Toturi's players, based on what he's said over the years, aren't interested in lying, cheaing, or stealing anything. They are all out to have fun. Makes me wonder what you and your players are out for, since they apparently think that lying, cheating, and stealing is what makes a game fun.

I've seen plenty of GM's here brag about how they smashed the pride of a player. And then, we expect them to take it gratefully, and thank us for bending them over and pulling out the sandpaper. Well, turnabout is fair play. Players basically won't try and smash the GM's personal pride and dignity unless the GM has done the same to them first. You have to have attacked them personally in order to draw personal retribution.

*Shrugs* I read this post of toturi's as saying otherwise since he said that he has multiple (rules?)lawyers in his group a couple of posts up.

As for the rest of your post, I don't care for DM's being asses either and take a rabid dislike for such things as a statted vampire suddenly gaining multiple ( Force 8-10 ) bound spirits between her apperance in On the Run and the team trying to storm her lair to rescue a captured chummer a few days later. (Of course I also think that if they had rescued the teammate they should have geeked him for having loose lips but they is a seperate debate.)

What Authority? The GM has no power except that which is delegated to him/her by the players

True, and the authority or power ceded to the GM to run the game can be undermined by convincing other players that the GM is an ass.

I do have 2 rules lawyers who are also lawyers in my game. There was a time I took a break to deal with RL and someone else that took over running the local SRMissions that made a real hash of the rules, claiming that he favored Roleplay over Rollplay. Ironically as far as I know, he didn't run a game again, other than those cancer-causing Living Greyhawk adventures.

The facts of this scenario are morphing in response to my arguments. I get the feeling that these horrible demon players are hypothetical, not real. I'm not sure whether such hellspawn, backstabbing, petty, passive aggressive RPers exist. And if they did, any game they're in is doomed to failure. Resign yourself to just do what they want, or don't play a game with them. But for the vast majority of players, who are mature, and who are united behind the common goal of playing the game without any tantrums or manipulation, it's not an issue. I don't think arguments about the importance of GM discretion are impacted in any way by your hypothetical hell players.

Actually, they sound like the perfect bunch to play Paranoia with...

so tell him to bring you a list of every single corner case that he needs you to make a ruling on, and you'll get around to answering each and every one of them.

that being said, if he brings you a list and you don't feel like resolving it all, just tell him he hasn't got all of them (don't get specific what he's missing, mind you, but he's guaranteed to be missing something (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) )

(in all seriousness, if his character design relies on how a specific rule works, it's common sense to make sure the rule works the way you think it does with that GM first, and is likely to result in a happier GM than designing the character and then trying to guilt-trip the GM into ruling in your favour later)

And excellent in their memorization or meticulous in their record-keeping (so that they rule the same way when it happens again). And players who are willing to tolerate not knowing up front what the consequences of their actions are.

That sounds like, respectively, a lot of extra effort and a lot of extra anti-fun to me.

It's also, you know, possible to play a game with a group that wants consistent, consistently-applied, and foreknowable rules. "Rules lawyering" in terms of knowing and quoting in detail the rules is a positive feature, and should be encouraged in all players. It is only the degenerate version which only quotes advantageous rules (despite knowing the existence of others) that deserves anything vaguely like the scorn heaped on the concept here.

~J

In my experience, most of the corner cases come from the player trying to do something cool, that the GM is completely unprepared to deal with. So, rather than deal with it and roll with the punches, the GM throws a rules-based argument in order to shut down the player's stunt. The solution to this, naturally, is to discuss things with the player before the game starts, In addition to finding ou t what the player wants to do, find out how he intends to accomplish this.

In my last SRM game, I had a player who unleashed the Agent Smith army two or three times. I had discussed the trick beforehand with him, and explained that I'd be using house rules to simplify it while leaving him powerful. He used it semisuccessfully as a massive search bot. Of course, he was warned that he'd alert many people, since that many searchers are going to garner attention, Stealth programs or no. And in cybercombat, his army ran smack dab into an equal and opposite army. Even though everything he did was technically right, and would have been a pain to deal with, I dealt with the issue with open discussion and honest discourse. Slapping down a player gets you nothing but hurt feelings on both sides.

How are the facts morphing in response to your arguments? If you do not wish to admit that a games system that calls for more GM discretion is more taxing on the GM's social skills than a rules system that spells things out clearly and unambigously, then fine. I have brought up some of my experiences. I admit that what I have stated here may be colored by my own perceptions of what had happened but they remain true and not hypothetical nonetheless.

So from what it sounds like if you

A) Have players who are pretty casual about how the game is ran

and/or

B) Your very familar with the game system and running games in general

Then it's no problem.

BUT if neither A or B are true, then perhaps this system might not work out for you after all?

I'm also not sure how many times the corner cases we discuss here on DSF actually occur in real life games (not counting games here on DSF because the games are probably filled with the same people discussing the corner cases on DSF). I've run SR4 since it was released for undergraduates, working men and women, medical school students, university professors, and a few other types. In other words, running at a reasonably large university, I get a variety of people at my tables. Not once have I encountered an Agent Smith army or a Bloodzilla or any of the other corner cases we've discussed. I've never seen a Pornomancer I couldn't handle and I rarely, if ever, feel the need to make a GM fiat decision due to rules lawyering.

Actually, I lie. I had a person want to use full-auto fire with stick-n-shocks and I decided on the spot that the electrical damage wouldn't stack. Probably not the right way to call, but, as indicated, it was a knee-jerk reaction to an unexpected action. I've since thought about that choice and wouldn't make the same one again in the future.

Regardless, I think any game is a contract entered into between the players (GM included) which indicates that they're all trying to have a good time. If you've got a bunch of people at the table arguing over rules and you're still having a good time, let it roll. If it's creating a disruption for other players then, as was stated above, ask that the discussion be tabled for the moment to be taken up by interested parties after the game.

But, then again, I think we all know that I'm in the minority that thinks the SR4 rules are pretty tightly written. That probably influences my expectation of these corner cases and may, in fact, also influence the way my players play the game in someway resulting in a reduced appearance of corner cases. I don't personally know enough about psychology and sociology, but I can imagine that it's possible that as I show people the game and train them, my point of view is shared with them and, thus, influences theirs.

I'd say it's more if you:

1. Have players who don't mind their cool tricks being shut down on a regular basis
   
   and/or
   
   
2. Are very, very good at giving your players good reasons why their cool tricks don't work.

Players need to be aware when their "cool tricks" run the risk of shutting the game down or trampling the other players chances at enjoying the game. The most important thing for players to understand is that they are not the only player and the game isn't being specifically run for them. Gamemasters have the sometimes difficult job of keeping the spotlight shifting so that no one player gets to monopolize game session time. Rule Lawyer arguments have the chance to completely derail a game session, though not much more so than the over-acting ham, the habitual interuptor, or the disorganized GM archtypes do. It's best if the "Corner Case" issues can be ironed out outside of actual game sessions. Also make sure if you're in a group with multiple GM's that everyone who GM's agrees on a ruling when it gets put together.

Your problem seems to be that you have one player that wants to minmax his char while the rest of the group seem to be rather interested in playing a role in your game. That'll lead to clashes anyway you turn and bend it because as you stated yourself the rest of the group (including you the gm) has to adjust their whole playing style to that one player in order to have anything to do when any action is happening. Imo all that could help you there, since you want that player in game, is to have a talk with him, maybe with the whole group. Tell him that he's not the only player and that his actions just spoil the fun for like everyone else. Then create the new character along with him and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of his built, maybe telling him some aspects that he could roleplay a little bit while still being the main combat char of the team but it wont help your game experience to have a terminator along with 3 average joes in your party.

So I did have a long (10 hours over the course of 3 days) talk with him.

I don't really think we came to an agreement as far as trying to make a more balanced character, but he did agree to some of the house rules, one which greatly limits the number and power of Quickened spells.

Granted, I think he is toying with me.

One character is an Adept Gun Slinger which is completely reasonable.

The other is a Mage who spends his life shapechanged into a Dog to get the good physical stats.

If I had not known this person for more then 20 years, I would had just said, "thanks for playing but..."

That's my Option B. If you can point to a clear and unambiguous set of rules that prevent a particular cool trick, then the player will generally agree without a fight. For example, I legitimately missed the fact that you can only dual-wield SMGs or smaller, so our rigger's cool idea of dual-wielding HVARs had to be shut down. Luckily enough,we did that at the start of the game, so he was able to rebuild his character concept around something different.

Once you stop the game to declare GM fiat, everyone has already lost. It doesn't matter what the ruling is. Therefore, any tactical system that minimizes GM fiat is a good one.

Did I miss it, or has no one mentioned the option of the GM saying, "Hmm... I'm not sure how to interpret that rule. Why don't we run it this way for now, and then decide on how we all want to handle it if it comes up again after the session?"

Seriously, rules ambiguities aren't all that difficult to handle as long as you give the players some input on how they should be handled, and as long as you don't feel the absolute need to come to a definitive ruling right now.

As for players wanting to do cool stuff that would be allowable from a particular interpretation of the rules, why not just make some kind of compromise, like, "Sure, I'll let you {insert really cool stunt here}, if you'll spend a point of Edge on it."

Edit: Didn't notice Dashifen's post. Or I didn't read it thoroughly. I apologize.

everyone is basically busy focusing on the negative aspects. which is ridiculous.

i haven't noticed anyone saying that it's the GM's job to always say no, but people seem to have somehow decided that that's what was meant when they say that the GM should make a ruling. the GM may very well say yes in the event of a corner case, or (and i did say this way earlier) he can say "for now, we'll handle it this way and resolve it permanently later" if need be.

i don't see why everyone is assuming that GM discretion automatically means it's time to shoot your players' dreams out of the sky and laugh maniacally as they crash to the ground as a heap of burning rubble. it could very well mean "hmm, i hadn't considered that rule... i'll allow it" just as well as "i don't think that particular rule was intended to work that way, so i'm not going to allow it".

and Cain, the whole bloody point in having a GM is for the GM to make rulings. there is no such thing as a system that never requires GM interpretation, and there never will be. GM fiat is absolutely a part of the GM's job, and using it doesn't have to be a bad thing in any way (for example, saying no to bloodzilla is not, imo, a bad thing). designing a system around covering every situation is far more likely to generate GM rulings anyways, because the more complicated a system is, the more possible it is to find loopholes. as such, any attempt to prevent GM rulings by adding rules is 2 steps forward, 3 steps back as often as not, because now instead of just the people trying to abuse things who do know the system, you basically have to know the entire system like the back of your hand just to be able to not create a problem situation. what's worse is that now the GM is going to have to memorise the entire set of rules flawlessly, including the specific wording and everything... but hey, it's not like that time could be better spent fleshing out key NPCs, coming up with awesome ideas for the campaign, or anything else useful (or apparently that's what some people must think, i guess).

seriously, it's not the end of the world (or the game) if the GM has to make a decision about the rules, and the GM doesn't automatically have to rule against the player. really, for any sort of unclear rules interpretation, the player should be taking responsibility and asking the GM before they design their character around an exploit, so that the GM and the player are on the same page. in point of fact, the GM should be involved in the character creation process to some extent, so that he knows where the players want to go with their characters, which will allow him to tailor the game to the players.

And even then, someone usually walks away unhappy right in that moment. Sometimes that's the GM, sometimes it's the player, sometimes it's the rest of the players. Handle it before the session, with a clear rulebook, and then everyone wins.

I completely agree, to use Cains previous example with the 2 HVARs, if it didn't say it's impossible in the rulebook, some players (including me) would argue that with enough strength it should be possible to pull this off, and the only counter argument I can think of is "it's a tad unbalanced..."
A rulebook with coherent basic rules gives people a framework within which to be creative...
Well, for SR at least...
For RPGs like any storyteller game and the old WEG Star Wars, the loose rules work very well...
Another example is SLA Industries (Possibly the coolest setting ever...), the very basic rules are easy 2d10 +/- mods, 11+ succeeds, but just because a lot of things aren't even mentioned it required a lot of houseruling before players know what they can expect from certain skills and/or equipment...

I think the whole bloody point of having a GM is to have him run the game as in run the story and not need to make rulings. While most game systems require some GM interpretation as the language sometimes does not lend itself to clear unambiguous statements, there can be a minimal amount of GM fiat. You could say that a CRPG requires GM fiat but I have never seen a GM needing to rule on a game mechanic there.

By the time the GM gets the entire set of rules flawless, he should be able to flesh out key NPCs and coming up with awesome ideas for the campaign or anything useful in a small fraction of the time if he didn't. So getting the entire rules set flawless is a good time investment.

Sorry, this popped up while I was typing:

BZZT! But thanks for playing!

The whole bloody point of a GM is to provide a story for people to play in. There are many systems that require minimal GM fiat to run, and Capes doesn't require GM fiat at all. GM fiat is something to be avoided at all costs, and it's always a bad thing when it has to happen. Even if the GM says yes, he ends up walking away feeling bad. You can't win.

there is no flawless rules system. it doesn't take a lot of time for a GM to make a decision on the spot. which is good, because no rules system could possibly cover every single scenario anyways. leaving the rules open to GM interpretation means that it will come up more often, but like i said, it isn't necessarily a bad thing for the GM to make a decision. it allows any given GM to decide, for example, whether they want "chrome" or "professional" to describe their game. it allows a GM to decide how important the matrix really is in their game, and how hard it is to stop someone from hacking your stuff. certainly, if you have a group of malicious rules-lawyers who are determined to force the GM to rule how they want, when they want, and to change rulings according to their desire at any given time, then it is a bad thing. then again, playing an RPG with such a group is going to turn out badly no matter what.... so why bother trying to cater to that situation?

3rd edition D&D tried to cover as many rules as possible, and there's still obviously plenty of room for problems like the hulking hurler, pun-pun, the wish and the word, nanobots, the cheater of mystra, and all kinds of other horrible, horrible things. we're talking about a company that probably has 15 times as many employees as CGL does to work on this sort of thing (maybe only 5-10 times as many if you count all of CGL's freelancers as employees) and they still don't seem to have closed all the loopholes. in a game that is utterly obsessed with balance, no less. and that's just looking at the worst problems. it has huge problems even at it's most basic level, including horrible imbalances between the classes (CoDzilla vs fighter looks kinda like Godzilla vs Bambi), skills (yay perform! totally awesome, sooooo much better than lame old use magic device) feats (compare toughness to power attack for example) and so forth. and this is seriously in a game system that obsesses over everything being balanced, and in having rules to cover as much as possible. and we're just looking at the core 3 rulebooks here (mostly just at the PHB, even). so don't try to tell me that going the way of 3rd edition D&D means less headaches for the GM.

and actually, CRPGs do use GM fiat all the time, by forcing you to go certain ways. you can say "i'm going to go do some legwork" and the CRPG can just say "shut up and go do a frontal assault" and there's nothing you can do about it. so actually, CRPGs are probably the worst example of GM fiat you can imagine, it's just that there's no person for you to try to change the mind of... unless of course you're going to write the company and try to convince them to rewrite the code. you think it takes a long time for a GM to make a judgement call of how the rules should work, try waiting for a new patch or a new expansion for a game (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[edit] Cain, the GM exists to override the rules when necessary and to enforce them when necessary. otherwise, you could get the same experience out of a CRPG as you do out of tabletop, since you wouldn't need anything more than the initial input of what the story is. Certainly, storytelling is an important part of the GM's job, but you can have an RPG with no real story to it and you still need a GM. you can have a story with no rules to it, and you don't need any GM at all. [/edit]

I don't think we ever said that the RPG needs rules for everything, just, as I said, coherent and good...
For the most part SR4 is coherent and good, but there are a lot of small points where I think it would have been helpful if the writers had just said "it's like this" instead of giving none to several ways of handling it and letting the GM sort it out...
I'm _NOT_ promoting systems like rolemaster where you have page long tables you need to roll when you stab with a rapier and other tables in case you try to slash with one, and what you need to roll to tie your shoelaces...
Just in games as lethal as SR4, a good basis keeps characters alive...
(D&D however is a tool of the devil...)