That may come from a gamist design philosophy, but it's as true in the game world as it is in the rules. Compare to a really gamist rule like aDnD4 rogue being able to throw a cloud of knives... once per encounter.

But if your second spell is not an attack, you don't have to split your dice pool (you can use reckless casting). That's a dissociated mechanic, hence gamist.

It's gamist either way, because you've zoomed in to the level of pure mechanic. It could be a simulation of resisted spells simply being harder to cast. It may be a gamist philosophy, but it's still a consistent simulation.

Nobody is claiming you cant cast 2 spells with 2 Reckless Spellcasting actions, what you can't do is attack with both of those spells.
SIMPLEACTIONS
A Simple Action is one step more complicated than a
Free Action and requires more concentration to attempt.
During his Action Phase, a character may take two
Simple Actions, though only one can be an attack action.

Can you explain this a little bit? "It's as true in the game world as it is in the rules" sounds...circular to me? Couldn't you say that the rogue ability is "as true in the game world as it is in the rules", meaning in the actual game world the rogue can only throw a cloud of knives once per encounter because of <reasons> (too tiring/etc)


I think I've focused on a rule like the two attacks thing because while you might be able to try to give an explanation for this rule, there's no actual attempt in the rulebook to explain what this rule is simulating. It could be simulating many things, but because the authors didn't feel the need to explain something like this, it's gamist in my book.

The SR5 movement rules seem gamist. I'm really happy to have them though, as chopping up the movement over IPs has never been fun.

Looking at the Ultimate Gamist Rules set, DnD4, that Rogue might have (I have no idea at this point how many they actually get, so this is just for example's sake) 5 Per-Encounter abilities to draw from, and he can use each of them precisely once. If it's modeling fatigue, it's very peculiarly allowing you to do 5 different fatiguing things in a row, but not the same fatiguing thing 5 times in a row. Those are abilities with a "cooldown," which can be explained for magic (as magic is magic) but not so well for individual physical abilities.

Another very gamist rule (again DnD4) is the ability to (nonmagically!) push/pull/slide opponents around the battlefield willy-nilly without regard to size, effort, or physics. If you allow the game world to operate under the Combat Rules, you could have your group walk into the mayor's house and slide him around the bottom floor, up the stairs, and into the bedroom by slapping him with a sequence of increasingly wet fish.

Shadowrun doesn't work like that at all. Even the "one attack" rule has basically just segmented some actions into Simple and Simple+ -- you get one Simple+ action and one Simple action, or one Complex action.

If they'd described all attack actions as Complex actions, and then developed a series of exceptions (which would read much more complicated) such as "if you use your complex action to fire a gun once at one target you may also take a Simple Action that phase," would that be as bad?



Does it really need an explanation? Does it really deviate from real life expectations that much?

Spells are not mentioned in your rule quote, and I haven't seen them used in any example. I haven't seen any rule that says that this is the case regarding any spell.

So your trying with a straight face to claim that combat spell cast at opponent isn't an attack (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)
That is a general rule for simple actions, it doesn't mention any of them specifically.

Attack actions are not defined in any specific rules form. They figured it would be clear enough as is, and all dev/freelancer commentary that has clarified the subject has made it absolutely, irrevocably, unquestionably clear that spells used to directly effect an enemy qualify.

Is there any definition in the rulebook that defines a character as an opponent or enemy and hence what would constitute an attack?

Here is the crux: I can cast 2 combat spells at my friend because he is not an opponent nor an enemy, but I can't cast 2 combat spells at my enemy. Or is someone I choose to cast a combat spell at an enemy without exception? Is there a difference if I use a different spell type? Is someone I choose to cast any type of spell on an enemy without exception?

I haven't seen it in the book yet. It may be in there, but I haven't seen anybody demonstrate it.

The one attack action per combat action makes sense. Extending that mechanic to prevent spellcasting doesn't. Then some will say, but it doesn't, it just prevents certain kinds of spellcasting, because of how guns work.

We have been told, to use Bull's exact words, that the rule is meant to cover "anything that directly effects an enemy". You can complain about it not making sense if you want, but that is the rule as it is intended. Trying to get around that is pure munchkinism, and worthy of getting smacked upside the head with Grimmy.

And, to once again be absolutely clear: there is no given definition of attack actions in the first place, nor is there a rules argument to be made that would exclude spells.

The rule has absolutely nothing do with how guns work, its a 100% metagame rule ment to equalize how many times all characters can attack per pass.

Toturi:I'm not even gonna dignify that with an answer.

This is OT (but I started the thread, so :shrug:), but I wish this "joke" of threatening to hit someone in the head with the rulebook for trying to do something the GM doesn't like would go away. It's a trope that I think is really childish (and I mean childish in the negative connotation sense).

... Hey, Bull gave us DV's for the rulebook, so really I think the joke's become official by now. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Also, it's not just something that the GM doesn't like. Mirikon, the initiator of the "phonebooking" meme, has in the past made it explicit that the phonebook can be applied to GM's as well. It's basically just a humourous variant upon the Wheaton Law.

It has nothing to do with what the GM likes or doesn't, it's for people who are being anal about the rules including the GM.

But what if we cast on a Total Pacifist? Are they really my enemy? And if not, would they be exempt from being counting toward the directly effects an enemy bit so I can go double casting on them?

And Mimes, even if we do enforce the normal one attack action per phase rule, whether a gun shot or spell, I think we should have a specific exception for casting on mimes.

Teasing BTW

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

An enemy could be defined as a person to whom you direct hostile action or intent, which is implicitly te case if you're taking anything that could qualify as an attack action. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

And you can tell how pleased I am that the current devs are continuing this puerile "joke" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

It's a far cry from "Don’t be a dick." That's about self-policing and personal responsibility. The phonebook/rulebook idea, on the other hand, has a real leader/follower kind of vibe to it (leader/follower chosen purely as a shout-out to Bad Religion).

But what if I cast with Love In My Heart in the earnest belief that I have to save them from their corrupt corporate lifestyle by Powerbolting them into the next life? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

*ducks the inbound handbook swat*

The universe doesn't care about your delusions (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

Heh. I could argue it does since every Tradition is basically their follower's delusion of how their own magic works, which the magic reinforces to do that very thing they believe. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

That casting 2 barriers is fine, 1 barrier and shooting a gun is fine, 1 barrier and a healing spell is fine, but any two spells that affect enemies is a complete no-no? Without a good ingame justification, it fits this description: http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1545/r...ciated-mechanic .

The way you capitalise Tradition and the paradigm reference makes me think you've played Mage. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Just to clarify so I can be constructive instead of derailing the thread entirely: How's everyone defining "gamist" vs "simulationist"? Am I correct in saying that for this discussion, "gamist" means "any rule that seems to be in place 'because rules' instead of having an in-universe justification"? (It's an interesting discussion, but I don't have the book yet so I can't really contribute any examples.)