 Take Aim and Called Shot |
  |
 Nov 27 2006, 07:53 PM
Post
#101
|
|||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178  |
Ramming, page 160. Granted, this is usually reserved for deliberate attacks, but the same rules fit nicely. |
||||
 |
 
|
||||
|
Nov 27 2006, 08:38 PM
Post
#102
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
True, but it requires that scary GM Fiat thing to decide if a ram is appropriate to the situation. By your standard then, shouldn't the ramming rules be removed as a possibility during a crash?
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 28 2006, 07:04 AM
Post
#103
|
|
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
It doesn't require GM fiat, it requires House Rules. Which are decided on and agreed to beforehand. GM Fiat, by definition, is completely arbitrary and dependant on the GM's whims. This is why a solid rule base are a good thing: they reduce the need for GM fiat.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 28 2006, 03:00 PM
Post
#104
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
So a house rule of "sometimes crashes might instigate rams" is ok, but a house rule of "you can't kill a man inside a buttoned up citymaster with a banana peel" is not? Interesting choice. I think I'd probably go a different direction, but to each his own.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 28 2006, 04:05 PM
Post
#105
|
|||
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
Not usually. By canon, it does apply but only for the vehicle. Crashing p 162 doesn't state what happens to things that the vehicle crashes into, all it states is what happens to the vehicle when it crashes into things or how and what the vehicle crashes into is determined. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 28 2006, 04:42 PM
Post
#106
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 19-August 06 From: Austin Member No.: 9,168 |
I so want to live in Toturi's world.
OMG, a car is ramming my house! Oh, wait. The car is totaled, but my house is fine. Huh. German officer to higher up in WWII: "Nein, mein lederhosen (okay, my german is non-existent. Don't tell my grandparents). Our tanks cannot proceed. The allies have put straw buildings all across the road. We cannot drive through them! The men are having to shoot them with pistols until each piece falls down." |
|
|
|
|
Nov 29 2006, 04:48 AM
Post
#107
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
that it doesn't make sense is the point. by the rules, you can kill a man inside a citymaster with a banana peel. by the rules, if you crash into another car--well, there are no rules, are there? but there are ramming rules, which are a near-perfect fit for the situation. using the ramming rules is an intelligent application of the existing rules; killing a man with a banana peel is a fluke. and, yes, i know there is no damage code listed for a banana peel. so, technically, you couldn't kill someone in SR with one--in which case, you wouldn't need a houserule to disallow it in the first place. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 29 2006, 03:19 PM
Post
#108
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Fine, make it a bullet fired through the tailpipe, ricocheting through the engine, and bouncing up and out the steering wheel. The point is the same. If the GM is allowed to say that X action makes sense, he should be allowed to say that Y action is ludicrous. Obviously some folks disagree, and I'd hate to play in their games, as it seems a lot of random BS will be made possible by a GM afraid or otherwise unwilling to exercise some control.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 29 2006, 03:19 PM
Post
#109
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Unless, of course, we're talking about an adept with missile mastery, but then that's hardly a standard banana. I have an adept taking that in an upcoming game, perhaps I'll have to keep a list of hilarious/strange things that people are killed with. :D |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 29 2006, 04:00 PM
Post
#110
|
|||||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
it's a question of how far the GM is deviating from the written rules. in order to make two vehicles crashing into a ramming attack, the GM just has to apply an existing rule to a new situation--one that the rule fits into neatly. in order to avoid called shots to the steering wheel via the tailpipe, the GM has to rule directly counter to the existing mechanics.
so would i. but, then, i tend to play games where the ruleset itself exerts enough control that the GM doesn't have to micromanage every roll. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 29 2006, 04:35 PM
Post
#111
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 633 Joined: 23-February 06 Member No.: 8,301 |
Funny... my book doesn't make any mention of shooting steering wheels through tailpipes. Your copy must be from a more current print run.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 29 2006, 04:39 PM
Post
#112
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
good. then we don't have to worry about GMs needing to disallow it, do we?
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 29 2006, 04:39 PM
Post
#113
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
The GM is not ruling counter to existing mechanics. He's using the mechanics already there. You know, that rule that says the GM makes decisions. I don't have a page number handy because I'm at work, but I've quoted it several times in these discussions, as have others. The longshot rules and called shot rules have limits built into them, tied to what the GM feels is possible. You can ignore them if you want, but then you deserve the repercussions you cause. Hmmm... Seems like I've said that before too. :)
You're not looking at it right. You have to read the longshot rules and squint just right so that portions of them (the "would be possible" ones) disappear. Then you can read it as "roll your edge to do anything your little heart desires." |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 29 2006, 04:41 PM
Post
#114
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
You're speaking out both sides of your mouth here. Do they not exist or does it require breaking the rules to avoid them? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 29 2006, 04:46 PM
Post
#115
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
i still don't know how to respond to the concept of GM fiat as a game mechanic. laughing, screaming, and crying all seem appropriate.
i was brushing Eryk off. we're discussing how far the called shot rules can go; pointing out that a specific example isn't listed in the book as being possible doesn't add much to the conversation. the whole point of this discussion is how to handle stuff that isn't explicitly covered by the book. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 29 2006, 05:17 PM
Post
#116
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 19-August 06 From: Austin Member No.: 9,168 |
I ain't fallin' for no banana in the tail pipe!
I am perfectly fine with what you call GM Fiat, as long as it's specified as such. "The GM may increase the threshold as appropriate." That's a flat out call for GM ruling. "The GM can decide whether a called shot is appropriate or not." Same there. The try to delineate the situations where a called shot is and is not allowed is, frankly, impossible. The good games will give you a framework you understand, and can work in. Bad ones will simply not mention it at all. I like a game with clear deliniations, because I like pushing up against those lines and seeing what I can do. But I also completely accept that there are times when it comes down to "Ask the GM for a ruling." |
|
|
|
|
Nov 29 2006, 05:20 PM
Post
#117
|
|
|
The Dragon Never Sleeps Group: Admin Posts: 6,924 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,667 |
Including all rules in the book is simply not possible. Sometime, somehow, somewhere something will come up that requires the GM to work something out.
Where that is in SR4 may be a lot sooner then some people like. Tough. That line is there in every RPG. At least in SR4 they actually explicitly tell you most of the time where the line is by stating when applying certain rules it's the GM's call. This does not make anyone right or wrong. This doesn't make the rules right or wrong. That's the way it is. Work out how you want to play, but the rule book isn't going to redone in it's entirety, it's not generally broken. At least it won't be redone till Rigger 4 comes out. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 29 2006, 05:20 PM
Post
#118
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
I'm always at a loss when people start tossing around "GM fiat" as though it was inherently negative. Or as if it didn't exist in every game. Or as if there were some "gaming nirvana" where the GM never had to do anything but read the text. I also find it somewhat humorous when people say "GM fiat" in that negative connotation as if they never exercised it, and as if doing so were blasphemous.
"GM fiat" is part of the job of the game master. Make decisions, make rulings, arbitrate the rules as best you can, and run the game. "GM fiat" is a cover-term for what people are usually talking about, which is "bad GMing". Bad game mastering has nothing to do with making a ruling when no standard ruling is present. Again, that's part of the job. We could wax nebulous all day on what comprises "bad GMing", but the only point I wish to make is that the concepts are not interchangeable, and shouldn't be used as if they were. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 29 2006, 05:29 PM
Post
#119
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 633 Joined: 23-February 06 Member No.: 8,301 |
Alas, alack, it would seem my humor is lost here...
Basic gist of what I was getting at, mfb: It is absurd to think that such a rule should exist, or that there is specific need in the rules to create special safeguards against such random and exceptional things. The absurdity of the act in question should trigger the "Are you kidding me?" reflex present in most GMs. It is not a flaw in the rules that allows banana peels to destroy Citymasters, but rather a flaw in the GM. I chose humor to illustrate my point initially, so as not to seem antagonistic. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 29 2006, 05:39 PM
Post
#120
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
bad GMing is not the question. the question is how hard the rules work to keep the GM from having to make stuff up. the GM has a lot on his plate already--coming up with a run, rolling and rp'ing all the NPCs, etcetera. saddling him with vague rules that force him to make a judgement call on a significant portion of the players' rolls (as opposed to just slapping a predefined modifier on there) is, to me, incredibly mean.
of course such a rule shouldn't exist. what should exist is a set of general modifiers that the GM can apply in order to make the shot "impossible". |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 29 2006, 05:48 PM
Post
#121
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 17-October 06 Member No.: 9,636 |
Eidolon, It seems to me, from my reading of some of the posters who constantly refer to "GM Fiat" is that they have a massive chip on their shoulder regarding GM's having final say and rulings in this style of game. They would rather have every single rule spelled out crystal clear, covering every single potential conflict, situation and eventuality rather than give the GM the ability to house-rule or make a call on-the-fly. It could be that these posters have had extremely bad GMs in the past, which is naturally colouring their opinion of the GM "fiat". I have never had such experiences myself, to which I guess I can count myself fortunate. I agree with you though; this is a game that requires this so-called "GM Fiat" because not every situation can be covered. House rules need to be created and a GM needs to know the basis of the rules well enough that they can make decisions on the fly for all the crazy and whacky things players will try to do. This is part of the fun and challenge of the game, in my opinion... and actually one of the reasons being a GM is actually enjoyable - you get to be as dynamic as your players, except with an entire story world. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 29 2006, 05:52 PM
Post
#122
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
edit: sigh, nm. i've said what i wanted to say.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 29 2006, 05:54 PM
Post
#123
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
GM Fiat is like recreational drugs. A little bit is good and necessary, and keeps things from feeling stagnated, mechanical, and boring. But too much leads to inconsistencies in your reality and all sorts of wackiness. And everyone has a different idea of where the line should be drawn. Some people want it drawn at caffeine and a little alcohol, some people think a moderate heroin or cocaine habit is okay, and the spectrum doesn't stop there, on either side.
No one will ever agree, but that doesn't stop them from calling each other junkies and prudes. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 29 2006, 05:56 PM
Post
#124
|
|||
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Interesting viewpoint. One I don't share, particularly, but interesting. I hadn't considered that angle. Frankly, I don't think that the little theoretical situations that are usually the topic of such threads really warrant new rules in most cases, nor do I find them to be "hard work" generally. Most of the time in such discussions, the question would probably be answered in under 10 seconds were it to come up in an actual game, because in said actual game, the answer only has to work for a few people. But I admit that while I participate in these discussions, I feel that they are fundamentally worthless in that they are theoretical. These situations that would be handled or answered easily and quickly in a real game draw pages upon pages of discussion in situations such as this, where multiple people that aren't gaming together try and create a ruling or concept that fits all gaming groups, which isn't possible in most cases. edit: What Moon-Hawk said, in other words. ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 29 2006, 06:00 PM
Post
#125
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
i look at things from the perspective of a guy who basically hates GMing, but always gets stuck doing it. anything a game dev can do to make my job as GM easier, i'll thank them for profusely. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th February 2025 - 08:11 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.