Condition Modifier Rules

Quote :

"As a character records damage on his Condition Monitor, he suffers certain effects that simulate the effects of real-life injuries. For every 3 boxes of cumulative damage taken on a Condition Monitor track, the character suffers a –1 wound modifier."
SR4 Pg. 153-154 Wound Modifiers; SR4A Pg. 163

I don't know about the rest of you, but I haven't read the Condition Modifier rules before a player in one of my games looked this up and pointed it out to me. I didn't even realize that the rule as written is quite vague and allows quite a bit of room for interpretation. Further, and making matters worse, the only specific example given was given using the precise numbers that continue the ambiguity, rather than clearing it up.
I know that occasionally ambiguity is done on purpose, but I doubt that this time that is the case. So, just to make sure I understood what I was reading, I went to check the Damage Track on the Character Sheet. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, I assumed that that would clear things up for me. But no, it seems like we actually need the 1000 words in this case, since EVEN THE PICTURE is ambiguous.
So, here it is for all of you to comment on, and please feel free to comment away.

Note: For reference, I have attached the pictures of SR3, SR4 and SR4A Condition Modifiers from the Official Character Sheets. It is easy to see that in SR3, it was quite clear and concise. In 4 and 4A, it's not clear any longer.

SR3


SR4


SR4A

I dont understand at all why the change was made to begin with sr3 is straight and simple and it doesnt make sence to me of why change something that already works

Well, they didn't necessarilly change it. They just changed the wording, and now it is no longer clear what they are intending. In SR3, it was obvious, and as you said, simple. Now, it's no longer obvious.
I know how I will be interpreting this in my games. But unfortunately, it is now up for interpretation, where before it was not.

Since I have been playing SR since 1st ed, it has always been the box of damage/stun causes the penalty.

The way I read all the images of the condition monitors to me it says penalties begin at the first box of each row.

Well, that certainly is how it was done since first edition (I started at the beginning of Second Edition). And again, I know how I will be interpreting the foolishly ambiguous rules description by FanPro. But we need to have a chance to notice, and discuss, this rules-set, since it is unlikely that most of the experienced players/GMs even bothered to review that in SR4 and SR4A... Like Kazuki said, it was working perfectly before, why would they change it. So, if you're all like me, you didn't even consider it when converting to 4 and 4A.
But... Now they are somewhat more ambiguous. So you GM's need to know, and be prepared, for new players to bring it up. Again, it hasn't changed how I will be interpreting the "rules", but it has forced me to interpret them.

WearzManySkins wrote:

Since I have been playing SR since 1st ed, it has always been the box of damage/stun causes the penalty.

The way I read all the images of the condition monitors to me it says penalties begin at the first box of each row.

Hmm, I interprete the text and the images in the way that

1) The end of each row marks the penalty. So if you have one box of stun damage a penalty is not yet applied. The moment you have 3 it is.
2) The tracks are independent, that is 1 box physical and 2 box stun damage do NOT count as 3 in total which would result in a -1 modifier.

If you look at the "High Pain Tolerance" quality there is an example stating that
"A character with this quality at Rating 2 can take 4 boxes of damage without suffering a wound modifier".
Consequently without this quality you can take 2 boxes of damage without suffering a wound modifier, as stated under 1).

Hope this helps a little.

Yours
Stampa

See? Ambiguity! Point in case!

Stampede: For reference, until SR4, there was no question about this. The condition modifier applies as soon as damage occurs. Now that the rules have been written with new wording, it is no longer a clear cut case, and it requires a GM to interpret it.

As for the tracks being independent: That is correct. At least the rules are not ambiguous about this. The Condition Modifiers are cumulative, but the damage boxes have to add up to their condition modifier individually.

Gala wrote:

See? Ambiguity! Point in case!

Ambiguity? Sorry I do not see the ambiguity there. I thought it's clear after my post . What's ambiguous about that rules?

I think, since I have been pointing this out so far, I will leave Stampede's question to be responded to by another GM... Have at it guys!

Gala wrote:

See? Ambiguity! Point in case!
Stampede: For reference, until SR4, there was no question about this. The condition modifier applies as soon as damage occurs. Now that the rules have been written with new wording, it is no longer a clear cut case, and it requires a GM to interpret it.

As I said before I see no ambiguity. You get modifiers as soon as you have 3,6,9 etc. boxes of damage. *looking confused at Gala* Or not??

Not.
In fact, the way I interpret it (probably because it has always been this way, so it's easier for me to see it like this) is that the -1 modifier applies to the whole row. Logically, that makes more sense, from a picture perspective. So, as soon as you get 1 box of damage, you have a -1 modifier. As soon as you get the 4th box of damage, you move down into the -2 modifier row. 7th box of damage, you move down into the -3 modifier row. So each modifier owns it's entire row.
The rule writing allows for either interpretation, unfortunately. It could be that there is no modifier until the third box, or it could be that the second modifier doesn't occur until after the third box.

They do seem to clear up their intention somewhat in their description of the "High Pain Tolerance," as you pointed out Stampede, which makes the ambiguity more of a "Historical Discrepency" than it does a "Current Rule Ambiguity". I think. I want to get some comments on this from some older GMs, who have experience with pre-SR4 rules, but are not reviewing these rules in the new light that the actual writing + "High Pain Tolerance" put forth.
In light of these, I may have to change the way I have been adjudicating this, and inform my Table-Top games as well.

On a related note: This does further point out the value of new faces! So make sure to keep the newbies coming in, otherwise us old-guard GMs/Gamers may never fully understand the new rulesets!

Stampede,

I believe this is a case of half empty/half full, each of us has a different point of view on this. To me the first box of damage physical/stun starts the modifier.

I would have to side with WearzManySkins on this your at -1 at the first box .then you receive the -2 on the 4th box stun/wound

WearzManySkins wrote:

Stampede,

I believe this is a case of half empty/half full, each of us has a different point of view on this. To me the first box of damage physical/stun starts the modifier.

Ok. I never thaught about it as both the picture of the condition monitor and the textual description where obvious for me stating that the first two boxes are without modifier (and the 4th and 5th without the increased modifiert) and so on.

This: "A character with this quality at Rating 2 can take 4 boxes of damage without suffering a wound modifier" even clarifies it more. As this rule would not make sense if the modifier is applied at the first box, would it?

And if my english is not completely broken I understand "For every 3 boxes of cumulative damage taken on a Condition Monitor track, the character suffers a –1 wound modifier." means for every 3 boxes cumulative damage, that is not one box, not two, but three ;-).

But anyway the important thing is to state how this is handled in the beginning of a run.

Well, like I said, Stampede has pointed out that it looks like the rules aren't "poorly re-written" as I originally assumed, but actually have been changed since 3rd edition. Of course, the GM's rulings always, in all cases, overrides the book. That said, it is always encouraged for GM's to stay as close to the book as is reasonably convenient, if for no other reason than simplicity and continuity.

But, I asked for your opinions, and thank you for them. Until now, I have been using the damage track as it would appear to the eyes of someone coming to 4th from 3rd... Wound Modifiers start on the first box of damage.

thats how i understand them that they take effect on the first box and dont change tell the 4th box and so on

Ok I admit now I'm totaly confused. As I stated I thought the rules are obviously clear, but taking a look at the example on page ten of this document ("The street samurai, damage continued"):
http://www.shadowrun4.com/resources/sr4/catalyst_shadowrunqs_player.pdf
I admit I maybe totaly wrong but confident of it the whole time ;-). Sorry if I offended anyone, wasn't my itention.

Yep. FanPro strikes again! Ambiguity seems to be the reigning mode... Which is too bad, because SR3 was quite clear in most respects. I didn't always agree, but it didn't leave a lot for the imagination, regarding understanding the rules.
Disagreement, as a GM, isn't really a problem. Simply announce your new rule, which overrides the book rule, and that's that.
Ambiguity is another animal entirely. You have to make an initial ruling, just to keep play moving in your game when the questions arise. Then you have to review the rule, and compare that to any other potential examples that exist in other parts of the book, or other books. You then have to consider it in the context of your game, and other games you have played. Sometimes (as in now) you then take it to other GMs and ask for their opinion. Then, finally, once you have finished a lengthy and informed consideration of the poorly written rules, you go back to your players, and announce how you will interpret the rules from that point on. It's messy. And it makes understanding the history of your game, in the context of your new "current" rules, somewhat interesting.

Now, for a concrete rules system, where your players are expected to "Correct" you when you do something outside of the rules, Ambiguity actually grants the GM some considered degree of extra power. That is not the case, however, in SR. In SR (at least in every game I have played or GMed) it is always the expectation that the GM has ultimate authority, and that the written rules exist in order to provide general guidance until such time as the GM overrules them. In that case, concretely worded rules are much better, since they bring up fewer questions until the GM decides to change something.

Well I'm no GM for sure played one other edition of Shadowrun 2nd. As a player i have always allocated the dmg modifier that the GM prescribed me. GM's have a tendency to tell you when the issue the wound what your modifier is. Not to be jerks they just want every one on the same page.

That said i did go over rules for my self in 4th, and i side with Stampede on this, one if you read the quality in question the example clears up at least their (creators of the game) thoughts on this subject. If one will put two two together. it makes sense. but i originally thought you get the modifier on the last box of dmg.

I generally link my players to a web page that shows my optional and house rules prior to game play. That reduces player surprises in game. Also the list does grow at times.

SR4 Ork Underground

That sounds like a good way to do it. that way everyone knows

Sounds like the list is about to grow again...

The way I interpret it, which is why i brought it up, is that you get penalties at 3, 6 9 etc. If you follow the arrow on the boxes while marking your damage, it is those boxes that contain the penalties.

On a side note, I will always go along with what the GM says, because I expect my players to do the same. So if it happens at 1, 4, 7, etc it isnt much different except the modifiers come a bit sooner.

In 4th ed, I've always assigned penalties at 3, 6, 9 etc. The language as it was written (cumulative!) points towards this. The language of the quality Stampede points to also further clarified it for me...

However, what was written in the quick-start rules (as Stampede pointed out, and which I had never noticed before... probably because I never referred to the QSR after I got my hands on the Corebook) points towards a system more like 3rd ed, where you had wound tracts instead of boxes. I don't know... I'm going to have to go through the books again, and compare examples to that given in the QS on CG's webpage. Hopefully that will give clarification. Anybody been to dumpshock lately? Have they noticed the discrepancy?

We might want to look at the editors and writers for the book: it may be that those who wrote QSR weren't the same people who compiled the Corebook. If so, then they may not have been on the same page on the rules themselves. Comparing the credits page should tell us if this was possible, in which case I would suggest we go by the Corebook and its language.

I'll try and do this when I've got a bit of time.


Ugh. Wish CG hadn't felt the need to gash for cash SR's fans by installing a completely new system system in 4th. I mean, it didn't make sense from the game's standpoint: we'd refined the whole system over 3 previous editions, all of which simply took what had come before and simplified it where was necessary, and built on it where it was lacking. Of course, from a fiscal standpoint, it makes perfect sense: if everything written before is no longer applicable, anyone who wants to use new material for their games has to buy the new books.

Slottin' fraggers...


But yeah; I'll spend some time going through the material looking for an answer.