Don't forget the context. How a RL motorcycle not operated via RAS-override-enabled Virtual Reality is controlled, has little to do with how a rigged cycle in ShadowRun works.

IOW, whatsisname's "25 years of experience" operating manual-only motorcycles, are not 1:1 relevant to operating VR rigged motorcycles.

About the only commonality involved, is the number and arrangement of of wheels, the ability to carry one or more passengers, and the general lack of an enclosed space for said passengers.

All else is pure fiction.

Completely uncalled for aggressive wording not withstanding, _Whatsyourface._, Cochise never claimed a 1:1 relevance. However, it's worth noting that a bike does not, in fact, just tip over as soon as no person sits on it. Which is very relevant to the discussion at hand. So, your dismissing his experience after citing physics is neither helpful, nor does it make you look smarter.

Any comment on the other points?

Not to nitpick, but, when riding at speed, you don't so much shift your weight around as you hang off the bike. Take a look at Marc Marquez (rider number 93). That he's practically hanging off the bike is more clear from the second photo. This sort of action is necessary to make the tires work at that sort of speed.



While it's true that none of us (I presume) have had experience with an RAS-overide-enabled Virtual Reality Rigged Motorcycle, it doesn't change the physics of motorcycle dynamics. Moving around on the bike, in concert with moving the controls, gets the bike to work. That will not change, even if you're steering or using the brakes via skinlink or datajack straight to the brain, because the physics of motorcycle dynamics still demand it.

No reason you can't do that while rigging. Sensores are suppose to be pretty advance in the future.

I think whether you can do that or not is the source of _Pax._ and Cochise's disagreement, as it were.

This becomes the question: whats the skill test to use the motion required by the situation? reaction+pilot vehicle, as normal, agility+vehicle, for performing a complicated action related to that vehicle, strength+vehicle, to just hold the fuck on, or just a stat or skill. it also begs the question of, whats the threshold? same as encounter?

because with 4 stat and 4 skill, you only have 2 dice to throw at a test. chance of a glitch; 1/3. weapon-type geko tape adds +4 (i think) on any test to hold onto something, not counting that driving a bike at high speeds requires you to move around on the bike, and gyro stabilization adds 2, so lets assume you're taped or similarly secured to the bike, with a test threshold of one, you're throwing 8 dice, more if you count handling. you should be able to roll one hit with 8 dice. if not, well a nice GM will let you make a vehicle test to avoid dumping the bike. (dont forget to set your geko tape to turn off if you crash.)

@Cochise I think you have made some compelling arguments, I like the idea of "rule-of-cool" here, however without additional modification a rigger will fall off of his bike while in full VR. (sorry for the outdated book reference, please correct me if SR4a changed this)



Emphasis mine.

I would point out that the VR rigging rules operate the same even if the driver isn't actually on the bike.

As for the "limp/not-limp" RAS arguement, you take a sharp turn, without any straps/gecko pads or other means of tying your body down, with the constraints the RAS imposes on your meat actions, you're gonna go flying off the bike, limp or no.



-k

See, that's the point that I adressed with my question about the insistance of RAW wording vs. general intention behind RAS and the general willingness to make use of the "rule of cool". The bolded, underlined part in your quote to me is the important part: RAS is meant as a safety precaution against unwanted movement that could injure yourself or break stuff. The simplest way of achieving that goal is letting the body go "limp" without specific explaination of the degree of limpness. I guess that you'll agree e.g. that if you fall asleep (sleep being a reference in your quote) on a chair, your body will go "limp" but not necessarily to a degree that you automatically fall of said chair?

Now let's have look at the bike situation again: under normal conditions a motorcyclist's body is integral part of both steering and keeping the machine in balance (both by moving the center mass of the overall system with his body movement). So it stands to reason that any "safety precaution" created with RAS in that situation would not totally shut down the physical body and thus prevent wanted (and even required) movement on the driver's behalf, since that would be harmful to the intention and thus would directly work towards breaking both the bike and its driver when a crash occurs.

But to give even more perspective (since bannockburn already showed that most of the rest of RAW heavily contradicts most of the claims so far), lets dwelve a bit further into the real world physics of motorcycling and the fictional technology that is present within the SR universe:

1. motorcycles are in fact quite stable when moving forward (mentioned before)
2. (reasonable) acceleration creates an automatic tendancy of getting the machine upright. In order to steer, the driver actually has to work against this tendency at times
3. deceleration leads to the contrary, it destablizes the system .. usually leading to "wobbling" of the handlebar, that the driver has to compensate.
4. whether or not a bike crashes is dependant on current speed, tilt angle and path obstruction. Path obstruction can be ignored as out-side factor here. Tilt angle is heavily influenced by positioning (thus moving) of the driver's body and is dependant on speed yet again.
5. steering of a motorcycle comes in two flavours: Movement of the handlebar and center mass movement. The angles that can be safely used on the handlebar are heavily limited by speed and current tilt angle. The higher either one of these parameters gets, the less steering angle can be given via handlebar without causing a crash. So this kind of steering is actually restricted to low speed turns and is usally used in order to get around exptremely tight curves or u-turns and otherwise remains just for the fine-tuning of current movement. Everything else (including stuff like switching the driving lane) is usually done via moving the center mass of the whole system.
6. The center mass steering itself also comes in two desctinct flavours:
   
   1. Leaning towards the intended direction, while trying to maintain an upright or even more tilted position in relation to the bike. In this case center mass is heavily pushed to the side and lowered towards the street. This is mainly used for high speed turns curves, but good drivers will try to use this technique in narrow curves as well
   2. Physically pushing the bike into the wanted direction while trying to maintain an upright torso in relation to the ground. This technique is only useful at moderate speeds, but allows faster directions switches and tighter turns. Center mass doesn't move that far out and thus hasn't to go that low in relation to the ground, but the tilt angle of the bike is still rather high.

In summary, the driver in vast parts acts as both a gyroscope and steering mechanism with his body weight.

So now let's again look into the availible technology within the SR universe: Simsense in general and RAS plus rigger adaption in particular:

1. The various simsense related systems are capable of
   
   1. reading and
   2. on-the fly interpretation of sensory input
   3. influencing motor reactions.
2. While the conciousness of a person in VR is blocked from is normal physical sensory input in order to prevent over stimulation, the sensation as such still exists and thus can be interpretated and acted upon by simsense technology.
3. In fact the RAS technology by design takes control of motor reactions once the conciousness leaves the physical body, but it does so, in order to prevent damage not in order to generally shut you down (otherwise real world movement would generally be prohibited). Completely turning someone limp in case of a motorcycle would be counter-productive towards the goal of securing against unwanted movement. You'd actually have to completely fixate a driver under such a condition ... otherwise the limp body's uncontrollable movement would constantly work against the steering mechanisms of the bike (and against a gyro, if one actually had to be present, which we now know is not the case)
4. The existance of biodrone capabilities (which also includes forms of rigger adaption) clearly shows that this particular simsense technology can control basic motor reactions without the need of skill wires.

So I'm kinda lost at the claim that it isn't (technically) feasible / believable / logical to assume that the rigger adaption of a motorcycle not only assumes control over the motor reflexes by simply shutting down all movement, but instead makes the physical body (again) part of the overall system (motorbike) and uses the body for the very same purpose it has when physically driving: steering and balance? That way you'd get a seamless switch between rigged and non-rigged state. No mechanically unnecessary, unbalacing dice pool modifications in comparison to other rigged vehicles. No need for secondary skill tests or additional technical installations (that RAW in fact doesn't require, despite certain claims to the contrarary) and overall no pending balance issues.

So my final question remains pretty much the same as before: Is that overly literal interpretation of RAW when it comes to RAS (by focusing on that second sentence in your quote) really that strong, that a "non-limp" rigging biker suddenly becomes of serious threat to the game or its plausibility instead of simply going by the "rule of cool"?

If you ignore the part that I underlined and only use the part that you bolded you are completly correct and that is how it would be. As with most discussions, if you take parts of topics and use them out of context they can fit any argument, however when placed within context the arguments tend to fall apart. RAS Override in earlier editions did not make you into a limp noodle (sleeping corpse), in 4th edition it does. If you want to rig your bike and not fall off make a Hardware + Logic (5, 1hour) test and turn off the RAS Override. Problem solved.

[e] To answer your final question it's not so much a matter of game balance IMO, it's a matter of following the rules rather than tossing them out. If your group wants to go with rule-of-cool, then house rule that RAS works the way it did in earlier editions and done.

See, my point there is, that the underlined part is contradictory to the bolded part, thus creating an inconstistancy within RAW. That automatically leaves me (or any other player group) with the need of making a decision which part of the description has priority over the other.



And I still doubt that this claim can be made as an absolute, simply because of the involved contradiction. Previous editions are just icing on the cake there.



It's save to assume that I (and any group that I'm willing to play in) will certainly come to an agreement on how we're playing. I usually prefer going by "the rules" myself (just because of transportability between groups both as player and gm), but my question here actually doesn't aim for (or against) following "the rules". It rather indicates that "the rules" are in fact not as clear cut as people claim them to be, since they are inconsistant, even contradictory between two sentences. So with regards of the OP's question I'm merely pointing out the aspects that would be of importance to me, once someone wants an explaination of "how it works" and a decission on how to handle it from there on has to be made.

So this is the point where I have to say: I rest my case. Further decissons based on the content of this thread are up to the recepients of this broadcast.

The two statements are not in contradiction. They support each other. The first says that RAS Override is a safety measure, the second states the effect that RAS Override has on the body. The last line of the quote tells you how to turn off the RAS Override.

Breaking apart the quote from the BBB:
As a safety precaution, sim mods override your motor functions while you are fully immersed in VR/simsense, so that you don’t blindly thrash around in the real world and potentially injure yourself or break things.

* This line simply states that it is a safety system (like air bags and seat belts), it is there for your safety.

This means that your physical body is limp while you’re online, as if you were sleeping.

* This line says that it places your body into a state similar to sleep.

This reticular activation system (RAS) override can also be disabled with a Hardware + Logic (5, 1 hour) Extended Test, at the user’s own risk.

* This line tells you how to disable the safety if you choose to.

I understand if you choose not to respond as it seems you are done with this thread. But for the OP, this is why those of us who have been arguing against the sleeping bike rider, have been arguing that way, at least in my opinion (I really don't want to speak of those who may not agree with me).

I would have prefered if this answer weren't made "necessary".



Yes they are, at least when it comes to rigged motorcycles ...



Actually you're directly neglecting the second part of this sentence that clearly relates to the purpose of the safety system. There is a very clear intention of what this safety system is supposed to achieve in general: Not injuring yourself or breaking things (up to and including whatever you're currently using).



This is a description of how the safety system tries to achieve said goal- again on a (very) general basis - with the very destinct problem that in case of a motorcycle that general description directly leads to a contradictory situation, since using the general approach in this case directly leads to the driver "blindly" (or rather limply) "trashing" around on his bike, resulting in "breaking" both himself and the bike in the process.

To wit, the part under the sim modules description is still there, described on p. 220, SR4a, and in the equipment chapter again.
It is the only thing in the way of rigging a bike, and at this point, I'll happily throw RAW overboard, since bikes have their very own disadvantages compared to a car. This is much less rule of cool and more RAI, in my opinion.

However, one can still argue, that it is an RAS override, not an RAS shutdown. Involuntary movement is restricted, but the software running on your VCR could actually make you move in a required way, without your conscious participation, even. A true meld of man and machine, if you will

What about that third sentence that isn't underlined or bolded? You can override the system so that the body doesn't simply go limp.

Make it so that the metaphor while jumped into the motorcycle is complementary to how one would normally hold on to a motorcycle and help steer it. Doesn't impose a -6 penalty because you are still inherently rigging the bike, you're just also taking advantage of a way to continue holding onto the bike.

Also, what is keeping a person from having safety straps (or whatever) to help make sure they stay attached to the bike?

The desire to actually be able to fully control the vehicles movement, since you simply cannot be fully or partially attached to a bike (the former particularly not without it also being very uncomfortable) while still retaining enough movement and movement space to successfully steer the machine.

And trust me you don't want to be fixed with your lower legs, inner thighs, buttocks or hands onto a motorcycle in case of an accident, while your upper body and head are more or less free to move around. The expected injuries (including the likelyhood of being killed) in such a situation are by far greater than the danger of being catapulted off the bike during a crash.
Fixated legs also pose the problem that you're very likely to drop your bike when coming to standstill (without gyro), simply because it either totally prevents you from putting a foot down or at least will be a significant hinderance to doing that. The more fixation point (as in the proposed gecko tape solution) you have, the more of a problem it will become, even if the fixation is not near absolute.

Assuming it is possible to modify a bike such that it does not need a rider at all (Rigger Adaptation), why couldn't you also modify said bike to factor in a rider that does not move to aid steering?

Heck, make the whole situation lumped into the cost of Rigger Adapting a bike (you already need to add the Gyroscopic Stabilization) so why can't all of that take into account factoring in the "unconscious" driver for both steering and keeping them safe/on the bike?

In that particular scenario we're talking a totally immobilized and more importantly "stiff" passenger. He's virtually just strapped on as "dead weight", with practically no whiggling room (that would interfere with the steering done by machine). This would equate to the previously mentioned gyro stabilization and possibly a rigger cocoon. While such solutions surely are possible, that's simply nothing that is required for a rigger adapted bike under the rules.



See, that's the thing: You don't need gyro stab for rigging the bike, you only need it in order to use the bike as unmanned drone.

And technically not even then, if someone kicks the stand for you and catches the bike when you want it to stop
But yeah, that equates to 'needing' it.

Yeah, I say just require the Gyro Stabilization and call it a day... I thought it was required, guess that explains a bit of my confusion...

No, the word "unwanted" is not part of the cited passage. By RAW, all motions are suppressed - with no exceptions given or even hinted at.


The chair rarely travels at 40mph+, possibly over uneven terrain.


Under normal, not VR conditions.

When piloting that machine via VR, it makes precisely zero difference if there's a body on it at all, or even (as I said before) if the operator of that motorcycle is even on the same continent.

That means, a motorcycle piloted by VR does not need a metahuman body shifting around on it; further, having one makes no difference in the handling profile of the bike. Body, no body, VR is the same.

Or, are you going to now suggest that we should "gimp" remote-piloted motorcycles, which have no passenger at all? ::smirk::

...

Seriously. Occam's razor: a rigger-adapted motorcycle has means available to secure it's rider(s) to the vehicle, in the event they opt to pilot it via full VR (switchable gecko surfaces on the seat and controls would be the easiest route for this IMO) ... and rider-body-movement is not necessary for piloting said vehicle via VR.

...

Let's turn the question thing around: why is it so world-crushingly important that the RAS override have a special "out", only for piloting a motorcycle via VR while actually sitting on said motorcycle? What difference does it really make?

Wrong.


Again: It say's 'override', not 'shut down'.
Also note that 'as if you were sleeping' isn't a complete shutdown either. People move in their sleep all the time. Admittedly, sometimes people thrash and hurt themselves in their sleep, too, but these are events when something went wrong in the motor cortex. A normal person could even sleep on a branch without falling down, thanks to a few evolutionary holdovers. This is the reason why most people don't roll out of their beds.


Or so you claim. You cited physics. Physics mean that there is a very distinct difference between a bike without a driver, a bike with an active driver and a bike with a dead weight bolted on. As has been demonstrated by someone with a lot of experience in the field. The driver being in VR does not suddenly make him inconsequential to the performance (or the ability to stay upright) of the machine.


The first part is entirely correct. A motorcycle piloted by VR doesn't need a body on it. At all. But having one on it will make it unstable if the body is a dead weight, which means, body or no body VR is not the same.


Seriously. Occam's razor: No special requirements are mentioned anywhere in the RAW. Are riggers not intended to drive a bike? Or is it simply the fact that no special requirements must be met and all this is inconsequential?

Highlight the word "unwanted", then.


Not just me.

Show me where in the rules, it says that VR piloting a bike you're sitting on is different from VR piloting a bike that's five kilometers away (MSR not withstanding).

So, by whatever science-fiction mechanism might be involved ... a rigger-adapted bike doesn't need an active body sitting on it.


Where in the rules does it state that having a metahuman body on top of a remote-piloted motorcycle, has any effect whatsoever on your ability to pilot that vehicle by VR?



I have stated, repeatedly, that I consider the Rigger Adaptation to include some means of securing the rider to a motorcycle when piloted via VR. I have even stated that I favor the use of a few strategically-placed electronic-activated gecko pads/surfaces to do so.

I accept I was mistaken about the requirement for a gyroscope. Yayy, rigged bikes are potentially cheaper than I thought. (I'll still probably get the gyroscope anyway, the bonusses are nice enough.)

But I have, I think, consistently dismissed the issue of "but the rider will fall off" - countering it by suggesting "no, the rider should be secured to the vehicle (and the means to do so are probably part of the adaptation in the first place)".

In answer to your first claim, 'unwanted', I challenge you in the same way to highlight where 'all motion is suppressed'. To repeat myself for the umpteenth time, it is an RAS override, not an RAS shutdown. Read up on the reticular activation system of the (human) body, especially the reticular formation.
An override does not mean a complete shutdown.


Show me where in the rules it says that it is so. This is interpretation, nothing more, on both our parts.
One side has it backed by experience and comparison to RL physics, the other just has some claims, on how it might work.


You yourself, claimed smugly that "You know, little things like physics" are necessary. It isn't mentioned in the rules.
Someone else claims physics to have an inherently unstable system (like every two-wheeled vehicle is) work like intended and suddenly it's wrong?
You brought it up. You wanted RL in this discussion, and now, at the point, where it doesn't suit you (namely, after someone who knows how bikes work has tried to enlighten you), you don't want them anymore. Make up your mind, please.


And others have stated, repeatedly, that having a dead weight strapped to an unstable system will result in negative consequences, and furthermore, why it can still work with just the basic RAS override.
Yes, this is RAI territory, but again: My view is that the RAS override will actually make your body move in such a way that the bike is not negatively affected by the body on it.

Personally, I don't care if you decide that you need to strap yourself in with gecko tape, or magnetic cyberlimbs or whatever. I will not require it of any bike rigger, because I've found a satisfactory solution to the question at hand. At this point, the discussion just seems to go in circles.

Something which occurred to me, regarding the rigger-as-biodrone idea: is there a "combining-mecha" drone modification out there? Would applying such a modification allow for normal operation of the motorcycle/rigger unit?

Sure - it explicitly omits any penalty, threshold increase, handling reduction, call for crash test, or anything else, in the event you are remote-piloting a riderless motorcycle.

It does the same, in the event you are remote-piloting a vehicle with a rider - whether the rider is conscious or not.


In response, IIRC, to the direct question of why a car being enclosed would make any difference in the need to secure a rider, compared to an open vehicle like a motorcycle.

In the enclosed car, you may get jostled around inside the compartment - but you'll still be inside that compartment (unless the jostling is severe, and puts you through a window, of course - but at that point, you're already crashing, so ... *shrug*.

Regardless, it was a direct answer to a single direct question. Not a general hue-and-cry for the whole discussion.


The RAS Override does not create movement. For that, you'd be looking at Skillwires. And I doubt you wish to suggest that having skillwires and slotting a "Ground Vehcles (Bikes)" skillsoft, are necessary prerequisites to VR piloting a motorcycle you're on.

Also, amusingly? RAW, the guy sitting on the bike does not have to be the driver.

No, there's no "Voltron" modification. It'd be cool, if there was, though. I can actually see a TOY company coming up with something like that, at least.

Maybe because I still see no reason to penalize a bike rigger with stuff that isn't RAW (despite your claims)!? Maybe because it isn't just a single "special out"?

1. standard bikes (where the rider also serves as the vehicle's drive)
2. various forms of aqua-gliders / jet skis
3. hang gliders
4. windsurfing boards (the "easy" one in that area)
5. hoverboards (just for the "lulz" of mentioning them)
6. the big can of worms: single person sailing boats - in particular single-person catamarans

Quite obviously the difference between how "you" treat a rigged car in comparison to a motorbike when it comes ot necessary addons or imposed dice pool modifers.

... I would make no die pool modifiers for the presence or absence of a passenger, on a rigger-modified cycle (or similar vehicle).

I would make no die pool modifiers for the physical activity or inactivity of a passenger, on a rigger-modified cycle (or similar vehicle, again).

...

Why, would you "gimp" (read: impose a die-pool penalty on) a purely remote-controlled, no-passenger or limp-passenger motorcycle (etc) .... compared to the RAW?

I’m really starting to like Cochise and bannockburn’s interpretation of this rule because it means that my hacker while in full VR hacking and having Tac-Net running and shoot people right in the face with her pistol and can dodge attacks because that would be cool, and those are wanted movements.

Sweet, I may have to propose this to my group.


*note: not really.

You can do those things...you just suffer a -6 because your senses are being over whelmed with simsense data. Also, you'd probably be fighting blind so it'd probably be an int test instead of agi.

You can do those things if you turn off the RAS over-ride.

And more, his point and mine would then lead to the question: "so why aren't you at -6 to drive the bike with your hands and legs and whatever, too?"

Exactally.


Can you VR rig a bike... Yes absolutly, turn off RAS override, and you can stay on the bike. As a VR rigger and strictly controlling the bike you are on through VR I would even go so far as to say you don't have to take the -6 (due to your senses being elsewhere, because you are rigging the vehicle), I would impose a -2 "distracted" penality to your rigging tests as you have to split your attention between hanging on in the meat world and actually rigging the vehicle. But for any of this to work you would have to disable RAS override.

Or as a rigger for a bike, add a side car and sit there... no hanging on, no issues.

Or, as I do, assume that the "rigger adaptation" includes electronically switchable Gecko contact points, which hold the rider in place (including on pedals and handles/grips). Now, your rigger can ignore their meat body (which has become so much cargo strapped across the bike's seat). And drive it at no penalty.

(Of course, as a player, I favor recumbant bikes for VR-rigging, anyway. Seems like it'd be easier to KEEP the body from shifting inconveniently, with so much contact area.)

EDIT: and, as a funny bonus feature ... using Gecko surfaces as part of an ANTITHEFT system, is great! Vehicle is programmed, if stolen, to immediately activate the gecko surfaces and drive to the nearest police officer, then play back (at volume) "HELP!! I AM A STOLEN VEHICLE!! HELP!! ^_^ Sucks to be the poor S.O.B. that tried to jack my ride, eh?

I like it, simple and effective.

You're not driving the bike with your arms and legs though. The bike is piloting "itself" with your brain. Its just that you are on top of it and holding on and shifting your body. That doesn't require a perception test for your physical senses because you're using the bike's senses.

_Pax._'s solution sounds like the correct one. If the body goes limp because of RAS override (which according to SR4 it does), then the simple solution is as posted. No extra costs involved, and from outward appearances it looks like the rider is actually piloting the bike physically while (s)he is piloting it via rigger control. Usually the simplest solution is the best.

If you can ignore RAS override to be able to ride a bike without problems, then you should be able to ignore RAS override to make any movements you want without problems, thus removing RAS override from the game world.

As I said, even if you take the idea that the body does NOT go limp, if that bike does ANYTHING but go in a straight line there's a good chance you'll get thrown off, since your ability to hang on or physically react to the motion is severely impaired.



-k

A few problems with that:

(A) Cochise has said that those movements are part of operating the motorcycle.

(B) The bike's sensors cannot tell you how much pressure your legis or isn't exerting against the side of the bike. It can't even tell if you've been dragging your foot over the pavement for the past six kilometers, leaving a trail of blood and tissue. Ergo, the bike's sensors do not counteract the -6 penalty imposed for being in VR, but trying to perceive/act in the real world.

© The book says "limp, likeyou're asleep" ... not "like you're an awake, aware, and active rider of your motorcycle".

(D) As KarmaInferno says: if the bike turns to one side - or hits a pothole for that matter - and you're not secured, you are going to have to make a roll to avoid falling off the bike - or perhaps more accurately, to notice you're ABOUT to fall off. -6 penalty, kiddos. Whether the sensory stimulus in question is wanted or not.

but the necessity of shifting weight is negated by the Gyro, that's what a gyro does

I would assume the -6 applied to remote piloting tests if required, but tests are not required for normal operation until you hit terrain or combat ?

Limp, like you're asleep, as in muscles relaxed .. not unconscious... quite ambiguous but but I think falls on the side of awake rather than completely unaware of yuor own body. otherwise they would have just said unconscious and unaware of your physical form, like going astral?

agreed, if a test is called for then you qualify for the -6 penalty. BUT if you are jacked in then you get the benefits too !

(A)(1) As I have no been reminded, the Gyro is not part of, nor required for, Rigger modifications
(A)(2) Then if they aren't necessary, why must they occur?


No, the -6 applies to all actions you take outside of Virtual Reality.

It's not a penalty to remote operation of the bike. It would be a penalty to, say ... scratching your butt, while in VR. For that matter, a penalty to the Perception roll to even know that your butt is itchy in the first place.


That's where the -6 penalty comes in. You can maybe fight your way through the VR, to sense the physical world - with a supreme act of will, and either really really good die pools, or, blow a point of Edge on a longshot test. (Most of Metahumanity would be stuck with the Longshot option, and nothing else.)


You get the benefits, for actions taken within Virtual Reality.

You get the penalty, for actions taken outside Virtual Reality.

It's not rocket science: if it involves moving yourphysical muscles, or using your physical senses: -6 penalty, and no VR bonuses.

didn't see that, but rigger adaption was not meant specifically for bikes, surely common sense applies in that a gyro is a requirement for the vehicle to be remote controlled. otherwise it falls over when stationary.
it's just one of those things that they didn't consider enough to write in the exception.

Hmmm, I think I was being overly specific in noting piloting tests as that is the example we are using,
I mean ALL tests but noted this specifically as it applies here.
What I was trying to say that ... it only applies if there's a test required, which leads to a whole new catch 22 :
do you need a test to stay on a bike ? no, but does staying on a bike while remote operating it ? doesn't say anywhere in RAW that I can see so ??

Hmmm I might have ECS (edition crossover syndrome) here, this whole VR/AR thing loses me.
it's a flat +8 TN in 3rd for interacting while "Jumped in" to a drone but you can still do it.

Do you NEED to be in full VR to remote op drive your bike ?

**EDIT** just to address the last point, as far as I can tell the ONLY action you are taking outside of VR is staying in position on the bike.
everything else is done in VR to control and react to to stimuli.

so it boils down to, does the GM want to dick you over for rigging a bike or not ? if there's even the remotest chance you can hold onto the handle bars and strap your feet to the pedals you are good to go

Hmm, if the Gyroscope is only active while the bike is stationary, it would not help with driving.
And technically, if the gryroscope is active while driving, it would create a problem, because the wheels create a gyroscopic force in one direction and the gyroscope would create a conflicting force in another direction. And bikes NEED tipping to make corners.

again, the assumption is that it is linked to the inherent gyro that is a bike and acts in concert, then goes overdrive when stationary to maintain vertical alignment.

unless you really want to overcomplicate it

*sigh* That's not what I asked.

If moving with the bike is not necessary for the bike to be piloted via VR (andpatently, explicitly, they AREN'T, as there is no penalty for remote-piloting the bike with NO rider at all) ... then why is ANY motion required?


And it's a flat -6 Die Pool modifier, in SR4.


No. You can use AR. But then,you don't get the +2 dice for a Control Rig, and you don't get the extra Initiative Pass(es).


And I say, "that doesn't require movement on your part".



No, it doesn't.

It boils down to, "some people want it both ways".

>_<

There isn't an inherent gyro.

Every Bike with 1 or 2 wheels has one or two inherent gyroscopes.
Because as soon as the wheels are spinning, they are acting as such.

what I meant ^^

I've never ridden a bike BUT I have been a passenger, which is essentially what you are on a rigged bike.

and I got given a right royal bollocking from the rider at the time for trying to move around, the best bet was to try and hold as still as possible and let him and the machine do the work of turning.

I'd say the same applies here, if the rigger is as still as possible the Gyro works with the vehicle momentum to control direction etc. there is zero need for any body movement.
as it is actually counter productive.

**Edit** I think Pax you are under the impression I disagree with you on this, I don't ! ... but there are aspects that need some clarification, otherwise, suddenly Trolls

May I ask why you're putting words into our mouths there? Because our interpretation (or rather the solution to a contradictory and somewhat "unrealistic" or "unbelievable" situation) would nowhere allow to make such things, simply because "our" version of RAS would still "override" any form of movement not related to the task of "driving" the vehicle in question. That kind of (stupid) exaggeration and taking things out of context is something I would have expected from someone else in this thread, but not necessarily from you. So please: Keep it civilized.

_______

Yet another longer text, because people are quite obviously mixing and matching various different situations for sake of their argument, while randomly giving up initial claims, desires and assumptions.

First again some stuff about the driving physics:

1. A motorcycle does not have an inherent gyro stabilization unit. And no, the spinning wheels do not act as such either, allthough they (along with other aspects of the driving physics) produce an identical outcome under certain conditions. The relative stability when going forward comes mainly from inertia: As long as there are no "harmful" forces, the object will continue is current movement and the general mass and inertia based tolerance of the bike keeps it from instantly crashing to the side.
2. Gyro stabilization makes use of very specific physical forces in order to generate its effect. The same forces do occur under specific driving conditions automatically (the previously mentioned tendancy of going into upright position when accelerating), they do lack fine tuning however. The general stabilization and its willfull and controlled disruption in order to produce steering effect is still the driver's job.
3. Some of you seem to think that gyro stabilization on a bike would only be used for keeping the bike in upright position. However, explicit and controlled desyncing and resyncing within a gyro would cause similar (and sometimes identical) forces a physical driver would normally cause with the shifts of his body weight, thus overall providing the same effects, which in turn creates the basis for remote controlled driving.

Now for the various situations that have to be looked at, when trying to tell "how stuff works" in context of the SR universe and the involved gaming rules:

1. A physically driven motorcycle just with its driver: Not much to "see" here, a driver who maintains body tension and actively steers the machine. The driver is "the thing" that keeps the machine from falling down, by providing balance movement and also causes steering movement. The appropriate skill tests and modifiers due to outside effects and we're all happy.
2. A physically driven motorcycle with a driver and a passenger: Here we have the first variable in form of the passenger. Mach_Ten injected his(?) experience here, by his story about getting a royal bollocking when he(?) interfered with the drivers balancing and steering actions. The solution to the problem was: Keeping body tension up and moving as little as possible (Going limp would have been disastrous). In case of experienced tandem riders, this can also be changed to keeping body tension up and actively supporting the main driver's movements for quicker system responses. How will that translate into game terms? Arguably not at all or by the GM using his legitimate (and RAW abiding) option of imposing a varying pool modifier for situational difficulty (1 to 3 d6 IIRC) along with the standard skill tests of the previous situation.
3. A rigger-adapted bike with an VR-immersed driver that is physically sitting on the machine: For starters, various "facts" in terms of "realism", "believability", "logic", "RAW" and "suspension of disbelief":
   
   1. By RAW rigged bike in this situation does not require the bike to be fitted with the gyro stab upgrade, so the required balance and steering forces that were provided in the previous two situations do have do come from a different source.
   2. Rigger-adaption itself nowhere states that it provides anything beyond the man-machine interface and some automation towards the steering mechanism. Now this is the first point where believability and similar concepts raise their head, because while it's not too hard to accept that such a system would include servos below the bike's handlebar in order to provide the necessary fork steering it get's odd when thinking about the nature (and size + weight requirements) of a secondary system that provides mass shifts while not being a gyro stabilzation unit.
   3. In terms of design for such a system, it would be a rather normal concept to use something for steering and balance that is already present: the driver. This however leads to the (somewhat) contradictory situation with RAW that we have been discussing in length by now
   4. It is correct that there are options to deactivate RAS override and thus providing a RAW conform option of still physically interacting with the bike while also overall driving it from within VR. This particular design however doesn't seem to be the default assumption for rigged bikes in SR, otherwise RAW would have to mention it.
      
      Sidenote: It's somewhat inconsistant that Full-VR in conjunction with physical sensory input and unblocked movement is described as both sensory overloading and potentially dangerous to the user's physical well-being, yet deactivating RAS doesn't impose explicit modifiers.
   
   
   Now two obviously very different solutions for this situation have been brought up:
   
   1. A less literal interpretation of a very specific sentence within RAW which proclaims that under default RAS your body goes into a limp, sleeplike state. The less literal interpretation instead leans towards using a concept that utilizes the general purpose of RAS as safety meassure. Instead of overriding and thus blocking all movement, it's merely supposed to override and block movement that is not related to the task of driving the bike. Under such a RAS implementation you'd still face pool modifiers when trying to physically shoot someone while rigging the bike or do other unrelated stuff. The overall effect of this solution lets the rigger maintain most of his body tension / control for purposes of keeping grip, balancing and steering. The whole thing remains believable, doesn't interfere with suspension of disbelieve and while de-emphasizing (or rather contradicting) RAW in one aspect it also emphasizes the term "override" instead of "shutdown" for the RAS component.
   2. The other solution tries to enforce literal RAW, by stating that RAS will unconditionally render a rigger's body limp. As a result there is the assumption, that rigger-adaption for bikes automatically includes some form of strapping the near-unconcious driver onto the bike and making him into an "irrelevant" passenger. This particular solution bears the following side effects: Unless the strapped-on passenger isn't fixated to a rather extreme extend, his still free moving body parts (mainly upper Torso, upper arms and head) will start to be a source of disruption that could (or rather should) impose similar or due to limpness even more negative modifiers as the passenger did in situation 2 and sure as hell no-one wants to think about additional rules for harm in case of an accident. Additionally this solution does not explain in any way how (complete) balance and steering of the bike are maintained, since under the premise of canonical rigger-adaption there still is no gyro stab unit involved.
   
   
   In both cases the respective sides would not impose RAS-related modifiers to actions unless they involve things that do not relate to the act of driving itself.
   
4. A rigger-adapted bike that is remote controlled without a driver / passenger: This particular setup by RAW demands for a gyro stabilization unit to be installed into the bike. This solution again is rather easy. The gyro provides both balance and steering options and since nobody is on the bike, there are no potentially destablizing factors involved. Standard VR tests and modifiers here again.
5. A rigger-adapted bike that is remote controlled with a passenger: While obviously considered to be a clever question when compared to situation 3 for the sake of a snide comment, this situation is actually not different to situation 2, where the not RAS-influenced passenger maintains his full body control but can - depending on his driving experience as passenger - impose pool modifiers for the remote rigging driver and due to the remote control situation a gyro stab for maintaining balance and steering options would be included in the package as per situation 4.
6. A rigger-adapted bike with an VR-immersed driver that is physically sitting on the machine plus an additional passenger: The basic influence of the passenger remains the same as in situation 2 and 5, while the two heavily discussed options of situation 3 also stay the same as far as VR-driving is concerned.

I'll again let readers decide which of the two solutions for what I'll from now on call "RAS dilemma" really is "more complex" / "easier" in its design and effects and how much "handwavium" is required in order to maintain "suspension of disbelief" for either case.

From what I can tell, Cochise and _Pax_ are arriving at the same position, though from different points of argument. One believes that the RAS allows "relevant" movments required to accomplish the task (of driving the motorcycle in VR), while the other does not really care to apply ANY penalties to the action (of driving the motorcycle in VR) because there are no relevant reasons to do so. And both have provided their relevant reasons for their positions

Either way, they seem to be arriving at the same place (no penalties to driving the motorcycle in VR). So, why all the arguments back and forth, since they both agree that there should be no penalties?

Or have I just missed the issue all together?