By the by, for the record there is no book I don't allow. All your high tech junk is meaningless when you hear the howl of the barghest baby!

Sorry, I've got to agree with Paul. The player who can't sway my opinion and doesn't like my choice can be the GM.

Note that Paul's option not only includes what books, but what in each books, and I will add to that selection, if it's not implied, "any house rules you think make the game better/clearer".

Exactly. if you want gaming by committee run it yourself.

Shadowrun is one of those reactionary games that even promote going against years of progress in gameology, which finally brought us democratic gaming. House rules are group decisions, just like anything else, and should be transparent and known to all players. Your groups may elect to let you decide on them, but that doesn't make things better.

I'll make the choice to walk from any table that includes god-moding GMs who break rules and won't listen to my suggestions or won't put them up for group vote.

It's not YOUR game, it's your scenario, that's the entirity of a GMs role in role playing games.

I love how you go to such lengths to paint the opposing viewpoint as evil and broken as possible. Your word choice here helps paint the problem with achieving group consensus with some players.

Edit: Since both Paul and I have included the option of "Anyone who doesn't like it can run their own game" and your option seems to be "Walk away from the table", I think I can see why you feel the players need the ability to outvote the GM on issues.

And I think that's reasonable. Please don't confuse I'm the GM with I think I'm God. But yeah, at my table my players expect me to take charge and expect me to arbitrate fairly. So if they think I've made a mistake they'll point it out and we'll discuss it like reasonable adults. It is our collective fun, not just my selfish needs.

We have a standing rule, which we refer to as the 445 second rule. If during the course of a game we have a disagreement on a rule we'll devote 45 seconds or less to discussing it, looking up rules or what not. Then I make a ruling on the field that stands until we're done. After the game we can devote as much time as people have to spare-which isn't always much, but thanks to the modern miracle known as email we can do a lot of our rules lawyering that way.



I don't know. I think the role varies at each table. I have a strong group of independent minded players, with a lot of experience in not just Shadowrun but a variety of systems-Ninjas&Superspies, D&D (In every incarnation), Rifts, Earthdawn, D20 Modern, Role Master, Call of Cthulu, Eclipse Phase...the list goes on. In the 20 plus years we've gamed together as a group-since our mid teens to our mid thirties now-we've always seen whomever is wearing the GM's hat (Generally me, but not always) as the final arbitrator of how the game will be run at the table.

The nice thing is we've always taken the attitude that if you don't like it, voice your opinion and if you feel strongly enough about it, run a game. We're not into being dicks to each other, and we all try to ggive it a fair go, no matter who's taken on the GM'ing duties. But yeah this isn't game by committee.

Just curious. Like where specifically? This the Agent thing again?

Edit: I can see where Brainpiercing is coming from, things should be discussed and mutually agreed, but at the end of the day, it's the GM who decides. Your both right.

Let me put this in a polemic way: I don't need to enter a voluntary dictatorship in my leisure time. There are enough outside forces that I (or people in general) have to subject themselves in their "real" lives, so that I think in gaming I can take a perfectly democratic attitude.

That being said: I think from what Paul says his group is generally a mature enough collection of people that they can cope - obviously. I also favour something like a 45second rule, with the exception of new groups and new games, which generally need more time for looking up stuff you are not yet familiar with. And then, even in games I'm very familiar with, like D&D, for instance, I need to look stuff up all the time.

If you say that you will allow everyone to run the group, well... that's a practicality issue. If you have five people and one time slot per week where everyone is available, then you'll generally get one game, maybe two if you alternate bi-weekly. And that's the limit. If one of those games turns bad, but for some reason the other players want to keep it up, then I can only walk, because as has been pointed out in this very thread, gaming isn't worth the aggravation. (Yes, that in itself is also a partly democratic process - if the other players are happy, then that's good for them, why should they change? However, in my experience a lot of players are just dickless and don't even want to voice an opinion - and these are all adults, mind you, I wouldn't even say anything if these things went back to my teenage years.)
And that's why I simply say: Democratic gaming, i.e. "Stuff is up for group vote, period" is practically better gaming, because at least if you don't get your way then you had the chance of putting it forward. Which I would have never had if all I ever hear from the GM is "no", and the other players simply side with him for fear of no longer being favoured.

And if you are lucky enough to have never played in groups who - frankly - suck at this sort of thing (such as me, who was cursed with groups like that for years, and was unfortunately not yet independant enough to walk away), then I envy you, but I know that the more straight-forward I am with my attitude, the less likely I'll be to end up in a group like that again. (And if it's just because those with the inclination of dictatorial GMing won't like the antagonism.)

When I GM, am I perfect? By no means. I do sometimes decide things on the fly, both for back-story mechanics or because I can't be bothered, or it doesn't seem worth the trouble. Or I'm sometimes too lazy to put every house rule writing immediately, which I should. Well...

I'll give you one concession, where I believe that at least during the conception phase a game can be strictly "as offered": That's PbPs on the internet, when you don't have a firm group of players. You offer the game, you offer the house rules and put them up for review. (And a good convention GM should do the same: Put things out there for everyone to see, people don't have to join if they don't like it.) And then anyone who joins and does not immediately complain has to accept things as they are. But when you then come up with a new problem, something you would like to change, then you have to put it before the group.

It really sounds like you just had a series of dick GM's. Most of my players really don't care about the rules, and trust me to make sure things stay fair. If they have an issue they have the opportunity to voice it pretty much anytime either at the table or via email or phone, I don't play with immature children who want to argue about everything. They trust me as a caretaker for a story constructed by the interaction of the group. It is not democratic, we don't take votes, they simply trust me, and should I play in a game they run I trust them, but ultimately if I have an issue with a rule in a game they are running and they don't I will simply suck it up, because they are the individual putting the most time into it, and may very well have a reason they cannot reveal at the time for something being the way it is. So no one is a dictator, but someone is running the world, you really don't get the option to decide that being attacked by Yakuza at one point is unrealistic, and that instead it should be Vory. The contrary player rarely lasts long in my groups, we all work and have little time to deal with the unique special flower who wants all the attention. Not that I think that is what you are suggesting. I think most groups fall in the middle with an unstated consensus based on trust, a compact with the GM for him to not abuse the responsibility the rest of the group has essentially given him. It seems to me that you have been involved in situations where that trust has been shattered.

This makes zero sense to me. No one's saying 'no player input'. *Obviously* player input. But the GM is the one GMing. And this crap about 'favor' and 'fear' is ridiculous.

I think we're relatively far from the thread now, though.

Yea, it's about time to get back to giving hyphz advice to ignore (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I haven't been ignoring any advice. It's just been difficult to deal with.

And it's a bit confusing to be told I need to make more stuff up while at the same time being told I'm bad at making stuff up. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Oh, and it turns out I was wrong about the math error.. which is annoying, as it means I haven't found the problem after all.

Ok, obviously you're not getting me: (so just one last time)

Scenario is GM territory. Obviously the GM decides what things happen in the world. He has full control over all of that, which obviously still means that while playing the game, his leverage is always greater. Still, whatever he does should all the while obey the rules and mechanics of the game (if not to the letter, then at least in spirit). (Which also means that he shouldn't prepare plot, because that often has problems, for instance sacrificing consistency for drama and stuff like that. Different topic again.)

Rules are GROUP territory. Rules and mechanics make interactions in the game world possible. They facilitate anything that happens in the game world, and they define and give structure (and limitations) to the overlapping spheres of influence of players (and their characters) and the GM. Therefore they must be transparent, obvious, understood and mutually agreed upon. You agree on a game and the available source material, and that defines the basis of the game you are playing. Any and all deviations from that basis, i.e. from the rules and mechanics of the game, must be put by the group, or else no further interaction is possible. If one guy just decides he'll do things differently, then the game falls apart - even if that guy is the GM. Because once the GM starts doing things differently, then I can no longer rely on the possible interactions within the game world (and certain metagame things, too). And even just giving him the possibility of changing things on the fly without prior notice or discussion is making these interactions impossible to gauge. Of course the GM also acts as mediator and moderator - but his weight in any given matter shouldn't be much greater than everyone else's. He might be the one to tip the scales, but he doesn't get to decide against all others involved.

So obviously this is all in theory, and in practice we generally have to compromise for all sorts of imperfections - laziness, lack of rules knowledge, time, etc., all of which blur the handle you can have on the game world. So... game rules should be a bit like the laws physics - you don't have to know all of them, but you can still rely on certain things working in certain ways. And gravity won't stop just because one guy says so. (Unless he's a wizard.)

That's all I'm saying, and no matter what game you are playing that simple division holds up. I'm not saying that the trust relationship is wrong, obviously you trust the GM to create a scenario that is fun for everyone, and in turn uphold the very important responsibility of a player to likewise ensure that everyone else can have fun, too.

And why do I think this method is better than the old "it's the GM's game, he gets final say on everything" method? Because that old one can cause all kinds of crap. Crap that doesn't happen once you understand that the GM is basically just a player - albeit with greater responsibilities. I'm not saying the other one can't work, it's just that mine works better in more cases. If the rule books of all the games out there were more clear on the matter (and sometimes less reactionary) then gaming would be more fun for a lot of people.

And ok, end of that OT.

The funny thing about this is that you go so far into hyperbole that I can't possibly agree with you.

I have no problem with a GM deviating from the rules for the purpose of a good story. If he introduces a new race, critter, device, spell, vehicle, or something else not covered by the rules into the mission, I'm cool with that. Clearly you aren't, but that's your problem, not everyone else's.

As far as your way working better, maybe it works better for you. It definitely isn't better for me. I like being surprised by new toys in my sandbox and your "better" way doesn't allow for that.

If it's related to something specific we might be able to help without diving back down into the "you're doing it wrong" folder (or I'll try not to dive back down it anyway). Give us the scenario and some specific stats and we can show you how we'd crunch them.

Let's see that the rules say about obeying the rules....
Okay - so maybe that doesn't say anything about GM has final rules decision vs "everything must be put to a fair and democratic vote"... but that's my favorite section of all the SR books. RAW that says "screw the RAW" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Blimey, how many 5's and 6's do you guys have on your d6's - you always seem to get far more hits than you statisctically should! That aside, your tactic to get guns into the club was risky but legitimate, and with 9 hits you aced it even if the GM had thrown a DP penalty at you for the tight squeeze/perfect timing requirements.

The point I am trying to make is that it shouldn't always be so. Some clubs (especially the bigger more famous ones) will definitely have wards in place and/or spirits to prevent magical infiltration. Also your characters were running the gauntlet with other awakened folks in the club - if anyone were to astrally see some invisible dude sneaking into the club (especially if they saw the hardware, which is OTT for typical Johnson meet/personal protection scenarios), they might discretely alert club management, or might even strike preemptively on someone who, from their perspective, is probably about to commit an act of terrorism and put a big downer on their night out. Turn the tables - if your team were waiting for a meet in a bar and saw someone smuggle some heavy duty hardware into the place, you might decide it was safer to go preemptive on their arses.

The thing that some of us are trying to get across to hyphz is that (1) Invisibility, although a powerful spell, should not always be an Insta-Win button, and can be defeated by wards, spirits or other astrally perceiving observers, and ultrasound; and (2) There is a reason that there is a skill called Pistols, and that he is not really challenging you if you can take your Boomstick of Death with you wherever you go all the time. In his defence, you as a group seem to be fairly creative at circumventing such restrictions, but my point holds as does my conclusion that you guys will find it much more rewarding if you have to hold your breath every time Dawg does Invisibility to see if you don't get caught with your pants down.

Oh, and as for ceramic components, yes they can be good against MAD scanners, but don't forget perception checks for guards - holdouts might be hard to notice, but even under a lined coat a machine pistol ain't so difficult to spot. And as there are often more than one guy watching people go through MAD scanners at security checkpoints they might get a teamwork bonus. Depending on the place, security might also do patdowns on a random selection of people, and patdowns should definitely pick up something as big as a machine pistol.

Player 1: I think we don't get enough cash and karma for our trouble. I propose we each get 100 karma and 1 million new yen per run. All in favor?
Other Players: Hell, yes!
GM: Groan

Smells of powergaming to me ...

Well, if they gave that same authority to the players, everything would be fine. Sorry, I said I would stop.

@hyphz:

I think what people are getting at is that you SAY you are trying to use the advice, while actually finding lots of reasons for yourself why not to. That's... a very common psychological thing to do, but this is just a game. You shouldn't be stressing out over it, but you should be aware that GMing for various systems can be learned, by applying methods and techniques (which are hopefully proven effective). SR is a far from perfect system, and it takes different methods than D&D, for instance. (And especially than that game that doesn't actually exist, because that is nothing more than a streamlined combat engine, something SR is decidedly not.)



This I would disagree with, for several reasons:
- IF you see someone smuggling automatic weapons into your club, you should be worrying about the safest things you can do. The first should be calling the star, or whatever agency is acting as the police, with detailed information as to what is going down, all the while hoping they don't just storm into the place with SWAT teams.
- if this is an illegal establishment, or generally a hideout for illegals, and you can't call the star, then you either have to ask yourself whether you have at your disposal security personel that can deal with a threat like that, or whether you don't. Specifically, whether you really want a drawn out firefight IN YOUR CLUB!
- Personally, what I would do is sound the fire alarm, potentially including sprinkler/the fire suppression system. It's really the only thing you can do if you don't have a stun-bolting mage at your disposal. The fire alarm might not tip off the potential terrorists, while still poviding a decent chance of foiling their plans. Now if you think that they are just going to shoot everyone there is nothing much you can do, anyway. You bring in what security you have and hope they can deal with it once the chaos has started.
- If you have any indication that the people with the heavy hardware might be runners, I believe an elaborate bluff might also be in order, as in: You talk to them, reveal that you know that they have smuggled stuff into the club you don't like, and make it sound like you are only holding back for politeness (or business) reasons.

Upon re-reading, I see you were talking about random guests... now... I think many people have a lot of reasons not to want to be the ones to start the fight. As the GM, you can obviously always drop a powerful mage into a club, because they also have to hang out somewhere, BUT... well, maybe that's actually not such a bad idea. Put a vigilante mage in there who simply stunballs the group, or tries to, anyway (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) .


Smells of wilfully misinterpreting my arguments to me...

Obviously advancement rewards are GM territory, too, because that belongs to the scenario. Although actually some games do actually include the group. For instance, the group votes on who gets roleplaying rewards, fun moment rewards, etc., which is really a far better way of doing things.

Look at it this way: You demand that the players trust the GM, but why shouldn't the GM trust the players?

I guess we need our own thread for this discussion!

We are in good standing with the dice gods (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Having played various systems for 2 decades or so you get to learn which rolls you need to edge reroll and which ones you can "safely" fail. I just lucked out on that one, I've had 7-8 DP tests rolled with 0 hits on several occasions now over the last 9 sessions (it always seems to be the Browse rolls too, maybe Caine's commlink is jinxed).

Regarding statistics, dice do not follow statistics particularly well except over a high volume of rolls. Anyone who's played D20 knows you get high crit sessions where everybody is rolling crits, and low crit sessions where nobody seems to get one (DM or players), even though it's a static 5% chance (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)


We're learning that too. In fact, I'm wondering just how useful Infiltration is, if a spirit or mage can automatically perceive your aura anyway, then are they the ultimate guard? Or is it implied that if I am invisible, then I am easier to see on the astral and can't roll for Infiltrate, vs not being invisible and therefore can roll for Infiltrate even past a watcher spirit?

On my adept version of Caine I picked Astral Chameleon in the hopes that that would allow me to suppress my aura and sneak past astrally aware guards, however I'd also prefer to go in invisible & silent to fool cameras and mundane guards, and I'm getting the impression that any spell active on me is automatically lighting me up like a christmas tree on the astral. Does invisible actually mean "immediately obvious to at least one person in any sufficiently large group"? Does a non-awakened someone with a 20 dice Infiltrate pool and a chameleon suit have the same chance of sneaking past a spirit as they do past a metahuman guard? These are probably still all n00b questions but it's nice to get input from people who already had all these discussions (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


As a member of 2 groups that have been playing (as groups) for close to 2 decades each, there is an awful lot of trust both ways. As a player, I trust each GM to run it fairly, without abusing their positions as God of All™ too much, and only in an effort to advance the story. When I am GM, I trust the players to minmax like hell, come up with broken interpretations of rules (usually deliberate misreadings) in an attempt to minmax further, and basically try to ruin my entire day by doing nothing as expected. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) I also trust them to graciously accept me shooting down the broken rules and substituting a more balanced interpretation, and to accept the odd bit of railroading to get them back on track when they are so far off the plot that even a bodge artist like me doesn't know where to go next. Both groups I play with are very pink mohawk, in case you hadn't guessed (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

At no point am I expecting the GM to try and murder the entire group if they don't deserve it (it's fine if they do deserve it though, see start of thread for example), nor do I expect them to withhold rewards because we didn't choose the path they expected. I do expect them to railroad us back on track if required by the plot, assuming that they have put together some spectacular set-pieces that it would be a shame for us to miss (or we are at a point where we have broken the entire scenario and may as well be making it all up as we go along). And while I normally play with long standing friends, those expectations would still be there at a pick-up game with people I'd never met before.

Seen from the astral, all that can be figured is that the character has a spell active on him - it takes dual perception to notice that the person isn't visible on the material plane, hence that the spell is an invisbility one.

when it comes to the mundane in chameleon suit, since the spirit is watching the astral and the suit's cloaking ability doesn't work there, yes, the spirit has a better chance - though if the guard uses ultrasound sights or UWB radar, he'll be on par with the spirit since the suit doesn't help against a non-visual detection.

Nope. Spell type can be determined as well.


It doesn't help against thermographic vision either. Good luck getting past the troll.

So, if I have an active spell (invisibility, cast by Dawg) does the spirit have more chance of seeing me (-force DP on my Infiltrate or +force DP on its Perception), or can it automatically see me? If I don't have an active spell, is it a pure Infiltration vs Perception test or is there a penalty / bonus due to my natural aura?

We are currently playing it as astral perception is an automatic spot, and I'm feeling that this is a little unfavourable to Infiltration, as I have yet to find a method of completely cloaking my aura. If that's the way it works fair enough, it's just that it makes it relatively simple to put up an unbeatable surveillance system; spirits on overwatch plus guards / cameras on overwatch = forget subtlety, break out the autocannons :/

I'm probably missing something though (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)