willing to allow the original threefold model to be an interesting starting point, and useful to people, but the derived version is like bringing a smoke machine with you to the shooting range. It won't improve your shooting (unless, you know, you use it as a bench or something) but its pretty likely to create an obstacle for someone...

Ah yes, my mistake I took that for improved invis. and so didn't see the issue.

You know what? I actually have to conceed a point to Cain.

The barrier rating thing was Frank Trollmans, and he's usually a pretty good source, and even provided page numbers, but on researching fully I have to conclude he was actually completely wrong. Very specifically, the singular line that states that a vehicles armor is added to the passenger's armor means that in this one thing, Cain is actually correct.

Of course, since the biggest sticking point has always been that the GM has approval over the use of Called Shots it doesn't validate the entire example by any means, but at least mechanically, yes you can simply add the Citymaster's armor to the armor of the targeted passenger.

Of course, as I pointed out earlier, such scrutiny of the vehicle combat chapter reveals that a targeted passenger gets the effect of not one, but TWO defense checks.... though of course, Cain's call that a rigger would not be able to defend themselves personally is the logical one (though this is offset by the fact that the rigger's vehicle defense pool is better than an unrigged pilot's combined pool in all probability). As Cain's entire argument is that the longshot test is broken, the simple fact that it is offset by a the opposed defensive test is of vital importance.*

That'll learn me for repeating others arguments without doublechecking the book.






*To clarify, the called shot is the sticking point in Cain's central thesis of the brokenness of longshot tests. The Called shot makes the entire idea of shooting or even knifing possible, contingent upon GM approval. However, without longshots, the increasing dice pool penalty is ultimately self correcting. Remembering to have the opposed target make their defensive tests is, essentially, the final nail in the coffin, allowing us to bypass the entire argument regarding the validity of -32 dice called shots to bypass armor.

It takes a 'luckiest guy in the world' to even make this sort of longshot feasable, and he can be defeated by the simple expedient of getting an 8 dice defensive pool (or less, really, but we want to match Mr. Lucky's long shot). With each additional attempt, the odds move further in the defender's favor, as Mr. Lucky burns his edge.

Now: Lets assemble the dice pool of the pilot for the defensive test. I figured the best way to do it is to use a pregenerated character with a control rig. Of the two options (drone rigger and smuggler) the later sounded more like a pilot than the former. Coincidentally, the Smuggler has the higher reaction (by 1).

The Dice pool for defense is Reaction + control rating. The control Rig adds +2 to vehicle tests while rigged. The Citymaster's handling is (-1). 7+(-1)+2= 8.

A match for Mr. Lucky. Lets go with the Drone Rigger, he's down by 1 die meaning he'll actually get hit one time in three by this sort of extreme luck, so against the first shot he'd add his own edge of 3. Not that he has too, if he uses AR his dice pool is actually 8 again (while the Smuggler's is actually 9). Since we are assuming AR for the moment, we have to add that if there are any net hits for Mr Lucky at that point both the drone rigger and the Smuggler get a second defensive test at -2, personally:



Which gives us a defensive pool of 4 or 5 dice depending on TOP of the original vehicle defense test. Even without using Edge by the defender, Mr. Lucky isn't all that lucky.

But wait: Cain said he ignored the Passenger's defense test because he assumed rigging, which I'll read as 'full SIM' control, since that's how SR4 rolls.

This actually is even worse for Mr.Lucky, as full SIM reduces the threshold of all tests by one for vehicle pilots. That means that no matter what Mr. Lucky rolls, one of those successes is just GONE. Poof, never existed. Mr. Lucky's average of 2.66 successes (no counting for rerolls) just dropped to 1.66, just because he was shooting a full Sim Rigger. Of course, since the full SIM rigger doesn't get the second defense test thanks to the override it could be viewed as a wash. Of course NONE of this takes into account that the pilot could always chose to Full Defense (evasive maneuver)... since its silly to threaten an armored truck with a pistol.

Okay, so since we're discussing Longshots in general, let's do as the admins asked me to, and drop the Citymaster for right now. Let's try the Shot Heard Round the Barrens, since that doesn't involve a called shot:


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.

Additionally, the wageslave is statted out as one of a bundle of faceless workers, meaning he has a Professional rating of 0. If we rewrite him as a Prime Runner, he'd then have an Edge of 2, assuming he's human. Even with two additional exploding dice, he'd only score 2 successes on a defense roll, still getting nailed with each and every bullet of the narrow burst.

So, the problem with longshots is this: once you reach Longshot territory, you may as well pile on the modifiers, since it's not going to make a difference. In this particular example, the only "voluntary" modifier was going for a full burst. And even that's debatable, as the modifiers come from recoil. This more or less proves that Longshots are broken, because your odds of succeeding don't change: it doesnt matter, for example, if he went for a wide or narrow burst, except thatthe narrow burst was more likely to succeed. Mr. Lucky is just the clearest example, since he has the high Edge; but someone with an Edge of 3 and a good roll can pull it off just as easily.

Once you've entered longshot territory, most of the modifiers don't actually apply anyway. You could ignore the heavy rain, the partial light with glare and just go 'target obscured' for a singular penalty. The added recoil is, in game, utterly inconsequentially, along with the movement and wound penalties because, amazingly enough, you aren't actually aiming at anything, just spraying bullets into the dark hoping to hit someone.

Now, if you applied meaningful penalities after being reduced to 0 (like, called shot to avoid armor/up damage) then we get back into the GM call territory, which you hate.

Essentially, the fact that you start with a 0 pool because you are essentially firing unskilled, blind, completley negates all other penalities. They don't actually affect your chances to hit, in rules or in game anyway.

And, as Synner pointed out two threads ago: It doesn't matter. Mr Lucky is literally the luckiest man in the world. Crazy stunts like this are what he does. In short: Feature not a bug.

But you are ignoring a few things to. Yes you will average roughly 3 hits. Our Mr Johnson you provided, hardly Shadowrunner material, can and will manage three successes on his defense test at least some of the time. (1 in 27?).

But: Mr Johnson is undoubtedly a human, which means he too has Edge. Two points, minimum. Even if he wasn't, he'd have 1, which is all he needs to monkey with your success.

So he tosses in he edge. Now he has 5 exploding dice to try to make three hits on. I'm not going to get the exact odds, but its getting pretty close to even at that point, so your shot in the dark... from the luckiest motherhumper on the planet only really has a 50/50 chance of whacking a bone average, unlucky sumbitch with a hail of bullets from a HMG.

Hardly extreme, and exactly what the longshot rule was intended to do. Prove it is broken, Cain. For that matter, when did the Admins ask you to leave the Citymaster alone? Was it right after I pointed out that once you account for the defensive tests it becomes virtually impossible to kill a citymaster with 1 shot by targeting the pilot? Mighty coincidental.

But lets finish putting this one to bed. Lets say the coin flip isn't with Mr. J. Again, according to the book and the Devs (Synner again) all he does is hand of god it and presto: the shot hits him but doesn't kill him and he comes back a bad ass cyberzombie to eat Mr. Lucky for lunch... or whatever.


Of course all of this is forgetting something else: Your example, once again, fails to account for the fact that he is in a vehicle. Mr J isn't driving, in all probability, hes a J, he has professionals for that. Even if he IS, well, he gets two defense tests again. A speedboat has a +1 handling, so he has a 4/1 +edge chance to dodge without any other considerations (like, AR, which we can safely assume he'd use... 5/1+edge)... he only need three hits from 8 exploding dice.

Wait: Mr. Lucky rolls 8 exploding dice!

Imagine that: Parity.

And the poor J ain't even a Runner, much less Mr. Lucky. Way to go J!




-Spike always cheers for the NPCs



EDIT::: once again, Spike fails to even bring Full Defense/evasion to the table. If the Johnson's piloting the boat he probably has some skill with it, like a hobbiest would (2 is believable...) which would be four extra dice for the evasion test. If a paid boat driver is driving the boat, then he's probably got a higher reaction, a control rig and/or full SIM immersion, and the Johnson could reasonably have (though we'll leave it off as utterly unnecessary) a dodge skill, though I doubt it would be higher than one or two, again. All of this would be applied, they are running away so full evasion/dodge is the natural thing to do. This also provides two potential sources of Edge expendature, the pilot who doesn't want his boss shot up, and the johnson, who isn't keen on the whole death thing.

Its amazingly easy to forget that there is an entire set of rules being handwaved away in these examples....

I have said this before, and I will say it again, this is a valid example. The difference in opinions being that I (and many others) do not believe it is broken or in anyway shatters suspension of disbelief.
When it happens it happens. It no more breaks suspension of disbelief than knowing that someone "unbelievably" fell from an airplane at 3000 feet and survived in RL will destroy your belief that falling from a tenth of that height will kill you. Or the knowledge that a guy who survived being frozen for 3 hours in RL will destroy your belief that you will die if you try swimming in the Arctic waters for more than 15 minutes. Or the idea that a guy can survive a lightning strike (or 5, I believe that's the record) in RL will convince you that you could stand outside in a thunderstorm with a lightning rod in hand. And this despite the fact that people no doubt witnessed the unbelievable event and the guy who did survive got to brag about it for the rest of his life. Unbelievably lucky stuff happens all the time in RL why shouldn't it happen in SR?

The Shot Heard Around the Barrens is (or becomes) the stuff of urban legend and it's the sort of thing the Luckiest Man Alive gets to brag about for the next 50 years, even though its unlikely to ever happen again (not because Mr. Lucky couldn't do it all over again, but because that set of circumstances are never going to line up again). He'll go on and do other seemingly impossible feats, and if all goes well, he'll become rightfully known as the Luckiest Man Alive (which, in fact, is what his Edge of 8 told you in the first place).

This is the intended effect of the Edge rules in general and the Long Shot rules in particular. Under SR4, there is a very real point where (in this case) shooting and hitting something using only your (natural or augmented) abilities becomes impossible no matter how good you are. SR4 recognizes that a point comes when the situation enters the realm of pure luck (or as we call it, Edge). And when it comes to Edge, some people have more than others, and if you build one of the Luckiest Men Alive then you get to have a lot more than most people and do some truly unbelievable things (cause you know, it kind of comes with the territory, after all you are the Luckiest Man Alive). However, even then your chance of success is balanced by the fact that the other side of the equation also gets to use their Edge to counter yours (and indeed burn it if necessary). So the Edge 3 guy in the very same situation as Mr. Lucky will not pull it off just as easily since having an Edge 2 is par for the course for many NPCs (or god forbid they're really lucky and have 3, 4, 5, or 6!) and they can have just as good (or bad) a roll as Mr. Edge 3.

And if all that doesn't work, Mr. Lucky (or whoever) still gets his shot in and the NPC is sufficiently important to the story that the gamemaster needs him to survive (or the gamemaster thinks this event does break suspension of disbelief), all he has to do - while remaining strictly within the rules - is to simply burn the NPC's Edge for HoG. Mr Lucky hit, the guy falls, and the boat keeps on going and vanishes into the night. The shooter gets to brag about his Shot Heard Around the Barrens until the guy he allegedly shot turns up again - alive.

You know another problem is that some characters can literally kill someone using "magic". This makes no sense at all.

Spike, I hate to say it, but I addressed most of your points in the original example. I dealt with the wageslave's Edge use (only really an option if he was a Prime Runner, instead of an ambulating McGuffin) in one of the trailing paragraphs; I dealt with the movement of the boat in the initial penalties. The only thing he didn't get was Full Defense, and that's because you generally don't get it in surprise situations (and getting shot from a target you can't see, half a mile away, is pretty damn surprising). I even dealt with the "spray and pray" mistake everyone seems to make.


In this case, he's sort-of aiming. He doesn't use a Take Aim action, because it's meaningless in this context. But if you'll note, he called for a Narrow Burst instead of a Wide one. So, he's not spraying wildly.

In this case, I'm going to go with Synner on one important fact. the Shadowrun Line Developer says this is a legitimate trick. The only question is the feature/bug issue, which I'll deal with in a moment.

Just now, in an official admin warning. I'm going to assume it applies to everyone, declare a personal victory, and then drop it. I don't go against the admins, and I strongly suggest you do the same.

Once a game, perhaps. Eight times a game? That's a different story.


Even in those cases, your skill matters: never will I have the exact same chances of hitting a target as the worlds best marksmen, even if we both are blindfolded, drunk, and hopping on one leg while singing the Scottish national anthem. There has been dozens of mechanics offered on Dumpshock alone that address this very issue.

What's more, if you don't mind me delving into theory for a bit, it doesn't fit the kind of game that SR4 tries to be. As I said before, SR4 is a simulationist system that pretends to be gamist. It tries to be a dark, gritty game. But it has a thematic disconnect hard-coded into the core mechanic: the Longshot test. In other words, it's got some wildly cinematic options in it, which diverge hugely from the other thematic goals of the game. The game does a poor job of being cinematic (gamist/narativist), and is only mildly realistic (simulationist). So, bug, not feature.

Actually, Cain, you did not address the movement of the boat, because the movement I am talking about is not a dice pool penalty at all, its the dice pool used to oppose your shot.

When shooting a vehicle, the reaction + Handling is used as an opposed dice pool. When targeting a passenger, you are still shooting at the vehicle, but now the passenger gets to make a defensive test as well, along with adding the vehicles armor to his own.


More: you are NOT AIMING at anything. By definition, once you have taken it as a long shot you are simply tossing lead down range and hoping you get lucky. You could, in theory, aim at a target while blindfolded and it would use the same rules, because it has the same exact effect upon the shot: None. It doesn't matter that you are doing a narrow or wide burst at that point either. Mechanically, you point the gun at the target and pull the trigger hoping you hit. In game, you point the gun at the target and hope for a hit.

The difference comes when you actually get bullets to hit, by pure, blind luck... the very thing this character was made to do. Then the fact that you chose to put all the bullets into a small area, instead of a big area, matters, as you have coincidentally sent the lead flying in exactly the right direction to hit something.

I'm not sure what rational you use to declare victory, but then I don't care. My own Admin warning didn't involve citymasters at all, and I'll respect it fully.

As for the last: it is your opinion that Shadowrun is best served as a grim and gritty, hard realism world. Coincidentally, it is mine as well, though the realism aspect is highly debateable (magic, cyberware, you know... I can imagine some anime style action with wired reflexes alone...). Other people, quite correctly, enjoy Shadowrun as a sort of James Bond sort of expirence, complete with neat toys, hot dames and fancy nicknames... and that is perfectly canon. Mr Lucky fits right in there.

Neither view is more or less correct than the other. In fact, they are merely points on a spectrum of ways to play shadowrun...

Once again, your personal dislike for SR4, or the way it works, does not make 'working as intended' a sign of brokenness.

Only 'Inappropriate for Cain'. As I, nor in fact well over 99% of the gaming population can claim to be Cain, there is not much point in telling us that 'IfC' equals 'Broken'.

Seriously? Its happened to you eight times in a game?


I've said this before too. You can call it what you want, it doesn't make it so. It's not meant to be simulationist, its not meant to be gamist, its not meant to be narrative, it's meant to be what it is Shadowrun 4.

I don't care for any of the definitions that are bandied about and I have never have and never will use them myself. Personally, I think all such classifications are indulgences by would-be game designers and gaming pundits who believe there is some inherent need or value in compartimentalizing and who for some reason believe RPG audiences can be categorized by some oversimplified labels which ultimately nobody in the industry proper applies or believes in. Hence you can call it what you will, but the fact that Shadowrun doesn't conform to what amount to your definitions is irrelevant as a comparison of merit, since it was never intended to conform to any of them or respond to the supposed interested of an entirely subjective compartimentalization of RPG gamers.


That's entirely a matter of opinion. I think that beating the odds and the ocassional wildly cinematic event is cool and adds to the dark atmosphere, by making it feasible that the little guy wins in the end, even against insurmountable odds—if he's lucky (and regardless of whether he's a PC or an NPC). YMMV. In going on 4 years of play it's never impacted "other thematic goals" in my personal game (and we've had Mr. Lucky on board twice now).


Since the cinematics were designed to punctuate a rather deadly combat and resolution system with some flare we consider it a feature. Gamemasters who don't want this to happen in their games can simply veto an maxed out Edge character, like they can veto any character they feel is inappropriate to their game (such as a drake or a jarhead in a street level game), or if they're into tweaking they can (to mimic a WW mechanic) limit the number of dice rolled in Edge Tests to the character's current Edge point total. Neither option fundamentally changes the system.

The two points are correct, but I don't see where they come together. As far as I can tell, when targeting a passenger, they only get the vehicle's armor and their own reaction (at -2). They don't also get the vehicle's reaction + handling, that\'s for when the vehicle is specifially targeted. Do you have a page reference stating that they get both?


Note that nowhere did I mention "realism". At any event, the problem is that the game requires heavy modifications to play as either and do a good job. Once again, just look at the vast array of threads on rule fixes! I count over 17 on the first page alone!

[EDIT]
Deadly, I haven't seen yet. I've only once seen a character go into overflow, and that was due to his own stupidity. I've yet to see a character die, no matter how stupid the player was. Flair? Well, maybe, in the Critical Success rules; but as we've seen, it's not easy to score a critical success on a Longshot test. As we see, SR4 tries to adopt too many themes in order to "maximize it's appeal to the average gamer". (I think that was the exact quote of one of the devs.) It's meant to be gritty and deadly and cinematic and realistic, all at the same time. And like SR4 characters, it would be best served focusing heavily on one thing instead of spreading itself too thin.

Sure Do Cain:

Page 161, under Attacks Against Vehicles.



Which, aside from a line about drones is the entirety of the rule. Note no exemption for passengers being targeted at this point.

On the following page, 162 under Damage and Passengers it says


This, I should note, follows under the greater subchapter of Vehicle Damage, which puts it firmly into the 'attacks against vehicles' catagory.

once you get past exemptions (none of which include the pilot dodging, coincidentally) you have the line



Now certainly this is merely an interpretation of the rules provided. I could see a GM saying to himself 'nah, that don't make sense'... though in game its a simple as remembering those action movies where people are in a vehicle getting shot up, ducking under their seats while the driver drives crazy to avoid making an easy target. Now, certainly one could (and should) point out that driving is a complex action that prohibits 'full dodge' tests... or at least makes it a non-trivial concern (since the next action of the pilot will not be actually piloting the vehicle), which is fine, though he still gets to use his non-active dodge to represent ducking every time he hears the back window shatter or whatever.

Of course, before you get all crazy with trying to point out I'm reading into it, might I remind you that every one of your 'broken' examples rely on exactly the same type of reading of the rules. Taking a blind, longshot test that lets you bypass armor on a target you can't even see, as the primary example.

As you've demonstrated simply targeting the pilot of a vehicle can be disproportionatly powerful, allowing the 'dual defense', which makes a certain sense anyway, is a reasonable penalty for the power it provides, just like you get to stack the armor. See, I even have precedent within the same ruleset.


EDIT::: added quote tags

Why on earth would you do that? If it applied to everyone, then it would have been made as a public warning, and not as a personal warning directed only at yourself.



Well, there's a shock!



Again, there is no general, public admonition from the Administration in existence to drop the subject that I am aware of (if there is, please show me the thread). There is on the other hand, a private warning that you claim directs you personally to do that very thing. Since you are neither an Administrator nor a Moderator on Dumpshock, you do not have the authority to make someone drop the subject, nor do you really have the right to ask that the subject be dropped, considering the amount of times you have crapped all over threads bringing it up.

Actually, you don't:

Boldface mine. The rule makes it clear that we are to make a normal, everyday attack test. Which is an opposed test of Quickness + Skill vs Reaction. Now, you can argue that this test is reaction + handling, or straight reaction. But you clearly don't get driver's reaction + handling + personal reaction, since that's not a normal attack test.

Cain, I adressed that in my post. First, there is the precedent (armor stacks) which you sort of imply isn't there.

Second its all a matter of interpretation of the rules. If you read it an attack on a vehicle is defended by the pilot. If you attack the vehicle you have to decide if you are trying to hurt the vehicle OR the passenger. Thats under DAMAGE, not attacks.

A normal attack test means that the pilot rolls reaction + handling OR makes an evasive maneuver.

If the attack is against a passenger, which in the rules includes the pilot, the passenger make make their own defense test as directed.

that's all under doing damage, not under 'attacking'.

But really this is silly for two reasons: First of all your own original examples are riddled with similar rulings made because the rules could be ruled that way, even if most people might be inclined to think differently.

Secondly, the only reason your longshots work is because you ignore pretty much ALL defenses. Either way there is a defense pool that needs to be rolled, and even with the -2 penalty, its not all that spectacularly hard to hit 8 dice with full defense/evasive manuevering, especially when the target gets to add their edge to the dice pool. You remain the only person who seems to believe your targets should not have edge.

You are quibbling with this one vague rule section because you can't refute the fact that the entire house of cards falls down when defense pools are added to the mix. Mr. Lucky is only dangerous when shooting at unsuspecting targets, which is funny because he's not exactly built as a specialized ambusher.

On the contrary; I've always maintained that the armor stacked. Read back and see for yourself.


Untrue. The rules are pretty clear that the passenger makes a normal defense roll. Reaction + Handling + Reaction isn't a normal test by any stretch of the imagination. This isn't even a grey area.


And untrue yet again. For the third time, the example I provided also factored in Edge:

We are talking about an easily available power that literally allows you to veto the GM on some issues, limited control, but it limits the GM



Shaping combat.... it is freaking wierd but it allows the player to overlay a narrative over the combat




not necessarily, if you have specific powers to change reality, those give some degree of control... Imagine Mage with no paradox



Not quite true, a 2 or 3 dice stunt explicitly allows you to put the oulder there, it is in the core book



damn i should have read this last paragraph before editing the rest

I thought you were better than this, Fortune.

Let Cain declare his personal victory and let us all let this example go

Some time ago we debated this and hammered it out, auto shotgun or assault rifle is minimum, and ex rounds help. although guardian spirits with skill in firearms at force 18 can do it... maybe

also the effect of analyze device can be an additional laugh

i would recommend HMG for the job, or rail gun

In my very last post before going to bed...

Cain: it in the order the rules fall in the book, the subchapters they fall on. First of all it's not 'reaction+handling+reaction'... and I never presented it that way.

First you have to declare you are attacking the vehicle. Once you've attacked it you declare (excepting ramming and high explosive attacks) that you are attempting to damage the passenger OR the vehicle. That is how a logical, linear reading of the rules goes. You actually have to work backwards to get 'decide if you attack the vehicle or the passenger, then make the test'.

the 'normal attack test' you mention applies to an attack against a vehicle as much as it does a man on the street, so that particluar line you quoted is neutral in determining this.

Continuing in a linear, logical fashion, once you've determined that a passenger (not necessarily the pilot) is the target THEY get a defense test. From a metagame perspective this makes sense in that it is 'unfun' for a character to be helpless while they are attacked in a vehicle simply because they are not the passenger. Thus they have a say in their own defense with this test. In game it makes sense for the reason I've already illustrated in my last post. If someone is acting defensively in a vehicle they will be harder to hit than a someone just sitting there like a lump. If the VEHICLE is also hard to hit that will naturally compound the difficulty of hitting the passengers within, regardless of the efforts the make, or don't, on their own behalf.

So, reading the rules in the order, and organization presented: Attack the vehicle (defense test)
determine if the passenger is a target
passengers that are targeted defend.

And the reason the first defense test is on the same line as the initial attack is because it is intrinsic, as written, to attacking a vehicle.

More to the point, attacking a passenger exclusively falls under 'attacks against vehicles' in the rules, and the VERY FIRST RULE of attacking a vehicle includes the dice pools used.

At no point does it ever say 'replace this dice pool with that', which is what you are suggesting. At best it is reiterating that you still have to make that attack test.


Kremlin: no, that is not what that rule is. That rule is a defensive test that a: doens't get rolled (succeeds automatically) and b: works on things that could be described as 'logically un-defendable'. At no point does it include any metagame narration. If the GM says 'fuck it, you all die' no amount of invoking a perfect defense will save you, that's not what it does.

Secondly, as the GM determines how good a stunt IS, saying a two or three die stunt allows you to add in terrain is somewhat backwards. The GM determines that the description is worth a two or three die stunt, and if he doesn't think there are boulders in the imperial palace, then obviously that stunt won't get any bonus dice at all. You are mixing a reward for adding flavor to your actions with the ability to dramatically edit in any damn thing you want.

And yeah: We REALLY should take this discussion somewhere more appropriate. I don't mind discussing it, but not here.

The problem is that the rules don't work that way. A normal attack test is an opposed test. You don't make one test, wait a bit, then make another; both rolls happen at once, and are part of the same test. See page 139 in the BBB; it goes over basic attacks in detail. A normal attack must have a specific target, otherwise you won't know which numbers to roll for the opposed test. So, you need to declare your attack as being against the passenger before you roll.

Besides which, according to page 132, you need to Declare Actions before you can even begin your turn. This is part of basic combat as well. So, you can't roll the dice and *then* declare your action; you must declare your action before you roll dice.

Not sure if I understand, but is there a dispute over whether vehicle passengers get double defense, one from the driver and one for the passenger?

I submit that any such argument is a Red Herring. If Mr. Lucky fires the ignoring armor shot at a passenger inside a vehicle, the passenger has the normal defense options, with the -2 penalty for being in a vehicle. Normal defense options include full defense. If the passenger can't scrape together 8+ full defense dice, especially including his own edge, he is a chump and who cares what happens to him?

I further submit: why should we care about anything Cain is saying? Are we arguing just for fun? Because it seems to me like this thread stopped being fun about 10 pages ago.

Exactly!

As we could see during the discussions about the Citymaster/Shot Heard Round the Barrens showed that some people liked that possibility while other disliked it. Thanks to SR4 flexibility, everyone can be satisfied just by applying (or not applying) a small tweak that will fix the perceived issue while leaving the rest of the game system intact.

For example, I want a gritty/deadly game, I still want players to be able to use Edge to counter a bad roll, or even help them in desperate situations, but I don't want them to rely too much on Edge in normal situations. I also want to avoid high Edge rating characters being too powerful. I'd also like the use of Edge to sometimes have a dangerous after-effect: Edge allows character to push beyond their limits, but pushing too far can be dangerous.
So what do I do?
1. I twist the way Edge is refreshed: each point is refreshed independently, according to some conditions (general : end of the run, successful run, self-confidence boost (pushing the limits), peace of mind (zen), helped someone in need (good karma), gambled at the local joint (luck)...) this way, everyone will have at least a few edge points to be able to counter bad rolls or in desperate situations but high Edge characters won't always be at max (or they'll need to act accordingly).
2. I twist the way Edge is used: when used for adding dice to the pool (or for longshot tests), the player rolls the remaining Edge. If he wants to roll the whole Edge dice pool, he can do so, but will likely suffer a bad consequence (you successfully shoot the guy with the HMG, but the recoil breaks your arms, for example). This way, a high dice pool character won't be too powerful while still allowing him (and other characters) to benefit from the whole dice pool when they really need it, but at a price.

I went a bit further than simple tweaks, but it's still simple enough and fits my needs, without breaking any other part of the game system.

You could say that it's bad because there might as well have been a blank sheet of paper with "just wing Edge rules" but it's not true. I kept the Edge concept, the Edge use rules and the base of the tweaks I use are even mentioned. I didn't create a new ruleset, I just applied tweaks that were already present in the ruleset.

You say bad concept/bug, I say great feature.

Shrug. Then I guess you're just going to have to live with being disappointed in me. Nothing new though ... my parents eventually got used to it.

I didn't appreciate the implication that there was some kind of ban, or even a general warning about the topic, when in fact no such ban or warning exists. If Cain gets a personal warning about the matter, then he should not really try to turn it into a forum-wide moratorium on the topic just so he can have the last word and claim victory. It's a cheap tactic, and beneath him to do so.

Just so everyone knows, there's also a forum-wide ban on posting the lyrics of Denis Leary's song, I'm An Asshole, at someone as a means of expressing your disliking for them. Because I got a PM warning about that, this one time, and obviously it was meant to be a general announcement, not one sent to me in particular (because there's no possible way they meant to single me out or anything, for that). It was only some sort of glitch in the system that got that warning sent to my PM box, instead of stickied somewhere or added to the ToS.

Wow, Nice to know that Critias

I remember that.

No prob, fellas. Just trying to keep y'all out of trouble.

I'm not sure why the 'shot heard round the barrens' is an extreme exploit. The guy has literally legendary luck. Legendary ie the stuff of legend.

Other legends include King Arthur and the Knights of the round table and robin hood. We remember these people for their extreme badassery thousands of years after the actual guy may or may not have existed.

A guy who is legendarily lucky can pull of an exceptionally lucky shot, that is the point. Give the guy a cookie, add like 4 to his street rep and so forth and move on with life. If the players didn't want to play a game with the luckiest man alive, and probably the luckiest man to ever live they probably should have decided they didn't want a cinematic game at character generation and not made cinematic characters. But making a guy who is the luckiest man to ever walk the earth and then complaining that he gets lucky at times is completely stupid.