Take Aim and Called Shot - Dumpshock Forums

Take Aim and Called Shot

Options

lorechaser

Nov 29 2006, 06:01 PM

Post #126

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,333
Joined: 19-August 06
From: Austin
Member No.: 9,168

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)

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.

How dare you suggest that there is such a thing as too much caffiene!

And yeah, I agree that it does all come down to how much you'll accept.

I do understand the idea that the more GM involvement there is, the harder it is to run things like SR Missions, and that's usually the most compelling argument to me.

If I were running/playing in one of those games, I would be pretty careful. In a home game for fun, I'm willing to be more liberal.

Moon-Hawk

Nov 29 2006, 06:02 PM

Post #127

Genuine Artificial Intelligence

Group: Members
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 12-June 03
Member No.: 4,715

QUOTE (eidolon)

But I admit that while I participate in these discussions, I feel that they are fundamentally worthless in that they are theoretical.

I see your point, but I don't think that makes them completely worthless. Okay, actually coming up with a resolution that works for everyone in the thread is probably worthless. But GMs reading the threads can get a lot of interesting perspectives on how other people would handle a situation. It's not to say that they're taking notes on specifics, but sometimes someone comes up with a really elegant solution and you say, "Hm, I wouldn't've thought to handle it like that, but that's a really neat idea." You can read these threads and learn about other GMing styles and seeing those other perspectives can be good.
Theoretically, these otherwise worthless discussions lead to better GMs. Not for the threads' specific solutions, but for the interplay between the GMs exchanging ideas and the process as a whole.

Did that make any sense?

James McMurray

Nov 29 2006, 07:32 PM

Post #128

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957

QUOTE (eidolon)

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.

But that like, makes sense and a stuff. So um... I don't think it'll wotk around here.

QUOTE

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.

Then you really need to either not GM or find a rules-heavier game. Shadowrun (especially SR4) just ain't that game. Coming to a board and bitching and moaning that the game doesn't hold your hand while the big mean players force you to GM is pointless.

Use the energy you put forth on that to find another game system and convert it to shadowrun's campaign world. Or to add on all the little fiddly bits you think SR needs.

I'll let you in on a little secret (ok, not really a secret): that banana, you know, the one in the tailpipe? It's already been peeled. If you need a banana still in it's wrap you're not going to find it here. And apart from two or three other people who feel the same as you, nobody cares.

eidolon

Nov 29 2006, 08:25 PM

Post #129

ghostrider

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 4,196
Joined: 16-May 04
Member No.: 6,333

@ Moon-Hawk,

Excellent point. I should have clarified that. I agree, different perspectives are great. What I mean when I say "worthless" is the thought that there will ever be one "conclusion", or that even if there were, that conclusion would be "right". Short version: yeah, made perfect sense. :)

QUOTE (mfb)

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.

Ah, more background. I love it. (No, really. It's this sort of addition to the discussion that keeps said discussion from turning into "uh-huh" vs. "nuh-uh".)

I can sympathize with that, certainly. I don't get to play nearly enough. Yet neither am I a reluctant GM. I started as one though, and I can remember being angry at one point because Mind Probe wasn't more clear for example. (Not saying reluctant=starting/new or anything, just that it was in my case.)

As I read more, learned more, and ran the game more though, I became more comfortable making rulings (not just that spell, in general), and gradually I lost that feeling that there should be "more" provided. Heck, these days, I find myself ignoring more and more "canon" to run the games the way I like them/want them. I guess I just completely lost the desire to have developers and writers tell me every last little detail about everything, so I'm actually happy with that aspect of SR4 (even though I don't play it). Leaving more things open to the GM is a step in the right direction, were someone to ask me. And even then, I still love things like SSG. It's a pick and choose world. :)

James McMurray View Member Profile	Nov 29 2006, 08:56 PM Post #130
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957	It's basically a matter of playing the game you want to play or the game the designers want you to play. For some people those are the same thing. The more open the game to GM judement calls the closer you'll get to the point where you're running the game you want to run. For me SR is at an almost perfect level of rules vs. judgement. YMMV

SL James

Nov 29 2006, 09:05 PM

Post #131

Shadowrun Setting Nerd

Group: Banned
Posts: 3,632
Joined: 28-June 05
From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower.
Member No.: 7,473

QUOTE (eidolon @ Nov 29 2006, 11:20 AM)

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.

It is inherently negative.

Because that judgment crap is stuff that shouldn't have to even come up if the rules were even the slightest bit consistent. I've got enough to worry about without just waving my hand (i.e., invoking GM Fiat) and saying, "you can't do that... because." That's a cop-out because the only time I've ever seen it come up is if the GM is incapable of accepting that their master plan was ruined because the PC was smarter than them.

That's their problem. I'm sort of like mfb when it comes to the part of making a GM's life easier, but it has come to dawn on me that for as sadistic as I am, I am a player's GM. I don't care much for any game that turns the previous example on its head and makes it the PC's/Player's problem that they are playing a game where the GM has such vague rules to work with that he gets to hand-wave every second or third roll.

I'm a fan of letting the players know in advance that they are playing a game where the GM isn't going to fuck them whenever a poorly-designed rule set becomes inconvenient for them, especially when the game in question has a fundamentally-flawed premise where the GM should make up whatever he wants to fit his game, like the Players are just IRC bots or something.

Moon-Hawk

Nov 29 2006, 09:09 PM

Post #132

Genuine Artificial Intelligence

Group: Members
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 12-June 03
Member No.: 4,715

QUOTE (SL James)

It is inherently negative.

Because that judgment crap is stuff that shouldn't have to even come up if the rules were even the slightest bit consistent.

But...if the GM doesn't make any judgement calls, he's not really necessary, is he? He's not needed, he should just be playing. If the rules completely describe every situation, it's a board game or a computer game.

SL James

Nov 29 2006, 09:12 PM

Post #133

Shadowrun Setting Nerd

Group: Banned
Posts: 3,632
Joined: 28-June 05
From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower.
Member No.: 7,473

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk @ Nov 29 2006, 03:09 PM)

QUOTE (SL James @ Nov 29 2006, 04:05 PM)

It is inherently negative.

Because that judgment crap is stuff that shouldn't have to even come up if the rules were even the slightest bit consistent.

But...if the GM doesn't make any judgement calls, he's not really necessary, is he? He's not needed, he should just be playing. If the rules completely describe every situation, it's a board game or a computer game.

Nice strawman.

Because, of course, the GM doesn't do anything else at the table besides making up thresholds. Nah, they don't make and run NPCs, or plots, or act as opfor, or award karma or do any number of other functions that don't include making up thresholds because Fanpro was unable or unwilling to do the job of putting out rules in, you know, a rule book.

Moon-Hawk View Member Profile	Nov 29 2006, 09:18 PM Post #134
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715	But...but...the content of those jobs is GM fiat. The reactions of the NPC is entirely dependent on the whims of the GM. It sounds like you're taking a neutral term and applying it only to the things you don't like.

eidolon

Nov 29 2006, 09:23 PM

Post #135

ghostrider

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 4,196
Joined: 16-May 04
Member No.: 6,333

I'm sorry, but that's not remotely convincing to me. (Regardless of whether it was supposed to be.) Again, what you're saying leads me only to believe that you've been the victim of, or have seen enough, bad GMing that you've formed that view.

There is nothing inherently negative in a GM making a call for his or her game that fills in a gap in the rules. There can be good calls/rulings and bad calls/rulings, but neither is implied simply by the fact that the GM is making the call. That's just poor logic.

What you're saying is that there should never be anything that requires the GM to make a ruling that isn't directly supported by black and white text in a rule book? I'll expect that list of all things that are possible on my desk by Friday. ;)

And again, I'll mention that when going "theoretical" these conversations lose value. The following are rhetorical questions, etc. Feel free to discuss them of course, but I'm not really expecting direct answers. I'm just expounding on this point.

QUOTE (SL James)

Because that judgment crap is stuff that shouldn't have to even come up if the rules were even the slightest bit consistent.

What rule(s), specifically, are you referring to?

QUOTE (SL James)

That's a cop-out because the only time I've ever seen it come up is if the GM is incapable of accepting that their master plan was ruined because the PC was smarter than them.

Examples? And again, realize that those examples only allow you to draw conclusions about those situations/examples. You couldn't say "because GM x did a bad job, system y is terrible".

QUOTE (SL James)

GM has such vague rules to work with that he gets to hand-wave every second or third roll.

What system is so vague that it requires this? I don't recall ever playing in one. Hyperbole is fun, but it's not support for any kind of serious argument.

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)

It sounds like you're taking a neutral term and applying it only to the things you don't like.

Precisely my point above.

mfb

Nov 29 2006, 09:47 PM

Post #136

Immortal Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670

QUOTE (James McMurray)

Use the energy you put forth on that to find another game system and convert it to shadowrun's campaign world. Or to add on all the little fiddly bits you think SR needs.

i'm dedicating quite a bit of time and energy to that already. discussions like this one are part of that process; sort of a variation on the Socratic method, where i present my ideas to a group of people who are almost guaranteed to disagree with them and try to pick them apart. plus, i like arguing. i'll argue about whether red is better than blue (blue, because it's more visible in the light of red-lense flashlights during night ops).

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)

But...if the GM doesn't make any judgement calls, he's not really necessary, is he? He's not needed, he should just be playing. If the rules completely describe every situation, it's a board game or a computer game.

...

But...but...the content of those jobs is GM fiat. The reactions of the NPC is entirely dependent on the whims of the GM.
It sounds like you're taking a neutral term and applying it only to the things you don't like.

we can sit around and try to redefine terminology until our broadband accounts are shut down because we forgot to pay the bill, and there still won't be a valid point that comes of it. roleplaying games don't cover the social behavior of living beings in more than very broad strokes by common consensus, so trying to say that GMs are exercize 'GM fiat' by roleplaying is pointless and useless to the current discussion. so what if there are no rules to describe low-intensity personality conflict? no one would use them anyway. meanwhile, there are plenty of people who could use more strongly-defined ranged combat rules.

QUOTE (eidolon)

QUOTE (Moon-hawk)

It sounds like you're taking a neutral term and applying it only to the things you don't like.

Precisely my point above.

exactly the opposite, i'd say. James (SL-type, not McMurray-type) and i are arguing based on a fairly common definition of the term, which y'all are trying to expand to cover things it wasn't intended to cover in order to make our arguments look ridiculous. of course the argument is going to look ridiculous if you expand it to cover ridiculous things--but that doesn't change the basic non-ridiculousocity of the argument when it's applied as intended.

look, i'm not saying it's bad for GMs to exercise fiat. i'm not saying it's good, either--the goodness or badness of GMs doing the fiat thing is in no way a part of my argument. what i'm saying is that it's bad for a game to force the GM to use fiat in commonly-encountered situations--or to present the GM with a choice between using fiat or allowing ridiculousness, in those commonly-encountered situations. if the GM chooses to use fiat, that should be on him--the ruleset shouldn't force him.

Moon-Hawk

Nov 29 2006, 09:55 PM

Post #137

Genuine Artificial Intelligence

Group: Members
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 12-June 03
Member No.: 4,715

QUOTE (mfb)

so what if there are no rules to describe low-intensity personality conflict? no one would use them anyway. meanwhile, there are plenty of people who could use more strongly-defined ranged combat rules.

Wait, I completely agree with this.
My only point was that in any set of rules, no matter how airtight, the GM will be making some kind of judgement calls, and that can't be avoided, and if you try to make a system that is 100% airtight you'll waste precious time and effort on minutia. Time and effort that would be better spent improving an area that could actually benefit from it in a large and dramatic way, rather than trying to come up with a way to close some obscure loophole.
My point is, more strongly-defined ranged combat rules are fine, but if you try to make them work in 100% of situations with absolutely no need for GM input then they will be too complicated to use, and you'll never finish writing them.
Focus your creativity in productive directions, don't strive for some unatainable perfection.
That's my point.

And yes, I do think it's worthwhile to spend just a little while defining terms before we try to debate them. I imagine that if everyone had a clear definition of what was meant by GM fiat then this whole thing could've been avoided.

mfb

Nov 29 2006, 10:01 PM

Post #138

Immortal Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670

QUOTE (Moon-hawk)

Wait, I completely agree with this.
My only point was that in any set of rules, no matter how airtight, the GM will be making some kind of judgement calls, and that can't be avoided, and if you try to make a system that is 100% airtight you'll waste precious time and effort on minutia.

sure. like someone said earlier, in any ruleset there's going to be a point where the rules don't adequately cover the situation. my beef is that this point is reached much more often in SR4 than in other 'better' systems.

Moon-Hawk View Member Profile	Nov 29 2006, 10:09 PM Post #139
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715	These 'better' systems, are they equally simple, or more complex? I mean, SR3 had a lot more clear rules for things, but I don't think that's a very fair comparison because the system was a lot more complex. My point here is, if a system gains accuracy by adding complexity, it's not better or worse, it's just different. That's why I have such a hard time compaing SR4 to SR3 and calling one better or worse. They're so dramatically different in system and complexity that they're just completely different games.

James McMurray

Nov 29 2006, 10:11 PM

Post #140

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957

QUOTE

I'm a fan of letting the players know in advance that they are playing a game where the GM isn't going to fuck them whenever a poorly-designed rule set becomes inconvenient for them

So here's an idea: don't screw the players. Just because you're forced to make a judgement call doesn't mean you're forced to be an ass.

So why are you here? You're not going to convince anyone that the game is crap just because it doesn't support your style of play.

QUOTE

discussions like this one are part of that process; sort of a variation on the Socratic method, where i present my ideas to a group of people who are almost guaranteed to disagree with them and try to pick them apart.

Ok. So what have you learned from this thread, or the 15 others that are exactly like it that you couldn't learn by rereading those 15 other threads? The only reason to continually piss and moan about the same things is because you want to piss and moan. There's nothing in this thread that will help create a new rule set that hasn't already been said to you, because there;s nothing in this thread that hasn't already been said to you.

QUOTE

trying to say that GMs are exercize 'GM fiat' by roleplaying is pointless and useless to the current discussion.

Bull. It says that GMs have to make judgement calls all the time, both rules based and in game. You trying to pidgeonhole all the decisions you don't like as being bad but ignoring the rest is just an attempt at hiding behind a word you can throw out instead of having to admit that a GM's job requires decisions.

QUOTE

meanwhile, there are plenty of people who could use more strongly-defined ranged combat rules.

Definitely. They should either create house rules or play a game that is not SR4, because SR4's core rules are already written. Banana, peeled, etc.

QUOTE

James (SL-type, not McMurray-type) and i are arguing based on a fairly common definition of the term, which y'all are trying to expand to cover things it wasn't intended to cover in order to make our arguments look ridiculous

Please point us to that dictionary you're using. Every time I've seen you use it it means "GM making rules decisions, and did I mention this sucks." It doesn't take any work to make your argument rediculous, your assertion that GMs making rules calls is somehow evil does that just fine.

QUOTE

sure. like someone said earlier, in any ruleset there's going to be a point where the rules don't adequately cover the situation. my beef is that this point is reached much more often in SR4 than in other 'better' systems.

And the point is that this is a design choice, not a flaw. We get it. You don't like it. But really... so what? You, contrary to your desires, don't really matter all that much in the grand scheme of SR4 things. You don't like, don't (as far as I know) play it, and don't plan to. Wander along then, you're just a dinosaur on this board.

eidolon View Member Profile	Nov 29 2006, 10:34 PM Post #141
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333	That's not entirely fair, either. I don't play SR4 either, for example, yet I'm in agreement with the design choices that were made in regard to leaving some things to the GM. And I will definitely concede one point to mfb. I was speaking in the general sense when I originally posted regarded GM fiat, and he was speaking of "GM fiat being necessary when considering the long shot rules". Frankly, I don't know the rules in question in that specific case, so I'm not qualified to speak to them. I don't, however, think that SL James was limiting his vitriol to one specific rules example when arguing with me on GM fiat.

Moon-Hawk

Nov 29 2006, 10:44 PM

Post #142

Genuine Artificial Intelligence

Group: Members
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 12-June 03
Member No.: 4,715

QUOTE (James McMurray)

And the point is that this is a design choice, not a flaw. We get it. You don't like it. But really... so what? You, contrary to your desires, don't really matter all that much in the grand scheme of SR4 things. You don't like, don't (as far as I know) play it, and don't plan to. Wander along then, you're just a dinosaur on this board.

It's not like mfb just runs in, smears poops on the walls, and runs out. Very often. :P There's absolutely nothing wrong with disputing a mechanic and suggesting house rules that may be more universal or accurate. As I understand it, the point mfb is making is: Just because the GM is there and can make decisions to keep the game moving, that's not an excuse to write crappy rules that rely on that.
And it's a good point! I don't think the writers of SR are sitting around going, "Let's make it work like this. Well that sucks. Oh well, the GM will sort it all out." That's an absurd end of the spectrum, but his point that that's a cop-out strategy of game design is a valid one.

Now on your side, I agree that you can't have a simple, streamlined game that handles everything perfectly, and compromises have to be made and that line has to be drawn somewhere. Obviously, that line is not where mfb likes it, and he bitches about it more than some people find strictly necessary. He likes to argue! I know 'cause he told me a few posts up. :)

But James, just because mfb likes to bitch, don't let that goad you into an argument every time. He just wants to bitch a little and say his piece. Don't get so worked up about it. He pushes your buttons and you get all mad and frothy and things get ugly. ;)

Okay, well, I can see where everyone is coming from in this thread, so I obviously have no place in this argument anymore. Plus, it's time for me to go home.
Peace!

mfb View Member Profile	Nov 29 2006, 11:47 PM Post #143
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670	you're right, McMurray, i haven't learned anything new in this discussion. eidolon did, though--he gained some new perspective on the reasoning that can go on behind design choices. you, on the other, hand, would still rather play the "go away" card than engage in an interesting discussion. as i've said before, as long as there are people still interested in the subject enough to start discussions like this one (you'll notice that i entered only after the subject had alread gravitated towards the topic of rules coverage/GM intervention), i'll be happy to discuss it with them. if the subject doesn't interest you, don't participate. you act like there's some sort of unified "SR4 si teh awesomm" front that i'm charging into like the Light Brigade. there isn't, and i'm not. there's not even a unified "SR4 si teh suckz0r" front; there are a lot of things i like about SR4. so stop acting like i'm acting antagonistic. i'm not, and acting like i am is antagonistic. anyway. let's talk definitions. i'm going to introduce the term "GM intervention" into this discussion. GM intervention can be defined as actions a GM must take in order to provide rules where the existing ruleset fails. this explicitly disincludes most roleplaying, since most roleplaying is an area that is not intended to be covered by the rules, and which no one wants to be covered by the rules (negotiation, lying, and the like might or might not be included, depending on whether or not their inclusion ~~will help me win an argument~~makes sense). the concept of GM intervention is not binary; it's a sliding scale that starts at or around stretching existing rules to cover new situations and extends out to creating new rules from whole cloth.

James McMurray

Nov 30 2006, 12:32 AM

Post #144

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957

QUOTE (eidolon)

That's not entirely fair, either. I don't play SR4 either, for example, yet I'm in agreement with the design choices that were made in regard to leaving some things to the GM.

Oh, I've got nothing against anyone that doesn't play SR4 and comes here. It's people that don't play SR4 and come here with the express purpose of arguing the same old tired arguments just for the sake of arguing. No new information being provided, no new information being sought. Just arguing to be a putz.

James McMurray

Nov 30 2006, 12:46 AM

Post #145

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957

QUOTE (mfb)

QUOTE

you're right, McMurray, i haven't learned anything new in this discussion. eidolon did, though--he gained some new perspective on the reasoning that can go on behind design choices. you, on the other, hand, would still rather play the "go away" card than engage in an interesting discussion.

What interesting discussion? There is never interesting discussion between the two of us on this topic any more, because we long ago said everything we have to say on the matter. All that's left is boring repetition. Is it any wonder I'd like for that to go away?

QUOTE

you act like there's some sort of unified "SR4 si teh awesomm" front that i'm charging into like the Light Brigade. there isn't, and i'm not. there's not even a unified "SR4 si teh suckz0r" front; there are a lot of things i like about SR4.

I'm pretty sure I never said anything of the sort. What I said was that you won't convince people that the game sucks because it doesn't cater to your style. I've never claimed there was some sort of war going on between factions. If I implied it I apologize.

QUOTE

so stop acting like i'm acting antagonistic. i'm not, and acting like i am is antagonistic.

So which is it? You came here to argue or you're not being antagonistic. I'm not acting like it, I'm responding to your admission that it's part of your reason for being here.

QUOTE

anyway. let's talk definitions. i'm going to introduce the term "GM intervention" into this discussion. GM intervention can be defined as actions a GM must take in order to provide rules where the existing ruleset fails. this explicitly disincludes most roleplaying, since most roleplaying is an area that is not intended to be covered by the rules, and which no one wants to be covered by the rules (negotiation, lying, and the like might or might not be included, depending on whether or not their inclusion ~~will help me win an argument~~makes sense). the concept of GM intervention is not binary; it's a sliding scale that starts at or around stretching existing rules to cover new situations and extends out to creating new rules from whole cloth.

I can go with that definition. Using that, Shadowrun has portions of it's rules that require a decent amount of intervention. More than some games, less than others. IMO Shadowrun has almost the exact right amount for the game it's intended to be: an open-ended system capable of handling varying power levels equally well. Other games, such as Rolemaster or d20, would not work at all with this level of group control* because they have a different goal. For some aspects of some systems (such as the magic system of Mage: The Awakening) SR actually imposes too many constraints.

It's all about what you're aiming for, and Shadowrun 4 hits it's target admirably.

* I say group control because the major aspects of SR should be laid out by the group. Things like character power level, levels of rediculousness allowed on a long shot, and how many agents you can have active at once should be determined when a campaign starts or when they first come up, and should match the group's (not just the GM's) goals for how the campaign will work.

Certainly some GM Intervention in the rules is going to be required in a game, but it should usually (IMO, YMMV) be done democratically. If all the players want to be able to throw razor-edged bananas up the tailpipe, ricochet around and kill the driver, then either the GM should allow it or a new game should be found because a GM who wants things that different from his players is either going to burn out trying to appease them, or make them burn out by not providing for their wants.

mfb

Nov 30 2006, 01:00 AM

Post #146

Immortal Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670

every time this subject comes up, McMurray, you start in almost immediately with the whole "shut up shut up shut up" thing--no matter how many people on either side of the discussion are participating with interest. you even do it, as now, when the discussion is sedate and intelligent, going so far as to start with the name-calling when no one else in the thread is upset. but i'm obsessed? i'm not going to do this. McMurray, you want me to shut up--so i will: as far as i'm concerned, anything you post here is invisible unless and until you post something that adds to the discussion. if you feel that the discussion is a useless rehash of old material, if you feel there's nothing worth adding to it, then don't post. to be clear, i'm not doing this out of spite. i'm doing it because i would like to continue discussing this, and there are others who also seem interested. and that is all i'm going to say about that.

here's an example of the rules forcing GM intervention: special effects for called shots. according to SR4 pg 150, you can perform called shots with effects that aren't covered by the rest of the called shot rules (ie not bypassing armor, increasing damage, or disarming). but the rules for this are left completely up to the GM--not eve a hint of guidance. pure GM makin' stuff up. why even print that? of course the GM has the option of allowing a called shot to have some wild-ass effect, if he thinks it's reasonable.

edit: so of course McMurray immediately posts something worth talking about.

QUOTE (James McMurray)

It's all about what you're aiming for, and Shadowrun 4 hits it's target admirably.

it's a bad target. it's a flawed design choice. it deliberately excludes certain types of players--not even certain bad, undesirable types of players, just players who enjoy certain things. and the worst part is, it's not even necessary. a good game would make allowances for as wide an array of player types as possible, providing solid rules for those who want them and the option of ignoring the detailed parts gracefully for those who don't.

James McMurray

Nov 30 2006, 01:40 AM

Post #147

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957

Well, obvisouly that's your opinion (that it's a bad target). Those folks that voted awards for the game seem to differ. :)

QUOTE

a good game would make allowances for as wide an array of player types as possible, providing solid rules for those who want them and the option of ignoring the detailed parts gracefully for those who don't.

In many groups (i.e. ones with a dedicated rules lawyer) it's a lot harder to drop a rule then you'd think. I believe I've even read you saying that (although it might have been Cain now that I think about it).

If you have an incredibly detailed system, but that's not what you want, then why use that system? If SR 4 were as busy as Rolemaster it would cover a lot more bases but wouldn't hit it's target: a flexible system.

Basically it boils down to opinion. Your opinion is that it's a bad target. Lots of players and some award givers disagree.

Tell me, how do you make allowance in a game for high powered mages, street level hackers, razorred to the teeth mid-powered street samurai, and a decrepit rigger that lives out of a van and only interacts with the world via heavily armored drones (high power, high weakness)?

I'm not sure how I'd do it if designing a game from scratch, but the SR4 guys figured it out admirably. It's up to the group to pick and choose from the vast menu of available character types.

QUOTE

a good game would make allowances for as wide an array of player types as possible, providing solid rules for those who want them and the option of ignoring the detailed parts gracefully for those who don't.

That sounds like a perfect game if you're aiming for a complex system. Unfortunately, in practice games like that tend to be of the type where everything is leaning up against everything else and if you change or remove one aspect you have many unforeseen ripple effects all across the spectrum.

I'd love a game that was so perfect it could offer a hard and fast rule for every occassion, enough options that I can change things (like longshot limits) by using the rules as written, and I can pick and choose from all the different rules to build the buffet platter I want. I just don't think that's possible. SR4 hits the last two (changability and buffet style rules) well. Other systems hit one or two also. I've never seen or heard of a game that can hit all three. Do you know of one?

I'm looking forward to the Companion for the first edition of the game ever because I'm hoping it will have things in it to settle disputes like the ones that evolve into these discussions: longshot test rules, alternatives for called shots, agent handling options, etc.

Street Magic offered a few good options to handle some of the magic system issues (like healing drain). If the other books do it to I'll be a happy(er) camper.

mfb

Nov 30 2006, 02:08 AM

Post #148

Immortal Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670

QUOTE (James McMurray)

In many groups (i.e. ones with a dedicated rules lawyer) it's a lot harder to drop a rule then you'd think.

that's part of it. what we're talking about right here is the metagame--not the rules and the world, but how players and GMs will use the rules and the world. SR4 gets props for giving the metagame any consideration at all; few games do, that i've noticed (d20 being the only other one that comes to mind). the thing is, SR4 decides ahead of time what the metagame is going to be--GMs are going to take an active part in just about every roll, whether they want to or not. there's deliberately very little the players can do without GM input. d20, for all its faults, gives players and GMs the tools to play a rules-heavy game, and the option and guidance to play a lighter, faster game. SR4 looked at the metagame options available, and chose one--deliberately and explicitly disincluding all others. of course SR4 is popular; they chose a popular metagame paradigm to satisfy.

QUOTE (James McMurray)

Tell me, how do you make allowance in a game for high powered mages, street level hackers, razorred to the teeth mid-powered street samurai, and a decrepit rigger that lives out of a van and only interacts with the world via heavily armored drones (high power, high weakness)?

I'm not sure how I'd do it if designing a game from scratch, but the SR4 guys figured it out admirably. It's up to the group to pick and choose from the vast menu of available character types.

i'm less impressed (surprise!). this is another design choice that i feel was flawed: in order to accomodate all the various power levels, SR4 shrunk the pool--they limited how powerful a character could be, and didn't put much room between that upper limit and the lower limit. it's the equivalent of making everbody in a d20 game play a level 5 character, with no xp rewards every. great, everything is balanced--because everything's the same. that's not hard.

James McMurray

Nov 30 2006, 02:33 AM

Post #149

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957

QUOTE

GMs are going to take an active part in just about every roll, whether they want to or not.

I have to disagree with this point on two counts. The first is the obvious one: GMs that don't want to take part in rolls won't play SR4. It's not targetted at them, so it makes sense that it doesn't do a good job at satisfying their needs.

Secondly, I have played quite a bit and never got to a point where the GM was having to make calls "in just about every roll." I've never seen a game where even 1/10 of the rolls required GM Intervention to interpret a rule that doesn't exist.

For the most part the rules cover where you'll go. If you step into an area (especially Matrixy) that isn't covered well you'll have to make choices, but most of those issues will presumably go away when the matrix rules come out. For pretty much everything else: magic, ranged and melee combat, vehicles, social situations, legwork, buying and selling things, and all the other parts where you have to roll something most of the modifiers are covered and thresholds laid out.

QUOTE

in order to accomodate all the various power levels, SR4 shrunk the pool--they limited how powerful a character could be, and didn't put much room between that upper limit and the lower limit. it's the equivalent of making everbody in a d20 game play a level 5 character, with no xp rewards every. great, everything is balanced--because everything's the same. that's not hard.

I have to assume that you haven't actually tried making characters of different power levels, or you were doing it wrong. It's pretty easy, assuming the entire group wants to play at the same power level and you make the characters to reflect what level you want. You can start with a maxed out 600 point mage, a 200 point street bum, or anything in between. You can even go higher, although if you want a superhero campaign SR might not be the system for you.

mfb View Member Profile	Nov 30 2006, 03:04 AM Post #150
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670	you misread, sirrah. i didn't say you couldn't create characters of different power levels--i said you could, but that the power levels are not widely seperated.

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »