Okay, so I'm running a minigame for a friend of mine. I'm having six guys about 20 meters from her rough up an old woman to kidnap the girl the woman is charged with. It's late at night, there's a dim lightpost above the kidnappers and the woman, producing Partial Light conditions, and a bright streetlight above my player, producing Glare conditions.

So I figure, perfect way to prevent my friend from picking a fight with six guys armed with Remmington Roomsweepers. Produce unfavorable combat conditions. Then I remember, she has not only a Smartlink, but Cybereyes with both low-light AND Flare Comp.

So I try to tell her that the systems are mutually incompatable, she dosen't buy it. So I rule that while she can try to use both, she's reducing the penalty from the low-light to +1, and gaining +4 from the glare, which is then reduced to +3. Or she can use the Glare Comp, and soak up the +2 from Low Light.

Unless the rules state the 'ware is incompatible, it isn't. Welcome to canon. Don't be a railroading GM, you won't have players for long if you do.

It's the start of the fragging sologame storyline, and I want to try and persuade my friend to not get her character killed by massed shotgun fire in the first twenty minutes of play.

But I ruled that, while not technologically incompatable, they are functionally incompatable - like trying to look through a night vision scope, with sunglasses on. Did I handle it right by computing the +3 if you use both?

I have to agree with Jray. There is nothing that says the 'ware is incompatible, so its a bit overbearing to rule that they can't work together.

I didn't. Like a sunglasses and night-vision scope aren't technically incompatable, you can TRY. But you're better off with one or the other.

I think. That's how I read the low-light and glare rules.

Sorry, let me rephrase and ask a question...

It seems like houseruling to me, so do what you want.

Do you mean glare comp or flare comp?

If you want to make the player avoid dangerous situations like that, give her an Intelligence test to realize that she has not a chance in Hell of surviving the encounter.

Giving new players a bit of guidance is a much better choice than forcing house rules on them.

I don't have my books, so I forget if flare comp affects glare conditions if at all,and to what degree if it does...

I tend to aggree with those saying you can't just make stuff up as you go along. There's nothing cannon that I know of saying that those items are at all incompatible, functionally, technically, or otherwise. If cannon didn't want them working together, it would explicitly state such, as it *does* with image magnification and smartlink.

If I were you and I had your intentions, I would have asked the player to roll intelligence, and use it as an opportunity to warn them off. If they want to risk the odds, let them. The point of this game is to be somebody else and take chances we wouldn't take in real life. If the players win against the odds, through planning or sheer luck, the game is that much more satisfying. If they soak some lead, they'll be writing up new character sheets.

That's my two nuyen , and your mileage may vary.


edit: damn, beaten like a red headed step child.

so, lemme get this straight. you're starting a game, and in order to convince the player to act in the way you want her to act, you change the rules of the game? no, i'd have to say you pretty much didn't handle that right.

I'm not changing the rules of the game. She's trying to use a light-enhancer, under a glare condition, and a glare filter at the same time.

Those are confusing and conflicting rules. It states in the book that using light-enhancing under Glare conditions raises the TN by 4. But it dosen't give me a number for flare comp's reduction on Glare.

OK, now that we have a stated rule, could you give us a book and page number so we can pick it apart appropriately? I don't recall that rule off hand, so I am not in a position to debate it at this moment. (no books as stated before)

they may be slightly confusing, but they're not conflicting. M&M page 49 says that the modifier for glare with cybernetic low-light is +4. SR3 page 299 says that flare compensation cyberware eliminates penalties for glare. ergo, the +4 doesn't apply, and only the +1 from partial light with cybernetic low-light is counted.

how does it work? who knows? maybe it edits the glare out digitally. maybe it replaces the retina with a structure that is less prone to being overwhelmed by high light levels.

I am in the same boat as Jray, don't have my books so I can't back it up with quotes, but I would say that the glare is nullified by the flare compensation, thus the low-light vision isn't being used under a glare condition.

Possibly if the flare comp doesn't handle all of the glare, you could still modify the low-light by something like +2, but that would really be up to the GM.

Personally, that is not what I would do though.

edit: Looks like mfb beat me to it.

Another thing you could have done is have more thugs (or Lonestar if in a decent hood) approach from the side or behind and warn her off. Most characters won't like caught in a cross fire (especially with cops on one side). Have the cops lose as she watches from an alley and presto.

<-- In the don't mess with cybereyes unless you want to get hit by something large and blunt school.

I've always thought of Flare Comp as a logical extension of Low-Light. Think about it. You are a shadowrunner running around in the dark with your low light vision and shooting a gun (muzzle flash). You'd be blind in every other turn if you didn't have some system to compensate.

The way I see it LL and FC MUST be compatible...

From what I understand, flare comphensation is a digital filter that keeps the overall light level as close to a given average as possible. If something's too bright, it makes it darker; if something suddenly flashes, it reduces the brightness. Low-light vision is an upgrade to the camera itself, which makes the whole thing more sensitive, and therefore more prone to problems, so, realistically, flare comp. would be a necessity.
(This is all stuff inferred from playing with video cameras and software, so ignore me if you like.)

Also, if 6 guys are standing in one place...
Why not just drop a canister of knockout gas on 'em?

Yeah, but it still seems cheap.

Anyway, I've set a precedent: Glare Compensators are worth -2 to TNs in Glare conditions. Glare harsher than that still applies. I'll stick with it.

wait, if six guys armed with shotguns wouldn't deter your friend from engaging in combat, what makes you think a streetlight would?

Easy peasy, mother fragger.


First thing you do is get cover.

Second thing you do is shoot out the light both above you, and above them.

Third thing you do is ....

Fourth thing you do is profit.

As a person that deals with digital images all day, it is very easy for digital systems to compensate for lighting flares. The beauty of technologies like flare compensators is that they would actually dim the source of the flare, and not the whole image. If you have ever used webcam, you can tweak the settings really well to pull up an image that would normally take the eye a bit to compensate. You can actually play with the dodge and burn tools in photoshop as an example or how you can manipulate the image. Each of the pixels in a digital image would basically represent the photoreceptor in a cyber eye. The human eye has 1 point to control all of the light let into the eye. (the iris) since your player has cyber eyes, each pixel can be regulated individually so that each pixel could adjust individually. I do believe that players with cyber eyes, would see things differenty than someone with normal eyes, but your brain and eyes would be able to make sense of the image.

If I were you, I would probably rule that flare compensation could only be put into cyber eyes or googles.

If you want to really discourage a player from getting into a firefight have her roll a willpower test, (if she doesn't get the hint, maybe her next player might figure out when to fight) Explain to her this is not dnd and you do not get exp for each kill.

I think forcing players to do or not do something is very frustrating for them, I think your idea of trying to adjust modifiers was a good one ... just misdirected.
-Nyxll

Yeah, really. If you want to dissuade someone from engaging 6 people with shotguns, be sure to mention OOC 'by the way, these six people all have shotguns. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but you're one person, without a shotgun. Might I recommend caution.' rather than make an arbitrary reading of the rules so the PC can't kill herself.

wait, if six guys armed with shotguns wouldn't deter your friend from engaging in combat, what makes you think a streetlight would?

Because if she was facing TNs of 3s (20m range, Smartlinked Ares Predator with a Pistols of 6, with everything nicely compensated out,) and her chummers there were all looking at TNs of about 9, I knew that this person, who is fresh out of D&D, would open fire. She even said "I pull out my Ares Predator and start picking them off," and I gave her a "You're opening fire..." which caused her to wait for a second and ask to take it back.


And I did give her a perception test, TN 6, to notice that they were packing Remmington Roomsweepers. She has INT 6, but the most she came up with was 5, so I told her they all had HPistols, but didn't specify shotguns.

Because A: If she pulled off the dice miracles of not only managing to shoot them all, but not get shot herself, not only does it leave me hanging for something else to do with her, but it gives her the impression that you can just shoot everything.
And B: If she'd done something stupid and been taken down by massed shotgun fire, then she woulden't have had a character to play anymore. Not very fun for either of us, especially in the first ten minutes.

And C: I don't like how low-light compenasation has a set ability to reduce the TNs, but that flare comp simply eliminates all glare, as though it were not there.

Low light does not have a set reduction in TNs, it has an alternate set of lighting TNs. There is a big difference.
As for your excuse related to this railroading, in the much more likely event that some of the thugs did spend some combat pool and hit her, this PC might die, and the next character brought forth would realize not to pick fights like a int 3 wis 3 cha 3 barbarian.

I despise DM fiat. I asked the player if she was cool with my houserule, and she was. So that's that.

Low-Light Imaging, BTW, reduces the TN from normal +2 to +1, or a -1 reduction. Since I assume that under normal conditions, a flare comp reduces a glare from +2 to +0, then it works by reducing two points of glare, minimum +0.

A: That wasen't changing the game. It was logic, albiet odd and off-target.
B: I'd rather a houserule than GM Fiat, as a player. Houserules, especially if they're cleared with you, are one thing. When DM Fiat comes up, you may as well pitch your dice because anything can happen. Is that Deadly wound truely deadly today? Will it truely be deadly next time?

what? a house rule is changing the game by definition.

if you don't like GM fiat, then why are you GMing? everything you do is GM fiat, including the fact that there were gangers there in the first place.

Yea, thats a pretty bad house rule. Getting low light and flare comp is exactly the way a cybered charachter gains the ability to see well in lighting conditions that are normally very poor. You completely negated that edge for all time to avoid one fight you didn't want to have happen. An intelligence test, or just telling a new player ooc that they will probably die if they try to fight these six guys even with the enhanced vision would have been much better.

Get used to telling players you screwed up a ruling now and then. Shadowrun has far too many rules for anyone to get it right all the time.

One thing my players can count on is that I play by the rules. Canon is canon. We may not always agree that they make perfect sense, but that can be in their favor as well as against them.

Oi, okay, okay people. Enough already, point made. I'll swallow crow and inform my player about it when I see her again.

Ai carumba. Excuse me for not wanting to turn what was just a fun and practice thing between two friends into a one-person TPK in the opening sequence of the game.

well, if you don't want the answer, don't ask the question. it's your game; do what you want, as long as everybody's having fun. but you asked if you did the right thing, and you've got your answer.

and, anyway, swallowing a little crow now is better than painting yourself into a corner with such decisions later.

I didn't need everybody and his fraggin' cousin to tear into me like a redheaded stepchild. I just wanted advice, not nagging.

Cowboy up, dude. You asked people to tell you what they thought, and they told you. Best you can do at this point is let it die (whining isn't helping).

yeah! 'cause then people keep responding (like..... me!)

You have to figure that maybe 50 people are gonna look at your post, a few will respond, and there are a pantload of rules ninjas here that will break it down for you chapter and verse.

Don't take offence because they don't know you enough for you to be emotionally invested in their responses. Just learn from the experience and have fun in the game.

I do agree that figuring out the rules (not an easy thing) and applying them consistently is critical for a good long term game.