[Kincaid]

I'm beginning to think I'm not the source of the snark in this thread.

You haven't yet addressed the Gordian knot of internal slots and accessories/modifications that your reading creates.

[ZeConster]

Any snark on my end is caused by the fact that I had to post something twice before people noticed it, and when they did they decided to criticize me for simply trying to be helpful in a discussion I had no stake in.

[welldressedgent]

Thanks for the list ZeCoaster, I'm still trying to decide if exotics like dartguns and gyro pistols should get them;
but this certainly looks like a good starting point.

g

[Namikaze]

It's pretty reasonable that the core rulebook can't and didn't take into account the changes affected by Run & Gun.  But that doesn't mean that the side mounts added in Run & Gun can suddenly be applied to weapons that otherwise simply can't take barrel modifications.  I mean, common sense rules the day, right?  If a weapon can only take barrel accessories on the top (or not at all) then why would it suddenly get the ability to take side mounts?

Personally, I don't think it matters too much so long as someone's not using this little ...disagreement to add an accessory to the gun that shouldn't be there.  For example, if someone wants to put a flashlight on their Ares Light Fire, it shouldn't matter if it's top- or side-mounted so long as that's the only accessory they're adding to the barrel.  The position isn't what's important here - it's the limitation of slots and accessory types.

You haven't yet addressed the Gordian knot of internal slots and accessories/modifications that your reading creates.

I don't see how ZeConster's reading implies any kind of problem with internal slots, accessories, or modifications.

[Kincaid]

I don't see how ZeConster's reading implies any kind of problem with internal slots, accessories, or modifications.

His reading of, "for example, light pistols can only take top and barrel-mounted accessories..." removes authorial intent and strictly reads the text as-is.  This isn't a terrible thing to do, by the way, Roland Barthes did the same thing and he had a pretty decent career.

The problem with a strict reading in this case is that whatever rules he applies to the text must be applied to all the text equally.  So if we are to assume that light pistols cannot take side mount because it is strictly defined that they can only take top and barrel-mounted accessories, then we must also assume that light pistols cannot take an internal mount, since that is also unlisted. 

This leads us to the guncam/smartgun system issue.  Guncams are the only thing listed in R&G as being an accessory that can go in the internal slot, but always count as an accessory (and not a modification) regardless of whether or not they are internal or external.  Smartgun systems are listed as an accessory in the core book, regardless of whether they are internal or external.  The question as to whether or not an internal smartgun system accessory actually takes up an internal accessory slot goes back and forth.  If we accept that it does, that means that light pistols cannot take internal smartlinks, which would be a novel change.

Like I said, a strict reading of a single sentence isn't a terrible thing--the entire Formalist school of literary criticism essentially is founded on that idea.  But a ruleset has a great number of moving parts and a strict reading in one place may create unintended fissures elsewhere.

[Namikaze]

His reading of, "for example, light pistols can only take top and barrel-mounted accessories..." removes authorial intent and strictly reads the text as-is.  This isn't a terrible thing to do, by the way, Roland Barthes did the same thing and he had a pretty decent career.

Are you suggesting that people that interpret the rules strictly end up being shot to death?  Why even tangent the discussion by bringing up that tragedy?

The problem with a strict reading in this case is that whatever rules he applies to the text must be applied to all the text equally.  So if we are to assume that light pistols cannot take side mount because it is strictly defined that they can only take top and barrel-mounted accessories, then we must also assume that light pistols cannot take an internal mount, since that is also unlisted. 

Items that install to the integral slot aren't accessories.  Accessories are, by definition, added on to the top, under, or side slots.  Because of that, modifications (which go into the internal slot) don't get limited by the rule on page 51.

This leads us to the guncam/smartgun system issue.  Guncams are the only thing listed in R&G as being an accessory that can go in the internal slot, but always count as an accessory (and not a modification) regardless of whether or not they are internal or external.  Smartgun systems are listed as an accessory in the core book, regardless of whether they are internal or external.  The question as to whether or not an internal smartgun system accessory actually takes up an internal accessory slot goes back and forth.  If we accept that it does, that means that light pistols cannot take internal smartlinks, which would be a novel change.

No...  smartguns are an accessory that existed before "modifications" even was a term in Shadowrun.  The core book does state that a smartgun system can be used internally (which would mean the internal slot), or externally (using either top, bottom, or side).

But a ruleset has a great number of moving parts and a strict reading in one place may create unintended fissures elsewhere.

It creates no fissues as I see it.  The only fissures are there because you are ignoring a bunch of those moving parts.

[Kincaid]

Are you suggesting that people that interpret the rules strictly end up being shot to death?  Why even tangent the discussion by bringing up that tragedy?

Presumably you're trolling at this point.  Or don't know much about Barthes' work.  Or his death, which was  a result of getting hit by a car in 1980.  Or all three.

Items that install to the integral slot aren't accessories.  Accessories are, by definition, added on to the top, under, or side slots.  Because of that, modifications (which go into the internal slot) don't get limited by the rule on page 51.

Untrue.  Again, see the description of the GunCam on page 52 of Run & Gun.  It is an accessory and it can be placed in the internal slot.  Also see the much-discussed sidebar on page 51, "If you add an accessory to the stock, barrel, or internal slot, or add a modification...".  Emphasis mine.  This clearly distinguishes between the processes of adding an accessory to the internal slot and adding a modification.  There is never any mention of an accessory becoming a modification if it's placed in the internal slot.  I think that makes sense, but I'm not the one arguing for a strict reading here.

No...  smartguns are an accessory that existed before "modifications" even was a term in Shadowrun.  The core book does state that a smartgun system can be used internally (which would mean the internal slot), or externally (using either top, bottom, or side).

But you've already eliminated the possibility of light pistols having an internal slot by citing the bit in the sidebar as an exhaustive list of where you can place an accessory.  If they can't mount on the side because it's not mentioned, they can't mount internally because it's not mentioned.  If you want to retroactively make internal smartgun systems a modification and not an accessory, I'm all for it, but you're now breaking your own rule regarding the authority of the text.  You can't pick and choose when you get to have an absolutist reading of the text and when you don't.

It creates no fissues as I see it.  The only fissures are there because you are ignoring a bunch of those moving parts.

I'm not sure I follow.  I'm the one who keeps citing passages from the text.  Your one counterargument--"Accessories are, by definition, added on to the top, under, or side slots"--is unsourced and demonstrably false.

[JackVII]

Man, I'm not even following this discussion. I'm still hung up on the fact a holdout can't mount any accessories, because my wife's Ruger .22 Light Compact Revolver most definitely has an under-barrel laser sight and that's about as hold out as you can get without getting rid of a grip.

[Csjarrat]

Guys, can we all just agree that like street grimoire, this book was badly thought out and badly written?
The only real solution here is to just use common sense, don't take the piss and clear stuff with your GM before it goes onto a char sheet.
As a GM I have no problems with image scopes on bows (had one on my bow as a kid) but it's not applicable in RAW. Likewise, I have no issues with two side mounts on an AR. It might be asking a bit much on a light pistol though, so just got to apply some logic really.
RAW are a but gimped here, so let's try and be productive with solutions rather than destructive with line-by-line analysis of each other's quotes and counter quotes

[Csjarrat]

Man, I'm not even following this discussion. I'm still hung up on the fact a holdout can't mount any accessories, because my wife's Ruger .22 Light Compact Revolver most definitely has an under-barrel laser sight and that's about as hold out as you can get without getting rid of a grip.

Yeah, never understood that at all. You can make an RFID tag a cloud computing device and sensor but can't stick the equivalent into a small gun?
Meh, not like I see many people using holdouts in game but still, would be nice for the rules to not be gimped.

[Kincaid]

Guys, can we all just agree that like street grimoire, this book was badly thought out and badly written?

Perhaps not phrased exactly like this, but this is essentially my point, not that Namikaze is wrong but that his argument opens up a can of worms that I don't think he, or anyone else really, wants.  The FAQ could come out tomorrow and include the exact weapons that use a side mount and that list may or may not include light pistols, who knows?  The problem with RAW arguments, especially with texts with multiple authors, is that there are invariably contradictions and/or gray areas within the text, making the "as-written" part of things perilous.  My reading of the rules is more organic.  This doesn't make it more or less correct, but it does make it easier for me to iron out inconsistencies since I'm not bound to the text as-is.  Of course, the downside of this is that it's hard to discuss things from a common starting point with people in an forum, something that would be made easier with a more internally consistent foundational text.

[Namikaze]

Presumably you're trolling at this point.  Or don't know much about Barthes' work.  Or his death, which was  a result of getting hit by a car in 1980.  Or all three.

Actually, I thought you were referring to Rowland Barnes, who was a judge who got shot.  I misread the last name.  My apologies.

Untrue.  Again, see the description of the GunCam on page 52 of Run & Gun.  It is an accessory and it can be placed in the internal slot.  Also see the much-discussed sidebar on page 51, "If you add an accessory to the stock, barrel, or internal slot, or add a modification...".  Emphasis mine.

Specific always trumps general.  There are exceptions to the basic premise that accessories are mounted outside a gun.  Reading my words as being 100% true all the time is simply asking for trouble - the book contradicts itself way too much for any one thing to be true, with the exception that "specific trumps general," of course.

But you've already eliminated the possibility of light pistols having an internal slot by citing the bit in the sidebar as an exhaustive list of where you can place an accessory.  If they can't mount on the side because it's not mentioned, they can't mount internally because it's not mentioned.  If you want to retroactively make internal smartgun systems a modification and not an accessory, I'm all for it, but you're now breaking your own rule regarding the authority of the text.  You can't pick and choose when you get to have an absolutist reading of the text and when you don't.

I'll re-iterate.  Specific trumps general.  Smartgun systems and guncam systems, and any other accessory that lists itself as an accessory is specific.  They can follow different rules than most general accessories.

I'm not sure I follow.  I'm the one who keeps citing passages from the text.  Your one counterargument--"Accessories are, by definition, added on to the top, under, or side slots"--is unsourced and demonstrably false.

I've quoted this from a legitimate source.  Twice:

An accessory can be installed with little difficulty by pretty much anyone onto the top, bottom, or side slots.

I think the intent behind the passage is saying that an accessory can be added to those slots easily.  The other slots, not so easily.  Which solves the problem that you had.

[Kincaid]

Specific always trumps general.  There are exceptions to the basic premise that accessories are mounted outside a gun.  Reading my words as being 100% true all the time is simply asking for trouble - the book contradicts itself way too much for any one thing to be true, with the exception that "specific trumps general," of course.

Fair enough, but your example is not one of specific trumps general.

I'll re-iterate.  Specific trumps general.  Smartgun systems and guncam systems, and any other accessory that lists itself as an accessory is specific.  They can follow different rules than most general accessories.

...which includes taking up the internal slot, at least in the case of the guncam, since that specifically mentions the internal slot as someplace it can installed.  But I'll also note that the other passage I quoted from the sidebar was a general statement about accessories, so, in effect, there's nothing to trump.  Unless you're going to somehow argue that the passages you're citing are more authentic/accurate than the passages I'm citing.  Having a smartgun system take up the internal slot is speculation.  Speculation in which I'm happy to engage, but speculation nevertheless.

An accessory can be installed with little difficulty by pretty much anyone onto the top, bottom, or side slots.

I think the intent behind the passage is saying that an accessory can be added to those slots easily.  The other slots, not so easily.  Which solves the problem that you had.

The question at hand is not one of ease but one of capability--this quote isn't terribly relevant to a discussion of capability, although I applaud your new-found interest in authorial intent, even if it seems to be limited to countering my arguments.  Is a light pistol capable of taking a side mount?  Is a light pistol capable of taking an internal slot?  By your reading, the answer to both of these questions must be the same.  That's really the crux of the problem that your reading creates.

[Namikaze]

...which includes taking up the internal slot, at least in the case of the guncam, since that specifically mentions the internal slot as someplace it can installed.  But I'll also note that the other passage I quoted from the sidebar was a general statement about accessories, so, in effect, there's nothing to trump.  Unless you're going to somehow argue that the passages you're citing are more authentic/accurate than the passages I'm citing.  Having a smartgun system take up the internal slot is speculation.  Speculation in which I'm happy to engage, but speculation nevertheless.

So what you're now saying is that the internal smartgun modification might not take up the internal slot in a weapon?  How does that make sense?  It seems to me that unless someone wants to go back and change all the internal/integral modifications from the core book to reflect something else, they should still be in that internal slot.

Suggesting that a change might be made by the rules that isn't explicitly made by the rules is a bit of a fallacy.  For example, ask this: do the mods that come with a weapon count against your total number of slots?  Can we install a Gas-Vent system in a barrel slot, and a silencer in the integral slot?  These are things that people can question - but unless the rules forbid it, there's no reason not to allow it.  If someone is going to write a set of rules for an RPG, which includes lots of moving pieces and parts, it's substantially more reasonable to establish a baseline, then add and remove as necessary in expansions.  To try to sort of...  add functionality by questioning if a function is possible...  it creates a conundrum.  The writers can't possibly think of every scenario that the fans can come up with, so wouldn't it be easier to just say, "sure let's let it happen" for the majority of those ideas?
The question that still hasn't ever been answered to my satisfaction by any of the Freelancers is whether or not the mods that come with a weapon count against that limit or not. 

[Kincaid]

So what you're now saying is that the internal smartgun modification might not take up the internal slot in a weapon?  How does that make sense? 

I'm not--I've tried to be very clear that this is something I think is valid.  I've seen some of the more pedantic members of the forum argue this, so for the sake of completeness, I mentioned it as one of the schools of thought out there.

It seems to me that unless someone wants to go back and change all the internal/integral modifications from the core book to reflect something else, they should still be in that internal slot.

I want to do that!  But I'm probably in the minority there and it's off topic for this discussion, but the internal/integral/slotless thing has bugged me for many editions.

For example, ask this: do the mods that come with a weapon count against your total number of slots?  Can we install a Gas-Vent system in a barrel slot, and a silencer in the integral slot?  These are things that people can question - but unless the rules forbid it, there's no reason not to allow it. 

My understanding--and I confess weapon mods is something I pay very close attention to--is that this is legal, assuming you mean a weapon that comes equipped with a silencer out of the box, like the Ingram.  I think this creates more problems than it solves and should be changed, but that's obviously just one man's opinion.

If someone is going to write a set of rules for an RPG, which includes lots of moving pieces and parts, it's substantially more reasonable to establish a baseline, then add and remove as necessary in expansions.  To try to sort of...  add functionality by questioning if a function is possible...  it creates a conundrum.  The writers can't possibly think of every scenario that the fans can come up with, so wouldn't it be easier to just say, "sure let's let it happen" for the majority of those ideas?
The question that still hasn't ever been answered to my satisfaction by any of the Freelancers is whether or not the mods that come with a weapon count against that limit or not.

I agree about the baseline bit, I just think the current baseline means very different things to different people--it seems like there's a gunmod thread multiple times a month ("Can I use my silencer and gas vent on my Ingram at the same time?" is perhaps the most common).  Because R&G introduced so many new elements, a certain amount of retconning is probably needed--these guns get side and/or internal slots, these don't.  These accessories in the core book are actually modifications (the modification/accessory distinction should probably be one of slot, not item, so a guncam is either/or depending on where you put it.  Silencers would be an exception.  The under slot is tricky in this regard--you don't want your underbarrel flamethrower to snap off with the same ease as you lowlight flashlight), these others can be mounted on the side or internally.  That sort of stuff.  Once you establish a common lexicon for these things, subsequent work has a clear path to follow, to say nothing of how helpful it would be to GMs and players.

The question that still hasn't ever been answered to my satisfaction by any of the Freelancers is whether or not the mods that come with a weapon count against that limit or not.

I would dearly love to know this as well.