From my side:

1. Because of the different implications created by the different solutions and the inherent dilemma of the RAW for this (not so specific) situation (the other potentially rigged vehicles that I mentioned have been ignored so far).
2. Rather different orginal claims concering what RAW demands in this situation by Pax
3. A certain confusion about the perceived divergence between initial minimal requirement for believability and suspension of disbelief in contrast to the results of the described solution (Going from a more differentiated outlook to a what obviously is deemd a strict "RAW"-abiding positon)
4. Still the general desire to provide an answer for the OP (or likewise interested people)

Essentially, Cochise's line of thinking would inevitably lead to a PENALTY for purely remote-controlled motorcycles (because the rider's motions are "neccessary" for the bike to be able to maneuver at all), which IMO violates the "rule of cool".

Whereas mine ... doesn't. It just presupposes that the otherwise-not-desacribed-in-detail "rigger adaptation", when applied to motorcycles, obviates the need for a rider's bodyweight being used to pilot the vehicle - and, while they're at it, also provides means to make sure the rider and/or passenger stay firmly on the bike even in VR, with the RAS override active. Rider, no rider; meatspace, VR, even drugged into unconsciousness: a Rigged bike operates at no especial penalty, under any or all of those circumstances. Because, you know, the rules say a rigged bike does so.

And because it's pretty damned cool to think of someone whistling as if for a dog - and their motorcycle comes zooming up to them. Which isn't really possible if the bike has tohave a rider on it, to move around.

Well, there are Trikes and side-cars and that monowheel thing which makes use of the wheels inherent gyroscopic properties i think?

Which is an outright false claim (or rather assumption) that you still continue to repeat, without providing proof.



In consequence your drawn conclusion derived from that false assumption will always have the benefit of producing a "correct", yet flawed conclusion.

I'm at a loss of which inherent gyroscopic property you're talking of since something that is mainly limited to acceleration, doesn't qualify as a general property. Trikes in general have an inherently stable base posture. Side-cars will provide the same to a bike when it comes to going straight foward, however they get a serious stability issue in curves and are a hinderance in terms of handling. Monowheels are even more unstable than a bike to begin with.

No, it's simply a logical conclusion. You have said that not having the rider actively participating in the operation of the cycle, by moving their body weight around, would hamper the operation of the vehicle.

Ergo, logically, having no rider at all ... would hamper the operation of the cycle, due to the absence of that body-weight-shifting.

...

Or are you going to now disavow your own claims, that the rider's movements are necessary for properly piloting a bike?

Truth, this. I know the Cyclops (rider OUTSIDE the monowheel) comes with a Gyroscope standard. I believe the Horizon-Doble (my personal all-time FAVORITE Shadowrun vehicle) comes with one as well, but I'm not 100% sure.

A bike without a rider would definately need some mechanism to replicate shifts in body weight to adjust direction.
Just from basic anecdotal evidence, even i know trying to steer with handle bars is downright dangerous.

That evidence being my best friend who can no longer ride due to his accident, nit the same guy from before i might add.

The oft maligned gyro stabiliser is the missing factor,

And if a rigger is going limp or is able to bypass RAS in order to hold rigid, his mental driving commands thus effect he gyro to provide steering and NOT his meat body.

While you're absolutely right that it is not gyroscopic forces which keep a bike upright, there are inherent gyroscopic forces which effect the handling of the vehicle. That's why putting light weight rims will make it easier to tip into a turn. The rotation of the crankshaft (in reciprocating engines), piston (in rotary engines), or motor (in electric bikes) also acts as a gyroscope, which has led to some bikes (the Aprilia RS Cube GP bike and the MV Agusta F3, among them) having a "counter-rotating crankshaft" (that is, the crankshaft rotates in the opposite direction of the wheels) to improve turn in.



I'm not particularly familiar with RC motorcycles, but I do know they exist and do work (to some degree or another), so you're right that a rider shifting their weight on the bike isn't necessary for the bike to turn, when it has no rider. However, it's worth noting that motorcycles are very light, and are consequently effected to a much greater degree by the presence of the rider and/or passenger. After all, that can be a weight increase anywhere from half as much again to twice as much or more, depending on the bike and the rider/passenger. So when you add that additional weight, especially up high on the bike (as is typical when you add a rider/passenger), it will drastically effect how the vehicle behaves, necessitating the more active weight shifting one sees in racing and on the street.

Absolutely. I presume that such a mechanism is part of the Rigger Adaptation. Cochise apparently does not, or perhaps just does not want to.


Generally, I tend to agree. But since RAW that's not required, and it would impose an extra slot-cost on riggable motorcycles, I'm happy to assume there's a "Lite" version included in the adaptation. All the driveability, none of the Die Pool bonuses (of the full-on Gyroscopic Stabiliser).

... and the Rigger Adaptation mechanisms lower some other weighted elements (and maybe shift them fore/aft as well), to retain the same center of gravity. ^_^

See, there's answers to concerns like that, which don't require the rider to physically participate, could retain a sufficiently similar performance and maneuver profile to justify the lack of die pool or threshold modifiers, and, happy day, can simple be described as "part of the installation that adapts the bike to be rigger-controllable".

The bikes sensors will tell you where your body's location is. Considering when the bike takes damage, you as a rigger take damage, I fail to see why when you grip the bike, why you can't feel yourself being gripped as the bike. I don't see why you as the bike, can't feel that you need to shift your meat body to stabilize your bike body. Yes, you can't feel your meat body, but you can feel your meat body on the bike.

I know you can say, well, you'll have to make a roll for that. but even if you did, the threshold would probably be 0, meaning you can default on it with 0 dice and still get 0 hits to succeed. So its a nontest, so it automatically succeeds, so you don't have to micromanage that part of the game, and you only have to make your standard pilot ground vehicle test while jumped in and get all the bonuses for being jumped in.

No, no they won't.

They won't tell you if you're dragging a foot (ragged and bleeding) down the street at 120kph. They won't tell you if your leg is against the exhaust, and thus the skin is burning/melting. They won't tell you if your head is turned to the left, to the right, or faceplanted on the bike itself.

The bikes sensors do not include your own nervous system.

The bike could possibly tell you much of this - if you also get Touch Sensors (1 slot, costs Body x 500¥). But, that's "much", not "all", still.

(NOTE: the foot-drag etc, would only happen if some part of the rider-restraint mechanism failed to properly operate.)


Feedback.

You take the damage whether you're physically on the bike, or you're nine thousand miles away ... on the Zurich Orbital Platform!


(a) RAS override

(b) -6 Die Pool penalty to all physical actions, including non-Matrix / non-Sensor Perception.


Feel the need to, yes.

But without those touch sensors? You can't feel whether or not you actually are shifting weight. Or even, if you just fell off the bike entirely.



...

Have you not, like, actually read the netirety of my posts? I keep saying the opposite of "micromanaging" anything.

Bloody hell, ONE MORE TIME:

• RAW: Piloting a motorcycle via VR does not need a rider's weight shifting around - there are NO die pool or threshold penalties for remote-control piloting of a riderless motorcycle.
• RAW: going into VR invokes the RAS Override function of your Sim Module. While that feature is active, you are "limp, as if asleep". A little bit of "don't fall off the tree branch" movement, like anyone actually asleep, yes. (But then, at any significant speed and/or hard maneuvers, that tree branch isn't staying very still under you ...)
• I INFER: the rider needs to be secured to the bike in some fashion, to avoid being unseated by hard maneuvers.
• I SUGGEST: that the means to secure that rider to the bike, are ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE RIGGER ADAPTATION, for no extra charge.
• I AFFIRM: there is ZERO die pool penalty for those systems being engaged. By whatever means, the Rigger Adaptation accounts for any issues an immobile rider might pose for maneuvering the motorcycle - completely off-camera, with no fuss, no difficulty, and no need to affect die pools or thresholds.
• END. OF. POSITION.

How is that hard to understand, remember, grok, whatever verb you want to use ..? :confused:

To move it even one more towards the "Easier" camp. None of your inferences, suggestions or affirmations are actually necessary. There are absolutely no penalties assessed for riding a motorcycle while in VR. NONE, NADA, ZILCH, ZIP. Therefore, the Rigger Adaptation takes care of all of it, with nothing else actually needed.

I was trying to avoid the play by play wall of text, but I guess I have to to clarify my point.



You are not using your nervous system, you are using your bike's sensors. I'm not saying you feel anything through your meat body.

Why would the sensors not tell you your foot is out of place? Sure, you won't be able to feel your foot, but we can assume there should be a touch sensor and/or camera's placed in such a location that you would be able to see that your foot is out of place. Like wise, if you are taking physical damage, you should be able to notice that your reactions are getting slower for unknown reasons, so it might be safe to assume that the rigger would put two and two together and check on his own body to make sure its not out of alignment. This doesn't require the rigger to preceive the natural world at all though his meat senses. He's using the bike's senses to monitor his own body.



If the rigger is getting dangerous biofeedback when the drone takes damage, its getting nondangerous biofeedback to know its own center of gravity, how much weight its carrying, how fast its going, the location of all its parts, and the location of its rider, whom may in fact, be the rigger.




In SR4a, p220
With great difficulty, you can still perceive through your meat senses or move your physical body while in VR.
So we can assume you can move your body while in VR. While it means it won't be easy to shoot a gun, or make a sandwich, something that can be considered a nontest, like rolling over should be able to be done without rolling dice. Now if a rigger were to try and move his body totally blind, he'd probably hurt himself, but since he isn't blind, because he can perceive his own presence through the bike, he can get some limited control over his meat body. This is pure interpretation, but so is yours, only I like mine better because it doesn't require to house rule gecko tape seats.



You would. Because the bike's sensor's would indicate to you that you've just lost a lot of weight, as well as that the handle bars, peddles, etc are no longer being gripped.



I get your point. But I disagree that its a good way to handle this problem.

What I am getting out of this discussion:

Is it possible to VR rig a bike you are riding, without strapping yourself on?

Yes.

Would it be stupid to do so?

Also Yes.

Even if you have enough of a dice pool to offset that -6 imposed for "staying on the bike purely by muscle power", statistically you WILL eventually fail a test and commit your body to a vigorous total asphalt face retread with a side of rolling around in traffic.

Regardless of whether you think the straps come with Rigger Adaption or have to be added seperately, it just makes good sense.

Unless you're the masochistic type, I suppose.



-k

This is not really so much a physics issue. When driving in VR you are not necessarily “riding a virtual bike” you may be only pressing a few virtual buttons and swiping across some virtual screens.

We don’t really know how VR control of a vehicle really works, in earlier editions references were made to jumping in to a vehicle as becoming that vehicle, the motor becomes like your heart, the sensors your eyes, etc. If this is still the case, VR controlling a bike your meat arms and legs would be flailing around as you “run faster” to accelerate or do other actions within the matrix that would not translate well once back out in the real world. There is no description of “sitting on a virtual bike” when piloting one via VR. Not to say that it couldn’t be done that way, but there is no concise description of such.

Now to take it a step forward, as a rigger you likely don’t have only one vehicle, what happens when you are riding your virtual bike and have to start decrypting a signal or commanding a flying drone, or any of the other many many things that a rigger is likely to do while in VR? Now your arms are coming off of the bike handles, feet off the pegs, etc as your virtual body changes to accomplish the other tasks. What happens if your virtual self doesn’t have arms and legs?

As an aside I apologize for my sarcastic comment, I should have labeled it as such. I actually am a very sarcastic person, I just try to limit my sarcasm while posting because text is a bad bad place for inflection.

So after all of the discussion it seems to come down to…

Yes you can VR rig a motorcycle, the argument comes to do you hold on to the bike or does the bike hold on to you. Since the books do not say either way, it will have to be up to your group how they handle the fluff of it, or if they just go for the handwavium.

And that "logical" conclusion is ignoring various things in regards to actually following my line of thought as well as RAW (that has been cited well enough by now).



So far your reading comprehension worked.



Unless of course the operation of a cycle without physical driver by definition of RAW and a real form of logic requires to have a gyro stab being fitted to a remote-controlled bike, thus providing the means of shifting center mass of the bike (which was the function of the drivers body as well). So logically my line of thought doesn't do what you claim it does.



I'd rather disavow you from constantly ignoring context and explicitly mentioned aspects of both real world physics and RAW that have been expressed on various occasions just to make up something that you pretend to be an "argument". But that wouldn't suit your style of argumentation, wouldn't it?

____



The forces themselves are based on the same physical phenomena. Still I object to refering them as "gyroscopic", because that term for me is connected to the rather specific implementation called "gyroscope" / "gyro stabilization".



Current RC models operate with two methods:

1. a spinning wheel that produces stability giving forces
2. a steering technique where you turn the handle bar (slightly) into the opposite direction of your intended curve for a short period of time before "straightening" the front wheel again. This action causes the machine to actually tilt into the direction you intend and then to take the turn into the desired direction. By early enough repositioning the front wheel you prevent it from crashing. And by accelerating you get it back into upright position and continue to go straight forward.

The technique in no. 2 is similarly used by a real cyclist as part of the second steering technique I described where the driver sort of pushes the bike into the wanted direction and tries to maintain an upright position in relation to the ground.

The RC solution however is very clunky when compared to actual motorcycling and while one might consider the same technique when rigging a bike (with and without a person "on board") there still are aspects of "believability" and (lack of) "suspension of disbelief" in such a case:

1. VR driving is supposed to be on at least equal foot with or rather better than conventional driving, so the clunky way of doing it doesn't quite fit the bill again.
2. Once persons on the bike enter the scenery the picture get's blurred again, since RC bikes are not hampered by a "limp passenger" (to stay within context of PAX's prefered way of looking at the situation) that would and should normally cause serious instabilities unless you can fixate the person to a degree that by far exceeds what has been presented as part of a solution.

Which brings us back to physics, believability and suspension of disbelief that have to be matched against literal RAW vs. RAW and the described intensions in an individually satisfying way. The very problem that caused the starting questions in the first place.

So while Tymeaus Jalynsfein is perfectly right, that one could simply take the easy route of accepting that rigger adaption by "handwavium" provides all necessary means of making "it" work, since RAW (despite that part about going limp) imposes no modifiers for doing so, that quite obviously breaks suspension of disbelief for more than just one person.

@DMiller:

Even marked as sarcasm your comment would have been offensive. I actually took it as sarcasm due to the final words. Sarcasm as a whole is (for the main part) intended to do what you quite obviously did. So your intention and its effect were "well" aligned. The question however is: Which part of "our" interpretation actually deserves to be mocked at in such manner from a logical stand point in terms of consistancy, game balance or other related subjects? Sarcams for "lulz" of it is just one thing: Inflamatory and thus not a legit tool for a discussion like this. So while I accept your appology, I still consider this to be a major let down.

*emphasis mine

Using this information, the physical movements from the pilot have no bearing on the operation of the bike. The rigger has become the bike while rigging it. Typically bikes do not have arms and legs (I know this is SR and it is possible for a bike to have them, but I don’t think those apply to this discussion). So as a VR rigger, when I want the bike to go faster, I move faster (after all I am the bike), what my unconscious body does is irrelevant to that action and as such RAS override will stop my body from making any movements. At least that is my interpretation of the various quotes from the BBB.

Again I apologize for the out-dated quote, I’m cheap and haven’t replaced my books.

The bike's sensors know nothing of your arms, legs, testicles, whatever.

Seriously, without installing the [Touch Sensors] modification, the bike doesn't even have any way to know if you're ON it, or not - let alone where your left hand is or isn't.


Because unless you install [Touch Sensors], the bike does not know whether your foot is or is not touching ANY PART of the bike.


No, you can't. Installing those costs 1 slot, and 500¥ times the body of the vehicle. Touch Sensors are NOT standard equipment.


No, you really can't assume that either.

Vehicle cameras look forward, backward, left, right, and maybe up. Air vehicles almost certainly add "down".

To look at the occupants,, you need to add additional, not-standard-equipment cameras. For cars and such, the modification to do this is called [Interior Cameras].


Yes. With great difficulty. Quantified elsewhere in teh rules as, "with a -6 die pool modifier".


The standard Vehicle Sensor Package also does not include a "how much do I and my cargo weigh" sensor.


My point, really, is that there isn't a problem.

Alright ... fine; answer me this simple question, if you can and dare:

A rigger has Ground Vehicles 4 (Motorcycles +2), a Vehicle Control Rig, a Commlink with Response, Signal, System, and firewall all equal to 5, and a sim module modified for Hot VR. He also has three identical motorcycles, all with Rigger Adaptation and nothing else. They all have handling +3

While in hot-sim VR, he is riding one motorcycle, and has to make a handling test. What does he roll? Explain how and why you arrive at this number of dice.

A second motorcycle is being ridden by his partner, who fell unconscious shortly after getting underway - luckily, the Rigger was already remote-controlling that cycle. This bike, too, has to make a handling test. What does the Rigger roll? Explain how and why you arrive at this number of dice.

A third, and final motorcycle is passengerless - the unlucky rider was knocked off by a go-ganger several combat turns ago, and the city's public works department will be busy hosing theri face off the pavement for at least an hour. This third, now-riderless motorcycle is ALSO controlled by the Rigger, and ALSO has to make a handling test. What does the Rigger roll this time? Explain how and why you arrive at this number of dice.

...

Remember: the first bike has a body in hot-sim VR on it. The second bike has an unconscious body on it. The third bike has NO body on it.


Except, the RAW don't require it. Oh, sure, explaining how the bike got underway without a rider comes into it - my question above posits that the rider fell off, or was knocked off. Or, the bike could be deployed from a "launch rack" like those for drones.


I haven't ignored anything.

Newsflash: just because you don't like my responses to things, doesn't mean I ignored them.

There are already touch sensors on a drone/vehicle.

How can one feel the road and wind but not the rider? There must already be sensors that do touch on drones without needing the touch sensors modification. The mod just adds more touch sensors making touch more sensitive.

Also, while adding Interior Cameras makes sense for a car, but considering there is no interior for a bike, I don't know if I agree that you can't use the external camera's already there to monitor yourself. Though, I understand your point, that interior cameras are designed to monitor the pilot specifically, but I don't know if that holds true for a bike... but I may have to concede the point because it'd make the modification pointless for bikes...but I do think it is pointless for bikes...


What does it include then? Cameras around the drone and that's it? I don't think so, because the sensors are rather abstracted, so I have to imagine its more then just that. Because if there wasn't more to it then that, then there wouldn't be dangerous biofeedback when the drone takes damage.

And why wouldn't the default sensors be able to gage how much stress is on the suspension?

@_Pax._
I think this is a poor example. If the three bikes are traveling together, one is being directly controlled by the rigger and will have a large dice pool, the other two are being piloted by the innate pilot and autosofts, leaving them with tiny (in comparison) dice pools. A 5-pass per turn rigger could jump between them every turn to effectively pilot them all with his skills, but he wouldn't be doing anything else.

I do see the point you are headed for however.

Atmosphere sensors could provide the "wind rushing past you" and motion sensors could provide for "road beneath you" (I know I'm stretching it here).
I do agree that a bike would notice the change on the suspension if the passenger fell off, the rear motion sensors and camera would also notice the tumbling body.
I'm not sure a bike would include radar, though it is a vehicle and that quote is about standard vehicle sensors.

Oh they do say what standard sensors are...hm...

I did have another argument that the pilot would be well trained enough to just know how to move their body from muscle memory. But I didn't think it was as convincing of an argument.

Though it's plausible to think the motion sensors and radar might be able to keep a limited track of your body. But that does seem like a bit of a stretch.

I still don't think gluing yourself down with gecko tape is the answer.

But...eh...handwave territory...

Edit: Nevermind. Its too early in the morning.

if I rigger mod a pedal Tricycle, does that automatically add a means of propulsion or just steering modification ?

the presumption that rigger modding a multitude of differing vehicles for a flat cost, includes the full package
of items needed to "Jump into VR" and exert full control is erroneous.

A bike needs the rigger mod AND gyro stab. /crunch

The pilot then needs to either default a "holding on for grim death" test at -6 OR
potentially acquire some form of GM approved pilot restraint / crash protection system for a handwavium fee. ... /fluff

is SR5 here yet ? ...we can start this merry go round all over again

Reading comprehension again: Go back to posting #99 and you're bound to find the relevant answers to your question, just not with a total calculation of the overall dice pools (or the resulting TN reductions for that matter, that will vary depending on drive state). I will however concur that during that listing of situations I put too much emphasis on the gyro in terms of involvement for steering.



Both of the discussed solutions would end up with the standard dice pools for this kind of situation. At least within our (obviously different) frames of "suspension of disbelief". My solution simply wouldn't include a destablizing factor in form of the driver's body, since he retains enough body control to fixate himself and support the vehicle movement or keeping it upright when coming to a standstill. Your solution asserts that by strapping him onto the bike while being limp will not affect handling. I however would impose a varying 1 to 3 d6 modifier due to destablization unless the driver is strapped on and fixated to an extend that still exceeds what you describe as being part of your package ... and I might be inclined to let him make a reaction test in order to destrap from gecko tape in order to get his feet on the ground when coming to a halt.



The body of the rigger is not part of the equation, so again no dice pool mods prior to investigating the situation with said unconcious partner. Now prior to the passenger being rendered unconcious it already was the rigger who obviosly drove the bike. During that time he was dependant on the passenger's best attempt not to interfere with his steering actions (the kind of RC steering described in posting #119). In this case I'd again apply said varying modifier due to destablizing actions on the passenger's behalf (depending on the experience of the passenger in regards to this means of transprotation). Since by your example the bike in question lacks gyro stab, the passenger would be required to hold the bike upright when coming to halt. Once the passenger goes unconcious he then again would impose the varying modifier - this time just higher (most likely the maximum availible) than in a concious state. I'd also demand some form of check if the passenger stays on the machine, once he loses conciousness. You're likely to inject here, that the passenger within your solution could benefit from the installed gecko stuff and thus the latter check would become unnecessary. The thing that wouldn't change however is: Your version still doesn't totally fixate the unconcious passenger => I could still impose the varying modifier to the rigger's actions ... most likely I'd go for middle ground when comparing "concious", "unconcious but partly fixated" and "unconcius, not fixated at all". Halting the machine at a traffic light will however lead to an instant crash unless the rigger comes up with a solution where the bike with its passenger is caught and held upright by an external force.



Again no dice pool modifiers for the base situation. Steering is still done in the RC-manner of posting #119 and quite obviously lacks good means of keeping the machine upright, with instant crashes when coming to a halt.



Not much to "remember" I guess.



You'll need it for a fully operational remote control situation where you can do everything a physical driver can too (up to and including a standstill at a traffic light).



I do have my doubts about that.

No, there aren't.

For one thing, DMiller already listed what is part of a vehicle's standard sensors.

For another thing, if [Touch Sensors] were already part of every vehicle, they would not be a separately listed modification.


The existing cameras do not look at the passenger space. I suppose for a motorcycle, it would be less "interior" cameras, and more "dashboard" cameras.


.... because there's no sensor to do that, listed in the RAW ...?






.... in Hot Sim VR, the Rigger has three IPs per combat turn. You only need to spend one Complex Action per Combat Turn, to keep the vehicle directly under control. Three bikes is therefor exactly the number the Rigger can pilot at once (well, at at the minimum - with the right additional gear/implants, he could have up to five passes).






^_^ You don't have to have any ranks of the relevant skill, to pilot a vehicle via VR. A twelve year old could go for a remote joyride, just fine. Oh sure, they're probably going to crash shortly after saying "hey, check THIS out" to their friends ... but up until then, they might be a sloppy driver, but they'll still be a driver.

No, it was an attempt to get you to come out, in the clear, and admit that you'd levy penalties for every bike except the one the Rigger himself was on.


... and it succeeded.

Let me explain: by the Rules as Written, each of those three Handling Tests is done with EXACTLY THE SAME DIE POOL.

5 Response
6 Ground Vehicles (Motorcycles +2), rank 4
2 Vehicle Control Rig
2 Hot-sim VR
3 Handling
----------------------------------------------------
18 Dice Total

He gets those 18 dice for the bike he's on, he gets them for the bike carrying his unconscious buddy, and get gets those 18 dice for the riderless motorcycle.

There's no modifier for "no driver, with passenger". There's no modifier for "no driver, with unconscious passenger". And ther's no modifier for "no-one on the bike at all".

The die pool is 18 in all three cases.

...

Earlier, you kept suggestign Iw s trying to "gimp" riggers on motorcycles. The truth is, I'm giving them more dice in more situations than you are. If anyone here is "gimping" motorcycle-riggers, it's you, not I.


No, you only need it for a 2-or-fewer-wheeled vehicle to remain upright at zero, orperhaps very low, speeds. And for the bonus to handling it provides (IIRC, that's +2, isn't it?)

If ... go back to my go-gang example, on page 1 or 2 of this thread IIRC. If you're launching the cycles like Drones (a motorcycle is about the size of a Large Drone), via a landing-rack-like Special Machinery modification? That obviates any need to worry about "how does it start" and "how does it stop", in terms of falling over - without the gyro stabiliser.


Again - just because you don't [b]like/b] how I respond to something, does not mean I have ignored it.

You're forgetting the most important rule of them all - the GM can impose modifiers as he sees fit to a situation. Just because they aren't spelled out in the book doesn't mean it can't happen.

Sure, absolutely.

But that still makes Cochise a hypocrite, in light of this remark, very early in the thread, and in direct response to me:



Oh, and there's this beauty, too:


Yep. He calls it a false claim in post 104, and then 25 posts later, says exactly what I described.

False claim? Apparently not.

See, he's decried approaches like mine as "gimping" motorcycle-riggers. Yet, of the two of us, he's the one who wants to penalise riggers who decide to use motorcycles (instead of, say, a Daihatsu Horseman PMV), when the Rigger is not on the bike, and able to move (in complete defiance of the RAS over-ride and -6 die pool penalty spelled out in the RAW).

Me? I just explain "why doesn' the rigger fall off", and get back to playing by the rules.

Cochise? Comes up with a whole new expansion upon the rules, then uses that to justify penalising riggers who don't operate their bike "just the right way".

You tell me - which of the two of us is "gimping" anyone or anything?

You're getting too caught up in proving him to be a hypocrite or wrong rather than proving your point right.

I haven't really been trying to prove myself RIGHT, per se. Just, trying to prove that I am not (a) completely, objectively wrong ... and (b) not "gimping" anyone.

We got it. Move on.

Aaaaaand, singled out even though the unfriendliness was bi-directional. Yayy. That makes me feel so special.

Join my Ghostbusters group. We ride around in a VW Microbus.

Wow I'm late to the conversation again but I've never thought of riggers as just lying there, even in cars. Going back to 1st Ed, unlike deckers or astrally projectying spell slingers they are more hyperaware of their vehicals. The idea of 'feeling the wind' over the surface of the vehical and a "twitch of the ol' trigger muscle" etc. Like the best driving esperience ever.

With a bike rigger seems superfulous just because of the limited carrying capacity and the joy of riding on it's own. since all but the smallest bikes are mannual transmissions you're more aware of the control already but having ridden my own bike for over 20 years I imagine you'd have more confidence in turns and less worry about weather- for example riding in the rain, (in Seattle? nah)you're more likely to slip and without a full face helmet the rain drops on your face feel like small pebbles thrown at you by a child.

Rigging a bike you'd be more aware of the road surface and less aware of the rain as it's just a part of you, not all. Going into durves you'd feel the lean better, like a person walking along a curb because you'd feel the street, instead of now you rely on the feel of the bike moving under you.

The only problem is while jump-in-piloting (which I thought this whole discussion was about) you ARE the one bike that you are jumpped into. That means:
Use skill (pilot ground craft, bike 1) - Complex action
Exit vehicle - Simple action
Enter Bike 2 - Simple action
Use Skill (pilot ground craft, bike 2) - Complex action
Exit vehicle - Simple action
Enter Bike 3 - Simple action
Use Skill (pilot ground craft, bike 3) - Comple action

Next turn, repeat starting at bike 3... 5 Passes per turn needed to jump-in-pilot 3 vehicles.
If we are talking about VR-Remote control, then things change, dice pools change, program usage changes, etc. Because remote control piloting you're not going to "feel the wind/road as you drive" the whole experiance goes from "I'm the bike" to I'm playing a video game.

If you want to jump in to each machine, yes.
Just RC the other two, though and you are good.