That is not what I am doing here Yerameyahu, now was it what I said, and you bloody well know it.

But I am not using narration to override the rules. Narration is a compliment to the rules. The problem is that players tend to look at the mechanics, rather than the world view. Why does a Drug not affect the Troll like it does the Human? Because mecahnically it says so. But narratively, there are countless reasons why this might be true. Instead of looking at the numbers and sayin "Hell, I am still conscious, I throw Bob oiver my shoulder, run to my car, and drive the hell away." Maybe it should look more like this - "Damn, I am way jacked up, I can barely stand. My head is pounding, and I can barely see straight. Let me route my vehicle to here, drag myself over to Bob, see if I can get him in the vehicle, crawl in behind him, and see if we can get the hell out of here." Note that in both cases (from teh Example several posts above) the character is sporting 9 Stun boxes and 4 Physical. But not the difference in the world view. In the first, it is strictly the the fact that the character is conscious, and that informs his decisions. In the second, the character takes into account what the RESULTS of those numbers indicate, and acts accordingly. Big Difference.

Let me put it a different way. There are people involved in this discussion that believe that it is a problem. There are people involved in this discussion that believe it is not a problem. Since there are two points of view, the issue is subjective, and not objective. I really wish people would stop arguing as if the issue is an objective truth, when it is not.

*Shrug* Since I do not see it as a problem, you will never convince me that it is. Your "worse" result is not, in fact, worse, even by the rules. It is a less desireable result, to be sure, but not worse. In the end, the target took MORE damage (on a harder track to heal, no less), even if it was functionally NOT what you wanted. But here is the thing. The world does not work on what a Character "Wants."

And since the vast majority do not actually have this issue in play (as most have indicated), it is truly in the realm of Theory, and is thus meaningless, from an in-game perspective.

TJ, either way, you're *still conscious*, and you probably shouldn't be. It's not a question of 'how you play' wound mods. You're providing a straw man, and a distracting one.

I don't see how my previous comment was wrong, so I'm going to ignore your protest unless you explain it.

With your Troll example, you are again saying two things: the mechanics *fail* to accurately model the game world, and that roleplaying *overrides* and contradicts the rules. That is precisely the problem. A better rule would more faithfully model the fact that a troll takes bigger doses (presumably, abstraction and simplicity won out in this case).

'Less desirable' means 'worse'. And there is no 'in-game perspective'; you've admitted that there is a theory problem, which is the only point. It is axiomatic that game rules should not contradict the game world. A theory problem exists, shouldn't, and therefore should be considered and maybe fixed. GM-fiat, gentlemen's agreements, or plain not noticing the issue doesn't change the fact that it's there.

But the mechanics are literally HOW THE WORLD WORKS. EVERYTHING for which there is a rule must work like the rule that's there. If it doesn't, then that creates a world where the rules of phyics (whatever they may be in that world) have stopped working.
And characters, and by that I mean Shadowrunners, from their own perspective, should absolutely analyze EVERYTHING they see from the standpoint of effectiveness, because they are fracking pros who are not like the wannabes that just do stupid things because they look good.

Now I'l grant you one thing: Even perceivable reality can be very confusing, see aforementioned Hydrostatic shock effect, or the absence thereof. But what every character has is experience, brought to him by his actions, and the actions of his teachers. And if that tells him about a certain disconnect, then he sure as hell should pay attention. A guy who has a 6 in any skill should by all means be aware of the quirks of that skill.

And also, you simply cannot disallow a character action that is completely within his capabilities. EVERY character can choose to take off his armour at every point in time, there is no reason why he shouldn't be able to, unless his hands are tied, or something. I could let my character take his armour off because he suddenly becomes suicidal, in fact I would, in your game. Or I would say "damn, this stuff is holding me down, I better get rid of it". ETc. ETc., all perfectly valid IC reason, and all total bullshit.



World View is absolutely the same, as soon as you take away the numbers. What you see is a good hit leaves a guy standing, while a marginal hit will bring him down. THAT is the disconnect. THAT is what the CHARACTER himself actually SEES! You shoot a guy in the armour without penetrating 5 times, a guy drops. You shoot him in the armour 4 times and in the middle of the face once, and he'll remain standing with a giant hole where his nose should be. But he'll be standing, and shoot back. What the world demands here is the option of intentionally shooting him in the armour again, to make him drop, because that is the tried and true solution. So, unfortunately, the mechanics might match MY world, because my world follows them, but they don't match YOURS, because you try to put real world knowledge into it. The CHARACTER has NEVER SEEN the real world. ALL he knows comes from things happening as they are laid down in the rules, and that's the reason that it's just wrong to ignore the rules when narrating, or when looking through your character's eyes. Sometimes the results seem iffy to us, but to perceptible reality for the CHARACTER they are completely logical. So in fact what you are doing is metagaming, and playing the real world knowledge, while I am gaming the world as it's supposed to work. YES, I do colour. I put in flavour bits, for instance, even when wearing an armour that doesn't encumber in the least I will pretend that it's heavy, and maybe itchy, or whatever. That just colours the mood of my character. It doesn't affect his actions in the least, and I can change these ideas at every moment. ("Just a minute ago the vest had been chafing his side, but suddenly he didn't even feel it anymore, he was too caught up in his task".)

This is the problem with selective simulationism: You give people the illusion that you're doing a rough rasterization of a world which should work largely like our own. You're NOT doing that, or at least, most rulesets fall a bit short. But you can't see that, and then the ruleset might make things worse by making you pay a ton of $ for a book which then says to throw it out the window when it crosses your plans - without suggesting that bad rules might actually need changing, instead of ignoring.
In a gamey mechanic you never even pretend that the world works like ours, you just want to give a fun way of solving a problem. I'm not arguing either way, nor stating a preference, merely observing. Point is: If a rule is bad, and I mean always in the sense that it does not do what it's supposed to to, it's usually a good idea to change it.

TJ it seems to me you shouldn't actually be playing shadowrun, you should be playing games where the numbers matter far less, and you can do more simply by stating the fact. Dogs in the Vineyard could probably be reasonably easily adapted for the SR world, and has none of the mechanical waffle you seem to want to avoid.

But it IS a worse result, since if you don't down the opponent he gets to shoot back. Being shot at by an injured opponent is WORSE than not being shot at by because you just knocked said opponent unconscious.

That's the issue.

If you are shooting at an opponent with Armor 8 using a hold-out pistol, you are very likely to inflict only stun damage, if you are using a heavy pistol you are likely to sometimes inflict stun and sometimes physical, and if you are using bursts from an AR you are likely to inflict physical damage. If you are a good shot, there is a fair chance that using the heavy pistol will take more shots to down the opponent than using the hold-out. So, when using a more powerful weapon, your opponent is harder to defeat.

You can't really apply roleplaying, narrative or in-game reasoning to explain this phenomenon unless you explain it away by saying 'well, the character doesn't know that this is the case so he believes that it's better to sometimes penetrates armor and sometimes not'.

Using that same heavy pistol against a slow Troll, a bad shot is liley to drop his opponent faster than a mediocre shot would, because the damage all goes to one track. Being more skilled shouldn't really make you less effective at downing opponents, should it?

But it is NOT a worse result. It is an Undesireable result (from the Shooters Perspective), nothing more. In a perfect world, the target drops because in a perfect world, the character gets what he wishes for. Unfortunately for him, he gets what he gets. It is a Better result in that the target has now taken a real, blood letting wound. Unfortunately, the Shooter would have liked it to just impact the armor instead. Oh Well...

As for the comparison, you are wrong. It may take longer to defeat the guy with a Heavy Pistol than a Hold out, but so what. If your goal is to Knock someone out, use strictly Non-lethal means. The fact is that the hweavy pistol is inflicting MORE damage to the target, regardless of whether it is split between tracks. You are complaining that the armor is doing what it is supposed to do, at least half of the time. That makes absolutlely no sense to me. If you don't want your opposition to survice long, don't give them armor. Or do what the book suggests and provide them with a single "Mook" Damage track. Don't complain that the mechanic to mitigate lethal damage is working as intended. Because that is what you are doing.

As for the question of Skill.... Being more skilled does not make you less effective at downing targets. It makes you more effective at harming them. The guy with stun is not really hurt at all. They guy with Physical Damage is badly injured. The difference in heal times sees to that.

As for explaining it, I don't. I don't have to. The characters know that sometimes bullets will stop on the armor and soemtimes they will not. Why should I have to explain something as fundamental as how Armor is supposed to work? That is the Armor's Job. To stop bullets that it can. If it penetrates, well, the armor failed in its task, and the shooter gets a solid, blood letting hit. If the Armor Stops the bullet, the Shooter is SOL, because the armor did its job, though he still provided some short term damage (easily healable) and disability (wound penalties), as it should.

Anything esle is just obfuscation.

Armor is doing its job if it keeps the wearer alive and relatively unhurt. You are complaining that the shooter has no recourse to remedy that, and it is just not true. If he is so skilled, why is he not removing dice to increase DV? That is something I do all the time (and almost any character from Dumpshock should always do with their high end dicepools), even for a guy with only 8-10 dice. Why? Because I think they are skilled enough to succeed. If I keep missing, I change tactics.

Please inform me of when Webster updates their dictionary such that "worse" no longer means "undesirable."

Undesirable:
Not wanted or desirable because harmful, objectionable, or unpleasant.
Worse:
Of poorer quality or lower standard; less desirable

Again, the result is better (You do Physical Damage, rather than stun. Physical is objectively BETTER than Stun)... it is Undesireable BY THE CHARACTER because it did not do Stun Damage, and thus remove the target as a threat (Guess he should have used SnS instead, huh?). Thus it is a Better result that is situationally undesireable.

They do not mean the same thing, Draco18s, and I know that you DO understand that. Why do you keep trying to argue otherwise?

See, you are assuming that there is either a wish to kill or a wish to knock out without injuring - this is false. Most often in a fight, the goal is to incapacitate as quickly as possible, using whatever means you have at hand. If using a weapon with more punch takes longer to incapacitate an opponent, something is not working as it logically should.



If there is a point in your skill curve where it suddenly starts taking more bullets to make an opponent go down, you become less effective. If you make someone unconscious, you can always shoot them in the face to finish them off after you have gunned down the rest of the opposition - if he's already dead, you'll save that bullet.



I don't have an issue with the armor doing it's job - that's fine. Armor works - it mitigates damage.

Why isn't he removing dice to increase DV? First of all, who said he isn't? Second of all, if he does that he's more likely to inflict physical damage, and if he's shooting at a target with a lot of pre-existing stun damage and no physical damage, the target is much more lilely to shoot back.

The fact remains that if you inflict a mix of stun and physical, it will usually take longer to defeat your opponent than if you had inflicted only one type of damage. During the fight, both types of damage are equal, and for the purpose of the fight, having 6 boxes of each is most often more desirable than having 12 boxes of one type.


Can you please answer these questions:

In what way is it BETTER in combat to leave your opponent able to keep attacking you?

In what way is Physical damage BETTER than Stun damage if your only goal is to defeat your opponent before he defeats you? It doesn't matter which monitor fills up first; he's down and not a threat anymore. Why would it matter if he wakes up in an hour, a day, or not at all? You'll either have killed him before he wakes up, or left the premises. Physical damage doesn't give any additional penalties; bleeding doesn't matter in the least during the fight until you hit overflow (or, if using advanced damage rules, until you take 7+ boxes in one hit, fail an edge roll, and get a bleeding result).

Your character is fighting Feral Ghouls - you know you'll be eaten if you fall. Do you think it is BETTER to be knocked out by stun damage than to remain standing with some stun and some physical in this case? If you're knocked out, you will die. If you stay standing, it can go either way.

Whoops. I think you just made our point for us, Tymeaus.

I don't mean to derail this lovely discussion that is going on, but what is the best course of action to fix the disconnect? Personally, I think that an overlapping damage track (as suggested by Brainpiercing7.62mm), with stun on top and physical pushing the stun upwards, would work out well. 6 +1/2 Body + 1/2 Will seems like a good compromise for the size of the monitor.

6 seems quite small.

I rather liked his idea that one can 'trade' a stun result for a physical result. It allows for more cinematic results at times, while also helping to avoid things like the non-overcasting being more dangerous situation. Quite elegant.

Can you reiterate that one? In principle, I wouldn't want players (characters) being able to control that kind of thing without a reason (Called Shot, etc.), and I don't remember the exact proposal.

or there was my option:




Those are the only Mechanics I've seen put forward. If I missed any let me know. (Looking at them, they are fairly similar)

Ah, there we go. So, double-check me: Brainpiercing mentioned the WoD idea, which I feel is the most common suggestion in these threads. Bishop's is the one that actually gives the player a metagame choice every time they take damage; doesn't that seem like a basic issue to anyone else? Granted, it's a choice that exists only to fix the glitch we've been discussing… on the other hand, it's a new out-of-world choice that only exists to fix a mechanic glitch. That grabs me as two wrongs not making a right.

The other option proposed, of the top of my head, was revamping Physical to cause secondary Stun. Someone (and I know I repeated it) suggested something like Physical + (e.g., 1/2) Stun from P attacks, while Faraday suggested Physical (–1/2 Armor) + (1/2 Armor) Stun.

Any of these solutions could of course be tweaked by changing the length of the track(s).

Any other ideas, drawing on different RPG experience or just plain imagination? I'm personally really interested.

Well, making it an ooc player choice seemed more elegant to me because it would allow both the resolution of the glitch and the capability to STILL have their character get knocked out rather than keep fighting if they feel it more dramatically appropriate. Making it an actual rules-based choice, rather than pure fiat. If we just ruled that the type of damage taken was 'whatever is more advantageous for the character to keep fighting', it would be more limiting, but remove the notion of ooc 'meta-gaming'.

I would use the suggestion of BishopMcQ without the choice and with overflow. Because if out and dead are the same, it sucks.
So you got your boxes:
(How many is to be determined, because I am lazy I will do it with 4)
So you start like this:
[ ][ ][ ][ ]

Now you are getting shot at, and you are taking 1 stun.
[ ][ ][ ][/]
Now you get one physical
[ ][ ][/][X]
Now an other physical and one stun
[/][/][X][X]->You are passed out!

Since we are living in a bad world, they are still shooting at you for another physical
[X][X][X][X] The overflow stun damage got added to another point of stun damage and turned into physical.

And yet that happens, even in real life, dependant upon circumstance.



Sounds like you are arguing for using strictly non-lethal (Less Lethal) means of attack and then making a choice to either kill or not after the fact. Again, metagaming BS. In real life, a Bullet proof vest will allow someone to stay up and continue fighting when he would otherwise have fallen. I don't see organizations having this discussion. They use the most lethal option they can if they are trying to permanently take someone down, and the less lethal option if they want to interrogate them.

My point is that you have made the choice going into the situation. You are either going for non-lethal or lethal takedowns, Not the "Most Efficient". The reasson is becasue you cannot know ahead of time what will work out the best. Sometimes you choose poorly. Sucks to be you. You are trying to argue that the world should work in the character's favor all the time, and that is just not the way it works. Regardless of how you try to spin it, Physical Damage is always better than Stun Damage, if your intent is to actually Hurt someone. And if you are attacking them with a lethal (less than lethal) weapon, your intent is to damage them.

All things being equal, the man with no armor will fall to the gunfire just as fast as the armored up tank will fall to stun damage because the bullet never penetrates. Unfortunately, all things are not equal, and sometimes the armor just doesn't do its job correctly, and stop every bullet. That is reality, and the game world mimics that adequately.



And yet, you are arguing that the result opf the combat becomes "Worse" for it doing so. See the disconnect?



The issues is that the Shooter shouold never know the wound levels of the Target. You are arguing from a Metagame standpoint. The Character (and Ideally the Player) should never know the wound levels of the target they are fighting. They should make their roll, tally the net hits and give a damage number to the GM. The GM should apply damage reduction, and tally damage. Never should the Player/Character know how much of a mechanical effect that resolution produced, other than the narrative description given by the GM. I know that the argument here is that it is a Theroy situation, and that it is an issue because of that, but I say that is BS. This stuff happens in real life. Why should it not work that way in the Game World.



And I say SO WHAT to that... That is how it should be. Because in the real world, people do not just take a single type of "wound" when push comes to shove. Sometimes the bullets hit the vest, sometimes they go through. Look, 2 types of damage. Wow, the encounter is now likely to take longer.

But, did you notice what you did here? You just proved my point. Look at what you just said... Here, I have highlighted it above. You have now said that it is more desireable to split your damage. That is DEFINITELY true for the defender. And it always will be; The attacker's wishes be damned. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot declare that the Shooter gets a single track, and the defender gets to have 2 tracks. In the end, the dice decide just how that plays out. It may go either way. The Desireable effect differs dependant upon who you are. Thanks for proving my point, SnowRaven.




In an ideal world, it isn't, unfortunately, the world is not ideal. You keep arguing that hte attacker should get all his cake and eat it to. The fact is, objectively, physical damage is better. it takes longer for it to heal, so therefore, i would rather inflict Physical damage than Stun. If that is my goal. If my goal is just to incapacitate as fast as I can do soi, tehn maybe I should go for another option. Shadowrun has myriad ways to accomplish this. BUT, if you are using firearms, and you load with lethal capacity, well, your goal has already been decided to not incapacitate. You have chosen a lethal option, and because so, physical is better than stun. That is your choice. It may not work out for you in the end, because of the capriciousness of the dice and the armor of the target (Remember, the target WANTS split tracks.)



Again, it is dependant upon situation. If yuo only care about incapacitation, you should probably go for a non-lethal method. Why? because it likely has the quickest route to your goal. If you did not choose such, your goal is not to incapacitate as quickly as possible. Unless you are competant enough to use a lethal method that will work all the time. I have absolutely no trouble, with an y of my characters, in eliminating a target with minimal exposure. Might be because I tailor my equipment to my purpose. If the players/characters are bitching about NOT being able to do so, maybe they should look htere, rather than blaming a perfectly functional mechanic.



Of course not. But, and here is the kicker, I would rasther die to the ghouls than be infected. Just my choice. But, my characters carry adequate armaments to cover that situation, and then they take great pains to not have to use that firepower. That being said, I have lost several characters to Ghouls in the past. Probably will do so again in the future. So what. It is a part of the game.

It sounds like you (generic, not aimed directly at you SnowRaven) have situations that the players take issue with because they can't just push an "I Win" button. Stuff happens in a game that is outside of the control of the players and their characters. They really sound like they need to just suck it up and deal with it. I do not see this issue as an actual issue. And honestly, I think that many here are making it out to be more than it is. Especially since the mecahnic does EXACTLY what it is supposed to do.

I really wish you'd stop throwing out irrelevant issues to distract the question. In real life, bullets going through the vest is *always* worse for the defender; in SR4, it's *not*. Mismatch. The only way the encounter takes longer in real life is if more bullets hit the vest; 'P damage' never prolongs the encounter. Mismatch.

Non-lethal methods should often be *less* efficient methods of incapacitation; ignore S&S, things like gel rounds are always less likely to drop someone than full-power lethal methods. Using kid gloves shouldn't be *better*, which is the whole basis of the S&S problem: S&S is not only non-lethal, it's also just *better*. If anyone is proposing metagaming, it's you, every time you say people should 'just' use non-lethal from the outset. It's just an artifact of the rules.

This is just purely an ad-hominem distraction. Nothing about this question is in any way related to player control or 'I-win'.

The mechanic does not do exactly what it's supposed to do. Saying so doesn't make it true. The mechanic is supposed to model 'realistic' damage effects in an abstract way; more damage should put you down. It is not part of reality or the 'supposed' function for people to be able to soak up half P and half S without dropping.

Bullets going through the vest IS ALWAYS WORSE for the defender, even in Shadowrun. Physicval vs. Stun is ALWAYS WORSE for the defender, due to healing issues. There is no Mismatch. The only mismatch is in your perspective, that mismatch does not exist in my perspective. For the 10th time.

As for the SnS Issue. I NEVER USE IT. Why? Because I have DMSO and Narcojet. So much better for Non-Lethal Takedowns. So quit putting words in my mouth, Yerameyahu. You know better, and you are not that good at it.

Non-Lethal is not necessarily Kid-Gloves, it is just not Lethal (most of the time). Big Difference. In real life, a Taser is often just as good as a 9mm for taking someone down. It has the added benefit of not being very likely to kill the target.

The Armor mecahnic DOES do what it is supposed to do, even SnowRaven tacitly agreed with that in his last post. It is the most desireable result, if you are wearing armor, to split your damage. Sucks to be the shooter, but then again, that is why the Shooter is wearing armor. Just because the shooter does better (causing Physical) rather than Worse (Causing Stun) does not not change the fact that the mecahnic DOES work. You saying it doesn't does not change that.

It is MORE damage, just not on the same track. It is more debilitating damage (takes longer to heal even). Why can you not see that? As for soaking half and half (or all and none, whatever), that is EXACTLY what armor is there for. Otherwise no one would wear it at all. Armor keeps you from (Hopefully) taking Physical Damage. Unfortuiinately, it does allow that Pesky Stun damage to creep up. But again, that is what it is supposed to do. Keep you alive. If you go unconscious due to accumulating a lot of stun, well, that sucks, but you know what? Barring Feral Ghouls, you will be alive unless the GM is just going to outright whack you. There are so many other things a devious GM can actually do to you, though. Killing is the easy way out. You don't kill a potential asset that you can lay the blame on for something else.

AS for player control, or I win... it is the argument. Players (or maybe even GM's) argue that it sucks that the target did not go down because this time they penetrated the vest (and now the damage is applied differently). My first question is... How do they know? They shouldn't. That covers it. If they do not know, they cannot ask the question, and the issue disappears like so much mist in the morning.

With the track record of this conversation, We are not going to agree here. We see things from two completely different perspectives. Just sayin'.

Hold on do we even have an issue here ?

Lets assume 6 dice dodge roll and 11 dice soak (Body of 3+ 8 Ballistic Armor Jacket) roll against a Heavy pistol (5p -1 AP) from a ganger with a smartlink and 3 dice in pistols and 4 dice in agility. Using RAW-and no optional rules like armor degredation:

Combat turn 1:
1st shot: 3 hits on attack, 2 hits on dodge roll:1 net hit for 5p base damage--converts to stun since below the armor jacket rating. Stun damage is reduced by 3 to 2 stun. Target takes the 2 stun.
2nd shot 3 hits on attack, 2 hits on dodge roll:1 net hit for 5p base damage--converts to stun since below the armor jacket rating. Stun damage is reduced by 3 to 2 stun. Again Target takes the 2 stun and is now at 4 stun.

Combat turn 2:
1st shot 3 hits on attack, 2 hits on dodge roll (at 5 dice due 4 stun):1 net hit for 5p base damage--converts to stun since below the armor jacket rating. Stun damage is reduced by 3 to 2 stun. Again Target takes the 2 stun and is now at 6 stun.

2nd shot 3 hits on attack, 1 hit on dodge roll (at 3 dice,-1 for the additional attack, and -2 for the 6 stun) :2 net hits for 6p base damage--converts to stun since below the armor jacket rating. Stun damage is reduced by 3 to 3 stun. Target takes the 3 stun and is now at 9 stun.

Combat turn 3:
1st shot 3 hits on attack, 1 hits on dodge roll (at 3 dice due 9 stun):2 net hit for 6p base damage--converts to stun since below the armor jacket rating. Stun damage is reduced by 3 to 3 stun. Target takes the 3 stun and is now at 10 stun and 2 Physical.

2nd shot 3 hits on attack, no dodge roll (unconcious) :2 net hits for 8p base damage. Damage is reduced by 3 to 5 physical. Again Target takes the 5 physical and is at 8 physical, and 10 stun.

Combat turn 4:
Target killed by putting a cap into his head...


Conclusion: Assuming the target tries to spend an action to drop the armor to stay concious, it will more than likely result in the target getting plastered anyway. Now a troll with a body of 10 might consider this a viable alternative, he will more than like get killed assuming there is more than 1 opponent shooting at him. Same goes for the dodging same as there are ways to negate that with wide bursts. I can see it comming up maybe once in a 100 combats that dropping your armor to take physical might make a better choice. However, even the PC would have to consider the fact that death is permanent, stun damage is not.

@ Draco--this is where you're right, my armor degredation rules are deadly. On the second shot in round 2 the target is taking 4p, and on the third combat round is taking another 4P and is killed by the 2nd shot in round 3. It also means the player really has no incentive to drop his armor.

As I have been saying the entire topic... Move along, There is no issue here.

NPCs do not need to heal.

PCs have mages with a first aid kit, and are capable of bringing back the Mostly Dead.*

*We're talking on average, healing 8 or more physical boxes in under 5 minutes. Your typical Average Guy has only 8 boxes (and 2 or 3 overflow). If healing times were measured in "weeks" or "months" you might have a point (but they are not, so you do not).

Um. Ironically, TJ, I never said you used or promoted S&S. The fact that you resort once again to personal arguments is telling.

Non-lethal *is* kid gloves, when you're talking about ranged combat (as we have been). It's true that the balance is slightly different in melee.

I didn't say anything about 'worse' (which is obviously too vague to use). I said that there's a fundamental distinction between the real-life case and the SR4. In real-life, bullets doing stun and bullets doing physical affect the target in a way that is *not* modeled by the SR4 rules. Specifically, more bullets of either kind *always* drops the target faster in RL; in SR, this is not true.

The point is nothing to do with who's winning, or *characters* knowing there's a glitch. The point is that the glitch exists. Saying this is a player whining or player exploit issue is just trying to discredit the whole question by associating it with something people don't like. The point, again, is that *ignorance* of the glitch (or ignoring it, or avoiding it, etc.) doesn't *remove* the glitch. As I've repeatedly said, it's not a gameplay issue. It's a theory issue. If the rules said that aircraft carriers had Body 2, that would be a rules failure. It would never affect gameplay, but that's not a reason to leave the error.

Warlordtheft, the issue is not that there's a game-breaking (or even game-affecting) exploit. It's not 'how do I GM around this gameplay problem?'.

Jesus, christ....
NOBODY HERE WAS EVER SUGGESTING TO TAKE OFF THE ARMOR MID BATTLE. (Well, dropping a sustained armor spell might be something that would "use" this bug)


The point is, that physical damage is not really more of a problem than stun damage.

They can be healed equally fast with first aid. You will have more physical boxes...
The fluff says: Thank god, the vest caught the bullet.
The crunch says: God damn, the vest caught the bullet.

@Warlordtheft
Reduce your armor by one point (increase constitution by one if you do not want to make new numbers) and your guy keeps standing a bit longer.

1. Taser's are often not just as effective at taking someone down as a 9mm. Which is why police officers still carry guns.
2. I believe I outlined a situation where a player should have lost and the break in reality was when they didn't. So this isn't about "winning" whatever that means in an rpg.
3. You're right, you're not going to agree. So stop trolling. You don't think there are any problems with the rules. Okay, fine. You think that they model reality and that they should be applied as written except when they interfere with a narrative. Okay, fine. You think that if a player ends up in a situation where their character sheet says they're conscious and can perform actions, they should ignore what the rules say and act according to their perceived reality of the world. Okay, fine. Everyone else thinks that it breaks the reality of the game world for us when a punch to the gut is more likely to cause someone to collapse from pain than a gun shot wound to the gut. And we're trying to talk about ways to make the rules better fit what we see as reality so we can stay immersed. That's not metagaming.

Why are you continuing to have this discussion if it doesn't break the reality for you? Because right now it seems like you're only here to tell everyone that they're metagaming and that everyone but you is playing the game wrong.

Then fine, TJ, we are metagaming and all of this discussion is because none of us know how to play. There are never any situations where the mechanics break down and we're all just looking to exploit things because we're terrible people that don't know how to play rpg's. Now can all of us terrible metagamers go back to discussing ways to correct what we see as a problem? Because I would like to hear some house rules for making what is not a perfect game go a little smoother for my group. And I am tired of all of this semantic BS.

Apologies if I read your post wrong.



Actually, this is not true, even in RL. If you take a few of bullets, and half impact on the armor, they do not fall faster than (or even equal to) the guy who took all the bullets through the vest. That is patently false. The guy who takes the bullets on the armor generally stays in the fight longer, barring any unusual circumstance.



You keep saying that there is a "Glich" in the system, and I keep telling you that I disagree with that. I am not ignoring it, nor avoiding it. I think that the system works as it is intended to. In the end, it IS someone whining that "it is not fair, they should have gone down." It is only a theoretical issue, if you believe that the system is not working as it is intended. For those that do, the theory is broken/flawed. The fact that it does NOT come into play, as even you indicate, proves the point.

Do you see the Issue now? I don't think I can put it any plainer. If there is no Issue, and the Theory you are putting forth is flawed (which I believe it is), then why should I even care to look at it, let alone fix it?

TJ, that's exactly my point (and what I said): in RL, Physical bullets *do* drop you faster. If they *all* hit the vest, you do not drop slower than half and half (or no vest). In SR, the opposite is true. This mismatch is undesirable.

It's not an opinion. You can't disagree: there are cases when more damage doesn't drop the target (or, when less damage *does*). This contradicts the reality that the rules are intended to model, and it contradicts the basic trend (more damage hurts more) the rules are intended to model. If you think that this state of affairs is *intended*, I'd love to see you try to motivate that position.

Simply Amazing, Thorya, drink too much coffee today?

1. They carry both so that they have options. Not every Problem needs a Hammer, and more often than not, they would prefer to take people alive. Pistols limit that option. Adding Tasers open those options up.

2. And (if I remember correctly) I disagreed with your scenario. Don't actually remember becasue there have been so many.

3. Not trolling. I am putting forth my opinion, just as you are. I am not calling you stupid, or insulting you (not knowingly anyways), nor am I treating you in a condescending manner, so stop trying to do the same to me. There are a few problems with the rules. This just does not happen to be an area where I think there is a problem.

A Punch to the Gut IS less likely to cause the trarget to collapse from Pain than a Gunshot. I have never said it wasn't. WHat I did say is that The capriciousness of the armor means that sometimes physical damage will go through and sometimes it may not, dependant upon how well the shooter hits. That is Real Life, just as it is in Shadowrun. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it does not.

Not once did I say that they should ignore the character sheet when taking their actions. I said that he Character sheet should INFORM their actions. Ther eis a big difference in the followoing two situations...

* "Hey, I'm still conscious, let me do what I just want to do, after all, it is only dice penalties" - I have actually witnessed this mentality on more than one occasion, seeing as how that is the way most people play.
** "Damn, I am pretty shot up, I think I will limp my ass to my partner, call my car to us, and then try to get away." - Sadly, not a very common occurence, because everyone wants to be a superhuman juggernaut who ignores such piddly things as WOund penalties and such (See first scenario).

Same wound penalties, completely different scenarios.

I am still here, becasue there are individuals who are still not getting what I have been saying. Eveidenced by your above post. None of the things that you accuse mn of did I actually say or even hint at. See the notes I appended to your Topic 3 Rant...

Congratulations, at least I have remained civil.

The issue is that they don't get to make that roleplay decision, because they're unconscious. Or should've been, yet randomly aren't.

Your position is that the weirdness is intentional because it adds extra randomness to the system? The dice weren't enough for that?

Now I'm just confused.
You do think there are problems with these rules?
You don't think they model reality? Or you don't think narrative trumps rules?

Also, the punch to the gut is more likely to cause someone to collapse, with RAW. It was a typo in my "rant". I apologize for that.

**That's exactly what would happen in one of our games. You're the one that assumed that the player was going to just power through. In my scenario it was the difference between a player being able to call the car and get away and being unconscious. I apologize if the use of the phrase "Haul ass out of there" implied that they would be doing anything besides making an escape.

And thank you for remaining so civil. I don't drink coffee.

PHYSICAL Does, Yes, but if half of them impact your vest, you do not really take any appreciable damage compared to when it penetrates, so no, if you have 2 guys, and one takes 4 bullets through the vest, and the other only takes 2, it is highly likely that the one who had two actually stopped by the vest is still up. JUST LIKE IN SHADOWRUN.

Yes, there are situations where more or less damage has an effect way out of proportion to the norm. On both ends, never have I said otherwise. Not sure why you think I did.

More Damage DOES hurt more in Shadowrun, as evidenced by the Incrementing Wound Penalties, regasrdless of whether it is Stun or Physical. And that is DEFINITELY intended, or do you think otherwise? More damage hurts more is definitely modeled in Shadowrun the way it is. You may not like the way it is actually modeled, but it is modeled nonetheless. I cannot argue your likes and dislikes, but I can point out that your base argument is flawed, because the system does indeed do what you want it to, just not the way that you would prefer it to do so.

However, the issue I am seeing is that there are those that contend that BECAUSE they hit harder, they have less of an effect, and that is patently false. What they had is an unintended consequence (that happens to mimic RL). They wanted the guy to go down, but because the bullet penetrated, even thought the target is now hurt much more severely (Since Physical is more serious than stun as far as damage goes), he is still capable of reacting, though probably in less of a capacity, he still has the potential to cause the shooter damage. I disagree with that. The target HAS INDEED been wounded more severely than if he had just caught the bullet on the armor and taken stun. He now likely has an additional wound penalty to contend with, and yes, he is still Up. SO WHAT. Happens IRL all the time. Talk to any cop on the street, or any military guy who has actually been in combat using modern combat armor. It happens.

If your goal is to change the System so that a single shot is debilitating, then you change the dynamic of the game itself. I think that the system is already good at mimicing what it needs to, and yet still maintain playability and fun. More granualarity in the combat system that is already very deadly (and generally resulting in a more deadly system as a result) is a bad thing, in my opinion, unless you like making characters a lot.

Thanks for some of your clarifications. Regardless of what some may say, it is an interesting topic of debate for me.

That's not the issue. The issue is that the third guy that has all 4 of the bullets stopped in the vest is not still up. If it was just the first two cases, no one would have a problem. The armor is working and keeping the guy standing when it stops some of the bullets. It's when stopping all of the bullets makes you less likely to be standing that we have a problem.

No, this is the opposite of SR4. 4 bullets: Mr-A takes takes 4 physical hits, Mr-B takes 2-2, Mr-C takes 4 stun hits.
In SR4, Mr-C is dropped, but Mr-B is *not*.
In RL, Mr-C should be the 'least dropped', not Mr-B (who took two wounds and two vest hits). I've explained this three times.

Yes, more damage does hurt more… right up to the point that the guy with *less* damage goes down first. That's my precise issue: the curve works fine up until that point. That's how we know there's a problem, because the curve stops/goes wonky.

Any random effects of armor are already modeled in the game by Damage Resistance tests. There is no need or motivation to ascribe this glitch to an *intentional* source of realistic game randomness.

I don't believe I've seen anyone talk about single-shot debilitation, nor more granularity. The *only* point is to smooth out the wound-and-KO curve.

Hey, No worries, Thorya. I do enjoy the debate.

Lets see...

There are problems with the rules in some places, yes. I do not think that the particular toipic of debate falls into that category. I think it hinges on the difference in perspective of what is a "Worse" result. I always consider Physical Damage to be more debilitating than Stun, thematically, because it is, at least thematically. That said, if you have shot someone several times, and the vest has stopped the rounds (Stun damage) and then they get shot (Physical Damage) through the vest, it may not "Drop" them, even in real life. Yes, they are still hurt far worse than they would have been previously, but dependant upon amount of damage, location, and a few other factors, the target may still be conscious. Some think this is a bad thing. I do not. It is, in fact, advantageous, for both sides of the combat.

That said, yes, if you are near your capacity for stun, and someone punches you in the gut, you are likley to go unconscious. That is the joy of having a system like this. Works the same way in NWOD, too. Though in that system, it is a single track that pushes damage towards unconsciousness/death. Again, I don't see a problem with that.

As for narrative. I always try to model my narrative (Character or GM<) on the results of what happened (Mechanics). Yes, the term "Haul Ass" is a poor choice of words for a character that has taken 9 boxes of Stun and 4 boxes of Physical. There is not going to be any such actions performed with those would levels. That is why I say that the Sheet should Inform the narrative. I don't care if you are the Terminator or Rambo, once you are on your last legs (and 9 boxes of stun out of 10 is nothing but), you are not likely going to be wading through the opposition. Unfortunately, How many times do you see that very circumstance crop up in your games? It has absolutely nothing to do with the splitting of the damage allocated between tracks. Many RP'ers do not take such things into account, because most of them have come from a DnD perspective, where you are good until you drop. This irritates me.

As for coffee, Me neither, it is bad for you.

Correct, Guy a and C are likely out of it, and Guy B is not. And that is a good thing. Again, I have explained this MORE than 3 times.



I don't think that is necessary, though, and I have explained why. The guy with "Less" damage who takes a full stun track SHOULD GO UNCONSCIOUS when his track is full. Even though he has taken no Physical Daamge. He has been beaten to a bloody pulp, but has yet to sustain anything "real" that cannot heal in a relatively short span.

Guy A, B, and C all theoretically took the same amount of damage (Assume Damage equaling 11, to make the math easy (I know, poor Armor all around, but hey), and 10 Box Health Tracks (Body3)), but Guy B was able to spread it a bit to maintain functionality. Kudos for him. That is good. Functionally, Guy B Likely is more debilitated (-3, 5 boxes of Physical, 6 boxes of Stun) than Guy A (Unconscious, Full Stun Track and 1 Box Physical Overflow, would be at -3, but has almost no debilitating damage) but is still alive, compared to Guy C (11 Boxes Physical, Also unconscious, Dieing, also at an ever incrementing Penalty starting at -3, will be dead soon). Guy B is capable of functioning because his armor worked as it should, at least partly (Yeah, he got lucky). The others are down. I think that is good. Obviously, you don't.

At this point I think I'm just going to keep quoting this.

Which was addressed prior to your quote. *Shrug*

You posted while I was posting.



Why is this a good thing?

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein
I actually do not understand what you are arguing for or against...
Are you under the impression that somebody would drop his armor mid combat?
Do you think it is about getting the most out of the rules?

Because I see you quoting Yerameyahu and responding, but I do not get your argument...
You say it is good that the guy with an armor that prevented some bullets from perforating him is up, compared to the guy who took it all.
I can fully agree with that. But why should the guy who's armor blocked all the bullets be out? Thats the part I do not get.

I've always thought when damage is staged past Stun the person takes D stun in addition to the physical damage. So if he takes 1 box of physical from a punch it would mean he passes out from taking 10 boxes of stun and his jaw is broken for the one box of physical. Seems silly for the amount of damage to go down because the punch is harder.

Throw in some EX-EX, short bursts, more shooters at the same target or APDS and you get a different result too. SR combat is deadly with a capital D-not as bad as 2nd Ed but still pretty deadly.

Sorry, I though t I have been pretty coinsistent in my argument.
No, I am not, though that sounded like the initial concern from the OP. The issue of Yo-Yoing armor to gain the most benefit.
No. Though in some cases, the argument is there because it is somehow Unfair for that result to occur.



Because the guys whose armor blocked all the bullets took a full track of stun, so he is unconscious. But, he is still very much alive and relatively unwounded, all things considered. He is less wounded than Guy B (Who has Physical Damage) and is alive compared to Guy C. But yes, he is unconscious. I am okay with that, because the model is that he took stun damage for every round that impacted his armor, rather than Physical Damage.

The punch is not harder, the body is just less resilient to the damage that it is receiving over time. You can beat someone to death with a phone book if you try hard enough, and yet no one is going to argue that a phone book is a lethal weapon.

In the topic of conversation, the complaint is that the character did not take stun, he took a couple boxes of Physical damage, and his last box of Stun is still unfilled, thus he is still conscious, and theoretically still able to react.

THis so very much this.

Indeed, which is why I think the topic of conversation is irrelevant in the actual play of the game. The contention is that the Theory still stands independant of the game, but I have yet to see anyone actually claim that it has an actual, verifiable, negative impact upon their game. In fact, everyone has pretty much said it does not have such an impact. *shrug*

Already Answered Max...

Still makes no sense

Did...did you miss the point of the argument...?

Because we said "the model is dumb" and you say "I'm ok with the model being dumb because it is the model and it is ok."



Not really. I was almost certain you started with "the guy is fucked up and unconscious because the narrative says he should be fucked up and unconscious" and now you're at "he's not fucked up because the rules say he's not fucked up, sure he has some bleeding holes, but it's OK that he's conscious."