 Take Aim and Called Shot |
  |
 Dec 4 2006, 05:13 AM
Post
#276
|
|||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 870 Joined: 2-October 06 From: Athens Ga Member No.: 9,517  |
It doesn't defeat itself - it reinforces itself. If you fudge something to not be able to fudge something then you negate your ability to not fudge and you are able to fudge again! Fudge wins! Besides - why would YOUR fudging effect MY game? |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Dec 4 2006, 05:16 AM
Post
#277
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650 |
so how about a shadowrun tournament at a convention?
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2006, 05:32 AM
Post
#278
|
|||||
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
And then you are able to fudge to not fudge and on and on it goes! In the end there is no end to the loop. Basically, that rule says that you can ignore the rules. Hence you can ignore that rule. You say ignoring that rule ignores the rule of ignoring the rules, but once you choose to ignore that rule, that rule is ignored and it stops there. In the end, the ignore rule is ignored. SR Missions? You know it is like only the official SR4 campaign? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 4 2006, 06:05 AM
Post
#279
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 906 Joined: 16-October 06 Member No.: 9,630 |
Anyone else here a bit lost on there double talk argument?
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2006, 06:16 AM
Post
#280
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 17-October 06 Member No.: 9,636 |
I fundamentally disagree with your concept of a "house rule". The rules in SR4 dictate how you can add new items, objects, technologies into the game. It gives you a general set of skills, rules and mechanisms to play with. So let's say Power Armour is piloted with *gasp* Pilot Exotic Vehicle. That would make sense, wouldn't it? Here, in the base rules itself, is a system that allows a storyteller to create and add his/her own unique vehicles with a skill already set to test against it! Let's say using weapon systems on a power armour uses the skill Gunnery - alas, again, there is a base game mechanic already available to take care of it! To repair it, uses the skill Armourer or Industrial Mechanic, or whatever mechanical skill makes sense given whatever systems the power armour may have... Again - a system is in place that the game allows for. There is no House Rule. These are all base rules being applied to something the game itself allows for: your own designs. A REAL House rule would be changing something as WRITTEN in the rules specific for your game. So, a real house rule would be saying that Trolls have a max Body cap of 8 instead of 10 or that any spell you cast automatically does 1 point of unsoakable drain damage to you (note these are just HOUSE RULES I am making up on the fly - we do not play by these rules). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 4 2006, 06:38 AM
Post
#281
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 870 Joined: 2-October 06 From: Athens Ga Member No.: 9,517 |
Yes but your ability to ignore the rule is granted by that rule. If you ignore that ability then you no longer have the ability to ignore that rule. Therefore that rule stays put!
Besides it was to point out that the ability to change any of the rules is IN the rules. In fact it gives you a page of ways to change the rules and various suggestions. SR4 seems to be fairly house rules friendly. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2006, 09:15 AM
Post
#282
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 341 Joined: 3-October 05 Member No.: 7,802 |
Talking about circular logic does exactly crap for any debate, just makes you look stupid. Circular logic by its nature can never resolve any debate because it does not come to a concrete conclusion.
However you can look at the meaning if you are even slightly able to read between the lines, "Here's a framework and do what you will with it." And remember there is a difference between cheating and inconsistency, please decide which is the issue. I agree that simply deciding "The bad guys have a vehicle faster than yours" could be cheating, but it could also be integral to the plot. If you don't trust a GM to make the best possible story without being unfair then you have a GM problem, not a mechanics problem. You say the rules should stop GMs being able to do this? Imagine the result of the fudge, it could be worse... or it could lead to another intricate and deep plot twist. Saying a GM shouldn't have that kind of power is silly because it can completely invalidate their role. You have to trust a GM to choose when to fudge, and to fudge for the benefit of the players even if they can't see it right then. There are plenty of times you have to trust people in RL, this is just another one. Now as I said if you want to play it differently you can, just don't try to impose your views on everyone else. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2006, 10:30 AM
Post
#283
|
|||
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
Yes, but once you use it to ignore the rule, it stays ignored because the rule is now ignored and it is gone, nothing says now you can un-ignore it. Therefore it stays dead. Of course, the ability to ignore any of the rules is in the rules. In fact you can play SR with the D20 rules set, in fact that is what you can do - by the rules. If you use that rule, anything can happen, there might as well be no rules, because you can add your own. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 4 2006, 03:38 PM
Post
#284
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Because he hasn't assigned the new piece of gear stats, he's simply said "it wins." If he wants the honda civic to be faster, he should just give it a really high speed. Of course, that might be what he did, and he just phrased it that way because the PCs have no way of knowing that the stats on a brand new vehicle are. If that's the case then it isn't cheating, it's just creating a new piece of gear, something that happens in almost every Shadowrun game eventually. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 4 2006, 03:40 PM
Post
#285
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Really. I mean geez! What kind of bastard game designer tells your group to have fun, even if it means not running the game exactly as their idea of what is fun says you should. String 'm up! /sarcasm |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 4 2006, 04:56 PM
Post
#286
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 261 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Massachusetts Member No.: 2,115 |
I'm going to have to largely agree here. I've had more than one game master who has used that paragraph, or its equivalent in other games, to excuse not actually reading the rest of the rulebook. One of the basic things I believe about house rules (and GM judgement calls that are effectively house rules) is that you shouldn't change stuff before you understand how it works to begin with. I'm sorely tempted to suggest not putting that paragraph in new RPG books because the people who can use it safely saw it already in V:tM 1st edition or Ars Magica. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 4 2006, 05:18 PM
Post
#287
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Yeah, you should definitely know it before you change it, but that's not an SR4 issue, it's a crappy game master issue. Almost every game out there (every game I've read, the "almost" is just to cover my ass) says at some point that the rules are just guidelines, and the group should have fun.
The same SR4 section that says change a rule if you think you need to also says the GM should know the rules very well, and that changes should be kept to a minimum. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2006, 05:41 PM
Post
#288
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 476 Joined: 30-December 03 From: Fresno, CFS: taking out one durned furriner at a time. Member No.: 5,940 |
I hate to beat a dead horse even more (and to come out of lurking after so long for what seems like a small, flippant, remark), but has no one else heard of the Oberoni Fallacy? The BBB seems to have codified it en mass.
I have to agree with mfb in large part here, and to me the game development seems to be 'loose' or whatever word you may wish to use. See, it's not a matter of "where the bad GM touched me," but rather the expectations of the social contract we all enter into when we sit down at the gaming table. The rules of a system are the "physics" of the gaming world; it's the shared basis in which we, until house ruled or GM fiatted, come to expect as normal and what we should expect an outcome to be. The problem is the rules are so purposefully vague that I have a really hard time coming to grasp what should happen because the entire system is riddled with GM caveats. As a GM, nothing would please me greater than throwing the BBB at a new player, tell him he's responsible for learning the basics and the next session giving him the low down on the house rules or specific devations from canon that our gaming group uses once he gets on the same page in regards with the RAW. But I have little confidence in the BBB so that after reading the rules that Bobby and Bill will even be in the same chapter, let alone on the same page. And that, I feel, is a detraction from the new edition. I do wish to add that I do quite enjoy SR4. Very much so- just it could have been better is all I'm saying. That, and having to teach new players "my" version of Shadowrun is a little more effort than I appreciate. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2006, 05:46 PM
Post
#289
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 17-October 06 Member No.: 9,636 |
I'm not sure how you guys play games, but for all things there is a learning curve. We don't live in a world of absolutes, therefore we don't game in a world of absolutes. You guys are throwing your arguments into the extremes and coming up with... extremes. The paragraph about house-ruling stuff is so that people like you don't stall an entire game session involving maybe 4 to 5 other people with your rules bickering and semantics. Ultimately, someone has to be make a decision when players and GM are at an impasse and this is always left in the hands of the GM. If you are unhappy with your GM, nominate a new one or find a different group. All your complaints about "GM Fiat" is ultimately based on experiencing POOR GMing. A good GM will not use their discretionary rulings willy nilly. Simultaneously, a good GM will know when it is an appropriate time to make a house rule calling or use their discretion, just as a poor GM won't. Yes, a GM who does not use any discretionary rulings can also be a bad GM. Funny how these things work both ways. Ultimately, it comes down to some sort of balance, one that you guys aren't acknowledging. Every single RPG game requires GM discretion. We have gone over this. Shadowrun is no different. You may feel it requires TOO much, but that is subjective and you are welcome to that opinion. I'm not bothering to try to change your mind on that. May I suggest then, you play a different game because frankly, I don't see the good people at WizKids scrambling to make your rules lawyering easier. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 4 2006, 05:53 PM
Post
#290
|
|
|
The Dragon Never Sleeps Group: Admin Posts: 6,924 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,667 |
Unfortunately the Long Shot Test description does not say either way whether or not the negative pool modifiers also apply to the long shot test itself.
Some people may be assuming that when you do the Long Shot Test that you automatically get to roll Edge number of dice without the negative modifiers applying anyway. There's a difference if you still get to apply the negative modifiers. adding 8 edge to negative 34 modifier, as has been cited in some cases, would make the shot still difficult. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2006, 05:56 PM
Post
#291
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
I am assuming that. I thought it was pretty explicit. (sorry, someone who's not at work will have to quote the book for us) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 4 2006, 05:59 PM
Post
#292
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
The Oberoni Fallacy doesn't apply here. The situation isn't "there's a problem, but you can house rule it so there's no longer a problem" it's "some people don't like some things, if so, they can house rule them."
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2006, 06:14 PM
Post
#293
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 476 Joined: 30-December 03 From: Fresno, CFS: taking out one durned furriner at a time. Member No.: 5,940 |
As I stated McMurray, the statement was slightly flippant.
The problem isn't within the rules themselves, but rather, in the relative lack of rules. There is no fundament on which I can rest my expectations if the rule system is in large part a "GM's judgement call." The fact that I bought a book of rules that tells me repeatedly that the GM can make up his own rules kinda makes me wonder just wtf I did buy. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2006, 06:18 PM
Post
#294
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
There really aren't as many rules holes in SR4 as people seem to think. These threads usually stem more from rules that people don't agree with than rules that don't exist.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2006, 08:42 PM
Post
#295
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 261 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Massachusetts Member No.: 2,115 |
There are rules for a lot of things. There are a bunch of places where the rules are unclear - some of those have resulted in a general consensus here on the forum (i.e how modifiers interact with attribute caps) and some are still less clear (i.e. what can you do once you've got a thousand copies of an Agent).
SR4 is a complete system rewrite, simplifying a game system with 10 years of sourcebooks. The developers didn't even *try* to fit all the game rules into the main book - the full decking rules won't be out for a while. In a couple other places, decisions were made that have weird consequences - look at how the existence of the attribute cap impacts relative power level beween metahumans and spirits. The primary reason that roleplaying games have rules at all is to help the players visualize a shared game world - even if the game master isn't an utter genius who can simulate the physics of gunshots in his head while also correctly visualizing a computer network penetration. These events, and any other events that are reasonably common in the roleplaying game, should be resolved by the game rules. In SR4, there are reasonably common situations that the game rules don't cleanly handle. In addition, there are numerous places where exactly what the rules are is unclear (what are the mental attributes of a flesh form spirit?). These are flaws. The FAQ will solve some of them, others we'll be stuck with until SR5 eventually happens. One basic fact is that it's easier to play a tight system loosely than it is to tighten up a system that is loose to begin with. That's why I prefer my game systems to start tight... |
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2006, 09:02 PM
Post
#296
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Such as? The answer, if you choose to give it, should probably be in another thread, but I've been on these boards since SR4 came out and have seen a lot of people with complaints along the lines of "___ can't be done" and "the rules are unclear on ___" and most of those are responded to with a simple page number or one paragraph rephrasing of the rule that didn't seem clear. Please note, this post is not me saying "nuh-uh! SR4 is perfect." It isn't perfect. I'm just curious about what holes you see, and how many of them are actually holes. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 4 2006, 09:15 PM
Post
#297
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 341 Joined: 3-October 05 Member No.: 7,802 |
Often the reverse is true. In a tight system the players can be calling the GM to account with page references all the time and it bogs down into lawyerism, even if you aren't playing with true rules lawyers. It just takes a situation where one guy decides the specific tight interpretation of a rule in the books benefits him more in that situation, and they all end up at it.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2006, 09:51 PM
Post
#298
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
IME, the situation cx2 describes is far more common that the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2006, 09:53 PM
Post
#299
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 261 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Massachusetts Member No.: 2,115 |
If that's a problem you legitimately have, just go ahead and tell your players "No rule books at the table, rules disputes after the session". An even cleaner solution would be to actually have your house rules written up beforehand, which can easily include the rules you're not using (i.e. We're playing D&D 3.5, but without combat manuevers like Bull Rush and Grapple).
I personally find that getting to know what the rules actually are is an excellent way to avoid rules-lawyering problems. I've seriously found that they mostly only come up when the GM hasn't bothered to read the book. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2006, 09:57 PM
Post
#300
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 341 Joined: 3-October 05 Member No.: 7,802 |
It is far easier to add than remove.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd February 2025 - 08:11 PM |
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.