 Take Aim and Called Shot |
  |
 Dec 5 2006, 07:26 PM
Post
#326
|
|||
|
Great Dragon  Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957  |
Again, you keep spewing this line, but it's still utter crap. Making a rules decision doesn't automatically turn a good GM into a bad one, and there's nothing in the situation that forces the GM to be inconsistent. Likewise there's nothing in the situation that forces him to be unfair. We get that you think inconsistency and unfairness are wrong. I agree with you, and think most people would. The rulebook itself (in the GM Advice section) agree with you. What makes no sense is your automatic assumption that any GM making a decision is immediately going to be unfair and inconsistent. SR4 (indeed any game) sometimes requires that rules decisions be made*. SR4 (indeed, pretty much any game with good GM Advice) tells the GM to be fair and consistent. If he does one but not the other you can't point the finger at the game. |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Dec 5 2006, 07:28 PM
Post
#327
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Do a search for Ex-ex or explosive and read the 36 other threads on this subject. You'll get all the interpretations you want and then some. :) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 5 2006, 07:39 PM
Post
#328
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 261 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Massachusetts Member No.: 2,115 |
That's the problem, not a solution to the problem. :P |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 5 2006, 07:45 PM
Post
#329
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
That's because there currently is no solution to the "problem," just lots and lots of options to choose your favorite from.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2006, 07:49 PM
Post
#330
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
One would think that if Ex-Explosive ammunition were supposed to make a noticably larger noise than regular ammunition, that somewhere in the last 3 editions of the game there would have been a modifier, or even just a small mention of that fact. Since there is no mention of any 'big bang' associated with either Explosive or Ex-Explosive ammunition, any such ruling would be GM fiat (or a house rule if it was established beforehand).
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2006, 07:55 PM
Post
#331
|
|||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
When the percentage of GM decisions is high enough, you most certainly can, and should, blame the game. When you buy a game book, you're buying rules. If those rules are incomplete, inconsistent, or largely consist of: "Make it up as you see fit", then you haven't got your money's worth. By the way, nice attempt to shift my language. I said any GM fiat decision is, by definition, *arbitrary*. Not necessarily inconsistant, but definitely unpredictable from the standpoint of the player. Fiat is also a decision of "Because I said so", so someone is going to not have a chance to affect the game like they normally would. That's decidedly unfair. Let's use an example we agree on. The GM wants the PC's to be captured. The PC's start a firefight, but the GM simply says: "You lose, and wake up in a cell." This might advance the story and lead to all kinds of wonderful scenarios (Good GMing) but is still unfair and arbitrary. So, this is not a good GM/bad GM dichotomy. It's a player-driven GM versus a story-driven one. And the story should never outshine the players. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 5 2006, 08:08 PM
Post
#332
|
|||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Have you ever actually seen a dictionary? Inconsist means unpredictable. Also, unfairness due to unpredictability makes no sense. You don't have to know how something works for it to be fair.
Totally BS example. There is nothing in the rules or lack thereof that tells the GM to just say "you're captured." I agree that it's crappy GMing, but it's in no way caused by using the SR4 rule set. In fact, it's in direct violation of how the rulebook says it should be used.
I agree that your example was very story-driven. Now prove that a GM making a rule decision is forcing a story-driven game instead of player-driven one. Otherwise it's just another of your tangents. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Dec 5 2006, 08:23 PM
Post
#333
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 261 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Massachusetts Member No.: 2,115 |
In the "What are rules for?" thread, the top two contenders are "fairness" and "predictability".
The whole point of game development is that a game system that is fair and consistent can be produced by people intentionally trying to accomplish that. GM fiat due to a loose rule set is the exact opposite. Rather than having a consistent and well thought out set of rules, one person has to come up with something on the spot. That's definitely not predictable, and it's probably not going to be consistent. Something that is inconstant and unpredictable is going to end up being unfair a good chunk of the time. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2006, 08:28 PM
Post
#334
|
|
|
Uncle Fisty Group: Admin Posts: 13,891 Joined: 3-January 05 From: Next To Her Member No.: 6,928 |
Address the issue, not the person Cain, GM fiat would be more along the lines of saying that "x" doesn't work or does work as the case may be , because the GM decides it is so, without any explanation. "you lose, no I'm not going to allow you to roll" is more like GM a-hole issues IMO. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2006, 08:30 PM
Post
#335
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Again, you're assuming that GM decisions will be unpredicatable and inconsistent. That's a possibility, but it's in direct violation of how SR4 tells you to play. If a game says do X but you do Y, it's not the game's fault that you chose the wrong path.
Unless you can prove that loose rules force unpredicatability, inconsistency, and unfairness despite the exhortation against it in the rules themselves, then it boils down to Good vs Bad GMing practices. If your GM sucks, fix your GM, because he'll probably suck no matter what the game. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2006, 08:31 PM
Post
#336
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Sorry. Edited it out. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 5 2006, 08:36 PM
Post
#337
|
|
|
Uncle Fisty Group: Admin Posts: 13,891 Joined: 3-January 05 From: Next To Her Member No.: 6,928 |
danke
I agree with your last post BTW, a good Gm can go a long ways to making the rules flow well, even if there are some consistency issues. A bad one, same thing, the other way. I know Cain's point is more that there shouldn't have to be so many GM's calls. I'm still of the opinion that it's a matter of personal taste, but a good GM can go a long ways to avoid to many of those issues cropping up, or at least deal with them quickly. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2006, 08:42 PM
Post
#338
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Definitely. It's always down to personal taste over how tight or loose a ruleset should be. If loose rulesets were undeniably bad World of Darkness wouldn't have made it past their first book. My problem with the thread (and Cain and my continuing conversation) is people trying to hold up their subjectives as if they were absolutes.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2006, 08:44 PM
Post
#339
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 261 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Massachusetts Member No.: 2,115 |
Every time a GM makes a call, there's a chance (P) that it will be inconsistent with the rules or a previous call. No one is perfect, so that chance is always non-zero. The chance of making N calls without any inconsistent calls is (1-P)^N. There *will be* bad calls.
Every one of those calls sets a precedent - just like there was a rule in the book - that the players will use form their mental image of the laws of the game world straight. The less calls a GM makes, the less of a mess they have to deal with when a bad call does come up and starts to interact with other bad calls. When I GM, I try to avoid this by making the most conservative calls possible. I'm actually preparing for a SR4 game this week, and I've had to make a number of rulings just to get one of my players through character generation. More than once, I've had to say "The rules there are unclear and I don't want to set a precedent right now, let's just not go there". Having to say that sucks. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2006, 08:59 PM
Post
#340
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Ummm..... Dude? By that setup there's gonna be bad calls no matter what. Just like no person is perfect, neither is any game perfect. Sure, looser systems require more calls, but better GMs make better calls. SR4 with a good GM can have much better consistency than d20 with a crappy one. The important thing to do is make sure, as a group, that the calls are good for you. If you're unwilling or unable to do that, you should probably find a tighter system.
Uh... So don't say it? Make a call. Use the time you have now instead of in the game to think it through and discuss it with the players and make the best call you can make for your group. As an example, let's say you and I went to a gun range. On the wall are two rules: stay in your lane and don't shoot people. I tell you that although the rule doesn't specify, you should remain consistent fair when trying to determine what creatures to shoot. Is it my fault that when your dog wanders in you blow him away, even though you let your parakeet fly by without even pointing the gun his way? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 5 2006, 09:01 PM
Post
#341
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
of course he is. his whole point is that a game shouldn't have to depend on being run by a good GM to be fun. a game that depends that heavily on the GM is going to really suck when run by a GM who, for whatever reason, isn't up to the task. a game that's more able to stand on its own is more likely to be fun even if the GM is less than awesome. you're sounding like a Microsoft tech answering a call about their Genuine Advantage software. something's wrong with it? must be on the user end! buy another copy of Windows, filthy pirate! |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 5 2006, 09:10 PM
Post
#342
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
I've played great games with crappy GMs and it's always been crappy. Give me a good GM any day, and I'll play damn near any system. Hell, I've even had fun with WoD LARP, whose resolution system is rock-paper-scissors because we had a good GM. I've also had a horrible time playing the exact same game because of a crappy GM. Again, a good GM will make a game better. And to follow your failure path (inconsistent and unfair) he has to be a downright crappy and egotistical GM, because even a mediocre one will read the rule book and do what it tells you to to when GMing (which is oddly enough to be fair and consistent).
How so? I've not once said that SR4 wsa perfect. In fact I've said several times that it isn't. What I'm saying is that your position is a subjective one, and therefore not true for everyone. What you're saying is "nuh-uh! I said it so it must be true. Neener neener neener!" (albeit a bit more eloquently)* You are not going to convince people that your opinion is fact. You may convince them that your opinion is right for them, but that's two different things. * See, I can exaggerate your stance from what it really is into something ludicrous as well, so why don't we agree to just talk about what people actually say? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 5 2006, 09:19 PM
Post
#343
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
i'm not talking about crappy GMs, i'm talking about less-than-perfect GMs. every game i've played under a crappy GM has, indeed, been crappy. but i've played good games under mediocre GMs and had fun. playing crappy games under those same GMs has, generally, not been fun.
i didn't say you did. i said that your response to just about every objection to the game rules has been "well, the GM should make a good ruling there". heck, you did it in the post just above mine. what happens when the GM isn't equipped to make a good ruling? bad things. no game can prevent that. what a good game can do is limit how often a GM has to make a call, thus effectively limiting the number of opportunities for him to make a bad ruling. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 5 2006, 09:28 PM
Post
#344
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
If the GM doesn't actually read the book, and follow the guidelines given, he's a crappy GM.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2006, 09:41 PM
Post
#345
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Contrast: "quality", "popularity". ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 5 2006, 09:44 PM
Post
#346
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
We're discussing subjectives, he was trying to apply one as an absolute. If a loose game is objectively a bad game, it will not be popular. If however, it is subjectively bad, that popularity can stem from being thought of as good by a different group of gamers.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2006, 09:51 PM
Post
#347
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I submit that something that is, as much as anything can be said to be, objectively one thing (bad, in this case) can be subjectively considered good.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2006, 09:52 PM
Post
#348
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
buy a new copy of Windows, filthy pirate. (does that count as name-calling?) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 5 2006, 10:01 PM
Post
#349
|
|
|
Uncle Fisty Group: Admin Posts: 13,891 Joined: 3-January 05 From: Next To Her Member No.: 6,928 |
maybe, dunno, busy laughing
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2006, 10:04 PM
Post
#350
|
|||||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
*WHOOOOOSH* I rarely find myself in this position, but, um, can somebody explain the joke to me? I don't get it. :( |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd February 2025 - 04:04 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.