Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Used 'ware
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Jaid
QUOTE (Abstruse @ Jul 16 2013, 03:43 PM) *
That was almost Yogi Berra worthy.

However, it still doesn't address that even RAW doesn't support your reading of the rules any better than it supports mine, and my reading is supported by the rules for every other component-based cyberware in the game.


every other component-based cyberware in the game tells you that if you install something into something else, it has to be the same grade, so far as i'm aware.

as such, treating the cyberdeck as a separate item would still lead to the same situation; it has to be used grade, which means it is 75% of the cost of standard grade.
binarywraith
QUOTE (Rubic @ Jul 14 2013, 06:02 PM) *
I always thought the Used Cyberware rules were horribly under-written. RAW, you were technically able to get Used Deltaware, even though Deltaware, by fluff, was custom-engineered for use with YOUR SPECIFIC body, which is, at best, unlikely for something cut off of another person's corpse. I was under the impression that both Alpha and Beta grades were also, to some degree, tailored to the individual.

There should have been, and still should be, a notation for Used to always count as Used Standard Grade. After all, if it wasn't tailored for YOU, then why should you get the bonuses?

Srsly


Used is a grade. You cannot have multiple grades on a single piece of cyberware, and all accessories must be of matching grade. Therefore, no used Alpha/Beta/Delta.

Seems simple enough.
X-Kalibur
QUOTE (Abstruse @ Jul 16 2013, 02:01 PM) *
That's exactly the discrepancy I was talking about. "Official errata" or not, the book is straight-up conflicting between those two sentences. And I'm going to take the word of the Line Developer as the canon answer until an official errata happens.


I wouldn't trust the line developer to give you the canon answer either. Nothing against Jason, but even the FAQ they had for SR4 was riddled with incorrect stuff.
Abstruse
QUOTE (X-Kalibur @ Jul 16 2013, 05:01 PM) *
I wouldn't trust the line developer to give you the canon answer either. Nothing against Jason, but even the FAQ they had for SR4 was riddled with incorrect stuff.

Okay, so the guy in charge of managing everything published for the game and who is the only person giving straight answers as to rules interpretations is NOT the person to listen to, but instead I should go with what random people off Dumpshock say instead?
binarywraith
QUOTE (Abstruse @ Jul 16 2013, 05:06 PM) *
Okay, so the guy in charge of managing everything published for the game and who is the only person giving straight answers as to rules interpretations is NOT the person to listen to, but instead I should go with what random people off Dumpshock say instead?


You'd honestly be better off asking Bull. The Missions answers are pretty canon, and he's generally got a good explanation for why they are what they are.
Abstruse
QUOTE (binarywraith @ Jul 16 2013, 05:11 PM) *
You'd honestly be better off asking Bull. The Missions answers are pretty canon, and he's generally got a good explanation for why they are what they are.

I think Bull's too busy having an anxiety attack under his desk knowing the SR5 Missions stuff has to be ready by the end of the week to answer random rules questions.
Abstruse
QUOTE (Jaid @ Jul 16 2013, 04:43 PM) *
every other component-based cyberware in the game tells you that if you install something into something else, it has to be the same grade, so far as i'm aware.

as such, treating the cyberdeck as a separate item would still lead to the same situation; it has to be used grade, which means it is 75% of the cost of standard grade.

I've given you clear evidence for the reading of the rules I stated. It's the obvious intent of the designers. But go ahead and keep trying to defend your munchkiny power-gamer reading that's obviously conflicting with every other rule for gear in the game just so you can get a neater deck at chargen. I feel sorry for your GM, I really do.
X-Kalibur
QUOTE (Abstruse @ Jul 16 2013, 04:06 PM) *
Okay, so the guy in charge of managing everything published for the game and who is the only person giving straight answers as to rules interpretations is NOT the person to listen to, but instead I should go with what random people off Dumpshock say instead?


Neither, really. Jason is the line developer, he doesn't have his hand (directly) in every single rules bit that goes in.
Jaid
QUOTE (Abstruse @ Jul 16 2013, 06:15 PM) *
I've given you clear evidence for the reading of the rules I stated. It's the obvious intent of the designers. But go ahead and keep trying to defend your munchkiny power-gamer reading that's obviously conflicting with every other rule for gear in the game just so you can get a neater deck at chargen. I feel sorry for your GM, I really do.


"it shouldn't say that" is not the same thing as "it doesn't agree with the other rules". if you have any actual examples of other rules that it disagrees with, feel free to state them. the only vague reference you've made to other rules is the implanted commlink, which says absolutely nothing whatsoever regarding how it interacts with cyberware grades.

i already said several times that i don't think it's supposed to work like that. i've also made it perfectly clear that right now, it says that you can get your cyberdeck (and, for that matter, commlink) at a discount if you get a used one.
Rubic
QUOTE (Jaid @ Jul 16 2013, 07:27 PM) *
"it shouldn't say that" is not the same thing as "it doesn't agree with the other rules". if you have any actual examples of other rules that it disagrees with, feel free to state them. the only vague reference you've made to other rules is the implanted commlink, which says absolutely nothing whatsoever regarding how it interacts with cyberware grades.

i already said several times that i don't think it's supposed to work like that. i've also made it perfectly clear that right now, it says that you can get your cyberdeck (and, for that matter, commlink) at a discount if you get a used one.

I think it's fine to allow Used Cyberdecks as an implant. A device rating 1 cyberdeck would be incredibly easy to jam (it's 1 step below Basic Cyberware). Remember, you can't cherry pick when your rules apply to you and when they don't; you have to keep it consistent. I'd happly let players purchase that discounted deck and make it nigh useless in the process. What's that, you payed to have the best cyberdeck money can buy implanted as Standard Cyberware? So, disabled by Noise rating 2. Done, and DONE!!

Edit:

Alternative interpretations:
As Cyberdecks would count as security devices, along the spectrum of Corporate (Rating 3) thru Black Ops (Rating 5), you can divvy up the decks into categories of the 3 different grades by pricing (first 1/2 are DevR 3, The following 1/3 at DevR 4, and the remainder are DevR 5). Accordingly, you'd need an equivalent grade of ware to implant them as (Alphaware for DevR 3, Betaware for DevR 4, Deltaware for DevR 5). This, of course, excludes cyberdecks as being implanted as Standard or Used Grade Ware, or even as parts thereof.

The only OTHER possible interpretation, while following a consistent ruling for this, would be to treat the Implant side of it as the cyberware, and the Deck side as a Deck, which is your main counterpoint.

Otherwise, you're just poking your funstick into the rules at odd places.
Abstruse
QUOTE (Jaid @ Jul 16 2013, 05:27 PM) *
"it shouldn't say that" is not the same thing as "it doesn't agree with the other rules". if you have any actual examples of other rules that it disagrees with, feel free to state them. the only vague reference you've made to other rules is the implanted commlink, which says absolutely nothing whatsoever regarding how it interacts with cyberware grades.

i already said several times that i don't think it's supposed to work like that. i've also made it perfectly clear that right now, it says that you can get your cyberdeck (and, for that matter, commlink) at a discount if you get a used one.

I've already quoted the rules involved. Go read my previous posts. I never said "It shouldn't say that". You're reading the rules in a very narrow and specific way contrary to every other rule in the book so that you can get an advantage for your character that goes against both the rules as written and rules as intended. That is the definition of a munchkin.
Jaid
cyberdecks have a specified device rating. general rule overridden by specific.

that said, a jammer will shut down pretty much *any* chargen cyberdeck if you have a good one. the best cyberdeck you can get legitimately in chargen (ie not cheesing your way to a higher avail/cost model) is device rating 4, as i recall. a rating 6 directional jammer costs 1200 nuyen.

unless of course you actually invest in noise reduction... but then again, who cares? if you're doing anything important, it's probably through a direct connection to a device anyways, which means no noise.

the only time it would be "bad" is if your opponents are actually dumb enough to leave their gear completely exposed wireless and don't have massively superior matrix guns, and even then it only means anything if just using a gun isn't the better solution (note: most of the time, just using a gun will be the better solution, even if you do have an awesome deck).
GiraffeShaman
QUOTE
BTW, confirmed from Jason Hardy, used cyberware is NOT available at character creation.

Thank you for the link. As you saw, I followed you over there to demand some answers. smile.gif
quentra
QUOTE (GiraffeShaman @ Jul 16 2013, 09:34 PM) *
Thank you for the link. As you saw, I followed you over there to demand some answers. smile.gif


Hardy must really hate sams.
phlapjack77
What...the...hell ?!?!? No used cyberware at chargen? I call bullshit.

I try not to be too negative, really. I try to approach this new system with an open mind and a positive attitude. But this kind of stuff...it really, really makes it difficult to stay positive.
Abstruse
QUOTE (quentra @ Jul 16 2013, 08:52 PM) *
Hardy must really hate sams.

Except when he hates technomancers. Or adepts. Or riggers. Or deckers. Or shamen. Or mages. Or mystic adepts. Or faces.

Seriously, I have heard every single possible build argued that it's been "nerfed" or it's "overpowered" now. Every single one. And frankly, after playing around with the system over the past month or so, none of them hold water. Yes, the various rules changed. No one's overpowered compared to anyone else now as far as I can tell. You can overspecialize and build something far more badass, or you can spread yourself too thin trying to do too much with a single character. Like pretty much every single other edition of the game.

Now I have a question for everyone complaining that this character or that character got nerfed:

Have you actually played the game yet?

I don't mean just making characters or diddling around. I mean actually run a combat with the characters. Or sat around a table with people and played them. Because based on what I've been seeing on these forums, every single person has already put in thousands of hours playing this edition because they all KNOW exactly what works and what doesn't for a game that hasn't even been out a fragging WEEK yet.
RelentlessImp
QUOTE (Abstruse @ Jul 16 2013, 10:13 PM) *
Except when he hates technomancers. Or adepts. Or riggers. Or deckers. Or shamen. Or mages. Or mystic adepts. Or faces.

Seriously, I have heard every single possible build argued that it's been "nerfed" or it's "overpowered" now. Every single one. And frankly, after playing around with the system over the past month or so, none of them hold water. Yes, the various rules changed. No one's overpowered compared to anyone else now as far as I can tell. You can overspecialize and build something far more badass, or you can spread yourself too thin trying to do too much with a single character. Like pretty much every single other edition of the game.

Now I have a question for everyone complaining that this character or that character got nerfed:

Have you actually played the game yet?

I don't mean just making characters or diddling around. I mean actually run a combat with the characters. Or sat around a table with people and played them. Because based on what I've been seeing on these forums, every single person has already put in thousands of hours playing this edition because they all KNOW exactly what works and what doesn't for a game that hasn't even been out a fragging WEEK yet.


I generally hold the same opinion as you here, but with a caveat. There's a saying on the various CharOp boards for D&D that basically boils down to: your personal play experience doesn't mean diddly squat. If it doesn't math, or it maths in a way that makes Option A or Option B objectively bad, then it's bad, full stop. Paizo ran into this problem with Pathfinder during their 'beta test' - they deleted every reference of problems with the system and promoted posts that didn't use the system but sat around all night roleplaying.

Problem is: Nobody's offering actual math here. They're just saying "This sucks" rather than providing evidence to back it up. Either give mathematical evidence that this option or that one is objectively bad or overpowered or QUIT WHINGEING.
phlapjack77
RelentlessImp, it's kind of insulting to tell people (I guess that includes me) to quit whin(ge)ing. I guess you're frustrated, but surely you can see that others are as well, perhaps for different reasons? And aren't you whining about other people whining? smile.gif

As for the "maths" thing - I sort of agree, in a way. And yet, not everything in a game is pure math. Can I objectively prove that the wireless bonuses for the free/simple action things are bad, with math? No, it's not provable objectively because it's a subjective statement. Is it still a remarkably bad implementation? Well, I certainly think so.
RelentlessImp
QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Jul 16 2013, 11:58 PM) *
RelentlessImp, it's kind of insulting to tell people (I guess that includes me) to quit whin(ge)ing. I guess you're frustrated, but surely you can see that others are as well, perhaps for different reasons? And aren't you whining about other people whining? smile.gif

As for the "maths" thing - I sort of agree, in a way. And yet, not everything in a game is pure math. Can I objectively prove that the wireless bonuses for the free/simple action things are bad, with math? No, it's not provable objectively because it's a subjective statement. Is it still a remarkably bad implementation? Well, I certainly think so.


When the "game" part is deliberately driven by mathematics with fairly simple formula used for absolutely everything? Yeah, everything in the "game" part *is* pure math. Anything not mathematically driven is generally roleplaying-based, which, when you're discussing the system and not the setting means diddly. Wireless bonuses? You can bitch all day that it doesn't fit the setting. And you can likely figure out how badly being wireless connected screws you when you run into a decker, how much you depend on those wireless bonuses and how bad you are without them, and run a formula on that and likely prove they are objectively bad.

And honestly, I'm just sick of everyone slamming the hell out of the developers without offering any form of constructive criticism. There's a place for destructive criticism, absolutely - but you can be less hostile about it than people are being.
kzt
QUOTE (Abstruse @ Jul 16 2013, 04:06 PM) *
Okay, so the guy in charge of managing everything published for the game and who is the only person giving straight answers as to rules interpretations is NOT the person to listen to, but instead I should go with what random people off Dumpshock say instead?

Yes. You'll get answers that make sense and actually work in normal play outside of the "steel rails to the horizon" concept of play that CGL has embraced.

Remember "guy in charge of managing everything published for the game" is the guy who edited and approved a book that had a city at 8,612 ft and located 130 miles from the ocean with a major port. The one where the eco activists go all nuts because someone is planting trees? Just for good measure, Bogotá is above the treeline too...
phlapjack77
QUOTE (RelentlessImp @ Jul 17 2013, 01:16 PM) *
And honestly, I'm just sick of everyone slamming the hell out of the developers without offering any form of constructive criticism. There's a place for destructive criticism, absolutely - but you can be less hostile about it than people are being.
So you're frustrated with X, and posting on DS about your frustration with X in a less than constructive way ("QUIT WHINGEING")...don't you think you're engaging in the same behavior that you're accusing others of?

QUOTE (RelentlessImp @ Jul 17 2013, 01:16 PM) *
When the "game" part is deliberately driven by mathematics with fairly simple formula used for absolutely everything? Yeah, everything in the "game" part *is* pure math. Anything not mathematically driven is generally roleplaying-based, which, when you're discussing the system and not the setting means diddly. Wireless bonuses? You can bitch all day that it doesn't fit the setting. And you can likely figure out how badly being wireless connected screws you when you run into a decker, how much you depend on those wireless bonuses and how bad you are without them, and run a formula on that and likely prove they are objectively bad.
I disagree with your definition - the game involves rules (crunch) and setting (fluff) together. If the game said that you needed to wear a glowing pink bunny suit to get your Sneaking bonus, how would you prove mathematically that it's a bad idea?
RelentlessImp
QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Jul 17 2013, 12:14 AM) *
So you're frustrated with X, and posting on DS about your frustration with X in a less than constructive way ("QUIT WHINGEING")...don't you think you're engaging in the same behavior that you're accusing others of?

Of course I am. I never pretended to not be at least a little hypocritical. Plus when you show people how they're acting by doing the same in opposition to them, it holds up a mirror and maybe makes them realize what a twat they're being.
QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Jul 17 2013, 12:14 AM) *
I disagree with your definition - the game involves rules (crunch) and setting (fluff) together. If the game said that you needed to wear a glowing pink bunny suit to get your Sneaking bonus, how would you prove mathematically that it's a bad idea?


The "game" involves rules (crunch) - full stop. The "setting" may be more closely married to the crunch than most, but there is still a delineation between the two. When you're using the rules, you're playing the game; when you're not, you're roleplaying in its setting.

On your example; strawman. it's not possible to respond mathematically without the numbers and crunch involved. If, instead, you said:

GLOWING PINK BUNNY SUIT
-Provides a +2 dice pool modifier to Sneaking.
-Provides your opponents a +3 dice pool modifier to Perception tests to notice you.

Then I could point out that the Perception modifier is greater than the Sneaking modifier and thus it's a bad idea. Again, providing any sort of argument without numeric proofs is exactly what everybody else is doing, and what I object to; if you're not going to show your work as to why something is bad, then shut up. Offer opinions, offer criticism - but don't just scream "THIS IS BAD".
X-Kalibur
QUOTE (kzt @ Jul 16 2013, 10:47 PM) *
Yes. You'll get answers that make sense and actually work in normal play outside of the "steel rails to the horizon" concept of play that CGL has embraced.

Remember "guy in charge of managing everything published for the game" is the guy who edited and approved a book that had a city at 8,612 ft and located 130 miles from the ocean with a major port. The one where the eco activists go all nuts because someone is planting trees? Just for good measure, Bogotá is above the treeline too...


I was going to throw in the SR4 FAQ with this but it appears to have up and disappeared.
X-Kalibur
QUOTE (RelentlessImp @ Jul 16 2013, 11:26 PM) *
Of course I am. I never pretended to not be at least a little hypocritical. Plus when you show people how they're acting by doing the same in opposition to them, it holds up a mirror and maybe makes them realize what a twat they're being.


The "game" involves rules (crunch) - full stop. The "setting" may be more closely married to the crunch than most, but there is still a delineation between the two. When you're using the rules, you're playing the game; when you're not, you're roleplaying in its setting.

On your example; strawman. it's not possible to respond mathematically without the numbers and crunch involved. If, instead, you said:

GLOWING PINK BUNNY SUIT
-Provides a +2 dice pool modifier to Sneaking.
-Provides your opponents a +3 dice pool modifier to Perception tests to notice you.

Then I could point out that the Perception modifier is greater than the Sneaking modifier and thus it's a bad idea. Again, providing any sort of argument without numeric proofs is exactly what everybody else is doing, and what I object to; if you're not going to show your work as to why something is bad, then shut up. Offer opinions, offer criticism - but don't just scream "THIS IS BAD".


Actually, we've done all of the above in regards to the wireless bonuses. Speaking of opinions, mine is that you should remove yourself from your keyboard for a little while before you burst a vein.
RelentlessImp
QUOTE (X-Kalibur @ Jul 17 2013, 01:30 AM) *
Actually, we've done all of the above in regards to the wireless bonuses. Speaking of opinions, mine is that you should remove yourself from your keyboard for a little while before you burst a vein.


I love how people think you're angry just because you have a dissenting opinion. And phlapjack brought up the wireless bonuses, not me. The wireless bonus thread is actually sort of enjoyable to read because people are doing it (at least semi-) right. It's shit like this, though, that I'm referring to:

QUOTE
What...the...hell ?!?!? No used cyberware at chargen? I call bullshit.

I try not to be too negative, really. I try to approach this new system with an open mind and a positive attitude. But this kind of stuff...it really, really makes it difficult to stay positive.


so thanks for keeping context in mind when you decide to post a disparaging remark.
Thanee
QUOTE (Abstruse @ Jul 17 2013, 05:13 AM) *
Seriously, I have heard every single possible build argued that it's been "nerfed" or it's "overpowered" now. Every single one. And frankly, after playing around with the system over the past month or so, none of them hold water. Yes, the various rules changed. No one's overpowered compared to anyone else now as far as I can tell.


Well... Mystic Adepts clearly are an exception to the rule for me...

As they are now, they are as Adepts but with spellcasting and summoning for "free" (almost), or Magicians with Adept Powers for "free" (almost).

It's just too low a price they are paying for getting both at full scale.

Bye
Thanee
Thanee
And as a friendly reminder, we are fairly lenient with handing out warnings (and, if necessary, suspensions) these days, so remember to play nice and do not insult other posters for having a different opinion!

Bye
Thanee
phlapjack77
QUOTE (RelentlessImp @ Jul 17 2013, 02:26 PM) *
Of course I am. I never pretended to not be at least a little hypocritical. Plus when you show people how they're acting by doing the same in opposition to them, it holds up a mirror and maybe makes them realize what a twat they're being.
So now we're being twats? Come on now.

QUOTE (RelentlessImp @ Jul 17 2013, 02:26 PM) *
On your example; strawman. it's not possible to respond mathematically without the numbers and crunch involved. If, instead, you said:

GLOWING PINK BUNNY SUIT
-Provides a +2 dice pool modifier to Sneaking.
-Provides your opponents a +3 dice pool modifier to Perception tests to notice you.

Then I could point out that the Perception modifier is greater than the Sneaking modifier and thus it's a bad idea. Again, providing any sort of argument without numeric proofs is exactly what everybody else is doing, and what I object to; if you're not going to show your work as to why something is bad, then shut up. Offer opinions, offer criticism - but don't just scream "THIS IS BAD".

If you don't think that the idea of a glowing pink bunny suit providing bonuses to sneaking is a bad idea without seeing numbers, I think we just have to agree to disagree. And in this case I don't think the bunny suit example is a strawman, because it's meant to show how ridiculous is the idea that a bunch of sneaky shadowrunners will go around broadcasting their presence with wireless on.

QUOTE (RelentlessImp @ Jul 17 2013, 02:35 PM) *
so thanks for keeping context in mind when you decide to post a disparaging remark.
Dude, all he said was that you were taking this too seriously. You're the one throwing around disparaging remarks at other posters, like saying we're whining and calling us twats. Shhhh, just relax.
RelentlessImp
QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Jul 17 2013, 01:44 AM) *
If you don't think that the idea of a glowing pink bunny suit providing bonuses to sneaking is a bad idea without seeing numbers, I think we just have to agree to disagree. And in this case I don't think the bunny suit example is a strawman, because it's meant to show how ridiculous is the idea that a bunch of sneaky shadowrunners will go around broadcasting their presence with wireless on.


You're really missing the point of what I'm saying. You're asking for mathematical proof, when all you're providing is a description. Now if you had asked my opinion on whether or not a glowing pink bunny suit is a bad idea, you'd get a different answer; instead, you put it on the basis of the numbers. See the problem here?
Thanee
@RelentlessImp: Maybe you want to re-read this statement from phlapjack77. smile.gif

QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Jul 17 2013, 06:58 AM) *
As for the "maths" thing - I sort of agree, in a way. And yet, not everything in a game is pure math. Can I objectively prove that the wireless bonuses for the free/simple action things are bad, with math? No, it's not provable objectively because it's a subjective statement. Is it still a remarkably bad implementation? Well, I certainly think so.


Bye
Thanee
RelentlessImp
I think you need to reread this one, Thanee.

QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Jul 17 2013, 12:14 AM) *
If the game said that you needed to wear a glowing pink bunny suit to get your Sneaking bonus, how would you prove mathematically that it's a bad idea?


He asked for how I would prove it's mathematically a bad idea. This is a completely different beast from "Why does a bright, flourescent costume provide sneaking bonuses?"


EDIT: Okay, I've had another romp through the book. Wanna know how a "glowing pink bunny suit" (no rules included) is a bad idea mathematically?

Page 136, Perception Thresholds table:
Obvious/Large/Loud sets Perception Threshold to 1. I'd call a "glowing pink bunny suit" obvious.

You'd probably also apply, from page 135, Perception Test Modifiers, "Object/sound stands out in some way", which gives the Perceiver a +2 dice pool modifier. Therefore, you've just lost 2 dice and had your Threshold lowered by 1 ("Normal" is Threshold 2).
phlapjack77
QUOTE (RelentlessImp @ Jul 17 2013, 02:50 PM) *
You're really missing the point of what I'm saying. You're asking for mathematical proof, when all you're providing is a description. Now if you had asked my opinion on whether or not a glowing pink bunny suit is a bad idea, you'd get a different answer; instead, you put it on the basis of the numbers. See the problem here?
I'm confused. I don't think a proof is necessary. I thought you were the one saying that a mathematical proof was needed for people to think something was a bad idea or not?

For the record, my earlier opinion on the no-used-cyberware-at-chargen thing is not supposed to be based on any numbers smile.gif
RelentlessImp
QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Jul 17 2013, 01:05 AM) *
I'm confused. I don't think a proof is necessary. I thought you were the one saying that a mathematical proof was needed for people to think something was a bad idea or not?


From a game standpoint, it is, because again, the game is numbers. You can have an opinion that a glowing pink bunny suit is a bad idea, and the numbers can either prove that opinion objectively true, or objectively false, common sense notwithstanding.

(Also, above, 'glowing pink bunny suit with no rules' is proved, mathematically, a bad idea.)
phlapjack77
QUOTE (RelentlessImp @ Jul 17 2013, 03:08 PM) *
From a game standpoint, it is, because again, the game is numbers. You can have an opinion that a glowing pink bunny suit is a bad idea, and the numbers can either prove that opinion objectively true, or objectively false, common sense notwithstanding.

(Also, above, 'glowing pink bunny suit with no rules' is proved, mathematically, a bad idea.)

Ok, sorry - we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the "game" is more than just numbers, and I think you can subjectively think something is a bad idea in the game. You can't mathematically prove (most? all?) opinions.

In the bunny suit example, what if I gave you numbers that proved it was a good idea mathematically? Like, what if the rule was that the bunny suit set the threshold to 10?
RelentlessImp
QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Jul 17 2013, 02:16 AM) *
You can't mathematically prove (most? all?) opinions.


No, you can't. But when you can, you should. And yes, it's more than numbers; but all interactions you make with the world that mean anything require dice rolls, or spending resources. Therefore the numbers should be paid attention to. *shrug*
phlapjack77
QUOTE (RelentlessImp @ Jul 17 2013, 03:19 PM) *
No, you can't. But when you can, you should. And yes, it's more than numbers; but all interactions you make with the world that mean anything require dice rolls, or spending resources. Therefore the numbers should be paid attention to. *shrug*
I hesitate to threaten the fragile truce we seem to have reached, but I ninja-edited my last post - and I'm genuinely curious what you would say to the bunny-suit-with-numbers thing. I'll let you have the last word smile.gif
RelentlessImp
QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Jul 17 2013, 01:16 AM) *
In the bunny suit example, what if I gave you numbers that proved it was a good idea mathematically? Like, what if the rule was that the bunny suit set the threshold to 10?


Not that I want the last word, really; but if you have a Base 10 Threshold for being noticed in the bunny suit, it's still not entirely a good idea. Your Perceiver still gets 2 bonus dice, and it's still obvious, so the threshold is in effect 9.

So for a character with a low amount of Sneaking, the Glowing Pink Bunny Suit is mathematically a good idea. You won't catch *my* characters in it, though. Unless I make a Lesbian Elf Stripper Ninja and the 'Bunny Suit' in question is a Playboy Bunny suit with flourescent fibers. For a really, REALLY pink mohawk game.
Sendaz
On an interesting side note, recent testing has shown an alarming number of corporate guards suffer from a variation of achromatopsia or red green colour blindness.

This variation is a bit more extreme and guards literally have a very hard time trying to see the pink bunny suit against a green, red or pink backgrounds. nyahnyah.gif

Corporate heads are setting up committees to look at this and expect to have a decision sometime next year.
RelentlessImp
QUOTE (Sendaz @ Jul 17 2013, 01:57 AM) *
Corporate heads are setting up committees to look at this and expect to have a decision sometime next year.


*puts on his pink mohawk*

Corporate Heads ARE the red background. *steely rustle of glam-rock street samurai katana being drawn; cue the music*
X-Kalibur
QUOTE (RelentlessImp @ Jul 16 2013, 11:19 PM) *
No, you can't. But when you can, you should. And yes, it's more than numbers; but all interactions you make with the world that mean anything require dice rolls, or spending resources. Therefore the numbers should be paid attention to. *shrug*


I'm totally shooting myself in the foot by saying this, because I practice it FAR less than I preach it. But there is more to the game than dice rolls. Strange changes to existing lore being part of that.
Sendaz
Another idea if you are allowing used cyberware is all used items have a glitched rating of 1-3, to be determined by GM (1 being normal glitched but oddball pieces could go higher)or random roll at the time (1-3 is 1 glitched, 4-5 is 2 glitched and a 6 is the unholy 3 glitched), meaning that it would take less 1's rolled to generate a glitch for rolls involving it. If multiple items are involved you only use the highest glitched, they do not stack.

So if you are 4 agi and 4 firearms you have 8 dice to roll. Normally you have to roll 5 or more (over half of 8 dice) 1's to get a glitch, but if you had reaction gear/cyberarms or anything similar that would be involved with the usage of the skill and their glitched rating was 2 it would only take 3 or more 1's to spawn a glitch.

That way the Sammie can still get some gear cheaper, granted with a bigger essence cost, PLUS it will always be just a touch more wonky than a fresh set of gear, thus encouraging the sammie to replace it down the road.

It could be included in the roleplay as it may make sounds or act erratically at times.
Samoth
Thankfully Hardy's comments on some random board (why not the official Shadowrun forums?) aren't canon and we can houserule Used cyber at chargen if you so wish. Without Used, I'm not sure it's possible to make a viable Street Level sam, decker or rigger, and certainly not one of those who can compete with any adept or magician right out of the gate.
Elve
From the game balance point, I think the ruling is correct.
At lot of the ware is balanced not to be available at chargen, so if used changes that, it should not be available.
Bigity
QUOTE (RelentlessImp @ Jul 17 2013, 01:26 AM) *
Of course I am. I never pretended to not be at least a little hypocritical. Plus when you show people how they're acting by doing the same in opposition to them, it holds up a mirror and maybe makes them realize what a twat they're being.


The "game" involves rules (crunch) - full stop.


110% disagree.

Nobody sees all the D20 stuff as the same game.
Rubic
QUOTE (Jaid @ Jul 16 2013, 06:54 PM) *
cyberdecks have a specified device rating. general rule overridden by specific.

that said, a jammer will shut down pretty much *any* chargen cyberdeck if you have a good one. the best cyberdeck you can get legitimately in chargen (ie not cheesing your way to a higher avail/cost model) is device rating 4, as i recall. a rating 6 directional jammer costs 1200 nuyen.

unless of course you actually invest in noise reduction... but then again, who cares? if you're doing anything important, it's probably through a direct connection to a device anyways, which means no noise.

the only time it would be "bad" is if your opponents are actually dumb enough to leave their gear completely exposed wireless and don't have massively superior matrix guns, and even then it only means anything if just using a gun isn't the better solution (note: most of the time, just using a gun will be the better solution, even if you do have an awesome deck).

According to that thought on them, if cyberdecks have their own specified device rating? Fine, the rules to support that are then "Any components of an implant must be of the same (device) rating as the implant itself." Q.P.Q, a cyberdeck would need an implant of consumate device rating, and likely would not be available as an implant at character creation (at least at the high end), and, unless it had a Device Rating of 1, would not be available as a Used Cyberware Implant.

Edit: this may or may not negate the need to adjust costs for cyberware grade, which isn't wholly a bad thing.
Mäx
QUOTE (Rubic @ Jul 17 2013, 04:04 PM) *
According to that thought on them, if cyberdecks have their own specified device rating? Fine, the rules to support that are then "Any components of an implant must be of the same (device) rating as the implant itself."

Except thats nowhere in the book and you know it.
binarywraith
QUOTE (Samoth @ Jul 17 2013, 04:58 AM) *
Thankfully Hardy's comments on some random board (why not the official Shadowrun forums?) aren't canon and we can houserule Used cyber at chargen if you so wish. Without Used, I'm not sure it's possible to make a viable Street Level sam, decker or rigger, and certainly not one of those who can compete with any adept or magician right out of the gate.


No need to houserule it, per rules as written it's available at chargen.
kzt
QUOTE (X-Kalibur @ Jul 16 2013, 11:28 PM) *
I was going to throw in the SR4 FAQ with this but it appears to have up and disappeared.

The fact that he published that Neo-Nazi JewBuster +12 scalpel of slicing scenario is pretty good evidence that he shouldn't be assumed to either be a reasonable person or understand the rules of the game.
Jaid
QUOTE (Mäx @ Jul 17 2013, 08:10 AM) *
Except thats nowhere in the book and you know it.


yeah, when trying to discuss what the rules say, it helps to be using actual rules that are in the book. not rules that you made up in your head.
Finster
Despite some ruffled feathers and a little bit of frothing-at-the-mouth, there's actually a really interesting principled discussion here.

Trying to apply an unwritten cultural rule from D&D, i.e. "show me the maths", may not be 100% appropriate here. Ever since D&D became the property of WotC/Hasbro, D&D has been a purely mechanical endeavor. AD&D 2e left a lot up to the DM. There was a certain narrative expectation that as a DM, if something got out of hand mechanically, then by all means, adjust it for the sake of narrative. Rifts is still in that vein. Narrative over rules, always. Fun over maths. D&D hasn't been like that in many many years. With 3e, Wizards approached it like they did Magic: The Gathering. Precise mechnical interplays. No narrative framework, only a mechanical one. The best place to see this is in spell descriptions. A lot of spell descriptions in AD&D 2e were very subjective. With so much emphasis on the grid system and miniatures in 3e/4e, the spell descriptions became very mechanical. Sometimes needing to be "balanced" or "re-balanced". Spells became restricted or banned. Just like cards in MTG tournaments. In AD&D, the DM would just make a ruling and that was that.

Shadowrun, in my mind, has always skirted that line. One foot in the territory of over-engineered rules lawyering, and one foot in the subjective muck of GM fiat.

The pink bunny suit example is really interesting. It was brought up as an example of something subjectively wrong trumping a mathematical explanation. The counter-argument tried to point out another rule that would nullify the absurdity. However, that rule is an example of a rule that depends totally on GM fiat. Is a pink bunny suit ALWAYS loud or obvious? Well, no. A Furry convention, for example. The GM has to make the call whether that applies.

If this were WotC, things would be resolved by a badly play-tested rules patch so that the sanctity of the mechanics would remain in intact. In Rifts or other narrative-focused systems, the response would be to tell GM's to decide for themselves. Here's a pink bunny suit that can provide a stealth bonus. You decide if that works in YOUR universe. In the pink bunny demon hell dimension, it works great.

To a certain point this all devolves into, "well, the GM can always do whatever they want." Well, yeah, but we've played with those GM's. When someone comes to a table expecting Shadowrun, there are certain conventions that go along with that. When a GM does not follow ANY of those conventions, then that can create a negative player experience.

The tl;dr of all this is that proving something mathematically is sometimes possible, but with Shadowrun there is so much subjectivity at every layer that finding true balance will probably be impossible. Some things will ALWAYS rely on GM fiat at the core. Damage tests, armor bonuses, the mechanical bits are easy to point out. Little is served by telling people to put up maths or shut up (in my words). Sometimes, the best we can do is say, "based on these factors, this LOOKS really unbalanced against street samurai." Exactly how unbalanced will depend on the GM.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012