So you've got a helmet that you've filled the capacity on....and you want a signal jammer....so you duct tape it to the exterior of the helmet. Does anyone see a problem with this or other similar situations?

Obviously duct tape isn't going to work for things that need to be internal to whatever system they're integrated on.

Eh, if I bothered to follow most of the rules in the game, I'd just enforce carrying capacity if people really wanted to do things like that. (With the follow-up concept that the Capacity granted by things like armor and helmets doesn't count against your load.)

But if you're not doing something like that, and thus there's no real consequence for doing so, it can get out of hand really quickly. Sure it could be a laugh from time to time (I see lots of potential redneck jokes), but that humor would turn to eye-rolling munchkinism in a heartbeat.

as a GM, I'd think about allowing it. But I'd also make sure to point out that the character looks stupid. And maybe have the thing fall off. Heh, make the char roll a hardware+logic test to determine how well he secures the jammer on there, then roll against that every time he does something jarring.

But really, in the end, what's the big deal? I mean on glasses or whatever, something you want to be covert, I could see worrying about capacity more, but if you don't care about looks then really you can add all kinds of shit onto any particular piece of gear. And it's not like having a signal jammer on your helmet is really going to be that much better than having a signal jammer in your pocket.

Where does it stop though? If you can do that, why can't you "duct tape" (using it as a general concept rather than literally duct taping something) a few extra turrets on your car, or "duct tape" a bunch of extra accessories on your assault rifle? If there's no consequence, there's no reason not to if you're so inclined.

I agree: looking stupid and having things imperfectly mounted/calibrated/secured are not trivial concerns in this situation, but a vest with lots of little pockets is just good sense. PAN means not worrying where anything is.

It does depends on the the mod. Duct taping a flashlight onto your gun is not the same as trying that with a UBGL, or a turret on a vehicle.

Yeah, too bad the Union Aerospace Corporation had to cancel all duct tape shipment to their Mars facility because of cuts on the budget...

Yeah, those chainsaws they sent by mistake weren't cheap.

Fixed that for you.

But seriously, that's what standalone hardware is for. You can't incorporate it into a piece of armor, so you carry an extra gizmo around with you. I'm on board with enforcing carrying capacity for players who abuse it, though.

Hey, at least they remembered to send gas!

I would still prefer the duct tape though...

Can't fix a leak with a chainsaw.

Then you're not doing it right.

Yeah, and you can't fix zombies with duct tape...

What you can do, however, is stick it to the man.

Remember that something external to the helmet/armor will be more vulnerable to damage. I.e. if a HE grenade goes off nearby, anything kludged to the outside will stand a good chance of damage, whereas internal stuff generally gets a pass.

I think the real limit for the gadget-themed character is the number of active commlink subscriptions you can maintain at once.

Capacity is a measure of how much of something can be built into something, duct taping something onto something isn't built in, but it does look ugly and is unprotected. Also, duct taping a flashlight to a gun barrel is questionable, from what I understand, gun barrels are hot, and duct tape fairs remarkably poorly to heat, having a build in flashlight would work better...and wouldn't risk falling off if you glitch.

While that could be true, we should also remember that 'duct taping a flashlight to a gun barrel' is just a metaphor covering a range of modifications. In that range, you'll find literal duct tape and literal gun barrels, but also gecko-grip, non-barrel gun parts, etc.

Apparently our definitions of what kind of effects a glitch include are drastically different.

That's well within the normal bounds, especial of a critical glitch. Probably one of the least bad things that could happen, and who even needs a flashlight in SR?

(Scene: a shadowrunner team starts gearing up for the run, when Sully the Dwarven Street Sam casually glances over at Bongo the Troll....& notices something odd....)

Sully: "Bongo?"
Bongo: "Yeah, Sully?"
Sully: "Is that....a roll of duct-tape on your belt?"
Bongo: "Yeah. Why you askin'?"
Sully: "Just thought it strange, even for you."
Bongo: "Well, like my granny used ta say, bettah t'have it an' not need it, then t'not have it an' want it."
Sully: "Same principle as a condom, huh?"
Bongo (confused): "Whut's a condom?"
Sully (bows & shakes his head): "Never mind, Bongo."

A makeshift modification harmlessly falling off isn't glitch material for you? What is? Stubbing your toe? Glitches are supposed to suck, not be disastrous, but suck. I seem to remember a gun jamming and taking a simple action to fix is a glitch material, so a taped on item falling off would seem to fall in line with that. A critical glitch would be you shooting your foot while drawing the thing.

Whoosh! That's the sound of my response flying over your head.

You have it ass-backwards; a flashlight accessory falling off a weapon is a possibility for a glitch. Hence, you know, me quoting that part of your comment. Glitches aren't limited to the redneckification of a weapon.

Sigh, always the needless condescension. In fact, TheOOB said "built-in" (in translation, heh). That's not a flashlight "accessory", and it can't fall off.

Why are all the old tales of "Hillbilly Armor" for HMMWVs coming to my mind right now?

Why can't it? "Built-in" features still require tests to install them properly. A glitch indicates that something goes wrong; it could easily have been that, or at least some action that caused it to fail and fall off/stop working/otherwise become disabled. Or, what, do the rules have a hidden line that says that "built-in" features are immune to being part of a glitch? I'm also pretty sure it falls within his definition, too, since a flashlight failing/falling off/etc. on a gun would "suck" without being "disastrous." How exactly does using duct tape or not using duct tape change that?

And, incidentally, I was just replying in kind.

*shrug*. In English, 'integral' or 'built-in' usually means that it's not a separate piece that can fall off, as opposed to an accessory or taped-on item. Do whatever you want in your game.

I'll have to remember that the next time a door knob falls off an old door, or I hear about someone losing or chipping a tooth when they accidentally bite into something hard, or a key randomly falling off a keyboard after a light bump, or a tail light going out on a car, or any other of the myriad examples of "integral" or "built-in" things falling off of things. We can just yell at God about how stupid he is as a GM of Real Life for including that as a glitch.

And we'll have to remember that your examples tend to lead into hyperbole and often have little regard for fact...and less to what has been said previously, and that if we disagree with you, it's only because we read what you said rather than what you intended.

They don't build things like they used to. And, rarely, maintain them properly.

None of those are 'falling off from a glitch'. Sounds more like examples of damage. Anyway, we're playing Shadowrun.

Okay, fine. I'll bite.

Feel free to cite the rule that stats that built-in modifications are immune to glitches. You can start on page 62 of the anniversary edition of the game. But don't really bother flipping to that page because there's no such rule there. However, it does include a list of things such as "a mistake, error, fumble, or random fluke." In fact, the example they give even includes an "integral" function of an item -- a bag -- failing (more commonly known as "breaking"). But that's probably just me relying on hyperbole with little regard for fact. Hmm, how about the rules for weapon modifications? I'm doing a quick scan starting on page 128 of Arsenal, but you know, I don't see any immunity clause here, either.

But nah, that's all me disregarding fact. It's definitely true; the only way to get a glitch is to use duct tape. If it's "built-in" and/or "integral" then it's completely immune. It's right there in black-and-white. Somewhere. I just don't know where, apparently, and am making things up as I go.

It's big of you to admit that ignorance.

Anyway, integral pieces are obviously less likely (approaching 100% less) to 'fall off' than taped-on pieces. They may fail in any number of other ways, including being broken off, but 'falling off' is something else. Nit picked!

I don't even have to make my own points, yeah! I make a post mentioning that falling off is a likely glitch for something with duct tape, you make a post that refutes that with no other information in the post whatsoever, leading to the assumption that you think it is an invalid glitch, it is pointed it it is a valid glitch, you mention a bunch of other glitches, that a)no one refuted(aside from someone saying that "falling off" is unlikely for a built in component, which it is), and b)once again dipped into gross hyperbole. I make a comment about how you don't pay attention to what people say in threads, even yourself, and use hyperbole a lot, and you respond by completely ignoring what other people are saying, and demanding other people site rules when it is a) everything rules wise that needs to be said has been said, and b) No one has voice a strong disagreement with your ideas of a glitch(least of all me).

Just...you know...read other people posts and work a little harder on your rhetoric.

Who's the one making stuff up?

I at no point whatsoever said that a flash light duct taped to a gun wasn't a suitable target for a glitch. What I did say is that having one as an accessory or otherwise built-in wasn't immune to glitching. I even quoted that particular bit of text you wrote implying that very thing. Your exact quote, and I'm quoting so that you know I am in fact quoting by listing this quote, was "having a build in flashlight would work better...and wouldn't risk falling off if you glitch." As written, by you, in post #17 of this very thread. Unfortunately for you, I later even referenced the rules that discuss what glitches entail, and the example included an unrelated item breaking with other things falling off despite the integral nature thereof.


Except, you know, yourself (that's a completely different post, by the way, from above, though admittedly you were arguing something that I never said myself; you know, kinda like you're accusing me of doing) and Yerameyahu.


Take your own advice.

((muses that it was mentioned that built in components falling off is unlikely for a glitch, but them malfunctioning in various ways wasn't which was the important meat of your post))

<muses that "wouldn't" has a very specific definition in the English language, or that one's context was crystal clear despite weak attempts to backpeddle in later posts>
<continues to muse that someone still didn't catch on to the fact that the entire thing he was arguing about revolved around the exact quote and concept above, but instead went off ranting about how stupid someone else was for saying that a duct-taped flashlight wasn't a potential target for a glitch despite, you know, that never having been said... ever... by anyone>
<muses just a little more about the sheer irony of said person bitching that someone -- anyone -- would dare misunderstand someone else>

(Hey, I can do that, too. Neat-o.)

I guess I gave you too much credit, I assumed the point of your post wasn't that build in components are likely to fall out on a glitch(you know, the whole built in thing), but rather that built in components can malfunction on a glitch. You have an annoying tendency twords hyperbole. Actually saying that built in components are likely to fall off a gun on a glitch is silly, and your arguments are less for implying it. And your initial post in response to my, honestly halfway joking, post was a complete disagreement with my statement with no qualifying statements or efforts to explain yourself, the initial belief that you thought that a glitch would be less than something falling off was a completely viable interpretation.

Seriously, read posts, thinking about your arguments, and understand that words have objective meaning.

<shrugs>

Think what you want, man. My post was quoting a very specific line, as quoted in the quote (just so you don't misunderstand that it was a quote), and the response was obviously and blatantly aimed at that quote by the very nature of quoting said quote. It also doesn't change the fact that you completely and utterly misunderstood said post, reading what you wanted to read rather than what was being said, and later ranted on about how stupid I was for saying something I in no way, shape, or form said, then proceeded to try to lambast me repeatedly without ever once having that gross mistake on your part dawn on you. If I wasn't such a huge fan of hypocrisy, I would have shut up long ago.

But, yeah. Think what you want. I don't feel like getting a warning over something so painfully stupid and there's no sense having a random person jump out and blame everything on me yet again. So, grats! I'm a big stupid doodie-head who can't read or understand anything. You win.

Yes, misunderstood. Saying that my interpretation (and Yerameyahu's) of the above quote is a misunderstanding isn't just silly. It's wrong. If there was a "misunderstanding", it's because your post was woefully misleading. You're post above, in whole, was the response to my implication that a duct tape flashlight would likely fall off in a glitch. Can you honestly say that your comment is not worded in a way that would allow...no encourage us to believe that you thought the flashlight falling off was an inappropriate glitch, regardless of what your actual intent was?

I'll admit, this argument is silly, and I've probably helped it last longer than it should have, and I should let this die, but trying to put fault on other people for "misunderstanding" a quote that couldn't be more misleading if you tried is pretty low.

Anything could fail as part of a glitch. That said, having something duct-taped on is SCREAMING for the GM to mess with you.

Hell, I might have a duct-taped thing fall off as a result of a different player's glitch.

I have been watching too much Red Green show lately.

No such thing. Especially if you're running a Ghettopunk campaign.

I whole-heartedly endorse this idea

Id allow players to tape stuff to their helmets/guns/body... dont see why you wouldnt, yeah it could be abused, but it your job as GM to make sure its not abused and if a player attempts to abuse it then it simply fails to function or is a pain to use (like flash light gets tape over the on/off button and is stuck on, or batteries die and they have to spend several rounds un-taping it to get it working again).

I'd also suggest RP it, because the other runners probly think the character with a taped up gun n random bits stuck to his helmet is a fool