Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Typhus on <09-11-19/1915:13>
-
I have a Reaction of 2 and a Pilot of 2. I own a Ford Americar.
I get on the freeway and accelerate to 60 mph. I now have a -4 dice pool penalty and need 4 hits not to crash on my first Handling test. How do I not automatically crash and die? I can't turn on the autopilot, it only has a skill of 1.
Save me?
-
You start by making your GM read the rules about when a test makes sense. Or you turn on GridGuide. We've had this debate already.
-
You start by making your GM read the rules about when a test makes sense. Or you turn on GridGuide. We've had this debate already.
He said when he makes his first handling test. He didn’t say you’d get one for just driving. So if the GM throws any obstacle at you, a driver with average agility and actually trained in the skill auto fails at every test at like 60mph or faster. Same with your auto pilot.
I can’t be the only GM that occasionally tosses a driving test at the players. Heck the Chicago missions called for multiple tests just due to bad weather.
Im guessing the answer is edge is your only hope.
-
The test only happens when something prompts it, such as "following another car without being spotted" per 6e core page 200.
So you wouldn't crash just from day-to-day driving.
However as soon as you try something simple, like "following another car without being spotted" then you die.
So the moral of the story is don't drive during a mission, only during down-time.
-
Yeah you're not supposed to even be rolling handling tests unless a crash is plausible in the given circumstances.
I'd argue that even extends to making opposed piloting rolls during a chase. Not unless you lose the opposed roll, and making you crash is what the winner is specifically trying to do.
So if you're tooling down I-5 in downtown Seattle at 60MPH and you want to get over a couple lanes to make your exit, your GM shouldn't be making you roll. That's everyday driving kind of stuff.
A ghoul runs out in front of you though, and you want to not hit him? THAT's what handling tests are for. And yeah, you'll probably make some roadkill. It's what would happen to regular people driving regular cars at high speed and something unexpected suddenly happens.
-
If you're driving a shitty car with a shitty driving skill without using GridGuide at a speed that kills your shitty dicepool and are dumb enough to force your gm to give you a handling test that even when reduced to threshold 1 for being way easier than a u-turn at high speed you still will fail, your character deserves to burn to a crisp. There, entire debate summarised.
-
If you're driving a standard car with an above average driving skill in any area without GridGuide at a speed that shouldn't kill your above average dicepool and are dumb enough to still be playing a CGL Shadowrun game, your character deserves to burn to a crisp. There, entire debate summarised.
Fixed that for you.
-
AGridguide is just the autopilot. Most vehicles the dice pool is not great. RAW Anything unexpected that happens on the highway will likely result in a massive pile up. Even a threshold 1 test.
The Reaction 5, Pilot 1 Shadowrunner will frequently fail simple tests at highway speeds, and then have to make a crash test. At least the crash isn't instantly fatal like in 5th.
The Speed modifier is a killer, it should kick in later. Or something.
-
A thought occurs: this is related to PCs. Something "unexpected" requires you to make a test. So...
"Okay, you successfully cut off your pursuer, causing them to slam on the brakes as you swerve into the off-ramp.
"The Americar behind your pursuer tries to avoid them, spins out, and rear-ends their van. GridGuide scrambles to redirect traffic, but you drive away from a six-car pileup, and counting."
(Also, wow, this has been a wild ride from start to presumable finish)
-
The rest of the PCs may want to avoid driving but the rigger May mop up here as they are the only people with dice pools to handle the penalties for even average speeds. Lone star beat cops will be crashing like mad trying to chase you at pretty low speeds. Even in a good car when dropping 2 to 3 dice out of 5 ouch.
-
So one thing that bothers me is that functionally a crash is a glitch, not a failure.
So what if it went like this? The handling test is an extended test. Each subsequent roll gets another die with fixed value of 1 put in the result pool. Eventually the handling target will be met or we'll get a glitch (and crash).
Feels clumsy, but I'll throw it as a starting point.
-
So one thing that bothers me is that functionally a crash is a glitch, not a failure.
So what if it went like this? The handling test is an extended test. Each subsequent roll gets another die with fixed value of 1 put in the result pool. Eventually the handling target will be met or we'll get a glitch (and crash).
Feels clumsy, but I'll throw it as a starting point.
I'm thinking of instead junking the Speed Interval,
The handling scores are already pretty severe for "ordinary" drivers,
As an alternative Speed interval could be used something like this:
If # of Speed Intervals > Pilot Skill, foe gains one Edge (if no foe present then GM uses the Edge as a re-roll against the pilot),
Much less severe and incorporates the Edge rules,
(Totally not a complete rule, but perhaps the starting point),
-
Eh, ordinary drivers use GridGuide and at best use their driving skills to park or to get out of a faraday cage garage into gridguide's domain.
-
ordinary drivers use GridGuide and at best use their driving skills to park
There are cars today whose "autopilot" can automate parking...
But that aside, the "ordinary driver" you are talking about likely only has a skill of 0 or 1,
There's a massive jump between that and "competent to dive",
I, personally, am "competent to drive", but I doubt I have a skill level of 5 or 6 despite driving regularly (my job involves a fair amount of travel, but I'm not a professional driver) and mostly managing to not crash,
But the listed cars - given the penalties (and likely pilot assistance), I'd expect basic difficulties (i.e.: handling scores) in the range of 0 - 2 or so at worst...
-
Handling tests are not for any kind of normal operations. Unless you're going to do something really fancy, there's no need to ever roll. Even having to hit the breaks to avoid hitting someone hardly is worthy of a Handling test. At that point, your dicepool is merely to convince your GM you can drive normally, no need for a Handling test.
If as a 'competent to drive' non-professional-driver someone tries to perform a vehicle stunt with a crappy car, then to quote Chicago: "He had it coming!"
The only thing I agree with is that you shouldn't crash if you fail your (opposed so no Handling-based threshold) tailing test.
-
Handling tests are not for any kind of normal operations.
Though the vehicle rules do state that, it seems at odds with everything else in the rules,
When I'm rolling most skills the "bar" for rolling seems a lot lower - I roll for firing a gun in "normal" operations for example, I don't "only" roll persuasion when my life is on the line...
But a "typical" car (Americar, Handling 4 on-road) at "typical" driving speeds (70mph (apx. 95mpr), speed interval 20mpr (+4 difficulty) needs eight hits if they need to avoid an obstacle... Typically a 24 dice pool needed,
Even a decent Pilot program (Manoeuvre 6, Pilot 1 for the Americar - and that assumes you went out and bought after-market modifications because the software sure isn't included! - weird in a setting in which most people rely on the pilot to get around) doesn't stand a chance - it can't even succeed if every dice is a six (without edge, but we've discussed that elsewhere and IIRC the conclusion was that pilots don't get to use edge)!
No-one can get these levels of success without being one of the best drivers on the planet.
---
So I guess the question is, if emergency breaking doesn't warrant a handling check, what does? What is the threshold for needing to pick up dice for a driving check?
-
Hold it, +4 difficulty? Passing 4 speed intervals means -4 dice, not +4 difficulty. So 15 base dice would mean 52.74% at said -4 dice threshold 4 test.
And again, that threshold of Handling is for tricky things, e.g. "make a hairpin turn at high speeds, jump over the still-under-construction bridge". There is no way merely trying to avoid an obstacle at 70 mph counts as that kind of complexicity. So instead, we apply the next part of the rules: "Gamemasters can increase or decrease that threshold based on the difficulty of the attempted maneuver." Merely avoiding an obstacle? Sure, are you breaking or swerving? The break I'd potentially put at threshold 2 (if you failed the initial Perception test to see it coming) but no crash test involved, just a ramming, if you fail. With the swerve sure the threshold is 1, but failure would mean you crash. (Would be 0 if you had passed the Perception test, really.)
I am not just making this up, this LITERALLY is how the rules go: Tricky things, GM can adjust threshold. And GridGuide is a thing, so your car doesn't even NEED its Pilot program if you're letting GridGuide drive: Then GridGuide will make the decision, and GridGuide has access to all the cameras so the car ahead of you already spotted the running guy, meaning your car already started breaking and moving to the side to prevent a collision, while the cars behind you did exactly the same since GridGuide controlled them.
And yes, maybe the best driver in the world can't handle a complex stunt with a crappy car. GET HER A DECENT CAR THEN.
-
Why are we again defending bad rules? We don't have to defend them. Bad rules happen. No problem (well, maybe not in the number we have in SR6l. Just acknowledge that they are bad and fix them.
To the point at hand: You can't just increase the threshold for when driving test are required to that level. You have to have it on the level where other skill test are required or THIS is bad rules design.
Again, please don't defend obviously bad rules.
-
Hold it, +4 difficulty? Passing 4 speed intervals means -4 dice, not +4 difficulty. So 15 base dice would mean 52.74% at said -4 dice threshold 4 test.
My mistake - you are correct here of the dice reduction,
But I'd note that 15D is a big dice pool,
"Gamemasters can increase or decrease that threshold based on the difficulty of the attempted maneuver."
Guidelines?
What is a -2 difficulty test? A +2 difficulty test? (the game rules don't typically set a difficulty like this - they set a difficulty for the thing you're trying to do, and modify it according to your equipment, this is 180 degrees in opposition to that - the rules don't offer much advice)
And yes, maybe the best driver in the world can't handle a complex stunt with a crappy car. GET HER A DECENT CAR THEN.
What constitutes a "complex stunt"?
I mean, there are stunt drivers who can do incredible things in crappy cars,
And GridGuide is a thing
A thing that does what, mechanically?
Does it count as Pilot 6 with Manoeuvre 6 in these situations? How does it apply?
I can see that it'd negate the need for some checks, but what does it do in emergency situations? Or do we revert to the onboard pilot in those situations?
I mean, a stock americar gets 1D for handling checks (0D if going over 15mph!), so it isn't achieving much (you're not even going to get one success (enough for a task described as "no more difficult than walking or talking", P.36) on most rolls - how's that for a brochure - "Drive an Americar off the lot today - Disclaimer: Americars successfully leave the lot no more than one time in three!")... I certainly doubt it'd save your life,
A Westwind (is that a "decent car"?) is better for sure, but not that much so (4D piloting (so likely one success), Handling 2, Speed Interval 30),
GET HER A DECENT CAR THEN
I get the feeling that I'm antagonizing you - not my intention, these are genuine questions, I apologise if that is the case however.
-
Why are we again defending bad rules? We don't have to defend them. Bad rules happen. No problem (well, maybe not in the number we have in SR6l. Just acknowledge that they are bad and fix them.
+1
Can't fix problems if we refuse to acknowledge them.
-
Even having to hit the breaks to avoid hitting someone hardly is worthy of a Handling test.
Except the example on page 199 of Bunny the rigger driving the Americar has exactly one handling test:
She’s still not moving fast, but she also is not in a
machine built for chases, so it’s going to resist her aggressive
style of driving. When a pedestrian unexpectedly
enters the street ahead of her, she has to make a
Handling test to avoid them.
Examples aren't rules, supposedly, but when they're used in the rulebook they're supposed to clarify rules. And so some of us are kinda frustrated because there's a handling test for tapping the brakes and dodging a pedestrian while going 28 (33.6 kph or just over 20 mph).
-
After thought, I'd like to recommend a house rule or errata that makes the handling test an extended test. No cumulative glitches or other issues. I'm afb so may be misremembering (or recalling other systems), but iirc there are built in penalties if an extended test gets interrupted.
Also, handling is not "I missed the pedestrian" . It's" Did I lose control while avoiding the drekhead?"
I think this makes a minimal but effective change, but before I throw it in the houserule topic I'd like remarks.
-
I think a simpler fix might be to just double the speed intervals. Cuts the penalty in half, making it actually possible to drive. Then GMs can use the rules at times when they don't want to kill your character.
-
I feel like Handling as a flat threshold is the root of the issue being discussed in this thread.
If you look at the table on page 36 of standard difficulty Thresholds and the accompanying text, its pretty easy to figure out what an appropriate Threshold would be for Handling tests ignoring the Handling stat of the vehicle, right? Something like...
1 - changing lanes on a highway in high traffic at speed
2 - taking a dangerous corner above the speed limit for that corner
3 - most routine fancy driving beyond what an average driver would do; professional driver stunts
4 - professional racing level
5 - things only possible for true professionals
etc.
Your definitions might differ slightly from mine, but the table is a pretty straightforward guide.
So, then, why have a flat threshold as part of the vehicle stats? It seems to me it would make more sense to have the Handling stat be a modification to the base threshold of the maneuver. For example, a Toyota Gopher might have +2 Handling, while a Mitsubishi Nightsky might have -2 Handling.
EDIT: on pg 200 it does say "Gamemasters can increase or decrease that threshold based on the difficulty of the attempted maneuver." My instinct as a GM would be to "increase or decrease" to whatever the table on page 36 would suggest is the right Threshold given the nature of the maneuver and the nature of the vehicle and essentially ignore the Handling stat. So that's technically RAW, I guess. But I think my point above still stands that the idea of a flat Threshold for Handling seems weird when considering the normal way difficult is set for other tests in the game.
-
And all this hassle just to (partially) avoid modifiers, because of, well, Edge.
If Handling was a dice pool modifiers things would be easier.
Also,if you make 2+2 dice the standard for NPCs you should be aware that anything they can do is a cakewalk for PCs.
Scaling challenges from NPCs and mundane every day tasks to runner challenges within these boundaries is very hard.
-
I brought this up in the previous thread, but 6e driving rules seem purpose-built to actively punish the players for driving anything other than the most nimble vehicle with the highest speed interval available. This is a slap in the face to everyone who ever has, is or wants to play a van rigger.
Also, handling is not "I missed the pedestrian" . It's" Did I lose control while avoiding the drekhead?"
That is highly debatable. If the pedestrian in question is a cybered-up troll or an important wage slave, a hit and run would have serious consequences (though for entirely different reasons and in entirely different timeframes). On the other hand, if the pedestrian is a particularly frail SINless meth addict, the best thing to might be to just run him over and not risk losing control during a chase.
-
Just to close a loop, I'm withdrawing my suggestion for a house rule. I forgot that extended tests use declining dice.
Conceptually it was clean (with the non-declining dice I was remembering). The handling is the attempt to recover from doing something drastic. The high dice-pool rigger likely does this in a single roll. Mr. Wageslave would roll desperately hoping not to glitch while slowing down over several rounds, eventually & probably making the goal even if starting with 2+2. (Biggest flaw is that there's a guaranteed crash by the car's pilot at even 55 mph. As I said, conceptual.)
At this point I'm leaning toward Skalchemist's "change the threshold as the rules say you can" along with Michael Chandra's point that while the example is evading the idiot, the text says it's for extreme and extraordinary maneuvers.
-
Handwaving tests is how pretty much all the off scene scene travel happens. But if it’s part of the story chances are you are making tests. Now some of it shouldn’t induce a crash. Like the follow someone discreetly example. You fail you are spotted you don’t drive into a tree. But that doesn’t mean tests won’t come up every few runs. It’s not like I never have the street sam with a 2 charisma and 2 con have to talk his way out of things. Same shit can happen to the mage driving his Americar. He gets harassed by the local go gang, it’s shitty weather and grid guide in unavailable, a hacker blows out his pilot and he suddenly has to grab the controls.
You never make tests is the answer you have when you’ve totally given up on a rigging section existing and don’t want anyone in any vehicle outside of a behind the scenes excuses to get you from point a to point b. If you actually want rigging, driving in the game you need to have a functional system for when you do make tests.
And yeah I don’t make the street sam roll his etiquette to buy some soy-caf in the morning but I do make him roll con when he gets pulled over and his sin looks questionable. So I also make non driving specialists make rolls here and there at driving.
-
I as GM will just decide the DC for my players as we do on million other rolls. I don't think I need the rules to tell me how hard a test is. I can decide it by myself, especially when I need to keep the pacing of the game, I am not going to consult the book in the middle of a car chase.
-
I as GM will just decide the DC for my players as we do on million other rolls. I don't think I need the rules to tell me how hard a test is. I can decide it by myself, especially when I need to keep the pacing of the game, I am not going to consult the book in the middle of a car chase.
I agree. While as a crunch GM I loved the whole 'base threshold, additional modifier' table SR5 had, it's not something easily memorised so in the end I'd probably still make up a number.
-
DCs should aid the narrative. If the best pilot in the team has a dice pool of 6, giving him a DC of 3 or 4 should be hard enough to add a little dramatic tension to the scene, maybe he will find creative ways to boost his pool and make the roll. And if his dice pool is 14, just increase the DC accordingly if you think that it will increase the drama on the table, or even make it easy for him, so he could show off, and feel great about his character and how pro it is when it comes to piloting.
For me the end goal is fun. And piloting checks, in my opinion, should be a "HELL YEAH!!!! WHHOOOO! / OH NO!!!" moments on the table. Otherwise, rolling for nonsense will just bog down the session.
-
True, you have the 'whoot!/frag!' rolls for showing off, and the 'we're idiots' rolls for consequences. Unless your players are big fools, piloting shouldn't be the second.
(If I were to write content which features snow, I'd go ahead and put a headsup meant for the players in the vehicle section, advising people on that bad vehicles may be hard to control so they should exert carefulness. Communicate the risks up front so they are aware and don't do anything foolish. Would work best with content that faces a deadline, otherwise you wouldn't care about their speed anyway.)
-
But if everyone's driving in a blizzard - I'll see myself out.
Before I go, that has piqued my interest: most shadowruns begin with, "You get a message from your fixer, you all pile into the rigger's van, you head to The Place of the Meet," but I've never been in one where getting to the meet itself involves danger. If the other PCs aren't all, "Why does Mr. Johnson need us driving quickly through snow right now!? Nah, I'll pass," I'd be up for it.
-
But if everyone's driving in a blizzard - I'll see myself out.
Before I go, that has piqued my interest: most shadowruns begin with, "You get a message from your fixer, you all pile into the rigger's van, you head to The Place of the Meet," but I've never been in one where getting to the meet itself involves danger. If the other PCs aren't all, "Why does Mr. Johnson need us driving quickly through snow right now!? Nah, I'll pass," I'd be up for it.
I think there may have been one where the Johnson has you waylaid as a test. Chicago missions has multiple driving tests due to bad weather though I think all of those were lost meet.
But theoretically I can see a rush job from a known contact. Random Johnson that might send up some danger signals but your mechanic frank calls to say he needs help fast people just grabbed his little sister, get here quick before the scene goes cold.
-
Daily reminder that cumbersome semi-trailer trucks drive at high speeds on snowy roads so often there are entire companies dedicated solely to recovering the percentage that have accidents under those conditions. Driving a cumbersome vehicle is hazardous conditions should be dangerous, yes, but not suicidal.
-
If you're driving a standard car with an above average driving skill in any area without GridGuide at a speed that shouldn't kill your above average dicepool and are dumb enough to still be playing a CGL Shadowrun game, your character deserves to burn to a crisp. There, entire debate summarised.
Fixed that for you.
You cant really blame CGL on bad rigging rules... Every edition has sucked, remember per RAW forcing more air through your electric engine made it go faster in 1e... ie throwing a turbo on an electric engine. Really its an argument of which rigging rules are less terrible for your group?
-
If you're driving a standard car with an above average driving skill in any area without GridGuide at a speed that shouldn't kill your above average dicepool and are dumb enough to still be playing a CGL Shadowrun game, your character deserves to burn to a crisp. There, entire debate summarised.
Fixed that for you.
You cant really blame CGL on bad rigging rules... Every edition has sucked, remember per RAW forcing more air through your electric engine made it go faster in 1e... ie throwing a turbo on an electric engine. Really its an argument of which rigging rules are less terrible for your group?
Eh. That’s bad science not a rule that doesn’t function. Most rigging rules were bad but it’s because they had a hard time designing chase scenes. Which I think 5e did well. When it was drone on people it was fine in most editions as it was just a combat test. This issue just shows they didn’t math out a lot of the vehicles when making the rules.
-
You cant really blame CGL on bad rigging rules... Every edition has sucked, remember per RAW forcing more air through your electric engine made it go faster in 1e... ie throwing a turbo on an electric engine. Really its an argument of which rigging rules are less terrible for your group?
Well actually CGL can be blamed just the same as everyone else who officially published bad rules. The older editions did not force them to conceive the rules as they did. Blame is however not the most interesting part... for them to fix it would be.
-
If they were actually broken I'd agree.
-
For me the end goal is fun. And piloting checks, in my opinion, should be a "HELL YEAH!!!! WHHOOOO! / OH NO!!!" moments on the table. Otherwise, rolling for nonsense will just bog down the session.
Good RPG systems should have cohesion between the narrative and the mechanics.
Consider SR5. A piloting test is Vehicle Skill + Reaction, limited by the vehicle's handling. This has a difficulty of 1 for easy tests, described as "Merging, passing, sudden stop, drift or gradual turn (less than 75 degrees).". It has a threshold of 2 for average tests, described as "Avoiding an obstacle, maneuvering through a narrow spot, tight turn (75-130 degrees)."
So a normal civilian driving manually [1] is rolling 4-5 dice on that test. They can buy 1 hit, so can deal with normal traffic without issue. They have a decent chance of rolling 2 hits, so the second set of situations only causes troubles occasionally. Thus we have harmony between the maths and the reality. A GM handwaving the rolls away for routine stuff -- as is right and proper -- isn't changing the likely outcome of the roll. Everyone is happy.
Now consider 6e. The basic form of the test is still Vehicle Skill + Reaction, but the threshold is now the vehicle handling - which is typically in the range of 3-5 (there are a couple of 2s.) And there's a really stiff dice pool penalty for speed too; a Ford Americar doing 45 mph imposes -3 dice on that test. This suddenly flips things for our civilians. Now, the default outcome for the simplest of tests is going to be a failure. Now we have no harmony between maths and reality, because the the mechanic is that almost every roll will fail. So now the GM call of "you don't roll for routine stuff" becomes crucial, because the second the GM decides "this just stopped being routine" you have every wageslave on the road immediately crashing into each other. There's no graduation to the change of circumstances there. You just fall off a cliff edge.
So sure, as a GM, I don't want to do trivial rolls. But I want the game mechanics to support me by making trivial tasks math out to trivial rolls. 6e's driving system doesn't achieve that. In fact, it's the opposite of that. Every roll is crucial.
Ask yourself this. Was 5e's system broken, in your opinion? Because I thought 5e worked fine here. And 6e is radically different, and not for the better.
[1] Recall that GridGuide is only 90% of downtown and less in the suburbs; most people who have cars are going to drive manually from time to time.
-
If they were actually broken I'd agree.
I don't really understand how anyone who thought 5e is OK can't think 6e is broken. They're radically opposed to each other.
-
Delving into bastardized Gaussian mathematics is quite the obviously opposite thing to simplifying, and personally I preferred qualitative approach where 5e never really specified speeds per se during vehicular scenes. However I think I was in the minority, so here we are for 6we where vehicles have quantifiable movement rates. Honestly I expect noone to actually go into the math problems of figuring how many rounds it takes vehicle X to overtake vehicle Y given a head start of Z meters, anyway. Opposed Piloting checks are so much easier.
I don't have a big problem with the extreme difficulty in passing a handling test. Here's why: you're generally never making them. And when you ARE making them, the realistic outcome probably should be a crash anyway. Are you swerving around on the interstate, engaging in some combat with a pack of go-gangers? Guess what, you're not making a handling test. You're making, if anything, opposed Piloting tests and those are NOT handling tests. No thresholds on opposed tests. Now yes, if the go-gangers win the opposed test and corral you into the back of a broken-down 18-wheeler, NOW you make a handling test. And unless you're a professional stunt driver, you're probably going to slam into that truck. Everything works out the way it should.
-
Delving into bastardized Gaussian mathematics is quite the obviously opposite thing to simplifying, and personally I preferred qualitative approach where 5e never really specified speeds per se during vehicular scenes. However I think I was in the minority, so here we are for 6we where vehicles have quantifiable movement rates.
I dislike that, so I'm with you here. But that's just my game style (all theatre-of-mind), and the to-the-metre style is just as valid an option. And the extra detail is easy to ignore, too.
-
For me the end goal is fun. And piloting checks, in my opinion, should be a "HELL YEAH!!!! WHHOOOO! / OH NO!!!" moments on the table. Otherwise, rolling for nonsense will just bog down the session.
Good RPG systems should have cohesion between the narrative and the mechanics.
Consider SR5. A piloting test is Vehicle Skill + Reaction, limited by the vehicle's handling. This has a difficulty of 1 for easy tests, described as "Merging, passing, sudden stop, drift or gradual turn (less than 75 degrees).". It has a threshold of 2 for average tests, described as "Avoiding an obstacle, maneuvering through a narrow spot, tight turn (75-130 degrees)."
So a normal civilian driving manually [1] is rolling 4-5 dice on that test. They can buy 1 hit, so can deal with normal traffic without issue. They have a decent chance of rolling 2 hits, so the second set of situations only causes troubles occasionally. Thus we have harmony between the maths and the reality. A GM handwaving the rolls away for routine stuff -- as is right and proper -- isn't changing the likely outcome of the roll. Everyone is happy.
Now consider 6e. The basic form of the test is still Vehicle Skill + Reaction, but the threshold is now the vehicle handling - which is typically in the range of 3-5 (there are a couple of 2s.) And there's a really stiff dice pool penalty for speed too; a Ford Americar doing 45 mph imposes -3 dice on that test. This suddenly flips things for our civilians. Now, the default outcome for the simplest of tests is going to be a failure. Now we have no harmony between maths and reality, because the the mechanic is that almost every roll will fail. So now the GM call of "you don't roll for routine stuff" becomes crucial, because the second the GM decides "this just stopped being routine" you have every wageslave on the road immediately crashing into each other. There's no graduation to the change of circumstances there. You just fall off a cliff edge.
So sure, as a GM, I don't want to do trivial rolls. But I want the game mechanics to support me by making trivial tasks math out to trivial rolls. 6e's driving system doesn't achieve that. In fact, it's the opposite of that. Every roll is crucial.
Ask yourself this. Was 5e's system broken, in your opinion? Because I thought 5e worked fine here. And 6e is radically different, and not for the better.
[1] Recall that GridGuide is only 90% of downtown and less in the suburbs; most people who have cars are going to drive manually from time to time.
I've been thinking about this while I slowly absorb the new rules content getting ready to run my first longer-term SR6 game...
To me, many of the prior editions' driving rules did a good job at letting a "normal driver" do the kind of driving called out by the rules as the low-end of what to roll for (like when the rules call out the difficulty of merging as quoted). But then you'd have a dedicated rigger making even the most difficult listed examples of activities with almost-assured precision straight out of character creation.
The result was that I never really called for any vehicle tests at all unless it was a contest between two relatively equal operators in two relatively equal vehicles, and that meant that I basically never had anyone rolling vehicle tests.
So the SR6 rules being written with a completely different intent seemingly behind them - the "normal driver" stuff being un-rolled by design, and the rules around rolls making it so that a dedicated rigger is needed for fair chances of success on what rolls the system does call for - is something I am, without having run the rules through their paces yet, optimistic about. Rolling dice is only fun if it feels like it matters, and these rules look (so far at least) like it will feel like it matters... and that throwing a bunch of points into piloting skill won't feel like over-kill or wasted karma, especially if the team is stuck with a hard to handle or lower-performance vehicle.
That said, what a weird thing to draw me back to signing in to this place instead of just lurking to read.
-
It's a trap. We hooked you.
-
Delving into bastardized Gaussian mathematics is quite the obviously opposite thing to simplifying
This is statistics and probability 101. A high school student could've done the math on this in under an hour with one excel file.
I don't have a big problem with the extreme difficulty in passing a handling test. Here's why: you're generally never making them. And when you ARE making them, the realistic outcome probably should be a crash anyway. Are you swerving around on the interstate, engaging in some combat with a pack of go-gangers? Guess what, you're not making a handling test. You're making, if anything, opposed Piloting tests and those are NOT handling tests. No thresholds on opposed tests. Now yes, if the go-gangers win the opposed test and corral you into the back of a broken-down 18-wheeler, NOW you make a handling test. And unless you're a professional stunt driver, you're probably going to slam into that truck. Everything works out the way it should.
In other words, verisimilitude is dead. Why does the nimbleness of my vehicle affect how difficult it is to avoid crashing into a stationary object, but not how hard it is to corral someone/be corralled by someone into a stationary object? Shouldn't the agility of my vehicle and of the ganger's vehicles, particularly relative to each other, have some effect on the outcome on our opposed test? If there is no effect, then there's no internal consistency here, and if the effect is that the driver with the better handling vehicle gets edge, oops, I already gained 2 edge this turn so I can't get any more, and the uses of edge in 6e aren't very potent anyways, so now we get to have the "armor is useless" argument all over again.
So the SR6 rules being written with a completely different intent seemingly behind them - the "normal driver" stuff being un-rolled by design, and the rules around rolls making it so that a dedicated rigger is needed for fair chances of success on what rolls the system does call for - is something I am, without having run the rules through their paces yet, optimistic about. Rolling dice is only fun if it feels like it matters, and these rules look (so far at least) like it will feel like it matters... and that throwing a bunch of points into piloting skill won't feel like over-kill or wasted karma, especially if the team is stuck with a hard to handle or lower-performance vehicle.
That optimism might be warranted if we weren't looking at TNs of 5 for vans with no way to bring the TN down until the next Rigger book comes out with rules and costs for vehicle modification. And heaven forbid that any civilians need to make handling tests as a side-effect of your opposed check...
A thought occurs: this is related to PCs. Something "unexpected" requires you to make a test. So...
"Okay, you successfully cut off your pursuer, causing them to slam on the brakes as you swerve into the off-ramp.
"The Americar behind your pursuer tries to avoid them, spins out, and rear-ends their van. GridGuide scrambles to redirect traffic, but you drive away from a six-car pileup, and counting."
(Also, wow, this has been a wild ride from start to presumable finish)
-
I’ll never get behind the the rule is fine because I won’t use it mindset. I can totally understand a yes the rule seems off but it will have a limited impact in my game because I will rarely use it. 1. Is saying it’s not a weak rule. The other is saying yeah it should probably be fixed but it’s not a priority.
If it’s a test that never is supposed to be used it wouldn’t be in the game at all. There are circumstances where this test will come up. Bad weather, trying to get from Point a to point b faster than grid-guide will get you there. It’s forced somehow by a ice sheet spell or a nail strip.
And this isn’t just civilians lone star cops and many PCs will throw 5 dice at driving. I can see a lot of issues there when you call for these tests. It shouldn’t be a test is called and you will fail unless a miracle happens unless it’s a crazy hard handling test.
While I think speed should have a impact I think speed ratio might not be the best tool as it crippled too many vehicles at way too low of a speed. I think absolute speed points should be used. Like for every 50meters a combat turn round down -1 die.
Also the threshold should be something like very easy handling -2, easy handling -1, standard ha sling, hard handling +1 very hard handling +2
That way in cases when tests are called for easier tests are passable by most. Like how the basic 3 charisma street sam with a couple points in con could talk his way past a cop noticing a sin issue.
-
Totally baffled by people who think this is nothingburger.
In 6e, a Ford Americar doing 45 mph is threshold 4 and -3 dice pool - effectively threshold 5. 5!
In 5e, a piloting test threshold of 4+ is described at "jumping vehicle over an obstacle, driving through a space just big enough for the vehicle, while ramping a vehicle through the air rolling it just enough to have a hook from an overhanging crane knock a bomb off the bottom of the vehicle before it explodes." To remain consistent between systems, that's the level of stunt at which we should be asking for piloting rolls. Everything below that level should be auto-pass, to remain consistent, unless driving suddenly got more difficult in 2080.
In 5e, I have at least four test difficulties at my disposal, all with clearly laid out guidelines for how to choose one. In 6e, I have a single test threshold, set so high it's essentially auto-fail for everyone but pilot specialists. And I have no guidelines for when to apply it. Except I do have a guideline, in so far as: I make the roll happen whenever I want the PCs to almost certainly fail. Other than that, I let them always succeed.
How is this good? How is this fun? How is it better?!
Imagine if combat was done this way. "Oh, if it's daylight then you always successfully attack without rolling. But if it's dark, you have to roll, but you need 4+ hits or you'll miss your target."
I mean, it's just a half-inch away from asking "hey GM, do I succeed at <task>?" and the GM saying "yes" or "no" according to their whims at that moment. Why even have dice at all? Let's just do everything by GM fiat!
-
Totally baffled by people who think this is nothingburger.
In 6e, a Ford Americar doing 45 mph is threshold 4 and -3 dice pool - effectively threshold 5. 5!
It comes down to what is that handling test representing?
If it's to see if you avoid crashing during mundane conditions, yeah that's bad. My point's been: "So don't do that." You don't make Athletics tests to see if you trip while walking down the hallway, do you? No, because it's generally presumed you're able to walk from point A to point B with no test necessary. I'm saying that you CAN give cars/drones the same courtesy. You don't have to make handling tests just to move from point A to point B. I daresay you SHOULDN'T, even in 5e.
Now if you're in that Ford Americar tooling along at 45 and instead of driving at everyday conditions, you decide for whatever reason you're suddenly going to make a 90 degree turn without slowing down (because if you slowed down, that would have been every day driving conditions to hang a left/right...). Most anyone who's not a professional driver is going to lose control and spin out, roll over, or worse. Doing dumb/emergency drek like that is what I envision handling tests for: rolling to see if you don't crash when by all rights you should be crashing.
-
Sure. I don’t think anyone is arguing to make everyday tests. But when you do should the threshold start at 4? Is it no test no test no test near impossible test with nothing in between.
Athletics no test for walking down a hallway or a jog around the track etc. I am giving them a test for some things though. For example I might for climbing something though but my thresholds for climbing things don’t start at 4.
-
Sure. I don’t think anyone is arguing to make everyday tests. But when you do should the threshold start at 4? Is it no test no test no test near impossible test with nothing in between.
I'm choosing to look at it as "things you should be expected to be able to handle=no test necessary. Things you shouldn't be able to handle=handling test".
Athletics no test for walking down a hallway or a jog around the track etc. I am giving them a test for some things though. For example I might for climbing something though but my thresholds for climbing things don’t start at 4.
6we doesn't generally embrace bonus/penalty dice to the extent 5e did, but I suppose there's no reason you couldn't say a handling test that you're supposed to pass (but roll for anyway) could benefit from a modifier to the threshold instead of dice pool. Maybe the critter runs out in front of your car right in the sweet spot where it's too close to expect to stop safely in time yet too far to expect to probably crash, either. So you could call it a Handling test with a -X to the threshold to represent it's too chancey to presume success, yet not chancy enough to presume failure.
-
I have a Reaction of 2 and a Pilot of 2. I own a Ford Americar.
I get on the freeway and accelerate to 60 mph. I now have a -4 dice pool penalty and need 4 hits not to crash on my first Handling test. How do I not automatically crash and die? I can't turn on the autopilot, it only has a skill of 1.
Save me?
I’ve been thinking on this for a while now, and I have a house rule that I’ll probably never be in the position to test. So, I’ll post it here for others to use, pick apart, or trash as they see fit.
I should warn you, this is, at best, beta test quality. If y’all wanna pay me for reading it anyway, I’ll gladly accept it. :P
For the most part everything remains the same. This is done to keep the changes as minimal as possible, rather than “fix” the rules as they are.
The changes are:
- All Handling values are reduced by 2. Should this reduce the Handling below 0, that is okay as that represents a truly responsive vehicle.
- Everyone gets +4 Dice to their Handling tests. Not Piloting tests. Not Vehicle tests. Handling tests only.
Bear in mind, the GM can raise the Threshold for less routine unexpected tests – such as a rotodrone dropping out of the sky and crashing 12 feet in front of the car.
What this should do:
John Q. Public - with training in driving - in a standard sedan, should be able to buy the hits needed to perform any unexpected yet fairly routine situations within their first Speed Interval. In their second Interval, if they have Piloting 2 instead of Ground Vehicles Specialization, they have to roll.
At highway speeds, John Q. Public has a tough – but realistically doable – roll ahead of him. Threshold of 2 on 4 or 5 dice. Might be the thing he should spend whatever Edge he has on.
On less than routine unexpected situations at highway speeds, John Q. Public is likely to crash and burn. However, those around him – even those on GridGuide/Autopilot – should have a decent chance of making their emergency maneuver Handling tests, unlike now when the rotodrone drops in front John Q. Public and his test fails that triggers everyone around him who fail, and that triggers everyone around them who fail… And before you know it, everyone in a 1000 block radius who is in a vehicle is dying in a fiery crash.
Where this likely breaks down:
In the future, if supplements have vehicle modding rules that allow reduction in Handling (I have no reason to expect them to not have them – I just do not know they will), it will make it ridiculously easy for a dedicated driver character to make Handling tests.
- This might not be a bad thing, depending on table, as this is just for Handling tests, and not opposed tests or anything else.
This does nothing to make a dedicated Rigger a better driver than any other character focused on driving. Then again, the current rules don’t do that either.
-
So the SR6 rules being written with a completely different intent seemingly behind them - the "normal driver" stuff being un-rolled by design, and the rules around rolls making it so that a dedicated rigger is needed for fair chances of success on what rolls the system does call for - is something I am, without having run the rules through their paces yet, optimistic about. Rolling dice is only fun if it feels like it matters, and these rules look (so far at least) like it will feel like it matters... and that throwing a bunch of points into piloting skill won't feel like over-kill or wasted karma, especially if the team is stuck with a hard to handle or lower-performance vehicle.
That optimism might be warranted if we weren't looking at TNs of 5 for vans with no way to bring the TN down until the next Rigger book comes out with rules and costs for vehicle modification. And heaven forbid that any civilians need to make handling tests as a side-effect of your opposed check...
Who's making that 5 threshold test for the van, and when, are both very important questions.
Since this edition, unlike prior ones, isn't calling for a roll for basic tasks that one would call "everyday driving" the answer to when is only when it is actually interesting for failure to potentially be an option.
The answer to who can be problematic. If the character isn't built to be good at driving, they are going to suck when called on to roll... much like a character not built to be able to hold their own in melee combat is going to suck if they get in a sword fight with a chromed-out katana kid. But if a character is built such that driving is their "shtick", they could easily have a dice pool of 16 (5 reaction, 6 piloting, specialization in wheeled vehicles, rating 3 control rig) at character creation to try and get those 5 hits with. And while the speed interval of 10 is likely to take a bunch of dice out of that pool, Edge can swing the odds back in the driver's favor.
-
How is this good? How is this fun? How is it better?!
Imagine if combat was done this way. "Oh, if it's daylight then you always successfully attack without rolling. But if it's dark, you have to roll, but you need 4+ hits or you'll miss your target."
The comparison to combat brings up an important point: using the right tool for the job.
In the case of combat, every attack has interesting outcome potential. Hitting is interesting because that's the goal. Missing is interesting because it provides the contrast necessary for hitting to matter. Rolling really really well is interesting because you might take your opponent out of the fight entirely, and glitches have a lot of room to add more interesting results because it is easy to imagine interesting complications to a combat scenario.
But if combat followed the rules of vehicle tests - over-simplified as "get 5 hits and you win" - combat would be less satisfying.
In the case of vehicle tests, each "action" taken (hit the gas, crank the wheel, shift gears, turn the tunes up a bit while you watch the RPM gauge to monitor your engine's performance) isn't the kind of thing that feels right treating as equal to things in combat like aiming a shot, reloading, pulling a trigger, monitoring a barrel temp gauge on your custom smartgun or the like. So using the same kind of rolling rules does not translate to satisfying driving resolution.
The rules for each should, outside of the general dice pool, hits, and thresholds rules, be different because they are different jobs with different needs.
-
I'm choosing to look at it as "things you should be expected to be able to handle=no test necessary. Things you shouldn't be able to handle=handling test".
Oh my, what an unfortunate choice of words.
6we doesn't generally embrace bonus/penalty dice to the extent 5e did, but I suppose there's no reason you couldn't say a handling test that you're supposed to pass (but roll for anyway) could benefit from a modifier to the threshold instead of dice pool. Maybe the critter runs out in front of your car right in the sweet spot where it's too close to expect to stop safely in time yet too far to expect to probably crash, either. So you could call it a Handling test with a -X to the threshold to represent it's too chancey to presume success, yet not chancy enough to presume failure.
Houseruling lower TNs when you don't want to insta-murder your PCs? Gee, it's almost as if there's something wrong with the core ruleset....
-
Let me try again to get my point across.
Pink Mohawk Patricia is racing away from the scene of her latest crime on her beloved Harley Scorpion. She comes around a blind corner to find the Star have blocked the road ahead with two Citymasters. But, good old bumbling Star, in their haste they've left a gap she could squeeze through. She has a choice: risk the gap, or stop and fight, or turn around and head back?
In both editions, Patricia has Reaction 9 and a vehicle skill of 1 (hey, she's a combat monster, not a rigger wannabe, and she can rely on her superhuman reflexes), so she rolls 10 dice.
In 5e, her test is 10 dice, versus a GM-determined difficulty threshold of between 1 and 4. This test is limited by the handling of the bike, which is 4. Her chances of hitting various target numbers are:
1: 98%
2: 90%
3: 70%
4: 44%
In 6e, her test is the same 12 dice, but this time against the handling of the bike, which is 3. She's doing 100 mph, which is 140 metres per combat round. The Scorpion's speed interval is 30, so she takes -4 dice pool penalty for the speed she's doing. Her chance of passing the 6e test is a flat 32%.
Now consider the width of that gap and two GMs, one in 5e and one in 6e.
Let's say the gap is eight feet. Maybe that's easy enough that both GMs say, meh, sure, you get through with no rolling.
Narrow that gap down to five feet. The 5e GM says, no, I want a roll, but at target number 2. 90% chance of success, which is good, but the risk of failure is quite serious (being a significant crash right at the feet of two full Citymasters of 'Star). The 6e GM says, no, you can auto-pass.
Narrow it to four feet. The 5e GM sets a threshold of 3 - 70% chance of success. Patricia is sweating now. The 6e GM says: no roll, you succeed at the task.
Narrow it to three feet. The 5e GM sets a threshold of 4 - 44% chance of success. The 6e GM says: yes, I want a roll now. 33% chance of success.
This is just one example, but in all cases under these systems, we end up with the following graph of "difficulty of in-world task" versus "chance of mechanical success." I cannot see why the 6e step-change is preferable to anyone compared to 5e's more graduated line.
-
The answer to who can be problematic. If the character isn't built to be good at driving, they are going to suck when called on to roll... much like a character not built to be able to hold their own in melee combat is going to suck if they get in a sword fight with a chromed-out katana kid. But if a character is built such that driving is their "shtick", they could easily have a dice pool of 16 (5 reaction, 6 piloting, specialization in wheeled vehicles, rating 3 control rig) at character creation to try and get those 5 hits with. And while the speed interval of 10 is likely to take a bunch of dice out of that pool, Edge can swing the odds back in the driver's favor.
A minor correction: Control Rig means Jumped In, means using Intuition instead of Reaction. I'd add Psyche by the way, for 5(6) Intuition instead. A driver would use 5(8 ) Reaction but no Control Rig bonus, so still easily hit the 16 dice.
Anyway, since people keep forgetting these rules, given the 'nothing inbetween' claims:
Normal vehicle operation does not require a test.
Tests only come up when a driver/rigger wants to
do something tricky with the car—follow another
car without being spotted, make a hairpin turn at
high speeds, jump over the still-under-construction
bridge, that sort of thing.
Gamemasters can
increase or decrease that threshold based on the
difficulty of the attempted maneuver.
(I struck through the one part that doesn't make sense since that should be an opposed test of Piloting vs Perception.)
-
Saying "GMs can modify this number" without providing any further guidance is like saying "GMs can ignore any rule they want." It's true, but it's not remotely helpful. How does a novice GM decide how much modification is appropriate for a particular situation? If this approach is acceptable, why do we need three hundred pages of rules at all? We could just replace whole sections with "the GM decides the difficulty number."
-
This my my take on the issue.
Let's say Bob the board member makes the assertion: "There is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."
Several correct replies can be given:
- "I agree, there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."
- "I agree, and it is easily solvable by changing the following part of Rule X."
- "I disagree, you've merely misinterpreted part of Rule X. If you reread this part of Rule X, you will see there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."
Okay, I hope you're with me so far. There is, however, an incorrect reply:
- "There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."
Now, this incorrect reply does not in truth agree with or dispute the original statement in any way, shape, or form.
It actually contradicts itself--the first part of the statement says there is no problem, while the last part proposes a generic fix to the "non-problem."
It doesn't follow the rules of debate and discussion, and thus should never be used.
Simple enough.
Daily reminder that the Oberani fallacy is indeed a fallacy.
-
Daily reminder that the Oberani fallacy is indeed a fallacy.
Preach, brother.
-
Saying "GMs can modify this number" without providing any further guidance is like saying "GMs can ignore any rule they want." It's true, but it's not remotely helpful. How does a novice GM decide how much modification is appropriate for a particular situation? If this approach is acceptable, why do we need three hundred pages of rules at all? We could just replace whole sections with "the GM decides the difficulty number."
I don't like how often I see people talking about table-top RPG rules act like there can't be shades of grey between the black & white of having everything explicitly spelled out and expected to be followed exactly as-is, and having the GM make up literally everything.
In this specific case the "further guidance" is given in the form of the rules saying not "GMs can modify this number [full stop]", but "Gamemasters can increase or decrease that threshold based on the difficulty of the attempted maneuver.?"
Based on the difficulty of the attempted maneuver is guidance. It's not elaborate, detailed, or even really all that specific... but it's still guidance.
Rolling a dice pool modified for current speed vs. a threshold set by the vehicle and terrain (give or take a bit for "seems easier" or "seems harder" based on other concerns) is, for some people at least, plenty of rules even though it's not as detailed as other systems have been. And it doesn't come with the implication that you need to succeed at a handful of rolls to get anywhere (example: if the rules say it's threshold 1 to merge, then taking a right turn out of your drive way, merging over twice to turn left at the next traffic light, driving along a bit and taking a right turn into a parking lot to get to your local Stuffer Shack looks like 5 or so dice rolls... where as in practice during an actual game that bit of driving, regardless of edition used, typically involves zero rolls).
-
With no example scale to refer to, it guidance as you say, but it's extremely weak and subjective without a reference point to start from. It also creates a different scale by handling thresholds differently than in other parts of the book. Handling would be better expressed as a Threshold modifier and refer you back to the Threshold chart earlier in the book.
Let's assume the default handling of a standard vehicle should be a threshold of 3, since anything less is in the realm of walking and chewing gum, per the chart. That's your default for typical maneuvers. That still requires a baseline DP of 12 to execute, but as many have said, why are you rolling to turn corners? That's a Bad GM maneuver there.
So, any vehicle with a current Handling rating of 4 should have a +1 TH to the handling tests (4-3 = 1). Or you can set it to 4, and make the lower TH vehicles reduce the TH by the difference. A 3 Handling vehicle becomes -1 that way, and now you feel like you have that "better choice" car/bike whatever.
So, whipping around a corner at an unsafe speed, maybe drifting a little without a wipeout, sure stick with a 3+Car mod. Now you get crazy on the car though. You want to pull a Dukes of Hazzard maneuver putting the car up on two wheels. That's a threshold of at least 5 for sure. Now it really matters what car you have. No one is managing that junk without Edge and/or a lot of skill. Fine, yeah?
It should also matter that you have a vehicle rig. Right now, it adds its rating in dice, which is trivial by comparison to the requirements for most tests you are attempting, if the TH is going to be a baseline of 3. I would rather see it reduce people's thresholds overall, like it used to do. That feels worth replacing my spine for. Now my rigger can do stuff my wheelman can't. I can roll with the DP mods from speed better, and do notably nuttier things in that model. Right now, the rigger is only a slightly better driver than a wheelman.
I've seen the argument that the Edge generation from the rig enables the rigger to do stunts more often, sure. However you tinker Handling, there's that as a factor. However, outside of a rig, Edge has no rules for generation in a vehicle context. None. Which brings us back to the guidance topic: there's zero guidance for the GM on what stunts can even potentially do, or even the idea of doing stunts as a thing either. It leaves almost everything up to the GM, with no backup and no reference points. Very poor situation for new GMs.
-
...That still requires a baseline DP of 12 to execute...
This is a case where even though I know what you likely meant, it is important to remind everyone that this is not how dice work.
Just like you will not roll exactly one 20 if you make twenty rolls of a d20, you neither have to have enough dice to use the (deliberately over-priced) buying hits rules to be "good at" something, nor will you roll 1 and only 1 hit per 3 dice in your pool as the 1 in 3 odds of any one die coming up a hit mislead some people into believing.
It is within the realm of statistically "normal" for a dice pool of 8 to get 5 hits (just an example, the specific numbers chosen have no deeper meaning).
-
Sure. Fair. Call it "a dice pool unlikely to found unless the character is a rigger".
-
Handling would be better expressed as a Threshold modifier and refer you back to the Threshold chart earlier in the book.
It sucks that it takes a thorough discussion of driving tests to arrive at this concept, but that's much better GM guidance than what appears in the book. A plain reading of the chapter lead me to the same place as your original post.
However, outside of a rig, Edge has no rules for generation in a vehicle context. None. Which brings us back to the guidance topic: there's zero guidance for the GM on what stunts can even potentially do, or even the idea of doing stunts as a thing either. It leaves almost everything up to the GM, with no backup and no reference points. Very poor situation for new GMs.
Truth. Even the quick start rules have better guidance than the CRB for driving tests, because Battle Royale at least has an example of a getaway scene.
-
If there were default values listed people would complain about those and players would complain if their gm didn't remember and made one up. Just listing a few sample scenarios is perfectly fine, there's no need to hold your hand.
-
If there were default values listed people would complain about those and players would complain if their gm didn't remember and made one up. Just listing a few sample scenarios is perfectly fine, there's no need to hold your hand.
Similar issues have come up in other threads here, and I'll say the same thing: Having a GM extrapolate from a solid set of base rules is generally far easier for most players to accept than the GM being left to arbitrarily wing it.
It isn't "hand holding" to expect a ruleset that has a clearly defined threshold system to provide a solid list of examples across all of the areas the rules are intended to cover. So if you have driving in the game, then there should be defined examples at every threshold level. Do they have to cover every possible scenario? No. Should they provide a generic starting point for each threshold level? Yes.
They could have made one threshold table with a column for each major aspect of the game (combat, magic, driving, decking, and social) so everyone has the same framework to work with. But they only did this for combat, so GMs are left to make drek up as they go along. This gets down to the difference between the GM having agency (being the arbiter of RAW vs RAI) and the GM being the creator of their own game (making up rules to fill in the gaps in RAW.
-
If there were default values listed people would complain about those and players would complain if their gm didn't remember and made one up. Just listing a few sample scenarios is perfectly fine, there's no need to hold your hand.
Similar issues have come up in other threads here, and I'll say the same thing: Having a GM extrapolate from a solid set of base rules is generally far easier for most players to accept than the GM being left to arbitrarily wing it.
It isn't "hand holding" to expect a ruleset that has a clearly defined threshold system to provide a solid list of examples across all of the areas the rules are intended to cover. So if you have driving in the game, then there should be defined examples at every threshold level. Do they have to cover every possible scenario? No. Should they provide a generic starting point for each threshold level? Yes.
They could have made one threshold table with a column for each major aspect of the game (combat, magic, driving, decking, and social) so everyone has the same framework to work with. But they only did this for combat, so GMs are left to make drek up as they go along. This gets down to the difference between the GM having agency (being the arbiter of RAW vs RAI) and the GM being the creator of their own game (making up rules to fill in the gaps in RAW.
Well said!