Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 17:30:00 GMT
on 04.08.97 chaos@*****.COM wrote:

c> I'm not sure what all was in that book, but I doubt it. They're completely
c> rewriting and simplifying Rigging, as well as making vehicle Construction
c> rules, so you can build a vehicle from teh ground up, rather than only
c> modifying existing vehicles.

Maybe the rigger archtype will become famouse after all....;)

c> I should be able to tell you more when we get back from GC next week, as
c> Mike plans to have a Manuscript preview version of RBB2 available for us to
c> drool on :]

Hell, why do I have to life here. I WANT TO THE 'CON, DAMMIT! grmpf.


bye
## CrossPoint v3.1 ##
Message no. 2
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 16:25:00 GMT
on 05.08.97 gurth@******.NL wrote:

g> Haven't seen it; I own DidS 2.01, and I've read a bit in a German version
g> of Fields of Fire, but that's about it.
g>
g> However, I'd say don't hold your breath when it comes to FASA including
g> RHB stuff in RBB2 -- they didn't include the gear from DidS in the Germany
g> Sourcebook either, for example.

Shame. There are far more vehicles in the RHB than in the RBB. All the
stuff from DidS, FoF and - I think - all the national-sourcebooks (which
aren't even available in Germany). Where's the Aztech Lobo from, anyway?

Tobias
## CrossPoint v3.1 ##
Message no. 3
From: Jaymz <justin@******.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 20:17:14 -0500
At 04:25 PM 8/6/97 GMT, you wrote:
#Where's the Aztech Lobo from, anyway?


The Aztlan sourcebook

--
/--justin@****.mcp.com----------------------justin@******.net--\
|Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. |
|Simon & Schuster | Attention span is quickening. |
|Programmer | Welcome to the Information Age. |
\------------ http://www.mcp.com/people/justin/ ---------------/
Message no. 4
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 06:43:57 -0500
At 06-Aug-97 wrote Tobias Berghoff:

>Shame. There are far more vehicles in the RHB than in the RBB. All the
>stuff from DidS, FoF and - I think - all the national-sourcebooks (which
>aren't even available in Germany). Where's the Aztech Lobo from, anyway?

From the Atzlan sourcebook, of course. Its made by Aztech at last.

And for the RHB, its nice to have for the first time some good
optional rules for riggers.
And prices for fuel, too.

--
Barbie


One lived hour is still living.
Message no. 5
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 06:57:14 -0500
At 06-Aug-97 wrote Tobias Berghoff:


>Maybe the rigger archtype will become famouse after all....;)

I like the Rigger more then the other archetypes.
I`m playing one for five or six years now. And I must say
that I can`t belive that the Rigger is the propably most
unused archetype from all.



>Hell, why do I have to life here. I WANT TO THE 'CON, DAMMIT! grmpf.

You are not alone, I want there too, but money, time and work
prohibieted it this time. Like every time before.

--
Barbie


One lived hour is still living.
Message no. 6
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 03:52:00 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-06 20:12:24 EDT, you write:

> Shame. There are far more vehicles in the RHB than in the RBB. All the
> stuff from DidS, FoF and - I think - all the national-sourcebooks (which
> aren't even available in Germany). Where's the Aztech Lobo from, anyway?
>

That's okay, official word from the author is that there won't be a vehicle
catalog unless FASA decided to do it and not tell him. It's primary focus is
vehicular construction, equipment, rules(including a reprint of the SecRigger
stuff, updated), and a bit of background on rigger society, as it were.

Wolfstar
Message no. 7
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 12:40:42 +0100
Tobias Berghoff said on 16:25/ 6 Aug 97...

> Shame. There are far more vehicles in the RHB than in the RBB. All the
> stuff from DidS, FoF and - I think - all the national-sourcebooks (which
> aren't even available in Germany). Where's the Aztech Lobo from, anyway?

Including vehicles from books that aren't available in German(y) makes
sense, but also adding in the vehicles from a book that did get translated
(FoF) would be unnecessary, and possibly a space filler, IMHO.

The Lobo is -- I assume -- a scout LAV. It's on page 179 of the Aztlan
sourcebook (where else, if it's from Aztechnology? :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Pleasure is to be insane.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 8
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 19:54:09 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-07 03:53:28 EDT, W0lfstar@***.COM (George Metz)
writes:

>
> > Shame. There are far more vehicles in the RHB than in the RBB. All the
> > stuff from DidS, FoF and - I think - all the national-sourcebooks
(which
> > aren't even available in Germany). Where's the Aztech Lobo from,
anyway?
>
You can find it in the Aztlan Sourcebook of Course.... (like DUH! <goofie
airhead impression>)
-K
Message no. 9
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 16:24:00 GMT
on 07.08.97 Ereskanti@***.COM wrote:

E> >
E> > > Shame. There are far more vehicles in the RHB than in the RBB. All the
E> > > stuff from DidS, FoF and - I think - all the national-sourcebooks
E> (which
E> > > aren't even available in Germany). Where's the Aztech Lobo from,
E> anyway?
E> >
E> You can find it in the Aztlan Sourcebook of Course.... (like DUH! <goofie
E> airhead impression>)

I'm just checking, whether I was right about the origin or not (I was).
Take a look at my domain: .de! And it's quite hard to get the Aztlan
Sourcebook in Germany (don't know anybody, who has it)....

Tobias
## CrossPoint v3.1 ##
Message no. 10
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 14:12:00 GMT
on 07.08.97 barbie@**********.COM wrote:

b> >Maybe the rigger archtype will become famouse after all....;)
b>
b> I like the Rigger more then the other archetypes.
b> I`m playing one for five or six years now. And I must say
b> that I can`t belive that the Rigger is the propably most
b> unused archetype from all.

The problem is that a rigger is always waiting in the vehicle while the
run happens. Few people like that. O.K., it's much safer, but less fun to
more risk-liking idividuals like me....On the other hand, riggers have
quite some aspects that can give you a nice role-playing-challange...
Makes me think of physads: Really fun to role-play, but in a high-powered
campaign, a sam is much more likely to survive, so most people prefere the
sammy...shame...

b> You are not alone, I want there too, but money, time and work
b> prohibieted it this time. Like every time before.

Let's start GermCon...so all those American folks won't be able to
come....<eg>

Tobias
## CrossPoint v3.1 ##
Message no. 11
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 14:53:00 GMT
on 07.08.97 gurth@******.NL wrote:

g> > Shame. There are far more vehicles in the RHB than in the RBB. All the
g> > stuff from DidS, FoF and - I think - all the national-sourcebooks (which
g> > aren't even available in Germany). Where's the Aztech Lobo from, anyway?
g>
g> Including vehicles from books that aren't available in German(y) makes
g> sense, but also adding in the vehicles from a book that did get translated
g> (FoF) would be unnecessary, and possibly a space filler, IMHO.

IMO it's quite nice to include *all* vehicles it the RHB, so you have
everything a rigger needs to know in one book. Just like the neat charts
in Cybertech, FoF and Awakenings.

Tobias
## CrossPoint v3.1 ##
Message no. 12
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 14:05:00 GMT
on 07.08.97 barbie@**********.COM wrote:

b> >Shame. There are far more vehicles in the RHB than in the RBB. All the
b> >stuff from DidS, FoF and - I think - all the national-sourcebooks (which
b> >aren't even available in Germany). Where's the Aztech Lobo from, anyway?
b>
b> From the Atzlan sourcebook, of course. Its made by Aztech at last.

Yeah, that's what I thought, but as I hadn't checked it....could have been
in some text about the CAS/Aztlan border...

b> And for the RHB, its nice to have for the first time some good
b> optional rules for riggers.
b> And prices for fuel, too.

Yup. The RHB is one of the few clues that Fantasy Productions isn't a
bunch of idiots....

Tobias
## CrossPoint v3.1 ##
Message no. 13
From: "Wendy Wanders, Subject 117" <KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 19:11:43 -0500
You wrote:
> The problem is that a rigger is always waiting in the vehicle while the
> run happens. Few people like that. O.K., it's much safer, but less fun to
> more risk-liking idividuals like me....On the other hand, riggers have
> quite some aspects that can give you a nice role-playing-challange...
> Makes me think of physads: Really fun to role-play, but in a high-powered
> campaign, a sam is much more likely to survive, so most people prefere the
> sammy...shame...

Unlike deckers, which interact with an entirely different space, riggers can
participate in a variety of ways, depending on creativity, during a run, even
just doing recon and watching for signs that the security's twigged, and it's
time to get out before everything goes to hell... Not to mention recon and
other such tasks.

losthalo
Message no. 14
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 22:26:31 -0400
At 03:52 AM 8/7/97 -0400, George Metz wrote these timeless words:
>In a message dated 97-08-06 20:12:24 EDT, you write:
>
>> Shame. There are far more vehicles in the RHB than in the RBB. All the
>> stuff from DidS, FoF and - I think - all the national-sourcebooks (which
>> aren't even available in Germany). Where's the Aztech Lobo from, anyway?
>>
>
> That's okay, official word from the author is that there won't be a vehicle
>catalog unless FASA decided to do it and not tell him. It's primary focus is
>vehicular construction, equipment, rules(including a reprint of the SecRigger
>stuff, updated), and a bit of background on rigger society, as it were.
>
Actually, it WILL have a complete listing of almost every official vehicle
ever done in FASA books, since some of the rules were re-written (Body is
now based on size, for example. Before, Bikes and cars had about the same
Body, which made no damn sense.)

But no, the German/French/Italian/whatever books will NOT be included in
it. They are not official books, so... Also, certain vehicles that had
different names with exact (or really close to exact) stats were'nt
included. instead, tehy just used one version, which you can pretty much
call whatever you want (I'm already doing this with the Honda Viking. I
have a Troll with a Harley Roadhawg, which is just Harley's version of the
Viking.)

Bull
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
in production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

"Hmmm, time for a new .sig file"
Message no. 15
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 20:40:14 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-11 20:10:27 EDT, Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE (Tobias
Berghoff) writes:

>
> The problem is that a rigger is always waiting in the vehicle while the
> run happens. Few people like that. O.K., it's much safer, but less fun to
> more risk-liking idividuals like me....On the other hand, riggers have
> quite some aspects that can give you a nice role-playing-challange...
> Makes me think of physads: Really fun to role-play, but in a high-powered
> campaign, a sam is much more likely to survive, so most people prefere the
> sammy...shame...
>
>
I've got a good one. The rigger that has rejoined the group here (he'd not
been playing with us for more than a year) has his VCR connected via his
Smartlink(s) in his hands, kind of like a DNI. He then rigs a few of his
drones and/or vehicles to work when he touched an induction/operations pad.

It was great, he grabbed his Condor II last night, held on for dear life from
underneath it, and went skipping across the laser/mine/death field.

Sure his numbers were high (Handling + 4 (Bad Terrain) + His Body), but it
was funny as all get out. Sure, Rigger's -CAN- be as difficult to play as
Deckers. It just takes some effort and creativity.
-K
BTW, the guys a dwarf.
Message no. 16
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 20:50:15 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-12 00:56:08 EDT, KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU
(Wendy Wanders, Subject 117) writes:

>
> Unlike deckers, which interact with an entirely different space, riggers
can
> participate in a variety of ways, depending on creativity, during a run,
> even
> just doing recon and watching for signs that the security's twigged, and
it'
> s
> time to get out before everything goes to hell... Not to mention recon
and
> other such tasks.
>
Actually, with a RPE (Rig Protocol Emulator) or a Spoof Program and specially
modified drones, a decker can do what a rigger does.
-K
Message no. 17
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 03:36:33 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-12 03:05:30 EDT, you write:

> b> I like the Rigger more then the other archetypes.
> b> I`m playing one for five or six years now. And I must say
> b> that I can`t belive that the Rigger is the propably most
> b> unused archetype from all.
>
> The problem is that a rigger is always waiting in the vehicle while the
> run happens. Few people like that. O.K., it's much safer, but less fun to
> more risk-liking idividuals like me....On the other hand, riggers have
> quite some aspects that can give you a nice role-playing-challange...

Your slant on the rigger ignores a rigger's best toy: Drones. Right now,
we're in the planning stages of a secteam mission - a "Headache" from the
Shadowland with the Big D on the back, so NO KIBITZING! =) - where we'll be
using drones heavily for surveillance of the simsense star during several
parts of the mission. Drones are a tool that can save a team's collective
butts, as well as allow the rigger to get in on the action, as it were.

> Makes me think of physads: Really fun to role-play, but in a high-powered
> campaign, a sam is much more likely to survive, so most people prefere the
> sammy...shame...

That would be because the GM throws obscene stuff at the party WITHOUT
providing a way for them to think their way out of it. But, to equalize(since
the concept of allowing a physad initiate to cyber without losing powers
because he's got the proper magic level is ABSURD IMO), cultured bioware does
not incur Essence loss in magically active characters. Makes that combat mage
nastier, I know, but we couldn't come up with a plausible way to restrict it
to just physads.

Wolfstar
Message no. 18
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 03:53:14 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-12 06:33:38 EDT, you write:

> > That's okay, official word from the author is that there won't be a
vehicle
> >catalog unless FASA decided to do it and not tell him. It's primary focus
is
> >vehicular construction, equipment, rules(including a reprint of the
SecRigger
> >stuff, updated), and a bit of background on rigger society, as it were.
> >
> Actually, it WILL have a complete listing of almost every official vehicle
> ever done in FASA books, since some of the rules were re-written (Body is
> now based on size, for example. Before, Bikes and cars had about the same
> Body, which made no damn sense.)

Personally, I hope most of the rules are re-written. Granted, the party line
at the time of RBB was "SR isn't a vehicle game, but in case it's necessary,
here ya go", but I can thin of fewer set-ups that look more like a seive. And
what I meant about a vehicle catalog was that there won't be individual
listings a la RBB1.

> But no, the German/French/Italian/whatever books will NOT be included in
> it. They are not official books, so... Also, certain vehicles that had
> different names with exact (or really close to exact) stats were'nt
> included. instead, tehy just used one version, which you can pretty much
> call whatever you want (I'm already doing this with the Honda Viking. I
> have a Troll with a Harley Roadhawg, which is just Harley's version of the
> Viking.)

Ah... In other words, cleaning out the crap to make room for the really
useful stuff? =) BTW, did they happen to give you an idea on how they're
doing equipment installation? Basically, are they sticking with CF, or are
they including a system for mass and weight being separate?

Wolfstar
Message no. 19
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 10:52:14 +0100
George Metz said on 3:53/13 Aug 97...

> are they including a system for mass and weight being separate?

Mass and weight are separate, sure... They're only tied together by the
gravity of wherever you happen to be :)

Now if you meant to say mass and volume, then I agree it would be very
useful to have those separated and the rules for modifications made more
detailed.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
...who hates heatwaves
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 20
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 12:10:25 -0500
Tobias wrote:

>The problem is that a rigger is always waiting in the vehicle while the
>run happens. Few people like that. O.K., it's much safer, but less fun to
>more risk-liking idividuals like me....On the other hand, riggers have
>quite some aspects that can give you a nice role-playing-challange...
>Makes me think of physads: Really fun to role-play, but in a high-powered
>campaign, a sam is much more likely to survive, so most people prefere the
>sammy...shame...

Why you sit alwasy in your vehicle?
All riggers that I know like to go with the rest of the team, if
the will be needed inside.
Most of them carry their controldecks with them, so if you have some
drones which can operate inside you are much better than a sammy.
And my remotedeck you aren`t be able to see:)

>Let's start GermCon...so all those American folks won't be able to
>come....<eg>

Hehehe
--
Barbie


One lived hour is still living.
Message no. 21
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 04:24:37 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-15 20:45:31 EDT, you write:

> > are they including a system for mass and weight being separate?
>
> Mass and weight are separate, sure... They're only tied together by the
> gravity of wherever you happen to be :)
>
> Now if you meant to say mass and volume, then I agree it would be very
> useful to have those separated and the rules for modifications made more
> detailed.

Erk. I hate it when I do that. Yeah, I meant mass and volume. That's almost
as bad as spelling Gurth G-U-R-ETH(which I did the other night when I was
discussing the list with someone. Hey, ETH is a letter in one of the runic
alphabets, isn't it? =) )

Wolfstar
Message no. 22
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 16:00:00 GMT
on 11.08.97 KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU wrote:

K> Unlike deckers, which interact with an entirely different space, riggers
K> can participate in a variety of ways, depending on creativity, during a
K> run, even just doing recon and watching for signs that the security's
K> twigged, and it's time to get out before everything goes to hell... Not to
K> mention recon and other such tasks.

Well, riggers are extremly helpful, but the problem is, that they usually
don't jump from buildings (I just love the 'free fall' physad-power) or
battle fire elemetals with their bare fists. They just sit in their trucks
and risk some stun-damage...Also, after the fight, when everybody starts
pulling bullets out of vital organs and rebuild their bones (roleplaying
injuries is just great. Maybe I'm a bit sadistic...) the rigger is O.K. or
maybe has some mayor headache, but what's headache when the decker is
bleeding from about every opening of her body and the sammy looks more
like a first aid kit than a human being? The rigger always ends up as the
outsider. In our group at least (maybe we're doing something wrong)...


Tobias
## CrossPoint v3.1 ##
Message no. 23
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 01:41:00 GMT
on 13.08.97 W0lfstar@***.COM wrote:

W> Your slant on the rigger ignores a rigger's best toy: Drones. Right now,
W> we're in the planning stages of a secteam mission - a "Headache" from the
W> Shadowland with the Big D on the back, so NO KIBITZING! =) - where we'll be
W> using drones heavily for surveillance of the simsense star during several
W> parts of the mission. Drones are a tool that can save a team's collective
W> butts, as well as allow the rigger to get in on the action, as it were.

Yeah, but the rigger is still *away* from the rest of the team! Most of
the time, the decker will have to enter the building (if that's your job),
but the rigger's always outside. It's just not the same; fighting back-to-
back with someone -risking your life- is much more....connceting than
thinking of someone as a set of drones.

[physads]
W> That would be because the GM throws obscene stuff at the party WITHOUT
W> providing a way for them to think their way out of it.

You have to keep both happy: The sammy and the physad. That really tough,
if the players of them aren't very, very good friends.

W> But, to
W> equalize(since the concept of allowing a physad initiate to cyber without
W> losing powers because he's got the proper magic level is ABSURD IMO),
W> cultured bioware does not incur Essence loss in magically active
W> characters. Makes that combat mage nastier, I know, but we couldn't come up
W> with a plausible way to restrict it to just physads.

Of course: The level of magical fokussing is much higher in the mage than
in the physad. Just like the fact that you lose magic points more easy, if
you have more. The more magical you are, the more endangered you are.
(Still needs some tuning, but a nice beginnig for a rule that will make
all combat mages *angry*)

Tobias
## CrossPoint v3.1 ##
Message no. 24
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 15:21:29 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-16 13:24:59 EDT, you write:

> Yeah, but the rigger is still *away* from the rest of the team! Most of
> the time, the decker will have to enter the building (if that's your job),
> but the rigger's always outside. It's just not the same; fighting back-to-
> back with someone -risking your life- is much more....connceting than
> thinking of someone as a set of drones.

That changes with Rigger 2 and the Cranial Remote Deck. now the Rigger really
CAN be everywhere at once! =)

> [physads]
> W> That would be because the GM throws obscene stuff at the party WITHOUT
> W> providing a way for them to think their way out of it.
>
> You have to keep both happy: The sammy and the physad. That really tough,
> if the players of them aren't very, very good friends.

It's not the GM's job to make the PC's happy, it's the GM's job to try and
wreck the PC's lives. And make sure the players have fun in the process.

> W> But, to
> W> equalize(since the concept of allowing a physad initiate to cyber
without
> W> losing powers because he's got the proper magic level is ABSURD IMO),
> W> cultured bioware does not incur Essence loss in magically active
> W> characters. Makes that combat mage nastier I know, but we couldn't come
up
> W> with a plausible way to restrict it to just physads.
>
> Of course: The level of magical fokussing is much higher in the mage than
> in the physad. Just like the fact that you lose magic points more easy, if
> you have more. The more magical you are, the more endangered you are.
> (Still needs some tuning, but a nice beginnig for a rule that will make
> all combat mages *angry*)

I can almost see this as working, except that Physads channel all of their
magic back into their bodies. If anything, they would need to be the more
physically balanced. Certain items - like adrenal pump - will cause essence
and magic loss. It depends on the amount of variation is made.

Wolfstar
Message no. 25
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 15:28:21 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-16 13:31:37 EDT, you write:

> Well, riggers are extremly helpful, but the problem is, that they usually
> don't jump from buildings (I just love the 'free fall' physad-power) or
> battle fire elemetals with their bare fists. They just sit in their trucks
> and risk some stun-damage...Also, after the fight, when everybody starts
> pulling bullets out of vital organs and rebuild their bones (roleplaying
> injuries is just great. Maybe I'm a bit sadistic...) the rigger is O.K. or
> maybe has some mayor headache, but what's headache when the decker is
> bleeding from about every opening of her body and the sammy looks more
> like a first aid kit than a human being? The rigger always ends up as the
> outsider. In our group at least (maybe we're doing something wrong)...

What you're "doing wrong", which isn't really wrong, is using a tactical
advantage. There are two types of people you don't want hurtat extraction
time - the guy driving the getaway car, and the medic. Unless you've got a
real large team, if the rigger and the medic are one and the same, and
someone in the party - ie, the mage - has backup skills, you're all set. Now
your party should be GLAD the rigger ain't hurt. If he's healthy, it's easier
for him to apply first aid.

Wolfstar
Message no. 26
From: "MARTIN E. GOTTHARD" <s457033@*******.GU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 09:34:00 +1000
> > Yeah, but the rigger is still *away* from the rest of the team! Most of
> > the time, the decker will have to enter the building (if that's your job),
> > but the rigger's always outside. It's just not the same; fighting back-to-
> > back with someone -risking your life- is much more....connceting than
> > thinking of someone as a set of drones.
>
> That changes with Rigger 2 and the Cranial Remote Deck. now the Rigger really
> CAN be everywhere at once! =)
>

*splooge* At last; A rigger/sammy is practical.

Mine Jestyr! I thought of it first, so i get first dibs!

<disengage childishness>

Marty
Message no. 27
From: Skye Comstock <bilbo@****.NWLINK.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 17:32:29 -0800
>> > Yeah, but the rigger is still *away* from the rest of the team! Most of
>> > the time, the decker will have to enter the building (if that's your
>>job),
>> > but the rigger's always outside. It's just not the same; fighting
>>back-to-
>> > back with someone -risking your life- is much more....connceting than
>> > thinking of someone as a set of drones.
>>
>> That changes with Rigger 2 and the Cranial Remote Deck. now the Rigger
>>really
>> CAN be everywhere at once! =)
>>
>
>*splooge* At last; A rigger/sammy is practical.

Can you say Mr. T? :] I can see it now... Big guy, mohawk, army
background... Orichalcum (SOTA!) jewelry... ;) And of course,
a big black van with a red racing stripe and spoiler, complete
with communications sweet and big ass engine.

-Skye
Message no. 28
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 15:46:19 -0500
At 16-Aug-97 wrote George Metz:


>That changes with Rigger 2 and the Cranial Remote Deck. now the Rigger really
>CAN be everywhere at once! =)

This was possible earlier.
Just put the remote deck in a cyberarm, its essence wise better and if its get
damaged its easier to repair, and it will be propably much cehper too.
The same goes for the cranial cyberdeck its just foolish IMHO to put the
deck inside your skull, for the same reasons.
--
Barbie


One lived hour is still living.
Message no. 29
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 14:13:55 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-17 10:05:05 EDT, barbie@**********.COM (Barbie)
writes:

> Just put the remote deck in a cyberarm, its essence wise better and if its
get
> damaged its easier to repair, and it will be propably much cehper too.
> The same goes for the cranial cyberdeck its just foolish IMHO to put the
> deck inside your skull, for the same reasons.

Hello everybody, and I do agree with barbie, having the stuff implanted into
a limb makes getting to them for repairs and upgrades for SOTA that much
easier. In addition any cyber that goes into a cyberlimb also has their
essence cost reduced by 50%, if I remember correctly.

Mike (AirWisp)
Message no. 30
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 02:12:00 GMT
on 16.08.97 W0lfstar@***.COM wrote:

W> What you're "doing wrong", which isn't really wrong, is using a tactical
W> advantage. There are two types of people you don't want hurtat extraction
W> time - the guy driving the getaway car, and the medic. Unless you've got a
W> real large team, if the rigger and the medic are one and the same, and
W> someone in the party - ie, the mage - has backup skills, you're all set.
W> Now your party should be GLAD the rigger ain't hurt. If he's healthy, it's
W> easier for him to apply first aid.

Yep, that's why he'll never get where the fun (for players) is. You still
have the problem, that the rigger is still an outsider. He's never in
there, risking everything to get his chummers out. He's the back-up guy
and your private intelligence service, but not really your chummer.
Deckers had the same prob, when it was still possible to do awesome matrix-
work from the outside.

Tobias
## CrossPoint v3.1 ##
Message no. 31
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 02:08:00 GMT
on 16.08.97 W0lfstar@***.COM wrote:

W> > Yeah, but the rigger is still *away* from the rest of the team! Most of
W> > the time, the decker will have to enter the building (if that's your
W> > job), but the rigger's always outside. It's just not the same; fighting
W> > back-to- back with someone -risking your life- is much
W> > more....connceting than thinking of someone as a set of drones.
W>
W> That changes with Rigger 2 and the Cranial Remote Deck. now the Rigger
W> really CAN be everywhere at once! =)

Yep, that takes out a lot of the rigger-problems.

W>
W> > [physads]
W> > W> That would be because the GM throws obscene stuff at the party
W> > W> WITHOUT
W> > W> providing a way for them to think their way out of it.
W> >
W> > You have to keep both happy: The sammy and the physad. That really
W> > tough, if the players of them aren't very, very good friends.
W>
W> It's not the GM's job to make the PC's happy, it's the GM's job to try and
W> wreck the PC's lives. And make sure the players have fun in the process.

Well, if you do nothing but wreck the PCs, you will pretty soon be alone
in your group. Hence you last scentence. If all you do is f**k up the
chars, your players won't have any fun
If you make it impossible for the physad to work, his player will spend
his time watching and not having fun. Thus he will piss of the rest of the
group (if you havn't already by making the physad useless) and all you've
got is a group of people bitching around (see 'NighLifes Den' for fun with
pissed of players). Oh, yeah: I didn't mean the PCs should be happy, but
the players.


W> > Of course: The level of magical fokussing is much higher in the mage
W> > than in the physad. Just like the fact that you lose magic points more
W> > easy, if you have more. The more magical you are, the more endangered
W> > you are. (Still needs some tuning, but a nice beginnig for a rule that
W> > will make all combat mages *angry*)
W>
W> I can almost see this as working, except that Physads channel all of their
W> magic back into their bodies.

Ahhh...we have something to attack here! The physad might channel his
magic through his body, but it's his mind that does the magic. Just
because a sword is dirty, doesn't mean you can't enchant it. Of course,
cyberware messes with your mind (there's a nice example of what cyber does
to you in 'Lone Wolf') and thus kills the magic.

W> If anything, they would need to be the more
W> physically balanced. Certain items - like adrenal pump - will cause essence
W> and magic loss. It depends on the amount of variation is made.

It does not cause essence loss (why should it?), but in our little system
it would certainly cause magic loss, as it has a strong effect on the
personality (s/he'll go berserk, if something get him/her excited!)


Tobias
## CrossPoint v3.1 ##
Message no. 32
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 23:57:08 -0500
At 17-Aug-97 wrote Mike Bobroff:


>Hello everybody, and I do agree with barbie, having the stuff implanted into
>a limb makes getting to them for repairs and upgrades for SOTA that much
>easier. In addition any cyber that goes into a cyberlimb also has their
>essence cost reduced by 50%, if I remember correctly.

50% is not entirely correct, its dependant of the cybersystem.
eg.
50% for smartguns/orientationsystem
25% for taccomp
100% for not formaly CW devices, a cyberdeck in a cyberllimb is down to
zero essence lost, if you put an DNI connection to the device
you can controll them just like any other cyberware.
See Cybertech for the details.

--
Barbie


One lived hour is still living.
Message no. 33
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 19:05:06 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-17 18:35:57 EDT, you write:

> W> It's not the GM's job to make the PC's happy, it's the GM's job to try
and
> W> wreck the PC's lives. And make sure the players have fun in the
process.
>
> Well, if you do nothing but wreck the PCs, you will pretty soon be alone
> in your group. Hence you last scentence. If all you do is f**k up the
> chars, your players won't have any fun
> If you make it impossible for the physad to work, his player will spend
> his time watching and not having fun. Thus he will piss of the rest of the
> group (if you havn't already by making the physad useless) and all you've
> got is a group of people bitching around (see 'NighLifes Den' for fun with
> pissed of players). Oh, yeah: I didn't mean the PCs should be happy, but
> the players.

From experience, I can tell you that the players in general have more fun if
you roleplay all the NPCs you can, instead of playing cannon-fodder with
them. It adds a lot of atmosphere. That's what I mean about wrecking the PCs
lives. Does that guard the sammy just shot have a brother who might want
revenge? Things like that. Make your NPCs what they really are, characters
not controlled by the players, and you have more fun than if the team runs
into lots of random-numbers-with-guns. And a physad isn't really designed to
be a magical street sam. They have enough options available to tailor their
role.

> W> I can almost see this as working, except that Physads channel all of
their
> W> magic back into their bodies.
>
> Ahhh...we have something to attack here! The physad might channel his
> magic through his body, but it's his mind that does the magic. Just
> because a sword is dirty, doesn't mean you can't enchant it. Of course,
> cyberware messes with your mind (there's a nice example of what cyber does
> to you in 'Lone Wolf') and thus kills the magic.

True, but how exactly do you use magic that enhances muscle tissue to boost
the effectiveness of Goretex - a la Muscle Augmentation. Reflex boosting
abilities could work with synaptic accelerator, I see ZERO reason Enhanced
Articulation would affect anyone, as it sounds like a viable treatment for
arthritis, etc. But things like a (as much as I hate to say it) Cerebral
Booster or mnemonic enhancer, anything that tinkers directly with the mind,
should cause magic loss.

> W> If anything, they would need to be the more
> W> physically balanced. Certain items - like adrenal pump - will cause
essence
> W> and magic loss. It depends on the amount of variation is made.
>
> It does not cause essence loss (why should it?), but in our little system
> it would certainly cause magic loss, as it has a strong effect on the
> personality (s/he'll go berserk, if something get him/her excited!)

Check Shadowtech, Page 5, 2nd column, last paragraph, where it states that
magicians and adepts pay Essence as well as body cost. It also says that
physads factor in magical boosts to their Body for maximum Bioware
determination.

Wolfstar
Message no. 34
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 08:14:32 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-18 05:17:55 EDT, you write:

> 50% is not entirely correct, its dependant of the cybersystem.
> eg.
> 50% for smartguns/orientationsystem
> 25% for taccomp
> 100% for not formaly CW devices, a cyberdeck in a cyberllimb is down to
> zero essence lost, if you put an DNI connection to the device
> you can controll them just like any other cyberware.
> See Cybertech for the details.

Thank you Barbie.

Mike
Message no. 35
From: "M. Sean Martinez" <ElBandit@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 12:31:59 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-18 03:51:24 EDT, you write:

<< Hello everybody, and I do agree with barbie, having the stuff implanted
into
a limb makes getting to them for repairs and upgrades for SOTA that much
easier. In addition any cyber that goes into a cyberlimb also has their
essence cost reduced by 50%, if I remember correctly.
>>

Actually, I have never seen such a rule. And FASA isn't consistant on the
cyberlimb cyberware thing. (You can implant spurs for free, but a smartlink
costs .25 essense...)

I would actually think it would cause more trouble than its worth to implant
gear into a cyberlimb. An GM could view the SOTA of said item as both the
orginal device and cybernetic, essentially dealing double jeopardy.

Though if you want to get technical only the cybernetic interface should be
affected by SOTA.

-Bandit
Message no. 36
From: Michael Broadwater <mbroadwa@*******.GLENAYRE.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 11:47:26 -0500
At 12:31 PM 8/18/97 -0400, M. Sean Martinez wrote:

>Actually, I have never seen such a rule. And FASA isn't consistant on the
>cyberlimb cyberware thing. (You can implant spurs for free, but a smartlink
>costs .25 essense...)

Actually, this makes sense. Spurs are free because it's just an extra
piece of cyber within an existing piece of cyber. A smartgun link, otoh,
still has to connect to your brain and eye. A spur uses existing muscle
movements to work, so it doesn't need it's own wire to your brain. It uses
the cyber arms. The link does. Since you're cutting out half the cyber
you really need to put in your meat body, the cost goes down by 1/2



Rasputin-the-no-fancy-middle-name-in-dashes-right-now-magekin
http://www.bcl.net/~rasputin
http://www.blackhand.org/

The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be
when you kill them. -- William Clayton
Message no. 37
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 15:11:48 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-18 13:50:17 EDT, you write:

> I would actually think it would cause more trouble than its worth to
implant
> gear into a cyberlimb. An GM could view the SOTA of said item as both the
> orginal device and cybernetic, essentially dealing double jeopardy.

If the limb were designed for ease of access when it comes to replacing or
enhancing one of the items within it, then it would be worth the trouble.
And as for double jeopardy, that comes with the territory of being a runner.

> Though if you want to get technical only the cybernetic interface should
be
> affected by SOTA.

SOTA affects everything, it is just the question of how long the trickle down
effect takes to affect everything within your system.

Mike
Message no. 38
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 15:29:22 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-18 12:32:50 EDT, you write:

> Actually, I have never seen such a rule. And FASA isn't consistant on the
> cyberlimb cyberware thing. (You can implant spurs for free, but a
smartlink
> costs .25 essense...)

Cybertechnology, pg. 49, has the basic rules, and they are quite consistent.
Spurs are extended via a learned muscle contraction - you twitch yer arm
muscles and out they pop. Smartgun links, OTOH, have at least minimal neural
connections. The less essence saved, the more neural connections IN the brain
are required.

Wolfstar
Message no. 39
From: "M. Sean Martinez" <ElBandit@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 16:04:36 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-18 15:30:26 EDT, you write:

<< Cybertechnology, pg. 49, has the basic rules, and they are quite
consistent.
Spurs are extended via a learned muscle contraction - you twitch yer arm
muscles and out they pop. Smartgun links, OTOH, have at least minimal neural
connections. The less essence saved, the more neural connections IN the
brain
are required. >>

I am fully aware of this. I may have not stated fully what I was refering to.
I was responding to this:

>Hello everybody, and I do agree with barbie, having the stuff implanted into
>a limb makes getting to them for repairs and upgrades for SOTA that much
>easier. In addition any cyber that goes into a cyberlimb also has their
>essence cost reduced by 50%, if I remember correctly."

The only cyber items that are reduced 50% are the Smartlinks and Orientation
System. Tac Computers are only reduced by 25%. The statement ANY cyberware,
bothered me, since ANY would refer to anything put into a cyberarm. (ie Tac
computers would also be reduced to 50%)

Sorry for the confusion. :)

-Bandit
Message no. 40
From: Josh Higham <jhigham@******.STUDENT.CWRU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 16:07:11 -0400
On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, M. Sean Martinez wrote:

> In a message dated 97-08-18 03:51:24 EDT, you write:
>
> << Hello everybody, and I do agree with barbie, having the stuff implanted
> into
> a limb makes getting to them for repairs and upgrades for SOTA that much
> easier. In addition any cyber that goes into a cyberlimb also has their
> essence cost reduced by 50%, if I remember correctly.
> >>
>
> Actually, I have never seen such a rule. And FASA isn't consistant on the
> cyberlimb cyberware thing. (You can implant spurs for free, but a smartlink
> costs .25 essense...)

I don't know about that...all that needs to be added to the body for the
spur implant is a connection that allows extension of the spurs. To add
the smartlink requires a bit more work on the actual body (I believe that
it does things like adding a target/focus to your vision or similar).
Basically the essence rating is based how much you have to modify the
body, not how much or what you add to the arm.

That's what I think, but I'm not certain, and not that familiar with the
system, so make of it what you will.

*-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-*
Josh Higham jxh25@**.cwru.edu
11904 Carlton Rd. 410A http://129.22.241.146/~jhigham/
Cleveland OH 44106 Anon ftp available at the same site
Message no. 41
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 17:08:09 -0400
M. Sean Martinez once dared to write,

>Actually, I have never seen such a rule. And FASA isn't consistant on the
>cyberlimb cyberware thing. (You can implant spurs for free, but a smartlink
>costs .25 essense...)

That's because a smartlink isn't self contained in the cyberlimb.
The free essence costs from cyberlimbs (and ears and eyes) comes from the
fact no further body cavity space is necessary for the additions.
Anything that requires more space than that will cost that difference in
extra essence.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 42
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 22:24:43 EDT
On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 12:31:59 -0400 "M. Sean Martinez" <ElBandit@***.COM>
writes:

>Actually, I have never seen such a rule. And FASA isn't consistant on
>the
>cyberlimb cyberware thing. (You can implant spurs for free, but a
>smartlink
>costs .25 essense...)


Actually, that's rather consistent when you consider that the smartlink
requires a hook-up with the eyes and (possibly) the brain, while the
spurs would require nothing more than anchoring to the appropriate bone
and some linkage to muscles to trigger it.


--
-Canthros
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
Message no. 43
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 04:19:11 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-18 19:54:54 EDT, you write:

> The only cyber items that are reduced 50% are the Smartlinks and
Orientation
> System. Tac Computers are only reduced by 25%. The statement ANY
> cyberware, bothered me, since ANY would refer to anything
put into a cyberarm. > (ie Tac computers would also be reduced to 50%)
>
> Sorry for the confusion. :)

No problemo. Just wanted to make sure that you DID know where the actual
rules are. Figured you did, but better safe than sorry. I also have a bad
tendency to go into Lecture Mode(tm). =)

Wolfstar
Message no. 44
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 04:50:47 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-18 22:27:20 EDT, you write:

> Actually, that's rather consistent when you consider that the smartlink
> requires a hook-up with the eyes and (possibly) the brain, while the
> spurs would require nothing more than anchoring to the appropriate bone
> and some linkage to muscles to trigger it.

That brings up an interesting idea. What percentage of the essence for a
smartlink would be the optic hookup? Honestly, I can't see where it would
require a direct neural hookup, just the ability to throw a targeting dot in
your field of vision. So, why shouldn't the main hookup part of the essence
cost be capable of being included in cybereyes as part of the "free" essence?
Thoughts anyone?

Wolfstar
Message no. 45
From: "MARTIN E. GOTTHARD" <s457033@*******.GU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 19:32:10 +1000
> > I would actually think it would cause more trouble than its worth to
> implant
> > gear into a cyberlimb. An GM could view the SOTA of said item as both the
> > orginal device and cybernetic, essentially dealing double jeopardy.
>
> If the limb were designed for ease of access when it comes to replacing or
> enhancing one of the items within it, then it would be worth the trouble.
> And as for double jeopardy, that comes with the territory of being a runner.
>

One problem; Shock damage. You tend to hit people with cyberlimbs on a
fairly regular basis... You don't (if you're normal) hit people with
your head all that often.

Sure you can shock-proof a computer, but it's going to make it more
expensive and harder to replace.

Marty
Message no. 46
From: "M. Sean Martinez" <ElBandit@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 10:29:18 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-19 04:20:25 EDT, you write:

<< No problemo. Just wanted to make sure that you DID know where the actual
rules are. Figured you did, but better safe than sorry. I also have a bad
tendency to go into Lecture Mode(tm). =)
>>

No sweat. I too go into lecture mode too often, but it is mostly limited to
AOL forums and the games workshop newsgroups.

-Bandit
Message no. 47
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 17:12:04 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-19 16:03:15 EDT, you write:

> No sweat. I too go into lecture mode too often, but it is mostly limited to
> AOL forums and the games workshop newsgroups.

Gee, really? I wonder why? Couldn't be the overwhelming numbers of
<AOL>K-RaD ErEeT hAx0rS aNd MuNcHKiNs!</AOL> now, could it? =)

Wolfstar
Message no. 48
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 22:03:04 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-17 08:51:17 EDT, s457033@*******.GU.EDU.AU (MARTIN
E. GOTTHARD) writes:

> > That changes with Rigger 2 and the Cranial Remote Deck. now the Rigger
> really
> > CAN be everywhere at once! =)
> >
>
> *splooge* At last; A rigger/sammy is practical.
>
> Mine Jestyr! I thought of it first, so i get first dibs!
>
Sorry to spoil the fun guys, but we had those rules years ago. And they
-aren't- that much difference, except for the "powegamer/munchkin kingdom"
effects removed somewhat...
-K (smiling quietly for once)
Message no. 49
From: "NATHAN M. CHATFIELD" <s1183038@*******.GU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 17:07:56 +1000
> The rigger always ends up as the
> outsider. In our group at least (maybe we're doing something wrong)...
>

Perhaps you should get the unsuspecting rigger picked on by some
*Parking Inspectors* or the vechile attacked while the rest of the
runners are inside the "compound" risking life and limb.


---Phantom---
Message no. 50
From: Dust <rogan@*******.BERGEN.ORG>
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 08:53:54 -0400
I've got a friend who is eagerly awaiting the arrival of the Rigger Black
Book 2.0. Anyone have any idea when it's coming out and what kinds of
revisions they are going to make?

Lates,

Dust
Message no. 51
From: Stefan <casanova@******.PASSAGEN.SE>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 01:50:40 +0000
> I've got a friend who is eagerly awaiting the arrival of the Rigger Black
> Book 2.0. Anyone have any idea when it's coming out and what kinds of
> revisions they are going to make?

Check Fasa Homepage .... apparently from what I have heard .. Loads
of changes and new stuff .. and released ... sometime in the quite
near future (but then what's a deadline ....) ..

/Stefan

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Frag you and the datastream you came on!" - Sinjin the decker
------------------------------------------------------------------------
... E-Mail .............................. casanova@***.passagen.se ...
... HomePage .............................. http://hsl.home.ml.org ...
... ICQ .................................................. 1403212 ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 52
From: Adam J <fro@***.AB.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 17:55:22 -0600
At 08:53 9/4/97 -0400, you wrote:
>I've got a friend who is eagerly awaiting the arrival of the Rigger Black
>Book 2.0. Anyone have any idea when it's coming out and what kinds of
>revisions they are going to make?

Should be printed and shipping by the 26th, according to Mike at FASA.

And it should be a fairly major overhaul of the entire vehicle system, from
what he said. Said it's the most over the top thing he's done at FASA, and
that he 'Bled for this book'. <g>

-Adam

-
http://shadowrun.home.ml.org \ TSS Productions \ The Shadowrun Supplemental
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader \ WildAngle@******** \ fro@***.ab.ca
From The Jury's Bench: http://www.interware.it/shadowrun/channel
Message no. 53
From: Edward Poe <hedley@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 20:58:42 -0500
------ =_NextPart_000_01BCC2E4.868F46C0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> I've got a friend who is eagerly awaiting the arrival of the Rigger =
Black
> Book 2.0. Anyone have any idea when it's coming out and what kinds of
> revisions they are going to make?

Take a look here: =
http://www.fasa.com/Shadowrun/SR97Product.html#anchor276134
Personally, I can't wait to see what they do with robotics. I've =
already put my money down at the local hobby store. The proprietor says =
to expect it by the end of September. Same guy sold me everything SR =
that's come out in the last two years, so I don't think he'd steer me =
wrong.

Hedley
------ =_NextPart_000_01BCC2E4.868F46C0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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------ =_NextPart_000_01BCC2E4.868F46C0--
Message no. 54
From: Jaymz <justin@******.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:29:24 -0500
At 08:58 PM 9/16/97 -0500, Edward Poe wrote:
#> I've got a friend who is eagerly awaiting the arrival of the Rigger Black
#> Book 2.0. Anyone have any idea when it's coming out and what kinds of
#> revisions they are going to make?
#
#Take a look here:
http://www.fasa.com/Shadowrun/SR97Product.html#anchor276134
#Personally, I can't wait to see what they do with robotics. I've already
put my money down at the local hobby store. The proprietor says to expect
it by the end of September. Same guy sold me everything SR that's come out
in the last two years, so I don't think he'd steer me wrong.
#
#Hedley
#Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Re Rigger 2"


You didn't really want to include an attachment, did you?!?!?!?!?!



#
--
/--justin@****.mcp.com----------------------justin@******.net--\
|Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. |
|Simon & Schuster | Attention span is quickening. |
|Programmer | Welcome to the Information Age. |
\------------ http://www.mcp.com/people/justin/ ---------------/
Message no. 55
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 11:03:45 -0500
At 16-Sep-97 wrote Edward Poe:

Hedley, don`t use attachments !!!!!!!!1

--
Barbie


One lived hour is still living.
Message no. 56
From: George H Metz <wolfstar@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 05:34:57 EDT
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 20:58:42 -0500 Edward Poe <hedley@********.COM>
writes:
>
>------ =_NextPart_000_01BCC2E4.868F46C0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>------ =_NextPart_000_01BCC2E4.868F46C0
>Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

ACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What the HELL was all that GARBAGE?!?!?!? My
friend, you need to fix that before Adam deletes you - assuming he hasn't
done so already.

--
Wolfstar - wolfstar@****.com - Home Page -
http://members.aol.com/w0lfstar

"If you took the IQ's of everyone here and converted it to a temperature,
you could
lightly toast a marshmallow." - CHS Class of '93 Yearbook quote.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1
G! d- s+:+ a-- C++(++++)>$ U+ P? L>++ E? W++(--) N- o? K- w(--(---)) O>+
M
!V PS+ PE+ Y+ PGP(+) t+ 5+++ X R++ tv+ b+(+++) DI++ D--- G e h!-- r*
y+/-(--)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 57
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 12:40:24 +0100
|------ =_NextPart_000_01BCC2E4.868F46C0
|Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
|Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Oh well...

Just 2 days after the official warning, some MORON decides to do it!

It was nice knowing you... Goodbye...

<sic 'im Fro!>
|Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
|Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
|
|eJ8+IhYCAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy

WTF *IS* an ms-tnef anyway?
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 58
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 13:04:59 +0100
|At 16-Sep-97 wrote Edward Poe:
|
|Hedley, don`t use attachments !!!!!!!!1

I'm beginning to think that Barbie is after my job...

I hereby promote you to assistant list-member grumpy...

:)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 59
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:17:59 -0500
At 17-Sep-97 wrote Spike:



>I'm beginning to think that Barbie is after my job...

>I hereby promote you to assistant list-member grumpy...

>:)

Ahmm........Thanks Spike.
Must I change my sig now?:):):):)

--
Barbie


One lived hour is still living.
Message no. 60
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 18:33:01 +0100
|Ahmm........Thanks Spike.
|Must I change my sig now?:):):):)

Don't see any reason why...
(I never changed mine...)

--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 61
From: Adam J <fro@***.AB.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:49:53 -0600
At 05:34 9/17/97 EDT, you wrote:
>>Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
>
> ACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What the HELL was all that GARBAGE?!?!?!? My
>friend, you need to fix that before Adam deletes you - assuming he hasn't
>done so already.

Got 'em :)
(Actually, got him last night..)

-Adam

-
http://shadowrun.home.ml.org \ TSS Productions \ The Shadowrun Supplemental
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader \ WildAngle@******** \ fro@***.ab.ca
From The Jury's Bench: http://www.interware.it/shadowrun/channel
Message no. 62
From: Tim Cooper <z-i-m@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 02:04:56 EDT
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:53:13 -0700 Alacrity Fitzhugh <harmonix@**.NET>
writes:
> Why axe someone for something that was obviously a mistake? Why
get all
>hot under the collar for something a lot less annoying than all the damn
OT
>posts? Why not axe those people?

Because OT posts don't cause list members to GET "axed" - literally.
Certain people, as we should all know by now ('cause it gets mentioned
each time it happens), can get FIRED from thier jobs for recieving
attachments... not to mention the pure annoyance that having to root out
and delete the useless presence of a blindly-downloaded attachment is.

Just like HTML... it's not neccessary, not many people like it, and not
everyone can recieve them, so leave them off of the list.

~Tim
Message no. 63
From: George H Metz <wolfstar@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 00:33:09 EDT
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:53:13 -0700 Alacrity Fitzhugh <harmonix@**.NET>
writes:
>
> Why axe someone for something that was obviously a mistake? Why
get all
>hot under the collar for something a lot less annoying than all the damn
OT
>posts? Why not axe those people?

Ummm, because off-topic posts can't get people fired, file attachments
can. Off-topic posts are usually readable, instead of filled with garbage
from File attachments and HTML. And, Adam gave plenty of warning.

--
Wolfstar - wolfstar@****.com - Home Page -
http://members.aol.com/w0lfstar

"If you took the IQ's of everyone here and converted it to a temperature,
you could lightly toast a marshmallow." - CHS Class of '93 Yearbook
quote.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1
GAT/! d- s+:+ a-- C++(++++)>$ U+ P? L>++ E? W++(--) N- o? K- w(--) O>+ M
!V PS+ PE+ Y+ PGP t+ 5+++ X R++ tv+ b+(+++) DI++ D--- G e h!-- r*
y+/-(--)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 64
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 03:19:00 GMT
On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 00:33:09 EDT, George H Metz wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:53:13 -0700 Alacrity Fitzhugh <harmonix@**.NET>
> writes:
> >
> > Why axe someone for something that was obviously a mistake? Why
> >get all hot under the collar for something a lot less annoying than all
> >the damn OT posts? Why not axe those people?
>
> Ummm, because off-topic posts can't get people fired, file attachments
> can. Off-topic posts are usually readable, instead of filled with garbage
> from File attachments and HTML. And, Adam gave plenty of warning.

If attachments are truly that "evil", mailing lists *can* be set to
ignore them and filter them out. Since this is not the case with this
list, a stern warning is all that is really necessary.



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";

Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...
Message no. 65
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 18:42:21 -0400
At 03:19 AM 9/23/97 GMT, James Lindsay wrote these timeless words:
>> >
>> > Why axe someone for something that was obviously a mistake? Why
>> >get all hot under the collar for something a lot less annoying than all
>> >the damn OT posts? Why not axe those people?
>>
>> Ummm, because off-topic posts can't get people fired, file attachments
>> can. Off-topic posts are usually readable, instead of filled with garbage
>> from File attachments and HTML. And, Adam gave plenty of warning.
>
>If attachments are truly that "evil", mailing lists *can* be set to
>ignore them and filter them out. Since this is not the case with this
>list, a stern warning is all that is really necessary.
>
Can we let this drop guys? This was all worked out and decided quite some
time ago, and you've managed to drag this out longer than most OT ever even
thought of dragging...

((Well, except for the Wood Chucky Things:)))

Bull
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
in production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

"Whoever invented solataire is one sadistic son of a bitch"
-- Me, after spending 2 hours trying to win a game
Message no. 66
From: Dust <rogan@*******.BERGEN.ORG>
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:20:17 -0400
I saw a whole bunch of posts on Rigger 2,

But no one said anything on it! So how is it? Is it an
"essential?" Did it really do for decking what VR 2.0 did?

Thanks,

Dust
Message no. 67
From: Peter David Boddy <pdboddy@****.CARLETON.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:16:52 EDT
Dust writes:
>
> I saw a whole bunch of posts on Rigger 2,
>
> But no one said anything on it! So how is it? Is it an
> "essential?" Did it really do for decking what VR 2.0 did?

Hey, I gave it a quick review. Yes, it does do for rigging, what VR 2.0
did for decking. THere is tons of cool new equipment (like a cranial
remote deck), you can literally build a vehicle from the chasis up, it has
all the vehicles from all the sourcebooks (redone to the new Rigger 2
standards) and other neat stuff for riggers. Two thumbs up, says I.

Pete

Pete aka Spitfire
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Geek Quote of the Week: Math and Alcohol don't mix,
don't drink and derive.
Peter David Boddy
Carleton University
Email address: pdboddy@****.carleton.ca
Email address: pdboddy@******.carleton.ca
Email address: bx955@*******.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 68
From: Mike Loseke <mike@******.VERINET.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:31:51 -0600
Quoth Peter David Boddy:
>
> Dust writes:
> >
> > I saw a whole bunch of posts on Rigger 2,
> >
> > But no one said anything on it! So how is it? Is it an
> > "essential?" Did it really do for decking what VR 2.0 did?
>
> Hey, I gave it a quick review. Yes, it does do for rigging, what VR 2.0
> did for decking. THere is tons of cool new equipment (like a cranial
> remote deck), you can literally build a vehicle from the chasis up, it has
> all the vehicles from all the sourcebooks (redone to the new Rigger 2
> standards) and other neat stuff for riggers. Two thumbs up, says I.

Hopefully it has some *new* vehicles as well?

--
Mike Loseke | Eagles may soar, but weasels
mike@*******.com | aren't sucked into jet engines.
Message no. 69
From: Peter David Boddy <pdboddy@****.CARLETON.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:29:37 EDT
Mike Loseke writes:
> > Hey, I gave it a quick review. Yes, it does do for rigging, what VR 2.0
> > did for decking. THere is tons of cool new equipment (like a cranial
> > remote deck), you can literally build a vehicle from the chasis up, it has
> > all the vehicles from all the sourcebooks (redone to the new Rigger 2
> > standards) and other neat stuff for riggers. Two thumbs up, says I.
>
> Hopefully it has some *new* vehicles as well?

It has new drones, from what I have read through so far...

Pete

Pete aka Spitfire
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Geek Quote of the Week: Math and Alcohol don't mix,
don't drink and derive.
Peter David Boddy
Carleton University
Email address: pdboddy@****.carleton.ca
Email address: pdboddy@******.carleton.ca
Email address: bx955@*******.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 70
From: Frank Pelletier <jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 19:41:19 +0000
Mike Loseke once wrote, about Rigger 2

> Hopefully it has some *new* vehicles as well?

Bzzt. Sorry, try again. That's the thing that was a big letdown in
R2. The lack of new vehicules. Basically, the only vehicules you
get, besides more and more drones, are a rehash of every vehicule
ever published in FASA products. That's it. No new cars. No new
LAVs, nothing. I think I would've traded a couple of "Footprint/Fuel
Quality/Stress Points/Optempo" rules that nobody will use anyways,
for at least somekind of Ares Catalog or something.

And, sorry to all, but I was looking for more background info.
Sometimes, I miss shadowtalk, 'cause it was informative, and
entertaining. R2, IMHO, is nothing more than a huge compilations of
rules. That's it. The only thing that's worthwhile was the vehicule
creation rules. People who hated SR Companion should probably burn
R2 to hell.... ;)

The one redeeming feature: The vehicule design system... Very good,
very well thought out... The worst things: Advanced rules (useless
with a capital U) and the Security Rigger.... I would've hoped
taking over a Secured compound would be tougher than a few lousy
Willpower rolls...

I could rant along for aeons, but it would all be IMHO. My piece of
advice: Buy it anyways. For one, you'll support the SR line of
products. And you may find something that you will like. Heck, you
might like it alot.

My two nuyens,

Trinity
"Life is a blur"
Message no. 71
From: Mike Loseke <mike@******.VERINET.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:48:25 -0600
Quoth Frank Pelletier:
>
> Mike Loseke once wrote, about Rigger 2
>
> > Hopefully it has some *new* vehicles as well?
>
> Bzzt. Sorry, try again. That's the thing that was a big letdown in
> R2. The lack of new vehicules. Basically, the only vehicules you
> get, besides more and more drones, are a rehash of every vehicule
> ever published in FASA products. That's it. No new cars. No new
> LAVs, nothing. I think I would've traded a couple of "Footprint/Fuel
> Quality/Stress Points/Optempo" rules that nobody will use anyways,
> for at least somekind of Ares Catalog or something.

Ok, no new vehicles. I can live with that as long as I can make up my
own. Are new pictures of the old vehicles too much to hope for then?

--
Mike Loseke | Eagles may soar, but weasels
mike@*******.com | aren't sucked into jet engines.
Message no. 72
From: Peter David Boddy <pdboddy@****.CARLETON.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 21:05:48 EDT
Mike Loseke writes:
> Ok, no new vehicles. I can live with that as long as I can make up my
> own. Are new pictures of the old vehicles too much to hope for then?

There are new pictures of older vehicles, including one that I think is
the Eurocar. I really hope it isn't, cause it looks terrible. I hope
that it is the Saab, I don't care much for the Saab...

Pete

Pete aka Spitfire
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Geek Quote of the Week: Math and Alcohol don't mix,
don't drink and derive.
Peter David Boddy
Carleton University
Email address: pdboddy@****.carleton.ca
Email address: pdboddy@******.carleton.ca
Email address: bx955@*******.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 73
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:25:43 -0400
Frank Pelletier once dared to write,

>And, sorry to all, but I was looking for more background info.
>Sometimes, I miss shadowtalk, 'cause it was informative, and
>entertaining. R2, IMHO, is nothing more than a huge compilations of
>rules. That's it. The only thing that's worthwhile was the vehicule
>creation rules. People who hated SR Companion should probably burn
>R2 to hell.... ;)

Speaking as one of those who hates the companion, are the rules
written that poorly? I Haven't got my copy yet.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 74
From: NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 01:07:45 -0400
At 02:20 PM 10/14/97 -0400, you wrote:
>I saw a whole bunch of posts on Rigger 2,
>
> But no one said anything on it! So how is it? Is it an
>"essential?" Did it really do for decking what VR 2.0 did?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Dust
>

No it however does make Rigging more complex than I ever thought possible.
I'm going need to reread it to digest it all.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I summon the unholy demons of Apathy, Sarcasm and Cynicism!!

Wally from the Dilbert comics

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 75
From: NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 01:11:27 -0400
> Hopefully it has some *new* vehicles as well?
>
>--
> Mike Loseke

It does check out the Renraku Arachnid Mini-Drone. Pretty spiffy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I summon the unholy demons of Apathy, Sarcasm and Cynicism!!

Wally from the Dilbert comics

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 76
From: David Mezerette <mezeretted@*****.U-NANCY.FR>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 09:32:09 +0100
but does it introduce new rules for vehicles combat as good as those VR2
intoduced for decking?

ChYlD
mezeretted@*****.u-nancy.fr
Message no. 77
From: Peter David Boddy <pdboddy@****.CARLETON.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 07:32:28 EDT
David Mezerette writes:
>
> but does it introduce new rules for vehicles combat as good as those VR2
> intoduced for decking?

I'll tell you one tidbit. Rigging is now as dangerous as decking, to a
person's brain. If the rigger's vehicle takes serious or deadly damage,
the rigger has to resist damage, or pass out, or even slip into a coma.
One of the story bits at the front has a rigger describing a run, from a
rigger's point of view. He describes going over a large pothole as "the
worse twisted ankle, multiplied a few times over". His vehicle is shot in
the back door, and he thinks he's just been shot in the back of the head.
Cool I think...

Pete

Pete aka Spitfire
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Geek Quote of the Week: Math and Alcohol don't mix,
don't drink and derive.
Peter David Boddy
Carleton University
Email address: pdboddy@****.carleton.ca
Email address: pdboddy@******.carleton.ca
Email address: bx955@*******.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 78
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 14:45:41 GMT
Well its now arrived in the UK :)

The intro looks good, but the questions have started.

Initiate shielding and Vehicles in 2nd edition, this was covered
under magic and vehicles in RRB1 but only in terms of 1st ed
'shields' does it affect TN's in 2nd ed or not given the change to
combat spells a vehicles. Ram is no longer useless! powerbolting
banshees is no longer the easiest method under the sun of killing
them FASA changed things.

And i found THE target, aim at the left hand side of page 63 :), only
i suggest given firepower in the picture you beware buildings labeled
'FASA' :)

Mark
Message no. 79
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 11:22:16 -0400
On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, Peter David Boddy wrote:

> David Mezerette writes:
> >
> > but does it introduce new rules for vehicles combat as good as those VR2
> > intoduced for decking?
>
> I'll tell you one tidbit. Rigging is now as dangerous as decking, to a
> person's brain. If the rigger's vehicle takes serious or deadly damage,
> the rigger has to resist damage, or pass out, or even slip into a coma.
> One of the story bits at the front has a rigger describing a run, from a
> rigger's point of view. He describes going over a large pothole as "the
> worse twisted ankle, multiplied a few times over". His vehicle is shot in
> the back door, and he thinks he's just been shot in the back of the head.
> Cool I think...
Personally, I don't think it makes much sense for a rigger to risk taking
damage when his vehicle does. First, vehicles are largely inanimate
objects, and, unless there are all sorts of sensors set up, a rigger would
not know if his vehicle had been shot. Rigging gives better control over
the vehicle, it does not give a complete meld between the rigger's mind
and the body of the vehicle. It would simply be impractical for there to
be the necessary sensory and feedback located throughout the vehicle to
give the rigger a sensation of damage. Secondly, it would stupid for a
rigger to even desire to have such technology in his vehicle.
Rigging is relatively simple compared to the deep mind interaction of
decking, and I do not consider the two technologies to be anywhere close.
As far as I'm concerned, this new rule is a poor attempt to create a
mythical sense of 'balance' at the expense of some serious reality.
Message no. 80
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 11:50:51 -0400
Jeremiah Stevens[SMTP:jeremiah@********.EDU] wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, Peter David Boddy wrote:
> > I'll tell you one tidbit. Rigging is now as dangerous as decking, to a
> > person's brain. If the rigger's vehicle takes serious or deadly damage,
> > the rigger has to resist damage, or pass out, or even slip into a coma.
>
> Personally, I don't think it makes much sense for a rigger to risk taking
> damage when his vehicle does. First, vehicles are largely inanimate
> objects, and, unless there are all sorts of sensors set up, a rigger would
> not know if his vehicle had been shot. Rigging gives better control over

Which is why riggers set up all sorts of sensors - to be able to better
control
their vehicle. If they don't know what condition their vehicle is in,
the don't
know how far they can push it.

> the vehicle, it does not give a complete meld between the rigger's mind
> and the body of the vehicle. It would simply be impractical for there to
> be the necessary sensory and feedback located throughout the vehicle to
> give the rigger a sensation of damage. Secondly, it would stupid for a
> rigger to even desire to have such technology in his vehicle.
> Rigging is relatively simple compared to the deep mind interaction of
> decking, and I do not consider the two technologies to be anywhere close.

I totally disagree here. When rigging, the physical status of your
vehicle is
of primary importance to the vehicle's performance (and its limits).
The
quickest (and most intuitive) way of getting this information to the
rigger is
through a simulated body feedback.

On the other hand, decking I see as a purely cerebral experience (as R2
says,
decking involves higher-brain functions, while rigging relies more on
lower-brain
reactions). When decking, it's more a question of outwitting your
opponent than
pushing your body to its limits. The feedback effect is a hack -
overwhelming
your brain with confusing data; it's a problem with decking, not a
feature.

> As far as I'm concerned, this new rule is a poor attempt to create a
> mythical sense of 'balance' at the expense of some serious reality.

I've always had the impression from the books that a rigger "feels" the
vehicle
(or building) as bits of himself. Wouldn't it make sense then to have a
rigger
feel pain if part of him were suddenly destroyed? Not small scale stuff
of course,
but the rigger only needs to make a test if the vehicle suffers at least
Serious
damage.

Seems both balanced *and* realistic to me.

James Ojaste (who has been waiting for Rigger 2 for 2 years, now...)
Message no. 81
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 12:58:15 -0400
> Jeremiah Stevens[SMTP:jeremiah@********.EDU] wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, Peter David Boddy wrote:
> > > I'll tell you one tidbit. Rigging is now as dangerous as decking, to a
> > > person's brain. If the rigger's vehicle takes serious or deadly damage,
> > > the rigger has to resist damage, or pass out, or even slip into a coma.
> >
> > Personally, I don't think it makes much sense for a rigger to risk taking
> > damage when his vehicle does. First, vehicles are largely inanimate
> > objects, and, unless there are all sorts of sensors set up, a rigger would
> > not know if his vehicle had been shot. Rigging gives better control over
>
> Which is why riggers set up all sorts of sensors - to be able to better
> control
> their vehicle. If they don't know what condition their vehicle is in,
> the don't
> know how far they can push it.

I could see sensors in every major system in the vehicle- engine,
transmission, steering and so forth, with those set up in such a way as to
provide information directly to the riggers mind. This way, the rigger
knows what is going on with his vehicle.

> > the vehicle, it does not give a complete meld between the rigger's mind
> > and the body of the vehicle. It would simply be impractical for there to
> > be the necessary sensory and feedback located throughout the vehicle to
> > give the rigger a sensation of damage. Secondly, it would stupid for a
> > rigger to even desire to have such technology in his vehicle.
> > Rigging is relatively simple compared to the deep mind interaction of
> > decking, and I do not consider the two technologies to be anywhere close.
>
> I totally disagree here. When rigging, the physical status of your
> vehicle is
> of primary importance to the vehicle's performance (and its limits).
> The
> quickest (and most intuitive) way of getting this information to the
> rigger is
> through a simulated body feedback.

This would make sense, however, body-feedback does not equal damage. If I
know my vehicle has been shot, that does not mean I take damage from it.
Designing a VCR that would stimulate pain centers in the brain too such an
extent as to produce damage would seem counter-productive. Essentially,
what would be done is a cost-benefit analysis looking at how one can get
the maximum amount of information and control over the vehicle with the
minimal risk.
Consider this-a vehicle, driven by a rigger, gets into an accident. The
car is totaled (deadly damage). Normally, the rigger would be pretty safe
with all sorts of safety devices available in 205x. However, as he was
rigged in, he takes deadly damage, slips into a coma and dies.
There is no *need* for the rigger to take damage when his vehicle takes
damage. No one would intentionally design a system that would simulate a
broken leg when a car breaks an axel or mimics gunshot wounds for the sole
purpose of providing more information.
Message no. 82
From: David Mezerette <mezeretted@*****.U-NANCY.FR>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:57:57 +0100
At 11:22 15/10/97 -0400, you wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, Peter David Boddy wrote:
>
>> David Mezerette writes:
>> >
>> > but does it introduce new rules for vehicles combat as good as those VR2
>> > intoduced for decking?
>>
>> I'll tell you one tidbit. Rigging is now as dangerous as decking, to a
>> person's brain. If the rigger's vehicle takes serious or deadly damage,
>> the rigger has to resist damage, or pass out, or even slip into a coma.
>> One of the story bits at the front has a rigger describing a run, from a
>> rigger's point of view. He describes going over a large pothole as "the
>> worse twisted ankle, multiplied a few times over". His vehicle is shot in
>> the back door, and he thinks he's just been shot in the back of the head.
>> Cool I think...

and psychotropic crash effects too? *grin*

ChYlD
mezeretted@*****.u-nancy.fr
Message no. 83
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:09:32 -0400
Jeremiah Stevens[SMTP:jeremiah@********.EDU] wrote:
> > Jeremiah Stevens[SMTP:jeremiah@********.EDU] wrote:
> > > On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, Peter David Boddy wrote:
> > > > I'll tell you one tidbit. Rigging is now as dangerous as decking, to
a
> > > > person's brain. If the rigger's vehicle takes serious or deadly
damage,
> > > > the rigger has to resist damage, or pass out, or even slip into a
coma.
> > >
[snip]
> > The
> > quickest (and most intuitive) way of getting this information to the
> > rigger is
> > through a simulated body feedback.
[snip]
> Consider this-a vehicle, driven by a rigger, gets into an accident. The
> car is totaled (deadly damage). Normally, the rigger would be pretty safe
> with all sorts of safety devices available in 205x. However, as he was
> rigged in, he takes deadly damage, slips into a coma and dies.

No - he'll have to resist 6S Physical. Think of it as a signal filter -
you want the contact sensitive enough for the rigger to control the
vehicle optimally, but not so much that it will kill him. So the damage
code is 6M for a Serious and 6S for a Deadly (R2, 49). Of course,
there's
still the physical damage from the crash, but he *was* wearing a seat
belt, wasn't he? :-)

> There is no *need* for the rigger to take damage when his vehicle takes
> damage. No one would intentionally design a system that would simulate a
> broken leg when a car breaks an axel or mimics gunshot wounds for the sole
> purpose of providing more information.

Who says that the designers said "let's report an axle break as a leg
break"? Perhaps the designers just said "let's replace the riggers
sensations with sensor information from the vehicle". In this case, the
rigger would have to get used to the rig (and the vehicle), and would
do any associating on his own (simply because the brain tends to be
wired
around "arms" and "legs", so it's easier to translate "axle"
to "leg"
than to develop new reflexes).

James Ojaste
Message no. 84
From: David Mezerette <mezeretted@*****.U-NANCY.FR>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:07:30 +0100
At 11:50 15/10/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Jeremiah Stevens[SMTP:jeremiah@********.EDU] wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, Peter David Boddy wrote:
>> > I'll tell you one tidbit. Rigging is now as dangerous as decking, to a
>> > person's brain. If the rigger's vehicle takes serious or deadly damage,
>> > the rigger has to resist damage, or pass out, or even slip into a coma.
>>
>> Personally, I don't think it makes much sense for a rigger to risk taking
>> damage when his vehicle does. First, vehicles are largely inanimate
>> objects, and, unless there are all sorts of sensors set up, a rigger would
>> not know if his vehicle had been shot. Rigging gives better control over
>
>Which is why riggers set up all sorts of sensors - to be able to better
>control
>their vehicle. If they don't know what condition their vehicle is in,
>the don't
>know how far they can push it.
>
>> the vehicle, it does not give a complete meld between the rigger's mind
>> and the body of the vehicle. It would simply be impractical for there to
>> be the necessary sensory and feedback located throughout the vehicle to
>> give the rigger a sensation of damage. Secondly, it would stupid for a
>> rigger to even desire to have such technology in his vehicle.
>> Rigging is relatively simple compared to the deep mind interaction of
>> decking, and I do not consider the two technologies to be anywhere close.
>
>I totally disagree here. When rigging, the physical status of your
>vehicle is
>of primary importance to the vehicle's performance (and its limits).
>The
>quickest (and most intuitive) way of getting this information to the
>rigger is
>through a simulated body feedback.
>
>On the other hand, decking I see as a purely cerebral experience (as R2
>says,
>decking involves higher-brain functions, while rigging relies more on
>lower-brain
>reactions). When decking, it's more a question of outwitting your
>opponent than
>pushing your body to its limits. The feedback effect is a hack -
>overwhelming
>your brain with confusing data; it's a problem with decking, not a
>feature.
>
>> As far as I'm concerned, this new rule is a poor attempt to create a
>> mythical sense of 'balance' at the expense of some serious reality.
>
>I've always had the impression from the books that a rigger "feels" the
>vehicle
>(or building) as bits of himself. Wouldn't it make sense then to have a
>rigger
>feel pain if part of him were suddenly destroyed? Not small scale stuff
>of course,
>but the rigger only needs to make a test if the vehicle suffers at least
>Serious
>damage.
>
>Seems both balanced *and* realistic to me.
>
>James Ojaste (who has been waiting for Rigger 2 for 2 years, now...)
>
my opinion is the best example of rigging is Walter John William's novel
'Hardwired': the vehicle becomes part of the panzerboy because he uses the
sensors instead of his own senses, but all -even damage- are just data. I
don't think he feels physical pain, he's just aware o fthe amount of damage
his vehicle has taken; i see it more as a kinda more evoluate vehicle
control oriented "smartgun link"; and i'm not sure it makes sense to
associate a component of the vehicle w/ a body part, since they're different
in conception...However, i suppose a crash could overwhelm the rigging
interface w/ datas, and consequently causing pain and perhaps even neural
damage.

ChYlD
mezeretted@*****.u-nancy.fr
Message no. 85
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 11:19:15 -0600
Jeremiah Stevens wrote:
|
| > Jeremiah Stevens[SMTP:jeremiah@********.EDU] wrote:
| > > On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, Peter David Boddy wrote:
|
| > > the vehicle, it does not give a complete meld between the rigger's mind
| > > and the body of the vehicle. It would simply be impractical for there to
| > > be the necessary sensory and feedback located throughout the vehicle to
| > > give the rigger a sensation of damage. Secondly, it would stupid for a
| > > rigger to even desire to have such technology in his vehicle.
| > > Rigging is relatively simple compared to the deep mind interaction of
| > > decking, and I do not consider the two technologies to be anywhere close.
| >
| > I totally disagree here. When rigging, the physical status of your
| > vehicle is
| > of primary importance to the vehicle's performance (and its limits).
| > The
| > quickest (and most intuitive) way of getting this information to the
| > rigger is
| > through a simulated body feedback.
|
| This would make sense, however, body-feedback does not equal damage. If I
| know my vehicle has been shot, that does not mean I take damage from it.
| Designing a VCR that would stimulate pain centers in the brain too such an
| extent as to produce damage would seem counter-productive. Essentially,

I don't think its because the VCR stimulates pain centers. I don't
even think the VCR has that capacity (like you said, who would want
it). I think the rigger takes damage because of simple feedback.
His vehicle gets shot and a lot of sensors are damaged. This could
create a temporary overload of the VCR that the system can't
compensate for. Also, any damage does create energy which could
affect the really sensitive sensors, in effect creating a short,
which could overload the VCR.

I think the technology for a rigger's VCR is so advanced that damage
to the vehicle results in feedback through the VCR which can damage
the rigger. You could run with a VCR that won't be affected by
damage to a vehicle, but then you'd be like a tortious(sp?) in the
matrix, a slow and easy target for those willing to take the risk.

All IMHO.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 86
From: Bull <orkbull@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 11:21:49 -0700
---Dust <rogan@*******.BERGEN.ORG> wrote:
>
> I saw a whole bunch of posts on Rigger 2,
>
> But no one said anything on it! So how is it? Is it an
> "essential?" Did it really do for decking what VR 2.0 did?
>
You mean, did Rigger 2 have some great ideas for a new, more
streamlined system but package those ideas in a really badly written,
impossible to read book with no rhyme or reason to how it's laid out
and several large chunks of rules either missing or incomprehensible?

God, I hope not! :]

Actually, after leafing through the GC Preview of it, it looks like
it'll do what VR2 WOULD have done had it been written and packaged a
LOT better...:]

Bull
> Thanks,
>
> Dust
>

==
--
Bull, using this crappy Rocketmail instead of his real e-mail. :(

HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

"This Sucks!"
--Me, on any number of occasions
_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com
Message no. 87
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:00:09 -0400
David Mezerette[SMTP:mezeretted@*****.U-NANCY.FR] wrote:
> At 11:50 15/10/97 -0400, you wrote:
> >Jeremiah Stevens[SMTP:jeremiah@********.EDU] wrote:
> >> As far as I'm concerned, this new rule is a poor attempt to create a
> >> mythical sense of 'balance' at the expense of some serious reality.
> >
> >I've always had the impression from the books that a rigger "feels" the
> >vehicle
> >(or building) as bits of himself. Wouldn't it make sense then to have a
> >rigger
> >feel pain if part of him were suddenly destroyed? Not small scale stuff
> >of course,
>
> my opinion is the best example of rigging is Walter John William's novel
> 'Hardwired': the vehicle becomes part of the panzerboy because he uses the
> sensors instead of his own senses, but all -even damage- are just data. I
> don't think he feels physical pain, he's just aware o fthe amount of damage
> his vehicle has taken; i see it more as a kinda more evoluate vehicle
> control oriented "smartgun link"; and i'm not sure it makes sense to

But a smartgun link only shows you where your gun is pointing
(the trajectory of the bullet) - it doesn't help steady your hand,
increase your reflexes or allow extrasensory (ASIST) I/O.

This sounds more like driving using a datajack link - you "know" all
the numbers without having to look at dials and displays (for a +1
reaction boost), but you don't *feel* it. My impression of the VCR
is that you feel the data (simsense is supposed to be full sensory,
after all). Since you feel the data, you can now start acting
instinctively - the more sensitive you are, the better your instincts
can act on subtle clues.

> associate a component of the vehicle w/ a body part, since they're different
> in conception...However, i suppose a crash could overwhelm the rigging

Well, your brain is getting input that says "front left wheel damaged",
but your brain doesn't know how to interpret "front left wheel", so it
substitutes the nearest thing that it can instinctively deal with -
"left foot". It's a brain function, not a VCR function.

> interface w/ datas, and consequently causing pain and perhaps even neural
> damage.

Yeah - pain is just a stimulus overload, after all.

James Ojaste
Message no. 88
From: Peter David Boddy <pdboddy@****.CARLETON.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:52:25 EDT
Jeremiah Stevens writes:
> Personally, I don't think it makes much sense for a rigger to risk taking
> damage when his vehicle does. First, vehicles are largely inanimate
> objects, and, unless there are all sorts of sensors set up, a rigger would
> not know if his vehicle had been shot. Rigging gives better control over
> the vehicle, it does not give a complete meld between the rigger's mind
> and the body of the vehicle. It would simply be impractical for there to
> be the necessary sensory and feedback located throughout the vehicle to
> give the rigger a sensation of damage. Secondly, it would stupid for a
> rigger to even desire to have such technology in his vehicle.
> Rigging is relatively simple compared to the deep mind interaction of
> decking, and I do not consider the two technologies to be anywhere close.
> As far as I'm concerned, this new rule is a poor attempt to create a
> mythical sense of 'balance' at the expense of some serious reality.

Would it be stupid for a decker to risk his/her brain in the oft deadly
world of Matrix hacking and running? They have said that the technology
for rigging is very similar to the tech used for decking. The rigger
BECOMES the vehicle. This allows the rigger to do things no one else can
do with a vehicle. The sensors and feedback are necessary for such
control, and so, if a rigger wants to take a chance with his/her brain (like a
decker does) and do shadowruns, he/she riskes their brain if the heavy
firepower comes to bear.

Pete

Pete aka Spitfire
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Geek Quote of the Week: Math and Alcohol don't mix,
don't drink and derive.
Peter David Boddy
Carleton University
Email address: pdboddy@****.carleton.ca
Email address: pdboddy@******.carleton.ca
Email address: bx955@*******.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 89
From: Peter David Boddy <pdboddy@****.CARLETON.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:02:19 EDT
Jeremiah Stevens writes:
> This would make sense, however, body-feedback does not equal damage. If I
> know my vehicle has been shot, that does not mean I take damage from it.
> Designing a VCR that would stimulate pain centers in the brain too such an
> extent as to produce damage would seem counter-productive. Essentially,
> what would be done is a cost-benefit analysis looking at how one can get
> the maximum amount of information and control over the vehicle with the
> minimal risk.

The point is, while it is you vehicle getting shot, you thing that it is
YOU getting shot. I don't think ASIST was purposely designed to deal
damage, it is a drawback of using it.

> Consider this-a vehicle, driven by a rigger, gets into an accident. The
> car is totaled (deadly damage). Normally, the rigger would be pretty safe
> with all sorts of safety devices available in 205x. However, as he was
> rigged in, he takes deadly damage, slips into a coma and dies.
> There is no *need* for the rigger to take damage when his vehicle takes
> damage. No one would intentionally design a system that would simulate a
> broken leg when a car breaks an axel or mimics gunshot wounds for the sole
> purpose of providing more information.

Again, it is the vehicle crashing, but the rigger feels like it was him
smashing himself into the brick wall. The feedback is such, that his body
thinks he's dead...

Pete

Pete aka Spitfire
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Geek Quote of the Week: Math and Alcohol don't mix,
don't drink and derive.
Peter David Boddy
Carleton University
Email address: pdboddy@****.carleton.ca
Email address: pdboddy@******.carleton.ca
Email address: bx955@*******.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 90
From: adonis <adonis@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:50:32 -0400
<quote>
I've always had the impression from the books that a rigger "feels" the
vehicle
(or building) as bits of himself. Wouldn't it make sense then to have a
rigger
feel pain if part of him were suddenly destroyed? Not small scale stuff
of course,
but the rigger only needs to make a test if the vehicle suffers at least
Serious
damage.
</quote>

I agree...that's the whole advantage to having your building security
handled by riggers. if somebody cross a security point, opens a door,
climbs some stairs, the rigger would physically "feel" it as an itch or a
"sensation" in the corressponding body area (or sorta). It gets kinda cool
when you have multiple entry points being compromised at the same time!
heh!

SOOiCydE

Email: adonis@******.com
ICQ #: 1622637
ICQ Pager: 1622637@*****.icq.com
WinCE Info Page: http://members.tripod.com/~SOOiCydE
Message no. 91
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:15:56 -0400
<Snippng lots of stuff about a rigger feeling the vehicle/building>

First, just because a rigger feels the thing he is jacked into at the
moment does not mean that the sensation produced by damage to the material
object would produced damage in the rigger and certainly not physical
damage. However, I would say that the rigger would have negative
sensations that would raise his target numbers as the thing he is
controlling takes damage. This sensation would only be in effect while he
was rigged into that particular system.
I would consider this sensation a sort of static that is generated by
overloded sensors, damaged sensors and just the overall randomness of
damage. If the rigger takes 'deadly' damage of this type, his rig crashes
and he is dumped.
Message no. 92
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 02:54:03 GMT
On Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:52:25 EDT, Peter David Boddy wrote:

> Jeremiah Stevens writes:
> > Personally, I don't think it makes much sense for a rigger to risk taking
> > damage when his vehicle does. First, vehicles are largely inanimate
> > objects, and, unless there are all sorts of sensors set up, a rigger would
> > not know if his vehicle had been shot. Rigging gives better control over
> > the vehicle, it does not give a complete meld between the rigger's mind
> > and the body of the vehicle. It would simply be impractical for there to
> > be the necessary sensory and feedback located throughout the vehicle to
> > give the rigger a sensation of damage. Secondly, it would stupid for a
> > rigger to even desire to have such technology in his vehicle.
> > Rigging is relatively simple compared to the deep mind interaction of
> > decking, and I do not consider the two technologies to be anywhere close.
> > As far as I'm concerned, this new rule is a poor attempt to create a
> > mythical sense of 'balance' at the expense of some serious reality.
>
> Would it be stupid for a decker to risk his/her brain in the oft deadly
> world of Matrix hacking and running? They have said that the technology
> for rigging is very similar to the tech used for decking. The rigger
> BECOMES the vehicle. This allows the rigger to do things no one else can
> do with a vehicle. The sensors and feedback are necessary for such
> control, and so, if a rigger wants to take a chance with his/her brain (like a
> decker does) and do shadowruns, he/she riskes their brain if the heavy
> firepower comes to bear.

I disagree. A rigger would have to place "touch" sensors all over the
surface of the vehicle and over every interior component for him or her to
perceive the "pain" of body damage. Many hundreds of thousands of nuyen
would need to be spent to modify a vehicle (inside and out) so that it
transmits all five senses to the rigger inside. Explain to me exactly
*why* you would need a perception of touch over the entire surface of a
vehicle? It better be worth the drawbacks of suffering possible "pain
penalties".

Decking is quite a bit different, and requires much more "suspension of
disbelief" to allow Shadowrun deckers to exist as they do. A virtual
persona that appears and interacts within a digital network is a bit
further from ground-based reality (with regards to Shadowrun) than a person
that uses his brain to control the movements of a physical object (they can
do that today). A decker literally becomes a computer program, inhabiting
the world of bits & bytes, and thereby becoming just as vulnerable (the
original "hard copy" being stored remotely in its meat body). As a rigger,
if I choose not to install "touch" sensors over the entire surface of my
vehicle, I should be free to do so and not have to suffer "pain penalties"
when an ork begins hammering on my fender with a sledge hammer.

By the same token, a smartgun link does not inflict the feedback of the
chemical explosion inside the breach to the user, although such pressure
readings could be useful to some people. Additionally, modern day night
vision goggles amplify available light by a hundred times, yet their
primitive 1990 technology does not blind the individual if he or she were
to look at a street light. If such a simply thing as flare compensation
exists (now and in Shadowrun), a similar filter should exist for deckers
and riggers. Not everything is like in StarTrek, where a hit on deck three
causes the Comm station on the bridge to explode in a shower of sparks
(asking the question "why are dangerous levels of energy allowed to be fed
to the work stations anyways?").

I race occasionally. I use a bright light to remind me when to shift and a
loud buzzer to notify me if my oil pressure drops too low. Would it make
any sense to plumb these signals into my brain so that I suffer increasing
pain as my engine surpasses "red line" or a debilitating jolt if my oil
pressure were to fail? It is quite possible that I would be so preoccupied
with steering and/or braking that the sudden addition of such a "pain
penalty" would likely cause me to crash. Would I bother with such a
system?-- I think not. Professional race car drivers today are literally
"one with their vehicle". Suspension problems, brakes locking up, a slight
pull to the left, blowing third gear, etc. are all perceptible *now*. Why
would you need a sense of pain to get that point across?

Besides, no one has said that deckers *should* suffer pain when hooked up
to the net. Jeremiah simply believes (as do I) that riggers *should not*
suffer pain simply because the inanimate object they are controlling with
their mind suffers damage. Like he said, it is simply "a poor attempt to
create a mythical sense of 'balance' at the expense of some serious
reality."





James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";

Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...
Message no. 93
From: adonis <adonis@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 22:47:43 -0400
[snipping convo 'bout rigger damage]
> I would consider this sensation a sort of static that is generated by
> overloded sensors, damaged sensors and just the overall randomness of
> damage. If the rigger takes 'deadly' damage of this type, his rig crashes
> and he is dumped.

That's how we play it. In our senario, a rigger is basically a vehicle
decker, to really simplify it. Except there's no black ice for a rigger.
if he gets drekked on, he get's dumped and maybe some stun damage from the
dump, but that's it. Never physical damage. Although you can damage a
rigger magically...but that's another thread!

SOOiCydE
Email: adonis@******.com
ICQ #: 1622637
ICQ Pager: 1622637@*****.icq.com
WinCE Info Page: http://members.tripod.com/~SOOiCydE
Message no. 94
From: Adam Treloar <guardian@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:38:21 +1000
> Again, it is the vehicle crashing, but the rigger feels like it was him
> smashing himself into the brick wall. The feedback is such, that his body
> thinks he's dead...

Ummm... I think you mean the brain thinks the body's dead, not the body.
The body doesn't really come into it, apart from the actual physical
results of the crash. An interesting but not quite accurate is hypnosis.
Someone can get the mind to believe something, like, say, he's a chicken,
or he's been shot, or whatever. The body isn't actually altered, but the
brain sends all sorts of signals to the body telling it to do wierd
things.

As an aside, are there any biologists out there that know just what the
brain does when it senses pain and such? All sorts of chemicals could be
rushing around trying to repair damage that isn't there, and instead doing
harm of another sort. I don't even pretend to know anything about this,
tho.

Guardian

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indestinguishable from technology.
So there."
Adam Treloar aka Guardian
s777317@*****.student.gu.edu.au http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1900/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 95
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:46:45 +1000
> > Again, it is the vehicle crashing, but the rigger feels like it was him
> > smashing himself into the brick wall. The feedback is such, that his body
> > thinks he's dead...
>
> Ummm... I think you mean the brain thinks the body's dead, not the body.
> The body doesn't really come into it, apart from the actual physical
> results of the crash. An interesting but not quite accurate is hypnosis.

As such, I would be inclined to say that, if one really feels the rigger
should resist such damage (a theory I find myself opposed to), it should
be Stun rather than Physical. Yes, his mind is reacting to the broken
axle as if the rigger had a broken leg, but his leg is not actually
broken.

> As an aside, are there any biologists out there that know just what the
> brain does when it senses pain and such? All sorts of chemicals could be
> rushing around trying to repair damage that isn't there, and instead doing
> harm of another sort. I don't even pretend to know anything about this,
> tho.

Of course there are. I *should* know, but it's been a while since I did
this and I'm sort of burnt out at the moment - my brain is shying away
from anythign even remotely resembling biology...

Lady Jestyr

-------------------------------------------------------------
"No more drugs for that man!" - Dietrich, Face/Off
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 96
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 00:19:23 -0400
Another problem with the rigger damage rule is that it would severely
limit the practicality of things like rigger-guided missiles or drones
being sent into high-threat areas. The benefit of things like drones is
their expendability, and military and corp-security strategy would be
based on such an assumption. However, if, for every drone that went down,
a rigger was also at risk, drones would become a commodity nearly as
preacious as people. This just does not make sense.
Message no. 97
From: Timothy Little <t_little@**********.UTAS.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 15:30:56 +1100
At 03:52 PM 10/15/97 EDT, Peter wrote:

>Jeremiah Stevens writes:
>> As far as I'm concerned, this new rule is a poor attempt to create a
>> mythical sense of 'balance' at the expense of some serious reality.
>
>Would it be stupid for a decker to risk his/her brain in the oft deadly
>world of Matrix hacking and running? They have said that the technology
>for rigging is very similar to the tech used for decking. The rigger
>BECOMES the vehicle. This allows the rigger to do things no one else can
>do with a vehicle. The sensors and feedback are necessary for such
>control, and so, if a rigger wants to take a chance with his/her brain
(like a
>decker does) and do shadowruns, he/she riskes their brain if the heavy
>firepower comes to bear.

It's a pretty far stretch for decking, but I can just suspend disbelief far
enough for that. After all, you've got a fair proprtion of mainframe power
dedicated to messing up your data interface and doing you damage.

My Interpretation:
The system uses massive processing power to build up a vulnerability profile
of your brain/ASIST setup. Once it has a close match, it can generate
signals which disrupt the normal brain functions.
A decker can run 'cool', which encrypts and filters the direct brain
responses to hide any vulnerabilities. The system gets a watered-down and
washed-out picture of how your brain works. If a decker runs 'hot', there
is no filtering.

The idea of voluntarily using a system that deliberately does you damage
when your vehicle crashes...? No thanks!

Sensor overloads and power surges? Through optic fibre?

--
Little One
Message no. 98
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:32:42 +1000
> Another problem with the rigger damage rule is that it would severely
> limit the practicality of things like rigger-guided missiles or drones
> being sent into high-threat areas. The benefit of things like drones is
> their expendability, and military and corp-security strategy would be
> based on such an assumption. However, if, for every drone that went down,
> a rigger was also at risk, drones would become a commodity nearly as
> preacious as people. This just does not make sense.

That's true - two drones going down means two 6Ses for the rigger...
only takes two dead drones to put the security rigger down for the
count. This doesn't jibe with the feel of rigger-controlled installed
drones, and provides far too easy a solution for intrusion teams. Go
drone hunting; once you take down drone #4 (say) and the rest of the
drones stop moving, you know you're home free.

Otherwise, corps would have to have at least two sec riggers on duty at
a time, and that really doesn't make sense.

Lady Jestyr

-------------------------------------------------------------
"No more drugs for that man!" - Dietrich, Face/Off
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 99
From: Q <Scott.E.Meyer@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 23:33:41 -0500
On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, Jeremiah Stevens wrote:

> Another problem with the rigger damage rule is that it would severely
> limit the practicality of things like rigger-guided missiles or drones
> being sent into high-threat areas. The benefit of things like drones is
> their expendability, and military and corp-security strategy would be
> based on such an assumption. However, if, for every drone that went down,
> a rigger was also at risk, drones would become a commodity nearly as
> preacious as people. This just does not make sense.

IIRC, riggers have always felt a level of pain when a vehicle or drone is
destroyed, this is just taking it to a new level. I suppose if a rigger
really _enjoys_ the stun damage he takes everytime a drone gets shot down,
sure, equip them with explosives and use them as guided missiles. As it
is (unless the rules have been changed in r2, I don't have it yet) a
rigger can only directly control one drone at a time, the rest have to be
on standby orders until the riggers attention can be diverted back to
them. So, unless a drone goes down while under direct control of the
rigger in question, I'd say there's little chance of the rigger getting
seriously hurt.

Hopefully, the rigger would be aware enough of his surroundings to know a
major threat like a missile is coming and switch control or jack out
before it hits. As for using rigger-controlled guided-missiles, it's
never been a good idea, and it still isn't.

-Q

---------------------------------------
I find it a disturbing sign of our times that 90% of the
users who walk into the lab do not know how to tear the
paper out of a dot matrix printer without tearing it.

Scott "Q" Meyer
Scott.E.Meyer@*******.edu
http://johnh.wheaton.edu/~smeyer
Message no. 100
From: David Mezerette <mezeretted@*****.U-NANCY.FR>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:37:12 +0100
>But a smartgun link only shows you where your gun is pointing
>(the trajectory of the bullet) - it doesn't help steady your hand,
>increase your reflexes or allow extrasensory (ASIST) I/O.
>
>This sounds more like driving using a datajack link - you "know" all
>the numbers without having to look at dials and displays (for a +1
>reaction boost), but you don't *feel* it. My impression of the VCR
>is that you feel the data (simsense is supposed to be full sensory,
>after all). Since you feel the data, you can now start acting
>instinctively - the more sensitive you are, the better your instincts
>can act on subtle clues.

i was thinkin at the smartgun ling in a CP2020 way, in which it 'makes' you
pull the trigger.
tis true that simsense reproduces hte full spectrum of senses, but it stays
-i think- a human-like experience: u justr live someone else's experience
>> associate a component of the vehicle w/ a body part, since they're different
>> in conception...However, i suppose a crash could overwhelm the rigging
>
>Well, your brain is getting input that says "front left wheel damaged",
>but your brain doesn't know how to interpret "front left wheel", so it
>substitutes the nearest thing that it can instinctively deal with -
>"left foot". It's a brain function, not a VCR function.
>
The problem is that the analogy is not that simple, unless ur vehicle is a
battlemach, and my players aren't allowed that kind of equipment =D
what would be the analogy for the rotor of an helicopter or the turret of a LAV?

ChYlD
mezeretted@*****.u-nancy.fr
Message no. 101
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 08:56:41 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-16 00:31:11 EDT, t_little@**********.UTAS.EDU.AU
writes:

> My Interpretation:
> The system uses massive processing power to build up a vulnerability
profile
> of your brain/ASIST setup. Once it has a close match, it can generate
> signals which disrupt the normal brain functions.
> A decker can run 'cool', which encrypts and filters the direct brain
> responses to hide any vulnerabilities. The system gets a watered-down and
> washed-out picture of how your brain works. If a decker runs 'hot', there
> is no filtering.
>
> The idea of voluntarily using a system that deliberately does you damage
> when your vehicle crashes...? No thanks!
>
> Sensor overloads and power surges? Through optic fibre?
>
>
They go into detail as to why this occurs for Riggers. Rigging using ASSIST
technology, just like a decker does for Matrix ops. However, the Rigger is
using a different part of the brain than a decker, quote "that is where the
similarities end". the rigger is actually utilizing connections to the
instinctual, reflexive, parts of the ind (the book is on the entertainment
center, and I've got vertigo, else I'd get the page # for all you picky types
;).

The connection between vehicle damage and the rigger being "damaged" is a bit
extreme IMHO, but I can understand it from a point of view of game balance.
However, the story that is in the book is indicative of the person surviving
a LOT more damage than you might guess.

It ain't bad folks, in fact, it really is pretty good. Vehicle Design is
just nightmarish.
-K
Message no. 102
From: David Mezerette <mezeretted@*****.U-NANCY.FR>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:56:39 +0100
>Sensor overloads and power surges? Through optic fibre?
>
There's an interface w/ the brain at a point or another, and neural
information is some kinda electrical impulse, if i remember my biology
lessons ok (i know there are chemical neurotransmettors as qell, but they
aren't fast enough to be in use for feeling pain)...imagine the interface
sending in the nerves and neural cells a too high intensity, in response to
a very intense incoming signal. Wouldn't it damage the brain cells?

ChYlD
mezeretted@*****.u-nancy.fr
Message no. 103
From: Frank Pelletier <jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:01:00 +0000
James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA> once wrote

(snip)
> I disagree. A rigger would have to place "touch" sensors all over the
> surface of the vehicle and over every interior component for him or her to
> perceive the "pain" of body damage.

We call that a VCR...and sensors package. The way I understood RBB2,
Riggers can now feel the pain of their vehicule, making the experience
much more akin to deckers than the old "I'm the Getaway car" rigger
of BBB. Hence, the physical damage sustained when vehicules under a
rigger's cybernetic control crash or take serious damage. I would
think that the sensor net, and remote feelers would be included in
the price of the Rigger mods for the vehicule.

(snipped part about Rigger/Decker parralels)
>As a rigger,
> if I choose not to install "touch" sensors over the entire surface of my
> vehicle, I should be free to do so and not have to suffer "pain penalties"
> when an ork begins hammering on my fender with a sledge hammer.

Yes, but by that same token, you would not have the same "feel" for
your vehicule as a real "Hot" rigger system would. Take for account
that in VR 2.0, there is a real performance difference between a
Tortoise (who are disconnect entirely from the ASIST feeback), Cool
decks (who basically limit damage to Stun), and Hot decks (Full ASIST
feedback, including harmfull backlash). You will find that all
serious deckers use hot decks, because it gives them an edge, and
that means the difference, game-wise, between a good run and a
frag-up.

> By the same token, a smartgun link does not inflict the feedback of the
> chemical explosion inside the breach to the user, although such pressure
> readings could be useful to some people.

Hmm... Smarlink technology doesn't need to make you feel the gun,
IMHO. It only needs to feed you the data needed to aim. Far from
the kind of feedback needed to deck, or rig.

> Not everything is like in StarTrek, where a hit on deck three
> causes the Comm station on the bridge to explode in a shower of sparks
> (asking the question "why are dangerous levels of energy allowed to be fed
> to the work stations anyways?").

Hey, it ain't Star Trek if a couple of RedShirts don't die each
episode ;)

> I race occasionally. I use a bright light to remind me when to shift and a
> loud buzzer to notify me if my oil pressure drops too low. Would it make
> any sense to plumb these signals into my brain so that I suffer increasing
> pain as my engine surpasses "red line" or a debilitating jolt if my oil
> pressure were to fail? It is quite possible that I would be so preoccupied
> with steering and/or braking that the sudden addition of such a "pain
> penalty" would likely cause me to crash. Would I bother with such a
> system?-- I think not. Professional race car drivers today are literally
> "one with their vehicle". Suspension problems, brakes locking up, a slight
> pull to the left, blowing third gear, etc. are all perceptible *now*. Why
> would you need a sense of pain to get that point across?

Yes, but in the SR world, Riggers are designed to be even closer to
their vehicules. We are far removed from F1 drivers or such. Being
"one with the vehicule" today is not the same thing as in 2058.
Riggers are not only more aware of the status of their vehicule, but
of the whole surronding environnement as well. That makes them
capable of acting without forethought, or as RBB2 would put it,
"Knee-jerk reactions"... As you would know, Mr. Lindsay, driving is
very instinctive. Well, IMHO, Riggers make it much more than
instinct...it almost become a reflex. Of course, being in 1997 and
all, it's thought to say what a rigger would feel, being ourselves
devoid of references. But...what's the most controlable, responsive
object in the whole universe, able to bend to your whim, and act
EXACTLY the way you want it to, without jerking, and without error?
Your body... Riggers try to get that same feeling by switching their
perception from their meat body, to their "metal" counterpart. And
for that kind of response, you need feedback. Hence, pain.

But, in the same way, I think riggers could get high by popping some
oil additives in their tanks... ;) Car sex taken to a whole new
level...

Trinity

-------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
Trinity@********.com, jeanpell@****.qc.ca

"Life is a blur"
Message no. 104
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:04:12 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-16 00:32:58 EDT, jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU
writes:

>
> That's true - two drones going down means two 6Ses for the rigger...
> only takes two dead drones to put the security rigger down for the
> count. This doesn't jibe with the feel of rigger-controlled installed
> drones, and provides far too easy a solution for intrusion teams. Go
> drone hunting; once you take down drone #4 (say) and the rest of the
> drones stop moving, you know you're home free.

Two things here. What about the idea of putting "ICCM" into a rigger's
hands? Also, the base damage is 6S, I could be wrong, but I think there is
something that helps here as well.

> Otherwise, corps would have to have at least two sec riggers on duty at
> a time, and that really doesn't make sense.
> Lady Jestyr

Depending on the Corp Rating, two sec riggers at a time, or at least one on
immediate call, isn't such a bad thing. There is also ways of improving the
other systems.

-K (gotta go for a moment, impromptu trip to bathroom)
Message no. 105
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 23:11:57 +1000
> > only takes two dead drones to put the security rigger down for the
> > count. This doesn't jibe with the feel of rigger-controlled installed
> > drones, and provides far too easy a solution for intrusion teams. Go
> > drone hunting; once you take down drone #4 (say) and the rest of the
> > drones stop moving, you know you're home free.
>
> Two things here. What about the idea of putting "ICCM" into a rigger's
> hands? Also, the base damage is 6S, I could be wrong, but I think there is
> something that helps here as well.

It's late at night and I"m feeling brainfried, so please pity me and
point out how ICCM would help.

> > Otherwise, corps would have to have at least two sec riggers on duty at
> > a time, and that really doesn't make sense.
> > Lady Jestyr
>
> Depending on the Corp Rating, two sec riggers at a time, or at least one on
> immediate call, isn't such a bad thing. There is also ways of improving the
> other systems.

It may not be a bad thing, in fact it probably is a GOOD thing, but that
doesn't mean it happens. Much of the feel of the semi-fiction indicates
a single security decker and a single security rigger on duty at a
time... this would make a rigger easy meat.

"Okay, just took down my fourth drone"
"Hey, the ones on this floor have stopped moving!"
"Same here... looks like the sec rigger's down"

And anything the PCs can do to the NPC security rigger, the NPCs can do
to a PC rigger. Speaking as someone who likes playing riggers, I hate
the idea.

Lady Jestyr

-------------------------------------------------------------
"No more drugs for that man!" - Dietrich, Face/Off
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 106
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 07:13:19 -0600
Lady Jestyr wrote:
|
| > Another problem with the rigger damage rule is that it would severely
| > limit the practicality of things like rigger-guided missiles or drones

[snip]

| That's true - two drones going down means two 6Ses for the rigger...
| only takes two dead drones to put the security rigger down for the
| count. This doesn't jibe with the feel of rigger-controlled installed
| drones, and provides far too easy a solution for intrusion teams. Go
| drone hunting; once you take down drone #4 (say) and the rest of the
| drones stop moving, you know you're home free.
|
| Otherwise, corps would have to have at least two sec riggers on duty at
| a time, and that really doesn't make sense.

Why not? A minimum of two on duty at a time, no matter what the
rules, makes sense. Security of that level is considered vital. At
some point one of them is going to have to pee or something and that
other rigger is there to cover for them. In my book three is minimum
(one extra rigger to cover the Murphy's Law factor).

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 107
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:19:02 -0400
Frank Pelletier once dared to write,

<snip>
>Yes, but by that same token, you would not have the same "feel" for
>your vehicule as a real "Hot" rigger system would. Take for account
>that in VR 2.0, there is a real performance difference between a
>Tortoise (who are disconnect entirely from the ASIST feeback), Cool
>decks (who basically limit damage to Stun), and Hot decks (Full ASIST
>feedback, including harmfull backlash). You will find that all
>serious deckers use hot decks, because it gives them an edge, and
>that means the difference, game-wise, between a good run and a
>frag-up.

I'm in a rush and I don't have my book yet <grrr> but let me quickly
point out the flaw in this. Deckers take damage because ICE is
specifically written to do that through the ASSIST filters not because
the decker wants it to. There are no bullets designed in shadowrun that
is supposed to have the same effect on a rigger's VCR. Deliberate
exposure to injury is avoided in all design concept. I doubt the current
VCR technology is from the pages of the Marquis DeSade. Any other excuse
is apologetic for the new rules.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

"Boy, I'm in a bad mood today! Everyone had better steer clear of me! I
hate EVERYBODY! As far as I'm concerned, everyone on the planet can just
drop dead. People are scum.
.....
WELL-L-L? DOESN'T ANYONE WANT TO CHEER ME UP?!?"
-Calvin, Calvin and Hobbes
I am MC23
Message no. 108
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 07:22:45 -0600
Jeremiah Stevens wrote:
|
| Another problem with the rigger damage rule is that it would severely
| limit the practicality of things like rigger-guided missiles or drones
| being sent into high-threat areas. The benefit of things like drones is
| their expendability, and military and corp-security strategy would be
| based on such an assumption. However, if, for every drone that went down,
| a rigger was also at risk, drones would become a commodity nearly as
| preacious as people. This just does not make sense.

Technology is a funny thing. Rigger gear advances and leap frogs
until you end up with a situation where the rigger is at risk because
it ties directly into his brain and the data flows unimpeded. But
the gear is so effective that to use anything less will means that
you're behind the curve.

This happens with fighter planes in RL. Jet fighters outmaneuver
their pilots. They can pull more Gs than a pilot can withstand. But
if you put your pilots in planes with limiters then you're going to
get shot down by that pilot flying the more maneuverable plane
because he will take the risk and pull those Gs and get the edge. So
every fighter pilot is at risk of killing himself and destroying a
multi-million dollar plane, yet the planes are purchased and pilots
are put in that position.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 109
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 07:31:55 -0600
Lady Jestyr wrote:
|
| As such, I would be inclined to say that, if one really feels the rigger
| should resist such damage (a theory I find myself opposed to), it should
| be Stun rather than Physical. Yes, his mind is reacting to the broken
| axle as if the rigger had a broken leg, but his leg is not actually
| broken.

But if damage is being caused to his brain then he's at more risk
than if he did break a leg. The brain is the centeral organ of the
human body. It's almost imposible to cause stun damage to the
brain. IMO stun damage occurse when a person is hurt, but vital
systems aren't in danger (like bruises, muscle pulls, etc.). When a
vital system is endangered then it's physical damage (cuts/bleeding,
partial or whole destruction of a vital organ, etc). The brain is a
vital organ that's pretty hard to damage without endangering a
person's life. A bruise to the brain takes a while to heal. It's
not stun damage that can be recovered in an hour or two. Electrical
shock screws up the memory and it takes time to recover from that.
There's no way that I can think of to inflict "stun" damage on a
human brain.

| Of course there are. I *should* know, but it's been a while since I did
| this and I'm sort of burnt out at the moment - my brain is shying away
| from anythign even remotely resembling biology...

I don't have much biologicaly experience, just what I've experienced
myself (good old american sports :) and what I've seen. If there's a way
for a VCR to cause stun damage I'd like to know about it.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 110
From: David Mezerette <mezeretted@*****.U-NANCY.FR>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:18:04 +0100
>Yes, but by that same token, you would not have the same "feel" for
>your vehicule as a real "Hot" rigger system would. Take for account
>that in VR 2.0, there is a real performance difference between a
>Tortoise (who are disconnect entirely from the ASIST feeback), Cool
>decks (who basically limit damage to Stun), and Hot decks (Full ASIST
>feedback, including harmfull backlash). You will find that all
>serious deckers use hot decks, because it gives them an edge, and
>that means the difference, game-wise, between a good run and a
>frag-up.
>

>Yes, but in the SR world, Riggers are designed to be even closer to
>their vehicules. We are far removed from F1 drivers or such. Being
>"one with the vehicule" today is not the same thing as in 2058.
>Riggers are not only more aware of the status of their vehicule, but
>of the whole surronding environnement as well. That makes them
>capable of acting without forethought, or as RBB2 would put it,
>"Knee-jerk reactions"... As you would know, Mr. Lindsay, driving is
>very instinctive. Well, IMHO, Riggers make it much more than
>instinct...it almost become a reflex. Of course, being in 1997 and
>all, it's thought to say what a rigger would feel, being ourselves
>devoid of references. But...what's the most controlable, responsive
>object in the whole universe, able to bend to your whim, and act
>EXACTLY the way you want it to, without jerking, and without error?
>Your body... Riggers try to get that same feeling by switching their
>perception from their meat body, to their "metal" counterpart. And
>for that kind of response, you need feedback. Hence, pain.
>
>But, in the same way, I think riggers could get high by popping some
>oil additives in their tanks... ;) Car sex taken to a whole new
>level...
>
then why don't have special skills for rigger? i mean, w/ a VCR, driving
ain't just like driving anymore...

ChYlD
mezeretted@*****.u-nancy.fr
Message no. 111
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 07:41:32 -0600
James Lindsay wrote:
|
| I disagree. A rigger would have to place "touch" sensors all over the
| surface of the vehicle and over every interior component for him or her to
| perceive the "pain" of body damage. Many hundreds of thousands of nuyen
| would need to be spent to modify a vehicle (inside and out) so that it
| transmits all five senses to the rigger inside. Explain to me exactly
| *why* you would need a perception of touch over the entire surface of a
| vehicle? It better be worth the drawbacks of suffering possible "pain
| penalties".

A rigger isn't tied into the entire vehicle, just it's vital components.
There may or may not be sensors monitoring the integrity of the body
panels.

Vehicle damage reflects damage to vital components, not the skin of
the vehicle. You can blow out all the windows and riddle the surface
of a vehicle without causing any real damage. The vehicle will
continue to operate at 100%. It's when a vital system (engine,
transmission, suspension, electronics, sensors, drivetrain, etc)
takes damage that the rigger feels it, because those systems are
covered with sensors that are run directly into a riggers brain so he
can "feel" the vehicle and control it as if it were his own body.
When those systems take damage is when the feedback/whatever occurs
and the rigger takes damage. The VCRs direct, unimpeded link to
those systems leaves the rigger open to damage.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 112
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 07:53:29 -0600
David Mezerette wrote:
|
| then why don't have special skills for rigger? i mean, w/ a VCR, driving
| ain't just like driving anymore...

Well, actually it is. Take regular steering and power steering.
Niether one changes the relationship between the car and the road,
but power steering makes it a heck of a lot easier to drive the car.
Power steering doesn't require a new skill.

Ditto with a VCR. Driving is driving. Knowing when to break when
going into a curve at high speed, dealing with ice or gravel on the
road, knowing the limits of your car, etc., don't change. The VCR
just gives you easier access to the car's control components.
Instead of physically turning the steering wheel you do it mentally.
But the skill to know when to turn that wheel doesn't change.

Someone could specialize in operating vehicles with their VCR and
could run into problems when confronted by a regular vehicle
(finessing a manual clutch is an art form :). But a character with
standard skill with a vehicle shouldn't be inhibited by a VCR.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 113
From: Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:00:31 -0500
>As an aside, are there any biologists out there
>that know just what the brain does when it
>senses pain and such? All sorts of chemicals
>could be rushing around trying to repair
>damage that isn't there, and instead doing
>harm of another sort. I don't even pretend to
>know anything about this, tho.

No, pain and healing are pretty disconected.
Pain can cause stress hormones to be released,
which boost your fight/flight responses
temporarily (and degrade them if the levels stay
around too long), and pain helps greatly in
learning responses to stimulai (although not as
much as pleasure). But to answer your
question, the gain from pain stays mainly in the
brain.

Double-Domed Mike
Message no. 114
From: David Mezerette <mezeretted@*****.U-NANCY.FR>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 15:04:55 +0100
>Someone could specialize in operating vehicles with their VCR and
>could run into problems when confronted by a regular vehicle
>(finessing a manual clutch is an art form :). But a character with
>standard skill with a vehicle shouldn't be inhibited by a VCR.
>
i don't agree about it: rigging is for using a vehicle at his best, through
knowing and influencing as many systems parameters and variables as
possible: it implies u have a tremendous amount of knowledge in mechanics,
physics, and that u perfectly know what u're doing: it isn't like the Pa and
Ma car: u have to have a perfect control on ur thoughts, and learn how they
will affect the system, unless u wanna burn the engine coz u got afraid of a
bird crashing on ur wildshield...
That's why i'll never let my sister have a VCR *grin*

ChYlD
Message no. 115
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:13:50 -0400
Lady Jestyr[SMTP:jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU] wrote:
> > Ummm... I think you mean the brain thinks the body's dead, not the body.
> > The body doesn't really come into it, apart from the actual physical
> > results of the crash. An interesting but not quite accurate is hypnosis.
>
> As such, I would be inclined to say that, if one really feels the rigger
> should resist such damage (a theory I find myself opposed to), it should
> be Stun rather than Physical. Yes, his mind is reacting to the broken
> axle as if the rigger had a broken leg, but his leg is not actually
> broken.

I'm not so sure about that argument...

It's not Physical damage to his leg, it's Physical damage to his
*brain*. His brain "knows" that his leg is broken - it's had
large amounts of electricity pumped into it that could only occur
if the leg had been broken.

I *don't* think that it should be treatable as Physical damage -
recovery should be more along the lines of Stun damage (though,
it should probably take a little longer).

Perhaps it should just be a special kind of damage - call it Stun
for recovery purposes, but a Deadly wound will kill?

> > As an aside, are there any biologists out there that know just what the
> > brain does when it senses pain and such? All sorts of chemicals could be
> > rushing around trying to repair damage that isn't there, and instead doing
> > harm of another sort. I don't even pretend to know anything about this,
> > tho.
>
> Of course there are. I *should* know, but it's been a while since I did
> this and I'm sort of burnt out at the moment - my brain is shying away
> from anythign even remotely resembling biology...

Never took biology. And proud of it. Well, maybe not *proud*... :-)

James Ojaste
Message no. 116
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:19:49 -0400
Lady Jestyr[SMTP:jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU] wrote:
> > Another problem with the rigger damage rule is that it would severely
> > limit the practicality of things like rigger-guided missiles or drones
> > being sent into high-threat areas. The benefit of things like drones is
> > their expendability, and military and corp-security strategy would be
> > based on such an assumption. However, if, for every drone that went down,
> > a rigger was also at risk, drones would become a commodity nearly as
> > preacious as people. This just does not make sense.
>
> That's true - two drones going down means two 6Ses for the rigger...

No - that damage is only if a vehicle crashes...
A rigger only takes damage from a destroyed drone if that's his
primary drone, and the damage is from the dump shock (at
(RC rating + 4)S stun).

> only takes two dead drones to put the security rigger down for the
> count. This doesn't jibe with the feel of rigger-controlled installed
> drones, and provides far too easy a solution for intrusion teams. Go
> drone hunting; once you take down drone #4 (say) and the rest of the
> drones stop moving, you know you're home free.

<insert evil GM plot here...> :-)

> Otherwise, corps would have to have at least two sec riggers on duty at
> a time, and that really doesn't make sense.

Nah - just tell the rigger to stay in the captain's chair all day.

James Ojaste
Message no. 117
From: David Mezerette <mezeretted@*****.U-NANCY.FR>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 15:29:33 +0100
At 10:19 16/10/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Lady Jestyr[SMTP:jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU] wrote:
>> > Another problem with the rigger damage rule is that it would severely
>> > limit the practicality of things like rigger-guided missiles or drones
>> > being sent into high-threat areas. The benefit of things like drones is
>> > their expendability, and military and corp-security strategy would be
>> > based on such an assumption. However, if, for every drone that went down,
>> > a rigger was also at risk, drones would become a commodity nearly as
>> > preacious as people. This just does not make sense.
>>
>> That's true - two drones going down means two 6Ses for the rigger...
>
>No - that damage is only if a vehicle crashes...
>A rigger only takes damage from a destroyed drone if that's his
>primary drone, and the damage is from the dump shock (at
>(RC rating + 4)S stun).
>
by the way, i remember having read in the 'into the shadows' anthology, that
there was a gang which 'played' w/ specially modified missiles to fry
riggers' brain by shooting the drones down?
does anyone knows something about it?
Message no. 118
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:51:11 -0400
David Mezerette writes:
> by the way, i remember having read in the 'into the shadows' anthology, that
> there was a gang which 'played' w/ specially modified missiles to fry
> riggers' brain by shooting the drones down?
> does anyone knows something about it?

I believe that was the story FreeFall (With FastJack, Liam, and I
think Alice was the rigger). They never mentioned the name of the
group, but what happened is you fire a rocket (Basically a giant
taser) at a drone. It fries the drone, and creates potential
lethal feedback.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The nice thing about standards,is there are so many to choose from.
Message no. 119
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 16:24:58 -0500
At 16-Okt-97 wrote David Mezerette:


>then why don't have special skills for rigger? i mean, w/ a VCR, driving
>ain't just like driving anymore...

I have handeled that this way for years, Barbie(the character) can`t drive,
fly etc any vehicle without a rig. She never learned it.
Can be quiet a hinderance on a run.
You are the rigger, so drive us out.
Hmmm, I can`t this car has no interface.
????? WHAT ??????

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 120
From: "Mike (Leszek Karlik)" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 16:50:21 +0000
On 16 Oct 97, David Buehrer disseminated foul capitalist propaganda
by writing:

> Lady Jestyr wrote:

> | As such, I would be inclined to say that, if one really feels the rigger
> | should resist such damage (a theory I find myself opposed to), it should
> | be Stun rather than Physical. Yes, his mind is reacting to the broken
> | axle as if the rigger had a broken leg, but his leg is not actually
> | broken.
>
> But if damage is being caused to his brain then he's at more risk

How? I mean, how is the damage caused? I can imagine that pain and
sensory overload can pack a mean punch and leave you with a hangover
of the century, but how can it physically damage the brain? Put 2000
Volts through it? You don't really need that kind of currents in your
brain, and besides the links are fiberoptical, so I don't think there
are currents of that magnitude in the VCR....

> than if he did break a leg. The brain is the centeral organ of the
> human body. It's almost imposible to cause stun damage to the

No? Well, try the following recipe:
a) drink a glass of wine
b) drink 50 grams of vodka
c) goto a)

Worked for me. :>

> brain. IMO stun damage occurse when a person is hurt, but vital
> systems aren't in danger (like bruises, muscle pulls, etc.). When a

Uhhh? On the last training, when we did something like 100 jumps,
push-ups, sit-ups etc. I was totally beat, unable to do anything
besides laying on the floor and panting, but it was only
exhaustion... Not bruises and muscle pulls. I interpret stun damage
as just that: fatigue, exhaustion and also as a mind-breaking
headache, sensory overload etc. (i.e. deckers - after all, IC
that does stun damage does it to the decker's braing, IMO).

> | Of course there are. I *should* know, but it's been a while since I did
> | this and I'm sort of burnt out at the moment - my brain is shying away
> | from anythign even remotely resembling biology...
>
> I don't have much biologicaly experience, just what I've experienced
> myself (good old american sports :) and what I've seen. If there's
> a way for a VCR to cause stun damage I'd like to know about it.

If there's a way for a VCR to cause physical damage, I'd like to
know about it. OK, lethal biofeedback is one thing, but (as it was
said earlier on the list) the Black IC is specially designed for
ASIST-assisted (:>) frying of the decker's brain.

And, IM(ns)HO, VCR does not have the required power levels to
cause permanent damage to the rigger. How? The levels of current
needed to interface with human nervous systems are too low, and the
link with the vehicle is fiberoptics anyway... The wires could cause
a seizure, eventually, but that's all... I'd say that the intense
pain can make you pass out, but that would be Stun damage. It's
hard to die from pain. (And as for deaths from system shock - well,
the stun damage overflows)


Mike (Leszek Karlik) - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike
FL/GN Leszek/Raptor II/ISD Vanguard, (SS) (PC) (ISM) {IWATS-IIC} JH(Sith)/House Scholae
Palatinae
Kill all known germs - pour Domestos on a Hell's Angel.
Message no. 121
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 16:52:06 -0500
At 16-Okt-97 wrote Lehlan Decker:



>I believe that was the story FreeFall (With FastJack, Liam, and I
>think Alice was the rigger). They never mentioned the name of the
>group, but what happened is you fire a rocket (Basically a giant
>taser) at a drone. It fries the drone, and creates potential
>lethal feedback.

Yeah right. And how did this powerfull feedback to your rig when you
remote control it?
This whole damage thing can actually avoided very easy, just put
a safety switch in the connection line and you will be fine.
I have done that for a long time to prevent the stun damage from
the old rules.

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 122
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:13:15 -0400
Barbie writes:
> At 16-Okt-97 wrote Lehlan Decker:

> >I believe that was the story FreeFall (With FastJack, Liam, and I
> >think Alice was the rigger). They never mentioned the name of the
> >group, but what happened is you fire a rocket (Basically a giant
> >taser) at a drone. It fries the drone, and creates potential
> >lethal feedback.
>
> Yeah right. And how did this powerfull feedback to your rig when you
> remote control it?
> This whole damage thing can actually avoided very easy, just put
> a safety switch in the connection line and you will be fine.
> I have done that for a long time to prevent the stun damage from
> the old rules.
>
I can see this. Without reading RBB 2.0, I've had a similiar
house rule for awhile. Although I kinda like the idea of a rigger
having the Hot, Cold option deckers do. You can run flat out,
and risk serious damage, or play it safe.
Besides, even the best saftey switches can be overloaded, if hit
with enough "data".




--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The nice thing about standards,is there are so many to choose from.
Message no. 123
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:09:05 +0000
> > Yeah right. And how did this powerfull feedback to your rig when you
> > remote control it?
> > This whole damage thing can actually avoided very easy, just put
> > a safety switch in the connection line and you will be fine.
> > I have done that for a long time to prevent the stun damage from
> > the old rules.

What do you mean by "safety switch"? If you mean a cutoff that stops
anything above a certain stimuli level, I'd disagree. The level and
exactness of info that the rigger "feels" from his vehicle is what
gives him his edge. Remove it, and he might as well be using a
datajack alone.

Can you rig safely? Yes. Can you do and be the best? No.


Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie
Message no. 124
From: Frank Pelletier <jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:35:26 +0000
Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU> once wrote,

(snip)

> It's late at night and I"m feeling brainfried, so please pity me and
> point out how ICCM would help.

ICCM Biofeeback monitors, in VR 2.0, help a decker jack out when
faced with extreme feedback from IC. The same thing could be applied
to riggers, when faced with lethal feedback from their rigs (A drone
getting shot, etc.).

But then again, what would happen to the drones if the rigger was
disconnected by his ICCM monitor? Or to any vehicule he was rigged
in? One word.... CRASH.. ;) So maybe, put in a loiter mode on
drones, when the contact is killed, they just stand around, waiting
for orders... that would work , IMHO... but in a vehicule, that's a different story...

Trinity

---------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
Trinity@********.com, jeanpell@****.qc.ca

"Life is a blur"
Message no. 125
From: Frank Pelletier <jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:30:54 +0000
David Mezerette <mezeretted@*****.U-NANCY.FR> once wrote,

(snipped)

> then why don't have special skills for rigger? i mean, w/ a VCR, driving
> ain't just like driving anymore...
>
> ChYlD
> mezeretted@*****.u-nancy.fr

Hmm... That's a good point. I wouldn't go so far as separating
VCR driving with "real" driving, but the differences are there, I
admit.

So either:

1) Make VCR driving a concentration of the driving skill, kinda like
stealh, or atheltics. I.E.: a Car (VCR Drving) concentration of the
car skill

2) Make VCR Drving a seperate branch of driving, with a single dot on
the skill web, adding a +2 TN to any attempt for a purely VCR rigger
to drive a non-VCR vehicule.

After all, the experience may be different, but the same basic skills
still apply.

Trinity

---------------------------
Frank Pelletier
Trinity@********.com, jeanpell@****.qc.ca

"Life is a blur"
Message no. 126
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:37:03 -0500
At 16-Okt-97 wrote Brett Borger:


>What do you mean by "safety switch"? If you mean a cutoff that stops
>anything above a certain stimuli level, I'd disagree. The level and
>exactness of info that the rigger "feels" from his vehicle is what
>gives him his edge. Remove it, and he might as well be using a
>datajack alone.

Its enough to cut of the connection if the signal level reaches
damaging levels. So you would not hinder performance.

>Can you rig safely? Yes. Can you do and be the best? No.

Yes, only the ones who do it safely live, to others are dead.



--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 127
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:40:01 -0500
At 16-Okt-97 wrote Lehlan Decker:



>Besides, even the best saftey switches can be overloaded, if hit
>with enough "data".

Here I agree.
Maybe the rigger must roll 2d6 and if all whre ones the switch did
not work, and he receive full damage. Karma rerolls only if they are
permanent lost.


--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 128
From: Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:45:49 -0500
> and neural information is some kinda electrical
>impulse, if i remember my biology lessons ok
>(i know there are chemical neurotransmettors
>as qell, but they aren't fast enough to be in use
>for feeling pain)...imagine the interface
>sending in the nerves and neural cells a too
>high intensity, in response to a very intense
>incoming signal. Wouldn't it damage the brain
> cells?

Neural information is an electro-chemical signal.
It does not work anything like a copper wire,
more like lighting a fuse and having it burn its
way down the length of the nerve cell (with the
addition having the fuse ashes rebuild
themselves a bit behind the flame...) When the
signal gets to the end of a cell, it causes the cell
to dump little chemicals into the spaces between
the cells, which the other cells are looking for,
and when they see them, _they_ fire off a signal.

Cyberware probably does not trigger a nerve by
giving it a shock of static electricity. While it
would work, it would not be very healthy.
Instead, an impulse would probably be triggered
by making and breaking electrical connections
between nano-probes on the inside and on the
outside of the cell. Having these be UNABLE to
damage the nerve would, IMHO, be a
REQUIREMENT before they could be implanted
into even a volunteer.

Now, bad signals causing you to go into an
epileptic seisure, that I can see. Black ICE can
try to shut down your heart, too (maybe), but that
is a different issue than mere pain.

Double-Domed Mike
Message no. 129
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:50:25 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-16 00:35:07 EDT, Scott.E.Meyer@*******.EDU writes:

> IIRC, riggers have always felt a level of pain when a vehicle or drone is
> destroyed, this is just taking it to a new level. I suppose if a rigger
> really _enjoys_ the stun damage he takes everytime a drone gets shot down,
> sure, equip them with explosives and use them as guided missiles. As it
> is (unless the rules have been changed in r2, I don't have it yet) a
> rigger can only directly control one drone at a time, the rest have to be
> on standby orders until the riggers attention can be diverted back to
> them. So, unless a drone goes down while under direct control of the
> rigger in question, I'd say there's little chance of the rigger getting
> seriously hurt.

That rule is still in existence to a limited extent, however there are now
guidelines for drone/robot programmability (and the skills with which to use
already exist). A House Rule we've been using, and are likely to keep after
what I've read so far, is the "Focused Concentration" is also available in
the "Mental" modifiers in so far as operating multiple programs and/or
drones. I guess it could be called "Multiplexing" after the Matrix term, but
what the riggers would call it?????

> Hopefully, the rigger would be aware enough of his surroundings to know a
> major threat like a missile is coming and switch control or jack out
> before it hits. As for using rigger-controlled guided-missiles, it's
> never been a good idea, and it still isn't.

Oh yeah, this exists now as well, but the element of "surprise" is always
present. There is also a number of methods for improving vehicle sensors and
their Flux (range; more or less) ratings. The level of the sensors also now
includes information as to what is and is not included at what level.

-K
Message no. 130
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:52:46 -0600
Mike wrote:
|
| On 16 Oct 97, David Buehrer disseminated foul capitalist propaganda
| by writing:
|
| > But if damage is being caused to his brain then he's at more risk
|
| How? I mean, how is the damage caused? I can imagine that pain and
| sensory overload can pack a mean punch and leave you with a hangover
| of the century, but how can it physically damage the brain? Put 2000
| Volts through it? You don't really need that kind of currents in your
| brain, and besides the links are fiberoptical, so I don't think there
| are currents of that magnitude in the VCR....

The link from the vehicle to the VCR may be fiberoptic but I'm pretty
sure that the VCR connection to the brain isn't (brain cells can't
interpret light). IMHO the VCR/brain interface is based on
electrical impulses. And it doesn't take a whole lot of electricity
to cause brain damage with a direct interface like that.

| > than if he did break a leg. The brain is the centeral organ of the
| > human body. It's almost imposible to cause stun damage to the
|
| No? Well, try the following recipe:
| a) drink a glass of wine
| b) drink 50 grams of vodka
| c) goto a)

Drinking alcohol kills brain cells. It just doesn't kill enough to
frag you forever (well, unless you drink a lot in which case you can
cause permanent debilitating brain damage).

But your point is taken :) in that chemicals can disrupt brain
functions without causing damage. I forgot about that.

But how can a VCR disrupt brain function (cause stun damage)?

| > brain. IMO stun damage occurse when a person is hurt, but vital
| > systems aren't in danger (like bruises, muscle pulls, etc.). When a
|
| Uhhh? On the last training, when we did something like 100 jumps,
| push-ups, sit-ups etc. I was totally beat, unable to do anything
| besides laying on the floor and panting, but it was only
| exhaustion... Not bruises and muscle pulls. I interpret stun damage
| as just that: fatigue, exhaustion and also as a mind-breaking
| headache, sensory overload etc. (i.e. deckers - after all, IC
| that does stun damage does it to the decker's braing, IMO).

Okay, I forgot exhaustion. Basically anything that you can recover
from quickly (relative to recovering from, say, a knife wound) is
stun IMO.

| If there's a way for a VCR to cause physical damage, I'd like to
| know about it. OK, lethal biofeedback is one thing, but (as it was
| said earlier on the list) the Black IC is specially designed for
| ASIST-assisted (:>) frying of the decker's brain.

The only way that I can think of is the VCR gets overloaded by
signals from vehicle systems as they short out from damage, and the
VCR translates all this into intense (respectivly) shocks in the
brain. All IMHO.

And I just thought of something. Brain damage takes awhile to
recover from. And it never heals, the brain just reroutes commands
around the damaged area. My mother-in-law had a minor stroke last
year. She recovered from the partial paralysis within a week, the
slur disapeared from her speech after a couple of months, and she
still has a minor stutter/pause problem when talking which may affect
her for the rest of her life. If a rigger or decker takes physical
damage direct to their brains then they should be fragged for a
considerable amount of time.

Maybe the easy way out would be to say that they suffer from Stun
damage due to an unforseen affect (we can't know what it is know, but
it happens in 205x Shadowrun).

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 131
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:58:19 -0600
Brett Borger wrote:
|
| > > Yeah right. And how did this powerfull feedback to your rig when you
| > > remote control it?
| > > This whole damage thing can actually avoided very easy, just put
| > > a safety switch in the connection line and you will be fine.
| > > I have done that for a long time to prevent the stun damage from
| > > the old rules.
|
| What do you mean by "safety switch"? If you mean a cutoff that stops
| anything above a certain stimuli level, I'd disagree. The level and
| exactness of info that the rigger "feels" from his vehicle is what
| gives him his edge. Remove it, and he might as well be using a
| datajack alone.
|
| Can you rig safely? Yes. Can you do and be the best? No.

Ditto that. Going back to the fighter plane analogy, if a pilot is
flying a nice safe fighter that won't pull more than 4gs, or pull
more than 6gs for more than a couple seconds, he'll lose to a pilot
of equal skill flying an unrestricted plane because that other pilot
can fly on the edge of his abilities.

If you're controlling your drone and it gets hit and your safety
switch gets triggered you lose partial control of the drone for a
precious second where the other guy that's toughing it out can waste
your drone because he can still act.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 132
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:21:22 -0400
Barbie writes:
> At 16-Okt-97 wrote Lehlan Decker:

> >Besides, even the best saftey switches can be overloaded, if hit
> >with enough "data".
>
> Here I agree.
> Maybe the rigger must roll 2d6 and if all whre ones the switch did
> not work, and he receive full damage. Karma rerolls only if they are
> permanent lost.
>
>
That still means you had very little chance of it happening.
(What is that 1 our of 36?). The question is: 1) Is the switch
based on the Rigger 2) Or is it totally hardware based, and rigger
just uses it (like hardening). That would control what you
would roll with/against.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The nice thing about standards,is there are so many to choose from.
Message no. 133
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:29:30 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-16 09:12:22 EDT, jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU
writes:

> > Two things here. What about the idea of putting "ICCM" into a
rigger's
> > hands? Also, the base damage is 6S, I could be wrong, but I think there

> is
> > something that helps here as well.
>
> It's late at night and I"m feeling brainfried, so please pity me and
> point out how ICCM would help.

With the Matrix rules from VR2, the ICCM helps protect a decker from the
dangerous feedback that Black IC (or similarly functioning Gray IC like
Sparky) from effecting the decker as much. As such, the decker gets a -1 to
his/her target for jacking out/resisting the effects (forget which one).
Similar mod could be put into the Rigger's deck.

On this topic, what about hardening or armoring for a rigdeck? couldn't they
be applied here now as well?

> > Depending on the Corp Rating, two sec riggers at a time, or at least one

> on
> > immediate call, isn't such a bad thing. There is also ways of improving

> the
> > other systems.
>
> It may not be a bad thing, in fact it probably is a GOOD thing, but that
> doesn't mean it happens. Much of the feel of the semi-fiction indicates
> a single security decker and a single security rigger on duty at a
> time... this would make a rigger easy meat.

Agree with ya on this. That is probably part of the reason for the invention
of the Rig Protocol Emulator and the adapting of the Reflex Trigger to the
VCR. Let's the rigger help in decking and the decker help with rigging.

> "Okay, just took down my fourth drone"
> "Hey, the ones on this floor have stopped moving!"
> "Same here... looks like the sec rigger's down"
>
> And anything the PCs can do to the NPC security rigger, the NPCs can do
> to a PC rigger. Speaking as someone who likes playing riggers, I hate
> the idea.
> Lady Jestyr

The other option I can think of is the "Programmability" that drones now can
have. "If the rigger signal stops, continue doing this). Add to that the
"Learning system" that can be incorporated, and you can get a single drone or
two that doesn't stop with the cessation of the secrigger.

And I understand what you saying. I finally got a Rigger heavy group
starteed a few weeks ago (in preparation for the book and the final fights
with Winternight). Three real riggers and two others that can rig (sort of).
Gonna be a LOT of fun.

-K

BTW: that group consists of three riggers, a shamanic adept (anubis), a
sorceror adept (hermetic), two full hermetic, an Otaku (in exocyber armor), a
physical adept (whose missing at the moment, they think he's dead), a street
samurai with cyberwings (long story), A mercenary, and two mentalists
(certain category magicians). It's gonna be LOADS of fun.
Message no. 134
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:31:46 -0400
>
> A rigger isn't tied into the entire vehicle, just it's vital components.
> There may or may not be sensors monitoring the integrity of the body
> panels.
>
> Vehicle damage reflects damage to vital components, not the skin of
> the vehicle. You can blow out all the windows and riddle the surface
> of a vehicle without causing any real damage. The vehicle will
> continue to operate at 100%. It's when a vital system (engine,
> transmission, suspension, electronics, sensors, drivetrain, etc)
> takes damage that the rigger feels it, because those systems are
> covered with sensors that are run directly into a riggers brain so he
> can "feel" the vehicle and control it as if it were his own body.
> When those systems take damage is when the feedback/whatever occurs
> and the rigger takes damage. The VCRs direct, unimpeded link to
> those systems leaves the rigger open to damage.
>
> -David
> http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
I don't think the VCR could have a direct, unipeded link to the vital
systems of a vehicle. While it seems simple for an automobile, when
applied to something like a non-aerodynamic jet like the F-117 that can
only be flown with massive computer assitance, the system breaks down. I
would say that the rigger interfaces with secondary computer systems
within the vehicle, which are dedicated to controling a specific aspect of
the vehicle, like the navigation and radar systems, targeting and fire
control, powertrain, communications etc. The rigger would not have direct
control over the fuel injection ratios for a ram or scram jet, he would
simply tell the computer that controls the fuel injection system that he
wanted more speed and the computer would perform all the necessary tasks.
If this were not the case, even with encephalons, math CPUs and all sorts
of other headware, there is no way a rigger could keep up with all the
dedicated computer systems in a SOTA 1997 aircraft, let alone a 205x
aircraft.
With a system such as this, my 'static' idea becomes much more sensible.
As the various computers and sensors get damaged, static builds up in the
links between the rigger's brain, VCR and vehicle, making it more and more
difficult to control. If static reaches 'deadly' levels, the rigger is
dumped and his system crashes (literally :).
Message no. 135
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:41:38 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-16 10:01:58 EDT, MikeE@*********.COM writes:

>
> No, pain and healing are pretty disconected.
> Pain can cause stress hormones to be released,
> which boost your fight/flight responses
> temporarily (and degrade them if the levels stay
> around too long), and pain helps greatly in
> learning responses to stimulai (although not as
> much as pleasure). But to answer your
> question, the gain from pain stays mainly in the
> brain.

Uhm, a....wait a nanosec or two....that isn't entirely true. Pressure
centers and false information is what makes the body do things it shouldn't
be. Causing a muscle spasm along the upper capillary crowns at the base of
the neck would be incredibly painful to suffer and highly distracting as it
it applying pressure to the base areas of the skull and facial region. If
the adrenocortical centers and other regions of the hypothalamus were to
suddenly "pump out", then the mind would go into a chemical (read as
bioelectrical) overstimulation. The body (human/metahuman) would switch on
several failsafes, or at least attempt to do so, and cause anything from
Mnemonic Peristasis (Flashbacks and Memory Blackouts) to Stroke or Endemia
(the last term I may have mixed up with something else...flooding the brain
with two much blood flow and suffocating it).

All of this is possible, given what is described as to why/where the rigger's
connections are made. And that is described folks. Like Shadowtech before,
the R2 has -some- real world intrusions to help extrapolate it's variety of
fiction.

-K
Message no. 136
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:54:42 -0500
At 16-Okt-97 wrote David Buehrer:


>If you're controlling your drone and it gets hit and your safety
>switch gets triggered you lose partial control of the drone for a
>precious second where the other guy that's toughing it out can waste
>your drone because he can still act.

If you design the switch right you will not lose control, it merely
lessens the signal peak to safe levels.
Do notices that the drone is damaged you need not been hurt, a simple
pain reflex is more then enough for that.
If the design cuts only the dangerous peaks you can operate normaly
and with better efficiency than one without a switch, because
you get not damaged only your drone.
--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 137
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:46:17 -0500
At 16-Okt-97 wrote J. Keith Henry:


[snip]
>I guess it could be called "Multiplexing" after the Matrix term, but
>what the riggers would call it?????

Multilocating?


--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 138
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:01:36 -0500
At 16-Okt-97 wrote Lehlan Decker:


> That still means you had very little chance of it happening.
>(What is that 1 our of 36?). The question is: 1) Is the switch
>based on the Rigger 2) Or is it totally hardware based, and rigger
>just uses it (like hardening). That would control what you
>would roll with/against.

Yes the change is very small, but how often fail a switch in RL?
Very few times.
I would say that there can be two options for that.
One as an addone the the rigcyber and an hardwarepiece for the use
in decks or the vehicle itself.
Maybe the cyberware is more effective or the hardware thing gets
used up after socking up deadly damage?
--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 139
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:06:34 -0400
Lehlan Decker[SMTP:decker@****.FSU.EDU] wrote:
> Barbie writes:
> > This whole damage thing can actually avoided very easy, just put
> > a safety switch in the connection line and you will be fine.
> > I have done that for a long time to prevent the stun damage from
> > the old rules.
>
> I can see this. Without reading RBB 2.0, I've had a similiar
> house rule for awhile. Although I kinda like the idea of a rigger
> having the Hot, Cold option deckers do. You can run flat out,
> and risk serious damage, or play it safe.
> Besides, even the best saftey switches can be overloaded, if hit
> with enough "data".

This corresponds nicely with the four methods of driving a car:
1) Steering wheel - tortoise mode; anyone can do it
2) Datajack - cold mode; you need headware, but it's safe (and gives
you a speed increase)
3) VCR ("Captain's Chair")- cool mode; VCR gives initiative increases,
and you can only take damage if somebody MIJIs your data channels
(MIJI is "Meaconing, Intruding, Jamming and Interference" - basically
jamming somebody's remote deck)
3) VCR (primary drone) - hot mode; VCR gives initiative increases, the
rigger can use personal skills for greater control, but dangerous
if that drone is destroyed

Sound about right?

James Ojaste
Message no. 140
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:24:20 -0400
Ojaste,James [NCR] writes:
> Lehlan Decker[SMTP:decker@****.FSU.EDU] wrote:
> > Barbie writes:
> > > This whole damage thing can actually avoided very easy, just put
> > > a safety switch in the connection line and you will be fine.
> > > I have done that for a long time to prevent the stun damage from
> > > the old rules.
> >
> > I can see this. Without reading RBB 2.0, I've had a similiar
> > house rule for awhile. Although I kinda like the idea of a rigger
> > having the Hot, Cold option deckers do. You can run flat out,
> > and risk serious damage, or play it safe.
> > Besides, even the best saftey switches can be overloaded, if hit
> > with enough "data".
>
> This corresponds nicely with the four methods of driving a car:
> 1) Steering wheel - tortoise mode; anyone can do it
> 2) Datajack - cold mode; you need headware, but it's safe (and gives
> you a speed increase)
> 3) VCR ("Captain's Chair")- cool mode; VCR gives initiative increases,
> and you can only take damage if somebody MIJIs your data channels
> (MIJI is "Meaconing, Intruding, Jamming and Interference" -
basically
> jamming somebody's remote deck)
> 3) VCR (primary drone) - hot mode; VCR gives initiative increases, the
> rigger can use personal skills for greater control, but dangerous
> if that drone is destroyed
>
> Sound about right?
>

Barbie may disagree, but I like it. Corresponds well with the skill
discussion going on as well.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The nice thing about standards,is there are so many to choose from.
Message no. 141
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:26:56 -0400
Barbie writes:
> At 16-Okt-97 wrote Lehlan Decker:
>
>
> > That still means you had very little chance of it happening.
> >(What is that 1 our of 36?). The question is: 1) Is the switch
> >based on the Rigger 2) Or is it totally hardware based, and rigger
> >just uses it (like hardening). That would control what you
> >would roll with/against.
>
> Yes the change is very small, but how often fail a switch in RL?
> Very few times.
> I would say that there can be two options for that.
> One as an addone the the rigcyber and an hardwarepiece for the use
> in decks or the vehicle itself.
> Maybe the cyberware is more effective or the hardware thing gets
> used up after socking up deadly damage?
> --

Maybe its just me. Switchs don't like me. (Me and Mr. Murphy just
don't see eye to eye). Hmm...I might buy that. Perhaps
the switch doesn't remove all damage. Just acts like
hardening to soak up some damage. (Kinda like the fuse or grounding
idea). Me thinks I need to get RBB 2.0, and then try it out.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The nice thing about standards,is there are so many to choose from.
Message no. 142
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:29:32 -0400
Barbie writes:
> At 16-Okt-97 wrote J. Keith Henry:
>
>
> [snip]
> >I guess it could be called "Multiplexing" after the Matrix term, but
> >what the riggers would call it?????
>
> Multilocating?
>
>
Is that a word? If not it should be. :) I would stick with
Multi-tasking. Hmm..wonder if an Encephalon or some such would
help with this. It does help with the Matrix, so I suppose
it would apply here as well.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The nice thing about standards,is there are so many to choose from.
Message no. 143
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:26:17 -0400
Lehlan Decker[SMTP:decker@****.FSU.EDU] wrote:
> Barbie writes:
> > At 16-Okt-97 wrote J. Keith Henry:
> > >I guess it could be called "Multiplexing" after the Matrix term,
but
> > >what the riggers would call it?????
> >
> > Multilocating?
> >
> Is that a word? If not it should be. :) I would stick with
> Multi-tasking. Hmm..wonder if an Encephalon or some such would
> help with this. It does help with the Matrix, so I suppose
> it would apply here as well.

You can oversee the operations of several drones at once (in the
captain's chair), and multitasking does help (no mechanics given).
In the captain's chair, you can give orders but you can't control
any of the drones directly. You won't get dumped if a drone blows
up, but you can't use your superior gunnery skills for instance.

James Ojaste
Message no. 144
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:38:59 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-16 13:06:33 EDT, barbie@**********.COM writes:

> >I guess it could be called "Multiplexing" after the Matrix term, but
> >what the riggers would call it?????
>
> Multilocating?
>
I think that could work. Or how about "Armchairing", in lue of the new
terminology???

-K
Message no. 145
From: Max Rible <slothman@*********.ORG>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:45:25 -0800
Well, I just got Rigger 2, and it's going to need a major overhaul before
my campaign is going to be able to use it.

I can believe in the simsense feedback of a vehicle giving pain to a rigger
as a psychological mechanism: it makes you take things more seriously and
is part of why you get such good reaction time from a vehicle control rig.
I don't believe in taking physical damage from the feedback (though I
certainly believe in stun damage from the pain) or that a
bullet taking out a windshield feels like a bullet to the head. Losing
a windshield isn't very traumatic for a vehicle, and shouldn't hurt that
much. Having an earth elemental reach out of the ground and rip out your
transmission: *that* should hurt. Certainly, I expect that a lot of
riggers get very good at the "switch out of the drone before something
terrible happens" maneuver.

The Electronic Warfare section is going to need going over with a fine-tooth
comb to salvage anything from it. The notion of using ECCM to keep someone
from interacting with data packets being transmitted back and forth doesn't
make much sense. Ditto needing to transmit something to the enemy in order
to figure out what they're transmitting. And encryption... The FASA world
must have proved that p = np...

The static-charge missiles are a fun idea, but I don't believe in them
doing physical damage to a rigger. (It's too easy to involve some fiber
optics in your connection to the system and isolate voltage surges; I don't
believe in the corresponding IC for deckers, either.)

The notion that a higher DFR datajack gives you better perception rolls is
somewhat unfounded in Shadowrun, and has implications that the book doesn't
address (such as the corresponding phenomenon for deckers), so I'm going to
ignore it.

The rigger vs. rigger combat for dealing with security riggers is silly.
Willpower vs. Willpower? How does willpower translate into signals you
send over a wire? We rules it should be Int vs. Int and be a special
effect of the protocol emulation tool.

Vehicle design is going to need a lot of working over. There are some
nice ideas in there-- the design system, defining the size of a CF, and
splitting CF from Load in particular-- but there are some really murky
spots.

Dump shock is really vicious in Rigger 2. My group hasn't decided whether
or not to stick with the rules in the book.

Drive-by-wire. "Fly-by-wire", the original genesis of this notion, just
refers to electronic control of a plane (rather than hydraulic or mechanical).
The notion of using computers to control an inherently unstable system comes
from the X-29, IIRC, but FASA seems to think that "x-by-wire" is about
computer controlling an inherently unstable system to get better performance.
Figuring out how you make a *car* into something as unstable as a jet
with forward-swept wings wasn't easy, but I finally decided that drive-by-wire
is actually the great-grandchild of anti-lock brakes, and is designed to
give you incredible control of your vehicle during skids.

The maintenance and overhead rules will need adjusting based on usage
and storage. (It does refer to paying for fuel and storage as well as
maintenance, so it's not completely ridiculous, but the notion that
something sitting in your garage will need that much maintenance is
rather silly...)

The table for making sensors and other electronics smaller by paying more
(from RBB1) seems to have gone away.

All in all, Rigger 2 is worth getting, but I'd like to see a version where
they had more time to run it past an editor: there are lots of confused
points that need clarification, and some sections that are outright
jumbled (such as the indirect fire/missile fire one). There'll be a set
of tweaks for it coming out on my web site sometime soon...

--
%% Max Rible %% slothman@*****.com %% http://www.amurgsval.org/~slothman/ %%
%% "Ham is good... Glowing *tattooed* ham is *bad*!" - the Tick %%
Message no. 146
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:53:21 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-16 13:12:24 EDT, decker@****.FSU.EDU writes:

> Ojaste,James [NCR] writes:
> > This corresponds nicely with the four methods of driving a car:
> > 1) Steering wheel - tortoise mode; anyone can do it
> > 2) Datajack - cold mode; you need headware, but it's safe (and gives
> > you a speed increase)
> > 3) VCR ("Captain's Chair")- cool mode; VCR gives initiative
increases,
> > and you can only take damage if somebody MIJIs your data
channels
> > (MIJI is "Meaconing, Intruding, Jamming and Interference" -
> basically
> > jamming somebody's remote deck)
> > 3) VCR (primary drone) - hot mode; VCR gives initiative increases, the
> > rigger can use personal skills for greater control, but
dangerous
> > if that drone is destroyed
> >
> > Sound about right?
> >
>
> Barbie may disagree, but I like it. Corresponds well with the skill
> discussion going on as well.

I think I like that as well. But a question, I haven't made it that far, but
does the RiC occur for the "Captain?" I wouldn't grant such, or maybe just
half the modifier, for the Captain I think.

-K
Message no. 147
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:54:25 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-16 13:17:28 EDT, decker@****.FSU.EDU writes:

> > Multilocating?
> >
> >
> Is that a word? If not it should be. :) I would stick with
> Multi-tasking. Hmm..wonder if an Encephalon or some such would
> help with this. It does help with the Matrix, so I suppose
> it would apply here as well.
>
Hey Lehlahn, get this...R2; page 17....upper right
column/corner..."Furthermore, the unique nature of the encephalon enables
riggers to use Driving skillsofts without the need for skillwires for the
purposes of rigging."

Yet something else my group had argued out for a long time now, and it's come
to pass...sigh...

-K
Message no. 148
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:09:12 -0400
J. Keith Henry writes:
> In a message dated 97-10-16 13:17:28 EDT, decker@****.FSU.EDU writes:
>
> > > Multilocating?
> > >
> > >
> > Is that a word? If not it should be. :) I would stick with
> > Multi-tasking. Hmm..wonder if an Encephalon or some such would
> > help with this. It does help with the Matrix, so I suppose
> > it would apply here as well.
> >
> Hey Lehlahn, get this...R2; page 17....upper right
> column/corner..."Furthermore, the unique nature of the encephalon enables
> riggers to use Driving skillsofts without the need for skillwires for the
> purposes of rigging."
>
> Yet something else my group had argued out for a long time now, and it's come
> to pass...sigh...
>
Hehe...so either FASA is paying attention to the list, or
perhaps common sense is becoming more common...nah....:)-


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The nice thing about standards,is there are so many to choose from.
Message no. 149
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:10:31 -0400
J. Keith Henry writes:
> In a message dated 97-10-16 13:12:24 EDT, decker@****.FSU.EDU writes:
>
> > Ojaste,James [NCR] writes:
> > > This corresponds nicely with the four methods of driving a car:
> > > 1) Steering wheel - tortoise mode; anyone can do it
> > > 2) Datajack - cold mode; you need headware, but it's safe (and gives
> > > you a speed increase)
> > > 3) VCR ("Captain's Chair")- cool mode; VCR gives initiative
increases,
> > > and you can only take damage if somebody MIJIs your data
> channels
> > > (MIJI is "Meaconing, Intruding, Jamming and
Interference" -
> > basically
> > > jamming somebody's remote deck)
> > > 3) VCR (primary drone) - hot mode; VCR gives initiative increases, the
> > > rigger can use personal skills for greater control, but
> dangerous
> > > if that drone is destroyed
> > >
> > > Sound about right?

> > Barbie may disagree, but I like it. Corresponds well with the skill
> > discussion going on as well.
>
> I think I like that as well. But a question, I haven't made it that far, but
> does the RiC occur for the "Captain?" I wouldn't grant such, or maybe just
> half the modifier, for the Captain I think.
>

Hmm...I would say yes. But since I haven't had a chance
to actually use this, I'm not sure how I would like it
in game play. Similiar to Decking Hot or Cold (I don't
have the rules in front of me).


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The nice thing about standards,is there are so many to choose from.
Message no. 150
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:08:29 -0600
Barbie wrote:
|
| At 16-Okt-97 wrote David Buehrer:
|
| >If you're controlling your drone and it gets hit and your safety
| >switch gets triggered you lose partial control of the drone for a
| >precious second where the other guy that's toughing it out can waste
| >your drone because he can still act.
|
| If you design the switch right you will not lose control, it merely
| lessens the signal peak to safe levels.
| Do notices that the drone is damaged you need not been hurt, a simple
| pain reflex is more then enough for that.
| If the design cuts only the dangerous peaks you can operate normaly
| and with better efficiency than one without a switch, because
| you get not damaged only your drone.

Hmmm.. that'd be like having a monitoring system on a jet fighter
lessening the G load if the pilot is in danger of blacking out. The
pilot could still push the envelope but the plane wouldn't let him
kill himself. Okay, I'll buy your arguement.

I can rationalize why a rigger would take stun damage if his vehicle
is damaged due to data overload, but you're right, it's to easy to
compensate for.

.. unless. We're talking elecro-chemical data transmission to the
rigger's motor reflexes. How would the VCR know what is "good"
information and what is "bad" information? Maybe it's not a matter
of data overload but "bad" data. What if when a vehicle system is
damaged the VCR sensors send "bad" data to the rigger's VCR. His
brain is then subjected to this bad data which screws up his brain's
functions (stun damage). There would be almost no way to put a
switch on that except to shut down the sensors if a system is damaged
("Hey, where'd the engine go?").

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 151
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:16:34 -0400
J. Keith Henry[SMTP:Ereskanti@***.COM] wrote:
> In a message dated 97-10-16 13:12:24 EDT, decker@****.FSU.EDU writes:
> > Ojaste,James [NCR] writes:
> > > This corresponds nicely with the four methods of driving a car:
> > > 3) VCR ("Captain's Chair")- cool mode; VCR gives initiative
increases,
> > > and you can only take damage if somebody MIJIs your data
> channels
> > > (MIJI is "Meaconing, Intruding, Jamming and
Interference" -
> > basically
> > > jamming somebody's remote deck)

I missed a sentence on pg65 - a VCR isn't required for captain's chair
mode.

> > > 3) VCR (primary drone) - hot mode; VCR gives initiative increases, the

Doh! I can't count, either.

> > Barbie may disagree, but I like it. Corresponds well with the skill
> > discussion going on as well.
>
> I think I like that as well. But a question, I haven't made it that far,
but
> does the RiC occur for the "Captain?" I wouldn't grant such, or maybe just
> half the modifier, for the Captain I think.

RiC? Rigger in Control? Having a Rigger using a primary drone allows
the rigger to use his skills instead of the drones pilot rating - is
this what you're referring to?

James Ojaste
Message no. 152
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:11:30 -0400
Max Rible[SMTP:slothman@*********.ORG] wrote:
> Well, I just got Rigger 2, and it's going to need a major overhaul before
> my campaign is going to be able to use it.

Am I the only person who likes this book?

> I can believe in the simsense feedback of a vehicle giving pain to a rigger
> as a psychological mechanism: it makes you take things more seriously and
> is part of why you get such good reaction time from a vehicle control rig.

This is a good start...

> I don't believe in taking physical damage from the feedback (though I
> certainly believe in stun damage from the pain) or that a
> bullet taking out a windshield feels like a bullet to the head. Losing
> a windshield isn't very traumatic for a vehicle, and shouldn't hurt that
> much. Having an earth elemental reach out of the ground and rip out your
> transmission: *that* should hurt. Certainly, I expect that a lot of
> riggers get very good at the "switch out of the drone before something
> terrible happens" maneuver.

And losing a finger isn't very traumatic for a person? Sure, it's just
a small part. Sure, it can be replaced easily enough, but it *hurts*.

> The Electronic Warfare section is going to need going over with a fine-tooth
> comb to salvage anything from it. The notion of using ECCM to keep someone
> from interacting with data packets being transmitted back and forth doesn't
> make much sense. Ditto needing to transmit something to the enemy in order

Huh? Are you referring to Meaconing? Intruding?

> to figure out what they're transmitting. And encryption... The FASA world
> must have proved that p = np...

You don't need to transmit anything to the enemy to find out what
they're
transmitting (I assume you mean finding out what protocol they're
using).
You just need to listen. Carefully. And their view of encryption
hasn't
really changed since SRII - what's wrong with it now?

> The static-charge missiles are a fun idea, but I don't believe in them
> doing physical damage to a rigger. (It's too easy to involve some fiber
> optics in your connection to the system and isolate voltage surges; I don't
> believe in the corresponding IC for deckers, either.)

Perhaps it isn't so much a voltage overload, but lots of simultaneous
stimuli that the brain just can't handle? Can't isolate that with
fiber.

> The notion that a higher DFR datajack gives you better perception rolls is
> somewhat unfounded in Shadowrun, and has implications that the book doesn't
> address (such as the corresponding phenomenon for deckers), so I'm going to
> ignore it.

In Shadowtech, they mention the differing data transfer rates of the
various datajacks - I haven't read VR2, but they should probably apply
there as well. In R2, it just means that with a higher bandwidth, you
can get higher resolution - just like in RL.

I don't understand where you're coming from - you seem to be rejecting
some parts of the book because you don't think they're realistic, and
others because they're too realistic?

> The rigger vs. rigger combat for dealing with security riggers is silly.
> Willpower vs. Willpower? How does willpower translate into signals you
> send over a wire? We rules it should be Int vs. Int and be a special
> effect of the protocol emulation tool.

I see it as who can say "I win." more often... Like kids on the
playground,
whoever gets in the last word (or command) wins.

> Vehicle design is going to need a lot of working over. There are some
> nice ideas in there-- the design system, defining the size of a CF, and
> splitting CF from Load in particular-- but there are some really murky
> spots.

The CF is dead! Long live the CF! :-)
There aren't nearly as many murky spots in the vehicle construction as
there were in RBB1, AFAIR.

> Dump shock is really vicious in Rigger 2. My group hasn't decided whether
> or not to stick with the rules in the book.

I like this. It makes every member of a shadowrunning party vulnerable.
It kinda sucks when you can create a character who is more useful than
the rest of the party put together, with no personal risk...

> Drive-by-wire. "Fly-by-wire", the original genesis of this notion, just
> refers to electronic control of a plane (rather than hydraulic or
mechanical).
> The notion of using computers to control an inherently unstable system comes
> from the X-29, IIRC, but FASA seems to think that "x-by-wire" is about

I thought that modern FBW jets were pretty uncontrollable if something
failed... Especially if they're supersonic.

> computer controlling an inherently unstable system to get better
performance.
> Figuring out how you make a *car* into something as unstable as a jet
> with forward-swept wings wasn't easy, but I finally decided that
drive-by-wire
> is actually the great-grandchild of anti-lock brakes, and is designed to
> give you incredible control of your vehicle during skids.

Drive-by-wire doesn't mention inherently unstable systems. It just
gives handling bonuses (and a small efficiency increase). It replaces
the manual controls or the basic electronic (DBW, technically) controls
with more efficient ones. Better response time, more accurate - that
sort of thing.

Where do you get the anti-lock brake thing from? The handling bonuses
apply even if you're not braking...

> The maintenance and overhead rules will need adjusting based on usage
> and storage. (It does refer to paying for fuel and storage as well as
> maintenance, so it's not completely ridiculous, but the notion that
> something sitting in your garage will need that much maintenance is
> rather silly...)

So use the optempo rules - you pay a =Y= cost per kilometer travelled.
A car in the garage won't cost a thing.

> The table for making sensors and other electronics smaller by paying more
> (from RBB1) seems to have gone away.

Sensors are pretty small as is - if you really wanted, you could use
the alpha-beta grade rules.

> All in all, Rigger 2 is worth getting, but I'd like to see a version where
> they had more time to run it past an editor: there are lots of confused
> points that need clarification, and some sections that are outright
> jumbled (such as the indirect fire/missile fire one). There'll be a set
> of tweaks for it coming out on my web site sometime soon...

I found it much clearer than RBB1. It covers a lot of other situations
as well, and gives a better insight into rigging as a whole.

I can't carry all of my Shadowrun books all over the place (no vehicle),
but I'm going to be carrying R2 around (along with SRII, FoF and
Awakenings).

James Ojaste
Message no. 153
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:42:23 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-16 13:55:11 EDT, you write:

> Hey Lehlahn, get this...R2; page 17....upper right
> column/corner..."Furthermore, the unique nature of the encephalon enables
> riggers to use Driving skillsofts without the need for skillwires for the
> purposes of rigging."
>
> Yet something else my group had argued out for a long time now, and it's
> come
> to pass...sigh...
>

Keith, but there is a way to limit this, only if the rigger is jacked in will
the skill not be considered a physical one.

Mike
Message no. 154
From: Czar Eggbert <czregbrt@*********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:51:23 -0500
> by the way, i remember having read in the 'into the shadows' anthology, that
> there was a gang which 'played' w/ specially modified missiles to fry
> riggers' brain by shooting the drones down?
> does anyone knows something about it?
>
Hmmm.. I don't remember that, but did anyone here ever read the
2099 line in Marvel? They had a rigger of sorts, Gallahad 2099, who they
fried by shooting with microwave bursts at his drone.. fun, neh?

-=>Czar

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Czar Eggbert
Ruler, Dark Side of the Moon.
homepage: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/5648
mailto:czregbrt@*********.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality!? Is that some new game?"
-MDF
"I'll need morphine, lots of it, and a pistol."
-The English Patient
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 155
From: Max Rible <slothman@*********.ORG>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:52:33 -0800
At 14:11 10/16/97 -0400, Ojaste,James [NCR] wrote:
>Max Rible[SMTP:slothman@*********.ORG] wrote:
>> Well, I just got Rigger 2, and it's going to need a major overhaul before
>> my campaign is going to be able to use it.

>Am I the only person who likes this book?

I like parts of it. I'd prefer having it out than not having it out at
all. I don't think I wasted my money on it. It just needs some
improvements.

>> Losing
>> a windshield isn't very traumatic for a vehicle, and shouldn't hurt that
>> much.

>And losing a finger isn't very traumatic for a person? Sure, it's just
>a small part. Sure, it can be replaced easily enough, but it *hurts*.

Losing a windshield is minor. It's like getting a light slash wound
on your back: it's painful, but nowhere near as bad as an amputation.

>> The Electronic Warfare section is going to need going over with a
fine-tooth
>> comb to salvage anything from it. The notion of using ECCM to keep someone
>> from interacting with data packets being transmitted back and forth doesn't
>> make much sense.

>Huh? Are you referring to Meaconing? Intruding?

Meaconing, Intruding, and Iwhateveritwas all were attempts to break into
the *data* of the rigger network, using something besides ECM, so I don't
see ECCM as being appropriate to defending against it.

>> Ditto needing to transmit something to the enemy in order
>> to figure out what they're transmitting. And encryption... The FASA world
>> must have proved that p = np...

>You don't need to transmit anything to the enemy to find out what they're
>transmitting (I assume you mean finding out what protocol they're using).
>You just need to listen. Carefully.

Read the section again. It talks about needing to transmit in order to
eavesdrop, and the defending rigger gets a chance to notice and put their
system on alert.

> And their view of encryption hasn't
>really changed since SRII - what's wrong with it now?

It's been wrong the whole time. If encryption were as easy to defeat as
FASA source material suggests, everyone would be going around with
random number generators using thermodynamic or quantum-mechanical principles
and using one-time pads for everything.

>> The static-charge missiles are a fun idea, but I don't believe in them
>> doing physical damage to a rigger. (It's too easy to involve some fiber
>> optics in your connection to the system and isolate voltage surges; I don't
>> believe in the corresponding IC for deckers, either.)

>Perhaps it isn't so much a voltage overload, but lots of simultaneous
>stimuli that the brain just can't handle? Can't isolate that with
>fiber.

Sure you can. If the only thing that makes it to your brain is digital
packets in a given format that are then decoded by your headware,
you can filter the packets. If you filter them *too* much-- say, by
trying to remove the information that translates to pain in your interface--
you should experience a performance degradation. But getting a voltage
spike in your onboard systems shouldn't do physical damage to the rigger
who's jacked in.

>> The notion that a higher DFR datajack gives you better perception rolls is
>> somewhat unfounded in Shadowrun, and has implications that the book doesn't
>> address (such as the corresponding phenomenon for deckers), so I'm going to
>> ignore it.

>In Shadowtech, they mention the differing data transfer rates of the
>various datajacks - I haven't read VR2, but they should probably apply
>there as well.

I can't recall any point at which they do so in VR2.

> In R2, it just means that with a higher bandwidth, you
>can get higher resolution - just like in RL.

The description of high-data-rate datajacks mentions nothing about being
able to get a higher-quality simsense feed out of them. If you can, then
why isn't there talk about simsense fans getting the big datajacks so
they can catch every nuance, and deckers getting advantages out of it other
than high-speed transfer to headware memory? Shouldn't someone with a
mere 25 DFR datajack find it easier to figure out that they're in a
virtual environment than someone with a 100 DFR jack?

>I don't understand where you're coming from - you seem to be rejecting
>some parts of the book because you don't think they're realistic, and
>others because they're too realistic?

No. I'm rejecting it because they're declaring something that should
have other ramifications in the rest of game reality that they aren't
accounting for. It is unrealistic because it is incomplete.

>I thought that modern FBW jets were pretty uncontrollable if something
>failed... Especially if they're supersonic.

There are FBW airliners that are perfectly stable. Something like the
X-29 with forward-swept wings needs the computers to stay up, yes.

>Drive-by-wire doesn't mention inherently unstable systems. It just
>gives handling bonuses (and a small efficiency increase).

The description of Drive-by-wire in my copy of Rigger 2 is of computer
control of inherently unstable systems.

>Where do you get the anti-lock brake thing from? The handling bonuses
>apply even if you're not braking...

Like I said, it's the great-grandchild of anti-lock braking. Anti-lock
braking keeps track of whether your wheels are skidding or not when you
apply the brakes. Drive-by-wire would do so for acceleration and
maneuvering, giving a new meaning to the term "controlled skid".

>> The table for making sensors and other electronics smaller by paying more
>> (from RBB1) seems to have gone away.

>Sensors are pretty small as is - if you really wanted, you could use
>the alpha-beta grade rules.

I like the table from RBB1: short and sweet, and roughly comparable
to the alpha-beta grade rules.

--
%% Max Rible %% slothman@*****.com %% http://www.amurgsval.org/~slothman/ %%
%% "Ham is good... Glowing *tattooed* ham is *bad*!" - the Tick %%
Message no. 156
From: Czar Eggbert <czregbrt@*********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:15:35 -0500
On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, Mike Elkins wrote:

> > and neural information is some kinda electrical
> >impulse, if i remember my biology lessons ok
> >(i know there are chemical neurotransmettors
> >as qell, but they aren't fast enough to be in use
> >for feeling pain)...imagine the interface
> >sending in the nerves and neural cells a too
> >high intensity, in response to a very intense
> >incoming signal. Wouldn't it damage the brain
> > cells?

<snip neuro stuff>

> Now, bad signals causing you to go into an
> epileptic seisure, that I can see. Black ICE can
> try to shut down your heart, too (maybe), but that
> is a different issue than mere pain.
> Double-Domed Mike
>
Okay I tried to hold back but DDMike came so close to my interpitation
that I had to toss in my 2 =Y=.

Here's what we have so far....

1) The VCR sends ASIST(?) information to the rigger from the sensors via a
fiberoptic line.
2) When a veichial(ms) takes damage the rigger "feels" it but DOES NOT
take damage unless it is Serious or Deadly
3) When a drone takes damage the only damage that the rigger takes is Dump
Shock

Okay here's my take on why a rigger takes physical damage while
directly connect to a "dying" car. First as many of you know it is easy to
fool the brain into believing that something is happening that isnt, thus
the ASIST interface. Now Imagen That you are jacked into a car that is
about to get fired with a missele... no the way I see it a rigger almost
forgets that he is not the car and so begins to think that the missele is
coming at him... the brain then tells the body to get ready for a crash,
which then creats adrenalan(ms) whis is of no use to the rigger whose body
is not moving at all. This presents physical wear and tear on the body...
Now imagen that this missle hit's and your world goes black... This is
diffrent from drone "dump shock" because you have a direct connection to
the car making it that much more real! Now you don't need any black IC to
tell you heart to shutdown because your brain will do it automaticly,
because it thinks you are dead! This happens in the case where people are
"scared to death" and die of heart attacks. The reason that ther rigger
never takes deadly damage is that parts of his body still know he's alive
ad stop the totle shut down before it's too late.

That's my 2 =Y=.

-=>Czar


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Czar Eggbert
Ruler, Dark Side of the Moon.
homepage: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/5648
mailto:czregbrt@*********.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality!? Is that some new game?"
-MDF
"I'll need morphine, lots of it, and a pistol."
-The English Patient
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 157
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 15:20:18 -0400
Max Rible[SMTP:slothman@*********.ORG] wrote:
> At 14:11 10/16/97 -0400, Ojaste,James [NCR] wrote:
> >> Losing
> >> a windshield isn't very traumatic for a vehicle, and shouldn't hurt that
> >> much.
> >And losing a finger isn't very traumatic for a person? Sure, it's just
> >a small part. Sure, it can be replaced easily enough, but it *hurts*.
> Losing a windshield is minor. It's like getting a light slash wound
> on your back: it's painful, but nowhere near as bad as an amputation.

I dunno about that - there's now a *hole* in you - parts of you
that were connected before are now disconnected... Whatever.

> >> The Electronic Warfare section is going to need going over with a
> fine-tooth
> >> comb to salvage anything from it. The notion of using ECCM to keep
someone
> >> from interacting with data packets being transmitted back and forth
doesn't
> >> make much sense.
> >Huh? Are you referring to Meaconing? Intruding?
> Meaconing, Intruding, and Iwhateveritwas all were attempts to break into
> the *data* of the rigger network, using something besides ECM, so I don't
> see ECCM as being appropriate to defending against it.

Why not? MIJI is ECM. Traditional (1990s) ECM often involves
jamming - miJi. I'd call MIJI a form of ECM. Why couldn't ECCM
try to identify and filter your packets from a jumbled mess?

> > And their view of encryption hasn't
> >really changed since SRII - what's wrong with it now?
>
> It's been wrong the whole time. If encryption were as easy to defeat as
> FASA source material suggests, everyone would be going around with
> random number generators using thermodynamic or quantum-mechanical
principles
> and using one-time pads for everything.

But that's boring. If people were guaranteed secure, uninterruptable
communications, the world would be a lot different...

> >Perhaps it isn't so much a voltage overload, but lots of simultaneous
> >stimuli that the brain just can't handle? Can't isolate that with
> >fiber.
>
> Sure you can. If the only thing that makes it to your brain is digital
> packets in a given format that are then decoded by your headware,
> you can filter the packets. If you filter them *too* much-- say, by
> trying to remove the information that translates to pain in your interface--
> you should experience a performance degradation. But getting a voltage
> spike in your onboard systems shouldn't do physical damage to the rigger
> who's jacked in.

But what I was saying was that maybe it isn't a voltage spike
that causes the pain - what if it's more like your brain just gets
overwhelmed by too many small stimuli (each one taken alone wouldn't
be painful, but when put together the rigger's brain hurts).

> >> The notion that a higher DFR datajack gives you better perception rolls
is
> >> somewhat unfounded in Shadowrun, and has implications that the book
doesn't
> >> address (such as the corresponding phenomenon for deckers), so I'm going
to
> >> ignore it.
> >In Shadowtech, they mention the differing data transfer rates of the
> >various datajacks - I haven't read VR2, but they should probably apply
> >there as well.
> I can't recall any point at which they do so in VR2.

I'd say that's a problem with VR2, then.

> > In R2, it just means that with a higher bandwidth, you
> >can get higher resolution - just like in RL.
>
> The description of high-data-rate datajacks mentions nothing about being
> able to get a higher-quality simsense feed out of them. If you can, then
> why isn't there talk about simsense fans getting the big datajacks so
> they can catch every nuance, and deckers getting advantages out of it other
> than high-speed transfer to headware memory? Shouldn't someone with a

Deckers get high-speed transfer to headware memory? Great! Then
the bandwidth does apply. Think of it as a multi-stage pipeline.
When decking, the reality usually isn't very detailed - you don't
need much bandwidth between the deck and the decker to display the
information. Likewise, the decker's commands to the deck are relatively
simple. When rigging, however, the rigger needs to know many more
little bits of information that are handled more abstractly in the VR
realm.

> mere 25 DFR datajack find it easier to figure out that they're in a
> virtual environment than someone with a 100 DFR jack?

Aren't most simsense players non-cyber? And it's not like SR explicitly
mentions every possible connotation of every technological development
or rule modification.

I'd say that somebody using a 100 DFR jack compared to somebody using
a 25 DFR jack is like playing a computer game at 640x480 instead of
320x200. Sure, it's still fun at 320x200, and you can still be immersed
in the game, but it looks much better (and can improve your gameplay) if
you can use the higher resolution.

> >I don't understand where you're coming from - you seem to be rejecting
> >some parts of the book because you don't think they're realistic, and
> >others because they're too realistic?
>
> No. I'm rejecting it because they're declaring something that should
> have other ramifications in the rest of game reality that they aren't
> accounting for. It is unrealistic because it is incomplete.

No matter how much material FASA publishes, the Shadowrun world will
still
be incomplete. Consistency is the best that you can hope for, and
Shadowrun
does a decent job at that.

> >Drive-by-wire doesn't mention inherently unstable systems. It just
> >gives handling bonuses (and a small efficiency increase).
> The description of Drive-by-wire in my copy of Rigger 2 is of computer
> control of inherently unstable systems.

I don't see it on page 124 (the description of DBW). I do see a mention
on page 118 - "The computer controls of a drive-by-wire system allow
designers to push the development envelope by creating vehicles so
dynamically unstable that an unassisted...pilot cannot control them".

This only says that DBW *allows* people to pilot inherently unstable
systems, not that that is the *only* use for DBW.

I love a good argument. :-)

James Ojaste
Message no. 158
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 15:58:43 -0400
> Here's what we have so far....
>
> 1) The VCR sends ASIST(?) information to the rigger from the sensors via a
> fiberoptic line.
> 2) When a veichial(ms) takes damage the rigger "feels" it but DOES NOT
> take damage unless it is Serious or Deadly
> 3) When a drone takes damage the only damage that the rigger takes is Dump
> Shock
>
> Okay here's my take on why a rigger takes physical damage while
> directly connect to a "dying" car. First as many of you know it is easy to
> fool the brain into believing that something is happening that isnt, thus
> the ASIST interface. Now Imagen That you are jacked into a car that is
> about to get fired with a missele... no the way I see it a rigger almost
> forgets that he is not the car and so begins to think that the missele is
> coming at him... the brain then tells the body to get ready for a crash,
> which then creats adrenalan(ms) whis is of no use to the rigger whose body
> is not moving at all. This presents physical wear and tear on the body...
> Now imagen that this missle hit's and your world goes black... This is
> diffrent from drone "dump shock" because you have a direct connection to
> the car making it that much more real! Now you don't need any black IC to
> tell you heart to shutdown because your brain will do it automaticly,
> because it thinks you are dead! This happens in the case where people are
> "scared to death" and die of heart attacks. The reason that ther rigger
> never takes deadly damage is that parts of his body still know he's alive
> ad stop the totle shut down before it's too late.
>
> That's my 2 =Y=.
>
> -=>Czar
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By that logic, anyone who comes close to death, but avoids it should still
have to resist damage from being scared of dying and the neural-chemical
reation that creates. For example, Joe Sammy is in a fire fight, and
someone opens up with a PAC, firing lots of 20mm APDS shells in his
general direction. Joe's experience with heavy weapons tells him he should
be damned scarred of the situation, and so the brain responds
apropriately. However, the attack misses as Joe is able to duck at the
last nano-second (using Combat Pool miss rules). As Joe does not take any
damage, his body still has all the chemicals in it, and, if you are
correct, these would have a negative effect on the body. Let's say, that
in the process of ducking, Joe inflicts some superficial wound on himself.
Now, he has pain and he has the obvious threat of the PAC. There's going
to be a few seconds at least where Joe thinks he has just been shot by the
PAC. If the body responds as Czar describes, Joe should have to resist all
sorts of damage. Why? Because he thinks he has just been shot by a PAC,
the same way a rigger might think he has just been shot when it is only
his vehicle.
Message no. 159
From: "Mike (Leszek Karlik)" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:28:26 +0000
On 16 Oct 97, David Buehrer disseminated foul capitalist propaganda
by writing:

> Mike wrote:
> |
> | On 16 Oct 97, David Buehrer disseminated foul capitalist propaganda
> | by writing:
> |
> | > But if damage is being caused to his brain then he's at more risk
> |
> | How? I mean, how is the damage caused? I can imagine that pain and
> | sensory overload can pack a mean punch and leave you with a hangover
> | of the century, but how can it physically damage the brain? Put 2000
> | Volts through it? You don't really need that kind of currents in your
> | brain, and besides the links are fiberoptical, so I don't think there
> | are currents of that magnitude in the VCR....

> The link from the vehicle to the VCR may be fiberoptic but I'm
> pretty sure that the VCR connection to the brain isn't (brain cells
> can't interpret light). IMHO the VCR/brain interface is based on
> electrical impulses. And it doesn't take a whole lot of electricity
> to cause brain damage with a direct interface like that.

I doubt it... The neuron net is (moreless) based on chemical
reations, not electric impulses. The impulse is conducted by
selective neutralisation of anions and cations (sp? I didn't take my
bio classes in English, unfortunately :>) and the signal, when
passing between the dendrite and the next neuron cell goes through
with an aid of special chemical transmitters (which is what the drugs
frag up, BTW). So, the connection wouldn't be probably electric, and
even if it would, it would be very low. For one thing, wires of the
size allowing to connect them to neurons would evaporate under any
bigger current (sorry, but resistance has to produce heat). Now, that
would f**k up your brain pretty badly (stir-fry <g>), so I bet your
trusty Ares(TM) cyberware (Trust Ares! We're your friends! Get your
'ware at authorized Ares distributors only!) has LOTS of failsafes
preventing this.

Besides, taking it logically, VCR is more akin to Wired Reflexes,
that is, it permeates your whole body... Otherwise, why is it such an
essence burner (besides the mythical "game balance")?

> | > than if he did break a leg. The brain is the centeral organ of the
> | > human body. It's almost imposible to cause stun damage to the
> |
> | No? Well, try the following recipe:
> | a) drink a glass of wine
> | b) drink 50 grams of vodka
> | c) goto a)
>
> Drinking alcohol kills brain cells. It just doesn't kill enough to
> frag you forever (well, unless you drink a lot in which case you can
> cause permanent debilitating brain damage).

Yep. Well, your brain cells die anyway... Only with alcohol you kill
a few more. Also, drinking small amounts of alcohol has more
benefits... Hmmm... Snip thread here, goto alt.rec.drinking or
something like this. :>

> But how can a VCR disrupt brain function (cause stun damage)?

Hmmm... Well, by fragging up your perception. Being totally exhausted
is more a state of the body than brain, yet after an intensive
workout I feel like hell... So if VCR gives you similar stimuli, your
brain will interpret it as heavy fatigue and behave accordingly...
Also, getting lots of dBs in your ears, big fragging colour lights in
your eyes, various smells in your nose, feeling like your skin is
being turned inside-out and tingling etc. will give you a mightin'
splitting headache... Kinda like an overstimulation spell (I don't
remember now - does it give Stun damage?).
And having your sensors fragged up will cause that kind of data
incoming to your brain. Now how the heck could that cause physical
damage - I don't know... Well, lots and lots of bad data could
result in trashing around and taking some physical damage, but that's
taken care of by the overflow...


> | > brain. IMO stun damage occurse when a person is hurt, but vital
> | > systems aren't in danger (like bruises, muscle pulls, etc.). When a

<snip>

> Okay, I forgot exhaustion. Basically anything that you can recover
> from quickly (relative to recovering from, say, a knife wound) is
> stun IMO.

So, how do we determine if in RL you can recover quickly from having
your car destroyed while you're jacked in? I know, I'll ask my fellow
rigger... Waitamoment, I don't know any riggers! How 'bout you? :>
But I think you can recover pretty quickly from a heavy headache...
Or a hangover (the problem is, you have to expulse the lingering
alcohol, which can be difficult :>>), and that's what I think the VCR
damage is... Kinda like a combined headache/hangover/intense
pain/migraine/overstimulation combo... Brrr....

> | If there's a way for a VCR to cause physical damage, I'd like to
> | know about it. OK, lethal biofeedback is one thing, but (as it was
> | said earlier on the list) the Black IC is specially designed for
> | ASIST-assisted (:>) frying of the decker's brain.
>
> The only way that I can think of is the VCR gets overloaded by
> signals from vehicle systems as they short out from damage, and the
> VCR translates all this into intense (respectivly) shocks in the
> brain. All IMHO.

Well, as I wrote before, the only way I think VCR overloading would
cause physical damage to the brain is by electric current, and that
would probably lace the inside of your brain with melted metal...
Something much more nasty than a mere S physical damage.

Also, the Stun Dump shock from getting negative feedback from a drone
doesn't jive with getting Physical damage from getting negative
feedback from your car.

IMHO this was an attempt at balancing riggers... Now, I think the
better way to do this would be to introduce more Stun damage, since
it can overflow...

Idea: make the rigger resist the identical Stun damage as the
vehicle has Physical damage... That would represent the pain/negative
feedback syndrome, and could put him at risk from overflow, while it
wouldn't have the internal inconsistency problem plaguing the current
solution. You could create some kind of ICCM Biofeedback
filter, and you could also say that with drones you get one
category lower (though I don't know why - just to make it compatible
with the current "drones are safer than cars" approach).


Mike (Leszek Karlik) - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike
FL/GN Leszek/Raptor II/ISD Vanguard, (SS) (PC) (ISM) {IWATS-IIC} JH(Sith)/House Scholae
Palatinae
I saw Elvis. He sat between me and Bigfoot on the UFO.
Message no. 160
From: "Mike (Leszek Karlik)" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:28:26 +0000
On 16 Oct 97, Czar Eggbert disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:


> Here's what we have so far....
>
> 1) The VCR sends ASIST(?) information to the rigger from the sensors
> via a fiberoptic line. 2) When a veichial(ms) takes damage the
> rigger "feels" it but DOES NOT take damage unless it is Serious or
> Deadly 3) When a drone takes damage the only damage that the rigger
> takes is Dump Shock

Wow. Now this is something good. Now could somebody explain to me why
when the rigger is in the 500k nuyen drone with milspec sensors all
over and it gets geeked with a tacnuke, he only feels the (Stun) dump
shock, but when his rigged Jackrabbit crashes into a wall, he gets
the loads of Physical damage? That does not make sense... Either make
all the damage Physical, or Stun (like I'd like to do <g>).

> Okay here's my take on why a rigger takes physical damage
> while
> directly connect to a "dying" car. First as many of you know it is
> easy to fool the brain into believing that something is happening
> that isnt, thus the ASIST interface. Now Imagen That you are jacked
> into a car that is about to get fired with a missele... no the way I
> see it a rigger almost forgets that he is not the car and so begins
> to think that the missele is coming at him... the brain then tells
> the body to get ready for a crash, which then creats adrenalan(ms)
> whis is of no use to the rigger whose body is not moving at all.
> This presents physical wear and tear on the body... Now imagen that

Unused adrenalin presents physical wear and tear on the body (that
is, Physical damage)? Wow. I've been in a few near-conflict
situations when I was just overflowing with adrenaline, and the only
aftereffect I felt was the shakes I got afterwards... <grin>

> this missle hit's and your world goes black... This is diffrent from
> drone "dump shock" because you have a direct connection to the car
> making it that much more real! Now you don't need any black IC to

Uhhh... Well, a good drone is much more responsive than a bad car, so
if your drone has good sensors (like, Military IV) and your car has
only the rudimentary sensors package, why should you take Physical
damage from the car and not from the drone? This is, IMHO, a glaring
inconsistency...

> tell you heart to shutdown because your brain will do it
> automaticly, because it thinks you are dead! This happens in the
> case where people are "scared to death" and die of heart attacks.

Hmmm... Well, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree... I don't see the
reason why your brain would tell your heart to stop - IIRC, when you
die, your heart is still beating for a while... So if you get a
perforated head for better cooling, your autonomous nervous system
will make the rest of your body go... Like with catatonic people -
their brain died, but their bodies didn't...
As for being "scared to death" - IMHO this would be a
one-in-a-lifetime type experience. I doubt you see combat experienced
soldiers die from fright... A poor granny who never saw a gun in her
life - yes, but a combat rigger? Gimme a break...


Mike (Leszek Karlik) - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike
FL/GN Leszek/Raptor II/ISD Vanguard, (SS) (PC) (ISM) {IWATS-IIC} JH(Sith)/House Scholae
Palatinae
Forget the notes and play the music.
Message no. 161
From: Max Rible <slothman@*********.ORG>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:32:19 -0800
At 15:20 10/16/97 -0400, Ojaste,James [NCR] wrote:
>Max Rible[SMTP:slothman@*********.ORG] wrote:
>> Meaconing, Intruding, and Iwhateveritwas all were attempts to break into
>> the *data* of the rigger network, using something besides ECM, so I don't
>> see ECCM as being appropriate to defending against it.

>Why not? MIJI is ECM. Traditional (1990s) ECM often involves
>jamming - miJi. I'd call MIJI a form of ECM. Why couldn't ECCM
>try to identify and filter your packets from a jumbled mess?

If it's a form of ECM, then it's the ECM that should be used to attack,
not the protocol emulation utility.

>>[encryption discussion snipped]

>But that's boring. If people were guaranteed secure, uninterruptable
>communications, the world would be a lot different...

It's not boring. It just moves things to new arenas: you now have
shadowrunners hired as couriers to deliver one-time pads, teams with
mind probing and/or controlling mages hired to get at someone's private
encryption key, surveillance jobs for getting at the information before
it gets encrypted...

Oh, another thing they missed on encryption: it shouldn't lower the
range on your communications. Bits are bits.

>But what I was saying was that maybe it isn't a voltage spike
>that causes the pain - what if it's more like your brain just gets
>overwhelmed by too many small stimuli (each one taken alone wouldn't
>be painful, but when put together the rigger's brain hurts).

So you regulate the data packet flow. A big capacitor invading your
electronic systems is going to give you a big spike, not a sparkle;
there'll be a bunch of effects right on each other's heels as various
different systems react, but it all has to wind up at the interface
sending data to your VCR, and it'll do so in milliseconds-- plenty of
time for a decent filter to deal with it. (I still think it should
do stun damage as you suddenly feel lots of your systems go haywire...
I just think that it should be very hard to do physical damage through
an ASIST interface. Black IC has the advantage of being involved with
simsense transmissions and can be fine-tuned; big capacitors and incoming
bullets can't.)

>I'd say that somebody using a 100 DFR jack compared to somebody using
>a 25 DFR jack is like playing a computer game at 640x480 instead of
>320x200. Sure, it's still fun at 320x200, and you can still be immersed
>in the game, but it looks much better (and can improve your gameplay) if
>you can use the higher resolution.

But a 25 DFR jack is already supposed to be incredibly realistic. How
much more detail can you handle? I don't see it giving you that much
of an edge. (We're talking about a rigger with Int 3, the human average,
getting *double* the dice on perception rolls with a 100 DFR jack!)

>No matter how much material FASA publishes, the Shadowrun world will still
>be incomplete. Consistency is the best that you can hope for, and Shadowrun
>does a decent job at that.

However, this datajack thing is a failure in consistency which is most
easily remedied by ignoring it.

>I don't see it on page 124 (the description of DBW). I do see a mention
>on page 118 - "The computer controls of a drive-by-wire system allow
>designers to push the development envelope by creating vehicles so
>dynamically unstable that an unassisted...pilot cannot control them".

>This only says that DBW *allows* people to pilot inherently unstable
>systems, not that that is the *only* use for DBW.

Hmmm... I'll have to look into it when I get home to my copy of Rigger 2.

>I love a good argument. :-)

So do I. I'm glad to have an opponent who helps keep it at the level of
a debate rather than a flame war.

--
%% Max Rible %% slothman@*****.com %% http://www.amurgsval.org/~slothman/ %%
%% "Ham is good... Glowing *tattooed* ham is *bad*!" - the Tick %%
Message no. 162
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:40:23 -0500
At 16-Okt-97 wrote David Buehrer:



>.. unless. We're talking elecro-chemical data transmission to the
>rigger's motor reflexes. How would the VCR know what is "good"
>information and what is "bad" information? Maybe it's not a matter
>of data overload but "bad" data. What if when a vehicle system is
>damaged the VCR sensors send "bad" data to the rigger's VCR. His
>brain is then subjected to this bad data which screws up his brain's
>functions (stun damage). There would be almost no way to put a
>switch on that except to shut down the sensors if a system is damaged
>("Hey, where'd the engine go?").


And why not build a hardware filter that filters out the bad data?
Sure it would can not do all, but enough that the damage will be less
than without.
And doing it in hardware will not slowdown the system.

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 163
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:39:55 -0500
At 16-Okt-97 wrote Jeremiah Stevens:

>------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
>By that logic, anyone who comes close to death, but avoids it should sti=
ll
>have to resist damage from being scared of dying and the neural-chemical=

>reation that creates. =


[snip]
>Joe should have to resist all
>sorts of damage. Why? Because he thinks he has just been shot by a PAC,
>the same way a rigger might think he has just been shot when it is only
>his vehicle.

So you suggest that everyone should resist damage if he faces a deadly
treat and aviodes it in the last sec.
The Sam must not, so why should a rigger then?

-- =


Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 164
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:09:00 -0400
>
> So you suggest that everyone should resist damage if he faces a deadly
> treat and aviodes it in the last sec.
> The Sam must not, so why should a rigger then?

My point exactly.

> --
>
> Barbie
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Evil Overlord advice #50:
>
> My main computers will have their own special operating system
> that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
> Macintosh powerbooks.
>
> http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
> FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
> Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
Message no. 165
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 15:34:35 -0600
Barbie wrote:
|
| At 16-Okt-97 wrote David Buehrer:
|
| >.. unless. We're talking elecro-chemical data transmission to the
| >rigger's motor reflexes. How would the VCR know what is "good"
| >information and what is "bad" information? Maybe it's not a matter
| >of data overload but "bad" data. What if when a vehicle system is
| >damaged the VCR sensors send "bad" data to the rigger's VCR. His
| >brain is then subjected to this bad data which screws up his brain's
| >functions (stun damage). There would be almost no way to put a
| >switch on that except to shut down the sensors if a system is damaged
| >("Hey, where'd the engine go?").
|
| And why not build a hardware filter that filters out the bad data?
| Sure it would can not do all, but enough that the damage will be less
| than without.

Considering that you're dealing with the brain it would be pretty
hard to set something up to filter the data to protect the rigger,
IMO. Maybe the filter is already in place <shrug> and the rigger
still has a chance of getting hurt. Oh, FWIW, I'm of the opinion
that the damage should be Stun.

| And doing it in hardware will not slowdown the system.

Agreed.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 166
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:43:05 +0100
And verily, did Barbie hastily scribble thusly...
|
|At 16-Okt-97 wrote J. Keith Henry:
|
|
|[snip]
|>I guess it could be called "Multiplexing" after the Matrix term, but
|>what the riggers would call it?????
|
|Multilocating?

They'd probably still call it Multiplexing.
(That is, after all, the name of the process of splitting info by time or
frequency before transmission....

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 167
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 23:48:35 -0500
At 16-Okt-97 wrote David Buehrer:


> Oh, FWIW, I'm of the opinion
>that the damage should be Stun.

So do I, thats the way it was and I doubt that they(they Rigger) will
change that for the worst.

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 168
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 07:58:10 +1000
> recovery should be more along the lines of Stun damage (though,
> it should probably take a little longer).
>
> Perhaps it should just be a special kind of damage - call it Stun
> for recovery purposes, but a Deadly wound will kill?

That's even worse! It can kill you like a Physical wund, but you can't
treat it away? That's a bit trying-to-have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too for
the GM isn't it?


Lady Jestyr

-------------------------------------------------------------
"No more drugs for that man!" - Dietrich, Face/Off
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 169
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 08:06:44 +1000
> > That's true - two drones going down means two 6Ses for the rigger...
>
> No - that damage is only if a vehicle crashes...

Ahhhh... that's a bit different. It was orignally presented on the list
(I don't have the book yet, being in Australia) as being when the drone
*took S or D damage* the rigger resisted that damage of 6M or 6S


Lady Jestyr

-------------------------------------------------------------
"No more drugs for that man!" - Dietrich, Face/Off
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 170
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 08:11:47 +1000
> (snip)
>
> > It's late at night and I"m feeling brainfried, so please pity me and
> > point out how ICCM would help.
>
> ICCM Biofeeback monitors, in VR 2.0, help a decker jack out when
> faced with extreme feedback from IC. The same thing could be applied
> to riggers, when faced with lethal feedback from their rigs (A drone
> getting shot, etc.).

Duh. Boy, am I feeling blonde. I was thinking of _E_CCM.

*forehead slap*

> But then again, what would happen to the drones if the rigger was
> disconnected by his ICCM monitor? Or to any vehicule he was rigged
> in? One word.... CRASH.. ;) So maybe, put in a loiter mode on
> drones, when the contact is killed, they just stand around, waiting
> for orders... that would work , IMHO... but in a vehicule, that's a different
story...

<ANAL>*cough* The word is "vehicle", actually. No
"U".</ANAL>

Sorry, it's just been irritating me. Feel free to dismiss me as a
pedantic weenie. :)

Lady Jestyr

-------------------------------------------------------------
"No more drugs for that man!" - Dietrich, Face/Off
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 171
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:55:36 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-16 14:55:07 EDT, slothman@*********.ORG writes:

> At 14:11 10/16/97 -0400, Ojaste,James [NCR] wrote:
> >Max Rible[SMTP:slothman@*********.ORG] wrote:
> >> Well, I just got Rigger 2, and it's going to need a major overhaul
before
> >> my campaign is going to be able to use it.
> >Am I the only person who likes this book?
>
> I like parts of it. I'd prefer having it out than not having it out at
> all. I don't think I wasted my money on it. It just needs some
> improvements.

Ah, now I understand David's commentary on the other posting. Max is always
been a nitpicker, at least for all the things I've seen from him. He's not
bad, quite the contrary actually. Consider Max one of the "inventive"
players.

> >And losing a finger isn't very traumatic for a person? Sure, it's just
> >a small part. Sure, it can be replaced easily enough, but it *hurts*.
> Losing a windshield is minor. It's like getting a light slash wound
> on your back: it's painful, but nowhere near as bad as an amputation.

A possible way to consider things is via cosmetic damage. Windshields and
other things would be like someone pulling out hair...losing a side-view
mirror, breaking a finger nail...scratches in the pain (even from bullet
richochets) would be comparable to your lover digging in for the moment.
Painful to start, but a reminder of what you are doing there in the first
place.

> >Huh? Are you referring to Meaconing? Intruding?
> Meaconing, Intruding, and Iwhateveritwas all were attempts to break into
> the *data* of the rigger network, using something besides ECM, so I don't
> see ECCM as being appropriate to defending against it.

The problem here Max is you are taking ECM and ECCM from a more "real world"
point of view. I have some military guys in my game group, and they and I
always get into this argument. They try and put in the military's idea of
"electronic warfare" without compensating for things like game mechanics,
game playability and game balance.

> >You don't need to transmit anything to the enemy to find out what they're
> >transmitting (I assume you mean finding out what protocol they're using).
> >You just need to listen. Carefully.
> Read the section again. It talks about needing to transmit in order to
> eavesdrop, and the defending rigger gets a chance to notice and put their
> system on alert.

I think I unerstand where the book is coming from actually. Being on
"passive sensors" (as the group here calls it) doesn't send out any active
"pinging". It does however contain a "hollow signature", like
whitenoise of
a sensor sort. It's difficult to pick up by today's standards, but it's
possible none-the-less.

> > And their view of encryption hasn't
> >really changed since SRII - what's wrong with it now?
> It's been wrong the whole time. If encryption were as easy to defeat as
> FASA source material suggests, everyone would be going around with
> random number generators using thermodynamic or quantum-mechanical
> principles
> and using one-time pads for everything.

As I said Max, don't put so much RL into things that you lose the fiction for
it's fiction.

> >Perhaps it isn't so much a voltage overload, but lots of simultaneous
> >stimuli that the brain just can't handle? Can't isolate that with
> >fiber.
> Sure you can. If the only thing that makes it to your brain is digital
> packets in a given format that are then decoded by your headware,
> you can filter the packets. If you filter them *too* much-- say, by
> trying to remove the information that translates to pain in your
interface--
> you should experience a performance degradation. But getting a voltage
> spike in your onboard systems shouldn't do physical damage to the rigger
> who's jacked in.

Again, I believe we are looking at the effects of game balance vs. game
mechanics. By making the rigger something more versatile, there had to be a
series of checks and balances somewhere else. This is where the editors and
author came into compromise probably.

> >> The notion that a higher DFR datajack gives you better perception rolls

> is
> >> somewhat unfounded in Shadowrun, and has implications that the book
doesn'
> t
> >> address (such as the corresponding phenomenon for deckers), so I'm
going
> to
> >> ignore it.
> >In Shadowtech, they mention the differing data transfer rates of the
> >various datajacks - I haven't read VR2, but they should probably apply
> >there as well.
> I can't recall any point at which they do so in VR2.

I know in VR2 they mention the SPU Math and it's benefits. A question (and I
do understand the DFR idea mentioned btw), would an SPU Math assist a Rigger
as well, and if so, in what fashion?

The DFR giving perception rolls has to do with rate of return on sensor
readings. True, it would also mean that a decker should get something as
well.

> > In R2, it just means that with a higher bandwidth, you
> >can get higher resolution - just like in RL.
>
> The description of high-data-rate datajacks mentions nothing about being
> able to get a higher-quality simsense feed out of them. If you can, then
> why isn't there talk about simsense fans getting the big datajacks so
> they can catch every nuance, and deckers getting advantages out of it
other
> than high-speed transfer to headware memory? Shouldn't someone with a
> mere 25 DFR datajack find it easier to figure out that they're in a
> virtual environment than someone with a 100 DFR jack?

Try this idea if you are able. Go to one of those "real time internet radio
stations". In many, but not all, cases, the sound coming from them varies.
The more readily matched the receiving modem is to the transmitting one, the
more consistent a sound is recreated at the other end. Similar function to a
rigger's sensors (and theoretically a decker's), the rigger is able to
interpret more information as it comes through, as it is likely that some of
the information is lost in the systems' interpreter buffers.

> >I don't understand where you're coming from - you seem to be rejecting
> >some parts of the book because you don't think they're realistic, and
> >others because they're too realistic?
> No. I'm rejecting it because they're declaring something that should
> have other ramifications in the rest of game reality that they aren't
> accounting for. It is unrealistic because it is incomplete.

No Max, wrong answer guy. It's unrealistic because you have a certain set of
expectations and they are not being, and likely will not be, met by the book
in question. I agree with much of what you have said. R2 does answer tons
of questions, especially the easily answered ones. It does however create a
vast number of more complex ones. Questiosn that in Fictional material are
only answered by saying "IT DOES!!!"

> >I thought that modern FBW jets were pretty uncontrollable if something
> >failed... Especially if they're supersonic.
> There are FBW airliners that are perfectly stable. Something like the
> X-29 with forward-swept wings needs the computers to stay up, yes.

As does the Stealth Aircraft, as does the Shuttle, as does anything with
countergyros, as does anything with non-fixed wings (like the "F" series
fighters). Supersonic aircraft have other reasons for staying aloft with
the help of computers. There is also more to FBW than what they are saying
in the book.

> >Drive-by-wire doesn't mention inherently unstable systems. It just
> >gives handling bonuses (and a small efficiency increase).
> The description of Drive-by-wire in my copy of Rigger 2 is of computer
> control of inherently unstable systems.

Again Max, true, it does. But to obtain the control that a rigger wants with
a vehicle, or even an everyday motorist on those nasty roads, computer
augmented controls are becoming more "necessary".

> >Where do you get the anti-lock brake thing from? The handling bonuses
> >apply even if you're not braking...
> Like I said, it's the great-grandchild of anti-lock braking. Anti-lock
> braking keeps track of whether your wheels are skidding or not when you
> apply the brakes. Drive-by-wire would do so for acceleration and
> maneuvering, giving a new meaning to the term "controlled skid".

I missed the beginning of this argument/discussion, so abstaining from
comment.

> >> The table for making sensors and other electronics smaller by paying
more
> >> (from RBB1) seems to have gone away.
> >Sensors are pretty small as is - if you really wanted, you could use
> >the alpha-beta grade rules.

True, you could.

> I like the table from RBB1: short and sweet, and roughly comparable
> to the alpha-beta grade rules.

I've used that table for a few hundred odd things in the game myself. Too
bad it didn't come back in R2.

-Keith
Message no. 172
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:25:18 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-16 15:44:36 EDT, jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA (Frank
Pelletier) writes:

> 1) Make VCR driving a concentration of the driving skill, kinda like
> stealh, or atheltics. I.E.: a Car (VCR Drving) concentration of the
> car skill

This would work, they do that with Stealth (Vehicle Stealth) in the R2.

> 2) Make VCR Drving a seperate branch of driving, with a single dot on
> the skill web, adding a +2 TN to any attempt for a purely VCR rigger
> to drive a non-VCR vehicule.

This could be an option as well I suppose.
-K
Message no. 173
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 08:34:50 +1000
> Hey Lehlahn, get this...R2; page 17....upper right
> column/corner..."Furthermore, the unique nature of the encephalon enables
> riggers to use Driving skillsofts without the need for skillwires for the
> purposes of rigging."
>
> Yet something else my group had argued out for a long time now, and it's come
> to pass...sigh...

Well, I feel vindicated now. Anyone who's read the Riggersofts piece on
my homepage will know what I'm talking about. :)

Lady Jestyr

-------------------------------------------------------------
"No more drugs for that man!" - Dietrich, Face/Off
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 174
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:39:41 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-16 14:25:10 EDT, James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA writes:

> > I think I like that as well. But a question, I haven't made it that far,
> but
> > does the RiC occur for the "Captain?" I wouldn't grant such, or
maybe
> just
> > half the modifier, for the Captain I think.
>
> RiC? Rigger in Control? Having a Rigger using a primary drone allows
> the rigger to use his skills instead of the drones pilot rating - is
> this what you're referring to?
>
> James Ojaste
>
Nope, let me clarify a bit. The "Captain's Chair" controlling a given
situation, which would include any number of riggers/deckers at his immediate
"hands reach". Does the "Captain", even though they are not
-directly-
controlling the drone/object in question, get the RiC modifier?

-Keith
Message no. 175
From: Max Rible <slothman@*********.ORG>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:51:46 -0800
At 17:55 10/16/97 -0400, J. Keith Henry wrote:
>The problem here Max is you are taking ECM and ECCM from a more "real world"
>point of view. I have some military guys in my game group, and they and I
>always get into this argument. They try and put in the military's idea of
>"electronic warfare" without compensating for things like game mechanics,
>game playability and game balance.

My attitude is that if something is magical, you admit it and don't try to
cloak it in an appearance of technical accuracy. Shadowrun, for me, is
a game set in the real world where some extra fun things have been bolted
on, including magic and cybertechnology. I'd rather take what FASA has
come up with and figure out names and rules for it that are (a) no more
complicated than what FASA currently has and (b) less confusing to people
who have real-world ideas of what ECM and ECCM do. (Even a paragraph of
"ECM has grown beyond the crude signal interception technology of the
Twentieth Century and moved into an arena of spoofing digital packet
radio...." would be good...) A lot of the game balance of the whole
ECM/ECCM thing is how bloody expensive it all is...

>I think I unerstand where the book is coming from actually. Being on
>"passive sensors" (as the group here calls it) doesn't send out any active
>"pinging". It does however contain a "hollow signature", like
whitenoise of
>a sensor sort. It's difficult to pick up by today's standards, but it's
>possible none-the-less.

How does that work? Do you measure the lack of return of your transmissions
bouncing off things and deduce that someone's listening in because the energy
is getting absorbed?

[mention of unbreakable encryption schemes]
>As I said Max, don't put so much RL into things that you lose the fiction for
>it's fiction.

It's a matter of suspension of disbelief. In a game like Ars Magica, where
physics is Aristotelian, I put aside my usual experience of the world and
try to think like a medieval magus. In a game like Feng Shui, where you're
an action hero, I try to think of the movie logic that makes a good story
(you meet someone beating up the same thugs you're beating up so you join
up and go beat up the guy who sent the thugs). In a game like Shadowrun,
which deals in very practical paranoia and grim'n'gritty detail, I like to
use my knowledge of the modern world. Other people may not play it like
that, of course... (The acronym used regularly on the Ars Magica list is
YMMV: Your Mileage May Vary.)

>I know in VR2 they mention the SPU Math and it's benefits. A question (and I
>do understand the DFR idea mentioned btw), would an SPU Math assist a Rigger
>as well, and if so, in what fashion?

Probably not much; I'd expect all the really cool trajectory-calculation stuff
to be in your sensors. The encephalon, though, would be really handy: your
remote control deck could predigest information for your encephalon, and you
could suddenly *know* information about your drones, rather than have to take
an action to look at them, because it just filled in the data into your
short-term memory.

>Try this idea if you are able. Go to one of those "real time internet radio
>stations". In many, but not all, cases, the sound coming from them varies.
> The more readily matched the receiving modem is to the transmitting one, the
>more consistent a sound is recreated at the other end. Similar function to a
>rigger's sensors (and theoretically a decker's), the rigger is able to
>interpret more information as it comes through, as it is likely that some of
>the information is lost in the systems' interpreter buffers.

You're suggesting that a 25 DFR datajack is a noisy, low-bandwidth connection,
then, where you can easily spot the polygons or pixels in simulated images
and the sound reproduction falls far short of reality, with frequent bursts
of static? In all the other FASA literature discussing simsense, I have seen
nothing to suggest that a 25 DFR datajack is inadequate for giving a superbly
realistic experience.

>> I'm rejecting it because they're declaring something that should
>> have other ramifications in the rest of game reality that they aren't
>> accounting for. It is unrealistic because it is incomplete.

>No Max, wrong answer guy.

For you, perhaps. The answer works quite well for me and the other
gearheads in my campaign. :-)

> It's unrealistic because you have a certain set of
>expectations and they are not being, and likely will not be, met by the book
>in question. I agree with much of what you have said. R2 does answer tons
>of questions, especially the easily answered ones. It does however create a
>vast number of more complex ones. Questiosn that in Fictional material are
>only answered by saying "IT DOES!!!"

I like world-building and fleshing out details. I especially enjoy coming
up with explanations for things that don't make sense on the surface. (Such
as the choice of megapulses to represent both storage and computing power--
that was fun to invent.) I understand the danger of getting too detailed,
and I try not to introduce additional game mechanics, just explanations.

>> Like I said, it's the great-grandchild of anti-lock braking. Anti-lock
>> braking keeps track of whether your wheels are skidding or not when you
>> apply the brakes. Drive-by-wire would do so for acceleration and
>> maneuvering, giving a new meaning to the term "controlled skid".

>I missed the beginning of this argument/discussion, so abstaining from
>comment.

I was coming up with an explanation for the FASA description of Drive-By-Wire;
while on the face of it, it doesn't make sense to have a control system that
deals with your car being an inherently unstable device. At first I tried
thinking of ways to destabilize a vehicle so you might get some advantage
out of it, then recalled the problem of skidding, and decided that that
would be a perfect explanation for why Drive-By-Wire would give you improved
handling. I expect that a Lone Star investigator can walk down to the
intersection, look at the staccato tire tracks, and say "That vehicle has
Drive-by-wire!"

>I've used that table for a few hundred odd things in the game myself. Too
>bad it didn't come back in R2.

Fortunately, I have RBB1, so I'll just use it anyway... :-)

--
%% Max Rible %% slothman@*****.com %% http://www.amurgsval.org/~slothman/ %%
%% "Ham is good... Glowing *tattooed* ham is *bad*!" - the Tick %%
Message no. 176
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 01:08:48 -0500
At 16-Okt-97 wrote Max Rible:



>You're suggesting that a 25 DFR datajack is a noisy, low-bandwidth
connection,
>then, where you can easily spot the polygons or pixels in simulated images
>and the sound reproduction falls far short of reality, with frequent bursts
>of static? In all the other FASA literature discussing simsense, I have seen
>nothing to suggest that a 25 DFR datajack is inadequate for giving a superbly
>realistic experience.

I agree here a full simsense signal DIR-X has an flow rate of3mp/sec
thats 9mp/turn. Theres still 14mp/turn left. What should be stuffed into this
that is requiered to use a better datajack?
Even with a few drones up and runing your POV is centered on one vehicle and
so
the others take no significant bandwidth.
The way I see it thers no need and no bonus for using an better datajack.

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 177
From: Timothy Little <t_little@**********.UTAS.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 11:54:04 +1100
At 08:56 AM 10/16/97 -0400, K wrote:

>In a message dated 97-10-16 00:31:11 EDT, t_little@**********.UTAS.EDU.AU
>writes:
>
>> The idea of voluntarily using a system that deliberately does you damage
>> when your vehicle crashes...? No thanks!
>>
>> Sensor overloads and power surges? Through optic fibre?
>>
>They go into detail as to why this occurs for Riggers. Rigging using ASSIST
>technology, just like a decker does for Matrix ops. However, the Rigger is
>using a different part of the brain than a decker, quote "that is where the
>similarities end". the rigger is actually utilizing connections to the
>instinctual, reflexive, parts of the ind (the book is on the entertainment
>center, and I've got vertigo, else I'd get the page # for all you picky types
> ;).
>
>The connection between vehicle damage and the rigger being "damaged" is a
bit
>extreme IMHO, but I can understand it from a point of view of game balance.

<RANT>
You all probably already know what I think of FASA-imposed 'game balance'.
From my point of view, their rules are made for combat-dominated games and
'balanced' for such, so as to stretch suspension of disbelief.
Come on, FASA! How about some consistency and playability?
At least mark out which rules are there for 'balance', and which for
internal game-world reasons!
</RANT>
:^P

More realistic balance:

A rigger inside a vehicle cannot be jammed, but is potentially vulnerable to
whatever situation the vehicle gets into.
A remote rigger is physically safe, but has to deal with interference, lag,
range, and the possibility of having their control channel intercepted or
hijacked.

Plus the Essence cost of rigger control gear, compared to a decker's 0.1 or
less datajack.

> However, the story that is in the book is indicative of the person surviving
>a LOT more damage than you might guess.
>
>It ain't bad folks, in fact, it really is pretty good. Vehicle Design is
>just nightmarish.

Do you mean as in poorly-written rules, or just complex?
I've survived GURPS Vehicles - I can handle complexity.
(Hey, I've got the spreadsheets to prove it! :-)

--
Little One
Message no. 178
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 01:56:49 GMT
On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:19:02 -0400, MC23 wrote:

> Frank Pelletier once dared to write,
>
> <snip>
> >Yes, but by that same token, you would not have the same "feel" for
> >your vehicule as a real "Hot" rigger system would. Take for account
> >that in VR 2.0, there is a real performance difference between a
> >Tortoise (who are disconnect entirely from the ASIST feeback), Cool
> >decks (who basically limit damage to Stun), and Hot decks (Full ASIST
> >feedback, including harmfull backlash). You will find that all
> >serious deckers use hot decks, because it gives them an edge, and
> >that means the difference, game-wise, between a good run and a
> >frag-up.
>
> I'm in a rush and I don't have my book yet <grrr> but let me quickly
> point out the flaw in this. Deckers take damage because ICE is
> specifically written to do that through the ASSIST filters not because
> the decker wants it to. There are no bullets designed in shadowrun that
> is supposed to have the same effect on a rigger's VCR. Deliberate
> exposure to injury is avoided in all design concept. I doubt the current
> VCR technology is from the pages of the Marquis DeSade. Any other excuse
> is apologetic for the new rules.

Ding! Why didn't I think of using this line of reasoning?

> "Boy, I'm in a bad mood today! Everyone had better steer clear of me! I
> hate EVERYBODY! As far as I'm concerned, everyone on the planet can just
> drop dead. People are scum.

I guy at work told another guy at work (who not many people liked):

"I don't hate you. I hate everybody equally. I'm not biased so don't take
it personally."



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";

Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...
Message no. 179
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 01:56:51 GMT
On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:09:05 +0000, Brett Borger wrote:

> > > Yeah right. And how did this powerfull feedback to your rig when you
> > > remote control it?
> > > This whole damage thing can actually avoided very easy, just put
> > > a safety switch in the connection line and you will be fine.
> > > I have done that for a long time to prevent the stun damage from
> > > the old rules.
>
> What do you mean by "safety switch"? If you mean a cutoff that stops
> anything above a certain stimuli level, I'd disagree. The level and
> exactness of info that the rigger "feels" from his vehicle is what
> gives him his edge. Remove it, and he might as well be using a
> datajack alone.
>
> Can you rig safely? Yes. Can you do and be the best? No.

Sure you can. Change the word "switch" to "diode" and you have a
"device"
where specific data can travel in one direction but not the other. The
actual technology might be complicated, but the theory is simple.



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";

Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...
Message no. 180
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 01:56:46 GMT
On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:01:00 +0000, Frank Pelletier wrote:

> James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA> once wrote
>
> (snip)
> > I disagree. A rigger would have to place "touch" sensors all over the
> > surface of the vehicle and over every interior component for him or her to
> > perceive the "pain" of body damage.
>
> We call that a VCR...and sensors package. The way I understood RBB2,
> Riggers can now feel the pain of their vehicule, making the experience
> much more akin to deckers than the old "I'm the Getaway car" rigger
> of BBB. Hence, the physical damage sustained when vehicules under a
> rigger's cybernetic control crash or take serious damage. I would
> think that the sensor net, and remote feelers would be included in
> the price of the Rigger mods for the vehicule.

I seriously doubt the cost of outfitting a vehicle for use with a VCR is
even remotely accurate, considering what you are asking. You would need
pressure sensors, seismic detectors, video cameras, microphones, olfactory
sensors, and thermistors *everywhere*, not to mention all of the motors and
actuators needed to operate things such as doors, suspension, etc. For a
rigger to merge with a vehicle and feel that it was a true extension of his
or her body, the *entire* surface of the vehicle would have to be outfitted
with pressure/temperature sensors (think of the body of such a vehicle as
one large, sophisticated touch sensor).

> (snipped part about Rigger/Decker parralels)
> >As a rigger,
> > if I choose not to install "touch" sensors over the entire surface of
my
> > vehicle, I should be free to do so and not have to suffer "pain
penalties"
> > when an ork begins hammering on my fender with a sledge hammer.
>
> Yes, but by that same token, you would not have the same "feel" for
> your vehicule as a real "Hot" rigger system would. Take for account
> that in VR 2.0, there is a real performance difference between a
> Tortoise (who are disconnect entirely from the ASIST feeback), Cool
> decks (who basically limit damage to Stun), and Hot decks (Full ASIST
> feedback, including harmfull backlash). You will find that all
> serious deckers use hot decks, because it gives them an edge, and
> that means the difference, game-wise, between a good run and a
> frag-up.

Game-wise, maybe. But I kinda need a realistic reason so I can explain why
a rigger is out for a whole week recuperating because the vehicle he was
driving drove over a tire spike belt. One of the reasons people want to be
riggers is that they can isolate themselves from many (but not all) dangers
via a few cm of solid armour plating. Now we are saying that all you have
to do is shoot out a few tires and the rigger inside is automatically at a
+1 or +2 pain penalty-- due to *physical* damage?

> > By the same token, a smartgun link does not inflict the feedback of the
> > chemical explosion inside the breach to the user, although such pressure
> > readings could be useful to some people.
>
> Hmm... Smarlink technology doesn't need to make you feel the gun,
> IMHO. It only needs to feed you the data needed to aim. Far from
> the kind of feedback needed to deck, or rig.

Again, we are now debating play balance vs. realism. From a Shadowrun game
balance point of view, you would expect some sort of disadvantage from the
technology itself, considering the huge advantage a smartlink provides.
IOW, a rigger uses a VCR to gain an edge and R2 basically states that
certain disadvantages are necessary to provide play balance. Why does this
seem logical (from a play balance POV) while my post regarding smartlinks
seems silly (even to me)?

Shouldn't you take a point of physical damage when you run out of
ammunition or your gun jams, considering how important a loaded and
functioning gun would be in a combat situation? You could argue that your
eyes could detect that the weapon's bolt is locked back or your ears could
tell you that the weapon is no longer firing, but a similar argument could
be made for a rigger that just discovered that his engine just threw a
connecting rod or that his right-rear wheel is on the verge of taking off
on its own.

> > I race occasionally. I use a bright light to remind me when to shift and a
> > loud buzzer to notify me if my oil pressure drops too low. Would it make
> > any sense to plumb these signals into my brain so that I suffer increasing
> > pain as my engine surpasses "red line" or a debilitating jolt if my
oil
> > pressure were to fail? It is quite possible that I would be so preoccupied
> > with steering and/or braking that the sudden addition of such a "pain
> > penalty" would likely cause me to crash. Would I bother with such a
> > system?-- I think not. Professional race car drivers today are literally
> > "one with their vehicle". Suspension problems, brakes locking up, a
slight
> > pull to the left, blowing third gear, etc. are all perceptible *now*. Why
> > would you need a sense of pain to get that point across?
>
> Yes, but in the SR world, Riggers are designed to be even closer to
> their vehicules. We are far removed from F1 drivers or such. Being
> "one with the vehicule" today is not the same thing as in 2058.

It is pretty darn close. I repeat, unless you go to all the trouble of
placing sensors capable of transmitting a minimum of three senses back to
the driver-- sight, sound, and touch (including pressure and temperature
sensors), you will gain little over what good 'ole traditional "skill"
provides.

Granted, once such an endeavour takes place (at a very high cost, if you
look at the work involved from a realistic point of view), their is still
*no* reason why vehicle malfunctions or damage should be transferred to the
driver as *dangerous* levels of pain (or permanent physical injuries).

The simple diode is a wonderful thing. It allows electrical flow to move
in one direction and not the other. If you try to pipe too much energy
against the normal flow of a diode, the diode blows. It does not stay
intact long enough to cause damage to sensitive electronics further
upstream. Even surge protectors for today's computers operate on similar
principles, as do low light goggles (which I mentioned in an earlier post).
Would it make any sense to apply a permanent +1 or +2 physical damage
penalty to someone wearing low light goggles if they happened to look into
the beam of a flashlight? Of course not, because the BBB has stated that
cut-out circuitry exists within the goggles to protect the user. Why can't
such a simple feature be built in to a deck or rigger suite to prevent a
character from suffering more than 1 point of stun damage?

> Riggers are not only more aware of the status of their vehicule, but
> of the whole surronding environnement as well. That makes them
> capable of acting without forethought, or as RBB2 would put it,
> "Knee-jerk reactions"... As you would know, Mr. Lindsay, driving is
> very instinctive. Well, IMHO, Riggers make it much more than
> instinct...it almost become a reflex. Of course, being in 1997 and
> all, it's thought to say what a rigger would feel, being ourselves
> devoid of references. But...what's the most controlable, responsive
> object in the whole universe, able to bend to your whim, and act
> EXACTLY the way you want it to, without jerking, and without error?
> Your body... Riggers try to get that same feeling by switching their
> perception from their meat body, to their "metal" counterpart. And
> for that kind of response, you need feedback. Hence, pain.

But why pain to the point that it causes actual physical damage (damage
that may take months to recover from, under the Shadowrun rules)? I don't
have a problem with mental damage, since it recovers much faster and is
more realistic with the type of damage that may be caused due to filtered
feedback.

It appears that I am arguing for a meager amount of realism in Shadowrun (a
difficult argument, I can tell you) while you seem to be arguing more for
play balance (using such ideas as "that sounds fair"). I guess we can
simply agree to disagree :)

> But, in the same way, I think riggers could get high by popping some
> oil additives in their tanks... ;) Car sex taken to a whole new
> level...

Car sex? Well that explains why my VW Bug is rear-engined and looks like a
pregnant rollerskate :P




James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";

Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...
Message no. 181
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 02:51:59 GMT
On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 07:22:45 -0600, David Buehrer wrote:

> This happens with fighter planes in RL. Jet fighters outmaneuver
> their pilots. They can pull more Gs than a pilot can withstand.

A good argument, but one that isn't quite accurate. Sure, an F-16 can pull
over 9 Gees while the pilot would be lucky to remain conscious. However,
the plane *itself* isn't zapping the pilot with an electrical jolt each
time the plane approaches stalling speed or performing tight maneuvers
within 500 feet of the ground. What you are talking about is the
difference between what the plane can do and what the pilot can handle.
Just like the difference between car and driver during *severe*
decelerations (via a lamp post or brick wall), or between tank and crew
during combat.

> But
> if you put your pilots in planes with limiters then you're going to
> get shot down by that pilot flying the more maneuverable plane
> because he will take the risk and pull those Gs and get the edge.

Not necessarily so. The pilot might be so eager to out maneuver his
opponent (who has "limiters") that he might surpass his own threshold in
the heat of battle. Then it is *he* that has passed out and become an easy
target.

> So
> every fighter pilot is at risk of killing himself and destroying a
> multi-million dollar plane, yet the planes are purchased and pilots
> are put in that position.

And people drive while intoxicated. The difference between these examples
and the rules in R2 is that the pilot or drunk doesn't suffer injury at the
hands of the plane/car because they have surpassed their safe operating
limits (although he may suffer injury when control is lost).



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";

Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...
Message no. 182
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 00:39:00 -0400
I'm going to step away from the current flame war, and start a new one.

Armor. Specifically, cars aren't going to have any. Why not? Because it
takes 3 CF per point to retrofit concealed armor to a car. Most of the cars
can take 2 or 3 at the *most* before being loaded up. Yes, the armor
doesn't have to be concealed, but I'd think the Star is going to want to
know why it is exactly your car can turn up to light anti-tank weaponry.
They are certainly going to be able to ID the car that just picked up the
couple of guys running out of the Greater Seattle Maritime Office building
after exchanging fire with the security guards, and hauling away a kidnap
victim much easier if it looked like it was carrying armor.

My first thought: allow the first (body) points of concealed armor to cost
0 CF (perhaps 1 CF as a retrofit), to represent the filling of dead space
(door panels and such) with armor plate.
--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 183
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 01:06:13 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-16 15:03:11 EDT, you write:

> Another problem with the rigger damage rule is that it would severely
> limit the practicality of things like rigger-guided missiles or drones
> being sent into high-threat areas. The benefit of things like drones is
> their expendability, and military and corp-security strategy would be
> based on such an assumption. However, if, for every drone that went down,
> a rigger was also at risk, drones would become a commodity nearly as
> preacious as people. This just does not make sense.

Umm, I believe that this would be a good reason for a rigger who is directly
controlling missiles or bombs or anything else about to go boom to just let
the vehicle be defiliated from himself (translation - put the weapon into
'cold' control / awaremess to the rigger) - see page 64 of the R2, under the
section for Simple Actions.

Mike
Message no. 184
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:14:47 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-16 18:12:33 EDT, jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU
writes:

>
> <ANAL>*cough* The word is "vehicle", actually. No
"U".</ANAL>
>
> Sorry, it's just been irritating me. Feel free to dismiss me as a
> pedantic weenie. :)
>
> Lady Jestyr

Ereskanti politely takes' the Lady's hand, leaving it connected to the body
of course and shows her to the Lady's room door....and in a very pedantic
voice (doing a good Wesley Crusher imitation as well btw)....

"Lady, you've been excused...."

(grin a bit, it'll feel good through the pain)
Message no. 185
From: NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:01:07 -0400
>If there's a way for a VCR to cause physical damage, I'd like to
>know about it. OK, lethal biofeedback is one thing, but (as it was
>said earlier on the list) the Black IC is specially designed for
>ASIST-assisted (:>) frying of the decker's brain.
>
>And, IM(ns)HO, VCR does not have the required power levels to
>cause permanent damage to the rigger. How? The levels of current
>needed to interface with human nervous systems are too low, and the
>link with the vehicle is fiberoptics anyway... The wires could cause
>a seizure, eventually, but that's all... I'd say that the intense
>pain can make you pass out, but that would be Stun damage. It's
>hard to die from pain. (And as for deaths from system shock - well,
>the stun damage overflows)

Ok try this. A vehicle is hit by a missile the rounds impacts. The vehicle
has been damaged in this moment the sensors in that area give one final
signal all at once, after that wiring and fuses start to short circuit
overloading the breakers and flooding the rigger with more stimulus. the
short circuiting wires spark all over the exposed pads of the sensors
sending randomly variable voltage, amps whatever to the fiber optics
interface which translates this overload into optical signals which flow up
the dateline into the jack into the VCR which them translates this sensory
overload into nerve impulses, the nerves ending fire making the bodies
metabolic processes increase. The increased activity raises hormonal levels,
making the body raise it's blood pressure, fire off even more nerve
impulses, all the with more overload from the damages is steaming in making
the situation worse. The brain can't handle it anymore capillaries are
bursting from the stress all over the body and in the brain. The synapses
are firing more than the body normally allows and start to misfire making
the situation worse inducing seizure all the while the rigger flails in his
seat knocking himself around, the seizure cut off oxygen supply until they
simply shut down. Finally when it's all over the body finally return to
normal. All in a fraction of a second. How about that. ;-)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I summon the unholy demons of Apathy, Sarcasm and Cynicism!!

Wally from the Dilbert comics

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 186
From: Vladimyr <morbid@*******.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 19:08:43 +1000
You wrote:

>How? I mean, how is the damage caused? I can imagine that pain and
>sensory overload can pack a mean punch and leave you with a hangover
>of the century, but how can it physically damage the brain? Put 2000
>Volts through it? You don't really need that kind of currents in your
>brain, and besides the links are fiberoptical, so I don't think there
>are currents of that magnitude in the VCR....

Hmm.. In that case, how are deckers killed by lethal feed back??
The links are fibre optical as well.
Our brain is basically a computer. Too much data sent to the wrong section
will fry parts of it. Hell, too much of heaps of things can damage it.
Getting bumped too hard can kill someone.

Therefore plugging it directly into another machine, which sends info
straight to it is only going to cause a hangover? I don't think so. By
plugging it into something else, it takes over the olfactory (spelling)
senses.
Therefore the vehicle becomes your body. Not your own.
So, too much damage to that body is gunna kill you.

L8r
Vlad

***********************************************************************
Lucifer: God? God is love. I don't love you.
- The Prophecy (movie)
***********************************************************************
Message no. 187
From: Vladimyr <morbid@*******.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 19:28:42 +1000
At 22:28 16/10/97 +0000, you wrote:

>Wow. Now this is something good. Now could somebody explain to me why
>when the rigger is in the 500k nuyen drone with milspec sensors all
>over and it gets geeked with a tacnuke, he only feels the (Stun) dump
>shock, but when his rigged Jackrabbit crashes into a wall, he gets
>the loads of Physical damage? That does not make sense... Either make
>all the damage Physical, or Stun (like I'd like to do <g>).

Well, how about because drones cost that much they have a 'dump' system in
them that automatically dumps the rigger if the feedback peaks lethal.

Why not?

You tell me EXACTLY how a cyberlimb works (that still causes pain when hit)
It's probably something similar.

L8r
Vlad

***********************************************************************
Lucifer: God? God is love. I don't love you.
- The Prophecy (movie)
***********************************************************************
Message no. 188
From: Vladimyr <morbid@*******.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 19:37:38 +1000
Hmmmm,

I must say, being in Australia and not yet having RBB2, this entire debate
is coming across quite fascinating. There are so many interpretations of
some of the rules it makes me wonder how clear the whole thing is.

I've replied to a couple of posts, but there seems to be quite a bit of
contradiction. Are the rules very clear?

I can see reasons for giving riggers physical damage while rigging and GAME
BALANCE comes out at the top. It makes riggers a little less powerful.

But, Final judgement awaits the book :)

L8r
Vlad

***********************************************************************
Lucifer: God? God is love. I don't love you.
- The Prophecy (movie)
***********************************************************************
Message no. 189
From: Ray & Tamara <macey@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 11:10:56 +1000
MC23 wrote:
> I'm in a rush and I don't have my book yet <grrr> but let me quickly
> point out the flaw in this. Deckers take damage because ICE is
> specifically written to do that through the ASSIST filters not because
> the decker wants it to. There are no bullets designed in shadowrun that
> is supposed to have the same effect on a rigger's VCR. Deliberate
> exposure to injury is avoided in all design concept. I doubt the current
> VCR technology is from the pages of the Marquis DeSade. Any other excuse
> is apologetic for the new rules.

Thank you MC23. I have been wanting to say this myself, and you have just
saved me the need to type it all out. What can I say other than I agree
completely.

NightRain.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

EMAIL: macey@***.brisnet.org.au
Message no. 190
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 08:06:44 +0000
> Sorry, it's just been irritating me. Feel free to dismiss me as a
> pedantic weenie. :)

"Pedantic". There you go again. What was the last one? I don't
remember. Anyway.

<childish>
Pedantic Weenie! Pedantic weenie! Jestyr is a Pedantic Weenie!
</childish>

That wasn't very satisfying at all. :)

To try and keep this on topic (I feel a lurking Dvixen...)....
Bottom line guys (and girls...see note at bottom): We've been
bickering about rationalizations of frying/not-frying the rigger.
Forgetting the "Why" (Or "wherefore", for Jestyr's sake :) ), who is
going to be using what? Regardless of rationalization, I find the
new rules acceptable and even interesting, so I'll use them. Others?
After all, the point IS to have fun.

-=SwiftOne=-
Note: I'm doing a very small study on "Gender Issues in Computing".
Anyone, male or female, who has anything interesting to say, relate,
or observe, feel free to email me at Swiftone@***.edu.
Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie
Message no. 191
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 08:39:53 -0400
Lady Jestyr[SMTP:jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU] wrote:
> > recovery should be more along the lines of Stun damage (though,
> > it should probably take a little longer).
> >
> > Perhaps it should just be a special kind of damage - call it Stun
> > for recovery purposes, but a Deadly wound will kill?
>
> That's even worse! It can kill you like a Physical wund, but you can't
> treat it away? That's a bit trying-to-have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too for
> the GM isn't it?

You can't heal it away, but you can recover from it provided your brain
isn't
totally scrambled... Having a stroke in the middle of combat could
really
suck.

And I'm not GMing Shadowrun - I'm building a rigger to play. I've been
holding
off on building this char for months waiting for R2.

James Ojaste
Message no. 192
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 08:45:01 -0400
J. Keith Henry[SMTP:Ereskanti@***.COM] wrote:
> In a message dated 97-10-16 14:25:10 EDT, James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA writes:
>
> > > I think I like that as well. But a question, I haven't made it that
far,
> > but
> > > does the RiC occur for the "Captain?" I wouldn't grant such, or
maybe
> > just
> > > half the modifier, for the Captain I think.
> >
[snip my question]
> Nope, let me clarify a bit. The "Captain's Chair" controlling a given
> situation, which would include any number of riggers/deckers at his
immediate
> "hands reach". Does the "Captain", even though they are not
-directly-
> controlling the drone/object in question, get the RiC modifier?

Ah. You're talking about cooperative rigging? I didn't see any rules
for
that - do you have a page ref?

And what is this RiC modifier of which you speak?

James Ojaste
Message no. 193
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 08:55:37 -0400
Vladimyr[SMTP:morbid@*******.COM.AU] wrote:
> I must say, being in Australia and not yet having RBB2, this entire debate
> is coming across quite fascinating. There are so many interpretations of
> some of the rules it makes me wonder how clear the whole thing is.

Don't forget, several of the people arguing here don't actually have
the book... They're just questionning how it fits in with the rest of
the SR universe.

> I've replied to a couple of posts, but there seems to be quite a bit of
> contradiction. Are the rules very clear?

They are to me. Like I said, most of the people here aren't debating
the clarity of the rules, but their consistency and playability.

> I can see reasons for giving riggers physical damage while rigging and GAME
> BALANCE comes out at the top. It makes riggers a little less powerful.

I agree.

James Ojaste
Message no. 194
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 09:05:23 -0400
Max Rible[SMTP:slothman@*********.ORG] wrote:
> At 15:20 10/16/97 -0400, Ojaste,James [NCR] wrote:
> >Max Rible[SMTP:slothman@*********.ORG] wrote:
> >>[encryption discussion snipped]
>
> >But that's boring. If people were guaranteed secure, uninterruptable
> >communications, the world would be a lot different...
>
> It's not boring. It just moves things to new arenas: you now have
> shadowrunners hired as couriers to deliver one-time pads, teams with
> mind probing and/or controlling mages hired to get at someone's private
> encryption key, surveillance jobs for getting at the information before
> it gets encrypted...

But there's no need to ever deliver a one-time pad. Just send a new
1tp with each message. Mages are useless because nobody actually
remembers their 128-bit private key (in SR, that would be a pretty
small key). Surveillance? You'd have to break into a facility
where all the guards have secure, uninterruptible communications?
That job at the Stuffer Shack is sounding better and better. :-)

> Oh, another thing they missed on encryption: it shouldn't lower the
> range on your communications. Bits are bits.

Agreed. In RL, using current technology. However, if the "encryption"
does things like frequency and amplitude hopping and piggybacking,
that could lower your range substantially.

[snip big signal vs lots of little ones]
> I just think that it should be very hard to do physical damage through
> an ASIST interface. Black IC has the advantage of being involved with
> simsense transmissions and can be fine-tuned; big capacitors and incoming
> bullets can't.)

Then I guess we agree to disagree. :-)

> >I'd say that somebody using a 100 DFR jack compared to somebody using
> >a 25 DFR jack is like playing a computer game at 640x480 instead of
> >320x200. Sure, it's still fun at 320x200, and you can still be immersed
> >in the game, but it looks much better (and can improve your gameplay) if
> >you can use the higher resolution.
>
> But a 25 DFR jack is already supposed to be incredibly realistic. How
> much more detail can you handle? I don't see it giving you that much
> of an edge. (We're talking about a rigger with Int 3, the human average,
> getting *double* the dice on perception rolls with a 100 DFR jack!)

Well, if you really want to get me started on the realism of SR's
bandwidth and dataspace values... *Megapulses*!?? Don't make me
laugh. That is probably one of the *biggest* reality screw-ups
that FASA has managed in SR, but does anybody complain? Well, I
suppose I do...

> >No matter how much material FASA publishes, the Shadowrun world will still
> >be incomplete. Consistency is the best that you can hope for, and
Shadowrun
> >does a decent job at that.
>
> However, this datajack thing is a failure in consistency which is most
> easily remedied by ignoring it.

Do you ignore mp? That's a much bigger hole.

> >I love a good argument. :-)
>
> So do I. I'm glad to have an opponent who helps keep it at the level of
> a debate rather than a flame war.

And I. Welcome to the first annual meeting of the mutual
appreciation society... :-)

James Ojaste
Message no. 195
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 09:14:30 -0400
Ojaste,James [NCR] once dared to write,

I going to try to find my copy today so I won't say too much more
without it.

>> I can see reasons for giving riggers physical damage while rigging and GAME
>> BALANCE comes out at the top. It makes riggers a little less powerful.
>
>I agree.

Do people play richer game than I do? I know most people award more
Karma than we do here. The cost of repairs for damaged and worse still,
destroyed vehicles and drones has always kept the riggers out of game
just as much as physical wounds on everyone else if not possibly longer.
And magic can't do a damn thing for repair time, even a Sammie has a
chance to speed his healing along with magic. I think people can't find
the forest for the trees over this issue.
Like an intense roller coaster ride there should be a detrimental
drain on the rigger from the adrenaline surging through his system for
being "in the action" but not as a physical threat. This I can see this
as a body reaction to the stimuli and not because some piece of equipment
puts the pilot in jeopardy through it's standard operations. A high speed
chase should be worse than getting a tire blown off. Think about it.
Unfortunately without the Rigger 2 I don't care offer the mechanics for
using this option.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 196
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 09:18:41 -0400
Mike (Leszek Karlik)[SMTP:trrkt@*****.ONET.PL] wrote:
> On 16 Oct 97, Czar Eggbert disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
> writing:
> > Here's what we have so far....
> >
> > 1) The VCR sends ASIST(?) information to the rigger from the sensors
> > via a fiberoptic line. 2) When a veichial(ms) takes damage the
> > rigger "feels" it but DOES NOT take damage unless it is Serious or
> > Deadly 3) When a drone takes damage the only damage that the rigger
> > takes is Dump Shock
>
> Wow. Now this is something good. Now could somebody explain to me why
> when the rigger is in the 500k nuyen drone with milspec sensors all
> over and it gets geeked with a tacnuke, he only feels the (Stun) dump
> shock, but when his rigged Jackrabbit crashes into a wall, he gets
> the loads of Physical damage? That does not make sense... Either make
> all the damage Physical, or Stun (like I'd like to do <g>).

Well, one obvious difference (and yes, I know about opto-isolators)
is that you are physically plugged into the car, and are receiving
your simfeed from the drone over radio.

About the opto-isolators - I've suggested in other posts that it's
not a single voltage spike which causes the damage, but the brain
having to suddenly deal with thousands of contradictory bits of
data.

Another point is that a car crashing is a relatively long process -
it'll take up to maybe half a second. For that half-second, you
have to deal with feeling like you're being torn apart. With a drone,
it'll basically just pop.

James Ojaste
Message no. 197
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 08:10:19 -0600
Jonathan Hurley wrote:
|
| Armor. Specifically, cars aren't going to have any. Why not? Because it
| takes 3 CF per point to retrofit concealed armor to a car. Most of the cars
| can take 2 or 3 at the *most* before being loaded up. Yes, the armor

[snip]

| My first thought: allow the first (body) points of concealed armor to cost
| 0 CF (perhaps 1 CF as a retrofit), to represent the filling of dead space
| (door panels and such) with armor plate.

There may be dead space in the door panels, but there isn't very much
anywhere else. Especially in the newer cas of today. Just about
every non-sport vehicle pre 1980 had plenty of dead space. But
vehicle designers don't waste very much space today (look under the
hood of just about any 1997 car and try to find free space). Light,
lean and mean is the motto. In 205x I'd expect it to be taken to the
extreme with every cm of the vehicle's design accounted for.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 198
From: "Mike (Leszek Karlik)" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 17:25:13 +0000
On 17 Oct 97, Vladimyr disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:

> At 22:28 16/10/97 +0000, you wrote:
>
> >Wow. Now this is something good. Now could somebody explain to me why
> >when the rigger is in the 500k nuyen drone with milspec sensors all
> >over and it gets geeked with a tacnuke, he only feels the (Stun) dump
> >shock, but when his rigged Jackrabbit crashes into a wall, he gets
> >the loads of Physical damage? That does not make sense... Either make
> >all the damage Physical, or Stun (like I'd like to do <g>).
>
> Well, how about because drones cost that much they have a 'dump'
> system in them that automatically dumps the rigger if the feedback
> peaks lethal.

Oh? They do? In that case, I install that system in my car. After
all, my modified Eurocar Westwind costs more than 100kY, while my
Nissan Rotordrone costs 7,500 Y and STILL doesn't cause dumpshock.
How 'bout that?

(This thingamajig applies both ways, ya know... See why I'm talking
about inconsistency?)

Mike (Leszek Karlik) - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike
FL/GN Leszek/Raptor II/ISD Vanguard, (SS) (PC) (ISM) {IWATS-IIC} JH(Sith)/House Scholae
Palatinae
It's been Monday aaaaaaaaallllllll week!
Message no. 199
From: "Mike (Leszek Karlik)" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 17:25:13 +0000
On 17 Oct 97, Ojaste,James [NCR] disseminated foul capitalist
propaganda by writing:

> Vladimyr[SMTP:morbid@*******.COM.AU] wrote:
> > I must say, being in Australia and not yet having RBB2, this entire debate
> > is coming across quite fascinating. There are so many interpretations of
> > some of the rules it makes me wonder how clear the whole thing is.

> Don't forget, several of the people arguing here don't actually have
> the book... They're just questionning how it fits in with the rest
> of the SR universe.

Well, we're not arguing, we're discussing possible flaws in SR
continuity and in the newly-acquired (by some listmembers) set of
rigger rules known as Rigger Black Book 2.

Oh, ok, so we're arguing... :-P

And no, I don't have the Artoo-Deetoo... Err... R2.

> > I can see reasons for giving riggers physical damage while rigging and GAME
> > BALANCE comes out at the top. It makes riggers a little less powerful.

Well, the price does account for the Game Balance, too... And I don't
like the idea of sacrificing the Game Consistency for the sake of
Game Balance.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
(Waitasec! Didn't I see this sencence somewhere else? :>)

Mike (Leszek Karlik) - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike
FL/GN Leszek/Raptor II/ISD Vanguard, (SS) (PC) (ISM) {IWATS-IIC} JH(Sith)/House Scholae
Palatinae
FAITH CAN MOVE MOUNTAINS - she's a big girl.
Message no. 200
From: "Mike (Leszek Karlik)" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 17:25:13 +0000
On 17 Oct 97, Ojaste,James [NCR] disseminated foul capitalist
propaganda by writing:

> > Wow. Now this is something good. Now could somebody explain to me why
> > when the rigger is in the 500k nuyen drone with milspec sensors all
> > over and it gets geeked with a tacnuke, he only feels the (Stun) dump
> > shock, but when his rigged Jackrabbit crashes into a wall, he gets
> > the loads of Physical damage? That does not make sense... Either make
> > all the damage Physical, or Stun (like I'd like to do <g>).

> Well, one obvious difference (and yes, I know about opto-isolators)
> is that you are physically plugged into the car, and are receiving
> your simfeed from the drone over radio.

So what? Simfeed over radio from a high-quality drone with loads of
sensors is much better than your Basic Sensors Package car... And
since the link is optical anyway - well, see below.

> About the opto-isolators - I've suggested in other posts that it's
> not a single voltage spike which causes the damage, but the brain
> having to suddenly deal with thousands of contradictory bits of
> data.

Yes, but in that case you get thousands of bits of data in both
processses. The drone crashing and the car crashing flood your
brain with similar information....

> Another point is that a car crashing is a relatively long process -
> it'll take up to maybe half a second. For that half-second, you
> have to deal with feeling like you're being torn apart. With a
> drone, it'll basically just pop.

Well, if your drone crashes, it's the same thing (unless the
transmitter was taken out first), and besides, I don't see
half a second as long enough to warrant change from Stun to Physical.


Mike (Leszek Karlik) - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike
FL/GN Leszek/Raptor II/ISD Vanguard, (SS) (PC) (ISM) {IWATS-IIC} JH(Sith)/House Scholae
Palatinae
Vote for Guy Fawkes - the only man to enter parliament with honest intentions!
Message no. 201
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 12:39:02 -0400
On Friday, October 17, 1997 10:10, David Buehrer[SMTP:dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG] wrote:
> Jonathan Hurley wrote:
> |
> | Armor. Specifically, cars aren't going to have any. Why not? Because it
> | takes 3 CF per point to retrofit concealed armor to a car. Most of the cars
> | can take 2 or 3 at the *most* before being loaded up. Yes, the armor
>
> [snip]
>
> | My first thought: allow the first (body) points of concealed armor to cost
> | 0 CF (perhaps 1 CF as a retrofit), to represent the filling of dead space
> | (door panels and such) with armor plate.
>
> There may be dead space in the door panels, but there isn't very much
> anywhere else. Especially in the newer cas of today. Just about
> every non-sport vehicle pre 1980 had plenty of dead space. But
> vehicle designers don't waste very much space today (look under the
> hood of just about any 1997 car and try to find free space). Light,
> lean and mean is the motto. In 205x I'd expect it to be taken to the
> extreme with every cm of the vehicle's design accounted for.

OK. I own a light pickup truck, which has plenty of dead(ish) space in it.


--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 202
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 10:48:19 -0600
Jonathan Hurley wrote:
|
| On Friday, October 17, 1997 10:10, David
Buehrer[SMTP:dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG] wrote:

| > Jonathan Hurley wrote:
| > |
| > | My first thought: allow the first (body) points of concealed armor to cost
| > | 0 CF (perhaps 1 CF as a retrofit), to represent the filling of dead space
| > | (door panels and such) with armor plate.
| >
| > There may be dead space in the door panels, but there isn't very much
| > anywhere else. Especially in the newer cas of today. Just about
| > every non-sport vehicle pre 1980 had plenty of dead space. But
| > vehicle designers don't waste very much space today (look under the
| > hood of just about any 1997 car and try to find free space). Light,
| > lean and mean is the motto. In 205x I'd expect it to be taken to the
| > extreme with every cm of the vehicle's design accounted for.
|
| OK. I own a light pickup truck, which has plenty of dead(ish) space in it.

I own a 1984 Dodge truck that has enough space under the hood for me
to practically crawl inside. But the trend with new cars is to pack
everything in the car like sausage in a casing. True, there are a
few exceptions, but in general they're packed pretty tight. I've
also owned an 86 car and replacing the alternator was a royal pain in
the but since I had to remove several covers and components first.

Also, vehicles with metal panels (trucks) do tend to have more space
(I have no idea why) whereas vehicles with composite panels (sporty
cars) tend to have very little free space, in general :)

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 203
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:07:25 -0400
>I own a 1984 Dodge truck that has enough space under the hood for me
>to practically crawl inside. But the trend with new cars is to pack
>everything in the car like sausage in a casing. True, there are a
>few exceptions, but in general they're packed pretty tight. I've
>also owned an 86 car and replacing the alternator was a royal pain in
>the but since I had to remove several covers and components first.
>
>Also, vehicles with metal panels (trucks) do tend to have more space
>(I have no idea why) whereas vehicles with composite panels (sporty
>cars) tend to have very little free space, in general :)
>
Ok, this may be just a silly thougth, but doesn't all this actually support
the original idea? The idea was to allow (body) points of armor to be
concealed for no (or 1) CF cost, and then charge after that. Well, then
the next thing said was that many cars have no space, but wait,
trucks/pickups have plenty of space. Hell, a car that is packed tight is
done so because it is small and small = low body. So, this seems to make
perfect sense. In a low body (unmodified) car, there is little space to
conceal armor, so you can only put a point or two for free. In a bigger
car, like a Dodge Ram (or whatever, say like body 4 or 5), you can fit in a
lot more armor concealed for free. I like it, if I ever get my hands on
RBB2, I'll use that rule.

--DT
Message no. 204
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 15:19:10 -0400
Jonathan Hurley[SMTP:jhurley1@************.EDU] wrote:
> I'm going to step away from the current flame war, and start a new one.
>
> Armor. Specifically, cars aren't going to have any. Why not? Because it
> takes 3 CF per point to retrofit concealed armor to a car. Most of the cars
> can take 2 or 3 at the *most* before being loaded up. Yes, the armor

Whoa! You're complaining that standard production cars don't
have adequate provisions to retrofit concealed armour!? Gee,
what a surprise!

You could always do a redesign - allowing even a little subcompact
to get up to 8 points of armour...

> My first thought: allow the first (body) points of concealed armor to cost
> 0 CF (perhaps 1 CF as a retrofit), to represent the filling of dead space
> (door panels and such) with armor plate.

But a bunch of that "dead space" is used for things (cables, struts,
a place for your window to go when you roll it down). You have
to be careful where you put the stuff. Or you could just move on
up to a bigger vehicle - a Bulldog has 50CF to play around with, and
starts off with 2 or 5 armour (depending on the model).

James Ojaste
Message no. 205
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 12:44:00 PDT
>> That's true - two drones going down means two 6Ses for the rigger...
>> only takes two dead drones to put the security rigger down for the
>> count.

Only if the rigger is "in" those drones- the drones can be commanded
from "capatains chair" or "assumed body" mode, acting semi-
autonomously. The only real benifit of "jumping in" is acess to pools
and detailed control / observation. A lot of those goals can be
accoplished with the new battletack IVIS system / pool and other toys.

Its my impression from looking at the various action types and other
rules that the rigger has a lot more things to do and not any more
timeto do them. Semi-autonomous drones would be a very good thing for
the security rigger.


Mongoose / Technological progress is like an ax in the hands
of a psycotic - Einstien

get sucked into -The Vortex- Chicago's shadowland BBS
http://www.concentric.net/~evamarie/srmain.htm


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 206
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 15:50:50 -0400
Brett Borger[SMTP:bxb121@***.EDU] wrote:
> To try and keep this on topic (I feel a lurking Dvixen...)....
> Bottom line guys (and girls...see note at bottom): We've been
> bickering about rationalizations of frying/not-frying the rigger.
> Forgetting the "Why" (Or "wherefore", for Jestyr's sake :) ), who
is
> going to be using what? Regardless of rationalization, I find the
> new rules acceptable and even interesting, so I'll use them. Others?
> After all, the point IS to have fun.

Given the chance, I'll use them. I'm not GMing SRII at the moment,
but we tend to play pretty much by the book... I'm building a rigger
right now, but she's going to be almost totally vehicle-only.

James Ojaste
Message no. 207
From: Tim Cooper <z-i-m@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 17:11:35 EDT
On Fri, 17 Oct 1997 08:10:19 -0600 David Buehrer writes:

>There may be dead space in the door panels, but there isn't very much
>anywhere else. Especially in the newer cas of today. Just about
>every non-sport vehicle pre 1980 had plenty of dead space. But
>vehicle designers don't waste very much space today (look under the
>hood of just about any 1997 car and try to find free space). Light,
>lean and mean is the motto. In 205x I'd expect it to be taken to the
>extreme with every cm of the vehicle's design accounted for.

True, but does "armor" have to mean tacking on plates of something over
existing structure?
Wouldn't it be just as effective (or more so) to replace the
fiberglass/plastic-or-otherwise-tincan-like door/hood, sidepanel, or
whatever with something a bit heavier without taking up a substantial
amount of space? Although, maybe this would fall more into the "Body"
catagory.

~Tim
Message no. 208
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 18:22:38 EST
> Yes, but in that case you get thousands of bits of data in both
> processses. The drone crashing and the car crashing flood your brain
> with similar information....

Okay, well how about this: A dead drone stops transmitting. (Or at
least stops reaching you) A dead car is still wired into you. Like
having a walkie talkie where the other is smashed...Screech, then
normal static. Now instead of being on the OTHER walkie talkie, be
the one that is smashed. Ouch.

(BTW, I do have R2, and I'm trying to look up all the parts of this
debate. So far all that I have is that the drone half is explained
by a rush of conflicting and spiked ASIST signals)

-=SwiftOne=-
Message no. 209
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 19:05:58 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-17 08:44:47 EDT, James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA writes:

>
> Ah. You're talking about cooperative rigging? I didn't see any rules
> for
> that - do you have a page ref?
>
> And what is this RiC modifier of which you speak?
>
Can't find a page ref at the moment (drugs for illness have their ways...),
and the RiC is the "Rigger in Control" modifier for the VCR.

-K
Message no. 210
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 19:06:06 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-17 08:02:06 EDT, bxb121@***.EDU writes:

>
> To try and keep this on topic (I feel a lurking Dvixen...)....
> Bottom line guys (and girls...see note at bottom): We've been
> bickering about rationalizations of frying/not-frying the rigger.
> Forgetting the "Why" (Or "wherefore", for Jestyr's sake :) ),
who is
> going to be using what? Regardless of rationalization, I find the
> new rules acceptable and even interesting, so I'll use them. Others?
> After all, the point IS to have fun.
>

Oh yeah, we'll be using them. Mike (airwisp) is in the process of reworking
the panzer of his character's dreams (sort of like a dwarven lifequest
thing). Once it's done and we double check the information, we'll probably
open the doors for the rest of the players to rework their favorite toys as
well.

-K
Message no. 211
From: Adam Treloar <guardian@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 17:35:09 +1000
> | As such, I would be inclined to say that, if one really feels the rigger
> | should resist such damage (a theory I find myself opposed to), it should
> | be Stun rather than Physical. Yes, his mind is reacting to the broken
> | axle as if the rigger had a broken leg, but his leg is not actually
> | broken.
>
> But if damage is being caused to his brain then he's at more risk than
> if he did break a leg. The brain is the centeral organ of the human
> body. It's almost imposible to cause stun damage to the brain. IMO
> stun damage occurse when a person is hurt, but vital systems aren't in
> danger (like bruises, muscle pulls, etc.). When a vital system is
> endangered then it's physical damage (cuts/bleeding, partial or whole
> destruction of a vital organ, etc). The brain is a vital organ that's
> pretty hard to damage without endangering a person's life. A bruise to
> the brain takes a while to heal. It's not stun damage that can be
> recovered in an hour or two. Electrical shock screws up the memory and
> it takes time to recover from that. There's no way that I can think of
> to inflict "stun" damage on a human brain. "Creativity is allowing
> yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing

I agree with this line of reasoning, even though I like riggers. From a
realistic point, I can see how it works, but any riggers I play are going
to be a bit more cautious from now on...

Besides, IF the rigger can see the danger coming, he can usually sump
himself, and take a light stun first. (whoopdy-doo, when compared to a 6S
physical) However, most of the time combat is at close quarters, and
there isn't time to do much more than blink in surprise when some sod with
delayed actions pops up behind his trusty MAW and pops a rocket off at
you.

Guardian

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indestinguishable from technology.
So there."
Adam Treloar aka Guardian
s777317@*****.student.gu.edu.au http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1900/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 212
From: Adam Treloar <guardian@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 17:43:05 +1000
> That rule is still in existence to a limited extent, however there are now
> guidelines for drone/robot programmability (and the skills with which to use
> already exist). A House Rule we've been using, and are likely to keep after
> what I've read so far, is the "Focused Concentration" is also available in
> the "Mental" modifiers in so far as operating multiple programs and/or
> drones. I guess it could be called "Multiplexing" after the Matrix term,
but
> what the riggers would call it?????

Focused concentration? Sounds like a good idea. I imagine it would work
similar to playing, say, Command & Conquer - you can either focus entirely
on controlling one particular group of units (in this case
drones/vehicles), telling it exactly what to do, or you can do many
things, giving only cursory orders to different units. With the AI that's
*supposed* to be in the drones, a simple go here and shoot that ought to
be within their limits.

Guardian

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indestinguishable from technology.
So there."
Adam Treloar aka Guardian
s777317@*****.student.gu.edu.au http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1900/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 213
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 12:04:36 +0100
In article <19971017.141154.9039.5.z-i-m@****.com>, Tim Cooper <z-i-
m@****.COM> writes
>True, but does "armor" have to mean tacking on plates of something over
>existing structure?
>Wouldn't it be just as effective (or more so) to replace the
>fiberglass/plastic-or-otherwise-tincan-like door/hood, sidepanel, or
>whatever with something a bit heavier without taking up a substantial
>amount of space? Although, maybe this would fall more into the "Body"
>catagory.

You're looking at about half an inch of material to armour a car against
small-arms fire, plus some pretty thick glasswork. A lot of small cars
don't have either the space, nor the access, for that sort of retrofit.

Larger ones do, but then they've got enough CF that it's not a problem
:) That's why armoured limousines tend to be built on large chassis.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 214
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 11:54:32 +0100
In article <199710161322.HAA12005@******.carl.org>, David Buehrer
<dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG> writes
>This happens with fighter planes in RL. Jet fighters outmaneuver
>their pilots. They can pull more Gs than a pilot can withstand. But
>if you put your pilots in planes with limiters then you're going to
>get shot down by that pilot flying the more maneuverable plane
>because he will take the risk and pull those Gs and get the edge.

Uh.... maybe. Or else the pilot without limiters holds his highG turn a
fraction too long and blacks out, and the limited aircraft blow him into
aluminium confetti.

Or - as it's possible to do in the MiG-29 at corner velocity - the pilot
of a non-limited aircraft hauls the stick back hard, and the airframe
obliges with a 15G turn, before disassembling itself in mid-air.

Or - remembering that turns bleed speed like crazy - your 10G turn
bleeds your airspeed down fast, leaving you a slow sitting duck. Ability
to pull lots of G in a turn matters less than roll rate and
acceleration.

Or the pilot is so busy watching his G-meter, to avoid all of the above,
that the aircraft with the limiters - who can't fly beyond safe limits -
get an edge. Happened a lot in 1940 and later: the German Me109 had
better turning performance than either Spitfire or Hurricane, but it
also had a tendency to shed a wing if you pulled too hard. So it was a
rare pilot who could _use_ that theoretical superiority, while the
stronger-built Spitfire and Hurricane could be flown right into the
corners of the envelope by the majority of their pilots.

The F-16 has a flight control system that limits the Gs pulled and the
angle of attack. Its air-to-air record is something like 70-2 at the
moment, against aircraft with no such "limitations". The pilot has one
less thing to worry about.

The dramatic airshow manoevres of the Su-27 and its derivatives can only
be done with the flight control system disabled, and few pilots are able
to keep the aircraft safely flyable in that configuration.


>So
>every fighter pilot is at risk of killing himself and destroying a
>multi-million dollar plane, yet the planes are purchased and pilots
>are put in that position.

Though not many of them, these days. Most fighter aircraft in
production, and all under development, have flight control systems that
automatically limit the flight envelope.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 215
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 16:34:07 GMT
On Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:07:25 -0400, David Thompson wrote:

> >I own a 1984 Dodge truck that has enough space under the hood for me
> >to practically crawl inside. But the trend with new cars is to pack
> >everything in the car like sausage in a casing. True, there are a
> >few exceptions, but in general they're packed pretty tight. I've
> >also owned an 86 car and replacing the alternator was a royal pain in
> >the but since I had to remove several covers and components first.
> >
> >Also, vehicles with metal panels (trucks) do tend to have more space
> >(I have no idea why) whereas vehicles with composite panels (sporty
> >cars) tend to have very little free space, in general :)
> >
> Ok, this may be just a silly thougth, but doesn't all this actually support
> the original idea? The idea was to allow (body) points of armor to be
> concealed for no (or 1) CF cost, and then charge after that. Well, then
> the next thing said was that many cars have no space, but wait,
> trucks/pickups have plenty of space. Hell, a car that is packed tight is
> done so because it is small and small = low body. So, this seems to make
> perfect sense. In a low body (unmodified) car, there is little space to
> conceal armor, so you can only put a point or two for free. In a bigger
> car, like a Dodge Ram (or whatever, say like body 4 or 5), you can fit in a
> lot more armor concealed for free. I like it, if I ever get my hands on
> RBB2, I'll use that rule.

Vehicles still have a lot of space directly behind the sheet metal of
fibreglass that makes up the general body shape (ie: don't judge how much
"space" is available in a vehicle simply because of a crowded engine
compartment). Areas of concern may include the hood/bonnet and the roof.
Adding sufficient armour to stop rounds up to light assault rifle
ammunition is possible today. Someone has developed a plastic film that
can be bonded to regular automotive glass (even tempered glass) to allow it
to survive most handgun calibres (except possibly the magnums).

And you can't realistically charge CF to strap on more armour without
completely redesigning the doors, fenders, quarter panels, etc. as well as
the interior (which will slowly become smaller). I view it by allowing a
certain amount of armour to be concealed within the body panels themselves,
with additional armour ending up as non-concealable modifications to the
inside or outside of the vehicle.



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";

Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...
Message no. 216
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 23:17:28 GMT
On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 12:04:36 +0100, Paul J. Adam wrote:

> In article <19971017.141154.9039.5.z-i-m@****.com>, Tim Cooper <z-i-
> m@****.COM> writes
> >True, but does "armor" have to mean tacking on plates of something over
> >existing structure?
> >Wouldn't it be just as effective (or more so) to replace the
> >fiberglass/plastic-or-otherwise-tincan-like door/hood, sidepanel, or
> >whatever with something a bit heavier without taking up a substantial
> >amount of space? Although, maybe this would fall more into the "Body"
> >catagory.
>
> You're looking at about half an inch of material to armour a car against
> small-arms fire, plus some pretty thick glasswork. A lot of small cars
> don't have either the space, nor the access, for that sort of retrofit.

Assuming armour has advanced in the next fifty years, 1/2" of modern
armoured steel is a bit overdoing it against most conventional weapons:

3mm will stop a .45 or 9mm round
7mm will stop a 7.62mm NATO round
13mm will stop the venerable .50 cal
16mm will stop a 14.5mm Soviet round

If you take "armour slope" into account, you can get away with even thinner
armour.

And as I pointed out in another post, you can currently "treat" all of the
existing glass in your car to make it bullet resistant to most handgun
calibres for about $600 US (and you can still roll the windows up & down :)



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";

Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...
Message no. 217
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 23:17:26 GMT
On Fri, 17 Oct 1997 18:22:38 EST, Brett Borger wrote:

> > Yes, but in that case you get thousands of bits of data in both
> > processses. The drone crashing and the car crashing flood your brain
> > with similar information....
>
> Okay, well how about this: A dead drone stops transmitting. (Or at
> least stops reaching you) A dead car is still wired into you. Like
> having a walkie talkie where the other is smashed...Screech, then
> normal static. Now instead of being on the OTHER walkie talkie, be
> the one that is smashed. Ouch.

Why would a dead car continue to transmit data while a smashed drone would
not? It seems to me that people are automatically assuming that the
transmitter aboard a drone ceases to function once the drone has suffered
deadly damage, and that it remains intact and functioning inside a car that
suffers the same damage.

> (BTW, I do have R2, and I'm trying to look up all the parts of this
> debate. So far all that I have is that the drone half is explained
> by a rush of conflicting and spiked ASIST signals)

Same here. I picked up R2 yesterday and 172 pages is a lot to sift through
in one sitting. I prefer to read it all the way through from beginning to
end, rather than jump from section to section.



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";

Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...
Message no. 218
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 23:31:18 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-17 15:44:56 EDT, you write:

> Its my impression from looking at the various action types and other
> rules that the rigger has a lot more things to do and not any more
> timeto do them. Semi-autonomous drones would be a very good thing for
> the security rigger.

This could be a good reason why a rigger could apply either smart-frame
programming when programming in commands for the drones, or another reason to
put programming in ahead of time (works wonders when the rigger goes down all
of a sudden - my players - and Keith - hated it when this happened to them
... snipped the rigger, the drones just kept coming on anyway).
Message no. 219
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 09:38:03 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-18 06:50:54 EDT, t_little@**********.UTAS.EDU.AU
(Timothy Little) writes:

> At 08:56 AM 10/16/97 -0400, K wrote:
> >In a message dated 97-10-16 00:31:11 EDT, t_little@**********.UTAS.EDU.AU
> >writes:
> >> The idea of voluntarily using a system that deliberately does you
damage
> >> when your vehicle crashes...? No thanks!
> >> Sensor overloads and power surges? Through optic fibre?
> >They go into detail as to why this occurs for Riggers. Rigging using
> ASSIST
> >technology, just like a decker does for Matrix ops. However, the Rigger
is
> >using a different part of the brain than a decker, quote "that is where
the
> >similarities end". the rigger is actually utilizing connections to the
> >instinctual, reflexive, parts of the ind (the book is on the
entertainment
> >center, and I've got vertigo, else I'd get the page # for all you picky
> types
> > ;).

Hey, my vertigo's less, now I'm just lazy ;}

> >The connection between vehicle damage and the rigger being "damaged"
is a

> bit
> >extreme IMHO, but I can understand it from a point of view of game
balance.
> <RANT>
> You all probably already know what I think of FASA-imposed 'game balance'.
> From my point of view, their rules are made for combat-dominated games and
> 'balanced' for such, so as to stretch suspension of disbelief.
> Come on, FASA! How about some consistency and playability?
> At least mark out which rules are there for 'balance', and which for
> internal game-world reasons!
> </RANT>
> :^P

I have to admit, that if they did put things in like "Game Balance
Disclaimer" in a few places, it would be nice. However, I have a feeling
they'd be increasing the text size of their books by a sizable amount. Also,
once they did that, then everyone would be 'ranting' about their reasons
behind such decisions. (grin)

> More realistic balance:
> A rigger inside a vehicle cannot be jammed, but is potentially vulnerable
to
> whatever situation the vehicle gets into.

I understand that, and agree with it.

> A remote rigger is physically safe, but has to deal with interference,
lag,
> range, and the possibility of having their control channel intercepted or
> hijacked.

Again, I do agree. Unless of course a trace/triangulation can be managed to
find out the source of the rigger's transmissions and then deal with the guy
(we've done this here to find the rigger and his hostage).

> Plus the Essence cost of rigger control gear, compared to a decker's 0.1
or
> less datajack.

This is a really bad topic for players here. I myself agree with you, and
probably everyone else, on this spot. I think that FASA originally did it
because of the comparison to Wired Reflexes, but I could be wrong.
Regardless, it is a stupid ruling on the mechanics of things.

> > However, the story that is in the book is indicative of the person
> surviving
> >a LOT more damage than you might guess.
> >It ain't bad folks, in fact, it really is pretty good. Vehicle Design is
> >just nightmarish.
> Do you mean as in poorly-written rules, or just complex?
> I've survived GURPS Vehicles - I can handle complexity.
> (Hey, I've got the spreadsheets to prove it! :-)

I meant the complexity level. I started using the -cyberware- stuff from
Rigger 2 last night, as the character I'[m playing in a different game just
got a massive influx of cash (600K). His connections allow him to ignore
certain itemware street indices (home rule for the game), but it was still
EXPENSIVE! And he never got anything above a Level 4 (including the Signal
Booster). However, being the decker did have an advantage for once. That
replacement limb didn't really need any other mods (grin).

-K
Message no. 220
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 15:26:02 +0100
In article <344e2b85.18436326@****.direct.ca>, James Lindsay
<jlindsay@******.CA> writes
>On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 12:04:36 +0100, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> You're looking at about half an inch of material to armour a car against
>> small-arms fire, plus some pretty thick glasswork. A lot of small cars
>> don't have either the space, nor the access, for that sort of retrofit.
>
>Assuming armour has advanced in the next fifty years, 1/2" of modern
>armoured steel is a bit overdoing it against most conventional weapons:
>
>3mm will stop a .45 or 9mm round
>7mm will stop a 7.62mm NATO round
>13mm will stop the venerable .50 cal
>16mm will stop a 14.5mm Soviet round

I was thinking more in terms of composite armour: ceramics with Kevlar
spall lining. Typically 60% of the weight of steel, though thicker (half
an inch will stop 7.62mm AP fired from 100m, which was the baseline I
was using).

>If you take "armour slope" into account, you can get away with even thinner
>armour.

Hard to slope armour on a car, without making it extremely obviously
armoured (you need 60-degree slope to effectively double thickness)

>And as I pointed out in another post, you can currently "treat" all of the
>existing glass in your car to make it bullet resistant to most handgun
>calibres for about $600 US (and you can still roll the windows up & down :)

Handguns, sure, but what about the guy with the medium MG? :)

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 221
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 02:26:57 +0000
Armor discussion featuring Lindsay and Paul:
> >> You're looking at about half an inch of material to armour a car against
> >> small-arms fire, plus some pretty thick glasswork. A lot of small cars
> >> don't have either the space, nor the access, for that sort of retrofit.

*snip*
> >And as I pointed out in another post, you can currently "treat" all of
the
> >existing glass in your car to make it bullet resistant to most handgun
> >calibres for about $600 US (and you can still roll the windows up & down :)
>
> Handguns, sure, but what about the guy with the medium MG? :)

Disclaimer: Here in the cold north there's no Rigger Gray Book 2 jet.

In FoF there is a statement somewhere that armor tech has outpaced
firepower. This has made the largest tanks nigh invulnerable. (I
think it's on the Great Dragon missile, but I didn't look it up).
That makes it reasonable to assume that they do not use any of
today's known armor types. Another assumption I have made is
that some of the stronger armors also are translucent - (plasteel?).
(Still a potential weak spot since it can't be too thick if you want
to look through it, but for light to medium armored vehicles it ought
to do.).

As for another discussion on expanding body size on a vehicle:
Most of the examples can just as well be explained by adding armor,
which should give greater structural integrity. If you do
enough body work to actually alter the size of a vehicle
significantly, then you are for all intents and purposes building a
new vehicle, IMHO.

Walker drones and all that sounds quite exciting. :)

One thought on riggers and damage:
Neurological feedback spilling past the VCR causing seizures and body
overstress sounds reasonable. But IMHO there should exist ways to
reduce the damage without rigging cold.. something like trauma
dampers, or other safety 'fuses' that kicks in once the transmission
goes haywire. It wouldn't negate the damage, but at least make it
slightly easier to resist. (TN 6 is pretty nasty). This would
probably be in the form of additional cyber or bioware.

BTW, what about personal damage while rigging? If you are
disconnected from your own nervous system, then the penalties
shouldn't count fully. (They should count some, since you don't think
straight with low blood or other sorts of injuries.). Would also be a
nice way to get away from pain.
(I hope there's a better desc somewhere about just what your meat bod
is doing while you're zooming around in the custom Diablo... then
again I bet it is. What about it?).

--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 222
From: David Mezerette <mezeretted@*****.U-NANCY.FR>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 08:14:32 +0100
>
>There may be dead space in the door panels, but there isn't very much
>anywhere else. Especially in the newer cas of today. Just about
>every non-sport vehicle pre 1980 had plenty of dead space. But
>vehicle designers don't waste very much space today (look under the
>hood of just about any 1997 car and try to find free space). Light,
>lean and mean is the motto. In 205x I'd expect it to be taken to the
>extreme with every cm of the vehicle's design accounted for.
>
But i also suppose car designers use relative 'cheap' materials, which could
be replaced by more efficient ones, more expensive, and which are of no need
for a 'normal' use of a car....

ChYlD
mezeretted@*****.u-nancy.fr
Message no. 223
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Rigger 2....
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 11:06:05 -0500
Finally got my copy. Haven't finished it yet (I don't
think the teacher would buy having to read shadowrun as a basis
for doing poorly on his exam, I don't know why), but so
far I'm fairly impressed. One question. Has anyone compiled
all the tables scattered throughout the book?
I need to test the combat system out, but it looks like
have the tables on a screen or single sheet of paper would
speed things up. Later.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The nice thing about standards,is there are so many to choose from.
Message no. 224
From: lucifer <lucifer@*******.COM>
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 22:31:14 -0600
Hey,
I just got on the list (again, after 2 years) and I don't know how many =

of you have picked up Rigger 2 (or if you've discussed it yet) but this =

is one sweet book. Just grabbed it today and I'm glad I did. Check out =
the
new Edges/Flaws. Way cool. ;->

Lucifer
Prince of Darkness, Eater of Souls

"One owes respect to the living. To the Dead one owes
only Truth."--Voltaire

"When devils will the blackest sins put on, they
do suggest at first with heavenly shows."--Shakespeare,
from 'Othello'
Message no. 225
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:10:15 -0500
lucifer writes:
> Hey,
> I just got on the list (again, after 2 years) and I don't know how many
> of you have picked up Rigger 2 (or if you've discussed it yet) but this
> is one sweet book. Just grabbed it today and I'm glad I did. Check out the
> new Edges/Flaws. Way cool. ;->
>
> Lucifer
> Prince of Darkness, Eater of Souls
>
You've missed the bulk of the nit-picking that went on just after
that book came out. :)
One thing...posted this before but never say a reply.
Has anyone compiled all the tables in Rigger 2, into a spreadsheet
or somesuch. Having to flip through the book constantly get old.
(Yes Yes I know I could do it myself, but figure somebody might
have beaten me to it).

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The nice thing about standards,is there are so many to choose from.
Message no. 226
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:00:56 -0700
lucifer wrote:
/
/ Hey,
/ I just got on the list (again, after 2 years) and I don't know how many =
/
/ of you have picked up Rigger 2 (or if you've discussed it yet) but this =
/
/ is one sweet book. Just grabbed it today and I'm glad I did. Check out =
/ the
/ new Edges/Flaws. Way cool. ;->

<MC23> I have to disagree. R2 sucks, IMO. </MC23> (It's an in joke,
don't worry if you don't get it :)

Seriously though, IMO R2 does not do what it was intended to do, make
the rigger playable and attractive.

Shadowrun's vehicle combat system went from being simple, abstract,
and incompatible with regular combat to complex, abstract, and
incompatible with regular combat (if you have a drone attacking a
person how do you decide movement?, if you have a Sam on a harley
chasing a speed elf down an alley how far does the harley travel on
each of the Sam's actions?) I want a nice simple set of movement
rules that doesn't require several dice roles and a lot of math.

It's still way to easy to kill a vehicle with a pistol.

On the target modifier table they list partial cover as +4, but if
your shooting at a target 1/3 the size of a human target the modifier
is +1?!?

You can't structurally reinforce a vehicle (increase it's Body and
resistance to damage).

IMHO, it's not worth the the $18.00 US. Maybe $5.00 (the vehicle
construction rules are nice).

</rant>

BTW Lucifer, welcome back :)

-David
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
--
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 227
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:45:34 -0500
Lehlan Decker[SMTP:decker@****.FSU.EDU] wrote:
> Has anyone compiled all the tables in Rigger 2, into a spreadsheet
> or somesuch. Having to flip through the book constantly get old.
> (Yes Yes I know I could do it myself, but figure somebody might
> have beaten me to it).

I can't help you if you just want the modifier tables and stuff,
but if you're into vehicle construction...

I've been working on writing a vehicle editor for Rigger 2.
I'm about to release a new version (today, hopefully) with lots
more data (courtesy of David Taylor), and many more features
(courtesy of me!).

You can get it (and all past versions) at:
http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~jojaste/Shop.html

The new version will be v1.1.0.

James Ojaste
Message no. 228
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 11:11:04 -0500
Ojaste,James [NCR] writes:
> Lehlan Decker[SMTP:decker@****.FSU.EDU] wrote:
> > Has anyone compiled all the tables in Rigger 2, into a spreadsheet
> > or somesuch. Having to flip through the book constantly get old.
> > (Yes Yes I know I could do it myself, but figure somebody might
> > have beaten me to it).
>
> I can't help you if you just want the modifier tables and stuff,
> but if you're into vehicle construction...
>
> I've been working on writing a vehicle editor for Rigger 2.
> I'm about to release a new version (today, hopefully) with lots
> more data (courtesy of David Taylor), and many more features
> (courtesy of me!).
>
> You can get it (and all past versions) at:
> http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~jojaste/Shop.html
>
> The new version will be v1.1.0.
>
Heh..I'm grabbing a copy as we speak.
What I was looking for was something similiar to the GM Screens.
Rigger 2, seems to love modifiers and tables. However FASA
never collected them on one sheet, so during combat I
end up flipping through the book (this will go away with time, but
also is fustrating when someone wants to use the book, and I need
the mods).
Later.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The nice thing about standards,is there are so many to choose from.
Message no. 229
From: Frank Pelletier <jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 11:04:27 +0000
David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG> once wrote,

(snipped)
> <MC23> I have to disagree. R2 sucks, IMO. </MC23> (It's an in joke,
> don't worry if you don't get it :)
>
> Seriously though, IMO R2 does not do what it was intended to do, make
> the rigger playable and attractive.
>
> Shadowrun's vehicle combat system went from being simple, abstract,
> and incompatible with regular combat to complex, abstract, and
> incompatible with regular combat (if you have a drone attacking a
> person how do you decide movement?, if you have a Sam on a harley
> chasing a speed elf down an alley how far does the harley travel on
> each of the Sam's actions?) I want a nice simple set of movement
> rules that doesn't require several dice roles and a lot of math.
(snipped)

The problem with R2 is that it tries to put riggers on the same level as
deckers and mages (specific rules, gear, etc.). Unfortunatly, the
roleplaying potential, IMHO (uh..very IMHO :) ) of a rigger compared to
these other characters is somewhat limited. Mages are a must on any run,
and they have their own special world in the Astral and the planes.
Deckers are similar. I'd much rather have a decker duke it out with scores
of IC, with a funky reality filter, to wrestle control of a security
system from a wretched SKbot, than to do that insipid, bland,
lame thing that riggers do (Ya know..will vs. will, hourray, The run is
over...). It may be tougher, and deadlier, but hell, my players will have
a better time.

Now, the rigger..what does he do? Hmm...He drives the car. It may be a
highly modified one, with lotsa guns and fancy shit. It may come in handy
when facing that LoneStar patrol. Cool. He controls drones. He can send
drones to help runners, mostly in open terrain, and not in stealthy
situations, that's for sure. Mostly heavy weapon support for the main
team in that case. Cool again. He can disarm security systems from sec.
riggers. Not Cool. The worst part of the book. How fun can it be to
roleplay a will contest, with the winner being master of the compound?
Just roll some dice, my friend, and that's it. End of story. <Sarcasm>
Whoopie, now that has TONS of roleplay potential, not like those old
Sams who struggle under heavy rain to connect that blue wire (was it the blue
one?), or, as I said, the decker(s) who fight in a virtual mayhem.
</Sarcasm>.

Let's face the truth people. Riggers are second class roleplay citizens.
Now, now, I'm not saying that you can't roleplay a rigger. Some riggers
may be memorable characters. That's a player's job. Make a character
enjoyable to himself and to others. But that's the player's
responsability. Will having new MIJI rules help enhance that? Nope.
Optempo? Nope. New combat rules? Nope. Tons of optional rules? Nope.
Scanners, Intelligence, Captain Chair's, Learn Pools? Again, no way.
Maybe if you could play a drone...But you can't, and you won't.

Basically, Riggers were enjoyable, playable, and fun, before all those
rules. VR 2.0, as convulated as it is, fixed a system that needed repairs
badly, and made deckers more enjoyable as PCs. Does R2 do the same thing
for Riggers? No. The vehicle creation rules are nice, and balanced
(except the body thing). Riggers love that, but they were able to do that
before. R2 only complicates matters, spews out tons of rules and tables
for a character WHO DOESN'T NEED IT. Riggers were like Sams. No fancy
rules. No hassles. Roleplay to your hearts content. Now...Now...People
who thought deckers slowed down games will have a field day with riggers.
All I wanted was a nice movement system. Maybe some missile jamming
thing. Maybe some new vehicles (Heck...Admit it, we were all hugely
disappointed when we opened R2, only to find... no new vehicles. And if
you were'nt... you're lying ;) ). Maybe some new toys...

In my game, we threw out everything, except the new toys, some rules, and
the vehicle creation system. My co-players (not the Gm, not me) decided
that all those sensor things and MIJI stuff was useless, boring, and
brought nothing new and exiting to the game. I can't say I disagree.

Done. Now you can flame me... :)

Trinity
------------------------------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
Trinity@********.com, jeanpell@****.qc.ca

"Life is a blur"
Message no. 230
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 23:25:20 -0500
At 11:04 AM 11/6/97 +0000, you wrote:
>>Now, the rigger..what does he do? Hmm...He drives the car. It may be a
>highly modified one, with lotsa guns and fancy shit. It may come in handy
>when facing that LoneStar patrol. Cool. He controls drones. He can send
>drones to help runners, mostly in open terrain, and not in stealthy
>situations, that's for sure. Mostly heavy weapon support for the main
>team in that case. Cool again.

I agree so far. :)

He can disarm security systems from sec.
>riggers. Not Cool. The worst part of the book. How fun can it be to
>roleplay a will contest, with the winner being master of the compound?
>Just roll some dice, my friend, and that's it. End of story. <Sarcasm>
>Whoopie, now that has TONS of roleplay potential, not like those old
>Sams who struggle under heavy rain to connect that blue wire (was it the blue
>one?), or, as I said, the decker(s) who fight in a virtual mayhem.
></Sarcasm>.
Well, I think the reason why this needed to be presented is mention of it,
no matter how small, in the BBB. They mentioned it in connection with
riggers, and so it makes sense to flesh it out a bit (even if you find it
boring, which it most likely is; I don't know, they don't sell much SR
material around here :( ).

>Let's face the truth people. Riggers are second class roleplay citizens.
>Now, now, I'm not saying that you can't roleplay a rigger. Some riggers
>may be memorable characters. That's a player's job. Make a character
>enjoyable to himself and to others. But that's the player's
>responsability. Will having new MIJI rules help enhance that? Nope.
>Optempo? Nope. New combat rules? Nope. Tons of optional rules? Nope.
>Scanners, Intelligence, Captain Chair's, Learn Pools? Again, no way.
>Maybe if you could play a drone...But you can't, and you won't.
>
>Basically, Riggers were enjoyable, playable, and fun, before all those
>rules. VR 2.0, as convulated as it is, fixed a system that needed repairs
>badly, and made deckers more enjoyable as PCs. Does R2 do the same thing
>for Riggers? No. The vehicle creation rules are nice, and balanced
>(except the body thing). Riggers love that, but they were able to do that
>before. R2 only complicates matters, spews out tons of rules and tables
>for a character WHO DOESN'T NEED IT. Riggers were like Sams. No fancy
>rules. No hassles. Roleplay to your hearts content. Now...Now...People
>who thought deckers slowed down games will have a field day with riggers.
>All I wanted was a nice movement system. Maybe some missile jamming
>thing. Maybe some new vehicles (Heck...Admit it, we were all hugely
>disappointed when we opened R2, only to find... no new vehicles. And if
>you were'nt... you're lying ;) ). Maybe some new toys...
>
>In my game, we threw out everything, except the new toys, some rules, and
>the vehicle creation system. My co-players (not the Gm, not me) decided
>that all those sensor things and MIJI stuff was useless, boring, and
>brought nothing new and exiting to the game. I can't say I disagree.
>
>Done. Now you can flame me... :)
Shan't. I agree that if the new rules don't add much, it's unfortunate.
I've taken to the idea of playing a Rigger (for the first time, mind, I've
always loved shamans and samurai, even played an undercover cop who was
turning 'runner). I love the descriptions in _Hardwired_, all the romantic
hero connotations of the flyboys and 'delivering the mail'. Reminds me of
the Pony Express, sort-of. Okay, a grittier, 2050's techno- Pony Express,
but still... They're cool.

losthalo
losthalo@********.comGoFa6)7(Im6TJt)Fe(7P!ShMoB4/19.2Bk!cBkc8MBV6sM3ZG
oPuTeiClbMehC6a23=n4bSSH173g4L??96FmT1Ea4@*********************
4h7sM8zSsYnk6BSMmpFNN0393NHfsSLusOH5Whileyouarelisteningyourwillingat
tentionismakingyoumoreandmoreintothepersonyouwanttobecome.
Message no. 231
From: James Paul Morgan <jpmorgan@***.EDU>
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:41:38 -0700
I'm sorry if this has already been covered, but I just recently rejoined
the list. Is there an official Rigger 2 errata sheet yet? I haven't seen
one on the FASA page, but was wondering if there might be one somewhere on
the net. I sent FAA some questions about Rigger 2 around two months ago,
but still haven't heard a reply.



See ya around the Mulberry bush.

--James

:)
Message no. 232
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 18:26:21 EST
> rejoined the list. Is there an official Rigger 2 errata sheet yet?
> I haven't seen one on the FASA page, but was wondering if there

People here posted several...you might check the logs or perhaps
someone collected them. FASAMike promised that one would be on the
web page in the near future, but when I mentioned that I had seen
"several errors in the examples" he asked me to list them, as this
was the first he had heard of them....so the posted list may not be
complete.

(I haven't had time to go through my copy here and dig up those
errors yet, either.)

-=SwiftOne=-
Message no. 233
From: Jeff Willis <thor@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 17:43:14 -0600
>People here posted several...you might check the logs or perhaps
>someone collected them. FASAMike promised that one would be >on

If anyone finds them, please let me know. Sorry for the short post, Should
have a longer thing first. I have quite a few questions. :)
Message no. 234
From: JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 14:34:11 EST
In a message dated 97-12-02 17:21:37 EST, James Paul Morgan writes:

> Is there an official Rigger 2 errata sheet yet? I haven't seen
> one on the FASA page, but was wondering if there might be one somewhere on
> the net. I sent FAA some questions about Rigger 2 around two months ago,
> but still haven't heard a reply.
>
Mike and I have been discussing about a Rigger 2 Errata/Q&A/FAQ. I really
don't know more than that, but I *think* it's on his agenda, somewhere...

As far as questions, would you mind re-sending them to me? I've been lurking
on the list and forwarding questions and such to Mike, but I may not have
picked up them all.

-- Jon
Message no. 235
From: AirWisp <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 12:15:31 EST
Guys, in your opinion, how much CF and load reduction would a power plant take
up if it were added to a vehicle and does not help the vehicle in any way ...
all the thing does is provide power for sensors or some other things that are
attachments to the vehicle?

Thanks,

Mike
Message no. 236
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 09:49:03 -0800
AirWisp wrote:

> Guys, in your opinion, how much CF and load reduction would a power plant take
> up if it were added to a vehicle and does not help the vehicle in any way ...
> all the thing does is provide power for sensors or some other things that are
> attachments to the vehicle?

This would vary widely depending on the type of equipment your talking
about.
You can cram in a number of small items (stereo, ac, power-this-n-that)
with no
visible reduction, except maybe to the battery.

On the high scale of things, you have newsvans, ambulances, and other
type of
vehicles where items will have their own battery; and then there's
always mobile
generators, to get really on top of things. Some specifics would help
in coming
to a more exact figure (both of vehicle and intended equipment). For a
ballpark
figure, I'd take into consideration how much space the equipment is
taking up, and
run a load/cf rating off of that.


-Mb
Message no. 237
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 17:55:00 EST
In a message dated 97-12-24 12:19:48 EST, AirWisp@***.COM writes:

> Guys, in your opinion, how much CF and load reduction would a power plant
take
> up if it were added to a vehicle and does not help the vehicle in any way
...
>
> all the thing does is provide power for sensors or some other things that
> are
> attachments to the vehicle?
>
At this point, you are almost describing a Power Amp...except for the "base
power", which could come from anything (or relatively so anyway).
-K
Message no. 238
From: Andy Minor andyman@****.pyro.net
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:41:26 -0500 (CDT)
Does anyone know where (if) I might find an errata to Rigger 2? I'm
hoping some of the stats I'm looking at are misprints.

Andy

--
Andy Minor
Andyman@****.net
Message no. 239
From: Ojaste,James [NCR] James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 15:07:58 -0400
Andy Minor [mailto:andyman@****.pyro.net]
> Does anyone know where (if) I might find an errata to Rigger 2? I'm
> hoping some of the stats I'm looking at are misprints.

They were written up a month or two after R2 came up and published on FASA's
website. Oh, no - wait. They wanted to wait until SR3 came out, and *then*
they published them. No, no, I'm wrong again. After SR3, they were too
busy
between dumping ED and FI and buying Ral Partha and starting up two new game
lines, so they waited until things calmed down a bit.

To make a long story short, the errata has been written up for a year or so,
but they still haven't been published. FASA just doesn't pay enough
attention to its internet presence.

My recommendation is that if you have any specific questions that you post
them to the list - somebody should have an answer for you (Jon Szeto will,
if nobody else does).

James Ojaste
Message no. 240
From: Schizi@***.com Schizi@***.com
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 19:43:48 EDT
In a message dated 6/1/99 3:09:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA writes:

> To make a long story short, the errata has been written up for a year or so,
> but they still haven't been published. FASA just doesn't pay enough
> attention to its internet presence.

Last official word;
They are waiting until the rules for M&M are set, so as to fully integrate
them. Mike doesn't want to post an erratta until then (though, they may just
postpone it then also) so that nothing is contradicted. Jon Szeto has
compiled an erratta but cannot post it without official say, and won't get it
until then.
Message no. 241
From: Starrngr@***.com Starrngr@***.com
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 20:20:34 EDT
In a message dated 6/1/99 11:41:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
andyman@****.pyro.net writes:

> Does anyone know where (if) I might find an errata to Rigger 2? I'm
> hoping some of the stats I'm looking at are misprints.
>
> Andy

Go to Deep Resonance (Http://shadowrun.html.com/) and then on to Herkeimers
Lair. If there is one, its there.
Message no. 242
From: Tarek Okail Tarek_Okail@**********.com
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 02:45:45 -0400
James--

>FASA just doesn't pay enough attention to its internet presence.

Not exactly. FASA cares very much about its web pages; the
problem lies with the company they contracted to run their website.
Mike has been very active in trying to get that company to update the
Shadowrun pages, but the company isn't responding very well. If it
were me, I'd dump the company and go somewhere else. Perhaps it will
come to that soon, perhaps not.

Shadowmage
Message no. 243
From: Schizi@***.com Schizi@***.com
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:27:28 EDT
In a message dated 6/2/99 2:48:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Tarek_Okail@**********.com writes:

> >FASA just doesn't pay enough attention to its internet presence.
>
> Not exactly. FASA cares very much about its web pages; the
> problem lies with the company they contracted to run their website.
> Mike has been very active in trying to get that company to update the
> Shadowrun pages, but the company isn't responding very well. If it
> were me, I'd dump the company and go somewhere else. Perhaps it will
> come to that soon, perhaps not.

Back when they first contracted with the new web-company, and nothing changed
on the site for months, it was the web-companys fault (from what I heard,
some kind of computer crash, losing the updates sent by FASA)
Lou Prosperi had this to say on 3/13
"Just to clarify something, the lack of updates to the FASA site are
not entirely the fault of FASA's service provider (whom I currently work for,
BTW). Suffice to say that neither party (FASA and the provider) is wholly
responsible for the lack of updates, and neither party is without fault. It's
just taken some time to work out some kinks in the system."
So it is not for certain. Mike has stated that they wil be putting Dunks
Will (just the will I believe) as well as a fixed Prime Runners on teh site,
but nothing is definite right now.
(Btw, knock AOL all you want, Mike Mulvihil is in the SR chat almost every
week, so there :-)
Message no. 244
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:56:25 -0400 (EDT)
Schizi@***.com writes:
> In a message dated 6/1/99 3:09:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA writes:
>
> > To make a long story short, the errata has been written up for a
> > year or so,
> > but they still haven't been published. FASA just doesn't pay enough
> > attention to its internet presence.
>
> Last official word;
> They are waiting until the rules for M&M are set, so as to fully integrate
> them.

Grr. I'd settle for unofficial errata. Barring that, any
word on when the rules for M&M are going to be set?

Mark





Or, does anyone know where Jon Szeto's computer is? :P
Message no. 245
From: Ojaste,James [NCR] James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 15:39:07 -0400
Tarek Okail [mailto:Tarek_Okail@**********.com]
> >FASA just doesn't pay enough attention to its internet presence.
>
> Not exactly. FASA cares very much about its web pages; the
> problem lies with the company they contracted to run their website.
> Mike has been very active in trying to get that company to update the
> Shadowrun pages, but the company isn't responding very well. If it
> were me, I'd dump the company and go somewhere else. Perhaps it will
> come to that soon, perhaps not.

Bah. That's no excuse. If they *really* cared, they would have either
lit a fire under the company or cancelled the contract outright. FASA
hasn't even bothered to allow the errata to be released in a natural
state (ie, a text file). They just don't care.

There's no excuse for taking a *year* to release errata that have already
been written. No formatting is needed. A very small amount of editing
*might* be required. They haven't had a free half hour over the past
year? They've had multiple offers from various volunteers to edit,
format and host the document, so they can't even blame their web
contractors.

For a while there, I thought FASA was getting its act together. I was
wrong.

James Ojaste
Message no. 246
From: Penta cpenta@*****.com
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 17:45:21 -0700
Schizi@***.com wrote:

> So it is not for certain. Mike has stated that they wil be putting Dunks
> Will (just the will I believe) as well as a fixed Prime Runners on teh site,
> but nothing is definite right now.

Whoa. Truth??? They're putting the will online?!?!? WOOOOOHOOOOOO!

John
Message no. 247
From: AhmNee the Immortal ahmnee@******.com
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 09:35:58 -0500
I have to admit I am getting very frustrated with the rules in SR.
Especially for the Riggers. Alright, maybe not the rules, but the HUGE
GAPING HOLES in em.

For example. I have a heavy transport I'm putting some drone racks into.
But have absolutely NO way to figure out the CF cost for storing a
drone. Sure, some drones in R1 had CF storage rates, but was it for them
operational, or broken down?

There's also the gaps in the template's/powerplants. And missile
weights. I (and my group) have had to do some serious fudging to get
specs on most of these.

For example, for missile weight I came up with this formulae:

Anti-Air Missile Weight = (MaxRange in Km X 5) + (2 X Int of Missile) +
(Power Squared) Over 10

Anti-Surface Missile Weight = (MaxRange in Km X 2) + (2 X Int of
Missile) + (Power Squared) Over 10

Example: Air to Air Missile 20D Int 6 MaxRange 10Km

(10 X 5) + (2 X 6) + ((20 X 20) / 10) = 102Kg
Message no. 248
From: Ojaste,James [NCR] James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 15:38:15 -0400
AhmNee the Immortal [mailto:ahmnee@******.com]
> I have to admit I am getting very frustrated with the rules in SR.
> Especially for the Riggers. Alright, maybe not the rules, but the HUGE
> GAPING HOLES in em.

What gapes to one does not to another. For example, the Body rating
indicates
generally what size it is.

> For example. I have a heavy transport I'm putting some drone
> racks into.
> But have absolutely NO way to figure out the CF cost for storing a
> drone. Sure, some drones in R1 had CF storage rates, but was
> it for them
> operational, or broken down?

Actually, if you read it, it's both. The Condor has both inflated and
non-inflated CFs listed. I'm under the impression that drones don't
actually get "disassembled" - besides which they should take up the same
volume, anyhow.

To get a rough CF requirement, how about:
4 * (Body ^ 2) + CF (any internal storage)

Ford Americar (3B/10CF): 36+10 = 46CF = 11.5 m^3 = 2 x 1.8 x 3.2
GMC Bulldog (4B/50CF): 64+50 = 114CF = 14.25 m^3 = 2 x 2.5 x 2.85

Not perfect, but OK for a rough estimate, I guess.

James Ojaste
Message no. 249
From: Othello's Lieutenant iago@***********.net.nz
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 11:00:59 +1200
'lo People,

From my point of view I know I'd appreciate being able to access
Rigger 2 errata now, as I use SR2, and the errata is relevant more
for me now than when it is modified for SR3 compatibility.

Iago
--
Message no. 250
From: Aaron Binns sparrow@***.net.au
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 11:24:53 +1000
> For example. I have a heavy transport I'm putting some drone racks into.
> But have absolutely NO way to figure out the CF cost for storing a
> drone. Sure, some drones in R1 had CF storage rates, but was it for them
> operational, or broken down?

broken down - I think operation they took up to 4 times that amount
(depending on type) and certain drone types cant be stored in operational
status (at least not in an RV or a van - think, a fixed wing large drone in
a van - NOT!) :)


> There's also the gaps in the template's/powerplants. And missile
> weights. I (and my group) have had to do some serious fudging to get
> specs on most of these.
>
> For example, for missile weight I came up with this formulae:
>
> Anti-Air Missile Weight = (MaxRange in Km X 5) + (2 X Int of Missile) +
> (Power Squared) Over 10
>
> Anti-Surface Missile Weight = (MaxRange in Km X 2) + (2 X Int of
> Missile) + (Power Squared) Over 10
>
> Example: Air to Air Missile 20D Int 6 MaxRange 10Km
>
> (10 X 5) + (2 X 6) + ((20 X 20) / 10) = 102Kg

Hmm.. they dont look too bad - perhaps you might like to send me the method
of reaching thses stats in priv mail? (Id just like to see how you got
there).

GreyWolf
Message no. 251
From: JonSzeto@***.com JonSzeto@***.com
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 07:26:46 EDT
AhmNee the Immortal <ahmnee@******.com> wrote,

> For example. I have a heavy transport I'm putting some drone racks into.
> But have absolutely NO way to figure out the CF cost for storing a
> drone. Sure, some drones in R1 had CF storage rates, but was it for them
> operational, or broken down?

A drone requires a storage space equal to [(Body + 1-1/2)*Body], rounded
down. Drones that can be broken down and disassembled (in other words,
possess a Setup/Breakdown Time Rating) only require a third of that
space, rounded down, when broken down.

Use the Body Ratings Table to estimate the weight of the drone for
determining how much of a Load requirement it places on the carrying
vehicle too.

> There's also the gaps in the template's/powerplants. And missile

Would you care to point out these gaps, please?

> weights. I (and my group) have had to do some serious fudging to get
> specs on most of these.

Missile weights are listed (in kg) as part of their stats. For example,
the missile weights for the missiles in Rigger 2 are listed in the New
Toys chapter, specifically between pages 93 and 95. In the SR3 main
book, they are listed on page 281.

Hope this helps.

-- Jon
Message no. 252
From: dghost@****.com dghost@****.com
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:26:35 -0500
On Fri, 4 Jun 1999 07:26:46 EDT JonSzeto@***.com writes:
<SNIP>
>A drone requires a storage space equal to [(Body + 1-1/2)*Body], rounded

>down. Drones that can be broken down and disassembled (in other words,
>possess a Setup/Breakdown Time Rating) only require a third of that
>space, rounded down, when broken down.

I assume that forumal is (Body plus one and a half) times Body as opposed
to (Body plus one minus one half) times Body?

Does this formula mean that if you want to store a ready to launch Condor
II, it will take up 6 CF ([2+1-1/2]*2=[3.5]*2=6)?

If you wanted to store body zero drones, is the vehicles load reduced by
45 kg per drone or do you just reduce the load by the weight of the drone
and say you keep the Arachnoid mini-drone in the glove box?

>Use the Body Ratings Table to estimate the weight of the drone for
>determining how much of a Load requirement it places on the carrying
>vehicle too.
<SNIP>

For the the pregenerated vehicles it would be nice to have a list of how
much they weigh ... It would be wierd going from one game where your
Condor II weighs 26 kg to another where it weighs 199 kg. It could
really put a crimp on that vehicle you installed a drone rack on your
Chrysler-Nissan Jackrabbit (methane version has 90 kg load)

Ares TR-55C Cargoliner: Is this *Cargoliner*'s load supposed to be 100?
It can't be ... that's obscenely low.

>Hope this helps.

Thanks for listening :)

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel)
"Hello, my name is Stephen. This is Dick. He'll see if he has something
your size." -- Jug Ears

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 253
From: cmpetro@*********.com cmpetro@*********.com
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 10:05:02 -0500
>On Fri, 4 Jun 1999 07:26:46 EDT JonSzeto@***.com writes:
><SNIP>
>>A drone requires a storage space equal to [(Body + 1-1/2)*Body], rounded

>>down. Drones that can be broken down and disassembled (in other words,
>>possess a Setup/Breakdown Time Rating) only require a third of that
>>space, rounded down, when broken down.

D. Ghost Writes:
>I assume that forumal is (Body plus one and a half) times Body as opposed
>to (Body plus one minus one half) times Body?

That's what I took it to mean.

>Does this formula mean that if you want to store a ready to launch Condor
>II, it will take up 6 CF ([2+1-1/2]*2=[3.5]*2=6)?

I think it's 7. Round after the equation is finished.
Message no. 254
From: dghost@****.com dghost@****.com
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 14:13:42 -0500
I wrote:
>>Does this formula mean that if you want to store a ready to launch
Condor
>>II, it will take up 6 CF ([2+1-1/2]*2=[3.5]*2=6)?

On Fri, 4 Jun 1999 10:05:02 -0500 cmpetro@*********.com writes:
>I think it's 7. Round after the equation is finished.

*Smacks self* I dropped the fraction unknowingly before I even got that
far ... D'oh! :)

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel)
"Hello, my name is Stephen. This is Dick. He'll see if he has something
your size." -- Jug Ears

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 255
From: Aaron Binns sparrow@***.net.au
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 13:54:22 +1000
> Does this formula mean that if you want to store a ready to launch Condor
> II, it will take up 6 CF ([2+1-1/2]*2=[3.5]*2=6)?

3.5 times 2 is 7 not 6.

GreyWolf
Message no. 256
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 11:26:39 +0200
According to dghost@****.com, at 9:26 on 4 Jun 99, the word on
the street was...

> I assume that forumal is (Body plus one and a half) times Body as opposed
> to (Body plus one minus one half) times Body?

That seems the logical way to read the formula to me...

> Does this formula mean that if you want to store a ready to launch Condor
> II, it will take up 6 CF ([2+1-1/2]*2=[3.5]*2=6)?

7 CF, that should be. 3.5 x 2 = 7 :)

> Ares TR-55C Cargoliner: Is this *Cargoliner*'s load supposed to be 100?
> It can't be ... that's obscenely low.

It also has only 24 CF (3 cubic meters) of cargo space... But note the 12
folding bench seats: not using those frees up 12 x 150 = 1,800 kg extra
load and 48 CF. That last bit is still very little, though (comparison:
it's less room than there is in a small van).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Here I am, still intact, and I should give myself credit for that
-- Tilt, "Unravel"
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 257
From: Jean-Francois Audet axter@*****.com
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 20:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
What is the max rating of the Rigger Decryption Module
(R2 p. 98), is it 8 or 10?

Quote : "up to a rating maximum of 10."
Quote : "available in Ratings 1 through 8."


And is there any mentions of "Availability" and
"Street Index" for the vehicles and drones in the book?
==Jeff
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Message no. 258
From: Aaron Binns sparrow@***.net.au
Subject: Rigger 2
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 11:04:10 +1000
> What is the max rating of the Rigger Decryption Module
> (R2 p. 98), is it 8 or 10?

10. See Below.

> Quote : "up to a rating maximum of 10."
> Quote : "available in Ratings 1 through 8."

I think the 1 - 8 is a misprint since you can get everything else for
the rigger (including the "encryption" module up to 10. making
decryption only go to 8 would be a bit silly unless they explained
why. And since they dont.. its quite likely to be a misprint.

> And is there any mentions of "Availability" and
> "Street Index" for the vehicles and drones in the book?

Nope. Thats up the GM to decide, although civ vehicles are assumes to
be avail 2 unless luxury or special. military vehicles would be up
round 6+ if not higher. sec vehicles would be somewhere in between.

GreyWolf

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Rigger 2, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.