If you Don't allow problems to crop up, then you have no Problems either. That requires Compromise.
I actually approach this whole connundrum in the following way.

Rules are there to provide the framework. Unfortunately, the Rules cannot cover everything in the exacting amount of detail that some people like. That is okay. That is why you have a GM. People can be reasonable. If there is an Issue, the GM and the concerned parties (The Table, if you will) get to gether and discuss the options and come to a reasonable consensus. Once consensus is reached, you document the result and move along.

One of two things will occur with the above scenario.
1. You get consensus, and the game progresses (The discussion does not have to occur in game, and actually tends to work better if it occurs out of game).
2. You have a Problem Player/GM and you hit a stalemate.
... A. Nothing Changes and you have anim osity.
... B. You eject the problem Player/GM and the game picks back up.
... C. You change Games entirely to something that everyone can agree on.

Now. I will admit that I have been very fortunate over the last 25 years to actually game with people who are capable of reasonable and rational discussion, and are able to come to a compromise. I have never had any type of blowup at a gaming table (though there are occasional heated discussions). Some of you may not be that lucky. However, it is NOT THE FAULT OF THE RULES when that happens. It is a personality dynamic that is at the root cause, and no amount of rules is going to fix that.

*Shrug*

I didn't say 'detail everything'. (Nor did I say 'never discuss anything'.) I said 'detail something'. (And 'minimize discussion'.) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) This is the fundamental principle of tabletop RPG; too little is freeform, too much is wargaming.

The Realistic Form/etc. rules are much *more* vague than the SR4 standard. The framework is missing. There is a reason the Shapechange spell doesn't just say 'you turn into some animal'. There is a reason the guns have stats. And so on.

As always, it doesn't matter if you've ever seen it. It doesn't even matter if *no one* has ever seen it. And you do always (always) say nothing is a problem because the GM can just fix it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) (Or sometimes, because 'no one would be bad'.)

There are some things that you just cannot describe down to the last possibility of detail. Some things MUST be vague to allow freedom to choose appropriate descriptives. Realistic Form is one of those things. Shapechange is another. Shapechange is about as vague as Realistic Form is (has a minor bit of restrictions), and with the advent of "rules" for spell creation, is potentially even more of a can of worms than Realistic Form is. And yet it is Canon (And yes, I know you have issues with the Spell Creation rules on occasion as well).

And Yes, nothing SHOULD be a problem exactly BECAUSE the GM can fix it, that IS HIS JOB. To Fix things when there are questions. AND THERE ARE ALWAYS QUESTIONS, you will never eliminate them. Why is it okay for the GM to arbitrate one thing and not another? Shadowrun provides a good framework from which the GM can adjudicate. I just do not limit the GM's contribution, like some others prefer. Hell, I know some that believe the GM's only job is to provide a scenario and nothing more. How Droll...

And again, if the GM is not comfortable with such duties/confrontations, that is not the fault of the rules/system. Saying that a GM should not have to adjudicate is disengenuous, as that is one of his primary duties.

As for it mattering if it is ever witnessed, I think it is highly relevant. IF NO ONE HAS WITNESSED THE ISSUE, then IT IS NOT AN ISSUE/PROBLEM in the first place. How can it be? If I have never seen it to be an Issue, I have to question whether it is truly an issue, or is it a vocal minority claiming it is a bigger problem than it truly is? Often you claim an issue to be THEORETICAL, yet relevant, even when the majority (and sometimes even you) does not see it at their tables, or at conventions. Theory crafting is one thing, but IF IT NEVER ACTUALLY IMPACTS THE GAME, it is a BAD THEORY. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Again, no one asked for "describe down to the last possibility of detail". And Shapechange is vastly more defined: it must be a mundane Critter within (or stupid-RAW, +/-) 2 Body. Period. That's like 12 options. Realistic Form is literally anything.

And no one said 'eliminate all questions'. You're supposed to minimize them. (I know I've said this three times.) The GM's 'job' (didn't realize he was getting paid (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) ) is to deal with the stuff that couldn't be minimized. That doesn't mean 'don't try'. The fact that janitors exist doesn't mean you should litter.

And no one said "that a GM should not have to adjudicate […]". Why can't you ever argue against things I actually say? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

That's not the standard for evaluating theory, TJ, and I don't recall saying that this is a gameplay issue in the first place. (See my last question.) The pornomancer, for example, exists (period). Regardless of whether it ever happens in a game. It is a theoretical shortcoming of the rules. There are uncountable other examples. When you find a hole in the rules, 'ignore it' is not the sole appropriate response.

You have ceased making sense. Many of your arguments are invalid on this thread.


I want to make a F1 Ally Spirit with Realistic Form to turn into a realistic, functional Death Star.


Incorrect. Shapechange has extraordinarily delineated rules that allow you to only become one of five different animals, chosen from page 292, SR4A.

Letting the toaster be unaffected by wall voltage electricity applied to it's plug, but having it be damaged normally by electricity applied any other way, that's just straight RAW.

The rules state the spirit can operate as the item that it copies.

It does not say the spirit gets any other benefit. It cannot be disassembled for parts. It can't be used to electrocute someone by dropping it into their tub. The spirit toaster can make toast. That's it.

If I were to make up fluff on the subject, the spirit isn't copying the actual item, but the IDEA of the item. So it can do whatever the item is normally expected to do, and nothing else.

If I had an abusive player, I might houserule that only existing mundane objects of reasonable size can be copied. "reasonable size" being whatever I decide. But, really, such a player probably does this sort of thing all the time and as such I'd be more likely to eject said player from my game instead. Not only does such behavior show a certain level of disrespect for me as the gamemaster, it offends my sensibilities as a powergamer - there's tons of ways to min-max that don't rely on such shaky grey foundations.

It isn't a toaster. It's a toaster-shaped spirit. It can toast. That's it.

Again, I don't see why that's complicated.




-k

Shapechange has WAY more than 12 Options, even with the "Stupid-RAW" as you say it. The fact that there may only be 12 examples of such use is irrelevant, there are literally thousands of (if not more) uses for Shapechange and/or Critter Form. Realistic Form is similar. That is why the GMN MUST be involved in such things. To detail even a significant portion of what Shapechange/Realistic Form is capabnle of is a daunting, and somewhat ludicrous, task to undertake. So, leave it to the interpretation of those who play. DOes that mean that it may be interpreted differently by 100 different people? Yes, but I say So What. That is irrelevant, because it opens up possibilities.



See, that is where you and I are different. I feel that Realistic Form is detailed enough, and generates Minimal questions. Especially at the tables I play at. It has never been abused. It has never been debated ad infinitum. It has NEVER caused an issue at all. That may be because we choose not to make it an issue (as you will liklely claim), or it may be becasue IT IS NOT REALLY AN ISSUE, as I would claim. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)



You may not directly state that a GM is not required to adjudicate, but plenty of others have said so over the years, here on Dumpshock. And you DO hold that that Adjudication should be kept to as bare a minimum as can be obtained. But my question is by whose standards? The Developers obviously feel that what they have provided is generally enough. I tend to agree with them (for the most part). I do think they got a few things wrong, but in the end, I do not let it get in the way of my enjoyment of the game. I do not angst over whether or not the detail is exactly what I would like, and I trust the GM enough to know we can come to a consensus on those things that may be vague.



The pronlem is taht THEORY is not always relevant. Theory for Theory sake is actyually bad for an RPG, as far as I am concerned, because it tends to get in the way of actual play. If the Theory is NEVER going to impact the game world, why care about it?

The Pornomancer is a good example of such things. It may exist, out there somewhere at some table, and I can agree that it may indeed exist (kind of Like Quarks anbd Leptons, they exist but I will never see them), but it will never impact play at MY table. As such, theorycrafting about it is useless to me. I will not angst about whether or not I will ever have to deal with it because I won't. I won't have to angst about whether or not I am being fair, because I wouldn't care. I will simply say to the offending player "Nope, Try again, and this time make something that is a realistic character, not an exercise in numerical optimization." See, Simple and solved, with no detailing in the rules that it is abusive and stupid (reference my discussion on Skill Ranks and their relation to Characters, if you are unsure to what I refer). If you (generic) have issues with Extreme Edge cases, and they crop up often enough in your game to have actual Theorycrafting in place to argue your points, then it is not the rules that are the issue, it is the players. If you have no tolerance for such stupidity, then eventually, the problem WILL go away, because the offending player will either get the message and fix their issues (whatever they may be), or they will seek a new table to play at. It is NOT a shoprtcoiming of the Rules, nor is it me "IGNORING" the situation; it is an Extreme Edge Case that should never be allowed to occur within the game itself, and never will at my table. You have those REGARDLESS of the game system, or how much detail is provided in the rules. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I don't need extensive and detailed rules to tell me how to adjudicate something in the world. I use the framework of the rules provided, and the actual living, breathing World that has developed over the last 20 years (The fluff is there for a reason, after all) to do so. I do understand that not everyone is comfortable doing so, but saying something is broken because you (again, generic) do not want to take the time to adjudicate something that may be vague is just laziness, in my opinion. The Question would be: WHY do you have such an animosity towards having to make an adjudication in this case? I don't really see Realistic Form as an Issue. Why do You? Beyond a sense that it is Vague and could "Literally do anything," which I do not agree with. It can do anything that your GM is allowing it to do. That threshold will be different for each and every game table out there, as it should be. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Incidentally, I do enjoy this conversation. And I am not trying to be a prick about it. I am truly curious WHY you feel the way you do, beyond the point of "I just do not like it." The fact that the rule is vague is purposeful, in my opinion, not a shortcoming of not being detailed enough.

Thanks for participating, regardless... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Simple... NO. Try again. See, very easy.



Incorrect, it has EXAMPLES of animals you can turn into. However, becasue there are, as you so eloquently put it, "Extremely Delineated Rules" describing what you can become, you have literally THOUSANDS (if not 10's of Thousands) of choices to choose from when you change forms, they are just not all provided as examples BECAUSE IT WOULD TAKE UP THOUSANDS (IF NOT 10's OF THOUSANDS) OF PAGES TO DO SO. Thus, it is left to the devices of the GM as to what EXACTLY you can take the form of, within the "Extremely Delineated Rules" you are so proud of.

Completely Different Thing entirely.

Very Eloquently Put, KarmaInferno. My Feeelings Excactly, but generally expressed better than I have been doing lately. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Sigh. The point is that you had to say 'no'. He could ask for literally a thousand different things, and the GM will have to stop and decide every time.

Shapechange proves the point either way, then. Either it's an example of a very limited, no-GM-required effect (choose a Critter from the list), or it's an example of a horrifically vague effect (choose any animal); in the latter case, the GM once again has to stop and decide every time, *then* decide on that critters exact stats, every time. If, instead, he writes down all these decisions (house rules), he is expanding the rules specifically to avoid having to adjudicate. … Which is the point. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) More rules, less GM work.

I don't think the question of 'does the toaster take Stun' is relevant, except insofar as it's vague, too. You have to decide if making toast is the essence of the toaster, or if electrocuting people in tubs also is. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Can a realistic form car ram things, or can it only transport people? Someone asked if an spirit-F-15 uses jet fuel. Ad infinitum.

Again, TJ, I didn't ever claim it was a gameplay issue. You can't, therefore, rebut me by saying it's not a gameplay issue. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) The fact that you personally don't care about things like pornomancer doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be cared about. The fact that you constantly use this argument of 'you can't control everything' does not mean you're right that we shouldn't control *some* things; no one said 'everything' in the first place. No one asked for "THOUSANDS (IF NOT 10's OF THOUSANDS) OF PAGES". Can you address anything but straw men and slippery slopes?

@Yerameyahu

Not for a toaster, but in General. It is a huge question for possion based spirits. What happens if you posses a car. The spirt has a stun track.
If you now shoot the "possessed car" with SnS, would you force the spirit to leave?

The problem I was addressing is, that the spirit (afte the rules) would still take stun damage. (Because nothing is changing that)
So the toaster which is plugged in, will still be hurt by SnS and StunGuns. Which is quite silly.

@KarmaInferno

Can it toast beagles? My I roast something on top of it? Like a toast Hawaii?
The Problem is, it is not a "normal" toaster. You can not account for the billions of possibilities.

So you do not transform in a Toaster but in an electrical cord, are you able to drop yourself in a bathtub now?

Sigh. That is the point, it is his duty to do so. Else you would not NEED a GM.



The point is that the GM is then free to put his take on things into play, a freedom he would NOT have if the rules were more codified in that regard. The framework exists, everything else should be a collaboration between GM and Players. Less Rules, and More GM/Player input on the World. The world becomes a living breathing extension of the table it is played at... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)



And again, the GM should have final say on this. BECAUSE it is allowed to be broad or narrow depending upon the Table interpretation, it is EXTREMELY Flexible. Which I believe is the point. Not every vague rule is an error on the Developer's part.



And again, I was not just addressing you. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) But here is a question for you specifically, Yerameyahu. Why should I actually care about the Pornomancer. You have yet to give me a plausible and logical reason to do so, other than THEORETICALLY it can cause an issue with gameplay. A Theory that I have YET to see actually bear non-theoretical concerns. Some things ARE Controlled, else we would not have any rules at all. So please don't imply that I am saying we should not care at all, because I do. I just do not care about the Extreme Edge Cases that are stupid and irrelevant in the game. Especially since I have yet to see any of them show up, you know, IN GAME. And even if they were to rear their ugly head, we KNOW they are Extreme Edge Cases, and thusly we say NO. Why is that such an onerous task for the GM to perform?

As for the Comment on Thousands of pages, the logical progression to eliminating any questions in game (and in this particular instance of the rules) is to actually ELIMINATE any questions in game. Which will take several more trees per book. Neither of those comments are straw men or slippery slopes, and again, you know that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

There is a fine line between allowing interpretation and freedom of decision and reducing game play to a tedious exercise in mechanics. I think Shadowrun has it right. They provide a good framework from which you can make decisions, but you are not required to make them all the time. The more you eliminate the decision making process, the thicker the book must become. You cannot avoid that.

So, back to Realistic Form and/or Shapechange. If you want to eliminate the vagueness, you MUST delineate ALL the pareameters that can be obtained. To do so in these particular cases would indeed entail several thousand pages of additionl material to be produced. Whether you were the one who made such statements or not does not invalidate the consequence of eliminating the vagueness. I, for one, would rather have the freedom to make those choices, rather than having them made for me in a way that may not mesh with my view on the reality of the game world (and the precedence that Canon has set over the years). You may differ in that opinion. That is okay. It does not, however, invalidate my (or your) opinion. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

That said, you still have yet to tell me WHY you feel the rules would benefit from more rules delineation on this particular subject. You have yet to actually explain WHY the vagueness is not a Positive, rather than a Negative, beyond some reasoning of "a GM should not have to make those decisions." Can you provide more information than that, or does it just grate on your nerves that the GM must step in to do so?

The end point is that we disagree with each other on three points...

1. The Involovement of the GM in the establishing of precedence in game.
2. Whether or not some Vague rules are sufficient in there descriptions or not.
3. The relevance of Theorycrafting in game or out.

I don't think that you or I are ever going to come to an agreement on these topics. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
No worries, though. I do enjoy hearing your views on them. Whether or not I actually agree with them.

It is true that the rules should cover things come up in games as best as they can.

However, requiring that the rules cover EVERY LITTLE THING that might come up is an impossibility.

Otherwise you'd end up with a rulebook the size of Canada.




-k

Quite so, KarmaInferno. Which is why, if I'd seen anyone at all suggest "requiring that the rules cover EVERY LITTLE THING that might come up"… they'd be wrong. If and when that happens, I'll let TJ know. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

--
I didn't say you should care, TJ. I said you should admit that someone could. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Again, you're completely lying about this 'thousands of pages'. It's not even thousands of *words*.

It's a very simple, universally-accepted principle: the rules should reduce the need for GM intervention as much as reasonably possible (as I clearly stated earlier, more than freeform and *less* than wargaming/boardgaming). That is the one and only reason RPG rules exist. And again, if the GM starts saving his decisions, he is *writing rules*. The fact that this happens proves that it would have been useful (and is, in the future) to have rules for those things.

On the contrary, I've explained repeated and specifically why unbounded vagueness is not positive, and fundamentally anti-thetical to tabletop RPG. I've also repeatedly explained that I'm *not* suggesting a gameplay issue, so I dunno why you keep claiming I am. I'm not even talking about 'extreme edge cases'; the infinite nature of the Realistic Form example means that we have literally every possible case to consider, from 0 to 'extreme edge'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Is a toaster okay? Is a pistol okay? Is a laser rifle okay? Is a nuke okay? Is a car okay? Is a yacht okay? Is a Gundam okay? (Death Star?) Literally forever. The GM and the group have finite time.

Depends on the scope of the rules....
With it is only possible what is allowed in the rules, everything else functions like in the real world, you have covered a lot of ground.
You can't cover every instance explicitly, but on the other hand you do not have to.

If you streamline your rules, you can go a long way with very little pages. The problem here is, that you can't give everything a special cake.
(For exampel Magic and essence lost would need to work the same for everybody, you would need to point out what is the basis on which all characters stand. For example: Do I have to tell, that somebody is blind or do I have to write visual(normal) for him to see...)
If you stick to those "rules" you can make a rule system without leaving a lot of open question.

I always have, and yet, I get flak for saying I do not. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)



Actually I am not, I extrapolated for ALL possible cases that COULD come up. Can you become an Insect if you have a Body of 2? Theoretically, Yes, therefore you have Millions of options right there. How about mammals? Tens of Thousands. How about Fish? How about Living Plants? How about Reptiles? How about creatures that are now extinct, but for which we have fossil records of, etc, etc, etc.? Where do you stop? If you eliminate them all, then you have a potential of tens of thousands of pages, if not more. Let us not minimize the sheer improbablility of performing this in the end. It would be daunting to even contemplate.



And I have stated many times that Shadowrun already does this, as much as reasonably possible. What is left is purposefully left vague to allow individuality and creativity. And if the GM DOES start saving his decisions (Many of which I would NOT consider houserules, just applications of the already provided rules, extended) it is because they are HIS decisions, and they are his choices, and not someone else's. Just because it is a rule does not mean that it is a good one, or that it reflects the world as the GM sees it. Thus a more vague rule is, in some cases, more preferable than a hard and inviolable one. I have said this a few times as well. And if you argue that the rule is not inviolable and can be changed, why do you need the rule in the first place, if you are just going to change it?



Really you have not. You said you don't like it because it forces someone to make a calling that you do not think that they should have the need (or possibly even right; not sure, but sometimes the tone of your posts implies that, even if it is not your intent) to make. And again, if it is not a Game Play Issue, as you apparently KEEP saying, then how is it an issue at all? The fact that you brought up the Pornomancer indicated you were talking about an Extreme Edge Case, which is exactly what that is. It is an application of the rules, taken to ludicrous ends. Many (if not all) of the Theorycrafting discussions are just such situations. And because they are stupid, ludicrous, Edge Cases, they can be dismissed completely.

Yes, Realistic Form can conceivably cover anything, but I am sure that you can employ common sense and eliminate all the stupidity and silliness. I know that I can do so, and in about 1 Second. I assume you can too. Lets look at your above list: Yes (Toaster - Canon Example), Yes (Pistol - It can shoot a bullet, but it would require that it is employing a power to do so, or you LOAD it with ACTUAL AMMUNITION), Yes (Laser Rifle - Same caveat as the Pistol, allowing damage if power, or if it ties into an appropriate Power Source), No (Nuke - Stupid, Magic and Nukes do not mix), Yes (Car - Canon example of Motorcycle, and Car is easy extrapolation), Yes (Yacht - Canon Example of Ally Spirit Yacht), NO (Death Star/Gundam - Stupid and Ludicrous both), etc...

See, that was not so hard, and actually took longer to type and proof than to actually make the decision on applicability. Yes, the GM and the Group have finite time, and the problem player who tries to monopolize such time with irrelvant power gaming requests (which I would argue the player KNOWS are irrelevant power gaming requests) should be beat about the head and shoulders with the heaviest book at hand. It is not the fault of the Rules when Players get stupid and attempt to rape them mercilessly. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I never suggested allowing Shapechange to work for any animal. I said it works for about 12. Done, fully delineated. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
But that's false. There are many brief, reasonable limits that could be placed on Realistic Form. That's the whole point: you *agree* that reasonable rules should be in place; as I said, the issue for Realistic Form is that none are in place.

Because gameplay issues aren't the only possible kind of issues.

That's my point: you had to spend a certain amount of time (even 1 second) on each of those. There are an infinite number of them. They're not all obvious, irrelevant, or powergaming, either, and opinions will differ (I think a yacht is moronic, and therefore the canon is wrong (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ). If there were some brief, simple lines, you wouldn't have to waste that time, or worry about ad-hoc consensus. And Realistic Form is just one example; as I mentioned, infinite Shapechange is worse, because you'd have to stat out every form.

And yes, a certain share of the blame *does* rest on the rules when they're so sloppy or vague that they encourage the players getting silly ideas. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Clearer rules can easily avoid the entire thing, without any arguments about 'the rules allow it', GM-fiat, etc.

Which is obviously false... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)



Not false, you just do not agree. You think it should be more limited. I think the GM should be the one to place those limits, not some arbitrary developer.



They are often the only ones that matter though, since they are the only ones that actually impact gameplay.



So what... That would be my job as the GM, to address such issues WHEN/IF they ever came up. I accept that. Apparently you do not. *shrug*
I do not see it as a waste of time. As for opinions of Canon, that is why some amount of vagueness is good, at least as far as the Realistic Form/Shapechange issue is concerned.. It allows you to craft your own Canon, for your own table, rather than debate whether an in-game decision by a Developer/Author is moronic or not. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

As for infinite Shapechange being worse, I disagree. At that point, you only have to stat out what the Table cares about, and ONLY when it actually comes up. You do not have to do it all, and neither did the Developers. Win-Win. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)



Except that you will never have rules so clear that a player cannot create insane Edge Cases becasue he got a silly idea. I have yet to see a game that could not be abused. Generally because players are not happy unless they are a unique snowflake of some kind, or they purposefully look to exploit and break the game because they consider it to be fun.

AS for Shadowrun, I do not see it ENCOURAGING Edge Cases.

No worries though. Been an interesting conversation. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

In this case, what do you need rules for at all? For combat, it would be enough to say "Guns often kill people" and let the gm decide if in THIS case, the gun does that. As a gm, I've got enough to do with the story and I don't want to spend my time limiting the things that are allowed by the rules, when it would be much easier when it would already have been limited by them.

It's like you're incapable of not jumping to the extreme. My point is that clear-*er* rules tend to avoid such instances. I never said 'rules can avoid them totally', or should, nor that the solution is infinitely clear rules.

I don't even see how anyone could disagree. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) We're playing a rules-based tabletop RPG, so we all necessarily agree that moderate (not minimal, not maximal) rules guidance is a good thing. We can differ a little about how much, but the point is that some things, e.g. Realistic Form, have much less than the normal, standard amount of guidance. Again: the GM shouldn't do *nothing*, but he shouldn't do *everything* either. Realistic Form, just for example, requires that he do everything. This is why we have chargen rules, and Avail rules, and combat resolution rules, and on, and on. The GM could do all of that.

But it is to the Extremes that you keep going. It was not I that brought up the Pornomancer. It was not I who said it was problematic for the GM to adjudicate Realistic Form. It is not I that leans to Theorycrafting the Ludicrous just to prove that it is indeed ludicrous, even if it is possible. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Maybe that is why you fail to comprehend what I am saying. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) The issue is that I already believe that the Shadowrun Rules provide Moderate (read enough) guidance to solve issues as they come up (Not too much and not too little). I don't need rules to tell me what animal forms I can allow in the game. I don't need them to limit what Realistic Forms my Spirits can take. Furthermore Realistic Form does not require that the GM do Everything. I tend to place a large onus on the players to provide ideas and options to me (as do the other GM's). I (We) approve them or disprove them, and discuss what compromises both sides are willing to make. See, this allows everyone to have an actual impact on the game without feeling restrained and powerless. And it allows the game to take on a life at the table, because EVERYONE is invested in furthering the game, not just the GM. Try it sometime, you may find that you like it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And claiming that the GM is responsible for Everything in SR4 is very disengenuous. He isn't. If you had your way, he would do even less. I personally think the balance is pretty good.

Of the half dozen examples and analogies I attempted on you, the pornomancer was one. If you'd read, you'd have seen that was (and is) an example of a rules issue that could exist, even if it never happened in your games. It doesn't indicate that all rules issues are extreme.

It is problematic for the GM to adjudicate Realistic Form; that was me who said it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The process of approval, discussion, and investment you describe is just as easily called 'fighting and wasting time'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) It just depends. But that's beside the point, because I'm positive that you use the book rules for all the other things I already mentioned (twice), if only as a basis for house rule adjustments. You don't just wing everything. That's the point: nothing I'm suggesting changes that, neither causing freeform nor boardgaming. I never said a word about not allowing GM/player collaboration, or removing the role of the GM (on the contrary, I repeatedly stipulated the opposite).

I also *didn't* claim the GM is responsible for everything! Why can't you ever read anything I write? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) I said the amount of GM intervention required by Realistic Form, which is very vague, is higher than the standard, normal amount of GM intervention required by other aspects of SR4; there aren't even *rough* limits on Realistic Form. Having some in no way removes the role of the GM, player input, etc. It's very simple: you're fine with rules for guns, vehicles, combat, etc.… but suddenly any rules for Realistic Form is a travesty?

And I agreed that it COULD exist. And then dismissed it as irrelevant, because it would never see the light of day at any table I played at. Therefore, the possibility of such a character (the Pornomancer) causing ANY issues is a moot point. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

As for what you said and did not say... Ummmm, Really? This is a direct quote from you from about 3 posts up (Post 46). I read it word for word twice to make sure I understood EXACTLY what you were saying. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)



As for approval, discussion, investment. It happens outside of the game, usually, precisely so no time is wasted in game. There is this handy thing called email that works wonders for such things. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Yep, I (we) use the book rules for almost everything (weven for things that I do not like the wya they are handled, it is just not that importrant to me). There are only a few rules that have been changed (some to optional Rules from the books, and some because our GM wanted to try some other options he came up with). And again, Yes, Realistic Form, requires a few seconds more to adjudicate. Again... SO WHAT. Is that few seconds really that problematic for you? And Realistic Form is Vague because it needs to be. And no, Having a rule for Realistic Form is not a Travesty (It already exists). Claiming that more specific ones are needed is the travesty, as I truly see no real need for such rules... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

No worries, Yerameyahu, we are just going in circles again. You don't really need to invest any more time and energy into the discussion. I think we mostly understand each other. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The GM has to do everything… for Realistic Form. Not "everything in SR4". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I guess you should have read me that 3rd time!

So, we agree: Realistic Form is more vague and requires more GM work than the standard in SR4. And yes, that is problematic for me. There could easily be brief rules to limit Realistic Form from 'infinity' down to 'normal flexibility'. So… we're back at the beginning: it's not a problem *at your table*, because nothing is.

Movement for spirits is already well covered.

But I see your argument, but I mean there's a number of issues with 'Realistic Form'. The fact you want to be an F-15 at F1 force is only one issue.

Take Invoking where the form gets larger, gaining a +1 reach. How does this work if its a metahuman form (e.g. dwarf) and you don't *want* to get larger? My understanding is that they are man sized normally but can only 'grow' when Invoking is used (so in the preceding example, spirit gets larger regardless if it screws up the 'Realistic' aspect of his form).

The mechanics for Realistic Form are horrible. They need to be completely redefined by RAW otherwise they're impossible for a GM to deal with without a good amount of handwavium and houseruling. I can live with it but I can definitely see why it chafes others.

- J.