 Take Aim and Called Shot |
  |
 Dec 4 2006, 09:58 PM
Post
#301
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence  Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715  |
Funny how people only seem to remember the rules that will help them at the time. Rare is the player who says, "Excuse me, GM, but according to rule X on page Y, that should've done much more damage to me." Rare, and precious, and definitely deserving of bonus karma. |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Dec 4 2006, 10:01 PM
Post
#302
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Completely depends on your group. For some players "the rules are the rules" and if it's in them it's sacrosanct. For other players the mantra is instead "you can't do that, it's not in the rules." For most it's somewhere in between. That's why it's imperative that you find a system that fits the players in your group. Trying to run SR4, WoD, or other "loose" systems in the more hardcore "must be rules" group will only lead to heartache. Well, apparently heartache and much gnashing of teeth on forums about the game you* profess to hate but seemingly can't stop talking about. * general you, not meant to refer to cx2 even though I quoted his post. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 4 2006, 10:02 PM
Post
#303
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
I do that, and it tends to annoy my fellow players sometimes. So how do I get the karma, will it be emailed, snail mailed, or added to my spiritual tally automatically by the computer that runs Everything? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 4 2006, 10:05 PM
Post
#304
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
The latter. But rest assured, it is there. In your next incarnation, you may get bonus BP for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2006, 10:08 PM
Post
#305
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 341 Joined: 3-October 05 Member No.: 7,802 |
The best ever example of that was in the CLUE files. A guy shoots someone in a crowded building and says "It's okay, I've god a sound supressor".
Damage calculation time "Now I'm using ex-ex..." If only he had kept quiet and not tried to take advantage of every rule *laugh* |
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2006, 10:08 PM
Post
#306
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Nice!
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2006, 10:09 PM
Post
#307
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Be wary of the CLUE files. They're funny, but a lot of them seem to stem from a GM being a jerk rather than a stupid player. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 4 2006, 10:09 PM
Post
#308
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 261 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Massachusetts Member No.: 2,115 |
I absolutely disagree. They both share a step: telling your players about your house rules. Adding rules has an additional step - writing new rules that work cleanly with the existing system. Anyone who's ever tried to write consistent new rules to graft on to an existing system will assure you that it's non-trivial. I guess if you don't follow "declare your house rules before the session" policy, you might have some trouble with the sort of problem you're describing. On the other hand, as far as I'm concerned problems with undeclared house rules deserve no pity whatsoever. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 4 2006, 10:12 PM
Post
#309
|
|||||||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
This right here is part of the value of a tight system. If it becomes "all the time", perhaps the GM should review the rules before the next session?
And this is actually a perfect example. However the GM got from "EX-EX" to "noisy", it isn't supported by any sourcebook I've seen or any obvious chain of logic, so unless we haven't been told that he or she'd announced this beforehand… ~J |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Dec 4 2006, 10:19 PM
Post
#310
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 261 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Massachusetts Member No.: 2,115 |
This is an excellent example for my next rant. Clearly this player was new to that gaming group. They had read the rules, and thought they knew how the game worked. A sound suppressor suppresses the sound of a gunshot, ExEx ammo increases the damage. According to the rules, there's no problem here. Then the GM is like "Ha Ha! I've got an undeclared house rule that ExEx ammo makes a shitload of noise, and so it's not compatible with silencers." If the player is me, I'd be like "That seems somewhat reasonable - it would have been nice if it were on the house rule sheet but whatever. So... the sound is at the location of the target and my position isn't revealed, right?". With a good GM, I'd expect them to agree and we move along. With a bad GM, I'd get "No, ExEx just makes your sound supressor not work." I'd be like "Yup, I had no way to guess that's how things worked. How about I was using my Gel rounds instead." My experience would be that the bad GM would be like "No, you declared your action. You're screwed". It's at this point where I'm seriously tempted to punch the GM and leave. The moral of the story is: This shit shouldn't come up to begin with. In a tight system, ExEx ammo would have text saying something like "Although this ammo can be silenced, it makes a loud bang when it hits the target - observers can make a Perception (4) test to notice it". In order to tighten up the game, a game master has to put in a house rule like that. In a loose game with a bad GM, this is a horrible mess that makes the game not fun. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 4 2006, 10:25 PM
Post
#311
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
No matter how tight your system, the GM looking for the "hah, you're screwed" moments is going to find them. For instance "you never said you took your thumb off the talk button for your radio while discussing plans, so the enemy knows everything... Ha ha!" There's no rule that says when your finger comes off a talk buitton, and there really shouldn't be.
While playing a tighter system can definitely help, the only way to avoid this sort of thing is to not play with GMs that relish in those moments. For the record, the button scenario happened this last weekend in my B5 game. I never once tried to screw the guys by telling them they'd blabbed all their secrets. About an hour later one guy said to another guy in the room something he shouldn't have said in front of the present NPCs. I was nice and let him back out of it, with the caveat that from now on if they want to talk in front of NPCs, those NPCs will be able to hear them unless they have some way of conversing silently. PCs don't live inside each others' brains, so if they want to communicate without some form of telepathy they'll need some outward sign of it. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2006, 10:29 PM
Post
#312
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 17-October 06 Member No.: 9,636 |
While I somewhat agree with your assessment (in general) disagree with your example. Specific rules of that nature are as much a boon as they are a hindrance. Consider: What happens if the ExEx round penetrates soft tissue and doesn't explode until inside the body? Increase the Perception test difficulty of hearing it? Does all that flesh, bone and fat muffle the sound? What happens if it strikes water? Adding details means you now have to add additional details just to cover the new details you did add. And as they always say, the devil is in the details. It's very easy to accuse game designers of missing something that you feel is crucial at a specific moment in time during play. But it's very difficult for a game designer to conceive of all the possible scenarios that rules will need to be created for. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 4 2006, 10:36 PM
Post
#313
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 341 Joined: 3-October 05 Member No.: 7,802 |
If you look up that clue file the player was in a chain of other stupidity, and this was the result. There is some genuine idiocy in the CLUE files, like driving down a busy street on a motorbike... on the path... with an axe...
And it is perfectly easy to add things to a game. However if you want to remove you'll have serious problems with players that think the core rulebook is the be all and end all of the system. As I said feel free to play your games with tighter rules, just don't even start trying to tell the rest of us how it should be for us because that is what you are doing in effect. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2006, 10:39 PM
Post
#314
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 261 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Massachusetts Member No.: 2,115 |
Aemon -
You're right. Even better than a specific rule about a Perception test would be fluff text that gives a better description of what ExEx is and how it works. "An ExEx round contains a small explosive charge that detonates on impact with a loud bang" or "An ExEx round contains a small explosive charge that detonates after penetrating the target - if it penetrates the target's armor, the normally loud bang is somewhat muffled." |
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2006, 10:42 PM
Post
#315
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,168 Joined: 15-April 05 From: Helsinki, Finland Member No.: 7,337 |
No one can prepare for every solitary thing that pops up.
SR4 has been getting a fair amount of flak for having system problems. While there are things i dont agree with in it, hell, I dont think i have ever played a system that didnt end up houseruled one way or another. I know these systems got playtested. SR4 got playtested, of course. This Called Shot rule, has been said by many(this thread and others) as being flat out broken. I tend to agree here, its just too out of whack. However, this is a pretty common rule, called shot rules exist in about every game....how was this passed over? Of course even playtesting misses some things...only thing i can think of was every instance of this rule being playtested had everyone roll like utter crap each time with the lowered dice pools, so no one thought it broken. Im not sure. The other rules complaint i hear of SR4 is the old 'easy to cheese out the skills' bit...with the whole ''sticking a couple points in a skill and specializing with a twinked attribute', etc, etc. Some systems just seem easier to exploit than others rule-wise. I dont mean breaking the rules, i mean just using them as is to insane effect. I suppose handing a rulebook over to a powergamer will crack open any of the exploitable rules in a system rather quickly. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2006, 10:47 PM
Post
#316
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
In Babylon 5 if your spaceship's weapon does less damage then their armor then no damage is dealt. They playtested an armor damage rule but left it out for some reason. The end result is fighter crafts that can't actually hurt each other unless someone rolls a crit. Needless to say we found the armor damage rule and implemented it. And while I did complain at the B5 boards as part of the thread where someone mentioned the rule, I definitely didn't opt to complain about it in every thread I post in. :please: |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 5 2006, 12:42 AM
Post
#317
|
|||||||||||
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
So what you're saying, is that the GM should know how to run a game, and how to run it for his group. None of this has anything to do specifically with the system that you happen to be running, nor how tight or loose that system is. What it all boils down to is "a GM should know his group, and know the game he intends to run".
A good point. It opens up the opportunity to interject that being a good player is just as important as being a good GM. Again, not in any way connected to the system.
Oh please. The day that I believe that you remember every rule during every session because you've "reviewed" them is the day I buy you an island in the ocean of your choice. :) I'm a rules nerd when I'm running a game. I literally shift into "dork GM mode" when I'm running, and spend a few hours reading rules books and setting stuff almost every day. (Not lately, but I'll save you the sob story of not having a group for the last 5 months. Um, or maybe I won't.:oops:) Yet maybe every 2nd or 3rd session, some weird, unforseen, random situation will come up that nobody can remember a specific rule for. I guess in short, I think saying "the GM should just know the rules" is a ridiculous supporting argument for an over-ruled system.
And again, an example of bad GMing is given as support for having a rule for everything. And again, I can't help but wonder what systems there are that don't have these situations that provide openings for bad GMing. I've never played one.
Emphasis mine. I think the part I bolded pretty much stands alone. I've not noticed much difference due to the system when my GM was a jackass. I was too busy focusing on the fact that the GM...was a jackass. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Dec 5 2006, 01:21 AM
Post
#318
|
|||||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I understand that you don't want to be in the position of buying other people islands all the time, but you might want to review the difference between a corrective step to be taken should a particular event (players calling the GM to account) start happening very frequently (or, in the text you quoted, "all the time") and that same event happening at all, ever. My assertion is that it is good for the players to be able to call the GM to account with page references, and good for them to actually do so. In situations where a rule exists, our group usually finds it in a matter of minutes. It is those situations where no rules or insufficient rules (or contradictory rules—I'm not saying that more rules is always better, as (for example) one can create two rules that are indistinguishable from no rules) exist that significant time is spent determining what the proper course of action is. cx2: I'm not going to tell you how to play your game. I will argue what does and does not make a good game, and may by extension end up evaluating aspects of your game, but I do not expect you or anyone else to change your personal preferences according to either my conclusions or the thread's consensus (or consensi, as is slightly more probable). ~J |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 5 2006, 06:53 AM
Post
#319
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 147 Joined: 4-December 06 From: Chicago, IL Member No.: 10,193 |
I'm having a hard time understanding where the noise is coming from. It's not like the slugs are tiny grenades. They're just fragmenting when they hit the target. It's going to be the same noise any bullet makes when it hits a target, either thud or KPWING! |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 5 2006, 11:29 AM
Post
#320
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 732 Joined: 1-December 06 Member No.: 10,116 |
Actually they DO have an explosion (Thats why their called Explosive/EX-Explosive). A very small one mind you but there is a very big difference between a 'fragmenting round' and an 'explosive round'. An 'explosive round' actually uses a certain ammount of explosive within the head. If you want to really look at the details just good 'explosive ammunition'. Also here's a quicklink for the lazy that sort of brushes over the specifics, in this case with a 20mm round: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...tions/m1018.htm Explosive ammo of all kinds basically works the same. Though there are still specific subtypes such as HEAP, HE, Airbursting etc. Fragmentary rounds are basically flechette rounds. They do alot more damage, but their not as good at busting through armor because of the fact that the round itself is effectively more fragile, because by design it breaks appart uppon contact. It still has most of its penatrative capability at the intial impact point of course but it's the force of that impact that fragements the round, not some explosive charge. Yes, I know there are 'fragmentation' rounds that use an explosive charge but theres plenty that dont. Just poking about on ammunition information sites can show you the differences rather quickly. Now on the subject at hand as to people hearing the shot. Well, thats a little different. First off the a silencer/suppresor will never completely silence a standard round. Thats why alot of asassination pistols use low velocity ammunition of a small caliber (.22 or 9mm). Though the EX-EX round would still make a noise when it hit the target it shouldnt make the gunshot itself any easier to notice. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 5 2006, 02:27 PM
Post
#321
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 341 Joined: 3-October 05 Member No.: 7,802 |
The amount of noise explosive or ex-explosive makes I notice is arguable, depending where it detonates. However the guy in question was asking for trouble.
In this clue file he was going to meet a guy who had demands for the return of a relative. I believe it was a hotel, but I could be wrong. He forgot about security cameras and witnesses that would not only see the team entering and leaving the room, but also saw this guy break down the door with no good cause. All the other players seemed to be in a state of shock from the description, not least when he yells at the guy a little then just blasts him with his supressed SMG. I think somehow that would make the news. As to the original quesiton I submit it is a matter of the GM not keeping control if he permits silly called shots, or even silly longshot tests. And if there are too many longshot tests then I submit you have an issue with edge and the refreshing thereof, not an innate problem in the longshot mechanic. Any actions, no matter how basic, should be considered to be subject to GM approval. I mean there are rules for improvising weapons, but that doesn't mean you can use some chewing gum, string and a can of coke to make an improvised SMG. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2006, 03:11 PM
Post
#322
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 147 Joined: 4-December 06 From: Chicago, IL Member No.: 10,193 |
But the book says it's a solid slug, not a slug containing explosives. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Dec 5 2006, 06:55 PM
Post
#323
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Maybe it's a slug made of solid explosives. Eh? Eh?
I have no idea. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2006, 07:11 PM
Post
#324
|
|
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
All right, let's draw some conclusions from another thread.
It has been almost unanimously argeed upon that the purpose of rules is to provide fairness and predictability to the game. This isn't about roleplaying, it's about roleplaing games, and games have rules that are meant to be followed, not broken at a whim. No rules, no game. A simple statement of fact. ANd GM fiat breaks the law of predictability, since it is by nature arbitrary; it also breaks the law of fairness, for much the same reason. Rule 0 away enough rules, and you no longer have a storytelling game, you have characters in someone else's story. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2006, 07:12 PM
Post
#325
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 261 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Massachusetts Member No.: 2,115 |
The entire fluff text for explosive rounds is:
That's even less clear than just leaving the word "Explosive" as the entire description. Would actually figuring out what was meant by "explode", what the consequences of that decision would be, and adding another sentence or two to clarify have been that hard? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd February 2025 - 07:30 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.