Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ General Gaming _ Rules Coverage

Posted by: eidolon Jul 31 2007, 02:52 PM

Spun off from the http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=18477.

Please continue rules coverage discussion here. Thanks.

Posted by: eidolon Jul 31 2007, 02:56 PM

Quick rehash of the story so far:

QUOTE (eidolon)

As a slight aside, I would rather situations like

QUOTE (TheOneRonin)

"Okay, so the job is to break into the secure corporate compound, extract the scientist, and escape? I'll bring my Ranger Arm SM-4 sniper rifle loaded with ExEx ammo and fitted with a silencer. What's that you say? How am I going to use a sniper rifle in close quarters? Simple...I have 14 dice and a low-light/thermo/image mag scope. Full dice pool, baby!"

be up to me as GM, instead of having a rule to cover it.

QUOTE (mfb)

...why? there are clear-cut, easy-to-understand--and therefore easy to codify into game mechanics--reasons why a long gun is worse to use in a close fight than a more compact weapon. why would you want to make more work for yourself when the rules are more than capable of handling it? and if you prefer to do that work yourself, why use the rules at all?

QUOTE (eidolon)

I see it differently is all.

For one, I don't "not want any rules", I just don't need a rule for every little nit-picky situation. If I did I'd play d20. Rules bloat is enough of a pain in the ass already.
Shadowrun, or any role playing game, does not need to be played 100% the same at every table in the world. WotC might have managed to convince a lot of people otherwise, but that doesn't make their end product any less bland and boring. You can't fix everything with codified rules. When you try, your game becomes unplayable, or those rules are ignored, making them pointless in the first place.

For two, if players or a group don't know or don't care that using a meter long rifle for room clearing doesn't really work all that well, and might just be a bad idea, but they're having fun anyway, then who gives a damn? You or me, because we know better? We're not in that game with that group. What we know or think doesn't make a bit of difference. And since we know better, we are free to apply a penalty, or to otherwise hamper a character (and thus a player) that attempts to do so in our games. Codified rules for gun length penalties while engaging in close combat might sound great to a rules junkie, but to a casual player, or just someone that wants a game that they don't have to take student loans out to learn, it's just some random piece of nonsensical bullshit that they have to take into account.

It's abstract. It always has been. But you're free to pull a Raygun if it's abstract, and make the game fun for yourself. That's fantastic. But I know that if I had to use every "realistic" set of rules that I have seen for Shadowrun over the years, I'd have stopped playing a long damn time ago. Just about everyone I have ever gamed with would say the same thing.

edit: I just took another look at how you phrased this;

QUOTE (mfb)

why would you want to make more work for yourself when the rules are more than capable of handling it?

Again, not everyone even sees that there's "work" to be done there. And that's my point.

QUOTE (Cursedsoul)

I say screw firearms and make yourself a Troll with a Meta-man portable dwarf launching catapult.

Maybe some sorta gigantor crossbow (probably bordering on a Crossbow-Ballista hybrid) with lots of whirly gears and shiny parts to make you the envy of all.

Seriously though, I definitely agree with the sentiment that house rules are the way to go if you want "realistic" combat because that way no space is wasted in the book and more people will come to Dumpshock and sample our fine gourmet cuisine of threads such as these in order to guide them in hashing out their own spin on the subject.

Also, I'm tellin' ya this dwarfapult is the way to go. You can even dikote'em (assuming they ever bring it back...and they probably won't...with good reason

) and give'em a pointy object to hold to get yourself a bonafide armorpiercing projectile from hell.

QUOTE (kzt)

What I mostly find annoying isn't that the rules are not detailed enough, it's that the rules show that the people writing the rules just don't have a clue. It's like writing vehicle rules that have semis accelerating faster then sports cars and pickup trucks carrying more than a semi, while delivery vans are have better off-road characteristics than dune buggies, as well as continually using the word "torque" to mean "speed".

The exact same amount of space in rules and the tables could have been used and we could get a much more sane set of rules that don't add to complexity. And didn't produce two or three superguns and a bunch of clunkers.

QUOTE (mfb)

QUOTE (eidolon)

i agree. however, i think the best solution to that is to provide a scaling ruleset, one that's easy to take from simple to detailed. that way, the GM's job is easy--he just decides what level of detail to use, and the rules are there to support him.

QUOTE (imperialus)

QUOTE (mfb @ Jul 30 2007, 10:57 PM)

QUOTE (eidolon)

So how exactly is this supposed to work? Is a DM supposed to spend weeks before a campaign going through the ruleset and cherry picking rules? How will the playtesters know that every single sit of rule combinations works well together. If you are using advanced firearm rules but simplified magic rules would this shaft mages?

Honestly I'd see it turning into something verymuch like D&D with splatbooks where there are so many rules, 80% of which contradict each other you average DM is driven absolutely insane. Of course some DM's try to limit their campaigns to "simple" rules using say Corebooks only but then you see the WoTC boards swamped with people pissed at their DM's because they won't let them play their halfdragon/teifling/dragonborn, warlock/dikoted ally spirit/ninja.

QUOTE (mfb)

well, yes, if it's designed badly, it won't work. that's true of just about anything.

QUOTE (Critias)

QUOTE (imperialus @ Jul 31 2007, 12:53 AM)

So how exactly is this supposed to work? Is a DM supposed to spend weeks before a campaign going through the ruleset and cherry picking rules?

As opposed to just making up rules all by himself because the playtesters and developers couldn't be bothered to?

I'd rather buy a rulebook and get more than I want than I'd like to pay for a rulebook and get less than I need.

QUOTE (Ddays)

Well, I have to say in defense of DnD, most problems arise not out of too many options but simply bad player dm interaction (isn't it always?).

Players should not complain that they're not allowed to use their character concepts if DMs did not have the time to fully study the sourcebook which details the powers, weaknesses, and backgrounds pertaining to it.

Likewise, DMs should take the time to learn the rules that players are using.

It takes a bit of effort to get the rules down and start playing, and some things definitely aren't as fleshed out as it's supposed to be, but it shouldn't be a free lunch either.

If it were, I would go back to narrating Doom games.

QUOTE (eidolon)

@mfb:

Yes, I agree with you. A well designed scaling rule system could work. The pitfalls are as imperialus noted, combined with the fact that WotC has created a wave of new players that are a child of what I jokingly refer to as "player entitlement culture", where because there are 50,000 rules out there, and a player only has to know the fifty that apply to his character, a GM can't tool his game the way he wants it because everyone will just whine and quit.

Thus, it's my opinion that anything not in the game should just be created by those that want it there. Understand that this is partly because I "grew up" on AD&D 2nd edition, where practically everything outside of THAC0 was a house rule. The rest of it comes from a few years of watching systems attempt everything from having three rules, to having badly designed and poorly explained or interpreted "scaling" rulesets, to throwing 1.6 million rules at players hoping that the GM will never have to think that way.

The GM is there for many reasons, and one of the most important is not adjudicating the rules, but adjudicating the lack of rules. It's one of the hardest things, but one that no system or number of rules is ever going to "solve". I think that the more systems and designers try to solve this "problem", the worse a game gets. Eh, I could go on and on about this, but then I'd have to move the thread to General Gaming and bitch myself out.

QUOTE (Ddays)

Likewise, DMs should take the time to learn the rules that players are using.

No offense to you intended, but I consider this to be a load of crap. My first thought when I read such things is that the person in question has never GM'd a game before. I realize that's probably not true very often, but that's what jumps into my mind.

The GM has to make up the world (outside what's provided, that is), the people in it, the story, the challenges, has to keep things on an even keel, and has to learn seventeen books' worth of rules just so a player can play a twinked out ball of cheese? I humbly disagree.

Posted by: imperialus Jul 31 2007, 03:03 PM

QUOTE (Critias @ Jul 31 2007, 01:20 AM)

QUOTE (imperialus @ Jul 31 2007, 12:53 AM)

So how exactly is this supposed to work? Is a DM supposed to spend weeks before a campaign going through the ruleset and cherry picking rules?

I'd rather a simple system that's easy to houserule than one that tries to have rules for everything from walking down the street to string theory. This is part of the reason why the only D20 system I actually like right now is Castles and Crusades. Very simple rules, no skills, no feats, no multi-classing ect. but it's very easy to tweak the system and make it your own. I guess it's just different takes on the same thing. You say lots of optional rules I shudder and think D&D with a stack of splatbooks up to my neck, when I say abstracton=teh winna! I'm probably just coming at it from a different perspective than you.

Edit:
For example in the C&C game I ran a while back I let characters split their primes, and I did multi classing by letting players pick from an expanded list of classes that included classes like "Fighter/Wizard" (Battlewizard) and "Wizard/Thief" (Nightshade).

I know of other DM's that use skill systems, feat systems, even a few who've made prestige classes. The entire point of the game is that you fiddle with it until it becomes something you're happy with. The basic system is robust enough to survive a great deal of tweakeing without the wheels falling off. In D&D by contrast try removing a single rule, say Attacks of Oppertunity from your game. All of a sudden dozens of feats are useless, you need to make up a new rule for withdrawing from combat (even if it is as simple as "If you withdraw your enemy gets a free attack"), and all sorts of other rule problems trickle down from this one single change.

Posted by: TheOneRonin Jul 31 2007, 03:06 PM

I don't think the biggest problem is lack of rules for everything, but more of rules not providing clear difference of choice.

In the real world, almost no choice, especially when it comes to the purchase of an item, is simple.

The general guidelines (cheap but crappy, good but expensive, cheap and good but only does 1 thing well, etc.) are the sorts of things that sculpt our choices. I think a good RPG ruleset does the same thing.

However, when game design fails at this, you end up with several of the ridiculous scenarios that I posted in the other thread. If the real-life drawbacks to certain items aren't represented in the rules, then it terribly skews the balance of the game, and shit like "Sniper Rifles in CQC", "pistols that perform better than ARs and have more ammo capacity", and "a player who's pickup truck can haul more weight than a Semi and accelerate faster than a Hayabusa" comes up.

To me, you don't need 17 rulebooks to fix crap like that. You just need a clear understanding of how to create "choice". Because you aren't REALLY giving players a choice when 1 item is better than all others for all situations.

Posted by: TheOneRonin Jul 31 2007, 03:17 PM

QUOTE (imperialus)

QUOTE (Critias @ Jul 31 2007, 01:20 AM)

QUOTE (imperialus @ Jul 31 2007, 12:53 AM)

So how exactly is this supposed to work? Is a DM supposed to spend weeks before a campaign going through the ruleset and cherry picking rules?

You don't need tons of optional rules. You just need choice.

There needs to be mechanics that define the difference between things, and why some things are better at certain tasks than others.

Think of it like tools. If the rules say that you can use a screwdriver as a drill, a hammer, AND a screwdriver, but don't give you any penalties for doing that, why would you ever use anything but a screwdriver? IRL, it makes no sense to use a screwdriver as a hammer or a drill, but if the rules don't reflect this, everyone is going to do it.

Posted by: imperialus Jul 31 2007, 03:18 PM

I'll agree with you there. Unfortunatly as has been pointed out in the previous thread the shadowrun combat rules are quite low granularity, and changing a firearms stats by a point or two can make a big difference. Having accessories like intregal smartlinks, laser sights, gas vents ect. helps differentiate one gun from another but I will agree with you that sometimes it feels like something is missing. Unfortunatly I'm not sure how to fix it...

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jul 31 2007, 03:29 PM

Repost from the http://www.sr3r.net/forum/:

QUOTE (me)

Goal: to make Shadowrun less simple.

I know, you're all wondering what the hell I'm smoking right now. Here's my explanation.

One of the big problems Shadowrun has, aside from its abysmal organization, is that many things are heavily abstracted--abstracted in an inflexible manner, so that relatively common actions are not explicitly handled in the rules, and may not even be handled implicitly. This makes playing Shadowrun expensive.

When I say "expensive", I don't mean money--I mean some combination of time, frustration, brainpower, and dissatisfaction. Looking up rules is expensive. Searching for rules that aren't easy to find is even more expensive. Figuring out the proper interpretation of a vague section of the rules is expensive.

Making a ruling for something that's undefined or conflictingly defined in the rules? Now that's really expensive.

(Another thing that's expensive is when things act in a way that's surprising to the player--this is part of why I despise SR4's glitch system. I'll explain this in more detail later.)

I want to make playing Shadowrun as inexpensive as possible while maintaining its flexibility, level of control, and realism/verisimilitude (because surprising=expensive). Sometimes that's best done by reducing complexity. Sometimes it's best done by adding it, and I think the Shadowrun designers punted on a lot of places where that was the case.

Incomplete coverage makes playing expensive. There are ways to add coverage that can be bad, but in general, increasing coverage by itself is almost never bad.

~J

Posted by: eidolon Jul 31 2007, 03:49 PM

I agree with TheOneRonin when it comes to things that are simply inconsistent or poorly designed. That's not so much an issue of "too few or too many rules", but one of how well designed those rules are in the first place.

Things like that really shouldn't be up to the GM to fix, they just shouldn't make it into the rules in the first place.

QUOTE (imperialus)

I'd rather a simple system that's easy to houserule than one that tries to have rules for everything from walking down the street to string theory.

Well, with d20 they tried to give a basic, core system that had all kinds of extra aftermarket parts that you could slap on or leave off as you like. The problem is, at the same time they presented their game as "all about the player's desires" and basically created a culture in which whiny people that haven't ever DM'd before sit around complaining on the WotC boards that their DM (who works two jobs and has a family) won't "bother" to learn another entire book of addiitonal rules so that he can play his twinkinator.

The culture killed of the versatility of the rules. That need not be the case, but I'd wager that anyone that started on d20 would complain just as loudly that their Shadowrun GM doesn't feel like reading Toolset 15: Realistic Firearms.

Posted by: mfb Jul 31 2007, 06:53 PM

the GM needs to know the rulesets he's running. that does make it his prerogative to not include certain rulesets, even if the players feels they're entitled to them. whether or not WotC has spoiled players is irrelevant--the GM is ultimately in charge of his game, and it is his responsibility to either know the rulesets he's running, or accept the consequences when his players walk all over him because he doesn't know what modifiers to apply. ultimately, the GM and the players need to sit down and actually discuss what kind of game they're going to play. even within the same ruleset, there's a lot of room for clashing play styles; if the GM is constantly butting heads with his players on rules issues, its because they're not communicating. that's not something any amount of rulesets can fix.

the fact is, if you have a rules-lite ruleset that you want to kitbash into something more realistic, it's more work than just learning a new set of prewritten add-on rules. you feel bad for the GM who has to slog through another book of rules; i feel bad for the GM who looks at the existing rules and has to choose between straining his and his players' suspension of disbelief by using the rules unmodified, or doing weeks of extra work to bring them up to snuff. or, even more painfully, dropping the rules altogether and moving on to a different game, despite the fact that he and his players really, really like a lot of aspects of the existing game.

Posted by: eidolon Jul 31 2007, 08:26 PM

Agree completely on communication and rules choice.

Other horse dead on my end, discontinuing beating. (I understand your position more, now, but simply due to the difference in what we expect we'll probably just never really agree on it.)

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jul 31 2007, 08:32 PM

You're entitled to your opinion, even if it is objectively wrong

~J, arbiter of reality

Posted by: eidolon Jul 31 2007, 08:59 PM

Lolz.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Aug 1 2007, 05:39 AM

I'd point out that there's a difference between rules bloat (to make a metaphor, a 3 gigabyte patch on a nearly unworkable 2 gigabyte operating system) and having a lot of rules which are well designed and internally consistient.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Aug 1 2007, 03:53 PM

QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)

So wait, let me see if I can get my head around what you're saying here.
You're saying that lots and lots of good rules....are actually better, than the same lots and lots of lousy rules? Is that right?
Man, that's deep. I'm gonna have to...wow...I mean, I need to think about this. Like, seriously.

Posted by: Aristotle Aug 1 2007, 04:30 PM

QUOTE (mfb)

I was going to write a reply to this thread and then I scrolled down and saw that mfb wrote it for me. I think I share his views exactly on this matter.

Posted by: mfb Aug 1 2007, 07:37 PM

i stole it from your brain while you were asleep!

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Aug 2 2007, 02:04 AM

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)

QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Aug 1 2007, 12:39 AM)

Or, having a good simulationist detailed system isn't automatically crappier than having a good abstractist simple system.

Since people were complaining that lots of rules were too difficult to master.

Posted by: eidolon Aug 2 2007, 04:52 AM

It's not automatically or inherently "better", either.

Once you pit a good "insert style" system against a good "insert other style" system, it becomes strictly a matter of taste.

Well...more than it already was.

Posted by: Critias Aug 2 2007, 06:31 AM

QUOTE (imperialus)

QUOTE (Critias @ Jul 31 2007, 01:20 AM)

QUOTE (imperialus @ Jul 31 2007, 12:53 AM)

So how exactly is this supposed to work? Is a DM supposed to spend weeks before a campaign going through the ruleset and cherry picking rules?

I'd rather have something and not need it, than need it and not have it. I'd prefer to spend my money on a rulebook that has a bunch of optional stuff already there, printed up in it, than to have to just make all that shit up on my own, basically. There reaches a point of diminishing returns when people attempt realism (through rules detail) in gameplay, for sure -- but I'd say there also reaches a point where it's just stupid to pay good money for a gamebook if every page is full of vague ideas and hints about how to run their game, and you're beat over the head with the "GM FIAT" thing.

At what point are you a sucker for buying a rulebook without any rules, or a gamebook without a game in it?

I'll be honest, in that I can't recall which book it was (Street Magic or the core SR4 book), but I seem to remember some 4th Edition stuff with a page or so dedicated to some optional rules, stuff in a grey-tinted box, all listed as optional. I recall similar in SR3 (for instance, a rule that didn't reduce Drain Force by 1/2, stuff like that). Just little boxes of text with some suggested house rules, optional stuff, "Do you want more lethal combat? Try this. Less lethal combat? Do this instead."

I love stuff like that.

I fully agree that non-gunbunny sorts might not care that a sniper rifle should be absolutely fucking ridiculous to try and clear a house with. I understand that folks who don't know about guns in real life might worry more about "cool factor" than "how guns actually work," and all that stuff. That's fine. I understand where they're coming from (being not-a-car-buff, I imagine there are people out there that have the same frustrations I do, but concerning vehicle/chase rules, and stuff like that, instead).

But I don't see what it would kill for a game company to put forth a little fucking effort and research, and introduce -- even, or especially, as optional rules -- a few little tweaks to make firearms more realistic. Particularly in a game where gunplay is what so many sessions come down to, like in Shadowrun. Melee combat, too, for that matter (instead of everyone having to house rule the cyberlimb melee damage compared to bone lacing nonsense, why not just list it as an optional rule somewhere to make it semi-official?). Maybe they're just afraid it would be like admitting their basic firearm rules have nothing to do with firearms, I dunno.

Changes to how rate of fire works (seriously, two shots in three seconds is pitifully slow, and I won't even get into autofire) would be a good start. A shift in some damage codes, maybe even a hit location system. Recoil being reworked, maybe. Stuff like that I'd love to see as optional rules, given just a page or two and called "ADVANCED COMBAT OPTIONS" or something.

I don't see what those little boxes of tinted text, full of optional rules, hurt. I'd rather get my ideas for house rules from the guys that made the game, than from other disenchanted players on a message board. I'm a canon guy. I dig canon games. I like to feel like my games are "real" or "official" by playing by published rules. Even if it's an optional rule (like blast damage in SR3), I can at least feel like it's still real, because it's right there in a book.

Posted by: Talia Invierno Aug 2 2007, 06:56 AM

Although a large part of what it does seem to come down to is that Dumpshockers seem to prefer as much as possible fixed in the rules (even with options): so long as it is their "logical" version of the rules that is so fixed.

Posted by: Critias Aug 2 2007, 07:05 AM

That's hardly unique to Dumpshockers, or even role players. Everyone from sports fans discussing a new seasons to political conversationalists discussing upcoming elections feels pretty much the same way. Everyone always thinks the stuff they like is common sense, should be official, is the best stuff, is the stuff everyone should like, etc, etc.

This just in: water is wet!

Posted by: Talia Invierno Aug 2 2007, 07:14 AM

Careful with that definition of "everyone", Critias.

Posted by: Critias Aug 2 2007, 07:37 AM

So how many people go around all day firmly believing their opinions and preferences are wrong and stupid?

Posted by: Talia Invierno Aug 2 2007, 07:49 AM

Some of us choose not to live in an http://emptymirror.blogspot.com/2005/08/whereas-recognition-of-inherent.html.

Posted by: Critias Aug 2 2007, 08:03 AM

You don't make sense to me an awful lot of the time. The nits you pick, the strange little tangents you grasp at, they peculiarities of thought and language you cling to, really just boggle me sometimes.

If someone has an idea for a game, they obviously like the idea. They obviously think the idea is a good one. They would not house rule that idea into being, if they thought otherwise, would they? They wouldn't make a suggestion on an internet forum if they thought ahead of time it was a bad suggestion, they wouldn't complain about it on line if they thought their complaint unjustified (and canon material honestly lacking something important), they wouldn't disagree with canon if they didn't think they knew something canon didn't, in some fashion.

I just don't see how this is news, or (again) something that only pertains to "Dumpshockers," or even only Shadowrun players, or even only role playing gamers. It's not unique to people on any single given forum -- anyone that gripes about the folks running in the next election must have some reason, real or perceived to be griping. Everyone that has their own "picks" for recruitment for their favorite team next season must, by virtue of having their own picks, feel there is some reason those picks are valid.

I don't see how using the word "everyone" is somehow incorrect, when I state "everyone that thinks they're right thinks they're right."

Everyone with an opinion must feel their opinion has merit, or why would they have that opinion in the first place?

And, again -- how many people do you know who genuinely walk around all day being wrong on purpose, clinging purposefully and knowingly to opinions they honestly believe to be incorrect? Don't just toss me someone's blog (even if it's your own). Tell me how many people you know that get up out of bed in the morning and then purposefully go through their day making wrong choices that they believe to be wrong, espousing opinions sincerely (not just as a devil's advocate) they believe to be incorrect opinions, and making changes to their life they honestly think will worsen their condition.

If folks didn't like their house rule, they wouldn't house rule it. If folks liked the canon rule the best, they'd leave the canon rule alone. If folks thought any game book was, as published, flawless and the Holy Grail of gaming, they wouldn't fuck with it. I don't see, logically, what there even is in these statements for someone to go out of their way to disagree with.

Posted by: mfb Aug 2 2007, 08:04 AM

QUOTE (Talia Invierno)

Some of us choose not to live in an either-or world.

i'm reasonably certain we're here to discuss rules coverage, not edge cases in personal philosophies.

Posted by: Talia Invierno Aug 2 2007, 08:34 AM

QUOTE (Critias)

They would not house rule that idea into being, if they thought otherwise, would they?

Ah, but the thread isn't primarily about house rules, is it? Most accurately, it's about what ought to be in canon so house rules are minimally or non-necessary. (See, mfb? (and the dunner)? It's completely on topic.)

Where canon agrees with our personal logic, no problem. Where there is a lapse in rules that agrees with our personal logic, no problem. But where canon disagrees, or where there is a lapse in rules that runs counter to our idea of how the game system should run: do we accept that there might have been a reason for the way those rules were written or not written? or do we automatically superimpose our own idea of how the game world should be?

If some of those rules in a generally well-devised system do not conform to what we think should be the case, do we re-consider our own opinions? or do we mark the writer of that section of the rules as "stupid"?

Posted by: Critias Aug 2 2007, 08:38 AM

You talk like a therapist. Are you about to ask me how I feel about my parents?

Posted by: Talia Invierno Aug 2 2007, 08:44 AM

Since you bring it up, did you want me to?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 2 2007, 12:02 PM

QUOTE (Critias @ Aug 2 2007, 03:03 AM)

If someone has an idea for a game, they obviously like the idea.

Not necessarily—sometimes rules just get tossed out there to see if anyone thinks the basic idea has merit.

QUOTE (Talia Invierno)

If some of those rules in a generally well-devised system do not conform to what we think should be the case, do we re-consider our own opinions? or do we mark the writer of that section of the rules as "stupid"?

After re-considering our own opinions, we mark those rules as stupid if they're still found to deserve it. They're more likely to deserve it if they're gratuitously expensive (in the not-cost sense), or if their design philosophy contradicts the design philosophy of rules in another area of the same system. A great example of this is the relatively detailed Electronics Warfare rules as compared to the abstracted-beyond-usefulness Sensor Rating. One belongs in a comparatively simulationist game, one in an abstract fast-play game. They do not belong in the same game, so some amount of stupidity somewhere along the line can be assumed.

~J

Posted by: eidolon Aug 2 2007, 02:54 PM

Crit, I'm with you on the grey-box optional rules stuff.

I also thought I might add that I don't have anything against rules being more realistic or even better. By my own argument earlier in the thread, if a non-gun-nut picks up a rulebook and it says "guns work in such and such a way", that's how they work for that gamer, whether they're accurate and/or realistic or not. My only issue is that it seems like there comes a point where the gun-nut wants fifteen pages on the effect of a three mph wind on a .45 round fired by a tired man on Thursday. That's just too much.

Posted by: Critias Aug 2 2007, 03:18 PM

Nah. Most of us just want guns in-game to make some sense, when compared at a glance to guns in real life. Stuff from SR3, for instance, that always rubbed me very much the wrong way (most of which hasn't been fixed in SR4)...Stuff I'd like to see:

Rifles that do more damage than pistols (or at least not LESS damage) (bigger bullet, longer barrel, less damage?).

It taking less than four grenades, point blank, to kill someone (without the optional Power-for-Staging rule in SR3, grenades to Mod damage, tops, meaning three of them, completely without any soak successes, at point blank, will still keep you one box BELOW Deadly damage).

Regular ammo that doesn't cost two nuyen a shot, regardless of weapon (I can pick up two hundred and fifty rounds of .22 ammo for my rifle at Wal Mart for about ten bucks, 100 for my 9mm for twelve, and by-the-case 7.62 for my AK, 1000 rounds for $175).

Sniper rifles not being more effective than shotguns or submachineguns at close-quarters fighting (the sniper on SWAT teams stays outside the building, fellas, it's everyone else that goes in).

Automatic fire being more scary, not less scary, than semi-automatic.

Like someone said on the original Firearms thread (by which I mean the one that's three days or so old) -- as written, it's a lot like eighteen wheeler semis that are faster off the starting line that crotch-rocket racing bikes, or subcompact cars that can hold more stuff than pick-up trucks. There's just stuff that's very glaringly wrong, to an awful lot of us.

Posted by: TheOneRonin Aug 2 2007, 03:18 PM

QUOTE (eidolon)

My only issue is that it seems like there comes a point where the gun-nut wants fifteen pages on the effect of a three mph wind on a .45 round fired by a tired man on Thursday. That's just too much.

I know that's hyperbole, but most of what I've seen suggested on these boards is far from that extreme. The majority of "firearms realism" threads center around these particular issues:

1. Full Autofire rules need to be more representative of how automatic works/is used in real life.

2. Recoil rules need to be more detailed. As it stands, the PJSS Elephant rifle experiences less recoil than the Colt America L36 light pistol. WTF? Felt recoil influences firearm choices in the real world. It should do the same in SR.

3. Weapons of the same type use the same ammo... This horse has been in the torture chamber since 2nd edition. It's a cheap cop out that the devs formulated to keep them from having to do the smallest bit of research, and it is actually quite easily fixed. I've done it for 3 iterations of the rules.

4. Weapon damage ratings need to be internally consistent, if not consistent with real-world findings. Yes, there should be more granularity to firearms stats/dmg codes.

I don't expect the rule books to have a dissertation on terminal ballistics, but I do expect them to go through the trouble of making guns more than marginally representative of their real-world counterparts. ESPECIALLY in a system that focuses so intently on gun-battles.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 2 2007, 03:40 PM

QUOTE (eidolon)

My only issue is that it seems like there comes a point where the gun-nut wants fifteen pages on the effect of a three mph wind on a .45 round fired by a tired man on Thursday. That's just too much.

Fringeworthy has rules for wind shear on individual shotgun pellets.

That said, the big issue is, like Critias and TheOneRonin implied, rules should not surprise you. Heavy Pistols uniformly doing more damage than Assault Rifles is surprising. Being able to fit two fighter jets in a Heavy Transport is surprising (but not nearly as surprising as being able to fit two Heavy Transports in a Heavy Transport!). An average person passing out after carrying 16 kilos for a few minutes is surprising.

So on and soforth.

~J

Posted by: eidolon Aug 2 2007, 05:01 PM

Yeah, it was massive hyperbole. On the whole, I don't have a problem with better rules. I would have absolutely no issue with errata coming out that say, fixed auto-fire, if it replaces the rules that already exist. (But that may not be likely to happen, due to the desire to not contradict rules in the BBB. If more rules come out, they will have to be consistent with what already exists, and that won't solve anything that you have a complaint about.)

If you don't replace the rules that are there, then you create a bloated system of inconsistent, contradictory, conflicting, or confusing rules. That's what I'm against. I'm not against fixing glaring flaws, I'm against trying to fix flaws by adding more problems. Treating the symptom, in other words.

In order to make a good set of optional rules, they have to have a few things, I think.
- They must be clearly and unequivocally optional.
- Thier use must not constitute a challenge to the basic rules.
- The optional rules must not shift the power base, or if they do, they must contain additional changes to address any shift in balance.

This next bit isn't really directly related to that, but is part of the discussion as a whole.

Another problem I have with rules that are "too" realistic, is that the game loses some of its versatility. If the core rules become too realistic, then it becomes difficult to play, say, a cinematic game. You create a situation in which you limit the ways a game can be played, and that's a bad thing. Add other ways, sure, but don't take away if you can help it.

Posted by: mfb Aug 2 2007, 05:55 PM

that isn't necessarily true. it depends on what you mean by cinematic.

to me, the perfect SR game would be one that is horribly, grittily realistic--but where people with cyberware or magic can do awesome cinematic things. it makes the cinematic stuff that much more awesome, because regular people can't do it. if you make a game system where everyone can do awesome cinematic stuff, what's the point in getting cyber or using magic?

Posted by: eidolon Aug 2 2007, 06:40 PM

Hmm, yeah, using a nebulous word like that probably wasn't the best idea. I'm not explaining that last bit well. I'll come back to it if I come up with something better.

Posted by: mfb Aug 2 2007, 07:15 PM

well, my standard definitely isn't the only standard. the SR4 devs wanted--and made--a game where anybody could do cinematic stuff.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Aug 2 2007, 11:29 PM

I think that having realistic weapon rules would actually add more variety and interest to the game. Truth is stranger than fiction, and all that.

I feel like if grenades did D damage and the damage code you encountered was based on how far you are from ground zero that would result in more strategy than grenades that don't incapacitate you even if they explode at your feet. With the former there would be more strategy you'd have to work with as player characters, such as having your squad be spaced apart instead of bunched together, not letting guys with hand grenades get close enough to throw them, fragging rooms before entering actually being valuable, and so on.

I feel like if automatic fire and damage codes for firearms worked better you could work on an actual squad level strategy for your team instead of your entire strategy being a guy with a sniper rifle and a heavy pistol who rolls base 12 dice. If weapons are more realistic and I've got a 4 person squad I have to decide what kind of gear they should get. Are we going to go with two LMGs, one designated marksman rifle, and one grenade launcher? Should we bother bringing an assault rifle instead of a LMG under the circumstances? Do we want two grenade launchers instead? I think that's more interesting than having your character essentially be a superhuman anime character with a pistol.

Realistic encumberance makes things more strategic as well. How much ammo does the team carry? How much can they carry? How does this affect our planning and execution of the mission? What gear do we bring and what gear do we leave behind and what is the opportunity cost of the big radio in terms of how much 7.62 NATO I can bring? If I carry a gigantic block of C4 because we're supposed to blow something up maybe I can't carry enough ammo for my machine gun to use it for very long at all. In the real world encumberance and gear is a realistic consideration and I think it would really enrich the gaming experience.

I just think that a game becomes so much more mentally stimulating if you try to be realistic. Reality is so rich and already has so many ways of going about things articulated by actual practice. It's so much more rewarding than what you'd get if you just tried to sit down and make something up that you thought was "balanced".

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 3 2007, 03:39 AM

QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)

I feel like if grenades did D damage and the damage code you encountered was based on how far you are from ground zero that would result in more strategy than grenades that don't incapacitate you even if they explode at your feet.

They already solved this problem, they just succumbed to the lure of the Devil and made it an optional rule. The staging-by-half-Power-dice rule makes close-range blasts Deadly without needing weird variable damage codes.

~J

Posted by: Aku Aug 3 2007, 01:48 PM

what if, instead of incorporating "real world" ammo (9mm, .45 cal etc) which, honestly, confuse the heck outa me. They/you adopted a "type x" designation, based on damage code. So all "type 1" ammo can be shared across all weapons that use them, and so on for various types?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 3 2007, 02:16 PM

The solution I've proposed over in SR3R is that weapons within a class share ammo if they have the same damage code with that ammo (and the weapon's description doesn't explicitly say otherwise), and a few classes share ammo between each other under the same conditions. Those classes are:

Light Pistol and Machine Pistol

Heavy Pistol and SMG (this is associated with a suggested reduction in standard Heavy Pistol damage code)

Assault Rifle, Sporting Rifle, Sniper Rifle, LMG, MMG, HMG

~J

Posted by: Critias Aug 3 2007, 02:41 PM

QUOTE (Aku @ Aug 3 2007, 08:48 AM)

You can actually chuck "real world" ammo classifications right out the window if you want to, and still be realistic about it, because (a) metric's taken over so everything will be a millimeter based designation, making it a lot easier for non-gun-folks to keep track, just "bigger number is better" (so the confusion about 10mm vs. .40 cal, for instance, is gone), and (b) all ammo is caseless now, anyways, which (combined with metric taking over) means you have a convenient excuse/reason for the diameter of every round to have shifted slightly.

Speaking only for myself (before I got "into" guns), that was always one of the biggest confusing factors to me. 12 gauge versus .45 caliber versus 9 millimeter versus...what, now? Ditching the American inch-based measurements would only leave shotguns out in the cold, other than that it would be a little simpler (the bigger the number, the bigger the bullet).

Posted by: TheOneRonin Aug 3 2007, 03:16 PM

See, I don't get all of the confusion. A caliber designation is just a name. If you have a system that matches "name" to damage code, then it shouldn't matter if that name is ".308 Winchester", "7.62x51mm NATO", or "Snarblesgrupp Type 3". It's just a fucking name.

To gun-buffs like me, a term like "5.56x45mm" means a lot of things. But to a non-gun buff shadowrun player, all it has to mean is: 6P, -4 AP.

Then, all you have to do is stat things like this:

Colt M23
Ammo Type: 5.56x45mm
RC: 1
Mode: SA/BF/FA
Ammunition Capacity: 30(magazine)
etc.

Posted by: Critias Aug 3 2007, 03:48 PM

I think the confusion (from my own murky memories of not "getting it" while reading GI Joe comics, but also mostly from taking my wife and mom to go shooting) is that the names are numbers, and most people want numbers to automatically mean things.

When my mom didn't like shooting my 9mm, she didn't understand how me offering her the .22 was in any way supposed to be an improvement, or make her MORE comfortable -- 22 is bigger than 9, so I was trying to give her a meaner gun that fired bigger bullets!

After a few shots, when I stopped calling them that and referred to my 9mm as "The Glock" and the .22 as "the cowboy gun," she was fine. People just automatically attach values to numbers, I think (which is why I think an all-metric system would, in theory, cut down on some of the confusion).

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 3 2007, 07:23 PM

But 9 is almost 41 times larger than 0.22!

~J

Posted by: Dashifen Aug 3 2007, 07:49 PM

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

But 9 is almost 41 times larger than 0.22!

~J

I see what you did there

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Aug 4 2007, 02:39 AM

QUOTE (TheOneRonin)

or "Snarblesgrupp Type 3".

Whoa! Is that for when Harry Potter joins the Royal Marines, comes back, and decides to just shoot Voldermort using magical cartridges?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 4 2007, 03:16 AM

Actually, since the first book I've thought that a great plot twist for the series would be the SAS raiding the school, gunning down the students and teachers from outside their threat-identification range.

Maybe not exactly right for the target age group, but still would have been neat.

~J

Posted by: Aku Aug 4 2007, 02:55 PM

note: i am not feigning total ignorance in regards to weapons, i really am (despite watching lots of history channel and military channel stuff, this stupid about weapons)

The problem i have, even with an all metric (9mm for instance) is i still don't know WHAT sort of difference that would make. I beleive it's referencing the diameter of the round but, for all i know, it could be the length of the round (donno how that would impact jack, but like i said, near total, non feigned ignorance)

So lets say you've got a pistol firing a 9mm round, that does a damage of , 5p. You've got another gun, firing a 20mm round. well, that rounds over twice as big, so does that mean the damage code would be somewhere between 10 and 11P?

About the only thing i do understand, is that a 9mm fired from a smg should do about the same damage as a 9mm from a pistol, because the smg gives you rate of fire over the pistol, but it isn't spittin' any harder

Posted by: Crusher Bob Aug 5 2007, 05:03 AM

Actually, the SMG will be shooting the bullets faster, due to its longer barrel . (around 1100 fps from a pistol with a 4 inch barrel, vs around 1250 fps from a SMG with an 8 inch barrel).

(some edits form numbers)

Posted by: Aku Aug 5 2007, 11:47 AM

ok, but is that actually enough to translate into a better damage code?

Posted by: Ophis Aug 5 2007, 12:36 PM

Roughly thats a 25% increase in Kinetic energy (based on (v*v)mass/2). Presuming mass of the bullet is the same.

Posted by: Critias Aug 5 2007, 12:51 PM

QUOTE (Aku)

ok, but is that actually enough to translate into a better damage code?

Yes, actually.

There are 9mm carbines out there (short barreled rifles/long barreled pistols, depending on who you ask) that are simply a longer barrel and a shoulder stock added to a handgun (more or less) -- they even take regular handgun magazines, not merely handgun ammo -- and there have been ballistic tests done that show wound channels similar to a .357 (a much larger and more powerful round) due solely to the longer barrel length (and as such improved ballistics).

Whether that should translate to an increase in damage, or an improvement in the round's capability to penetrate armor (or both) is a matter of taste.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Aug 7 2007, 11:00 PM

QUOTE (Critias)

QUOTE (Aku @ Aug 5 2007, 06:47 AM)

ok, but is that actually enough to translate into a better damage code?

http://www.notpurfect.com/calico/carb.html

I think this is what SR needs. Jagged Alliance 2: Unfinished Business was cool enough to let you start with this gun.

Think of how much fun it would be for the sourcebook writers to have to explain to the reader about the role of barrel length versus cartridge.

Also, bonus points for you if you ever empty one of these mags and need to reload in the middle of a mission. As the JA in-game description says, use a Calico mag when you know it's going to be a long night.

Posted by: hyzmarca Aug 9 2007, 04:52 AM

Back to the original topic, the less information the rules give you and the less rules there are, the more flexible the game is. An extremely rules-lite and setting-lite game can be extremely flexible and fit almost any gaming group if that group is willing to work to fill in the holes.

But, there comes the point where rules-lite and flexible-setting transforms into paying $40 for 300 blank pages bound in a beautiful blank hardcover.
There comes a point where the rules are so lite and the setting is so flexible that actually paying money for it is an incredibly stupid thing to do. People don't buy RPG books that can be boiled down to "just make up whatever you want". People want rules for stuff and people want settings that include stuff.

On the other hand, there is a huge difference between a comprehensive ruleset and a convoluted ruleset.

As you add more and more rules, it becomes inevitable that some rules will not match up with the others and you'll just end up with something that resembles the US Federal Code (including the Tax Code) in it' daunting convolutedness.

Even if you can successfully create a core ruleset that that can take infinite additions without modifications, as attempt to make include everything that anyone can imagine in that ruleset simply leads to a game that is so complicated to learn that no one will ever use more than a fraction of it.

This latter fact can be seen when comparing the original D&D to D&D3.0 and 3.5. The original D&D had a complete ruleset in the same way that chess had a complete ruleset. It did not provide rules for every possible situation and the rules that were provided significantly limited player possibilities, but it had all of the rules that were necessary to play the game. It was easy to learn, even with the tables that you had to refer to. But with all of the various possibilities offered by modern D&D supplements, it is impossible for any GM to adequately learn all of it.

People don't complain that chess has no rules for moving pawns sideways or teleporting Bishops to the Dark Dimension of Strygor. That is the game. The point is to play within the limitations given, not whine and complain until someone releases a more comprehensive supplement.

And, honestly, I don't want the most detailed RPG rules possible. I don't want my character to die of a ruptured bladder because I didn't put enough skill points into urination and he has a several bad rolls over the course of several days game time.
We don't need infinite detail. We don't need a rule or a skill for everything. We certainly don't need a urination skill or urination skill rolls.
We don't need them not because they are unrealistic. A properly applied urination skill can be realistic. We don't need them because the rules can be complete without them, unless you are playing some sort of urination game.

What matters most in game design is not comprehensiveness or detail, but completeness and playability. If it is possible to create a rules-legal situation where the rules cease to work, then you have a problem. The game is incomplete and people will break it horribly. This happens rather often in some games and is often a result of adding rules without properly considering how they interact with other rules.
If you have too much detail or too many possibilities, no one will be able to learn the game well enough to play it.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 9 2007, 06:26 AM

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

I disagree, fundamentally. The fewer in number the rules, the more constrained the game—you can either do what the rules cover, or you can make up new rules. Complex things become modeled very badly as they're shoehorned into generic representations. No, the more rules, the more flexible the game—in all areas except for style of game, where by style I mean the old cinematic/realistic/what-have-you division (since a well-defined rule will have one particular style). I suppose you could even get around that, by essentially including a ruleset for each style.

But yeah, I reject your premise.

~J

Posted by: Fuchs Aug 9 2007, 08:52 AM

Tricky question. The problem is that different people need/want different rules, sometimes even the game or character they are playing changes what kind of rules they want/need.

My group plays Shadowrun, recently switched to 4th Ed, and D&D 3E. In both cases, what rules we use, and how complex they are, depends on what we know, and what style we want - and on what effect a rule has on the exact game, campaign and even character it concerns.

I am the GM, and my policy is to use as few rules as I can get away with, and trying to avoid making or changing general rules if all that is needed is a special rule.

Just because boosting up adept power X might cause an unbalance if combined with cyberware Y and weapon Z doesn't mean it shouldn't be done if a player's characters is more fun with it and that combination won't be used by PC or NPC. As long as the actual character using it is balanced I don't worry about hypothetical consequences.

Regarding the complex/abstract relation, I prefer to have abstract rules, and complex fluff if desired. As an example, all of us in my group have military experience. So, we know about encumbrance, marching, unwieldy gear, ammo etc. Our combat scenes use the abstract rules though because we don't "Play the system" to minmax within the rules, but simply use the rules to decide if an action works or not. We pick our gear, then look what stats it has, not the other way around. Same for rules. By the rules, I roll twice for my character's two shots, and see the effect of the shots - one dead enemy. In the game, that does not always translate to my character shooting twice with a pistol, it could also be described as "pull the trigger until the enemy drops" or "empties the magazine into the enemy, dropping him".

I also care almost exclusively for the actual effects of something in game, not for how rules-compliant it is. If a character, gear combination, or tactic is completely legal by the rules, but unbalanced or disruptive in my specific campaign, then it gets vetoed. If something is balanced in its actual use, and doesn't disrupt gameplay, it usually can be added without much of a problem.

To sum it up:
- I prefer abstract rules to resolve the outcome of actions, adding details as fluff.
- I also prefer to judge rules by the actual, not the hypothetical results in a specific game/campaign, and ban/allow something based upon this.
- I prefer to solve questions not covered by the rules with simple, one-shot calls, usually by adding/subtracting a modifer to an action, or making a dice roll - for the specific situation only.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 9 2007, 09:01 AM

QUOTE (Fuchs)

I am the GM, and my policy is to […] avoid making or changing general rules if all that is needed is a special rule.

Burn in Hell, heretic!

(My vitriol is facetious, but my dislike of this policy is not. Could you explain why you find it acceptable to make your game-world inconsistent (leading questions for the win!)?)

~J

Posted by: Fuchs Aug 9 2007, 09:30 AM

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

QUOTE (Fuchs @ Aug 9 2007, 03:52 AM)

I am the GM, and my policy is to […] avoid making or changing general rules if all that is needed is a special rule.

Burn in Hell, heretic!

(My vitriol is facetious, but my dislike of this policy is not. Could you explain why you find it acceptable to make your game-world inconsistent (leading questions for the win!)?)

~J

Because I care only about the effects in a particular campaign. If a custom spell is balanced because the particular character using it has other drawbacks, then I don't care if it would make a cybered, biowared initiated adept with sorcery skills unbalanced.

Or, to put it in other words - I care about a campaign being consistent. If we're playing in a caribbean setting with heavy mafia and voodoo themes, then I don't need general rules for the one time the mage ends up in Alaska and we have to decide if after falling into a batch of snow the rifle he bought before still fires. That's far easier handled by a single die roll. And if three weeks later the ex-marine drops in a mudhole, then I might use a single roll, or decide that the marine was trained to keep her rifle's muzzle covered in such situations, and allow her a reaction test to put her thumb on the muzzle. Or, if the particular session saw a number of slapsticky scenes and bad luck already, I might leave that up to chance too.

In the end, I can only say it works, and keeps us (usually) from getting into arguments about situations that do not come up in our games, or not often enough to warrant spending the time needed to find a general rule for them.

(Although we do have an informal general rule that if in doubt, we roll a single d6, the higher the better, covering anything from deciding if the bed one falls through the skylight into is occupied (6: empty, 1: Angry troll couple), or just pick a skill that seems plausible and make a check.)

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 9 2007, 11:51 AM

I think the difference in philosophy here is that my approach is to first create a consistent world, and then create a campaign inside of that world. From the sounds of it, your approach is that the campaign is the outermost layer.

You're going to Hell for that approach, but I suppose there's no point to trying to make you see the error of your ways in life

~J

Posted by: Fuchs Aug 9 2007, 12:56 PM

Hehe, I was doing it your way (and still have to battle urges to react with "But... if I add this and that and that, then this will be overpowered!"), but over time, my playstyle changed. I have to say though that our campaign relies more on "soft rules" (relations between players and GM) than "hard rules" (game mechanics).

The main goal for us is to have fun in game, and any rule we use has to serve that goal. If a rule makes it harder to run a game for the GM and therefore detracts from his fun, then it is likely to be dropped. In the same way, if a rule is in the way of a player having fun, there's a good chance of it to be revised. When player and GM goals do not overlap, then we compromise. A minor inconvenience for a GM is ok if it greatly benefits the players, and vice versa. It ends up being a sort of balance of power, restricting abuse from either member of the group, since "but it's within the rules" means not as much as "but it ruins my fun".

Or, to sum it up - the "limits" in our game are the wishes of the members of the group.

Posted by: TheOneRonin Aug 9 2007, 01:33 PM

QUOTE (Fuchs)

We pick our gear, then look what stats it has, not the other way around.

Okay, I want to address this part first. In many cases, that's how things SHOULD go...sort of.

If I tell you that your character is going to have a street race against Vin Diesel, and I give you a choice of which car to race him with (Sports Car, Pick-up Truck, Minivan), you would probably say "Sports Car", assuming you want the biggest edge possible. You would say that without looking at the vehicle "stats" or without having to read anything about vehicles rules. Why? Because that makes sense based on the RL stuff you know. And you don't have to be a mechanic or NASCAR driver to know that the sports car is the better choice. But what happens when you lose the race, and the GM says "You should have picked the mini-van. According to page 116, it has a bigger engine, and thus more top speed and more acceleration than the Sports Car." WTF?

Or how about this scenario...you are fleeing in your GMC Bulldog and a mafia soldier is chasing you on his motorcycle. The GM says "he is going to try and sideswipe you to knock you off the road". You scoff at the idea of a motorcycle being able to run a UPS Van off the road. You roll dice and get an average number of successes, then the GM rolls a shitload of dice and beats your 4 successes with his 13. WTF? Then the GM says "according to page 127, a driver attempting a ramming test gets to add a number of dice equal to his vehicles acceleration rating, it's top speed rating, and it's maneuverability. Holy shit! The crotchrocket just ran you off the road because of shitty rules.

I firmly believe that most of the things that influence our choices should be represented in the rules. Let's see...small rooms, narrow corridors, lots of crap around/in my way...yeah, it would be silly to bring a long barreled sniper rifle with a scope. Guess what, in SR4th ed rules, it's not, In fact, a sniper rifle is actually one of the better choices, mechanically speaking. It shouldn't be. The rules should reflect WHY it isn't a good choice.

QUOTE

Same for rules. By the rules, I roll twice for my character's two shots, and see the effect of the shots - one dead enemy. In the game, that does not always translate to my character shooting twice with a pistol, it could also be described as "pull the trigger until the enemy drops" or "empties the magazine into the enemy, dropping him".

So by that, I'm guessing your don't keep track of ammunition at all. So what...you only run out of bullets if you glitch? Sounds VERY Wuxia to me. It's actually counter to the way the rules are presented in the book, as well.

QUOTE

I also care almost exclusively for the actual effects of something in game, not for how rules-compliant it is. If a character, gear combination, or tactic is completely legal by the rules, but unbalanced or disruptive in my specific campaign, then it gets vetoed. If something is balanced in its actual use, and doesn't disrupt gameplay, it usually can be added without much of a problem.

I haven't seen a lot of balance complaints tossed around on this thread. Mostly, the discussion has been about "rules scope", and whether it is better to have more detailed rules to cover scenario resolution or it is better to have fewer rules and just wing whatever the rules don't cover.

QUOTE

To sum it up:
- I prefer abstract rules to resolve the outcome of actions, adding details as fluff.
- I also prefer to judge rules by the actual, not the hypothetical results in a specific game/campaign, and ban/allow something based upon this.
- I prefer to solve questions not covered by the rules with simple, one-shot calls, usually by adding/subtracting a modifer to an action, or making a dice roll - for the specific situation only.

Sounds like your games really lack consistency. As a player, it would drive me batshit-insane to know that at one session, a particular tactic might work, and then completely fail in another session solely because a butterfly is flapping its wings in Bejing.

Posted by: Fuchs Aug 9 2007, 02:14 PM

Not really, because in many of the examples mentioned, we'd not even check the rules. No one here would even think of raacing in a truck because the rules say those are faster than a sports car. If anyone would catch it we'd laugh, and ignore it. Same for the motorcycle stuff.

And, as I said, we have military experience, we do not try to minmax against common sense. We have had once a player who had no experience, and tried to stack on weapons and all - after a few gotcha games he stopped that, since he realised how heavy even a single plastic rifle becomes if you're holding it all day while moving around.

(And, incidentally, I would rule that any experienced rigger character would pick the best car, even if the player had no clue about the stats. If in the shadowrun world a truck is a better race car than a sportscar, then realistically, a racer would know this. I don't care much for characters suddenly losing half their brain and making stupid mistakes because a player forgot something.)

Do we keep track of bullets? Why, if it is needed, yes. If the characters strand on an island with just to magazines between all three, then we count each single bullet. If the characters are on an average run, and don't expend too much ammo, we don't count it. If a situation comes up where the amount of remaining ammo is important, we just quickly recap the fights, and agree on how many magazines would be left.

My example of "emptying the magazine" was mentioned because in some situations, a character would not simply use the one or two shots to drop an enemy, but shoot several times, if only because one could not be sure (or failed a perception test) if the enemy was already out before shooting again.

As I said, we don't play very competitively. It's not "GM against the players". Tactics also don't really fail for nothing - if something is disruptive, then I simply ask the players not to use it anymore, or we think together of a way to make it fit without troubles. Since we all want to have fun, and realise we can't have fun without each other, there is not much of a problem finding a compromise or solution in such cases.

(As an example: If a player in my campaign wants a panther assault cannon, then he simply asks me "hey, I'd like my character to have one", and I start thinking of a way to add it in, usually during a run, or as the goal of a run, unless I think it would be disruptive. Same for other stuff.)

Posted by: hyzmarca Aug 9 2007, 10:17 PM

QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Aug 9 2007, 01:26 AM)

QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Aug 8 2007, 11:52 PM)

Just because there are no rules for urination does not mean that a character can never pee.

There is a huge difference between restrictive rules and permissive rules and most RPGs have both.

In chess and most games with well-defined rulesets, that which is not permitted is forbidden. But such restrictiveness can only work in limited cases. It is possible to codify all the rules for every action that may occur during a chess game.

However, in criminal law an opposite approach is usually taken. That which is not explicitly forbidden is permitted. This is because no lawmaking body can reasonably codify every permissible action anyone might consider doing and attempting to do so is both absurd and an anathema to human freedom.

An RPG has competitive aspects that must be well-defined and codified to ensure harmony and creative aspects that cannot possibly be well-defined or codified.

The more codified an RPG is, the less it can accommodate creativity. The less codified an RPG is the less it can accommodate competitiveness.

An RPG with a single rule for resolving all possible actions will not produce interesting or exhilarating competition, but it will produce creative storytelling, assuming that the players are capable of such.

An RPG with well-defined codified rules for everything that a character can do with no exceptions will handle competition very well but will drastically limit creativity and will almost certainly be difficult to learn.

An RPG that has well-defined rules for combat and other important competitive aspects and poorly-defined universal rules for non-competitive aspects will be able to handle both competition and creativity.

It is rather important for game designers to understand that they cannot think of every reasonable action that a character might take while also understanding that certain aspects of the game cannot work without well-defined rules. It is also important for GMs, players, and designers to understand the diference between the two.

Posted by: eidolon Aug 9 2007, 10:23 PM

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

An RPG with well-defined codified rules for everything that a character can do with no exceptions will handle competition very well but will drastically limit creativity and will almost certainly be difficult to learn.

You forgot "and causes cancer".

Otherwise, good analysis.

Posted by: mfb Aug 10 2007, 09:31 AM

edit: blah, nm

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 10 2007, 12:40 PM

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

Just because there are no rules for urination does not mean that a character can never pee.

But it does mean that there are no mechanical effects of urination.

QUOTE

The more codified an RPG is, the less it can accommodate creativity. The less codified an RPG is the less it can accommodate competitiveness.

I reject this view. Take the example of urination. If there are no rules for attempting to cross wet surfaces, for example, a player cannot have his or her character urinate on a marble floor to discourage pursuit--they may urinate, but there is no mechanical effect to this. The player's creativity is not accommodated.

QUOTE

An RPG with a single rule for resolving all possible actions will not produce interesting or exhilarating competition, but it will produce creative storytelling, assuming that the players are capable of such.

That is an RPG with total rules coverage. It is a RPG with very coarse rules coverage, in terms of level of detail, but that is a separate set of disadvantages.

QUOTE

On the contrary--the player will be enabled by the range of different options that their character can usefully take. If the actions are not equivalent, they get to make choices. In contrast, if there are very few rules providing things for characters to do, then the character's actions are constrained to either being meaningless (no effect), being one of the choices with a rule (constrained quantity), or being mechanically equivalent to one of the choices with a rule (and thus being nondifferentiated--you may as well have done the original action).

~J

Posted by: Critias Aug 10 2007, 04:20 PM

QUOTE (mfb)

edit: blah, nm

tl; dr

Posted by: TheOneRonin Aug 13 2007, 12:30 PM

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

I don't know how the rest of you feel about this, but I think Kage hit the nail on the head. What I want in an RPG ruleset is to have a wide array of MEANINGFUL choices, with the mechanics that go along with them. If choices A, B, and C all generate the same mechanical result, then the player really didn't have a choice in the first place.

If you rules system doesn't provide that, it's missed the boat.

Posted by: Fuchs Aug 13 2007, 12:40 PM

I don't think so. The appeal is in the details, even though the result - usually dead NPC - is the same.

And usually, the options that are codified are rather limited. Stuff like shooting at barrels of chemicals, dropping a chandelier, improvising tear gas in a lab, running over a hallway floor covered in soap water - all that stuff has no exact rules, yet adding those "once a campaign" rules will overload a system. The best you get is the GM making a call, using existing rules as a guideline - which runs straight into "result the same, means differently" territory.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 13 2007, 01:22 PM

QUOTE (Fuchs)

I don't think so. The appeal is in the details, even though the result - usually dead NPC - is the same.

I think you're using a different definition of "result". If I can shoot from the hip, or I can take a good look down the sights, exhale, and squeeze the trigger, but both of them are unmodified ranged attack tests, they have the same result—an unmodified ranged attack test. If one gives me a greater rate of fire, or a shorter time to begin firing, or whatever, and the second makes me more likely to hit/do more damage/whatever, suddenly I've got a decision on my hands—a decision between two options that will, optimally, vary in terms of best choice depending on what my goals are in the immediate term.

A system with no rules for, say, taking aim results in taking aim being equivalent to shooting from the hip. It reduces overall choice, flexibility, and creativity.

(As for your later point, I reject the idea that slippery surfaces are "once in a campaign" sorts of things—you can argue whether the difference between water on a marble floor and soapy water on a marble floor should be enshrined in the rules, but that's getting into granularity)

~J

Posted by: Fuchs Aug 13 2007, 01:38 PM

Again, it depends on what you want in your game. Some people need those rules to be able to pick the "best" results, others might not really care, and are glad they can pick what seems the most logical or stylish without too many mechanical differences.

I'd feel more hindered and stifled by too many rules, herded into minmaxing, but then, my "granularity" starts at another point than your definition.

Posted by: TheOneRonin Aug 13 2007, 01:59 PM

QUOTE (Fuchs)

I don't think so. The appeal is in the details, even though the result - usually dead NPC - is the same.

That may be the case for your game. In fact, you could probably go with your players having a generic "combat skill", and having them just describe how they use it to kill an NPC, be it 9mm between the eyes, knife to the chest, or dim-mok punch to the throat. That probably works in your group, but wouldn't remotely work with mine.

For us, the appeal is in the choices, not the details. We want to be able to make choices as to how we reach that "dead NPC" result, and we want those choices to be more meaningful than "roll X dice, get Y result, dead NPC".

QUOTE

And usually, the options that are codified are rather limited. Stuff like shooting at barrels of chemicals, dropping a chandelier, improvising tear gas in a lab, running over a hallway floor covered in soap water - all that stuff has no exact rules, yet adding those "once a campaign" rules will overload a system. The best you get is the GM making a call, using existing rules as a guideline - which runs straight into "result the same, means differently" territory.

Like Kage said, you don't have codify every nuance, but you should have enough rules to provide more than one or two choices for reaching a particular goal. You can even have a batch of rules to cover improvisation, if you want.

Posted by: TheOneRonin Aug 13 2007, 02:38 PM

QUOTE (Fuchs)

AHA! Now I see where you are coming from. For the record, we don't need rules to determine the "best" result. In fact, as I have been saying all along, if a rules system has a "best choice" or "best item/weapon/spell/etc" in the first place, it actually REMOVES choice. If one choice is better than all others, even if it is just most of the time, then it isn't really a choice. I want rules that clearly point out under which circumstances choice A is better than B and C, and under which circumstances it is worse than choices B and C. And I want the same for choices B and C. Even better, lets make it so that no choice is the optimum one in any given circumstances, but their utility depends entirely on how the player uses them. Oh, and we need rules to cover this, not just hand-waving.

QUOTE

I'd feel more hindered and stifled by too many rules, herded into minmaxing, but then, my "granularity" starts at another point than your definition.

Again with the minmaxing. True min-maxing can only exist in a system where there are optimal choices, and suboptimal choices. A truly great system will have no suboptimal choices. All choices will be optimal in certain circumstances, and those circumstances should show up more frequently than once a campaign.

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about.

QUOTE (Ruleset #1 (light on mechanics))

Weapon: SMG
Damage: Average
Ammo: Plenty

Doesn't matter if it's an HK MP5, Uzi, or Tommy-gun. It's all the same. The player can even describe how many bullets it uses up each time he squeezes the trigger.

QUOTE (Ruleset #2 (heavy mechanics @ poor choices))

Weapons:

HK MP5
-DMG: 4
-Range: Medium
-Ammo: 30
-Mode: SA/BF

UZI
-DMG: 6
-Range: Short
-Ammo: 20
-Mode: BF/FA

FN P90
-DMG: 9
-Range: Long
-Ammo: 50
-Mode: SA/BF/FA
-Special: Ignores all body armor

Wow...you have three choices here instead of 1. Oh wait, you really don't have any choices because one of these is OBVIOUSLY better than the rest. This is rules heavy, but poorly thought out. This sort of rules setup can and WILL lead to min-maxing.

QUOTE (Ruleset #3 (heavy mechanics @ gives actual choices))

SMG #1
-DMG 8
-Range: Long
-Ammo: 20
-Special: doubles target armor rating

SMG #2
-DMG 2
-Range: short
-Ammo: 60
-Special: reduces target armor by 50%

SMG #3
-DMG 5
-Range: Medium
-Ammo: 40
-Special: none

Okay, here we actually have some choice. With SMG 1, we get really good damage and long range. However, we don't have that many shots per magazine, and the fact that the target gets double his normal protection from armor means this weapon becomes a poor choice when facing armored opponents. But if the player is a really good shot, and can make each of his shots count, this weapon is a good choice.

With SMG 2, we notice that it's range and damage ratings are rather poor. However, it's got a ton of shots in each mag, and it cuts a target's armor in half. This is a great weapon for those who don't shoot like Wyatt Erpp, and the ammo count means that misses aren't as costly. Also, the armor reduction feature makes it a good choice all around for anyone who plans to be facing armored opponents at close range.

Finally we have SMG 3. It sits firmly in the middle of the other two choices. Granted, it doesn't do as much damage as or have the range of SMG 1, nor does it have the ammo capacity or special armor piercing quality of SMG 2, but it has none of the big disadvantages either. It's the most flexible option, and should serve admirably in just about any role.

That's what I mean when I talk about CHOICE.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 13 2007, 02:50 PM

QUOTE (Fuchs)

But logical responses are based on mechanical differences. Gazelles engage in stotting because of mechanical effects, for example. Between two mechanically identical choices, there is no logic that can choose between them. Style is something you can use anyway.

QUOTE

I'd feel more hindered and stifled by too many rules, herded into minmaxing, but then, my "granularity" starts at another point than your definition.

Why would you be herded into minimax, and what would be undesirable about it if you were?

~J

Posted by: Fuchs Aug 13 2007, 03:10 PM

We prefer to use logical actions based upon real life experience (f.e., all of us were in the military, so we know some stuff about guns), not based upon game mechanics.

Game mechanics often do have a "best gun" and "best move". Take the old "taking aim" rules from SR3. In almost every case, shooting twice was much, much better than shooting once but with a -1 to the TN. In SR3, an assault rifle also was inferiour to a heavy pistol if used in semi-automatic mode - despite rapid aimed semi-automatic fire being the most common way we were trained to use the rifles in the army, and a rifle being more effective at it too than a pistol.

Don't get me started on weight either - anyone who wrote that 10 shots weigh a pound probably never shot a gun in his life.

It really comes down to that I'd rather rule something on the spot, and have the game continue, than have exact rules for all situations, and spend hours reading up. It works for our campaign.

Posted by: mfb Aug 13 2007, 04:04 PM

QUOTE (Fuchs)

It really comes down to that I'd rather rule something on the spot, and have the game continue, than have exact rules for all situations, and spend hours reading up. It works for our campaign.

fantastic. i'm glad your group has found a style that satisfies all of you. however, your way is not every way (not that i'm claiming you said that, just making my point). there are a lot of groups out there that prefer deeper mechanics. for those groups, i think it's more fair to include a complete, deep ruleset that less mechanics-oriented groups can easily ignore chunks of.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 13 2007, 04:11 PM

QUOTE (Fuchs @ Aug 13 2007, 10:10 AM)

We prefer to use logical actions based upon real life experience (f.e., all of us were in the military, so we know some stuff about guns), not based upon game mechanics.

But your characters aren't in the real world, they're in the game world. Things should, unless deliberately designed otherwise, act like they do in the real world if they exist there (principle of least surprise), so not doing so is a flaw of the rules.

QUOTE

Game mechanics often do have a "best gun" and "best move". Take the old "taking aim" rules from SR3. In almost every case, shooting twice was much, much better than shooting once but with a -1 to the TN.

In many cases, but not all--especially with limited combat pool. TN 6, Skill 6, one shot with Take Aim and full combat pool means you expect four successes for six combat pool spent, while the same situation with two shots means you expect two and two successes with 12 combat pool spent. If they don't dodge the second case might be better damage-wise (it'll be worse if they have high Body and Armor), but it remains decidedly more expensive--especially since most characters don't have 12 combat pool to spend. Burst-fire and autofire also change the equation, as they make dodge tests harder. Sometimes there are trade-offs, other times it's a matter of knowing which option to go with in different situations.

QUOTE

In SR3, an assault rifle also was inferiour to a heavy pistol if used in semi-automatic mode - despite rapid aimed semi-automatic fire being the most common way we were trained to use the rifles in the army, and a rifle being more effective at it too than a pistol.

That's a problem with the content of the rules, not the quantity. Believe me, the holes in the Shadowrun rules were not unknown to me even before I started SR3R, and now that I'm actively looking for them...

Though I'll add that even this isn't true as the absolute you've framed it in. At 45 meters, the Pistol will IIRC be in Extreme range and the Assault Rifle in Short or Medium (I'm at work, so completely without my books, so don't trust my numbers). At 100 meters, the Assault Rifle will be in range and the Pistol will need to be moved 40 meters closer to even have a shot.

QUOTE

Don't get me started on weight either - anyone who wrote that 10 shots weigh a pound probably never shot a gun in his life.

It really comes down to that I'd rather rule something on the spot, and have the game continue, than have exact rules for all situations, and spend hours reading up. It works for our campaign.

But you're either going to have to write down what you ruled on the spot, and refer to it in the future, creating your own set of exact rules for all situations (which probably don't have the benefit of careful consideration, mathematical analysis, or extensive playtesting if you're making them on the spot--not, I'll grant, that most published rules appear to have had these benefits either), or you're going to create an inconsistent and unpredictable world. Making the same action act different ways at different times despite operating under the same conditions is the problem we have rules to avoid.

~J

Posted by: TheOneRonin Aug 13 2007, 04:24 PM

QUOTE (Fuchs)

We prefer to use logical actions based upon real life experience (f.e., all of us were in the military, so we know some stuff about guns), not based upon game mechanics.

And, at the risk of sounding like a Kage-copycat, I prefer my game rules to behave in such a way as to mimic real life. If we know that in Real Life™, a human jumping out in front of a speeding semi is probably going to be splattered all over the asphalt, the actual "in-game" mechanics should reflect that. If they don't, that a failure of the system

QUOTE

Game mechanics often do have a "best gun" and "best move".

They often do, but they don't have to. Nor should they. It should always be about choice...and sometimes, choice A will be better than choice B. But it shouldn't be better EVERY time. Again, if it is, then the game designers have dropped the ball.

QUOTE

Don't get me started on weight either - anyone who wrote that 10 shots weigh a pound probably never shot a gun in his life.

I agree wholeheartedly.

QUOTE

It really comes down to that I'd rather rule something on the spot, and have the game continue, than have exact rules for all situations, and spend hours reading up. It works for our campaign.

But it builds a very inconsistent world. How can your players make educated choices if you end up ruling so many things on the fly?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 13 2007, 04:43 PM

QUOTE (TheOneRonin)

Unless that's a deliberate and explicit design decision. If your goal is to make a game where a human jumping in front of a speeding semi can survive that uninjured, that's fine. If the rules you choose, however, just happen to cause that, unexpectedly, your game is broken.

(The question of "how broken", of course, depends on magnitude of violation of expectations, magnitude of the effect, reach of the broken rules in the overall ruleset, the existence of other compounding issues, and the weighting of these criteria. An example of two issues like this might be 6==7 from SR3 and chance_of_glitch(n*2+1) > chance_of_glitch(n*2) from SR4--the first one is generally bigger in effect, but the second one violates expectations more--rather than a weird probability distribution that never becomes positive, you actually increase your chance of certain bad results by adding a die to your test. I may have the even and odd die counts mixed up, it's been a while since I looked at the SR4 rules)

~J

Posted by: Fuchs Aug 14 2007, 07:28 AM

QUOTE (TheOneRonin)

But it builds a very inconsistent world. How can your players make educated choices if you end up ruling so many things on the fly?

I think the best way to explain this is that we don't play against each other. The players can expect that if their characters are competent in an area, that I'll tell them if something seems a less than smart course of action. I don't let the characters walk into a trap if just the players (but not the characters) messed up.

Or, in other words, the characters do not rely on the rules knowledge of the players.

(Also, most stuff that is ruled on the fly does not really come up more than once or twice, and the rest ends up with a house rule everyone can live with.)

Posted by: Ampere Aug 21 2007, 02:12 PM

Wow, what a thread to sift to. To be honest, I'm skipping to the end to add my two bits...

What I've found is that people and their preferences are as varied as the number of game systems out there. Some folks like crunch (system mechanics for every facet of playable life) some folks like to freewheel through games and keep it rules-light.

One of the core parts of what makes the latter work is GM FIAT. The GM is able to DECIDE. The thing that makes this work is trust in the GM's ability to make decisions to keep the game fun, somewhat fair, and tell a good story. Without trust, this doesn't work. Trusting the GM to decide between a game mechanic and what is logical or makes a good dramatic moment is a cornerstone of a GM Fiat game.

Some folks have been burned by GM Fiat games. I know I have. I however still prefer them to games that have rules and mechanics for every single nuance of gameplay.

Some systems, usually indie games have intricate systems for things like social interactions, and how conflicts are resolved outside of simply talking through issues in character. Some folks dig em, some don't.

I believe, and this is my opinion only...that with games with a lot of rules for everything, you need less of the soft skills of GMing (being able to adapt on the fly, hold together a plot and remember all the character nuances as well as the NPC nuances, and make it all work in the end) and requires more memorization of the game system.

In games that are lighter in the rules, more of those soft skills are needed, and honestly, it's a much harder game to run. Well...harder to run WELL. I think many GMs like to think they are good at this but most aren't.

Rules often are trying to mimic a style of play. Cinematic, realistic, whatever. Also they try and give the players the type of experience they want: crunchy, rules-light, deep immersive, tactical play, whatever.

What you end up with is two separate things going on in-game: The Story/ Drama and the System/ Mechanics. Everyone has their preferences. Some dig one side more than others. Some like a balance or like a game weighted one way or another. All games can fall in to these: from SR4 to Dogs in the Vineyard, to HERO, to Savage Worlds.

The important thing is that the players (including the GM) decide up-front what they all want out of the game and what kind of game they want to really play. (Social Contract?) Really, as long as everyone is on the same sheet of music, the game will fly. If they aren't, nothing will save it but compromise.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 21 2007, 06:34 PM

QUOTE (ampere)

One of the core parts of what makes the latter work is GM FIAT. The GM is able to DECIDE. The thing that makes this work is trust in the GM's ability to make decisions to keep the game fun, somewhat fair, and tell a good story. Without trust, this doesn't work. Trusting the GM to decide between a game mechanic and what is logical or makes a good dramatic moment is a cornerstone of a GM Fiat game.

Some folks have been burned by GM Fiat games. I know I have. I however still prefer them to games that have rules and mechanics for every single nuance of gameplay.

I've been burned by GM fiat. In particular, I've been burned, as a GM, by GM fiat. GM fiat means you have to be prepared to make a good decision that's consistent with all of your previous decisions every single time you play. Whether you're tired, or sick, or really busy so you didn't get to do any of your prep work, if the game depends on your rulings by fiat, you've got no protection from yourself—and neither do your players.

QUOTE

I believe, and this is my opinion only...that with games with a lot of rules for everything, you need less of the soft skills of GMing (being able to adapt on the fly, hold together a plot and remember all the character nuances as well as the NPC nuances, and make it all work in the end) and requires more memorization of the game system.

Totally disagree, except to the extreme degree of "lot of rules for everything" with plot-generation and NPC-generation tables galore. The "soft skills" are perhaps all that's left with a theoretical totally complete rules-coverage game—you don't need to come up with rules for a strange action or circumstance, and you certainly don't need to be able to balance those rules on the fly while maintaining consistency with the rest of the universe.

QUOTE

In games that are lighter in the rules, more of those soft skills are needed, and honestly, it's a much harder game to run. Well...harder to run WELL. I think many GMs like to think they are good at this but most aren't.

I agree that it's harder to run well. I don't agree that soft skills are needed—instead, one needs the "hard skills". Making a rule on-the-fly requires either not caring about the quality of that rule or being able to run the probabilities in your head and "thought playtest" quickly enough to ensure that it's a good rule. It's very difficult, and it offers negligible or even negative reward compared to the (much easier) path of pushing rule-creation to before game-time.

~J

Posted by: Ampere Aug 21 2007, 08:25 PM

QUOTE

QUOTE (ampere @ Aug 21 2007, 09:12 AM)

<snip>
Some folks have been burned by GM Fiat games. I know I have. I however still prefer them to games that have rules and mechanics for every single nuance of gameplay.

Like I was saying, it's all about trust. It's not about protection. You shouldn't need protection from yourself, nor should your players. At least if you are doing it right. If you're tired, sick, or otherwise incapable of doing the job right, then you probably shouldn't be playing, much less GMing.

QUOTE

Sorry, I'm not seeing a disagreement here. Being able to pull a scenario, rule tweak, plot/ subplot out of your kiester (soft skills) is a lot harder than simply being a random encounter-table GM (hard skills).

QUOTE

Not true (or only true in your paradigm

), sometimes a rule isn't known. Do you stop mid-action and look it up? Or do you wing it and look it up afterwards? Sometimes a rule is not liked, or illogical. Sometimes the rule is counter to the playstyle they are shooting for.

Negative or negligible reward? If the scenes play out the way you want them to, then that is the reward all by itself. It's only a negative or negligible reward when people are metagaming; thinking in terms of the rules system, which may be altered and therefore not what is expected.

Honestly though, these things are only true for the folks who are willing to trust a GM to run the game. If you aren't trusting, which is fine BTW, then there are other ways to play.

Drifting a game system is considered standard practice for some, and "bad" by others. While I don't mind it, you (or others may). Your comments are true for you and your style of play, but invalid from other perspectives.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 21 2007, 10:00 PM

QUOTE (ampere)

But "incapable of doing the job right" changes based on what the job is. A game that requires you to do a lot of balancing on-the-fly will be one that it's easier to be incapable of doing right than one that pushed the balancing to non-game time.

QUOTE

My point is that unless you include "total use of random encounter tables" as part of rules coverage, you'll need the soft skills. The difference is that you won't need the "hard skills" of creating new, balanced rules on-the-fly.

QUOTE

Not true (or only true in your paradigm

Yes, you stop and look it up—if you don't, you rob the world of consistency. If a rule is not liked or illogical that's a flaw of the system, and the proper response is to replace it with a new rule if the rule serves a valid purpose, or to discard it if it doesn't. If the rule is counter to the playstyle, it should be discarded, rewritten, or the group should select a different system.

QUOTE

Negative or negligible reward? If the scenes play out the way you want them to, then that is the reward all by itself. It's only a negative or negligible reward when people are metagaming; thinking in terms of the rules system, which may be altered and therefore not what is expected.

Characters reasonably have some access to the rules—I use my knowledge of physics all the time for various purposes, is that metagaming? No, ability for a character (and by extension, a player) to predict the probable consequences of his or her actions is exactly why rules exist. Without this, you have no game, no accessible world, and no characters who can take meaningful actions.

~J

Posted by: Ampere Aug 21 2007, 11:34 PM

QUOTE

Doesn't really make much difference whether it is game time or non game time. The hard part is being able to adapt and wing it on the spot because invariably, PCs do the unexpected. This leads to wandering off the pre-made plot in to no-man's land and in to areas where system knowledge may not be as solid.

QUOTE

I think we're confusing terms. Creating/adjusting rules on the fly (improvisation)is considered a soft skill. A hard skill would be a matter of memorization or a skill you can learn in school classes. Unless I'm out in left field, which is entirely possible. Either way, as long as we're talking about the same thing it's all good.

QUOTE

See, now this is where trust, and GM Fiat comes in. In advance of the game the players are resolved that the GM is authorized to tell the story without interruption or breaking up the story with rules arguments or any sort of dickering. (or really, they can be, or not depending on player desires)
My own preference differs from yours in that I don't want the GM or players to stop the scene and look something up. Roll a die, figure out a percentage chance and roll it. JUST KEEP GOING. Don't blow the cool scene we just spent an hour framing. Seriously, we can look up the rule later and if it is cool, heck, use it, but no matter what, don't slow down the action.

If the rule is known, and for some reason it makes no sense, isn't liked, or is otherwise not applicable, then I don't need to know as a player...I'm sticking with my character and what he/ she knows and would do, so knowing whether I'd do a bull rush maneuver or use a point of edge doesn't really matter to me. What matters is that the character is going to dive in, block a guy and try and get a shot off.

QUOTE

Characters reasonably have some access to the rules—I use my knowledge of physics all the time for various purposes, is that metagaming?

That largely depends on whether your character has knowledge of physics. If not, then it would be Player Knowledge not Character Knowledge and by extension metagame thinking.

QUOTE

No, ability for a character (and by extension, a player) to predict the probable consequences of his or her actions is exactly why rules exist. Without this, you have no game, no accessible world, and no characters who can take meaningful actions.

Not at all. I may think I have a percentage chance to accomplish a certain goal, but there are always factors outside our knowledge or awareness. Besides, there is nothing wrong with the GM assigning a percentage chance, or a die roll range to an action for success.

"Okay Bob, you want to jump that chasm. I'll say that with everything on your back and your gimpy leg, you need to roll Athletics and Strength. I'd say burn an edge now." when realistically he could reasonably use something else if it were written that way. Skipping any encumbrance rules, etc.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 21 2007, 11:58 PM

I'll reply in more depth later, but for now:

QUOTE (ampere)

That largely depends on whether your character has knowledge of physics. If not, then it would be Player Knowledge not Character Knowledge and by extension metagame thinking.

I didn't mean I do this in-game, I do this in real life. Just like the game, the world I live in is governed by rules. I don't have a copy of the rulebook, so there's a limit to my precision, but nevertheless I have some access to the rules of, say, momentum, collisions, and conservation of momentum or energy.

Simply because it's a matter of the rules that a character with one die and no pool has a 1/6 chance of botching a test doesn't mean that the character should be totally unaware of the fact that there's a good chance of things going badly wrong if they attempt to do something. So on and soforth.

~J

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Aug 22 2007, 07:11 AM

Using the 'well I have a good grasp of how it works in real life' really has problems in games with magic or whatever that people don't have any understanding they can apply at all.

Heck. Look at the problems with SR4. When we try and apply what we know about computer security to the matrix rules, it all goes to hell.

I want to see internal consistency in my rule set

Posted by: Ampere Aug 22 2007, 01:22 PM

QUOTE

Heck. Look at the problems with SR4. When we try and apply what we know about computer security to the matrix rules, it all goes to hell.

I dunno, I've had some great experiences with folks playing hackers, using their RL network security knowledge to come up with a good idea, and make a roll to see if it works. Regardless of how the system says to do it, if someone cooks up a good idea, and it sounds solid, hell, I'll let them do it.

Of course, not everyone does that though. Not everyone is as free-wheeling as a GM as I am. To each his/her own.

Posted by: hyzmarca Aug 22 2007, 11:04 PM

To respond to an old point, there is a huge difference between a complete but lite and flexible ruleset and a rigid well-defined ruleset, either complete or incomplete.

To use the example of the wet floor, it is counter productive to have specific rules rules about how wet a floor must be before modifiers apply to running, for example, because in that case the GM must either make up something on the fly, or there must be rules to determine the both volume of urine in the PCs bladder and how well it spreads. This, of course, brings us back to the urination test. Not only that, but it also requires keeping track of liquid intake and fluid the processing rate of the kidneys. And this leads to dozens of other rules pertaining to drinking and urination.

There would also need to be modifiers for other sorts of terrain hazards, such as pebbles and reverse conveyor belts. This leads us to dozens of other rules.

The more specific and inflexible the rules are, the more of them are necessary to create a complete ruleset.

A single modifier for running on rough or difficult terrain and GM discretion to determine what qualifies as such is almost always preferable.

Posted by: mfb Aug 22 2007, 11:17 PM

i don't think that a well-defined ruleset needs to be rigid. any ruleset that is too rigid is bad, generally speaking, as is any ruleset that is too flexible.

Posted by: Adarael Aug 22 2007, 11:28 PM

Can you give us an example of a well-defined yet flexible ruleset that has been in print? (That we can reasonably track down).

The only one that's coming to mind is SilCore 2.0, for me.

Posted by: mfb Aug 22 2007, 11:43 PM

the good parts of SR3. most of the combat system, for instance, can be used with no modification to describe a huge number of situations with passable accuracy, and chunks of it (knockdown rules, permanent injury rules) can be easily ignored for groups that want to speed things up. not a perfect example; there are a lot of details that could be tuned for greater realism, ease of play, and consistency, and it has definite problems with scaling.

Posted by: Adarael Aug 23 2007, 02:46 AM

I tried using SR for a fantasy game at one point. It worked okay, other than having a lot of legacy stuff I had no use for and a lotta stuff I wanted to improve on (greater efficacy of spirit conjuration, since anyone with the skill could do it). For a space game I ran, though, it did work great.

Well, except for spaceship combat. I kinda hadda fudge that.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 23 2007, 03:06 AM

Yeah, the vehicle rules really aren't set up to deal with airless, featureless environments.

~J

Posted by: Critias Aug 23 2007, 05:41 AM

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

Yeah, the vehicle rules really aren't set up to deal with airless, featureless environments.

~J

Or, really, vehicles and chases and stuff, either.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 23 2007, 10:25 AM

What's wrong with them there? I've used them for that, and they're a little dull in some cases (certain types of chases come down to just a series of Acceleration tests, for example), but they work.

~J

Posted by: Ampere Aug 23 2007, 12:02 PM

Actually, I've used SR4 for CBT:RPG (instead of the actual CBT:RPG) and it worked great.