Rules Coverage - Dumpshock Forums

Rules Coverage, How much is enough? Abstract or Realism?

eidolon View Member Profile	Jul 31 2007, 02:52 PM Post #1
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333	Spun off from the Firearms thread. Please continue rules coverage discussion here. Thanks.

eidolon

Jul 31 2007, 02:56 PM

Post #2

ghostrider

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

Quick rehash of the story so far:

QUOTE (eidolon)

As a slight aside, I would rather situations like

QUOTE (TheOneRonin)

"Okay, so the job is to break into the secure corporate compound, extract the scientist, and escape? I'll bring my Ranger Arm SM-4 sniper rifle loaded with ExEx ammo and fitted with a silencer. What's that you say? How am I going to use a sniper rifle in close quarters? Simple...I have 14 dice and a low-light/thermo/image mag scope. Full dice pool, baby!"

be up to me as GM, instead of having a rule to cover it.

QUOTE (mfb)

...why? there are clear-cut, easy-to-understand--and therefore easy to codify into game mechanics--reasons why a long gun is worse to use in a close fight than a more compact weapon. why would you want to make more work for yourself when the rules are more than capable of handling it? and if you prefer to do that work yourself, why use the rules at all?

QUOTE (eidolon)

I see it differently is all.

For one, I don't "not want any rules", I just don't need a rule for every little nit-picky situation. If I did I'd play d20. Rules bloat is enough of a pain in the ass already.
Shadowrun, or any role playing game, does not need to be played 100% the same at every table in the world. WotC might have managed to convince a lot of people otherwise, but that doesn't make their end product any less bland and boring. You can't fix everything with codified rules. When you try, your game becomes unplayable, or those rules are ignored, making them pointless in the first place.

For two, if players or a group don't know or don't care that using a meter long rifle for room clearing doesn't really work all that well, and might just be a bad idea, but they're having fun anyway, then who gives a damn? You or me, because we know better? We're not in that game with that group. What we know or think doesn't make a bit of difference. And since we know better, we are free to apply a penalty, or to otherwise hamper a character (and thus a player) that attempts to do so in our games. Codified rules for gun length penalties while engaging in close combat might sound great to a rules junkie, but to a casual player, or just someone that wants a game that they don't have to take student loans out to learn, it's just some random piece of nonsensical bullshit that they have to take into account.

It's abstract. It always has been. But you're free to pull a Raygun if it's abstract, and make the game fun for yourself. That's fantastic. But I know that if I had to use every "realistic" set of rules that I have seen for Shadowrun over the years, I'd have stopped playing a long damn time ago. Just about everyone I have ever gamed with would say the same thing.

edit: I just took another look at how you phrased this;

QUOTE (mfb)

why would you want to make more work for yourself when the rules are more than capable of handling it?

Again, not everyone even sees that there's "work" to be done there. And that's my point.

QUOTE (Cursedsoul)

I say screw firearms and make yourself a Troll with a Meta-man portable dwarf launching catapult. :D Maybe some sorta gigantor crossbow (probably bordering on a Crossbow-Ballista hybrid) with lots of whirly gears and shiny parts to make you the envy of all. :D

Seriously though, I definitely agree with the sentiment that house rules are the way to go if you want "realistic" combat because that way no space is wasted in the book and more people will come to Dumpshock and sample our fine gourmet cuisine of threads such as these in order to guide them in hashing out their own spin on the subject.

Also, I'm tellin' ya this dwarfapult is the way to go. You can even dikote'em (assuming they ever bring it back...and they probably won't...with good reason ;) ) and give'em a pointy object to hold to get yourself a bonafide armorpiercing projectile from hell. :grinbig:

QUOTE (kzt)

What I mostly find annoying isn't that the rules are not detailed enough, it's that the rules show that the people writing the rules just don't have a clue. It's like writing vehicle rules that have semis accelerating faster then sports cars and pickup trucks carrying more than a semi, while delivery vans are have better off-road characteristics than dune buggies, as well as continually using the word "torque" to mean "speed".

The exact same amount of space in rules and the tables could have been used and we could get a much more sane set of rules that don't add to complexity. And didn't produce two or three superguns and a bunch of clunkers.

QUOTE (mfb)

QUOTE (eidolon)

I see it differently is all.

For one, I don't "not want any rules", I just don't need a rule for every little nit-picky situation. If I did I'd play d20. Rules bloat is enough of a pain in the ass already.
Shadowrun, or any role playing game, does not need to be played 100% the same at every table in the world. WotC might have managed to convince a lot of people otherwise, but that doesn't make their end product any less bland and boring. You can't fix everything with codified rules. When you try, your game becomes unplayable, or those rules are ignored, making them pointless in the first place.

i agree. however, i think the best solution to that is to provide a scaling ruleset, one that's easy to take from simple to detailed. that way, the GM's job is easy--he just decides what level of detail to use, and the rules are there to support him.

QUOTE (imperialus)

QUOTE (mfb @ Jul 30 2007, 10:57 PM)

QUOTE (eidolon)

I see it differently is all.

For one, I don't "not want any rules", I just don't need a rule for every little nit-picky situation. If I did I'd play d20. Rules bloat is enough of a pain in the ass already.
Shadowrun, or any role playing game, does not need to be played 100% the same at every table in the world. WotC might have managed to convince a lot of people otherwise, but that doesn't make their end product any less bland and boring. You can't fix everything with codified rules. When you try, your game becomes unplayable, or those rules are ignored, making them pointless in the first place.

i agree. however, i think the best solution to that is to provide a scaling ruleset, one that's easy to take from simple to detailed. that way, the GM's job is easy--he just decides what level of detail to use, and the rules are there to support him.

So how exactly is this supposed to work? Is a DM supposed to spend weeks before a campaign going through the ruleset and cherry picking rules? How will the playtesters know that every single sit of rule combinations works well together. If you are using advanced firearm rules but simplified magic rules would this shaft mages?

Honestly I'd see it turning into something verymuch like D&D with splatbooks where there are so many rules, 80% of which contradict each other you average DM is driven absolutely insane. Of course some DM's try to limit their campaigns to "simple" rules using say Corebooks only but then you see the WoTC boards swamped with people pissed at their DM's because they won't let them play their halfdragon/teifling/dragonborn, warlock/dikoted ally spirit/ninja.

QUOTE (mfb)

well, yes, if it's designed badly, it won't work. that's true of just about anything.

QUOTE (Critias)

QUOTE (imperialus @ Jul 31 2007, 12:53 AM)

So how exactly is this supposed to work? Is a DM supposed to spend weeks before a campaign going through the ruleset and cherry picking rules?

As opposed to just making up rules all by himself because the playtesters and developers couldn't be bothered to?

I'd rather buy a rulebook and get more than I want than I'd like to pay for a rulebook and get less than I need.

QUOTE (Ddays)

Well, I have to say in defense of DnD, most problems arise not out of too many options but simply bad player dm interaction (isn't it always?).

Players should not complain that they're not allowed to use their character concepts if DMs did not have the time to fully study the sourcebook which details the powers, weaknesses, and backgrounds pertaining to it.

Likewise, DMs should take the time to learn the rules that players are using.

It takes a bit of effort to get the rules down and start playing, and some things definitely aren't as fleshed out as it's supposed to be, but it shouldn't be a free lunch either.

If it were, I would go back to narrating Doom games.

QUOTE (eidolon)

@mfb:

Yes, I agree with you. A well designed scaling rule system could work. The pitfalls are as imperialus noted, combined with the fact that WotC has created a wave of new players that are a child of what I jokingly refer to as "player entitlement culture", where because there are 50,000 rules out there, and a player only has to know the fifty that apply to his character, a GM can't tool his game the way he wants it because everyone will just whine and quit.

Thus, it's my opinion that anything not in the game should just be created by those that want it there. Understand that this is partly because I "grew up" on AD&D 2nd edition, where practically everything outside of THAC0 was a house rule. The rest of it comes from a few years of watching systems attempt everything from having three rules, to having badly designed and poorly explained or interpreted "scaling" rulesets, to throwing 1.6 million rules at players hoping that the GM will never have to think that way.

The GM is there for many reasons, and one of the most important is not adjudicating the rules, but adjudicating the lack of rules. It's one of the hardest things, but one that no system or number of rules is ever going to "solve". I think that the more systems and designers try to solve this "problem", the worse a game gets. Eh, I could go on and on about this, but then I'd have to move the thread to General Gaming and bitch myself out.

QUOTE (Ddays)

Likewise, DMs should take the time to learn the rules that players are using.

No offense to you intended, but I consider this to be a load of crap. My first thought when I read such things is that the person in question has never GM'd a game before. I realize that's probably not true very often, but that's what jumps into my mind.

The GM has to make up the world (outside what's provided, that is), the people in it, the story, the challenges, has to keep things on an even keel, and has to learn seventeen books' worth of rules just so a player can play a twinked out ball of cheese? I humbly disagree.

imperialus

Jul 31 2007, 03:03 PM

Post #3

Shooting Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,532
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Calgary, Canada
Member No.: 769

QUOTE (Critias @ Jul 31 2007, 01:20 AM)

QUOTE (imperialus @ Jul 31 2007, 12:53 AM)

So how exactly is this supposed to work? Is a DM supposed to spend weeks before a campaign going through the ruleset and cherry picking rules?

As opposed to just making up rules all by himself because the playtesters and developers couldn't be bothered to?

I'd rather buy a rulebook and get more than I want than I'd like to pay for a rulebook and get less than I need.

I'd rather a simple system that's easy to houserule than one that tries to have rules for everything from walking down the street to string theory. This is part of the reason why the only D20 system I actually like right now is Castles and Crusades. Very simple rules, no skills, no feats, no multi-classing ect. but it's very easy to tweak the system and make it your own. I guess it's just different takes on the same thing. You say lots of optional rules I shudder and think D&D with a stack of splatbooks up to my neck, when I say abstracton=teh winna! I'm probably just coming at it from a different perspective than you.

Edit:
For example in the C&C game I ran a while back I let characters split their primes, and I did multi classing by letting players pick from an expanded list of classes that included classes like "Fighter/Wizard" (Battlewizard) and "Wizard/Thief" (Nightshade).

I know of other DM's that use skill systems, feat systems, even a few who've made prestige classes. The entire point of the game is that you fiddle with it until it becomes something you're happy with. The basic system is robust enough to survive a great deal of tweakeing without the wheels falling off. In D&D by contrast try removing a single rule, say Attacks of Oppertunity from your game. All of a sudden dozens of feats are useless, you need to make up a new rule for withdrawing from combat (even if it is as simple as "If you withdraw your enemy gets a free attack"), and all sorts of other rule problems trickle down from this one single change.

TheOneRonin View Member Profile	Jul 31 2007, 03:06 PM Post #4
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,109 Joined: 16-October 03 From: Raleigh, NC Member No.: 5,729	I don't think the biggest problem is lack of rules for everything, but more of rules not providing clear difference of choice. In the real world, almost no choice, especially when it comes to the purchase of an item, is simple. The general guidelines (cheap but crappy, good but expensive, cheap and good but only does 1 thing well, etc.) are the sorts of things that sculpt our choices. I think a good RPG ruleset does the same thing. However, when game design fails at this, you end up with several of the ridiculous scenarios that I posted in the other thread. If the real-life drawbacks to certain items aren't represented in the rules, then it terribly skews the balance of the game, and shit like "Sniper Rifles in CQC", "pistols that perform better than ARs and have more ammo capacity", and "a player who's pickup truck can haul more weight than a Semi and accelerate faster than a Hayabusa" comes up. To me, you don't need 17 rulebooks to fix crap like that. You just need a clear understanding of how to create "choice". Because you aren't REALLY giving players a choice when 1 item is better than all others for all situations.

TheOneRonin

Jul 31 2007, 03:17 PM

Post #5

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,109
Joined: 16-October 03
From: Raleigh, NC
Member No.: 5,729

QUOTE (imperialus)

QUOTE (Critias @ Jul 31 2007, 01:20 AM)

QUOTE (imperialus @ Jul 31 2007, 12:53 AM)

So how exactly is this supposed to work? Is a DM supposed to spend weeks before a campaign going through the ruleset and cherry picking rules?

As opposed to just making up rules all by himself because the playtesters and developers couldn't be bothered to?

I'd rather buy a rulebook and get more than I want than I'd like to pay for a rulebook and get less than I need.

I'd rather a simple system that's easy to houserule than one that tries to have rules for everything from walking down the street to string theory. This is part of the reason why the only D20 system I actually like right now is Castles and Crusades. Very simple rules, no skills, no feats, no multi-classing ect. but it's very easy to tweak the system and make it your own. I guess it's just different takes on the same thing. You say lots of optional rules I shudder and think D&D with a stack of splatbooks up to my neck, when I say abstracton=teh winna! I'm probably just coming at it from a different perspective than you.

You don't need tons of optional rules. You just need choice.

There needs to be mechanics that define the difference between things, and why some things are better at certain tasks than others.

Think of it like tools. If the rules say that you can use a screwdriver as a drill, a hammer, AND a screwdriver, but don't give you any penalties for doing that, why would you ever use anything but a screwdriver? IRL, it makes no sense to use a screwdriver as a hammer or a drill, but if the rules don't reflect this, everyone is going to do it.

imperialus View Member Profile	Jul 31 2007, 03:18 PM Post #6
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,532 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Calgary, Canada Member No.: 769	I'll agree with you there. Unfortunatly as has been pointed out in the previous thread the shadowrun combat rules are quite low granularity, and changing a firearms stats by a point or two can make a big difference. Having accessories like intregal smartlinks, laser sights, gas vents ect. helps differentiate one gun from another but I will agree with you that sometimes it feels like something is missing. Unfortunatly I'm not sure how to fix it...

Kagetenshi

Jul 31 2007, 03:29 PM

Post #7

Manus Celer Dei

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,006
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802

Repost from the SR3R Project forum:

QUOTE (me)

Goal: to make Shadowrun less simple.

I know, you're all wondering what the hell I'm smoking right now. Here's my explanation.

One of the big problems Shadowrun has, aside from its abysmal organization, is that many things are heavily abstracted--abstracted in an inflexible manner, so that relatively common actions are not explicitly handled in the rules, and may not even be handled implicitly. This makes playing Shadowrun expensive.

When I say "expensive", I don't mean money--I mean some combination of time, frustration, brainpower, and dissatisfaction. Looking up rules is expensive. Searching for rules that aren't easy to find is even more expensive. Figuring out the proper interpretation of a vague section of the rules is expensive.

Making a ruling for something that's undefined or conflictingly defined in the rules? Now that's really expensive.

(Another thing that's expensive is when things act in a way that's surprising to the player--this is part of why I despise SR4's glitch system. I'll explain this in more detail later.)

I want to make playing Shadowrun as inexpensive as possible while maintaining its flexibility, level of control, and realism/verisimilitude (because surprising=expensive). Sometimes that's best done by reducing complexity. Sometimes it's best done by adding it, and I think the Shadowrun designers punted on a lot of places where that was the case.

Incomplete coverage makes playing expensive. There are ways to add coverage that can be bad, but in general, increasing coverage by itself is almost never bad.

~J

eidolon

Jul 31 2007, 03:49 PM

Post #8

ghostrider

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

I agree with TheOneRonin when it comes to things that are simply inconsistent or poorly designed. That's not so much an issue of "too few or too many rules", but one of how well designed those rules are in the first place.

Things like that really shouldn't be up to the GM to fix, they just shouldn't make it into the rules in the first place.

QUOTE (imperialus)

I'd rather a simple system that's easy to houserule than one that tries to have rules for everything from walking down the street to string theory.

Well, with d20 they tried to give a basic, core system that had all kinds of extra aftermarket parts that you could slap on or leave off as you like. The problem is, at the same time they presented their game as "all about the player's desires" and basically created a culture in which whiny people that haven't ever DM'd before sit around complaining on the WotC boards that their DM (who works two jobs and has a family) won't "bother" to learn another entire book of addiitonal rules so that he can play his twinkinator.

The culture killed of the versatility of the rules. That need not be the case, but I'd wager that anyone that started on d20 would complain just as loudly that their Shadowrun GM doesn't feel like reading Toolset 15: Realistic Firearms.

mfb View Member Profile	Jul 31 2007, 06:53 PM Post #9
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670	the GM needs to know the rulesets he's running. that does make it his prerogative to not include certain rulesets, even if the players feels they're entitled to them. whether or not WotC has spoiled players is irrelevant--the GM is ultimately in charge of his game, and it is his responsibility to either know the rulesets he's running, or accept the consequences when his players walk all over him because he doesn't know what modifiers to apply. ultimately, the GM and the players need to sit down and actually discuss what kind of game they're going to play. even within the same ruleset, there's a lot of room for clashing play styles; if the GM is constantly butting heads with his players on rules issues, its because they're not communicating. that's not something any amount of rulesets can fix. the fact is, if you have a rules-lite ruleset that you want to kitbash into something more realistic, it's more work than just learning a new set of prewritten add-on rules. you feel bad for the GM who has to slog through another book of rules; i feel bad for the GM who looks at the existing rules and has to choose between straining his and his players' suspension of disbelief by using the rules unmodified, or doing weeks of extra work to bring them up to snuff. or, even more painfully, dropping the rules altogether and moving on to a different game, despite the fact that he and his players really, really like a lot of aspects of the existing game.

eidolon View Member Profile	Jul 31 2007, 08:26 PM Post #10
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333	Agree completely on communication and rules choice. Other horse dead on my end, discontinuing beating. ;) (I understand your position more, now, but simply due to the difference in what we expect we'll probably just never really agree on it.)

Kagetenshi View Member Profile	Jul 31 2007, 08:32 PM Post #11
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802	You're entitled to your opinion, even if it is objectively wrong ;) ~J, arbiter of reality

eidolon View Member Profile	Jul 31 2007, 08:59 PM Post #12
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333	Lolz.

Wounded Ronin View Member Profile	Aug 1 2007, 05:39 AM Post #13
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383	I'd point out that there's a difference between rules bloat (to make a metaphor, a 3 gigabyte patch on a nearly unworkable 2 gigabyte operating system) and having a lot of rules which are well designed and internally consistient.

Moon-Hawk

Aug 1 2007, 03:53 PM

Post #14

Genuine Artificial Intelligence

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

QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)

I'd point out that there's a difference between rules bloat (to make a metaphor, a 3 gigabyte patch on a nearly unworkable 2 gigabyte operating system) and having a lot of rules which are well designed and internally consistient.

So wait, let me see if I can get my head around what you're saying here.
You're saying that lots and lots of good rules....are actually better, than the same lots and lots of lousy rules? Is that right?
Man, that's deep. I'm gonna have to...wow...I mean, I need to think about this. Like, seriously.
;)

Aristotle

Aug 1 2007, 04:30 PM

Post #15

Slacker Extraordinaire

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 337
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Ashburn, VA
Member No.: 997

QUOTE (mfb)

the GM needs to know the rulesets he's running. that does make it his prerogative to not include certain rulesets, even if the players feels they're entitled to them. whether or not WotC has spoiled players is irrelevant--the GM is ultimately in charge of his game...

the fact is, if you have a rules-lite ruleset that you want to kitbash into something more realistic, it's more work than just learning a new set of prewritten add-on rules...

I was going to write a reply to this thread and then I scrolled down and saw that mfb wrote it for me. I think I share his views exactly on this matter.

mfb View Member Profile	Aug 1 2007, 07:37 PM Post #16
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670	i stole it from your brain while you were asleep!

Wounded Ronin

Aug 2 2007, 02:04 AM

Post #17

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,640
Joined: 6-June 04
Member No.: 6,383

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)

QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Aug 1 2007, 12:39 AM)

I'd point out that there's a difference between rules bloat (to make a metaphor, a 3 gigabyte patch on a nearly unworkable 2 gigabyte operating system) and having a lot of rules which are well designed and internally consistient.

So wait, let me see if I can get my head around what you're saying here.
You're saying that lots and lots of good rules....are actually better, than the same lots and lots of lousy rules? Is that right?
Man, that's deep. I'm gonna have to...wow...I mean, I need to think about this. Like, seriously.
;)

Or, having a good simulationist detailed system isn't automatically crappier than having a good abstractist simple system.

Since people were complaining that lots of rules were too difficult to master.

eidolon View Member Profile	Aug 2 2007, 04:52 AM Post #18
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333	It's not automatically or inherently "better", either. Once you pit a good "insert style" system against a good "insert other style" system, it becomes strictly a matter of taste. Well...more than it already was.

Critias

Aug 2 2007, 06:31 AM

Post #19

Freelance Elf

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714

QUOTE (imperialus)

QUOTE (Critias @ Jul 31 2007, 01:20 AM)

QUOTE (imperialus @ Jul 31 2007, 12:53 AM)

So how exactly is this supposed to work? Is a DM supposed to spend weeks before a campaign going through the ruleset and cherry picking rules?

As opposed to just making up rules all by himself because the playtesters and developers couldn't be bothered to?

I'd rather buy a rulebook and get more than I want than I'd like to pay for a rulebook and get less than I need.

I'd rather a simple system that's easy to houserule than one that tries to have rules for everything from walking down the street to string theory. This is part of the reason why the only D20 system I actually like right now is Castles and Crusades. Very simple rules, no skills, no feats, no multi-classing ect. but it's very easy to tweak the system and make it your own. I guess it's just different takes on the same thing. You say lots of optional rules I shudder and think D&D with a stack of splatbooks up to my neck, when I say abstracton=teh winna! I'm probably just coming at it from a different perspective than you.

I'd rather have something and not need it, than need it and not have it. I'd prefer to spend my money on a rulebook that has a bunch of optional stuff already there, printed up in it, than to have to just make all that shit up on my own, basically. There reaches a point of diminishing returns when people attempt realism (through rules detail) in gameplay, for sure -- but I'd say there also reaches a point where it's just stupid to pay good money for a gamebook if every page is full of vague ideas and hints about how to run their game, and you're beat over the head with the "GM FIAT" thing.

At what point are you a sucker for buying a rulebook without any rules, or a gamebook without a game in it?

I'll be honest, in that I can't recall which book it was (Street Magic or the core SR4 book), but I seem to remember some 4th Edition stuff with a page or so dedicated to some optional rules, stuff in a grey-tinted box, all listed as optional. I recall similar in SR3 (for instance, a rule that didn't reduce Drain Force by 1/2, stuff like that). Just little boxes of text with some suggested house rules, optional stuff, "Do you want more lethal combat? Try this. Less lethal combat? Do this instead."

I love stuff like that.

I fully agree that non-gunbunny sorts might not care that a sniper rifle should be absolutely fucking ridiculous to try and clear a house with. I understand that folks who don't know about guns in real life might worry more about "cool factor" than "how guns actually work," and all that stuff. That's fine. I understand where they're coming from (being not-a-car-buff, I imagine there are people out there that have the same frustrations I do, but concerning vehicle/chase rules, and stuff like that, instead).

But I don't see what it would kill for a game company to put forth a little fucking effort and research, and introduce -- even, or especially, as optional rules -- a few little tweaks to make firearms more realistic. Particularly in a game where gunplay is what so many sessions come down to, like in Shadowrun. Melee combat, too, for that matter (instead of everyone having to house rule the cyberlimb melee damage compared to bone lacing nonsense, why not just list it as an optional rule somewhere to make it semi-official?). Maybe they're just afraid it would be like admitting their basic firearm rules have nothing to do with firearms, I dunno.

Changes to how rate of fire works (seriously, two shots in three seconds is pitifully slow, and I won't even get into autofire) would be a good start. A shift in some damage codes, maybe even a hit location system. Recoil being reworked, maybe. Stuff like that I'd love to see as optional rules, given just a page or two and called "ADVANCED COMBAT OPTIONS" or something.

I don't see what those little boxes of tinted text, full of optional rules, hurt. I'd rather get my ideas for house rules from the guys that made the game, than from other disenchanted players on a message board. I'm a canon guy. I dig canon games. I like to feel like my games are "real" or "official" by playing by published rules. Even if it's an optional rule (like blast damage in SR3), I can at least feel like it's still real, because it's right there in a book.

Talia Invierno View Member Profile	Aug 2 2007, 06:56 AM Post #20
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689	Although a large part of what it does seem to come down to is that Dumpshockers seem to prefer as much as possible fixed in the rules (even with options): so long as it is their "logical" version of the rules that is so fixed.

Critias View Member Profile	Aug 2 2007, 07:05 AM Post #21
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714	That's hardly unique to Dumpshockers, or even role players. Everyone from sports fans discussing a new seasons to political conversationalists discussing upcoming elections feels pretty much the same way. Everyone always thinks the stuff they like is common sense, should be official, is the best stuff, is the stuff everyone should like, etc, etc. This just in: water is wet!

Talia Invierno View Member Profile	Aug 2 2007, 07:14 AM Post #22
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689	Careful with that definition of "everyone", Critias.

Critias View Member Profile	Aug 2 2007, 07:37 AM Post #23
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714	So how many people go around all day firmly believing their opinions and preferences are wrong and stupid?

Talia Invierno View Member Profile	Aug 2 2007, 07:49 AM Post #24
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689	Some of us choose not to live in an either-or world.

Critias View Member Profile	Aug 2 2007, 08:03 AM Post #25
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714	You don't make sense to me an awful lot of the time. The nits you pick, the strange little tangents you grasp at, they peculiarities of thought and language you cling to, really just boggle me sometimes. If someone has an idea for a game, they obviously like the idea. They obviously think the idea is a good one. They would not house rule that idea into being, if they thought otherwise, would they? They wouldn't make a suggestion on an internet forum if they thought ahead of time it was a bad suggestion, they wouldn't complain about it on line if they thought their complaint unjustified (and canon material honestly lacking something important), they wouldn't disagree with canon if they didn't think they knew something canon didn't, in some fashion. I just don't see how this is news, or (again) something that only pertains to "Dumpshockers," or even only Shadowrun players, or even only role playing gamers. It's not unique to people on any single given forum -- anyone that gripes about the folks running in the next election must have some reason, real or perceived to be griping. Everyone that has their own "picks" for recruitment for their favorite team next season must, by virtue of having their own picks, feel there is some reason those picks are valid. I don't see how using the word "everyone" is somehow incorrect, when I state "everyone that thinks they're right thinks they're right." Everyone with an opinion must feel their opinion has merit, or why would they have that opinion in the first place? And, again -- how many people do you know who genuinely walk around all day being wrong on purpose, clinging purposefully and knowingly to opinions they honestly believe to be incorrect? Don't just toss me someone's blog (even if it's your own). Tell me how many people you know that get up out of bed in the morning and then purposefully go through their day making wrong choices that they believe to be wrong, espousing opinions sincerely (not just as a devil's advocate) they believe to be incorrect opinions, and making changes to their life they honestly think will worsen their condition. If folks didn't like their house rule, they wouldn't house rule it. If folks liked the canon rule the best, they'd leave the canon rule alone. If folks thought any game book was, as published, flawless and the Holy Grail of gaming, they wouldn't fuck with it. I don't see, logically, what there even is in these statements for someone to go out of their way to disagree with.

« Next Oldest · General Gaming · Next Newest »