Best guess, when MMOs and WoD became popular. End result was that some wanted all RPGs to behave like animated spreadsheets (MMO) and others had bad experience with GMs using fiat to railroad the group into displays of GM sue characters (WoD).

The idea that a combat turn is a few seconds and a chase turn is a few minutes doesn't offend me, but I do find it odd that it's pretty much the only time in the system the rounds change. Presumably characters in the vehicle are still doing stuff (covering perhaps as many as 60 actions) while the rigger is driving. That the sammie isn't going to be able to lean out the window and take his 60 IP's at the pursuing vehicles is understandable because with all the maneuvering he might have to pick his shots, but it seems like the mage (who only has to see a pursuing vehicle to cast a spell or direct a spirit at it) or the hacker would be taking those actions every combat turn within the larger chase framework.

Seeings how most combats are over before High Threat Response can even get their socks on, much less make it to the site of the combat, I wouldn't mind more areas of the system where the turns are more elastic in their time. It just seems a little odd that almost any action you take is measured in seconds until you start driving a car, and then it becomes minutes.

Consider it ease of play. If not then astral and matrix combat would subdivide the normal combat sequence as well, given that both are thematically faster then physical activity...

There are plenty of places where SR4 puts ease of play before either internal or external "realism". Lets not forget that in the first couple of editions a properly wired sammie could empty, reload and empty again before anyone else could shout "hostiles!". Another something that got toned down in more recent edition to allow everyone to have some but of fun.

That is the very definition of GM fiat. But thank you for finally admitting you use it, just like everyone else.

Regarding chase time: the biggest problem I have is that you actually end up traveling slower in chase time than in tactical. Speed is measured in meters/turn, which is nice and sensible in tactical combat. But you still use the same equation in Chase time, which is per minute. This leads to a lot of sudden changes in velocity. Basically, there's no need for the complication: you can run everything using the tactical rules, and use the opposed Handling test to determine pacing.

No, the problem is when people make houserules, but refuse to admit that they have houserules to cover a shitty part of the rules and then go on to defend those rules. Just because you can ignore stupid things in the rules doesn't mean that the stupid things aren't there. I really don't care how many houserules you run with but please just admit you are using them.

I agree that there should be more different time frames available for round based stuff. There are more problems with simultaneity in longer rounds, but even then there are ways go get around that (define more phases: Declaration, action, and application phase...)




This is true. Saying the rules are fine because you can house-rule them is clearly bad. And it's worsel if you're not even realizing you are house-ruling.

So, while I think that everyone can have fun their way, the initial step is still agreeing on that the rules are bad as they are. While some things might be fixed with stop-gap measures, a radical overhaul shouldn't be out of the question.

Wow, Just Wow... Know I know that you are Trolling... You do know that a GM is needed for a reason, right? If your definition of GM Fiat is a GM doing his job, then you are truly ignorant of why the game requires a GM.

Have a nice day...

You know what... Never Mind. This is going nowhere.

EDITED TO REMOVE POST.

That's the funny thing about this "houserule is a swear word" situation: most of the time, the accused protests and foams and froths and will go through any kind of contortions to avoid giving an inch to their accuser, when in reality, they'd be better off just saying, "Yeah, that rule sucks, so I fixed it," or, "That rule works great for us, as long as we do X when it runs out." But because pride enters long before this stage, people just won't bend, for fear of "losing." Obviously, you see this all over the internet, in pretty much every conversation, but it's hilarious how far it's gone here with these terms.

And, of course, if you're a troll here, you've got ready made-hooks ready: even if the point they're making is a good one, holy shit will they bend over backward to avoid saying, "Yep, what's written in the book isn't quite enough at my table, so I fill in the blanks immediately with common sense, and over the long term with house rules." Which everyone does, but people don't want to admit if admitting it gains the "enemy" another inch.

It is entertaining (and frustrating), though, when you do use the Rules, straight out of the book with no change, and are still accused of "Houseruling." Which also happens here all the time... *shrug*

And when you tell someone that they can't do something because it is impossible (For example: Cain's Idea that you can't escape the Ground Pursuit by using a helicopter, when the ground pursuit has no means of truly following you), well, then you are guilty of GM FIAT, because you told the Player No. You've got to be kidding me...

That's the side-effect part I love! Like, two people will have two different ideas of how a rule works. Not "does this rule exist," but just interpretation of a vague rule. And each one, to demoralize the other, will call the opposition's rule "a house rule," because that's as good as dropping your pants and just shitting on the other guy's argument, because after all, the rules in the books are holy.* Obviously, what you have is a situation in which two people have different ideas, but you can't tell them that: the other side has a house rule, and their side is clearly correct; there's no doubt, no flexibility, because it's not about finding the truth, it's about kicking ass. Standard internet forum stuff, but this was my home for a long while, so it's much funnier here.

*This just isn't a notion I share. I've met most of SR's writers, over the years. I've talked with almost all of them. I've been drunk with several. A few of them have been in my house. And I have to say, they're just people. Their writing is no better than half a dozen of the people here who aren't writing: their motivation is what sets them apart, not [just] their talent. They're just people, and what they've written isn't holy - although it's a good standard for disparate groups to agree on. So "house rule" isn't profane: it may well be holier than the stupid shit that made it to print.

Heheheh... You may have a point.

As to the Holiness of the rules. I do not see them as Sacred Writ. It is more that I just do not want to take the time to disassemble and reassemble a better rule set. I can live with the drawbacks of the system. And yes, Shadowrun has a Lot of Drawbacks. But, I can live with them as they are. They do not interfere with the way I see a character, or the way I see a scenario. And rarely does it interfere with the fun that Get from playing the game.

That being said. My Current GM (That would be Te0dio) is looking at tweaking a few things, here and there, to streamline it more. Though I may not like it, I tend to go along with it, because he is running the game. And I far prefer playing than running.

The optimal soution to me is to just run Shadowrun with the Feng Shui Rules. But I have had some pushback (from my GM) about that, as he does not like that rule set all that much. And the flavor of the game would likely change a bit (though it would not have to if moderated properly).

Attempting to get things back on subject....

The problem is that the Chase rules are borked. They just don't work, at least not without redoing the ruleset from scratch. Call it what you will, but the fact is that the system requires a lot of fixing to be functional.

I agree that Feng Shui makes for a better basis for chases than SR4.5 does: it's designed for over-the-top action, and can handle some really wacky situations. That's because for Feng Shui, it's a feature and not a bug. I run my Shadowrun games more like that anyway, and it suits my game style better.

Debate the rules, but stop with the finger pointing and name calling. It doesn't add anything worth while to the conversation. Please keep things civil and on the topic of discussion, not the posters.

And when you've got a bunch of people talking online, they work like Missions: they give a solid shared pool of information that everyone can use as a reference point. Can you imagine these rules discussions if there weren't such a point of reference?! "No, obviously you should lose 3 dice for full darkness with thermo, not 2." Help me. So it's only natural that the rules would take on this aura of authority, but beyond their utility as a reference, the only thing the rules are good for is that I can pay someone else to do the part of the game I don't have that much interest in.


Well, SR4, yeah. Sorry, couldn't resist.


See, I would swear we just had this conversation, but in case that's my imagination, let me say again: they don't work for you. [Or me: I think they're ridiculous, unnecessary, and completely useless.] But clearly they do work for other people, sometimes with house rules, sometimes with application of GM common sense in the moment. I don't doubt that there are some people out there using the rules just as they're written and having a fine time doing so. But there's no objective quality of "borked," in this issue less than most. The chase rules do work...just not for you or I. But - and here's the part I know is incredible - you and I aren't the everyone.

Let me try this again. With the exception of TJ, who claims he never uses house rules, no one here has reported that they use the Chase rules without heavy modification/house rules at the bare minimum. Many others have claimed that they simply don't work at all for what they claim to model--a high-intensity chase-- and even TJ admits he'd rather see a Feng Shui ruleset being used.

What I can show is that they rules completely fail to model what they set out to do: high intensity chases. If you have more than two vehicles involved, things get wonky really quickly, as others have explained. The jump from tactical time leads to all kinds of changes. Since I literally had a car jump to Mach 4.6 in a game, I think the rules should give the GM an automatic getaway without handwaving. However, the rules don't allow for that. That can be objectively shown, even if the word "borked" is somewhat subjective.

What I'd like to see is more discussion on what we could do to replace the Chase rules. Like I said, I just use opposed Handling tests for superior position, and then adjudicate the rest based on roleplay and fun. What do others do?

I find the new try unobjectionable, and agree with the vast majority of it. To me, the chase rules feel like an afterthought, like the product of a late-night session in which someone realized that tactical combat was hard when you were trying to reproduce action movie car chases. And then, probably while mostly asleep and possibly being eaten by something rodential, someone threw out the chase rules, which are far as I can tell bear little to no relation to real-world activities or events. Not useful for me, for all they might be useful for others.


Vehicle rules in Shadowrun have always been like this, and I don't know why. The gun rules have often not made much realistic sense, but in many cases it seems as if the people writing the vehicle rules had "only heard of them by rough description." I don't know if not a lot of the developers over the years have been car nerds - none of them I've talked to have been - or what, but it just seems like often times, vehicles, riggers, and the rules to cover them, particularly in SR4, have been an afterthought. [But I could just feel that way because I'm a car nerd, and would place vehicles front-and-center in SR, on par with guns and magic and cyberware.]


Let me back a little further up and ask why we need them in the first place? That's not a Socratic question, but one of curiosity: I just don't understand what purpose they serve. Why not eliminate them entirely?

Because my Trailer Trash Elf in a 2069 Dodge Charger pained up like the General Lee needs to have a chase scene in every Shadowrun or else he isn't happy?

Chase scenes are pretty inevitable in many different styles of Shadowrun, but does that mean we need chase rules?

That goes back to your point: we all play Shadowrun differently. Some of us want high-octane chase scenes in Shadowrun, and think the rules ought to support that. Not all of us do, of course; but for those who want it, there should be rules in place to help it.

Now, you and I are old-timers. We remember that in SR1-2, there weren't really any vehicle rules at all. At the tail end of SR2 and throughout SR3, we had the hideous maneuver score. I believe it was you, posting as Abortion_Engine, who complained that it was a lot of difficult concrete work for a very abstract result. So, IMO, the Chase rules of SR4.5 are a step in the right direction. However, they're still not very functional.

I'd like to see a vehicle system that's abstract enough to deal with many different situations without floundering, while having enough realism to be believable. And to make it an even taller order, it has to be fast and fun to play.

I definitely get that, but why do we need chase rules? I guess what I'm asking is, what is missing from the tactical rules that requires a different mechanic to resolve actions in a chase scene?


And unfortunately, if the vehicle rules in Shadowrun are [and have been] broken, I'm as much to blame as anyone else. I was the one person in the right place, at the right time, with the right information, and I wasted the opportunity. A lot of people feel like they got jilted by FASA; with me, I feel like it was the other way around. Mea maxima culpa.

Yes, the Base Rules serve as your reference point. Always have and always will...




I had many, many more issues with previous editions of Shadowrun than I currently have with SR4. Just wanted to say that. The move to SR4 (SR4A) was a great move in my opinion.




I would be one of those who thing the Chase rules work well for what they intended. At least in my opinion. The Chase scenes we have been in were very high octane (So I know that they can be done, Cain), and were tremendous amounts of fun to play through. In the end, we still have a chase scene that is talked about. If you can just accept the drawbacks (and foibles) for what they are, instead of trying to make them work perfectly (or even better), then the system works fairly well.

And the reason for that is because it's "Shadowrun", not "Shadowrideinthepark"

Oh! Well, you're mostly right, I fold the chase rules into tactical combat anyway. The biggest issue is that tactical combat abstracts movement pretty weakly as is, adding in the much higher speed of vehicles requires a lot more than a few simple tweaks. The good parts of the chase rules-- the maneuvers, and opposed handling tests for better positioning-- do work well, it's just that the other parts don't. I just mix them into the existing rules.



The problem with the chase rules is that they're severely limited. There's some good ideas, but throw in a few complications, and the whole thing falls apart. For example, a high-skill rigger on a moped has a huge advantage over Joe Normal in a souped-up racecar. Or when you have more than two parties in a chase. Now, yes, you can houserule and interpret your way around the foibles; but honestly, why should we have to put up with it when there's a better alternative? Namely, fix tactical combat to handle vehicle speeds and maneuvers.

Well it is a chase, not a drag race. As such, the improved reaction time of the rigger could allow him to make use of openings that a normal driver could not (never mind the issue of large vs small vehicles). Btw, SR4A (or 4.5 as some like to refer to it) did introduce modifiers for when there is a performance difference between the involved vehicles (basically bringing us back to SR3 style vehicle combat rules, funny enough).

I take it this outcome would be a combo of the threshold for a successful vehicle action being high because of mods, while the dicepool being small and so statistically likely to produce a critical glitch after few rolls. End result being that one is more likely to roll a critical glitch then the needed threshold on repeated attempts at vehicle actions.

Note that i am unsure why the section in dota1 reference the vehicle test when it talks about spending a action to keep the vehicle under control, as i never got the impression from the SR4 text that said action involved any kind of test. Only if one forgo said action, or use it as part of a "stunt", would one be forced to do a test (with the potential for a crash, as mentioned earlier). One simply spent the action, and the vehicle stayed on the road. Not that i am sure if the glitch outcomes apply for the pr round opposed test either, given that it is a opposed test rather then a threshold test (tho still referenced to as a vehicle test). Both of those assumptions would make chase combat much more safer then alluded to with the reference to dota1.

Without taking anything away from any one for whom the Chase Rules work well, I'll say the reasons I don't care for them is basically twofold. They tend to be vague where the rest of the combat system is detailed, and they tend fall into SR's tendency for mini-games (like astral or hacking) where only one one or two character types can contribute to the action.

I think you can look at the mini-games as either a feature or a bug; it's good that various character types have different things that they shine at, but I also think it's better overall when the game engages as many of the players at the table as possible (ideally, all of them).

Getting back however briefly to the topic at hand, one thing about my kitbashed, on-the-fly house ruling of the vehicle combat system, I'd like for the size of the vehicle to be a factor in maneuvers. Body and Armor is roughly equivalent to the size and mass of the vehicle, so it would make sense to me for the higher B/A vehicles to have modifiers-- penalties to maneuvers perhaps but bonuses to forcing smaller vehicles off the road. I don't know if this would be dice penalties (like Handling) or a modifier to the Threshold. Off the top of my head, it might be something as simple as B/A 1-10: -1 threshold, 11-20: +/-0 threshold, 21-30: +1 threshold and so on.

@hobgoblin: What if controlling the vehicle worked like Dodge; the driver devotes one IP to controlling the vehicle? This doesn't require a test but allows the driver to roll his full pool on subsequent control tests that come up in the round (like when other drivers try to ram them, or the woman with the stroller wanders into the crosswalk). Drivers who are too busy doing other things (shooting or texting) to devote that IP only roll base Reaction when reacting to the various control tests that come up over the course of the round.

Err, to me that is basically what the rules already do. If you can't dedicate that one complex action that turn you roll a vehicle test next turn or the vehicle crashes. And your mixing two issues there, as the lady with the stroller is part of the terrain threshold modifier. This is what is talk about earlier when i wonder if people are clashing with the rules not because of the rules directly, but because of mismatched visions of the scene the rules are supposed to solidify. And i would have loved to point you to "evasive driving" for the ramming bit, but that is the one thing it is specified as not usable against.

I guess it is the age old problem that while the rules are linear, the events all happen at the same time. That is, be it tactical combat or chase combat, the basic idea is that all events happen at more or less the same "instant" in time. But they are spaced out in a linear fashion for ease of resolution. This is why movement becomes so often confused. Because that 1 IP dude do not stop running when the IP over, he keeps running for the whole turn and only at the end of turn do he get to the end of his movement distance. But the 3 IP dude, because of his improved reaction time, can stop and go again in the same time frame. So from the perspective of 1IP, 3IP is "fast", while 3IP see 1IP as "slow". Not because of physical movement, but because 1IP will go "what happened" when 3IP takes down someone that came out of hiding during pass 2 of the turn and 1IP notice the body on the floor turns end.

Similarly, that one chase turn holds multiple events of swerving thru traffic, with the sammie trying to take a shot out the window but pulling back right before being squashed by a passing vehicle, wall or some other solid object, mage getting bumped out of his spell or summoning (or in the case of astral projecting, suddenly found himself inside a station-wagon and face to face with some snot nosed troll kid. This because, dude, he is intangible!). similarly a spirit may find itself dodging vehicles and other objects, trying to hold on to or keep up with the target vehicle. Also i am unsure if even the RAS override would keep the movements of the vehicle from disturbing a hacker, and have you ever tried to operate a handheld device while inside a vehicle moving in a non-linear fashion? I suspect AR use under such conditions would induce motion sickness for quite a few.

And all this under the assumption that at least one vehicle is trying to get as far away from the others as possible, and so the driver is trying to find the path that will allow him to maintain maximum speed. If not, why are they not simply stopping and trading shots?

So every action taken during a chase turn should be described by the GM as involving various curses, yells about keeping things steady and other events appropriate for trying to do anything but sitting in the seat during the vehicles travels.

Ok, so in order to arrive at something better, perhaps we should first collect everything that wrong with the current rules:

My suggestions:
- The emphasis on teamwork, i.e. multiple vehicles, is too high, also, teamwork can replace skill
- The emphasis on individual speed is too low
- There is no emphasis on individual terrain incorporating different movement modes, or even the ability to take the same route at all
- There are no dramatic elements, for instance random occurances, etc.
- character actions don't interact well with vehicle actions

So now there are two routes:
a) try to fix what's wrong while keeping most of what's there
b) write something new

If b) is the option of choice, perhaps we should collect some design goals for the revision.

Pull out the Car Wars rules when you need to do a chase?

I will grant you that it may be a problem at some, if not a lot of, Tables, but we have yet to run into these instances "where the whole thing falls apart." The scenes where we have a chase are usually filled with a lot of what Hobgoblin details in his last post (Post 78, 3rd Paragraph and below). Lots a random action, yelling, dodging and whatnot, punctuated by the actual rolls when they are performed. A lot of problems can be mitigated with adequate scenery detail within the "mini-game" of the Chase. I am fortunate that our table has an exceptional storytelling GM, who is very quick on his feet. Details are rampant, from both the GM side of things and the Player side of things, throughout the scenes of a chase.

As for why we put up with it? Because honestly, there is nothing better in the game currently. For a better alternative, we have to either come up with it ourselves (a lot of work, that may or may not pay off), or change systems (a Hassle for some). Both of these solutions are non-starters at this point in time. Especially since we do not experience the problems that you (and others) seem to experience.

I'm not sure why that would be. This is another problem we don't run into, and I'm not sure why. Our group is so idiosyncratic anyway that a lot of times it's difficult for me to get a grasp on what experiences others might be having.


Is there a reason this couldn't be the ideal solution? Take the good parts of the chase rules and integrate them into the main game, rather than create a secondary mechanic [or "mini game"].


Well, that sentence probably needs to start off, "My problem with the chase rules," or, "The problem my group experiences with the chase rules," but let's glide right past that.


I'm not sure what the problem is with that. When I drove a BMW instead of a Wrangler, I raced in traffic all the time [because I'm rude, stupid, and irresponsible], and I regularly beat guys in much more powerful cars, because my skill [such as it is] was greater than theirs. If you put me in a Ferrari and handed Tanner Foust a Honda Civic, he's almost certainly going to beat me in any kind of urban chase scene. Now, in a situation in which you've just got two cars on a wide open road, sure, I'd kick his ass [eventually], but if you're on a wide open road, you don't need to use the chase rules, anyway: the faster car gets away, unless its driver just crashes or something. Can you help me understand what the problem is with chase combat making skill differences such a powerful advantage?

Hey, here's a question: if I have five drones and a car in the combat, why don't I have to take a complex action for each of my drones, lest they crash?


The other things you said seemed reasonable, but I'd object to "random occurrences" in Shadowrun. From my perspective, the GM is there for a reason: he doesn't need a table to tell him it's time for a lady with a stroller to enter the street. Less subjectively, it wouldn't really fit with Shadowrun's existing mechanics, which don't do "random encounter" kinds of things, as a rule.

Why would you. The Pilot takes care of that for you (Since you cannot Remote/Rig them all simultaneously). The PILOT would have to use one of ITS actions to maintain control.

Ah, but that's just it: why doesn't the car's Pilot just use one of its actions to maintain control, as the drone would? The only [relevant] difference [that I can think of] between the two [in SR4] is whether or not they take passengers.

As a general rule, Shadowrun does not do detailed movement. Shadowrun combat is always abstract when it comes to distances, you don't ever need a grid and minis, and the rules don't support that kind of play anyway. Really, that's a strength of the system IMO; you get cinematic combat instead of tactical, which I prefer. Rather you consider it a feature or a bug is up to you, but it is true: movement in Shadowrun has always been abstract.

The problem here is that while distances can be easily abstracted in tactical combat, and can be mangled for the current Chase combat, they don't mesh well together. "Close enough" for a pistol is way different than "close enough" for an assault cannon, and both change when you start involving vehicles moving at speed. So, if you want to fold vehicle combat into tactical combat (like I do) you need to be able to deal with the different distance scales presented.


That's what I'm trying to do, honestly. I'm looking to see how other people handle this sort of thing.

Skill is, and should be, a powerful advantage-- but it should not be the *only* factor. Raw speed should count for something. Going back to the Mach 4.6 sportscar, there's simply no way anybody could keep up with us on a motorcycle, even if they're better drivers. Handling should also be a factor: you're not outracing anybody in an urban environment in a school bus, regardless of skill. (I used to be a bus driver, the skill is in not hitting anything, not going at speed.)

Another problem is different types of terrain: the helicopter vs. a ground car, for example. The helicopter can travel above the buildings, allowing it greater room to maneuver and fewer buildings and obstacles to deal with. One thing that popped up in my games was the rigger using a much slower aerial drone to follow cars. He could do that because speed wasn't a factor in the chase, but skill and lack of obstacles was. Now, a mini-blimp simply can't keep up with a fast-moving car IRL, but it made for a fun chase, so I let it happen.

Because in most circumstances, the car's Pilot has fewer dice than a good wheelman Rigger. If you want to be able to do fancy maneuvers, you need a lot of dice, and the rigger usually has more.

Becauase the Car is not controlled by the PILOT. The Driver is controlling the car. You cannot have it both ways. Either the character controls it (Directly, Command, or Rigged) or the Pilot Controls it. Either way, a control action is required every Turn in certain circumstances (Like Chase Scenes).

However, there is NO WAY that a driver can control a ground vehicle that travels at Mach 4.6 (No matter how you rationalize it). You would be dead before you even realized there was a problem. Edge cases are not the best way to make a point.

I think it is a combination of factors. Terrain, Congestion, Manueverability of vehicle, Speed of Vehicle, Skill of Driver, Etc. At its core, the Chase rules cover all these, if only abstractly. That is good enough for most things, at least in my opinion. Yes, you will have a small disconnect when you start trying to engage an enemy with various weapons using the generic Range Increments in the Chase Rules. That is where your GM has to step in and arbitrate. Not really a problem, though, that is his job after all...

You definitely don't need a grid and minis, but the rules definitely support that kind of play - we have a dry-erase grid, and spindles - because Shadowrun combat is rarely abstract when it comes to distances. Explosives blast radius, vehicle movement, weapons ranges, spell areas of effect, character walk/run speeds, these things [and way, way more] are all meter-specific.


Well, I like to start with meters and work from there. I'm not sure what you mean. Like, vehicles and characters and drones and spirits and animals all have movement rates, right? In tactical combat, I mean. Now, some of those things can move a lot faster than others, but I'm not sure how that messes up the rules, or rather the way they work in the game.


My concern would be that Shadowrun really is abstract about a lot of things: it's left to the GM to make a lot of calls about, well, pretty much everything but shooting a gun, which is probably the best-honed mechanic in the game, for obvious reasons. I'm not saying that accurate modeling of reality isn't a laudable goal, I'm just uncertain as to whether or not Shadowrun can take into account all these factors and not be unmanageable. There's a reason people avoided using all the vehicle rules in Rigger 3. I'm all for it, mind you, I'm just not sure it's possible. Which is in no way a good reason not to try.


And is that "house ruling," or "GM fiat?"


Oh, no, I'm sorry, that's not what I mean. I mean that there's this rule that when you're driving you have to take at least one of your actions to drive, or else next turn you have to make a crash test. But drones don't have this restriction, as I understand it - which could well be very poorly; SR4: not my game! - which doesn't make any sense to me. What's the difference between me remote controlling a car and sitting in it, in terms of being required to make a Handling test? I think the problem might be that I'm not understanding the rule, so I'm hoping someone else has noticed this, too.

Because driving 5 drones by SR or VR is basically impossible? Instead your sitting back, passing orders to the drone pilots and let them handle it?

Ah, i see there has already been a response to that. And yes, unless the driver has more IPs then the drone pilot one may well be better of letting it handle things. Hell, i suspect there is more then a few people getting around town by way of a car but with no drivers license. This because the automated systems have becomes so good at handling the daily commute.

May even mean that one can have inner city shuttles that come and pick up you if your along their route and have a destination that can fit into their existing passenger route, but has no physical driver. Is there not even a Seattle taxi driven by a AI in one of the books?

I'm not sure why. Why?

Anyway, then change the number to three drones, or one: it doesn't matter. That's not the nature of the question: the question is, why don't I need to spend one action every turn "driving" my unmanned vehicles, but I do have to spend one action every turn driving a vehicle I'm in. [Or just a vehicle that will take people; I'm not really clear which.]

Is it possible I'm doing a terrible job of asking the question? Everyone knows which rule I'm talking about, right?

Where did you get the impression that doing it remotely removes the requirement for spending a complex action?

I run the game very abstractly. Since exact movement is highly paradoxical in SR4.5 (it's broken up among your IP's, so the less you have, the further you move per action) I find it easier to deal with an abstract method. However, trying to determine what range a fast-moving vehicle is in relation to, say, a shooter, is very tricky to adjudicate. The tactical rules were designed around pedestrian speeds, while the Chase rules were designed around abstract distances. That's what needs to be resolved for the two systems to work together fully.

"Rule of Cool"

Oh, the drone's Pilot (or car's) has to spend an action on a Handling test as well. It's just that you can't have a vehicle controlled by both a Drone Pilot and a living Rigger. It's one or the other.


You can only be "jumped in" to one vehicle at a time; thus being in full VR. You can command multiple vehicles, but they're using their Pilot + Autosoft in place of your skills.

Anyway, no snark, but I'm not sure I understand your question. I *think* you may have missed the part where drones need to spend actions controlling themselves, just like riggers or drivers do. But I'm not entirely sure. So, if I haven't cleared up your question for you, would you mind clearing it up for me? No sarcasm, I honestly think I can help answer this one.

I may be wrong but I don't he means being jumped into 5 drones rather issuing commands to 5 drones?

Well, that's the question I'm asking. Do you have to do it with drones? Do you have to do it with remote-controlled passenger vehicles [drones with passenger compartments, effectively]? If not, why not?

Okay, sure. But that's not the same as Shadowrun "always being abstract when it comes to distances." That's just the way you're running your game [and probably how some other people run their games]. It's probably best to point out when you mean "I" and when you mean "Shadowrun."


The tactical rules, though, contain specific speeds for vehicles in tactical combat, as well, exactly as it does for individuals, even using the same mechanic [unhelpfully, in my opinion]. There's no resolution necessary, then: they both already use the same system, if you stick to tactical combat. I don't know; clearly I'm missing something in the problem you're having, because it seems to me like mechanics already exist for this - Shadowrun's specific speeds and distances - and that you're just not using them because you "find it easier to deal with an abstract method." So more rules probably isn't going to help you, unless they're abstract rules, and that combination of abstraction and specificity is the problem I have with the chase rules. Might work for you, though!


That seems perfectly reasonable to me, too, but why is the rule only mentioned for passenger vehicles and not drones? Or am I missing the rule as it relates to drones?

And since all vehicles have Pilots, then the passenger vehicle's Pilot can be the one who takes the Handling action, right? So I could be driving my car down the road while my drone is flying overhead. I've got 3 IPs. The first pass, I shoot the car's guns. The second pass, I jump into the drone, and observe. The third pass, I shoot the drone's guns. But while I was "out," the Pilot on each vehicle can be the one making the Handling test, right?

All of this should be pretty clearly enumerated somewhere, if that's the case: does anyone know where?


Right, but that doesn't stop you from jumping into multiple vehicles in a single turn. You can easily jump into 5 different vehicles in a single turn, can't you? Certainly, even without the IPs and Qualities you need to do that, you can jump into 2, so the issue remains.


That's exactly why I'm asking! I absolutely assume that my understanding of the situation is incomplete. I'm hoping someone who's done SR4 more than I have will know what I'm talking about, and be able to explain.

This particular example? Yes, that is squarely the fault of SR4.5. Other places, maybe it's just me. However, it's indisputable that the slower character can run faster than the speedier one.

Let's take two humans, both walking (for simplicity's sake) and trying to grab something 10 meters away; the only difference is that one has 4 IP's and one has 1. The guy with 4 IP's will probably win initiative, and go 1/4 of this total distance: 2.5 meters. Now, the slow guy goes. He travels his full distance, 10 meters, and is able to reach whatever he needs long before Fast Guy can get close. Those are the RAW rules, from p 149 in your hymnal. Since this is effectively the SR4.5 version of Xeno's Paradox, I think it's pretty clear that either the dev's wanted us to use abstract distances, or really had it in for runaway turtles.

Now, let's apply that piece of silliness to vehicle combat. Chase distance is abstract, but if we used concrete distances, we could have a moped overtake a sportscar, simply because the sportscar driver has *more* IP's-- he's faster, and thus covers less ground.


That is true. However, the drawback is that once you get into chase combat, you become really dependent on being able to win the opposed Handling test. That means you (assuming you have the best dice pool) have to be "in" whatever vehicle you want to win the chase. It's difficult to afford the actions to jump from vehicle to vehicle.

Well, not 5, at least not effectively. But two? Assuming you have the IP's sure. Just remember that jumping in, IIRC, is a complex action; so you can't jump in and give orders in the same IP. So, what would happen is this: Jump in, do something, jump in, do something, out of IP's. It's possible, it's just not very efficient.

No, No, No, No, MO. The 1 IP guy is not faster than the 4 IP guy is. It is very disputable, as is directly countered by the Book you tell everyone else to look in. They BOTH move the same 10 Meters in the same time span (1 Turn). If there are 4 passes, movement is divided by 4 FOR EVERYONE in the pass. SO they both move 2.5 Meters per pass. We have gone over this a million time here on Dumpshock. ICan't believe that you have missed each and every time this has come up.

From the Hymnal you hold is such high esteem...



Which means you divide by the Number of Passes that exist in the turn (ie. the Fastest persons IP's), Not the IP's of each individual, to get the movement distance of each individual. This works this way for ALL movement (Including Vehicluar, if using Tactical Movement).




Again, that is blatantly wrong. You really need to re-read the ruling. I provided the quote above for ease of reference.

Three points: first of all, you did highlight one important thing: the rules say to be abstract "unless it becomes important". Otherwise, it's clear the intention was to wing it, which answers 32's question about rather movement was meant to be abstract or concrete. Thank you.

Second, you're still causing "Picard maneuver" lightspeed jumps in movement. Your movement is spread out across the pass, but only calculated on your turn (usually, for simplicity's sake. This is what I meant by gridded combat being virtually impossible, your movement is constant, not sequential.)

Third, that rule only applies if you mix modes of movement: e.g., you want and run in the same turn. If you just walk, you could argue the rule applies; but because calculating movement on the IP is easier (and also supported by some reads of the rules), you get the Xeno's paradox.

It should be abstracted, unless it matters. Most of the time, it will not matter

There is no Picard style movement going on. All it means is that the faster guy acts more times, THROUGH HIS MOVEMENT, than the slower guy does. Time does not come to a standstill in between. Slow Guy does not exist in 2 distinct places at once at any given point along his movement. Yes, it is calculated at each PASS in the Turn IF IT MATTERS. In your example case, it would Matter. So you calculate speed per pass, which is accurate.

It does not only apply if you mix modes. It applies if you need to know exact amounts of distance over a Turn. If you must know, then you break it up. The fact that both characters STILL only move 10 Meters, and that that movement completes AT THE END OF THE TURN, still means that your example is flawed. They BOTH reach the Item about the same time, and the guy with the higher initiative (IP 4 Guy, by your example) gets to grab it first.