[martinchaen]

WellsIDidIt
I never said any such thing; where did you get the impression that I would ignore the examples? If anything, I was building on the examples for effect, but you'll note that I am also advocating NOT further complicating the rules.

Once again, however, my issue is that to my mind too much is left up to the GM in this case, and while this is not a problem in games where house rules exists it is a problem in SRM games where the only guidelines GMs are given are the three situations (limb only, average of limbs, and lowest attribute if "careful coordination" is required). As is clear from this and other similar threads, "common sense ain't all that common" when defining what action constitutes which situation. As a result, I for one would choose not to take cyberlimbs for a character designed for Missions play at conventions; if a player (myself in this case) think there is so much ambiguity in the rules the the player chooses to just avoid those rules all together, does that make the rules well designed?

[samoth]

The issue isn't with full limbs.  If the book's example of leading an attack with a cyberarm is all we get, then we can assume full arms would do anything that a normal meat arm could do without problem (except for careful coordination).  I have zero issues with that, and full arms work as intended.  Simple.

The problem comes when we get to partial limbs and hands, and I still haven't seen anything other than house rules and "god you guys just use logic!" as explanations for how they work.  As it stands I don't see any practical reason to ever take cyber hands/feet aside from armor stacking abuse, and partial limbs aren't much better.  Another point Martin brought up is there is confusion about how many limbs factor into averaging calculations.  It would take exactly one sentence in the book to clarify this but we don't have that.

I would love to use logic in all situations in SR, and in my games I certainly would, but this is a RULES BASED system with strict crunch and the rules as written for partial limbs and hands/feet are not developed enough to clearly state what they can and can not control, how they might figure into averaging, and on and on like Martin has said.  As much as I love arguing on the internet, I'm here to discuss the RULES of the game, not some dude's house rules and then get called an idiot for it.

This isn't just a Catalyst problem, limbs have had issues going back to at least 3rd ed (I don't remember confusing in 2nd but there may have been).  It is Catalyst's job to clarify rules inconsistencies but they either don't care or don't want to, based on their bullshit eratta releases.

[Reaver]

@Martin

I would agree with your rebuttals on all points BUT the screwdriver   I could not possibly count the number of screws I have put in.... but it's in the tens to  maybe even hundreds on millions (I kid you not! last job I worked we ordered 3 MILLION, 1-18 3/8 tap screws alone for a crew of 80.) putting in a screw is very much just a wrist/finger/forearm thing once you have the technique down pat and almost no force of the arm, reguardless of it is in metal, tin, aluminum, or wood.



But Now you also hit on the crux of the matter, and WHY a list is very much impractical. Any test that you would roll for is done in a situation where there is a consequence to failure. So, tests that very much seem simple or foolish COULD actually matter, and a simple list of "you can do, this but not this" negates the circumstances of situation.


Situation one:


the Runners have invaded the evil mastermind's hide out and defeated the Big Bad Boss.... only to find that he had a dead man's trigger! A HUGE bomb is on a 30 second countdown and the access panel to the bomb is wedged up against the wall! If they move the bomb, it will go off, so the only way to disarm it is for a character to get himself wedged into a small tight corner and worked only with his hands and fingers to remove the casing and cut the correct wires.....  (Forearm down agility and strength test)


Situation Two:
 

The runners are ambushed! during the fight, Johnny is knocked flat on the ground and a big, mean ork rushes over to stand on this gun arm. Johnny looks around, he could try to engage the Ork standing on his arm in melee combat, but looking around He sees Sally is being threatened by two other Orks and they are in line with his prone arm! If he could only raise the gun off the floor and target one of the orks threatening Sally...  (Forearm/hand Agility test)



*****


Like I said, both are situational, but both could happen in the wacky world of imaginary fun! And because just about anything can (and usually does) happen, having a short list of actions could never cover any or even some of the situations.


This folks, is why you have a GM! People seem to think that the GM is there to be confrontational to the players. (And in a way he is), but he is also there to act as a mediator to the events, the story, and the situations that players get into and out of. Everything that has happened before and up to the point that a cyberarm (partial) has any bearing has already been in the realm of GM fait. So I am amazed at the butt hurt resistance to using a little imagination and common sense in conjunction with a little interaction with someone to come up with a fair judgement on just when a cyber foot or hand would be useful or not.

Hell, retrieving a wedding band from a pot of boiling water is useful for a cyber hand!

Not every action that a player character can ever take can be covered by all the rules. Accept it. I have let to see the rules that cover having someone swing from a chain attached to a cargo crane while firing an auto grenade launcher, but I have to deal with that. I have yet to see the rules for engaging in hand to hand combat while hanging upside down from a scaffold, but I've dealt with that too.


As I said before, if you can't handle the infinite possibilities that players will come up with, with the baseline rules given in ANY role playing PnP game, then mayhap it is not the entertainment for you? Personally I like the fact that I can do just about anything, approach any problem by any means (and not just the limited few options a programmer gave me). But I also realize that my solutions to problems are probably not things that the developers or writers would think of, so I have to rely on my GM to set the limits and tests to do my wild antics (Just as I do with my players).

that's part of what makes Roleplaying games so fun! Does it mean some systems will differ? you bet! that is the beauty of this Game! The way I run my table makes my game totally unique and different from the way Michael runs his games, which makes his games Fun, fresh and exciting! And he differs from the way Xenon runs his games! Sure we are all following the same rules, but our individual life experiences, attitudes and thoughts of the game ensures that each game is both the "same" enough yet different as to make playing in each of our tables a rewarding experience. If the rules are to restrictive, then imagination suffers.

[martinchaen]

Reaver
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree with pretty much everything you said, as long as the intention is homegrown campaigns. However, Missions is a different beast all together; even Bull has come out and said that Missions are designed to provide a consistent experience for all players. How can a GM do that when he has to interpret the rules individually, with very little guidance in some cases such as with partial and full cyberlimbs?

And I wouldn't want an exhaustive, overly detailed lists of situations. What I would want is something that describes intent, that elaborates on what the developers were thinking when they designed a rule. The list you provided was a little odd in terms of game play (four of them, possibly five, involved scratching an orifice or two ), but something like a three or four examples for each situation (using just limb, combination of all limbs, careful coordination) would go a LONG way to impart meaning to the developer's thought process. I don't think that's asking too much.

Again, don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy playing a street sam with four cyberlimbs (arms and legs) and in our home game it works beautifully because my GM and I have worked through some of these questions. I still wouldn't take cyberlimbs to a convention, because it means unpredictability; and while unpredictability is part of why we play the game ("Oh, a milk run? Perfect..."), I don't want unpredictability where the rules for how well my character can potentially perform an action (environmental and wound modifiers aside) are concerned.

I think I've said what I wanted to say. Cheers for keeping it civil, folks.

[Reaver]

Reaver
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree with pretty much everything you said, as long as the intention is homegrown campaigns. However, Missions is a different beast all together; even Bull has come out and said that Missions are designed to provide a consistent experience for all players. How can a GM do that when he has to interpret the rules individually, with very little guidance in some cases such as with partial and full cyberlimbs?

And I wouldn't want an exhaustive, overly detailed lists of situations. What I would want is something that describes intent, that elaborates on what the developers were thinking when they designed a rule. The list you provided was a little odd in terms of game play (four of them, possibly five, involved scratching an orifice or two ), but something like a three or four examples for each situation (using just limb, combination of all limbs, careful coordination) would go a LONG way to impart meaning to the developer's thought process. I don't think that's asking too much.

Again, don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy playing a street sam with four cyberlimbs (arms and legs) and in our home game it works beautifully because my GM and I have worked through some of these questions. I still wouldn't take cyberlimbs to a convention, because it means unpredictability; and while unpredictability is part of why we play the game ("Oh, a milk run? Perfect..."), I don't want unpredictability where the rules for how well my character can potentially perform an action (environmental and wound modifiers aside) are concerned.

I think I've said what I wanted to say. Cheers for keeping it civil, folks.

Which is part of the reason I personally don't go to mission runs (although I have heard they are very fun!)

Yes, a "Complete" set of rules would be nice, but as I stated can be impractical. This is why we have judges and refs and GMs, to arbitrate conflicts.

And that is part of the Catalyist Rep's job as well, to be knowledgeable of the rules, and to apply or enforce them in a consistant way. Not to mention covering the situations that come up that are not expressly covered by the rules. Yes, you have good GMs or bad GMs, Yes, they may make a call you don't agree with or is even wrong, but that is the nature of any team endeavor.

You have to trust that the GM has the best  intentions for the game, even if it's not the best intentions for your character.

[Mithlas]

I think most of the conflict here is between presumptions about the rules - how thorough they should be or need to be. Personally, I think this category (cyberhands/feet) is something that's limited enough that you should be able to figure out what only a hand does. Screwing a screwdriver is one of them. Holding a door handle or crushing a soda can is another. If you're getting a cyberhand, it's either because you've got a definite character idea with that as a feature or you're wanting the capacity, not because you're wanting a Cyberarm of Awesome. The book doesn't explicitly give a list of things because it's assumed that you are looking at real-world physiology (you've got an arm, you can do it) and taking the game's simplification guidelines for what they are. I think you're not going to be using a hand/foot for much, and the rules for a full cyberlimb are relatively clear.

I think the only one that's not fairly clear is a partial cyberlimb. Can you use a pistol with just a lower arm? Most likely. I know there's minor use of tendons and muscles in the shoulder, but you're probably not doing as much with them. An SMG? Possibly. A carbine or sport rifle? Now you're looking at two cyberarms (most likely full, though a generous GM might decide 2 partials will cover it).

A katar/punch dagger? Lower arm might be enough. A sword? I'd think that requires enough of the shoulder that you're going to be averaging states or looking for a full cyberarm. A katana or weapon with reach greater than 1? Almost certainly a full cyberarm or you're averaging stats.

That's the kind of process the game's designers expected, and as you can see it can easily expand enough that it's easier to leave it up to "common sense" (which, yes, isn't necessarily common) rather than try to define every little thing. Might another sentence to clarify the boundary of use/need between partial and full cyberarm? Possibly.

[Anarkitty]

The problem with "logic" and "common sense" as rules is not that people don't use them, its that different reasonable intelligent people will reach different conclusions from the same starting information.  The less starting information you have, the harder it is to get consistent conclusions.
For example, I have heard arguments from different people in this thread that claim alternately that firing a pistol uses just the forearm and hand, and that it requires the whole arm to the shoulder.  Which is it?  The rules don't say.
People don't agree on whether opening a door or working a screwdriver uses the whole arm or just the forearm or just teh hand.  Even if it is just the hand and wrist, is the wrist included in the cyberhand? Or is it still natural and therefore included in averaging?

The whole point of rules is to provide a framework and consistent experience.  Otherwise the whole book would just be a setting description and the words "Use common sense" for everything else.

Even a dozen examples of things that occur frequently and what they use would be a good starting point.  It would cover 90% of cases, and give a clearer breakdown for the other 10% so GM decisions could be more predictable.  I know when I GM I prefer to have clear examples to start from at least.  They don't have to be realistic, just consistent.

For example:
Making a melee attack: Full arm(s)
Firing a heavy or machine pistol: Full arm
Firing a light or holdout pistol: Forearm and hand
Firing an SMG or heavier weapon: Both full arms
Picking a lock: Hand*
Using a hand tool: Forearm and hand*
Running: Both full legs
Standing long jump or vertical jump: Both full legs
Running long jump: One full leg
Dead lift: Both upper legs and full arms*
Tap dancing: Lower leg and foot*
Free climbing or swimming: All four full limbs
* Use lowest stat

This is just an example (I like examples) that I threw together.  If you disagree with anything on that chart, you are making my point for me.  Without a basic framework you cannot predict what a GM will rule, and therefore cannot make an informed decision about your character.  The character's life and destiny should be unpredictable; The rules should not be.

[Novocrane]

For example:
Making a melee attack: Full arm(s)
Firing a light or holdout pistol: Forearm and hand

I'd differ (as I mentioned earlier) on these with reference to any firearm fitted into a cyber hand, and monofilament whips. The former comes with a built-in smartgun system, so you certainly aren't required to do more than necessary to point it in the right direction, while the latter is an almost entirely weightless length of cheese cutter you can flick out of your finger with a weighted tip.

[ZeConster]

Because clearly I'm using the words "slap fight" because you dared disagree with me, and not because you decided to use the words "knee jerk" and "no productive response" to describe a post that's simply to-the-point.

To-the-point would involve a minimum of detail - you used none, so I stand by my words. Your explanation apparently showed you to be disliking an idea you had formulated rather than the one I was trying to convey, so you either need to clarify or reposition yourself if you expect me to take you seriously.

I'll be sure to find that slightly important once you actually clarify your idea, considering your "clearing things up" post didn't actually explain it properly. Besides, even if your suggestion still involves allowing Enhancement on top of regular stats, I've argued several times in several topics that restricting cyberlimbs to the +3 from Enhancements only is still a bad idea.

[martinchaen]

<excellent post znipped for brevity>

This is just an example (I like examples) that I threw together.  If you disagree with anything on that chart, you are making my point for me.  Without a basic framework you cannot predict what a GM will rule, and therefore cannot make an informed decision about your character.  The character's life and destiny should be unpredictable; The rules should not be.

I wasn't going to post again on this subject, but thank you for so eloquently summarizing my thoughts precisely, Anarkitty. Cheers!

[All4BigGuns]

I'll be sure to find that slightly important once you actually clarify your idea, considering your "clearing things up" post didn't actually explain it properly. Besides, even if your suggestion still involves allowing Enhancement on top of regular stats, I've argued several times in several topics that restricting cyberlimbs to the +3 from Enhancements only is still a bad idea.

No it isn't. It wasn't the first hundred times you said it and it isn't now. It is a good price to pay for the additional functionality available for those limbs. If someone just tries loading the capacity with armor instead of actually taking advantage of that functionality and suffers as a result, that's on them.

[Novocrane]

stuff

You gave me a solid block of text, and you can say whether it was an angry rant or not. Neither are particularly conducive to being taken seriously, so I focused on the bold text when I skimmed over it - which you'll find I'm actively doing in regards to your posts now. (while imagining a Little Britain-esque "I don't like it" coming from you at relevant points)

I think we're done, Ze. This isn't going anywhere better than where you pitched from, so lets call it.

[ProfessorCirno]

I mean, if you really want, you can do it pre-SR4 style, where the only stat cyberlimbs had or changed was strength, and I'm not sure there were partial cyberlimbs.

[WellsIDidIt]

I know in Man and Machine (SR 3), cyberlimbs had Strength and Quickness ratings and armor was available for cyberlimbs as well. Partial limbs were also available in Man and Machine.

That said, they used a lot of different rules than current. Off the top of my head, the limits were along these lines:
Strength = Nat. Body +4 or Nat. Body x 2
Quickness = Nat. Quickness +4 or Nat. Quickness x 2
Armor = No limit, but while it stacked with armor it also was calculated into the encumbrance penalty.

It also costed more if you wanted to enhance strength and quickness in a limb (the mods worked against each other).

[ProfessorCirno]

In SR3 core, cyberlimbs were strength only and started at one or more levels above the average for your race, so human cyberarms started at Strength 4, not Strength 3.  I didn't see anything for adding any other stat, though you could put other 'ware in them like Smartlink or RADIO PLAYER (which was separate from CELL PHONE, which was separate from CAMERA, which could hold an amazing 10 pictures!)

( Hah hah, oh Shadowrun! )

Two arms also gave +1 Body, two legs gave +1, and you did more damage with unarmed attacks with them.  Increasing strength by up to 3 was fine, increasing the cyberarm strength past 3 outright cost you extra essence.  And, again, none of this effected your quickness in any way.