Robot Armor/Vehicle Repair

[lothian]

Greetings,

I have been a LONG TIME lurker and was hoping to have some questions/issues answered/clarified if possible. According to RIFTS sourcebook 1: Bots (expanded etc) the repair costs for robot vehicles/armor is relatively straight forward but we have run into a small issue as to repairing specific parts of the robot. I'll just provide an example and then hopefully the community can chime in and tell me what they think or personally do in their games.

Example: Robot Vehicle/Armor with an arm (100 MDC) reduced to 20% (20)MDC. According to the book you can repair 10 M.D.C per 40,000 credits.
Easy. Except it states Arm : 3.5 million credits; 80 M.D.C which seems like a ridiculous amount to repair just 80 M.D.C. We assume that this price is for a complete replacement of said ARM and its MDC is placed at 80 while still missing the 20 for a full 100. So the total cost would be 3.5 million + 80,000 (20 MDC MORE) to complete it. This is assuming the arm is completely ruined and not just reduced to 20% (20 MDC) which is above the 15% threshold to receive any repair.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

[ITWastrel]

Greetings,

I have been a LONG TIME lurker and was hoping to have some questions/issues answered/clarified if possible. According to RIFTS sourcebook 1: Bots (expanded etc) the repair costs for robot vehicles/armor is relatively straight forward but we have run into a small issue as to repairing specific parts of the robot. I'll just provide an example and then hopefully the community can chime in and tell me what they think or personally do in their games.

Example: Robot Vehicle/Armor with an arm (100 MDC) reduced to 20% (20)MDC. According to the book you can repair 10 M.D.C per 40,000 credits.
Easy. Except it states Arm : 3.5 million credits; 80 M.D.C which seems like a ridiculous amount to repair just 80 M.D.C. We assume that this price is for a complete replacement of said ARM and its MDC is placed at 80 while still missing the 20 for a full 100. So the total cost would be 3.5 million + 80,000 (20 MDC MORE) to complete it. This is assuming the arm is completely ruined and not just reduced to 20% (20 MDC) which is above the 15% threshold to receive any repair.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

If the original part retains over 15% of it's original MDC it can be repaired at 8000Cr/10MDC.

Otherwise a replacement is necessary.

The 3.5 million is for the replacement machine part, a whole and functioning arm and hand replacement completely compatible with OEM parts. The base included MDC is only 80, so you have to buy the remaining armor. Armor is cheap, carbon nanotube musculature and fully articulated Durosteel[sup]TM[/sup] substructures are very expensive.

[lothian]

Greetings,

I have been a LONG TIME lurker and was hoping to have some questions/issues answered/clarified if possible. According to RIFTS sourcebook 1: Bots (expanded etc) the repair costs for robot vehicles/armor is relatively straight forward but we have run into a small issue as to repairing specific parts of the robot. I'll just provide an example and then hopefully the community can chime in and tell me what they think or personally do in their games.

Example: Robot Vehicle/Armor with an arm (100 MDC) reduced to 20% (20)MDC. According to the book you can repair 10 M.D.C per 40,000 credits.
Easy. Except it states Arm : 3.5 million credits; 80 M.D.C which seems like a ridiculous amount to repair just 80 M.D.C. We assume that this price is for a complete replacement of said ARM and its MDC is placed at 80 while still missing the 20 for a full 100. So the total cost would be 3.5 million + 80,000 (20 MDC MORE) to complete it. This is assuming the arm is completely ruined and not just reduced to 20% (20 MDC) which is above the 15% threshold to receive any repair.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

If the original part retains over 15% of it's original MDC it can be repaired at 8000Cr/10MDC.

Otherwise a replacement is necessary.

The 3.5 million is for the replacement machine part, a whole and functioning arm and hand replacement completely compatible with OEM parts. The base included MDC is only 80, so you have to buy the remaining armor. Armor is cheap, carbon nanotube musculature and fully articulated DurosteelTM substructures are very expensive.

Perfect! Exactly what I was looking for actually. Thanks again.

[Blue_Lion]

Also remember with salvage skill you could salvage some key parts and materials from the battle field. Without a repair class like an operator you would just sell it. With an operator it opens up a few options. The parts and materials from salvage could be used instead of paying credits for the repairs. (Amount is up to the GM I typically allow 1d4 major systems salvaged and materiel to with a value that can be used to repair 10-25%the destroyed units main body MDC.)

[Shorty Lickens]

yeah I like to treat it the same as Mechwarrior. Scavenging armor is good. Weapons are great.
Limbs are fantastic.
Engines are superb.

[lothian]

Wow. Thanks for all the help. The salvaging idea is definitely something we should be doing. Wish we had thought of that sooner. If there is anything else don't hesitate to chime in.

[guardiandashi]

I know in my group we had several characters with "single" shot high damage guns (and the sniper skill) routinely take aimed shots at heads (helmets) so if you shoot up 10 samas, and about 5+ of them are missing the helmet, and need the pilot poured out, you can pretty much get an undamaged SAMAS with a new helmet, which you can then repaint, and sell for ~2-3 mil each

[Blue_Lion]

Wow. Thanks for all the help. The salvaging idea is definitely something we should be doing. Wish we had thought of that sooner. If there is anything else don't hesitate to chime in.

80-90 of a parties income in most games I have played comes from salvage/battlefield loot.

[Blue_Lion]

I know in my group we had several characters with "single" shot high damage guns (and the sniper skill) routinely take aimed shots at heads (helmets) so if you shoot up 10 samas, and about 5+ of them are missing the helmet, and need the pilot poured out, you can pretty much get an undamaged SAMAS with a new helmet, which you can then repaint, and sell for ~2-3 mil each

Sounds like your group is asking the GM please snipe us in the head.

[ITWastrel]

I know in my group we had several characters with "single" shot high damage guns (and the sniper skill) routinely take aimed shots at heads (helmets) so if you shoot up 10 samas, and about 5+ of them are missing the helmet, and need the pilot poured out, you can pretty much get an undamaged SAMAS with a new helmet, which you can then repaint, and sell for ~2-3 mil each

Sounds like your group is asking the GM please snipe us in the head.

Any GM who sniped a PC to death is a BAD GM straight up.
A PC should NEVER die without player interaction.


True story, I had a GM snipe my Ogre Juicer in the head while sleeping in his own home.

The previous session the juicer survived an attack with MDC weapons while unarmored. His armor was "broken, it needs new straps." per the GM fiat, and my toon was on his way to an armorer when he was accosted by a street gang.
A street gang in heavy armor and carrying heavy weapons. Outnumbered six to one and without MDC protection, the juicer survived.

That ticked the GM off, lemme tell you.

Opening minute of the next game:

GM: Dice hitting Table Noise. "Group, the juicer is dead. his head has exploded on his pillow."

Me: "Uh, What?"

His declaration after killing my PC in the opening minutes of the session was:

"It's your own fault, as you didn't declare you closed the curtains, your PC slept with the them open and was sniped to death.

I asked "What? By whom?"

He replied "You never knew" and refused to elaborate.

He doesn't GM anymore. He sucks.

[lothian]

Just as a follow up. What skills are we talking about? Aside from Salvage and Recycling, I assume we would also require the entire Operator O.C.C skill set?

[Blue_Lion]

I know in my group we had several characters with "single" shot high damage guns (and the sniper skill) routinely take aimed shots at heads (helmets) so if you shoot up 10 samas, and about 5+ of them are missing the helmet, and need the pilot poured out, you can pretty much get an undamaged SAMAS with a new helmet, which you can then repaint, and sell for ~2-3 mil each

Sounds like your group is asking the GM please snipe us in the head.

Any GM who sniped a PC to death is a BAD GM straight up.
A PC should NEVER die without player interaction.

Any GM that lets the party just snipe things to death while not facing the same threat is a bad GM.

The GM tactics should not be worse than the PCs, but he should not treat the party with kids gloves either. The party should not be free to take actions that the GM can not use against them.

Basically if a party snipes things to death they should face the same risk. If a party does not snipe things to death then the GM should not be sniping them.

Basically the gander rule if you do not want it done to you don't do it.

There is a difference between a GM using a parties tactics against them, and a killer GM killing a player out of spite.

[Blue_Lion]

Just as a follow up. What skills are we talking about? Aside from Salvage and Recycling, I assume we would also require the entire Operator O.C.C skill set?

Depends on what you are trying to repair.

A hover/cycle atv would only need a skill like automotive mechanics.

Robots pa would require robot repair skills like robot mechanics and robot electronics.

There is precedence in the operator for mechanical eng to repair any and every thing.

In general repairs and modification is the work of either NPCs or operators and TW style characters.

[ITWastrel]

I know in my group we had several characters with "single" shot high damage guns (and the sniper skill) routinely take aimed shots at heads (helmets) so if you shoot up 10 samas, and about 5+ of them are missing the helmet, and need the pilot poured out, you can pretty much get an undamaged SAMAS with a new helmet, which you can then repaint, and sell for ~2-3 mil each

Sounds like your group is asking the GM please snipe us in the head.

Any GM who sniped a PC to death is a BAD GM straight up.
A PC should NEVER die without player interaction.

Any GM that lets the party just snipe things to death while not facing the same threat is a bad GM.

The GM tactics should not be worse than the PCs, but he should not treat the party with kids gloves either. The party should not be free to take actions that the GM can not use against them.

Basically if a party snipes things to death they should face the same risk. If a party does not snipe things to death then the GM should not be sniping them.

Basically the gander rule if you do not want it done to you don't do it.

There is a difference between a GM using a parties tactics against them, and a killer GM killing a player out of spite.

I agree, spite vs tactics is a thing. However, sniping a PC violates a basic rule of fairness.

The PCs should never die off camera.

Imagine the player interaction. "Bill, your PC is dead. Remember the merchant you guys robbed last town? He hired an assassin. The assassin made his skill checks to track you guys, and he set up a nest a kilometer off the road. As you guys passed, he made his attack roll, and got a 17! He needed a 14 for a called shot to your head, so you can see how that was a tough roll to make. Anyhoo, your PC took 27MD to his unprotected skull. Maybe you should roll a psychic next time?"

[Blue_Lion]

I know in my group we had several characters with "single" shot high damage guns (and the sniper skill) routinely take aimed shots at heads (helmets) so if you shoot up 10 samas, and about 5+ of them are missing the helmet, and need the pilot poured out, you can pretty much get an undamaged SAMAS with a new helmet, which you can then repaint, and sell for ~2-3 mil each

Sounds like your group is asking the GM please snipe us in the head.

Any GM who sniped a PC to death is a BAD GM straight up.
A PC should NEVER die without player interaction.

Any GM that lets the party just snipe things to death while not facing the same threat is a bad GM.

The GM tactics should not be worse than the PCs, but he should not treat the party with kids gloves either. The party should not be free to take actions that the GM can not use against them.

Basically if a party snipes things to death they should face the same risk. If a party does not snipe things to death then the GM should not be sniping them.

Basically the gander rule if you do not want it done to you don't do it.

There is a difference between a GM using a parties tactics against them, and a killer GM killing a player out of spite.

I agree, spite vs tactics is a thing. However, sniping a PC violates a basic rule of fairness.

The PCs should never die off camera.

Imagine the player interaction. "Bill, your PC is dead. Remember the merchant you guys robbed last town? He hired an assassin. The assassin made his skill checks to track you guys, and he set up a nest a kilometer off the road. As you guys passed, he made his attack roll, and got a 17! He needed a 14 for a called shot to your head, so you can see how that was a tough roll to make. Anyhoo, your PC took 27MD to his unprotected skull. Maybe you should roll a psychic next time?"

Never said they should. But if the PC are sniping then sniping them is fair why should the GM tie his own hands. Now if the party is not sniping then they should not be sniped. It is not fair for the players to do something exploitative to NPCs but NPCs not doing it back. (in my games weather or not there are called shots is up to the players. If they do called shots NPCs do called shots same with sniping.)

But sniping should be detected with detect ambush skill, in a opposed perception roll against prowl/camouflage. Basically every 5% of your skill is a +1. High D20 wins. So it is not that their is no interaction. The sniping should happen as part of the session not just informed of the results.

I get that you had a bad experience with a bad GM but turn about is fair play. If the PC do not want their characters to be sniped they should not be sniping NPCs. Because the PC are sniping then sniping them is fair. Something only the players can do is not fair, if it gives them a advantage in combat like sniping they should expect it in return.

[guardiandashi]

I didn't say that they were necessarily sniping per say, just that some of they characters had the sniper skill and were using (old rules not the new version) called and aimed shots in order to concentrate damage where they wanted it.

for instance I had a character who for "reasons" in game carried and used:
old 6000 version shemarrian railgun (the 5-10 mdc one)
a neruni plasma cartridge pistol
the 10mm caseless smg from mercs
NG heavy plasma ejector
various coalition guns, and other misc guns
a huge range of robot vehicles and mechs, and access and having larger vehicles and fighters/starships
so ya it was arguably a seriously broken character/campaign (s)_
when you pull an aimed shot at the helmet on a samas (usually in combat but burning enough actions to effectively get an aimed shot that gets the sniper bonus) and if you roll average damage (or slightly better) and can take off the helmet of a samas, and disappear before the coalition response teams have time to arrive then ya its not really sniping/ambushes that **** off the gm.

it was more:
you see a coalition long range patrol coming
we setup an ambush/booby trap plan 42
toms character is going to be the "bait" to draw them in, and Alecia is going to take down the overwatch SAMAS's (2) then work on supporting while the other characters focus on the UAR1, and APC, hopefully before they can deploy the infantry.

often "Alecia" depending on how generous the dice were fired 4-6 times ~1-2 melees to take out the SAMAS sometimes by decap shots and sometimes by burning through the main body

[ITWastrel]

Never said they should. But if the PC are sniping then sniping them is fair why should the GM tie his own hands. Now if the party is not sniping then they should not be sniped. It is not fair for the players to do something exploitative to NPCs but NPCs not doing it back. (in my games weather or not there are called shots is up to the players. If they do called shots NPCs do called shots same with sniping.)

But sniping should be detected with detect ambush skill, in a opposed perception roll against prowl/camouflage. Basically every 5% of your skill is a +1. High D20 wins. So it is not that their is no interaction. The sniping should happen as part of the session not just informed of the results.

I get that you had a bad experience with a bad GM but turn about is fair play. If the PC do not want their characters to be sniped they should not be sniping NPCs. Because the PC are sniping then sniping them is fair. Something only the players can do is not fair, if it gives them a advantage in combat like sniping they should expect it in return.

The people those PCs are sniping are NPCs. they're imaginary, endless, and if the PCs kill all of them, there are always more. They're disposable. Even the BBEG can be replaced with a BBBEG, and this one wears a helmet.

The PCs are unique. They are someone's baby. My players write backstories and spend hours drawing character portraits. One painted a F-ing watercolor of her shapeshifting pyromaniac. a F-ing watercolor painting.

GMs don't kill PCs. Players do. If a PC dies, it should be because they picked a fight they couldn't win, or ignored the creaking of the collapsing building, or otherwise made a mistake.

They should never die because they used a tactic and that was "unfair" to the imaginary people.

Alternatively, use sniping. Kill Billy the NPC company mascot and waterboy. Billy's just chatting about home and suddenly BAM! Roll for initiative.

You don't have a Billy? Get a Billy.

Billy is great for dramatic tension. PCs are entering a house, is it haunted? Billy being ripped apart by ghosts will settle the question.

PCs tick off a crime lord? He sends them Billy's head in a box.

Is it vampire season already? Have Billy get Lucy'd. Now you have a Vampire Billy, and he's like, super evil.

See also Billy Badass and Billy-dict Arnold. Billy Badass can get Worfed to show how powerful the new BBEG is, while Billy-dict Arnold betrays them at their most vulnerable.

[ITWastrel]

I didn't say that they were necessarily sniping per say, just that some of they characters had the sniper skill and were using (old rules not the new version) called and aimed shots in order to concentrate damage where they wanted it.

for instance I had a character who for "reasons" in game carried and used:
old 6000 version shemarrian railgun (the 5-10 mdc one)
a neruni plasma cartridge pistol
the 10mm caseless smg from mercs
NG heavy plasma ejector
various coalition guns, and other misc guns
a huge range of robot vehicles and mechs, and access and having larger vehicles and fighters/starships
so ya it was arguably a seriously broken character/campaign (s)_
when you pull an aimed shot at the helmet on a samas (usually in combat but burning enough actions to effectively get an aimed shot that gets the sniper bonus) and if you roll average damage (or slightly better) and can take off the helmet of a samas, and disappear before the coalition response teams have time to arrive then ya its not really sniping/ambushes that **** off the gm.

it was more:
you see a coalition long range patrol coming
we setup an ambush/booby trap plan 42
toms character is going to be the "bait" to draw them in, and Alecia is going to take down the overwatch SAMAS's (2) then work on supporting while the other characters focus on the UAR1, and APC, hopefully before they can deploy the infantry.

often "Alecia" depending on how generous the dice were fired 4-6 times ~1-2 melees to take out the SAMAS sometimes by decap shots and sometimes by burning through the main body

This is EXACTLY the right thing to do. Planning, tactics, use of skills, this is the right play. As a GM I would award extra XP and cheerfully hand over the loot after this.

[Killer Cyborg]

I know in my group we had several characters with "single" shot high damage guns (and the sniper skill) routinely take aimed shots at heads (helmets) so if you shoot up 10 samas, and about 5+ of them are missing the helmet, and need the pilot poured out, you can pretty much get an undamaged SAMAS with a new helmet, which you can then repaint, and sell for ~2-3 mil each

Sounds like your group is asking the GM please snipe us in the head.

Head shots are a decent way of getting intact armor, but they're usually a slower and more dangerous way to kill things that wear armor.
You only get 1 shot per 2 attacks, and there aren't necessarily a lot of situations where that's ideal.
IF most EBA/Bots/PA had somewhat reasonable head-to-body MDC ratios it'd be different, because hitting somebody in the head once or twice would reliably drop them, but a lot of armor has around the same MDC in the head as the main body.

If a GM wants to to that, the players might have an easier time of it than if the NPCs just shot their torsos.

[Blue_Lion]

I didn't say that they were necessarily sniping per say, just that some of they characters had the sniper skill and were using (old rules not the new version) called and aimed shots in order to concentrate damage where they wanted it.

for instance I had a character who for "reasons" in game carried and used:
old 6000 version shemarrian railgun (the 5-10 mdc one)
a neruni plasma cartridge pistol
the 10mm caseless smg from mercs
NG heavy plasma ejector
various coalition guns, and other misc guns
a huge range of robot vehicles and mechs, and access and having larger vehicles and fighters/starships
so ya it was arguably a seriously broken character/campaign (s)_
when you pull an aimed shot at the helmet on a samas (usually in combat but burning enough actions to effectively get an aimed shot that gets the sniper bonus) and if you roll average damage (or slightly better) and can take off the helmet of a samas, and disappear before the coalition response teams have time to arrive then ya its not really sniping/ambushes that **** off the gm.

it was more:
you see a coalition long range patrol coming
we setup an ambush/booby trap plan 42
toms character is going to be the "bait" to draw them in, and Alecia is going to take down the overwatch SAMAS's (2) then work on supporting while the other characters focus on the UAR1, and APC, hopefully before they can deploy the infantry.

often "Alecia" depending on how generous the dice were fired 4-6 times ~1-2 melees to take out the SAMAS sometimes by decap shots and sometimes by burning through the main body

Shooting the over watch samas should not give you a almost intact samas minus the helmet. The armor would take crash damage, when it crash lands to the ground. (per rue pg 365 surviving a crash landing.) Looking at 3d4X10 +30 MD to the armor, the damage to the pilot inside goes to his armor even though the pilot is dead.
An almost intact samas would require sniping them on the ground.

You can see why I thought you where sniping samas on the ground by surprise.

[Blue_Lion]

The PCs are unique. They are someone's baby. My players write backstories and spend hours drawing character portraits. One painted a F-ing watercolor of her shapeshifting pyromaniac. a F-ing watercolor painting.

GMs don't kill PCs. Players do. If a PC dies, it should be because they picked a fight they couldn't win, or ignored the creaking of the collapsing building, or otherwise made a mistake.

They should never die because they used a tactic and that was "unfair" to the imaginary people.

Alternatively, use sniping. Kill Billy the NPC company mascot and waterboy. Billy's just chatting about home and suddenly BAM! Roll for initiative.

You don't have a Billy? Get a Billy.

Billy is great for dramatic tension. PCs are entering a house, is it haunted? Billy being ripped apart by ghosts will settle the question.

PCs tick off a crime lord? He sends them Billy's head in a box.

Is it vampire season already? Have Billy get Lucy'd. Now you have a Vampire Billy, and he's like, super evil.

See also Billy Badass and Billy-dict Arnold. Billy Badass can get Worfed to show how powerful the new BBEG is, while Billy-dict Arnold betrays them at their most vulnerable.

PC are imaginary, when they die you can always make another.

What you are saying amounts to the players can be unfair to the GMs baby all they want but the GM can not turn about as fair play. (some GMs create special npcs that are very much their baby.)

So players pick a fight they can not win it is ok for them to die. Getting into a sniping war with the endless NPCs seams to fit that description.

Given players advantage just because they are PC is not being fair, that is coddling them. As a player I am offended when A GM bends the rules to save my character. While I spend time making them I always know their is a chance they die. If my character gets sniped because I was sniping that is a result of my actions.

Unless the players fight eachother a PC death is always done by the GM so yes the GM may kill you, but if it is done in a fairplay that is not a bad thing. And turn about is fair play.

As I GM I never plan to kill a player. I always give them a chance it may not always be easy but they can win. I want the game to be fun and major fights challenging not a cake walk where the PC just murder roll every thing they come across. My players also know I will match any dirty tricks they pull. There are consequences to the PC actions.

In general make sure you have the skills to defend against your own dirty tricks and tactics..

Examples, A PC with explosive skills liked rigging bombs, to do wet work as a side job. He had detect camouflage, detect ambush and trap skills to get a chance to spot a bomb had been planted in his car. He passed the test the fall out left the party dealing with a fight with a mid level mob boss. -Result 6 sessions dealing with the fall out of a player foiling his own tactic, the party getting upset that they almost died and lots a boom gun, do to his side job and made him swear off doing any more side jobs.

A PC is sniping high value sniper targets, CS deploys a CS ranger counter sniper team to hunt him down. If he has detect ambush skill he can detect the sniper team, and avoid being sniped. The PC did beat several counter sniper teams but the 5th team got him. -cause of death reasonable and proper NPC reaction to the PC actions. Send a sniper to kill a sniper. Player did not want to leave his base of operations he was doing anti CS missions from so they knew where to send the snipers to find him.-Response to a sniper you can not find in an area you need to travel through are either deploy counter snipers, carpet bomb the area or flood it with skelebots. - If he would have changed his AO after they started sending snipers to track him down he would have lived. While they did not know who he was, they knew where he was and just went looking for snipers in that area. He died while aiming at a CS officer in the field, after spending 3 weeks sniping in the area and killing 4 different anti sniper teams. (he encounter the teams 1 at a time on different days.)

A group of PCs like ambushing CS from rivers(most standard cs weapons are not good for shooting under water targets-CS sent sent a spy to hire the pcs to stop a raid in the brown water navy ahead of times to wait in ambush, the n had the bait apc approach from a rout that would require crossing a river at a good ambush point. Party goes their did not have detect ambush, walked into a trap. While their weapons where able to damage the CS navy personnel in the water the CS had more fire power and armor, and first strike. 3 of seven PCs where died. -cause of death reasonable reaction to PC actions, leading to GM ambush in matching tactics.(the two players with PA running and the head hunter used their first action to run away the D-bee mages cast indivisibility after the players boyfriend's juicer did a sacrifice block the one laser shot at her from the ambush. The mystic knight charged while the operators first action was to shoot the black market quad missile launcher at a PA and the juicer to fight off 8 cs naval infantry and 2 power armor. Most laser shots went to the MK because he did not take damage from them, given the party some breathing room, the operator had full attention of a PA that rolled a nat 20 for its second action on him and the juicer rolled 3 nat 1s in a row on autododge.)

Actions have consequences be ready for them.- In shadow run a PC mage kept a cat that a Mr Johnson gave him, despite knowing it had cyber eyes and a com link.
Several missions later he comes home and his house is on fire, thanks to the elemental he left to guard it and several corp goons are dead. He calls his team to check in, the street sam who's house he brought that cat to while he was changing life styles, noticed his house and been broke into do to a perception roll. The rest of the team had not arrived at their homes yet, they all redirect to a safe house and get a hold of a decker/hacker contact. He sweeps their coms discovers that some one had planted a malware on their coms earliest time stamp on the mage indicates it was done while he was at home sleeping at home the day after he got the cat.
-Basically that was the you know to much and the Johnson is cleaning house burn. Standard fair in shadowrun, if not for a successful perception roll the PC would have walked into a ambush.-Fairly standard fair for Shadowrun. - The gift was as any veteran Sadowrun players would tell you a trap. -Shadowrun players no to watch out for traps and betrayals so there team had skills and a plan in place to deal with it. Because of this no players died to the ambush, but all players needed new sins. If not for the mages mistake the Johnson would have to try and take out the PCs at a meet, when they where all together. But the mage's mistake in accepting a Trojan horse cost the whole party there life styles/sins, one players life style came from the trust fund advantage, and could have killed the whole party.

[lothian]

Just as a followup question for everybody. How do you handle the crew requirement for Robot Armor/vehicles? We have been playing it rather leniently assuming it makes sense. We figure it doesn't matter too much.

[ITWastrel]

I have to break this down.

PC are imaginary, when they die you can always make another.

What you are saying amounts to the players can be unfair to the GMs baby all they want but the GM can not turn about as fair play. (some GMs create special npcs that are very much their baby.)

My NPCs are as disposable as the paper their written on. Even better, they have me on their side, and I cheat.

Examples, A PC with explosive skills liked rigging bombs, to do wet work as a side job. He had detect camouflage, detect ambush and trap skills to get a chance to spot a bomb had been planted in his car. He passed the test the fall out left the party dealing with a fight with a mid level mob boss. -Result 6 sessions dealing with the fall out of a player foiling his own tactic, the party getting upset that they almost died and lots a boom gun, do to his side job and made him swear off doing any more side jobs.

Six (6) sessions devoted to a side mission gone bad for one PC? That's more of a "GM made the campaign about this instead of whatever they had planned" situation.

A PC is sniping high value sniper targets, CS deploys a CS ranger counter sniper team to hunt him down. If he has detect ambush skill he can detect the sniper team, and avoid being sniped. The PC did beat several counter sniper teams but the 5th team got him. -cause of death reasonable and proper NPC reaction to the PC actions. Send a sniper to kill a sniper. Player did not want to leave his base of operations he was doing anti CS missions from so they knew where to send the snipers to find him.-Response to a sniper you can not find in an area you need to travel through are either deploy counter snipers, carpet bomb the area or flood it with skelebots. - If he would have changed his AO after they started sending snipers to track him down he would have lived. While they did not know who he was, they knew where he was and just went looking for snipers in that area. He died while aiming at a CS officer in the field, after spending 3 weeks sniping in the area and killing 4 different anti sniper teams. (he encounter the teams 1 at a time on different days.)

Emphasis mine. You Literally sent infinite encounters worth of sniper teams after the PC? Again, this sounds like a major campaign derailment, but also a major overkill from the GM. At what point did the players say "huh??? Simon? Why is the whole game snipers?"

A group of PCs like ambushing CS from rivers(most standard cs weapons are not good for shooting under water targets-CS sent sent a spy to hire the pcs to stop a raid in the brown water navy ahead of times to wait in ambush, the n had the bait apc approach from a rout that would require crossing a river at a good ambush point. Party goes their did not have detect ambush, walked into a trap. While their weapons where able to damage the CS navy personnel in the water the CS had more fire power and armor, and first strike. 3 of seven PCs where died. -cause of death reasonable reaction to PC actions, leading to GM ambush in matching tactics.(the two players with PA running and the head hunter used their first action to run away the D-bee mages cast indivisibility after the players boyfriend's juicer did a sacrifice block the one laser shot at her from the ambush. The mystic knight charged while the operators first action was to shoot the black market quad missile launcher at a PA and the juicer to fight off 8 cs naval infantry and 2 power armor. Most laser shots went to the MK because he did not take damage from them, given the party some breathing room, the operator had full attention of a PA that rolled a nat 20 for its second action on him and the juicer rolled 3 nat 1s in a row on autododge.)

Again, my emphasis.

You led the PCs into a trap with a detect ambush roll between them and an overwhelming force. If you killed three PCs in one fight, the fight was too hard. You might be a killer GM.

Actions have consequences be ready for them.- In shadow run a PC mage kept a cat that a Mr Johnson gave him, despite knowing it had cyber eyes and a com link.
Several missions later he comes home and his house is on fire, thanks to the elemental he left to guard it and several corp goons are dead. He calls his team to check in, the street sam who's house he brought that cat to while he was changing life styles, noticed his house and been broke into do to a perception roll. The rest of the team had not arrived at their homes yet, they all redirect to a safe house and get a hold of a decker/hacker contact. He sweeps their coms discovers that some one had planted a malware on their coms earliest time stamp on the mage indicates it was done while he was at home sleeping at home the day after he got the cat.
-Basically that was the you know to much and the Johnson is cleaning house burn. Standard fair in shadowrun, if not for a successful perception roll the PC would have walked into a ambush.-Fairly standard fair for Shadowrun. - The gift was as any veteran Sadowrun players would tell you a trap. -Shadowrun players no to watch out for traps and betrayals so there team had skills and a plan in place to deal with it. Because of this no players died to the ambush, but all players needed new sins. If not for the mages mistake the Johnson would have to try and take out the PCs at a meet, when they where all together. But the mage's mistake in accepting a Trojan horse cost the whole party there life styles/sins, one players life style came from the trust fund advantage, and could have killed the whole party.

Evil hackers, cyborg cats, players burned but not executed. Good one.

That's a natural, plotted series of events, and the PCs aren't executed for failure.

Plot is the reason for the combat, not the reason for the deaths.

If I had a reason to send a kill team, I'd send one. But the kill team would be one standard encounter, one the PCs can win. Not one the PCs can survive, if they made their rolls, but one they can win. And yes, I will use a deux ex machina to ruin the sniper's shot, alert the PCs to the fight, and then have some fun.

After that, I'll move on with my plot. If there is a falling brick, maybe I hit the PCs with it later.


I won't call in an airstrike and level the building, declaring all the PCs dead, even if it's within the ability of the BBEG to do so.


My job is to provide plot.

I am not in competition with my players.

If I were I would win.

[ITWastrel]

Just as a followup question for everybody. How do you handle the crew requirement for Robot Armor/vehicles? We have been playing it rather leniently assuming it makes sense. We figure it doesn't matter too much.

If you want epic robot fighting, feel free to ignore crewmen. Your GM, your rules.



Now, a robot with a full crew will smash that baby every time, but that's just math.

Imagine the robot with the pilot, copilot, and gunner. The pilot gets to do all the parry, dodge, melee, running, and general piloting. He's operating the arms, legs, the laser sword, and the hand cannons. He's got 6+ actions per melee, but he's still very busy.

The copilot has the missile systems, chest cannons, and ECMs to use, with another 6+ APM.

The gunner, she's got the particle cannon and the plasma turrets to play with, and she's got 6+ APM to use as well.


Your lone pilot will have his 6+ APM, but his fully staffed opponent will have 18+.

It's gonna be a short fight.

[lothian]

Just as a followup question for everybody. How do you handle the crew requirement for Robot Armor/vehicles? We have been playing it rather leniently assuming it makes sense. We figure it doesn't matter too much.

If you want epic robot fighting, feel free to ignore crewmen. Your GM, your rules.



Now, a robot with a full crew will smash that baby every time, but that's just math.

Imagine the robot with the pilot, copilot, and gunner. The pilot gets to do all the parry, dodge, melee, running, and general piloting. He's operating the arms, legs, the laser sword, and the hand cannons. He's got 6+ actions per melee, but he's still very busy.

The copilot has the missile systems, chest cannons, and ECMs to use, with another 6+ APM.

The gunner, she's got the particle cannon and the plasma turrets to play with, and she's got 6+ APM to use as well.


Your lone pilot will have his 6+ APM, but his fully staffed opponent will have 18+.

It's gonna be a short fight.

That's almost exactly what we have been discussing about the crew rules and how it would work out. Although to be honest didn't really expect it to be such a huge swing/blow out. It's great to know we are on the right path. It's a lot more to consider now. Thanks.

[guardiandashi]

Just as a followup question for everybody. How do you handle the crew requirement for Robot Armor/vehicles? We have been playing it rather leniently assuming it makes sense. We figure it doesn't matter too much.

If you want epic robot fighting, feel free to ignore crewmen. Your GM, your rules.



Now, a robot with a full crew will smash that baby every time, but that's just math.

Imagine the robot with the pilot, copilot, and gunner. The pilot gets to do all the parry, dodge, melee, running, and general piloting. He's operating the arms, legs, the laser sword, and the hand cannons. He's got 6+ actions per melee, but he's still very busy.

The copilot has the missile systems, chest cannons, and ECMs to use, with another 6+ APM.

The gunner, she's got the particle cannon and the plasma turrets to play with, and she's got 6+ APM to use as well.


Your lone pilot will have his 6+ APM, but his fully staffed opponent will have 18+.

It's gonna be a short fight.

That's almost exactly what we have been discussing about the crew rules and how it would work out. Although to be honest didn't really expect it to be such a huge swing/blow out. It's great to know we are on the right path. It's a lot more to consider now. Thanks.

the total training, specific vehicle rules (if any) and the overall level can be factors as well

as a general rule the robot vehicles with multiple crew also have lower bonus actions than the low/single crew vehicles

I know its an older reference but to use the example of the Rtech setting, a cyclone or veritech was a single pilot vehicle they tended to get 3+ bonus actions if the pilot had combat training, the destroids (multi crew vehicles) tended to get +1-2 actions for the pilot

a lot of power armor in rifts tends toward the same thing, power armor gets lots of bonus actions, robot vehicles don't get as many, and the secondary crew (backup pilot, and gunners) don't actually get any bonus actions so the gunners are likely to have ~4-5 actions not 6+

[Blue_Lion]

I have to break this down.

PC are imaginary, when they die you can always make another.

What you are saying amounts to the players can be unfair to the GMs baby all they want but the GM can not turn about as fair play. (some GMs create special npcs that are very much their baby.)

My NPCs are as disposable as the paper their written on. Even better, they have me on their side, and I cheat.

Examples, A PC with explosive skills liked rigging bombs, to do wet work as a side job. He had detect camouflage, detect ambush and trap skills to get a chance to spot a bomb had been planted in his car. He passed the test the fall out left the party dealing with a fight with a mid level mob boss. -Result 6 sessions dealing with the fall out of a player foiling his own tactic, the party getting upset that they almost died and lots a boom gun, do to his side job and made him swear off doing any more side jobs.

Six (6) sessions devoted to a side mission gone bad for one PC? That's more of a "GM made the campaign about this instead of whatever they had planned" situation.

A PC is sniping high value sniper targets, CS deploys a CS ranger counter sniper team to hunt him down. If he has detect ambush skill he can detect the sniper team, and avoid being sniped. The PC did beat several counter sniper teams but the 5th team got him. -cause of death reasonable and proper NPC reaction to the PC actions. Send a sniper to kill a sniper. Player did not want to leave his base of operations he was doing anti CS missions from so they knew where to send the snipers to find him.-Response to a sniper you can not find in an area you need to travel through are either deploy counter snipers, carpet bomb the area or flood it with skelebots. - If he would have changed his AO after they started sending snipers to track him down he would have lived. While they did not know who he was, they knew where he was and just went looking for snipers in that area. He died while aiming at a CS officer in the field, after spending 3 weeks sniping in the area and killing 4 different anti sniper teams. (he encounter the teams 1 at a time on different days.)

Emphasis mine. You Literally sent infinite encounters worth of sniper teams after the PC? Again, this sounds like a major campaign derailment, but also a major overkill from the GM. At what point did the players say "huh??? Simon? Why is the whole game snipers?"

A group of PCs like ambushing CS from rivers(most standard cs weapons are not good for shooting under water targets-CS sent sent a spy to hire the pcs to stop a raid in the brown water navy ahead of times to wait in ambush, the n had the bait apc approach from a rout that would require crossing a river at a good ambush point. Party goes their did not have detect ambush, walked into a trap. While their weapons where able to damage the CS navy personnel in the water the CS had more fire power and armor, and first strike. 3 of seven PCs where died. -cause of death reasonable reaction to PC actions, leading to GM ambush in matching tactics.(the two players with PA running and the head hunter used their first action to run away the D-bee mages cast indivisibility after the players boyfriend's juicer did a sacrifice block the one laser shot at her from the ambush. The mystic knight charged while the operators first action was to shoot the black market quad missile launcher at a PA and the juicer to fight off 8 cs naval infantry and 2 power armor. Most laser shots went to the MK because he did not take damage from them, given the party some breathing room, the operator had full attention of a PA that rolled a nat 20 for its second action on him and the juicer rolled 3 nat 1s in a row on autododge.)

Again, my emphasis.

You led the PCs into a trap with a detect ambush roll between them and an overwhelming force. If you killed three PCs in one fight, the fight was too hard. You might be a killer GM.

Actions have consequences be ready for them.- In shadow run a PC mage kept a cat that a Mr Johnson gave him, despite knowing it had cyber eyes and a com link.
Several missions later he comes home and his house is on fire, thanks to the elemental he left to guard it and several corp goons are dead. He calls his team to check in, the street sam who's house he brought that cat to while he was changing life styles, noticed his house and been broke into do to a perception roll. The rest of the team had not arrived at their homes yet, they all redirect to a safe house and get a hold of a decker/hacker contact. He sweeps their coms discovers that some one had planted a malware on their coms earliest time stamp on the mage indicates it was done while he was at home sleeping at home the day after he got the cat.
-Basically that was the you know to much and the Johnson is cleaning house burn. Standard fair in shadowrun, if not for a successful perception roll the PC would have walked into a ambush.-Fairly standard fair for Shadowrun. - The gift was as any veteran Sadowrun players would tell you a trap. -Shadowrun players no to watch out for traps and betrayals so there team had skills and a plan in place to deal with it. Because of this no players died to the ambush, but all players needed new sins. If not for the mages mistake the Johnson would have to try and take out the PCs at a meet, when they where all together. But the mage's mistake in accepting a Trojan horse cost the whole party there life styles/sins, one players life style came from the trust fund advantage, and could have killed the whole party.

Evil hackers, cyborg cats, players burned but not executed. Good one.

That's a natural, plotted series of events, and the PCs aren't executed for failure.

Plot is the reason for the combat, not the reason for the deaths.

If I had a reason to send a kill team, I'd send one. But the kill team would be one standard encounter, one the PCs can win. Not one the PCs can survive, if they made their rolls, but one they can win. And yes, I will use a deux ex machina to ruin the sniper's shot, alert the PCs to the fight, and then have some fun.

After that, I'll move on with my plot. If there is a falling brick, maybe I hit the PCs with it later.


I won't call in an airstrike and level the building, declaring all the PCs dead, even if it's within the ability of the BBEG to do so.


My job is to provide plot.

I am not in competition with my players.

If I were I would win.

A GM that cheats one way or another is a bad GM. A GM should be fair.
If a GM bends the rules to keep my character I would be offended. Why the heck is he babying me.

I have recurring NPCs I use in my games, some are old PCs mine or some of my friends, some where created as NPCS to add something to the game. I have an old TW that during the game he and an operator set up a factory to make combat vehciles and armor. That company and NPCs are in games I run. I have a group of NPCs I created called the disfunctionals that show up randomly and do something amazing off screen then go away. (like the time the PC saw a pack of vampires run outside during the day and this group of people walk out hop in a flying winobago and leave.) Then there is a balrog prankster he shows up tries to play a prank then leaves. (never causes any physical damage but does random stuff, like pulling the pants down on a juicer pointing laughing then teleporting away. PCs have been hunting him for years. The currant bounty is 2 sodas and large pizza to the player that kills him.)


Having to deal with the fallout of PC actions shows the PC that their actions matter. When you in the middle of trying to uncover the CS greatest secrete and have to stop because some one decided to take side jobs and now you have to fight a mini-mob boss fight was a player created side quest.
But they did not want to fight CS intelligence services and deal with hit men from the mob. (I was running a game where the PCs where trying to find out that the CS emperor was a terminator style robot belonging archie 3.)

The PC sniper spent a month in game within 35 miles of a pro CS town sniping CS troops. (I could not run him as part of the group because he was staying in the same area while they where taking jobs that I was weaving into a larger story. I had to run his sniping on the side of the main group, because he chose not to stay with them.)
So of course the CS is going to send people into the area to deal with it. He knew they had counter sniper teams in the area after he beat the first team, more so the second third and fourth team. If he would have moved away from the town he was camping they would not know where he was. What the CS knew was some one was sniping them in an area, so they where sending in teams to deal with it. It was not 5 teams in one day, it was over several days. He chose to stay in an area and get in a sniper war with the CS. So yea he lost because he did not move out of a small area. -It was a plot reaction to a player camping CS in an area. It was a fair and reasonable by the CS in the area. The CS sent teams in to find and stop the sniper. Because it was around a pro CS town they did not want to flood it with skelebots, and bombing would upset the locals plus would not leave him much chance. So in comes level 1 CS ranger 2 man teams spotter and sniper looking for a a sniper. I had the spotter only armed with a laser pistol to limit the threat to the PC.

A GM comes up with a plot but the players action decide how the plot unfolds. Reactions to the players is part of the plot a GM. If the GMs plot ignores things the players are doing then it does not involve them. A plot should be adaptive if it folds out XYZ regardless of what the players do then they are not part of the plot. If the players are not part of the part that is a hide bound GM and not a good thing. Side quest or distractions that come up from player actions should happen and can distract from the GMs main plot. It shows the players matter to the plot and not just along for the ride.

3 PC died in one fight because over half the party bugged out. Leaving the three to fight a group intended for 7. The mage that hid had a TW canned spells that would have taken out 4 of the 8 CS navy infantry in one action Had other devices and spells that could have provided cover. The two PA and head hunter fled, leaving the operator juicer and Mystic knight to fight the two PA. The CS had more sustained fire power the party had better burst affects. I had 6 of the 8 infantry focus on the MK because their weapons where no threat. Bad dice rolls happened. The CS did not use their mini missiles. the 3 PCs where in light armor while the CS where in standard CS armor so they had more armor. The intent was a major fight(to show the CS had taken interest in them) so it should have been challenging. I did not expect the PCs to die when I set it up. The way I planed the encounter was the PC would get hit take some damage kill the two PA and the rest the CS would try to surrender, or the party would kill the 8 infantry and the CS PA would bug out. But 3 of 7 players in the fight made it so they where out gunned and out armored, the heavy armor all panicked and fled, the mage bugged out, the dice did not favor the players. Death of multiple players in one session is normally rare, the fight did not unfold as I planed it to. never expected the juicer to roll 3 nat 1 on his auto dodge. (so he took the hits I thought he should have dodged. CS where only getting +1 to strike while he had +4 to autododge. I used the GI rule for the players.

Adjusting the plot to the pc actions and have consequences is not campaign derailment by the GM, but adding to the plot based on player interaction. Campaign derailment is when the players do something that prevents any progress towards goals that is not part of the plot.

In my campaigns are about the PC's there actions affect the story. Even when I have a big metta plot, it comes down to the players actions. If the players are not interested in what I had plan I will build a plot out of what they want to do, and always weave their actions into the story line making it part of an adapting plot line. At times this does mean they get player generated side quests that I did not plan for, but hey life happens.

In none of the cases where the PCs just executed, in every encounter I believe when I set it up the player had a chance. But if you keep doing the same thing in the same area to CS they are going to look at what happen and try to counter it. Getting on the CS wanted list means the CS are going to try to do something to stop you at some point. But it is never an assassin killing you in your sleep, but it can be your own tatics they are using. Snipers vs snipers and ambushing ambushes.

I feel that any GM that baby's, cheets for or has a plot roll out the same way regardless of choices of the players is a bad GM.

[ShadowLogan]

Example: Robot Vehicle/Armor with an arm (100 MDC) reduced to 20% (20)MDC. According to the book you can repair 10 M.D.C per 40,000 credits.
Easy. Except it states Arm : 3.5 million credits; 80 M.D.C which seems like a ridiculous amount to repair just 80 M.D.C. We assume that this price is for a complete replacement of said ARM and its MDC is placed at 80 while still missing the 20 for a full 100. So the total cost would be 3.5 million + 80,000 (20 MDC MORE) to complete it. This is assuming the arm is completely ruined and not just reduced to 20% (20 MDC) which is above the 15% threshold to receive any repair.

Something that really isn't really emphasized, but MDC also reflects more than raw damage capacity, it can also reflect various systems "health". You can see this in RUE pg353-4 (Optional rules for 'bots/PA), and again on pg355 (in the paragraph that spans both columns on the page) for EBA that at 15MDC (or 10-20% of original MDC) environmental systems begin to fail, but if that is true for EBA it likely applies elsewhere (I'm also sure there are other examples in Rifts, though I know of one from the old 1E RT Line where Shadow Devices would stop operating when the Main Body of the mecha took to much damage, but not enough to destroy the mecha). This leads me to think that damage after a certain point on a given location isn't just "armor" being destroyed but parts to various systems (environmental, electrical, mechanical, etc).

Just as a followup question for everybody. How do you handle the crew requirement for Robot Armor/vehicles? We have been playing it rather leniently assuming it makes sense. We figure it doesn't matter too much.

A multi-crew vehicle can typically be operated by one pilot, however that pilot is not going to be anywhere near as proficient as multi-person vehicle* and it's even possible some weapon systems may not be available to them if a multi-crew vehicle is under crewed (some weapons are designated for certain crew stations), IIRC it's also possible for the pilot in that situation to be under penalties.

In an old campaign my PC modified their single pilot robot vehicle with a second crewperson station to act as a defensive gunner with the end result being enemy missile effectiveness dropped off considerably.

The way to manage it is that each crew station rolls initiative and takes actions normally. You could streamline it down to just one initiative roll for the vehicle of a multi-crewed, but each crew member should still be able to take action (even an NPC platform or NPC crew station, even if it doesn't get reported to the players).

*I can think of one exception to this (DB5's Zebuloid race, but it's a stated function of their biology that they can actually operate several crew stations) from an operator point of view.