[CyberNed]

You know what I really hate? Trying to figure out how to phrase my first post on a new forum... I'm always tempted to go the ' Oh hi guys I'm a new poster here so please be nice...' route. Heck with that noise.

Anyways, I'm new here, so please be nice.

Ok, so I've had the books for many, many months, and have read them over and over. I finally managed to get a small crew of my friends (generally die hard D&D 3.5 players) to give 'running a whirl. Chargen took about a month (feh...), but all in all I'm pretty sure everyone is actually feeling the game so far, and aren't just playing along for my benefit. In fact, I'm positive about it, because my friends are a bunch of jerks, and if they hated it, they would let me know emphatically and repeatedly.

This past week, We finally got the meat of their second run underway (the first was a pretty simple slash-and-burn on a ganger meth lab, handily taken care of via the psychotic dwarfs white phosphorus grenade launcher...) I lifted the idea for the run from another post on the forum. Basically, Arms dealer wants the runners to meet with some of his people and transport some goods. Problem is, someone else got there first and lifted the merchandise. Runners get location of thieves, and proceed to go and mightily smite some buttocks...

Here's where it started to break down, and where I have some questions about how I handled things. For the record, while I'm the one running the game, I'm also sort of playing 'coach' as not only do the players have only a vague understanding of the rules for the most part, they are also pretty unclear on certain setting concepts (There's a lot to learn for a newb).

Ok, on to the rundown/checklist.

They noted enough clues at the scene of the heist (residual magic traces, sword wounds etc...) to deduce that another runner team was behind the hit, and therefore probably hired by someone. When they arrived at the location the goods were to be transferred (a warehouse in a commercial park) they wanted to know what they'd be up against, so the technomancer summoned a crack sprite to hack the warehouse node (her own hacking abilities are sub-par for the moment...).

I informed her that she would need to spend one task having the sprite hacking the node. Since this would only get the sprite an account, I told her that the rest of the sprites tasks would need to be spent creating her a security account which she could then access. Was this correct?

After gaining entry, she accessed the warehouses security cameras and shared the feed with the rest of the group. I told the group that they would need to have their commlinks all subscribed to each other (three connections each) to automatically share data like video, voice etc. Is this right or is there a simpler (or perhaps more complex) method? Also, Can a Techno link like this?

After watching the opposing runner team hand off the goods and leave, they identify the other party as a group of triads. I expected the group to rush in guns a-blazin at that point, but instead they showed incredible restraint and perhaps some ingenuity... Rather than hitting them head on, they decided it would be easier to hit them on the road. The triads had two cars and a semi they were hauling the weapons in. The plan was that the physical adept would sneak onto the semi, they would follow in their van, take out the two escort cars, and then the adept would take out the driver of the semi and take control of it.

The mage used acid stream to target the rear tire of the back vehicle. I told him there would be a -2 modifier to the attack. Does that seem appropriate, or would a more severe penalty have been in order? It was semi-dark out, and I'm not sure if visibility modifiers apply to indirect combat spells.

The Techno then compiled another crack sprite, and had it hack her an account on the other vehicle. Once she had the account, she used her command CF to just slam it into the median barrier. Can vehicles be hacked like this? I kinda hope so, because that's how I told them the original haulers of the weapons had been ambushed.

The psycho weapons dwarf at one point pulled up alongside the semi and tried to open fire. It says in the books that a complex action must be spent every turn or the vehicle goes out of control. Either the wording after that is kinda vague or I'm just an idiot. It sounded like it says that the driver has to spend his next action controlling the vehicle or it crashes. Essentially "Shoot, drive, shoot, drive". Yes? No? Maybe so?

So the runners get the semi, get the goods, get paid and then all was good. I hope...

Any advice or comments from ye olde wise and terrible forum goers?

Sorry for the the lengthy post, but thanks in advance.

[raggedhalo]

Hi there!  Welcome to the forums and the awesome game of Shadowrun.  Here's my comments on your stuff:

I'd say that "set me up with a security account on that node" would count as just one service.

Technos can link in the way you describe (they are in many ways just fleshy commlinks).  If you have Unwired, a simpler way to do that stuff would be to use a Tacnet, or have everyone subscribe to a central commlink that then shares all the data out to everyone else.

Acid Streaming the rear tyre is a great idea.  Page 171 of SR4A refers us to the normal called shot rules.  I reckon that if knocking something out of someone's hand is a -4 modifier, taking out a tyre is probably -2, yeah.  Visibility modifiers apply to all spells cast at range (page 183, SR4A).

Vehicles can indeed be hacked like that, assuming they have a Pilot rating (most do).

If someone has 2IPs and is driving a vehicle then yeah, "shoot, drive" each turn is about right.  3IPs and it'd be "shoot, shoot, drive" or "drive, shoot, shoot" or whatever, and so on.

Hope that helps!

[Fizzygoo]

Yeah, Ragged covers it well.

For the acid attack on the rear tire, I would have done -2 called shot (it's not as severe as something as small as a hand held item for the -4, but still targeting a specific place), but then if it's partial light that's another -2. Now also assuming that they're driving up behind the rear car, if in close or with high beams on, then maybe reduce the visibility mod to -1. If the target car (or the vehicle the mage is in) is driving erratically then I'd throw another modifier on it as well.

As a general guideline, in regards to having informed the players that the vehicle was originally hijacked through hacking it and then allowing the players to do the same...even if the rules had said "it doesn't work this way," you did the right thing by allowing the players to do what the bad guys could do with the appropriate/equivalent equipment/skills/abilities. So even if you "had been wrong" you could just state at the start of next game, or in an email, "The original owners of that hijacked vehicle had set it up to be controlled wirelessly, but most vehicles have X in place to prevent that, etc."

Sounds like it was a great game. Though it needs more cowbell...or is that insect spirits...one or the other, but yeah

[CyberNed]

Hey guys, thanks for the feedback. It's good to know that I'm not totally screwing up the rules aspect of the game for my players.

Two things: The driver of the car only had one IP. Does this mean that he could only focus on driving the car or risk crashing? It just seems kind of extreme to me. I mean, how many action movies have the guy behind the wheel of a car firing his gun out the window with great success? If that's really the case, would it at least  be possible to have him split his dice pool? or perhaps call for a pilot ground vehicle test after the fact to avoid the crash?

Second: This is something I forgot about but was actually one of the main rule questions I had (so naturally I forgot to mention it.) At one point while the adept was wrestling with the occupant in the passenger seat of the semi, the mage cast control actions on the bad guy. He said he was going to make him jump out of the vehicle (while it was going 65+ mph down a freeway) The spell description says that the victim of the spell adds his will as a negative modifier for the resistance of tests (firing guns, kicking nuns, etc.) Really though, there was no test needed for the guy to just lean out the open door of the semi. I told my player that the guy would try to resist, and I had him make a will test (he failed and leapt involuntarily to his death). Even though there was nothing in the spell description that would allow this, I felt that since there was an implication of resistance, the guy would have a chance. (for the record, my player understood my stance and agreed)
Basically, We were of two minds about this. On the one hand, it felt like it was just way too easy to take out an opposing character (granted the guy was a mook, but the same could have happened to a prime runner or something). On the other hand, the way I understand it magic is supposed to be powerful and menacing in Shadowrun, and therefore totally reasonable.
Any thoughts or comments?

[Kot]

I think the driver has to expend actions, or make a crash test, so he can still shoot, if he trusts his driving DP. Or he could use the vehicle's Pilot software, which probably wouldn't work (the Pilot isn't good enough in a basic model).

[FastJack]

Hey guys, thanks for the feedback. It's good to know that I'm not totally screwing up the rules aspect of the game for my players.

Two things: The driver of the car only had one IP. Does this mean that he could only focus on driving the car or risk crashing? It just seems kind of extreme to me. I mean, how many action movies have the guy behind the wheel of a car firing his gun out the window with great success? If that's really the case, would it at least  be possible to have him split his dice pool? or perhaps call for a pilot ground vehicle test after the fact to avoid the crash?

Think of the number of accidents caused by people trying to talk (or, heaven forbid, text) on their cell while driving. Now, also try this when you're on an empty highway with plenty of room, going a very safe speed: Keeping your eyes on the road and trying not to move the wheel, lean your entire body towards the passenger side without drifting the car towards the right.

All in all, if you're firing a gun and driving a car, you have to sight the gun, brace for recoil, hold the steering wheel steady, make sure to watch your speed, and monitor the "innocent bystanding" cars around you. AND, that's assuming the roads not a twisting/turning road, but a straight highway. If you want to make the game more cinematic, you could downgrade the driving test, but even in the movies, most of the time someone else is shooting while the driver is concentrating on the road. The exceptions are usually with heroes that could be considered to have multiple IPs if they were a SR character.

Second: This is something I forgot about but was actually one of the main rule questions I had (so naturally I forgot to mention it.) At one point while the adept was wrestling with the occupant in the passenger seat of the semi, the mage cast control actions on the bad guy. He said he was going to make him jump out of the vehicle (while it was going 65+ mph down a freeway) The spell description says that the victim of the spell adds his will as a negative modifier for the resistance of tests (firing guns, kicking nuns, etc.) Really though, there was no test needed for the guy to just lean out the open door of the semi. I told my player that the guy would try to resist, and I had him make a will test (he failed and leapt involuntarily to his death). Even though there was nothing in the spell description that would allow this, I felt that since there was an implication of resistance, the guy would have a chance. (for the record, my player understood my stance and agreed)
Basically, We were of two minds about this. On the one hand, it felt like it was just way too easy to take out an opposing character (granted the guy was a mook, but the same could have happened to a prime runner or something). On the other hand, the way I understand it magic is supposed to be powerful and menacing in Shadowrun, and therefore totally reasonable.
Any thoughts or comments?

Spells that attack the target's minds are powerful things. I think you played it right for a mook/stormtrooper character. If it was the BBEG, I'd probably give him some bonuses to help him resist.

[Fizzygoo]

The driver of the car only had one IP. Does this mean that he could only focus on driving the car or risk crashing? It just seems kind of extreme to me. I mean, how many action movies have the guy behind the wheel of a car firing his gun out the window with great success? If that's really the case, would it at least  be possible to have him split his dice pool? or perhaps call for a pilot ground vehicle test after the fact to avoid the crash?

I'd say no to the splitting of the dice pool. It's two separate skill tests; Combat (firearm) and Driving. There's nothing to split. Shooting two guns, split 1 skill. Driving 2 vehicles, split 1 skill (though technically even a rigger can only issue one command per complex action, so command one car to do X, or command a group of cars to do X...but no matter what, to do X it's a complex action). Driving and Shooting...2 different skills used, each requiring their own separate actions. Or in other words, dice pools are only split for a single skill test as there's never a case where you add pools of multiple skill pools together (At least as far as I know).

Like Kot hinted at. You can have a vehicle use its Pilot to go from A to B, but it will be driving "nicely." Meaning, it will only try to pass slower moving vehicles, will keep to non-passing lanes unless passing said slower moving vehicles, etc. A hacker might be able to trick a vehicle into driving a set amount over the speed limit (The Pilot rating says go the speed limit, but there's a bit of code that ads +5 kph to what the Pilot thinks the speed limit is or something like that). So doing that, you could slowly catch up, then pass, another vehicle, at which point you'd be free to shoot at them...but once they noticed you and take off...if you want to follow them you're back to having a meat-bod take over. ... I think, it's early, I'm AFB (away from books), so I can't see if there's any extra info about vehicle's pilot ratings and what not.

FastJack's spot on about the sheer difficulty of (any action but picking your nose) and driving at the same time. Though I'm reminds me of the movie The Chase, with Charlie Sheen and Kristy Swanson and the outrageous (-ly funny?) intercourse scene. But more importantly I re-watched Ronin the other night and I can't remember any scene where the driver was shooting...the drivers were always very very very focused on the driving, hehe.

With the spellcasting...a composure tests (threshold = to force, or force +/- mod that reflects how powerful/weak you as a GM want mind control powers to be in your campaign) would work well for those moments of controlling someone into a clear and immediate threat to their life. If the NPC hits the threshold they'd hesitate (start crying, mumbling "no no no," etc., all the while they are still reaching for the door handle and slowly lifting it up, etc.). As long as the mage keeps the spell going the action will be carried out, but it will just be prolonged over a few action phases or combat turns. But otherwise, yeah, like FastJack said...if it's just the Rabble...that's what they're there for

[Kot]

Most vehicles have a Pilot rating of 1-3, and that will be almost for sure negated by the penalties for rough driving, speed, terrain, and such. But with a bit of mods, a Pilot upgrade, and a Maneuver autosoft, you can probably trust your vehicle to do that.

[CyberNed]

Alright, so the general consensus seems to be ixnay on the ootingshay while ivingdray. That's gonna make that player a little grumpy (he's the only member of the group with guns and driving skills) I'll have to do a little more indepth research into the driving rules to see if I can't work something out for him, as I'm sure this won't be the last time this situation will come up... (maybe he'll just have to bite the bullet and get some more bodywork done.)

As for the other thing, the spell in question was the "least" powerful of the control spells. It just gave the mage control over the guys actions, not his thoughts. So this guy was freaking out while some outside force caused his body to lurch out the open door to his death. Pretty horrible if you ask me. >

Again, I guess I'm just concerned about the potential for abuse with this particular spell. Immediately lethal situations like the one above probably won't come up all that often, but still what if the mage takes control of a guy and tries to make him shoot himself in the head? Still, I guess situations like that is what edge is for...

Thanks again for the feedback. I'm sure this won't be the last time I come seeking (begging) help.

[Morg]

Sounds like you did excellently! Know from your 3.5 experience the only unforgivable mistake is if no one had fun so don't be afraid to make a few judgment calls that don't quite reflect the book at start if it comes down to fun vs rules always choose fun

[Kontact]

Something to remember about making a Driving test during chase combat is that you can use that driving test to close the distance and finally attack by way of ramming.  Even if you're in the lead, you can still ram.  It's generally only at the 1-20 m/ct (1/2 Body)P range, but it also forces crash tests with them at a disadvantage.

Really, the best way to drive is in VR using Remote operation and the Command Prog through hotsim.  It's easy to get and run Command 6 when you use program options, and with hotsim you get +2 to your tests and 3IPs to work with.  Meanwhile VR operation drops all thresholds by 1, and using Remote instead of Jumping In keeps you from taking biofeedback damage from the vehicle getting hit.

So, with the setup above and a driving skill of 1, you get a DP of 9±handling and, after ramming someone, you only need to beat a threshold 1 test to keep from crashing while they have to beat a threshold 3 (assuming they're not in VR.)

Remember, this is the 2070s, not the 1970s.  Tech makes things easier than hanging out the window and blasting with your .44 magnum.  That's for juiced up wire-monkeys and passengers.

[Wayfinder]

Rather than hang out window and shoot, I'd just add some weapons to said car. Weapon mount, weapon of choice, a mechanic contact to add, and gunnery skill. With a high enough pilot program and sensors you don't even need the gunnery skill. Let the car itself fire the weapons.

[Mara]

Maybe I am wrong on this..but doesn't being fully rigged in make the driving test a simple action, since, well, you are the car?
Put guns on the vehicle, go full VR rigging, you drive and shoot and kill things?

[FastJack]

Maybe I am wrong on this..but doesn't being fully rigged in make the driving test a simple action, since, well, you are the car?
Put guns on the vehicle, go full VR rigging, you drive and shoot and kill things?

Not exactly... You are the car, but the driving test still is pretty difficult since you have to use the car's sensors and such instead of your own meat sensors. The benefit to jumping-in to the car directly is the number of Initiative Passes you get, so only one Pass is used for actually driving and you can use the rest to fire the car's weapons and such.

[The_Gun_Nut]

Also, for someone who doesn't have lots of IP's (whether wired or rigged), that character can spend a point of Edge to get an extra pass that round.  That will allow that character to do more than just drive.  If you think about it, those guys in Hollywood tend to have large Edge attributes for being the Main Character, so it's easy for them to just spend the Edge and blaze away.