Is it only a feeling of mine, or does is sometimes worse, to be hit by a weapon that causes "only" stun damage? Let me explain, what I mean.

If your stun condition monitor is almost filled and the physical condition monitor is still empty, a further hit that does not penetrate your armor will problably make you unconscious ( and if you are the last man standing, this will probably kill you). But if the damage would be physical, you might stay conscious and just get a higher wound modifier. This leads to the situation that my players are sometimes happy to get physical instead of stun damage...

To resolve this, I think of someting like getting the same amount of stun damage, if you get physical damage, or maybe half. Of course, this would make the game harder. Do you think, this is a good idea? How could this increased diffuculty level be compensated? Or do you think, such situations hardly ever occur?

Yup. You might be able to search for some house rules about this (I've seen P+1/2S, like you suggest). The 'automatic tearaway armor' trick is relatively popular (in theory). It doesn't come up *that* often, but it is an issue.

Umm... I don't see the problem. A knocked out guy isn't dead YET. If he's worried, he can always take off some armour when his stun track gets filled...

Personally, I think giving effectively double damage for physical unnecessarily punishes players. Also, modifiers would then end up doubled. The other option is combining both damage types onto one track, and doing stun by loose shading, and physical by blacking out the boxes (or single stroke and crossing out), and shifting existing stun upwards (might be good to print a page full of condition monitors). Then stun always sits on top of the pysical on the same track and when it's full by either you go out. You would have to find a suitable compromise on the size of the monitors, though, 8 + 1/2 Bod + 1/2 Will, rounded down, for instance. Or a single track with a "stun overflow" section of 1/2 Will on top. You drop when your physical track is full of physical or when phys+stun reaches the edge of the overflow. Stun overflow into physical then happens when the physical track is full of stun, you simply cross in some physical boxes when going into stun overflow.

That way stun damage gets inherently less bad, because you at least theoretically take more of it, but taking phyiscal instead won't keep you awake longer.

Taking stun damage makes you unconscious.
Taking physical damage makes you leaky.
Leaking blood everywhere isn't good, not by a long shot. And often, they shoot the medic first, so you're shit outta luck anyway.

It's not a non-issue. It *is* insane that there are cases in the system where someone would *want* to remove armor mid-combat in order to take more damage. Many people have commented on this over the years.

It's true that Physical damage is very bad, and all things equal, you'd prefer Stun. That's this weird little issue is so nagging.

Brainpiercing, sounds like WoD, which I think has been proposed before. Seems like a good enough idea to me. Besides, then we could use Aggravated for Drain and Fading, mwa ha.

How would you balance out a combined Condition Track with characters that have multiple cyberlimbs, or extra boxes from Will To Live?

Hm. You could say screw it and just give them boxes. You could get fancy and give them boxes of permanent 'pseudo-stun' (pre-slashed boxes that can't take Stun in them), but that starts getting much trickier than I'd care to deal with. The first option seems totally fine to me, given it's all arbitrary. You might want to rejigger costs, if you were very worried.

It is NOT an issue. That is Gaming the System, pure and simple. In no way is it ever better to take Physical Damage than it is to take Stun Damage. If you go unconscious, then you have another plot point. Why is it that characters (and their players) choose to go out in a blaze of glory rather than be captured? It is not an instant death sentence to go unconscious, unless you are playing in a game with a killer Game Master. There are always reasons to keep you alive, and they do not require a lot of thought, either. I never really understood this mindset for Shadowrun. *shrug*

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein
But from a gametheorie point of view it is better to win with 9 boxes of stun and 4 of physical damage, than to go down with 11 boxes of stun.

TJ, that's exactly why it is an issue. Duh. There should not be the potential (or incentive) for such nonsense.

Surely, you are right, Tymeaus. What I more or less wanted to say, was that it is rather strange to me that it is possible to stay awake, when you get shot at, but go down due to a simple punch (physical condition monitor empty, stun almost filled).

Well the saying is geek the mage first, and he is usually the one to patch you up on the fly....so yeah.

I agree. I've GM'd a group where 4 of 6 of them were captured. The next mission the captured players made quick 350 BP characters to act as hired mercs to rescue their actual characters.

I think that's a false concern; this isn't about not-dying. Dying is always 100% the purview of the GM, regardless. This is about *winning* that specific combat. There are (rare) cases when you can take P, get off another shot, and hobble away the victor. That's a glitch, an artifact of the game mechanic, and it's at odds with the realism; it shouldn't be the case. That's all.

8 + (Bod + Wil)/2 boxes. Track Stun and Physical differently. When Stun + Physical = Condition monitor, unconscious. Similar to Damage and Subdual from the Other Game.

So just don't allow it. That is how I handle it.
Slap it down and it is never an issue again.
Unfortunately, no game system can be perfect. Some yahoo will always screw it up with his Game theory.

And Irion... Game Theory should stay the hell out of Game Play. If you keep them seperate, and don't allow the Theory to cloud the issue, you will likely be much happier.

You're answering the wrong question. From what I thought, this is a game theory thread, not 'how do I GM this?'. The OP specifically asked about house rules (=theory).

Just because the GM can *always* fix any problem by fiat doesn't mean you ignore those issues and never think about them. Half this whole forum is theory musings.

Except that you can fix it without houserules, by just not pandering to it (note that this is not the same as ignoring it). It exists that way so that you can actually have a situation where the opponent actually goes unconscious due to a beating, rather than dying outright. It is a GOOD thing, in my opinion. Many of the "abuses" that people point out actually have a great in-game reasoning for them. Armor is one of them. You provide armor so the character does not die. He takes a beating, and yet lives to fight another day. The fact that many "Game Theorists" do not like it, because it provides an exploitable loop-hole, is actually the wrong way to look at that situation.

And actually, looking back at the Original Post, it is definitely a "How do I GM this" question.

I don't ignore the issues that are being brought up. I find an in-game rationale for them to work the way that they do. Sometimes that does not work, and a houserule must be considered. But I find that to be a rarity, in practice.

But you do have a point.

That *is* the same as ignoring it, and it's fixing it by GM fiat. I agree that it's a rarer problem and easily avoided by not metagaming. But this is the same problem you have with every rules debate, TJ. As an ideal and a mental exercise, rules *should* produce and reflect a coherent realistic game world. That's why we have all these discussions about loopholes and things.

Again, it's not about dying. No one is wanting to exploit this… in order to die.

I feel like he specifically asked about fixing it with a house rule; that's theory. He mentioned that his players noticed this break in the realism; that mismatch is the whole problem. There is no in-game reasoning for that.

See, I disagree here a bit. I do not see telling someone "No" as ignoring the issue. I see it as not allowing a metagaming aspect to encroach upon the playability of the world. I feel that the rules, as they are, provide a playable world that is fun and immersive. Are there a few problems? Yes, no rule system is perfect. As an Ideal and Mental Exercise (Thanks, I like that terminology), I believe that the rules provide a reasonable, coherent, and realistic game world, WITHIN ITS OWN PARAMETERS. It is not the same as our world. The discussions about loopholes is purely a metagaming issue. If you really look at the vast majority of those discussions, you will see that they are almost all purely metagame topics, that a reasonable person IN THE WORLD would never even consider. The reason they come up is because Individuals see the potential for an abuse and want to exploit it (Players) or shut it down (GM's), rather than ignoring it, or just saying "No." If you just do not allow the metagamey issue to matter, then there is usually no problem.

AS or the current Armor Question. There is an In-Game reasoning for that, and it is NOT a break in realism. It is SPECIFICALLY a metagaming issue. Armor is worn so that you do not otherwise die from Physical Damage. THAT is why it was invented in the first place. The disconnect is specifically a PC noticing that it would be more effecient to take stun to a certain point, and then to ditch the armor so that he can take the empty physical boxes, so that he can stay up longer. WHY does he want to stay up longer, though? There is absolutely no answer that can be provided that does not break that metagaming issue. NO ONE in their right mind would ditch armor in a firefight so they could get one more shot in. The more likely scenario is that they will run, or give up, the moment that they see they are in a losing fight. Arguing that you would ditch the armor to stay in the fight is entirely disengenous.

In fact, they are wanting to exploit this so that they can "get in that one last shot that will let them win." Poppycock, BS, and anything else I could think of. It is Metagaming, pure and simple, and should be stomped on. It is the same argument that everyone uses to support their "Overcasting" mages. They overcast because they can soak it to nothing, so why not, when in the reality (of the game world), few to none would overcast their spells even if their life absolutely depended upon it, because that is the same as putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger.

It is a disconnect between the rules and reality. And unfortunately, the players know this is not reality, so they try to pull shennanigans that would never fly in the real world, just so that they can game the system. If you do not allow those shennanigans, then you do not have those problems. Pure and Simple.

Again, I'm not saying that disallowing it doesn't *avoid* the issue. I'm saying that's the problem; you say, 'there's an issue, but we're never doing it'. That's the definition of ignoring it, instead of talking about it here. *Yes*, it arises from metagaming; so? The glitch is the problem, not the source of it. No one said this wasn't about metagaming, or that metagaming is good.

There is no in-game reasoning for removing armor keeping your conscious longer under fire. You're talking about a different, distracting point: that there's an in-game reason no one would *notice*. You're right: it *is* exactly the same as Overcasting, which is equally an issue to be discussed. You can bet that 'in the world' some mage sometime would notice that they (inexplicably!) felt better casting at a certain level.

Once again, it is nothing to do with curbing metagaming. It is about the rules failing to produce a coherent effect; bad rules. We don't *want* any disconnect (actually, conflict) between the rules and the reality. Sure, they work fine *if you ignore it*. You shouldn't have to ignore it. You shouldn't have to have gentlemen's agreements. You shouldn't have to have GM intervention. So, here in this discussion forum, where we discuss theory, this is an issue worthy of discussion.

There are other ways to get physical damage, short of ditching your armor. One more hit on the attack and no hit on your reaction test.

This leads to the situation: "Thank god, this guy hit me hard."

Heheheh... I guess we have to agree to disagree on this then. I don't see an Issue of "Avoidance", where you do. It is discussed, I (or another GM) beat people about the head and shoulders with a heavy Tome for being crazy, and then it is not allowed.

And I was also arguing that there was no in-game reasoning to remove armor. There is EVERY in-game reason to NOT do so, though. Which was my point.

No worries.

Right, which is a different point.

One issue is that 2070 is a scientific world. It *is* theoretically possible that someone actually ran controlled experiments about how long subjects stayed conscious under damage. The same goes for overcasting, for the logical dominance of S&S, etc.

NO... Physical Damage HURTS me much more than Stun Damage Does. I can never see a time where I would be grateful to have Physical Damage over Stun Damage. But then, I do not care if I am captured or not.

You could be grateful if your goal was to not be unconscious. This is a common goal, even though you might not share it. The fact is that players notice this (as evidenced by this thread). Such glitches hurt immersion and (yes!) enable metagaming. Therefore, the ideal situation is for such rule-world mismatches *not* to exist. This is not an unreasonable wish, or topic of thought. No, it's not the end of the world, but we're talking about a game anyway.

It is a Scientific and Magical World. And Magic is still not fully understood. And I would hazard to say that some of the Science is still nebulous as well, since it is constantly pushing forward. Fortunately, I do not see as many of the Issues that others claim to see. I have absolutely no issue with SnS rounds, for example, though if it were me, I would apply it as base damage of the weapon (s)e, rather than 6(s)e. The reason I have no problems is because it is not the predominant round at our table. Standard Ammo is. Followed by ExEx and APDS (or my favorite; A Capsule Round with DMSO/Narcojet).

I find it very entertaining/interesting when players try to exploit something, and yet when you apply it back upon them, they complain about it as being unfair. In the end, I am pretty fortunate that I do not game at a table where exploiting loopholes is the primary reaction to the ruleset. We are all capable of it, but it becomes unfun very fast. I play for the story and the fun.

That said, occasionally, we do try to make characters that are so gonzo, over the top, action heroish that it is ridiculous. Sometimes, That is fun. But it is not my preferred mode of operation.

You're exactly right: you're *always* blind to issues that *many* other people see. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

Again, this is not at all about exploiting loopholes. It's about the principle that loopholes shouldn't exist. Even loopholes that never ever affect you.

I think you took what I said a little out of context, there.

Loopholes ALWAYS exist. You will never eliminate all of them. I am not actually BLIND to them, I just do not care about them, and do not allow them if I GM. That is a Very Different thing entirely. And it IS about exploiting Loopholes, ask any of the longtime members of Dumpshock who tweak Characters often. Ask Neraph, he'll tell you. Hell, he is the King of Exploiting the loophole (No Offense Neraph). Otherwise we would rarely, if ever, have these conversations. How many times do you see that very advice here on Dumpshock? "Hey, here is a Loophole, exploit it so that you can be better, because that is what everyone else does."

I see it all the time here, and I am sure that you do too.

I have little issue with discussing the theory behind theoretical loopholes, but they should never be allowed into the game to start with, so I often have issues with others arguing that they are a valid tactic. You and I often see the same things, just from differeing perspectives. Where you see an actual issue, I do not, because I would never allow it in the first place.

As someone else said (maybe it was even you, Yerameyahu). If there are two different interpretation of a rule, and one of them is asinine, then that is probably the wrong interpretation. With a little thought, and a look at the Shadowrun World, most of those "interpretations" vanish.

Could the rules be better? Sure. Unfortunately, with the written language in general (And English Specifically), the issue is that it would read very dry, and no one would actually play. Ever read a "perfect" technical manual? I have, and they really suck for gripping the reader, or for immersing them. I prefer what we have (flaws and all) to a "Perfect" ruleset, everytime.

Like I said a few times, I'm not talking about a gameplay issue at all. I'm talking about theory. I'm not even directly concerned with whether player-usable exploits exist, but whether bad mechanics (even 'anti-exploits') in the rules exist. So, no, it is not about exploiting loopholes. If it were about that, Wheaton's Law would indeed have already handled it.

But! That's no reason to ignore loopholes and errors; instead, it's a reason to identify and discuss them. I don't agree that 'cleaner' rules necessitates 'drier' reading. For example, the WoD condition monitor is not drier. (I'm not saying it's perfect or even the right solution, of course.)

I do not think anybody is dropping his armor mid combat. It would be silly and actually it would take longer than a single action anyway.

The main issue with how stun and physical damage is handled is when you get both kinds of damage.

And it is not only the fact, that you may fall unconcious from stun, while physical damage is still killing you.

Also stundamage becomes incredible deadly as soon as you are passed out.

If you are passed out it does not matter if you get shot with life amunition or gel rounds. Thats silly too.

Add to this the fact, that you have not only stun and physical but also stun(magical), physical(magical), physical(Spine, Brain), physical(vulnerability)...

My god, I never thought I'd say this, but....

....The Dresden Files RPG has a wonderfully great damage system.

I use a modified armor degredation rule in my games and it does help mitigate this as the PC is evetuall going to get hit with a lot of P damage. Basically after every time the PC or NPC misses his dodge roll for an attack, all worn armor is reduced by 1 impact and 1 ballistic. So yeah, eventually it wiil catch up to the PC/NPC if they have taken alot of stun damage from getting hit.

All I can think is, "Wow, what a way to dick over low body characters even more. And give reaction monkeys more candy."

Not really. I tend run less mohawk more mirroed shade, so the NPC's (and PC's) tend to avoid getting into gunfights. The best way for a 1 or 2 bod character to survive a gunfight is not to get into one or find a nice quiet spot in the shooting gallery where they can hole up. And for that part--dodge/gymnastics dodge is a useful skill.

While I agree with you regarding loopholes and metagaming, this particular question DOES become a game play issue even if you ignore the active loophole exploits.

For one, there will be in-game reasons for people to want to stay fighting: say you're up against feral ghouls - you know you're dead if you drop, and if you have observed that you can take a lot more damage if every other attack penetrate your armor, you will want some attacks to go through so you can stay on your feet long enough to kill them. That would be a very valid in-game view, caused by following the rules-gap from an in-game-consistent point of view.

But, even more ridiculous:

You have armor 8, and the attacker does 6P.

You've taken 8 boxes of stun and no physical, and he shoots at you. If he rolls enough net successes to up the damage beyond your armor value, you're almost certain to stay standing for a counterattack. If, however, he only gets one net success, you're quite likely to drop from the damage.

It's the same bullet from the same gun, but you're more likely to stay on your feet if the attacker rolls more successes and the bullet actually penetrates into your body, than you are if the armor stops the bullet.

Or - even worse: if the guy shoots a burst at you, he's LESS likely to drop you than if he shoots a single bullet, assuming an equally good hit with the burst.

This is illogical even from an in-game point of view.

If someone hit Mr. Security Guard with a taser, and he's getting up again, you're less likely to knock him out if you make a called shot for more damage, or to circumvent armor, than you are if you use two guns and divide your dice between him and someone else.

Say you are being shot at, and you have Body and Willpower scores of 4. Both damage codes go over your armor. One guy has gel rounds and the other has normal rounds, and you take 3 boxes of damage on each hit.

If they alternate, you won't drop until after being hit a total of 7 times. If they both were using gel rounds, you'd drop on the fourth shot. If all you want is to make the other guy stop shooting at you, one gel round bullet is equal to three normal rounds in this case.

Any time you can expect better results using fewer dice, or fewer bullets, or rolling fewer successes, it is a clear sign that something is off...

If this came up, and the scene was dramatic enough (but only if the Rule Of Drama was at stake) I'd allow the player to either make a Dead Man' Trigger roll or to roll Body+Willpower to heroically stay conscious despite crippling pain for a single pass's worth of action.

If someone tried to use the metagame exploit of "remove armor to take Physical damage" in a game I was running, I think my NPCs would whisper a silent prayer in thanks that 'runners are stupid SINless, all praise Mother Megacorp, and shoot to kill (Called Shots to bypass armor and/or to target the newly exposed vulnerable areas--y'know, what armor covers--for increased damage).

That's my $.02. *goes back to spectating* (We need a :popcorn: emoticon...)

I have to admit, after reading snowRavens example of this, it makes me think deeply on the damage system. To me, that seems extremely off. Havent played much yet so have not seen this in action, though I am sure it will come up. (The instance of stun and physical, vs stun only, not my players taking advantage of it, thats laughable)

Do many people house rule this? If so with what methods? (other than those presented already i guess)

I also like the blue planet system of damage. A character dies/falls unconscious when they can no longer make basic checks because penalties are too high and even if they roll max on the dice, they still get a 0 or lower.

In all honesty, it's not much of a problem in our games. We're aware of the issue, and sometimes a player will 'cheat' the system by planning according to damage taken (by intentionally overcasting if they have too much Stun, or by focusing lethal vs nonlethal attacks on separate opponents to take them out faster). Once, and only once, did the issue I mentioned above appear: guy in really heavy armor had taken a lot of hits that obviously didn't penetrate, and one player decided to single shot him instead of shooting a burst to increase their chances of just inflicting a few points of stun.

Occasionally, a player will go: 'no, don't shoot him, he's only taken stun damage - shoot someone undamaged!', or vice versa if someone uses stun weapons. No one strips off armor mid-combat, however.

Every now and then, there's a bit of groaning about it, but we accept the failing of the system there (and in other places...) and move on.



I like the One Roll Engine's system for damage, personally. Been toying of doing an SR convertion for that system, but it'd change the tone of the game a lot...

My group did question it for a bit, until I pointed out the difference in healing times between Stun and Physical damage tracks. And what they signify. They shrugged and went, "OK, that makes sense. It's the will to go on versus the physical ability to keep going. Mental courage versus physical courage."

EDIT: I also said that the physical track delivered less PAIN because it would kick in the endorphins and adrenaline and such, but you crash hard when you're no longer on the Jazz. That got a lot of nods.

Yeah, that's a good way to explain away most of the strangeness... =)

The "Tony Montana Rule".

First: Are there no STIM PATCHES in SR4?

Second: Really the problem is the stun damage and physical damage are very different things but they don't really have different effects in the game. Access to magical healing is the default of the game and that makes physical damage not scary at all.

Magical Healing should be more costly or more difficult.

Another issue is that physical healing even without magic is comically fast. Some people would argue that this keeps the game playable. My argument is that this is a role game not a board game. If your character gets seriously hurt the player should have to deal with having a wounded character for a couple of sessions.

The biggest issue, in my opinion is that the modifiers for physical and stun wounds are the same. There are several ways to deal with this.

Do allow a character to make a roll to remain concious after the stun monitor is filled. But double the damage when the character takes physical damage at that point.

increase the modifiers for physical wounds.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that Phys damage should be more scary than stun damage. and having both at the same time should be more scary than that.

Well, I'm usually one to just roll with the rules and say "that world doesn't work like ours". Because that's a better solution than simulating your way to perfection. In light of this, there are many in-game reasons to want to distribue physical and stun, which don't involve tons of metagaming.

Obviously, I'm always in favour of a house-rule, though, that removes strangeness. From a pure game perspective non-lethal and lethal damage should always stack on your way to unconsiousness.



That's a common fallacy: If a rule is bad you can't say it's not bad, and then disallow it. If you don't actually care that its bad, then you absolutely SHOULD allow it, or else you're being completely inconsistent. Obviously you do care, because you disallow it, you're just being a lazy GM. I do agree that fixing SR takes more commitment than some other games... so I'm generally also too lazy to fix everything.

I personally really don't care (enough), and if any time my players were to try taking off armour I would simply roll with it. Taking off armour usually also means fewer soak dice, which generally means you're now taking more physical than you would have taken stun. I know my GM dice, and my playes know that they can be deadly. Do you really want to risk suddenly taking 11P instead of 11S?



Actually, it really doesn't, within the game. Damage mods are basically pain mods, and they are identical. So again, the game world works differently. Personally, the healing time approach is what sells me not to take physical damage.



Preferences aside, actually physical treatment and magical healing are handled the same in the game, which IMHO is a bit of a break: I'm fine with magic being magic, and anyway Magical healing does/can cause quite a lot of drain. Now Frist Aid is really ridiculously easy, even with the threshold of 2, because you can get so many dice so easily.

Rating 6 MedKit, best investment any 'runner can make! I typically buy multiple ones and keep them around a lot of places. (One in the car, a few at home, a few in the safehouse, one to carry on 'runs, lower rating and smaller one to put into the GoTH Plan Long-Term Bus Locker.).

I'm sure if you go back through enough threads, you can find the multiple ways people have done so.

I personally say make physical damage do both physical and stun damage, so there is no incentive to take armor off or need to divide up your stun and physical attacks, if you're just trying to disable someone. To compensate for this I would just make the Stun = 12 + Willpower. That way if one more attack would someone out, it doesn't really matter whether the last attack is stun or physical. This also has the nice effect of making stunball less instant knockout powerful and making players actually stop and think whether they want to use stick-n-shock or regular ammo, since disabling someone without killing or seriously harming them becomes harder. And if we are at all trying to model our world, this is what we see. It's much easier to kill or seriously wound someone then to disable them without lasting harm.

I'm good with making knockouts less trivial.

Yeah, Brainpiercing, I'm not a 'simulationist'. My goal isn't to make the damage mechanic realistic (or detailed) per se, just consistent. Abstract and consistent is fine (probably preferred).

CanRay, you definitely can do that, but it certainly sounds like a post hoc explanation. It is indeed possible to just ignore or rationalize it, but (given enough boredom) it can be nice to consider alternatives that might be smoother. Damage resolution and tracking is probably one of the stickier aspects of RPG theory, because it's where the realism/game aspects really collide negatively.

Except if you are the mage. Then you probably WANT to overcast so you don't drop unconscious and stop counterspelling.

I've got no problem with physical damage causing more DP penalties.
Loss of blood and physical integrity is a pretty big deal.

This sort of thing could potentially be used in a revamp of the damage rules for weapons. At the least, things like shotguns or wide bursts could do some simultaneous combination of physical and stun.