View source for Talk:OOC:Rules Modifications

== Increasing Contact Connection ==
'''Status: Adopted'''

So after reviewing the chip rules in RF, here's my suggestion on expanding contact connection in a sanctioned way for the future:

* You cannot be raising the Connection rating of a different contact
* You must be Loyalty 3 or higher with the contact you are trying to raise.
* You need to spend chips equal to new Connection rating
* You need to spend karma equal to new Connection rating
* You need to either spend time equal to new Connection rating in weeks or wait twice that time (this represents either you working to getting the word out or waiting for word of your deeds represented by the chips to disseminate naturally)

— [[User:Revàn|Revàn]]<sup>[[User_talk:Revàn|(Talk)]]</sup> 11:24, 30 November 2020 (EST)

I like most of this, though I feel having multiple options for time is a bit inelegant. Personally I'd prefer just the "wait twice the time" option, though it's a mild preference.

Also of note is the following from RF p.176:
<blockquote>
If the characters are able to complete work that brings significant benefits to the contact, the gamemaster may improve both the Connection rating and the Loyalty of the contact as well at the end of the adventure.
</blockquote>
For example, bumping [[Lyra]] at the end of [[Magic Mike (run)|Magic Mike]]. If the reward is not worth a whole rating, then at least granting some number of chips seems reasonable.

Do we care about the difference between Loyalty and Connection chips? Narratively they're different, but I like keeping them together mechanically.

— [[User:Jynx|Jynx]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jynx|(Talk)]]</sup> 13:40, 30 November 2020 (EST)

The two kinds of chips are what matters most to me honestly, definitely a fan of being able to spend both kinds of chips at once --[[User:Malta|Malta]]<sup>[[User_talk:Malta|Talk]]</sup>

> I like keeping them together mechanically.

That's an interesting thought. I think aside from Malta nobody's *really* had a lot of interaction with chips in general. Combining them would make it more enticing for everyone else to get in on it, I think? Less bookkeeping is also a plus. I don't think there is that much of an incentive aside from the more face-y characters to spend that much resources to contacts and this is a shame. 

> Personally I'd prefer just the "wait twice the time" option, though it's a mild preference.

I am OK with this

> definitely a fan of being able to spend both kinds of chips at once

I think this is doable. Assuming we combine the types of chips I would be OK with "spend 2x (generic) chips to increase Loyalty and Connection" (and pay the other associated costs)

— [[User:Revàn|Revàn]]<sup>[[User_talk:Revàn|(Talk)]]</sup> 17:09, 30 November 2020 (EST)

So from this discussion and some backchanneling, my current proposal is:

# There are two kinds of chips, one for Loyalty, one for Connection.
# Connection chips may be used for Loyalty raising, but not the reverse.
# Loyalty raising costs are unchanged from Run Faster - spend chips and weeks equal to new rating.
# Connection is similar, but also costs karma - spend chips, karma and weeks equal to new rating.
# There are separate time tracks for raising Loyalty and Connection, each also separate from generic Downtime - You can raise yourself, a contact Loyalty, and a contact Connection at the same time.
# To raise Connection, the Loyalty must be at least 3.
# Gaining/spending any kind of chip should come with some actual narrative - some in-game or downtime action that gets at least a bit of spotlight.

I am ambivalent about (3) and (6) - they're from Josh's preceding proposal and represent Connection being harder to raise, since it's helping the contacts abilities as opposed to bettering the relationship.
However, this might be subsumed by Connection chips simply being "harder" to obtain, and also usable as Loyalty chips. I don't really care either way.

While separate chips and time tracks is more book-keeping, I've reversed my position on keeping them together. Contact specific chips forces narrative outside the PCs. Some of the best stuff to come out of recent runs, imo, was bringing [[Malta's Tenement]] more into play and putting Lyra in a more central position. The world gets bigger and richer. And more inspiration for plot hooks.

Separate time tracks incentivizes more contact improvement and hence using them more.

— [[User:Jynx|Jynx]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jynx|(Talk)]]</sup> 13:31, 1 December 2020 (EST)

Full disclosure, (6) is from the rule in Better than Bad which required you to have 3 loyalty to raise Connection.

On (2) I thought about this and decided that the chip system shouldn't be *too* fragmented, since chips are also supposed to be tradable for favours (and have ratings). Maybe we should restrict raising connection to higher rating chips if we want to represent it being harder to raise instead? If we want to keep them seperate we should have them tradable for favours and not have Connection and Loyalty mix. 

The follow-up on (7) is "what constitutes a reasonable action to gain loyalty/connection chips?" Using Lyra as an example, if for example Revàn goes with Lyra on a talisman reagent gathering trip in the middle of the mountains as a favour to her for Loyalty chips, does this constitute me going on a run to do this or just me saying that I did this and mark the time on my calander? 

— [[User:Revàn|Revàn]]<sup>[[User_talk:Revàn|(Talk)]]</sup> 18:13, 1 December 2020 (EST)

With respect to (7), I'm fine with you just saying that and marking it on the calendar. But you have to at least come up with something to say, and it has to actually happen in game sometime, whether downtime or on a run.

For (2), I honestly don't particularly want Connections to be *harder* to raise, just different. Loyalty is your personal relationship which can be raised through various interactions with the individual. Connections is external and can't be improved just by doing generic favours, you have to somehow build up their presence/resources.

— [[User:Jynx|Jynx]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jynx|(Talk)]]</sup> 00:44, 2 December 2020 (EST)

Honestly, in my mind, the narrative is how you gained the chip. Hence why we have them. Whereas, the process for spending it is basically working your contacts and other resources to help the contact. Mostly (2) I assume would be that Connection chips are assumed to be useful for loyalty, because you raised their standing, they now like you, and so when you raise their connection you can put the extra legwork in for Loyalty.

-- [[User:Malta|Malta]]<sup>[[User_talk:Malta|Talk]]</sup> 15:30, 3 December 2020 (EST)

Per discussion last session, I believe the below is our current model for this rule:
* Specialized 'Connection Chips' exist
* Same mechanics as Loyalty Chips, but obtained through narrative/runs that improve the contacts standing instead of their relationship with you.
* When spending Connection Chips, may increase Loyalty in addition to Connection
** So a spending a Rating 5 Connection Chip on a Connection 4, Loyalty 1 contact would take 5 weeks and improve the contact to Connection 5, Loyalty 3
— [[User:Jynx|Jynx]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jynx|(Talk)]]</sup> 12:27, 9 December 2020 (EST)
== Ramming and Crashing ==

'''Status: proposed'''

<dl>
  <dt>Ramming</dt>
    <dd>Use as per Ramming Rules on SR5 p203, but symmetric — each vehicle takes damage according to the Body/Speed of the other.</dd>
  <dt>Crashing - Barriers</dt>
    <dd>Treat as a Ram as above against Body=Structure and Speed=0</dd>
  <dt>Falling</dt>
    <dd>Use pedestrian falling rules.
</dl>
— [[User:Jynx|Jynx]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jynx|(Talk)]]</sup> 00:56, 16 December 2020 (EST)

=== Rationale ===
The first ruling means bigger vehicles win the ram, the remaining are ideas for where rules don't explicitly cover. The crash rules still damage bigger vehicles more though.
— [[User:Jynx|Jynx]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jynx|(Talk)]]</sup> 01:06, 16 December 2020 (EST)

Other problem to think about - those are damages to the vehicles, not passengers, so we need to figure out how much the passengers resist. Maybe however many boxes were actually dealt to their vehicle? So if a vehicle gets 4 hits to soak a 10 DV attack, passengers resist 6 DV? Book also says characters resist at AP -6. Thoughts?
— [[User:Jynx|Jynx]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jynx|(Talk)]]</sup> 01:49, 20 December 2020 (EST)

== Group Contacts ==

'''Status: Proposed'''

Treat groups the PCs have a strong relationship with as a single contact (as opposed to several, or a faction). E.g. [[37 Juggernauts]] for [[Malta]], [[Jynx]]'s potential technomancer tribe, possibly [[Gate of Ishtar]] for [[Revàn]].

=== Rationale ===

Faction rules as is are essentially unusable, but we would like ways to "level up" the group. For the tribe, arguably I could grow four individual contacts; but for the juggernauts, I don't see a mechanical way to represent their increasing presence. Maybe it's unnecessary and can be handled solely through narrative. *shrug*

— [[User:Jynx|Jynx]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jynx|(Talk)]]</sup> 01:10, 16 December 2020 (EST)

== Instruction Teacher Costs ==
'''Status: Adopted'''

Given that we can acquire Rating 6 Skillsofts in a skill for ¥2,400, I think we should have the costs for flesh-and-blood instructors be greater than that. I have a proposal which divides the instructor cost into three parts, the referral fee, the fixed cost, and the variable cost. 

-- This seems like the opposite of true - Humans are competing with software, and so they seem like they want to be cheaper? --[[User:Malta|Malta]]<sup>[[User_talk:Malta|Talk]]</sup> 23:21, 14 June 2021 (EST)

>> Maybe for a regularly scheduled class or such, but since we're effectively paying for a one-on-one tutoring session the expectation is to be better than the software (in unexpected curcumstances) and thus more expensive. — [[User:Revàn|Revàn]]<sup>[[User_talk:Revàn|(Talk)]]</sup> 11:27, 15 June 2021 (EST)

==== Referral Fee ====
Use the networking rules on SR5 p.388 with threshold of half the desired Instruction Skill of the instructor. The threshold may be lowered if the contact used has expertese relevant to the skill being trained. Since this represents trying to find an *avaliable* instructor, no oppertunity for a new contact is given. 

-- What fee is this? There's no costs. --[[User:Malta|Malta]]<sup>[[User_talk:Malta|Talk]]</sup> 23:21, 14 June 2021 (EST)

>> Using the Networking of a contact counts as a service/favour and the aforementioned fee is assuming that the contact is willing to take cash. — [[User:Revàn|Revàn]]<sup>[[User_talk:Revàn|(Talk)]]</sup> 11:27, 15 June 2021 (EST)

>>> This is the 7-Loyalty * 100¥ thing? --[[User:Malta|Malta]]<sup>[[User_talk:Malta|Talk]]</sup> 19:58, 15 June 2021 (EST)

>>>> This is either the [Connection Rating] * 100¥ or 1000¥ depending on if Networking is information or a service or something in between (SR5 p. 389, Favour for a Friend) — [[User:Revàn|Revàn]]<sup>[[User_talk:Revàn|(Talk)]]</sup> 00:22, 16 June 2021 (EST)

==== Fixed Cost ====
This is the cost to have the instructor show up on short notice (i.e. on your training schedule). This cost is [Instruction Rating] x ¥500. 

==== Variable Cost ====
This is the cost for training and is [New Skill Rating] x ¥10 per day of training actually given (i.e. after the 25% reduction and Instruction die roll reduction).

This means without any other reductions in time, if we wanted to improve a skill to 7, this would be Referral Fee + ¥3,500 + (37 - Instruction Hits) x ¥70 ≈ ¥800 (connection 4 x ¥200 (double contact price for "information")) + ¥3,500 + ¥2,380 (34 x 70) = ¥6,680

We may also want to allow for a Negotiation reduction on the Fixed Cost, maybe something like 5% off per net hit up to a max of 10 net hits.

=== Discussion ===

-- Why not use the rules for buying skill checks from Cutting Aces? --[[User:Malta|Malta]]<sup>[[User_talk:Malta|Talk]]</sup> 23:21, 14 June 2021 (EST)

>> 'cause I can't find anything in the damn book and thus didn't know about it. Can you give an example of what that might look like? (i.e. are you applying it to the dice pool of the instructor's Instruction? Are we counting 8 hours a day of daily tutoring over weeks (seems unreasonable, but I think we suggested an hour a day of tutoring time in an email thread which sounds more reasonable)?) — [[User:Revàn|Revàn]]<sup>[[User_talk:Revàn|(Talk)]]</sup> 11:27, 15 June 2021 (EST)

>>> Bargaining Table, pg 162, the big question is how many hours is instruction? --[[User:Malta|Malta]]<sup>[[User_talk:Malta|Talk]]</sup> 20:10, 15 June 2021 (EST)

>>>> In an email I sent dated Feb 22nd, I calculated the cost of getting an Instruction 7 to teach Summoning 7 (the use case where I will want an instructor better than software) using what turns out to be for knowledge skill in Cutting Aces (100¥ x skill rating) at full 8 hours a day for the requisite amount of time, and this turns out to be 207,200¥, which is 40% of buying a Medium lifestyle. In the email I suggested one hour a day for each day after the Instruction roll, which applying the same calculation with the updated Cutting Aces dice pool (450¥ * 37 days) = 16,650¥, which is still a hefty sum. We could also do 8 hours for the first day (so you will still need to pay for an instructor even if you get it down to one day) and then an hour each day after that or something if we're worried about that edge case. Honestly, the idea of seperating the fixed cost and variable cost is to make the long training times more feasible/affordable to have an instructor for all of it. — [[User:Revàn|Revàn]]<sup>[[User_talk:Revàn|(Talk)]]</sup> 00:22, 16 June 2021 (EST)

>>>>> Ok, perfect, makes sense. I mean, someone with Instruction 7 is pretty bonkers good and gonna be very hard to get a hold of. Right now, in Street Grimoire pg 140 it says that 5 weeks of instruction (for Initiation) is 10000¥. Which puts the 16650¥ is probably on par for that (Summoning 7 is gonna be 14 weeks - right? And Instruction 7 is a lot). The knowledge skill thing in Cutting Aces is for *one* event, and it's Pool*100. The other one is ongoing use of Active Skill (previous item on the table), it's gonna be, assuming a Cha 6 Instructor, (6+7)/4*150 300¥/hour, at 40 hours a week it's gonna cost 12,000¥/day. Which is also gonna be super spendy. The real question is how long does it take to make a Instruction test. Is it one day? Can you make more than one per training time? --[[User:Malta|Malta]]<sup>[[User_talk:Malta|Talk]]</sup> 15:40, 16 June 2021 (EST)

>>>>>> The example is Instruction 7 because under Using Instruction (SR5 p 141) it says "The teacher can only teach up to their own Instruction Rating". It's also 7 weeks (it's not 2 weeks per until you try to raise it to 9), and with the 25% "instructor show up" reduction it's 37 days. What I am proposing is that it is probably not neccessary for an instructor to show up for 8 hours a day for all 37 (less Instruction hits) of those days (maybe the first) because a lot of it will be practice and homework. 

TO recap, I'm proposing an instructor to be broken up into: 

* Referral cost: Cost to your contact to find an avaliable instructor (using contact service/favour rules on SR5 p 389)
* Fixed cost: Cost for the instructor to show up and reduce the training time by 25% on your schedule
* Variable cost: Following up by the instructor checking up on your progress as you go though the material across the training period 

Fixed cost I have proposed [Instructor Rating] x ¥500, although after reading the Cutting Aces rule this probably should be the knowledge pool x ¥100 in the knowledge of the skill being trained (which I think needs to be at least as high as the new rating of what is being trained?). Variable cost I am currently proposing [Instruction Die Pool / 4 round up] * ¥150 as per the Cutting Aces active skill rules, per day of the training. 

(Also worth noting that I will be using this with Apt Pupil and Chosen Follower so I won't actually be using the full 37 days in the example) — [[User:Revàn|Revàn]]<sup>[[User_talk:Revàn|(Talk)]]</sup> 21:34, 16 June 2021 (EST)

== Technomancers Crashing ==

There's no rule in 5th edition about if technomancers go offline when they go unconscious. However, Shadowrun 20th Anniversary is explicit that they do. I think we should make it clear that unconscious (but not asleep)technomancers automatically crash (as per other devices crashing).