 Take Aim and Called Shot |
  |
 Dec 11 2006, 07:19 AM
Post
#451
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 870 Joined: 2-October 06 From: Athens Ga Member No.: 9,517  |
I think that the problem here is that there is several gaming styles going on here. Each one seems to have it's own point of view about gaming.
One is that the GM is telling a story which the players are characters in. The GM is GOD and can cause anything to happen to the PCs. Player recourse is mostly social metagaming. Another is that the GM is the referee and runs the NPCs. The rules are independant of both the GM and the players and the players have the rules as recourse. Another is that there is no GM. Every one of the players is a referee but someone has to generate the senerios. There may be other styles, I'm not sure. I think that any GM/player of one style will hate the other styles or at least one of the other styles. I think those crying GM Fiat would not belong to the first style. I think that most games have one of these styles in mind when they were created. That doesn't mean that style is the ONLY way to do it but that is how it's tilted. Can we agree with this and maybe identify what kind of style we like? |
 |
 
|
|
Dec 11 2006, 04:51 PM
Post
#452
|
|||||||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
When did I say it had to be my style? Nice ad hominem there.
Really? I'd suggest you reread my position then. I'd restate it but we've been told to only add new things to the discussion.
No thanks. I'll take your word for it. Veto = Fiat. Whether it's in the players' hands or the GM's. You don't have to like the facts to be wrong.
And this has what to do with SR4? I could be wrong, but we are on an SR4 forum, aren't we?
I agree completely. I personally don't have a favorite style, although the one we use most involves GMs with ultimate control in a trust-filled setting. The ultimate control is not a bother to the players in my group, because we trust our GM not to abuse it. One method you missed is GM vs. Players, where the game is truly a competition. This style requires either a system dedicated to it or a GM both capable and willing to set himself proper limits. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Dec 11 2006, 09:34 PM
Post
#453
|
|||||||||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
<deleted snarky comment about memory>
Yeah, but we've been talking about GM fiat, not player fiat, or fiat in general. And, as demonstrated, GM fiat is virtually impossible in a Wushu-style system. Nice try at sliding the language, again, but QED.
There's an awful lot of us who only can play Shadowrun Missions. Just because you prefer one playstyle doesn't mean it's availiable to everyone. I suggest that before you state that GM ultimate authority is OK, you play in a few SRM modules. I've also played in groups where we trusted each other completely, yet still held to the rules as a guide for what was permissible by both players and GM. Trust has nothing to do with it: two of the people involved are the Godparents to my daughter! I also can't help but wonder about any gaming group that has ultimate trust in the GM, but no faith in the players. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Dec 12 2006, 02:57 AM
Post
#454
|
|||||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Tsk-tsk. You're confusing my position with one statement I've made. My position in this discussion has always been the same, and looseness vs, GM Fiat was but one side topic. Again, I can only suggest you reread the topic if you don't know what my position is by now.
Ummm.... No it's not. Every single action has GM Fiat attached. Sure, the players can then apply their own version to his actions if it's abused, and the game could degenerate. But you're not actually trying to say that GMs don't have veto power over ever single detail of every single action, are you? Unless that's what you're saying, then there is most definitely GM Fiat in the game.
When did I say that? Please restrain yourself to only what I say. Me stating how my group plays is in no way a manifesto for how all groups must play, nor did I ever say it was.
I'm glad you trust them that much. But just because you trust them but don't use complete GM control doesn't mean that trust has nothing to do with complete GM control. The two aren't even tangential to one another.
I'd wonder too. Whose group works like that? I know I never said mine does, despite your attempt to insinuate it. Again, for at least the fourth time in this thread, and sixth or more times in all our conversations: please restrict yourself to what I've actually said. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Dec 12 2006, 07:40 PM
Post
#455
|
|||||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
You've made many positions, some of which I even agree with. This one I don't, and I've proven my position. I suggest you reread your own statements before you suggesting that others don't recall what's occured in this thread-- you've been caught three times contradicting yourself so far.
No. No GM can make any declarative pronouncement above and beyond what any player can do. And, in some ways, they have even less declarative power.
I never claimed you did. Although since you brought it up, are *you* insinuating it? I know I've questioned your groups playstyle, but I've never once claimed that your group had no faith inthe players. Are you suggesting this applies to your group? |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Dec 12 2006, 08:03 PM
Post
#456
|
|||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Buzzz! Wrong answer. I've made many statements. Again, my position in this has been unwavering and unchanged. As a favor to me, can you please tell me what it has been so I can know you're on the same page as me when we discuss my point of view?
Yes, you've proven that if a game has no GM there can be no GM Fiat. How admirable of you. Want a biscuit? Are you trying to say that because Capes has no GM Shadowrun shouldn't either? Or perhaps everyone should be able to veto everything? Honestly, what are you trying to say other than "I don't like SR4's rules?" Do you have a fix prepared for us, or just a list of complaints and games you play that aren't SR?
Not at all. You quoted me and then made the statement, so I assumed you were attempting to apply it to me. So whose group were you referring to then, if anyone's? Why even bring it up? And finally: what is it you're trying to get out of this discussion? Perhaps if we both knew that we could help one another reach our goals. What I'm trying to get is for people to understand my position. Currently you, as everyone else seems to at least understand it, if not agree with it. What can I do to make that happen? |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd February 2025 - 08:55 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.