[Ghost Rigger]

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)

[Shinobi Killfist]

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.

[penllawen]

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!

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

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.

[Shinobi Killfist]

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.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

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.

[Iron Serpent Prince]

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. 


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.

[Noble Drake]

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.

[Noble Drake]

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.

[Ghost Rigger]

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....

[penllawen]

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.

[Michael Chandra]

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.)

[penllawen]

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."

[Ghost Rigger]

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.

[penllawen]

Daily reminder that the Oberani fallacy is indeed a fallacy.

Preach, brother.