Some other ugly/broken rules..

Encryption: you can encrypt something that's not encrypted yet while it's running (connection, Node), but you can't re-encrypt encrypted things without a reboot. Why the inconsistency?

Software Degradation: Activesofts become obsolete at the rate of 1 point per month due to planned obsolescence, and you can't crack that kind of DRM? The programs you write yourself have a longer lifetime than normal SOTA ware without patches?

I understand the need for some sort of game balance, but it wasn't implemented very well.

No, because they would have the codes to bypass the Data Bombs...

EDIT: Ooops, Neraph already covered that... My mistake...

And requires no skill and next to no time to use.

Here's something that's fun:
Break into a node.
Analyze the IC on duty to find the attack program waiting in its Payload.
Mine that program with a Data Bomb.
Slap the ICE around a little and then laugh as it blows itself up trying to fight back.

I'm not sure that's possible, Saint Sithney. Funny, though.

It's the SR version of the Fallout 3 Stealth Kill.

Sneak up
Plant live grenade
Watch fireworks

I guess the question is, "is a program a file?" and if so, what counts as accessing it.

It wouldn't work on any icon whose programs are stored off the node, like with a Spider, but for Agents, IC and compromised links, it's ridiculously effective. "Not only did I crash your IC just by mining its Analyze program, but the Data Bomb deleted the program when it went off!":wobble:

Cybercombat just became a redundant skill. Cover the place in bombs and laugh it up.
"Bad is good baby! Down with government!"

Another broken rule about data bombs: setting the access permissions for a node requires no less than an admin account (no problem with that), but a user account is enough to put a data bomb on a node. So you may not forbid someone else to enter, but frying their brain if they try is OK The fun part being that "someone else" can be the admin himself...

Yeah, I wouldn't think you could 'get inside' a (running) program.

Idle curiosity: apart from just pointing at the rules and saying "but it says so right there", does anyone have a solid explanation of just what a data bomb is and how it works?

It's a Databomb, let's leave it at that.

It works fine, thank you.
Let's leave it at that. ^^

Just a quickie here:

Mental handicap (negative quality)
- Minus 1 die per level to tests involving Logic and Willpower

So pretty much only affects certain traditions/streams of magician/technomancer then.

Fix: and "or"


EDIT: Just realised technomancers always use Resonance in fading resistance

Well there is the memory test (LOG+WIL) it affects that as well.

The and->or fix opens the question whether tests involving both attributes incur the double penalty.

Metagenic Qualities (RC, p.110)

The text explains that only characters with a SURGE quality or metatype metavriants can choose metagenic qualities. I believe it was intended that metavariants could access the metagenic qualities particular to their sub-species (e.g. cyclopean eye for a cyclops) and only those, but by the wording a dryad can have goring horns and a tail whilst a regular elf cannot.

Ah true. I knew there had to be exceptions, but I don't think I've yet met the player who'll lose sleep over their memory stat.


I suppose it does and I expect the debate could get quite interesting.
That said, IMO game balance must surely preclude it.

Anyone hoping to have a shot at resisting magic.
Hackers, Armorers, Medics.
Anyone hoping to use knowledge skills.

I never consider willpower and logic to be dump stats

His point was that by RAW only those test that involve both stats are affected. The tests in your examples only use one of the stats.

Yeah, it's broken because of the "AND". It's a typo. It should be an "OR".



-karma

Ah, that's just a typo and a desire on the player's side to be obtuse.

Someone might have been thinking:
Both Willpower and Logic Tests are reduced by 1 per quality.
And when they went to write the rule, reworded it badly.

That's pretty serious nitpicking.

You could also fix it by putting a comma after the word Logic.

Mental handicap (negative quality)
- Minus 1 die per level to tests involving Logic, and Willpower

It's not. Especially when you come from a computer science background or have even a rudimentary grasp of conditionals.

AND always means that the condition to the right and the left must both be true in order for the action to occur or be qualified to happen.

As written that negative quality would only apply to Memory tests unless you can come with up with another check or test that uses both Logic and Intuition.



That comma doesn't look right. The Willpower portion would need to be a complete sentence in its own right.

The comma isn't right. There's no reason to use a comma if it's only seperating two conditionals.

I doubt that was the intention. The Qualities "particular to their sub-species" are already included in the description of "their sub-species" i.e. a cyclops already has only one eye. What your reading entails is that metavariants could not get any additional metagenic qualities without buying SURGE. If that were the intention, they should have left them out entirely. There must have been a reason for including them, it could be exactly for the purpose of giving the cyclops photosynthesis. On a related note, metavariants are overpriced, possibly for the reason of opening up additional qualities.

Not sure if anyone has added this yet, but i'm going to go ahead and say it.

Free Spirit Player Characters. See the other currently active thread about them for an explanation as to why.

Found your problem chief.

Let's face it; 90% of RPG writers do not come from a computer science background. Expecting, or assuming, that all roleplaying rulebooks will be written with perfect use of conditionals is a good way to end up playing a really shitty game, really fast.

This is pretty much exactly why you cannot fly slavishly by RAW.

I've always found that you can discover a LOT of logical errors in a game's rules set if you go and try and create a character generator for the game.

Excel, for example, is really really intolerant of fuzzy rules and conditional errors.




-k

That isn't my problem. That's the writer's problem. A comp sci background only reinforces how conditionals and conjunctions function. A writer, whom I would assume understood grammar, should know how those two elements function. Especially given that the writing is being done for rules in a game which appeals to a community that would have a higher than average count of people with computer backgrounds as the target audience.

Fortunately the RAI for that particular quality is pretty obvious considering there is only one check that uses Willpower AND Logic. 10 BP for a -1 to that is laughably underpowered (or overpowered depending on how you look at it), but if the same happens on something that isn't quite so obvious as to the RAI then the poor writing is a problem.

QFT. Game designers should start the other way around: once the RAI is unambiguous enough to be programmed, then they start writing them down, because even if the writing is fuzzy, at least someone has already wondered what it is supposed to mean.

Actually, as someone with a computer science background, it is blindingly obvious that most people DON'T phrase their words like they describe conditionals, and to interpret a text outside of the realms of CS and math with such stringency is nothing more than deliberatedly trying to misunderstood the message.

"Because most people DON'T phrase their words like the describe" is not an excuse for poor grammar or even a reason to level the blame at the recipient. The entire purpose of grammar and language is to provide a unified rule set to express ideas between people with clarity. Clarity is the keyword. Since the intent of the idea does not match the expression (by the rules of grammar) this is entirely the fault of the writer not the reader.

Agreed, Smokeskin. Let's be serious for a moment: a compsci background only helps you understand how *compsci* contexts use conditionals. Conversational English is wholly different, and that's not an error or a bad thing. It's just how it works. Someone with a compsci background should easily understand that the rules are different in different languages.

Oh god. Let's not even get into the 'poor grammar' thing. The fact is, 'and' and 'or' can be used ambiguously in the sentence we're discussing. Neither is ungrammatical.

A book, written in English, should conform to English grammar. If the book was written in another language, it should conform to that languages rules of grammar. It is then the translator's job to properly translate the text to the next language and ensure that the intent of the original language is properly conveyed in the grammar rules of the new language.




Yes, and and or can be use in that sentence. However using and or or greatly changes the outcome of the sentence by changing Willpower and Logic from either contrasting or non-contrasting attributes.

That's true: one possible interpretation is as you say. However, as always, there is ambiguity, and there are *other* possible, valid interpretations. Please don't pretend that English grammar works otherwise. It makes things worse. Again, there's nothing ungrammatical about either.

Possibly 'or' would be a superior choice in this specific case, assuming the intent is either attribute (which I agree is the case). There's no particular imperative to use the superior choice, and it doesn't make other choices 'incorrect grammar'.

No logicically or can be and to not commonly used as most uses of or are xor but still.

i'm gonna side with StealthSigma here. I come from a computer sciences background and after a semester of Theory of Information (where we work with regular languages, Turing machines, deterministic and non-deterministic finite state machines, etc), I've come to realize two things.
The first one was that if rules were to be written under a regular grammar (that doesn't allow ambiguity) they couldn't be misinterpreted.
The second is that our teacher was insane .

Anyway, computer languages are context-free and regular. They need to be because a computer follows it to the letter and if there were more than one way for a sentence be interpreted the computer would go crazy.
"Natural" languages (english, portuguese, etc.) ARE NOT context-free, therefore they allow room for more than one interpretation depending on how they are written.

Yes a specific set of grammar/English should be used for RPG rules. Though this would be a bitch for some to get used to it would make most forums less "trolly/flamey. I mean it would only have to be more like legal documents in the crunch sections.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.
"Or" in this case is a logical disjunction and not the exclusive disjunction of XOR. In the context of the rules XOR would make only marginally more sense than "and". All skill checks involving one of the two attributes would suffer the penalty, but the memory test (using both attributes) would not.
"And" however always is a logical conjunction, which creates the meaning that only tests involving both attributes suffer the penalty.

If that were how normal English worked, and it's not.

I also will be siding with Stealth here. One thing that many of my English professors (especially Dr. Savage) always drilled into me was that sentence structure and context were just as important as grammar. If I handed in an essay that was 100% grammatically correct, it would still come back covered in red saying things like "Did you eat the mouse or did the cat"? or something infuriatingly inane because I would write something that was grammatically correct and under the average listener's interpretation would say that the cat ate the mouse. However, his notes would point out how it could also be interpreted otherwise. Why he stressed this was because this sort of writing left to much interpretation to the listener/reader. The only reason that most people would interpret the sentence properly is because they would subconsciously disregard the other interpretation as being silly.

Also...I also come from a Computer Science background. Most of the people I game with have programming experience, StealthSigma included. While as a programmer I recognize the difference between conditionals in a programming environment and in natural language environment, the later has been forever changed by my experience with the former. I do NOT deliberately interpret a text with the most literal of meanings in order to misunderstand it, Smokeskin (which in fact is the most ludicrous thing I've heard all week) but instead see several different interpretations because the literal one just doesn't make sense and point out to my players "this stupidly worded rule" and how I will be interpreting it in my game.

Which brings us back to topic. This thread is not meant to say "Hey look at the loophole i found in the RAW. This is how I'm going to exploit it". This thread's purpose is to find what rules create loopholes in RAW that would allow them to be used in a way that is not intended so that we can come up with rewordings or fixes for said rules so they DO work as intended. I think this thread has been very useful so far to me as a GM by bringing light to some rules that a player may attempt to abuse, giving me time to come up with a ruling before he/she brings it to the table.

My rules nitpick to date has to do with the way that the rules for recoil are written. I think many of us understand the way its supposed to work, but it took several readings and several different interpretations to find the write one. Could definitely use a rewrite for clarity's sake.

It's true: when a rule isn't clear enough, it can create problems for players. This is a continuum, of course; some things are a little ambiguous, while others are very ambiguous. The 'and' example is not one of the second kind. Its slight ambiguity is easily overcome, because only one interpretation is really reasonable, and it's not the 'literal' or 'Computer Science' version. It's the 'common English' version. It could absolutely be more clear, but it's also not dangerously unclear.

I certainly agree: rules writers should strive for clarity. I object only to the idea that it's appropriate to inflict the rules of one context on a completely different one; keep your prescriptivist grammar to yourself. It's this kind of thinking that's plagued us with ridiculous 'rules' like 'don't split infinitives' for generations.

Just to clarify my point, 'literal' and 'Computer Science' versions are just as much 'common english' interpretations as any others. That was the point I was trying to make in my first paragraph.

"I looked in disgust at my cat, looking very satisfied with himself, while eating a mouse."

This sentence is grammatically correct. Obviously my cat is the one eating the mouse. Most people would read it as such. But my comma placement is bad and actually implies that I'm eating the mouse.

However, someone that comes from a culture where eating mice is perfectly normal wouldn't even blink at the literal interpretation.

Thats my point. There is no 'common english'. You have a hundred different vernaculars which is why clarity of writing is important, especially for a book with a worldwide distribution.

And as many rules discussions/arguments as we have on these forums, obviously there are many rules with different interpretations. And the fact that this rules has come up is indication enough that it deserves a place here as far as I'm concerned. Yes it is less of a mudpit, but a mudpit it is.

No one has brought this up yet.

1) Take Great Cat.

2) Implant Stirrup Interface.

3) Great Cat is now immune to stun damage, can sport up to 18 points of Vehicle Armor, and can have two Weapon Mounts (Normal, Fixed, External, Remote Control), plus another couple of bells and whistles.

For example: Limited Maneuverability. Or Rail Propulsion. Or Ducted Water Jets (after R2 Amphibious Operation that is).

Is it bad that that was my first impression?

Or rather, does that surprise anyone who reads my posts/topics?

The phrase we really should be using is "technical writing", as used in technical manuals.

Which are what roleplaying game books essentially are. Technical manuals for a game system.

Technical writing normally requires precise syntax and unambiguous wording.

It's also hard for a single writer to accomplish by himself - the problem is, a given writer will know what he MEANT to say, and as such when reviewing his own work will often miss phrases that could have unintended alternate meanings.

This is, of course, why there exists the position of Editor. To catch fuzzy wording, suggest alternates, and tighten up spelling and grammar mistakes.

Even then some stuff will slip through. It happens. This in turn is why tech manuals get updates and revisions. RPGs get errata.

The bigger problem for Shadowrun is not just that there exist a number of places where the wording of text really could have been done better, but that it often takes SO DAMN LONG to get errata, updates and revisions to the problem text. This is probably partly due to a lack of available man-hours to do the corrections, but in some cases the delays get to inexplicable extremes.



-k

Jesus, Neraph. Where does it say that a biodrone is a vehicle, or can have vehicle mods? You're insane. For your sake, I hope it's not "functions exactly like a regular drone", because that's beneath you.

I agree with you, ZeroPoint. Ironically, there's a potential ambiguity in my post: I intended 'yourself' to refer to the impersonal 'you', not to ZeroPoint. Glancing back, it could be read as a personal (and kinda mean) statement. All I really meant is that it's a profound mistake to claim that the authors of a given text *meant* for a 'Computer Science' interpretation to be used, on the grounds that it's 'correct'.

Its pretty clear from this reference and from 170 in 4A under the heading crashing that only the vehicle is targeted, further unless a passenger is specifically target vehicles take all vehicle combat damage. The confusion come in from the last sentence of Damage and Passengers From 4A page 171 which says in the case of ramming the Vehicle and passengers Resist the damage equally. A fairly unclear wording imo. I suspect this was put into place for the purpose making people not deiced to use cars as their preferred weapons in SR4. The Body based damage is somewhat of an odd choice but it does make crashing crotch rockets fairly safe activity.

An important note in all this the Value of Speed is expressed as Meters per turn (Mpt) (NOT KPH OR MPH!) (4A 168) so if you speed is 25, and your driving ye oldie mercury comet and you crash and don't follow what is said above or you don't happen to be wearing a seat belt/have no safety system you take 10P. Which isn't great but it is way better then 20P.

Emphasis mine.

EDIT: And that's not beneath me, that's RAW.

HA. I knew it. And as I said, that's totally beneath you. From the context, it's beyond obvious that that refers to the function of the Pilot program *only*. It's not RAW to deliberately misinterpret things out of context.

How about this: "The respirator adds its ratings to toxin resistance tests." That means it works against injection and contact, right? Nevermind that the previous sentence says it's for inhalation-vector only, because *this* sentence doesn't, right? ;D

The text states that it functions exactly as a normal drone, in a rules area talking about generalities of the drone.

Sentence 1: Functions as normal animal, except when jumped in.
Sentence 2: Functions as a jumped-in drone, with a -1 dicepool.
Sentence 3: Functions as a normal drone.

Normal drones are allowed all sorts of interesting things, as I mentioned.

But that aside, when jumped in, what attribute do you use for attack rolls, Agility or Sensor (and how do you figure the Sensor rating?)? Or Defense Tests (Reaction or Response)?

The Stirrup Interface rules are broken. Half the stats are either made erroneous by jumping into the biodrone or while run by a Pilot, or many Tests no longer work since the attributes the rules tell you to use don't exist.

The brokenness of the Stirrup rules in the other ways you mention (while probably true) is a matter apart from 'functions as a drone'. The fact that there are other problems doesn't justify that. In no way can that sentence, in context, mean 'is a vehicle'.

Yes it can. That paragraph is talking about how the animal, now drone, functions on a basic level, so that means that the sentence is in context by saying it now is considered a vehicle. The two preceeding sentences hint at it also, as what other rules do you use when jumping into a drone?

'Functions as' is not 'is considered' is not 'is'. That paragraph is talking about dice rolls and skills; it is impossible to construe it as saying that using a special Pilot allows vehicle hardware modifications.