Surgery - Dumpshock Forums

Surgery, Why the hate?

Talia Invierno View Member Profile	Aug 4 2007, 08:36 AM Post #76
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689	I'm torn. On the one hand, I know there is a rational and objective debate to be had. I can see counter-points to every single non ad hominem point that has been raised, including the most recent one. (Btw I am female, but I'm not Arabic, though I do understand a few words and know a few of the letters.) And in a different environment, I might well discuss them further, showing every bit of that self-confidence that translates as arrogance to those who have already decided a priori that I have nothing of value to say here: even though I happen to be agreeing throughout that there is general hate of these rules, even from the opening post of this thread. That has never been the issue. On the other hand, I also know that not one person currently involved in this thread is willing to look at anything I have to say on this subject rationally and objectively. It's already been decided, on a priori and sometimes circular logic, that the hate is fully and objectively and rationally justifiable. Ironically, that objective and rational justification is exactly what's being questioned. So the only possible "win" would be if either if I were to abandon the debate (be silenced), or if I were to completely concede in every particular that all the negatives people keep bringing up are inherent to the rules -- and thus concede that the hate is rationally justified. Like everyone else who has said much the same in this thread: I know there are better uses to make of my time. Still, we do spend time at Dumpshock, don't we? :spin:

Vaevictis

Aug 4 2007, 09:36 AM

Post #77

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 530
Joined: 11-June 05
Member No.: 7,441

QUOTE (Talia Invierno)

It's already been decided, on a priori and sometimes circular logic, that the hate is fully and objectively and rationally justifiable. Ironically, that objective and rational justification is exactly what's being questioned.

Part of the problem is the assumption that people's preferences (and that's what we're really talking about here) need to be objective or rational.

1. I don't find that the surgery rules add anything enjoyable to the my games (a preference not needing objective or rational justification).
2. Because I find the rules cumbersome (opinion not needing justification), and because of {1}, the rules detract from my enjoyment of the game (again, something that doesn't need justification)
3. Because of {1} and {2}, I don't like the surgery rules.

It's not necessary to objectively and/or rationally justify such a progression; it's like asking someone to justify their dislike of a certain flavor.

Kagetenshi

Aug 4 2007, 01:26 PM

Post #78

Manus Celer Dei

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,008
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802

QUOTE (Talia Invierno @ Aug 4 2007, 01:01 AM)

I referenced "popular" because you brought it in, no other reason.

I brought it in because I had a high confidence level that you were going to reference it. I'll grant that the most popular games dole out rewards fairly easily—but nevertheless, other games that cannot not be called "popular" don't. We're finding variety within the spectrum of "popularity", not having to go to games that no one has ever heard of.

Also, something to toss out there—how much effort is demanded of someone to watch a movie to the end?

QUOTE

Mostly that much of the underlying ideas were underway long before SR4 was finalised, but the developers of SR4 chose to go an utterly different route. I don't think any of those ideas made it, even in concept form, into SR4.

They pared down the number of Matrix actions and Utilities, just like we did. Other than that, we went in nearly diametrically opposed philosophical directions.

QUOTE

As to the deletion: copyright was said to be an issue, and it's the prerogative of those who run the board to decide their personal tolerance levels. Thus it has nothing to do with this topic.

Pink elephants could have been said to be an issue. It is the prerogative of those who run the board to decide what remains on it—nothing else matters.

QUOTE

On the other hand, I also know that not one person currently involved in this thread is willing to look at anything I have to say on this subject rationally and objectively.

It's not impossible that my mind is less open than I believe it to be. I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this, at least barring the possibility that there is no "objective" and "rational", at least for the human mind, though, and if you aren't, I'm so thoroughly irrational about my approach that I can't even begin to see that.

Be aware, though, that my dislike of the surgery rules is based on quite a bit of pondering and debate as to what goes into good game design.

So did you ever provide a reason why

QUOTE (me)

Basically, they were a totally uncontrollable risk you had to take any time you wanted to add cyberware, and one that didn't apply to most Awakened. Dying on the table because the NPC cyberdoc rolled badly isn't fun, and neither is having to consider whether or not to try to get major surgery to improve yourself while the party mage is learning how to deal 3S damage to an area 150 meters in diameter (IIRC) for very little drain.

It's an unnecessary disadvantage, unequally applied, that has only small benefits to the game (it is vital that implantation cost be separated from 'ware cost for fencing 'ware to make any sense at all) and none that couldn't have been gotten some other way. The complexity doesn't even enter into it--it's uncommon enough that almost any amount of complexity is acceptable.

either isn't a problem or isn't inherent to the rules?

(Post flows badly due to numerous edits)

~J

Pendaric View Member Profile	Aug 4 2007, 03:20 PM Post #79
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 993 Joined: 5-December 05 From: Crying in the wilderness Member No.: 8,047	With respect there are plenty of moderate posters on these boards that shy away from threads dedicated to debate, due the almost reflexive habit, of said debate being polarized into an arguement. This done repeatedly by a small core that post vehemently on their chosen postion. I define arguement as a situation where two distinct sides form with differing views that they REFUSE to change. Most of those willing to debate the issue long gave up on this thread due to experience that the more venemous posts and pernious posters would be seen and referenced. Welcome to dumpshock.

Ravor

Aug 4 2007, 05:49 PM

Post #80

Cybernetic Blood Mage

Group: Members
Posts: 3,472
Joined: 11-March 06
From: Northeastern Wyoming
Member No.: 8,361

QUOTE (Talia Invierno)

On the other hand, I also know that not one person currently involved in this thread is willing to look at anything I have to say on this subject rationally and objectively. It's already been decided, on a priori and sometimes circular logic, that the hate is fully and objectively and rationally justifiable. Ironically, that objective and rational justification is exactly what's being questioned.

*Shrugs* That is what tends to happen when you twist statements such as;

QUOTE (Ravor)

Besides, the fact remains that using the combat rules are simply more fun then using the surgery rules to what seems to be a clear majority of players, and I suspect that is the real reason most people don't bother to learn or use them.

into;

QUOTE (Invierno)

And now we have reached a key point:

What is not immediately enjoyable or gratifying will not be looked at.

That's how the circle is entered in the first place.

All the while standing tall on your soap box and letting slip the occassional jab implying that people who generally like the direction Fourth Edition went are part of a younger, videogame raised generation.

Talia Invierno

Aug 4 2007, 05:51 PM

Post #81

Shooting Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,677
Joined: 5-June 03
Member No.: 4,689

Here's a distinction:

Where a player is referencing only their opinion, there can't be statements such as "the rules are stupid": because that implies objective description. As soon as someone says that the innate structure of the rules is stupid, that is an objective statement. These are ways of demonstrating to others that one's own perception has some objective reality.

Were we talking about preferences only, there wouldn't be the need to do so, and we'd be hearing qualifiers like YMMV much more often.

Incidentally, rationality refers to the underlying structure being pinned on reason, ie. to have been thought out in a logical manner; but also in close parallel: to have an understandable reason. If we throw out rationality altogether, not much point in developing a shared rule system.

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

Also, something to toss out there—how much effort is demanded of someone to watch a movie to the end?

An interesting point. In parallel: is the percentage of students who try to do book reports by watching the film instead changing? I've recently been running across many, many college English BAs who have poor writing skills and who have stated they hate reading; plus I used to grade papers when I worked as a TA, and edit/tutor students long before that: so I've learned not to take anything for granted anymore.

I'm not thrilled about the threads deletion either. I'd have been much more upset if you hadn't been given a copy of all the threads. (You have, haven't you?)

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

So did you ever provide a reason why

QUOTE (mfb)

Basically, they were a totally uncontrollable risk you had to take any time you wanted to add cyberware [snip]

either isn't a problem or isn't inherent to the rules?

Actually, from the first page I was suggesting not only that this may in fact be the case, but also that the desire to eliminate as much as possible compromise or any type of ceded control to an NPC may have been a dominant factor in SR4 rules changes generally. I believe I cited the changes to Astral Gateway as another example thereof.

In this case btw, I'd suggest that maybe the compromise and/or ceded control elements of the game are not an inherent problem. The powers of the world are not the PCs alone after all; and temporary circumstances may even bring temporary power to the least powerful of NPCs. Anaesthesia is even one of the classics of storyline.

Removing these elements consistently in favour of total PC control, however, does drift the game in the directions NightmareX suggests. (Here's hoping I don't kill that thread with this link.)

It's a curious point that the power of this particular debate arose only because what had always been taken for granted was (a) questioned and (b) examined without assuming an underlying inherent problem. And you're right, Pendaric: it could have stopped instantly had I only accepted blindly what was always taken for granted.

What few may realise is that I really don't care about who rules which way on which rules. Before I wrote that last post I was literally speechless -- voice and written alike -- with helpless laughter: what could I possibly write to that? especially since the one thing I've been trying to avoid all along is a polarity? I'm really not trying to fight for one side. I'm just trying to keep the overwhelmingly dominant view from being the only view: something I think runs counter to understanding.

I'm just curious about what underlies reactions to specific patterns of rules -- especially where stated preferences sometimes surface-appear to contradict each other: and thereby obtain some level of understanding and predictability as to how perspectives evolve ... and thus maybe develop some idea about where canon SR is going?

FrankTrollman

Aug 4 2007, 09:05 PM

Post #82

Prime Runner

Group: Banned
Posts: 3,732
Joined: 1-September 05
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Member No.: 7,665

QUOTE (Talia)

Actually, from the first page I was suggesting not only that this may in fact be the case, but also that the desire to eliminate as much as possible compromise or any type of ceded control to an NPC may have been a dominant factor in SR4 rules changes generally. I believe I cited the changes to Astral Gateway as another example thereof.

I think you're over generalizing. The rules changes in question (the new surgery rules, the new Astral Gateway rules) aren't symptomatic of the greater design philosophy of SR4 - that's just me personally as a writer (and by extension, Peter Taylor as an editor). I like to tie mechanics in to other mechanics and to remove hanging rules text or fringe cases where players can die without getting to roll dice.

But there's no world mandate for that. I just like it better that way - and if reviews are any indication I'm not alone.

QUOTE (Talia)

I'm really not trying to fight for one side. I'm just trying to keep the overwhelmingly dominant view from being the only view: something I think runs counter to understanding.

And the thing that I think you should step back and really take note of is that you are being a jerk.

Seriously. You think that you're out there trying to get people to think rationally about a concept and look at all the points of view - but what you're actually doing is repeatedly insulting the intelligence of everyone involved. Playing devil's advocate is all fine and all - but if you just tell people that they aren't being objective over and over again you're being... well... insulting.

-Frank

Pendaric View Member Profile	Aug 4 2007, 09:58 PM Post #83
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 993 Joined: 5-December 05 From: Crying in the wilderness Member No.: 8,047	It takes two or more to argue. My intent was not to shift blame on to one individual. Is it so much to hope for casual free roaming debate. Like you have with your friends after a game? Apparently yes. Because this is the internet which means the most innocent comment becomes insta-barbeque topic. We have had good and interesting debate of this nature on Dumpshock. No, really. It just required everyone to be polite and relaxed, not throw down their opinion like a gauge to the challenge.

Kagetenshi View Member Profile	Aug 4 2007, 10:02 PM Post #84
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802	I'm confused. This isn't the way you debate with your friends after a game? ~J

Pendaric View Member Profile	Aug 4 2007, 10:22 PM Post #85
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 993 Joined: 5-December 05 From: Crying in the wilderness Member No.: 8,047	"Dull thunk of head hitting wall repeatedly." :)

Talia Invierno View Member Profile	Aug 5 2007, 09:32 AM Post #86
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689	Er -- Frank, don't take this the wrong way in turn: but your analysis and advice is coming from someone who has repeatedly agenda-advocated even over the actual rules as written in the SR4 forum, to the point of overtly insulting your fellow writers and calling the final edited work a piece of shit because it omitted your specific changes. (Yes, I've been reading the various Augmentation threads.) A regular member who posted as you did would normally have been warned by the administrators, if not banned. If you -- and others who were all too willing to jump on your bandwagon there -- see what I am writing as somehow personal when absolutely nothing of the kind has been said or inferred about anyone: well, I do have to consider where the criticism is coming from. Can't help but notice that despite the popularity of mob mentality, the same kind of bandwagon didn't form in this thread. For others: the face-to-face debates of which I am a part tend to be much more animated. :grinbig:

fistandantilus4....

Aug 5 2007, 03:05 PM

Post #87

Uncle Fisty

Group: Admin
Posts: 13,891
Joined: 3-January 05
From: Next To Her
Member No.: 6,928

QUOTE (Talia)

A regular member who posted as you did would normally have been warned by the administrators, if not banned.

Frank is a regular member. Freelancers have no other rights or privileges on the boards than you do. Nor do they recieve special treatment. When someone posts something they should not, we either post a comment in-thread, or send a direct PM. IF someone does get a warning, we don't feel the need to report it to the boards as a whole.

I can understand that people here have issues with the way people post. That however is not the purpose of this thread, nor any thread. Please keep this on topic.

FrankTrollman

Aug 5 2007, 03:52 PM

Post #88

Prime Runner

Group: Banned
Posts: 3,732
Joined: 1-September 05
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Member No.: 7,665

QUOTE

Er -- Frank, don't take this the wrong way in turn: but your analysis and advice is coming from someone who has repeatedly agenda-advocated even over the actual rules as written in the SR4 forum, to the point of overtly insulting your fellow writers and calling the final edited work a piece of shit because it omitted your specific changes. (Yes, I've been reading the various Augmentation threads.)

Guilty. There are many more diplomatic ways to clal attention to wording errors, but tactically it does call attention to those wording errors and gets things changed. The statement "I don't like the text on page 178" changes nothing, but my profanity laced tirade about recursive spirit invasion got unbound remote service errataed. Similarly for the text on Essence holes on page 127. Swearing and hat stomping does get the problematic text noticed (and since it doesn't even say what the alternate interpretation wanted it to say, it does need attention).

But consider that there is a difference between:

Swearing and raising a fuss because some text is deficient.
and
Repeatedly condescendingly stating that the opinions of another person are not true and therefore wrong.

The first is being a jerk, but actually structurally neutral. Noone needs to be offended by that, it's not specifically directed to anyone. The second is directly belittling another person and virtually guaranteed to piss them off to no end.

As a self proclaimed total asshole, believe me when I say that there are lines that you don't cross if you don't want to start blood feuds. It's all well and good to insult inanimate objects, blocks of text, or even ideologies - but the instant you carry that over to individual people you've lost the moral high ground.

QUOTE

A regular member who posted as you did would normally have been warned by the administrators, if not banned.

Fist covered that quite well. I am just a member. And yes, I can get warnings. Just as Ancient History can get himself banned from RPG.net, and I can get banned from the WotC forums, I could very plausibly get banned from here.

-Frank

Sedna View Member Profile	Aug 5 2007, 04:39 PM Post #89
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,582 Joined: 6-August 04 Member No.: 6,546	[edit]

Talia Invierno

Aug 5 2007, 04:44 PM

Post #90

Shooting Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,677
Joined: 5-June 03
Member No.: 4,689

Is that all you think you did there, Frank: just some profanity?

But:

QUOTE

Repeatedly condescendingly stating that the opinions of another person are not true and therefore wrong.

Please, find one single place in this thread where I said that something was not true -- unless it is in the part about complexity, which I demonstrated to allow working through using one TN + modifiers (ie. far less complex than combat). That I did state, and repeatedly: and I cited the numbers to prove it.

If I can prove a point quantifiably and absolutely, why should I back down from it?

FrankTrollman

Aug 5 2007, 04:55 PM

Post #91

Prime Runner

Group: Banned
Posts: 3,732
Joined: 1-September 05
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Member No.: 7,665

QUOTE (Talia)

If I can prove a point quantifiably and absolutely, why should I back down from it?

Because you can't prove this point. You're comparing tangerines and guava.

One is an open test coupled to a success test, with the TN of the success test varying depending upon a considerable number of variables, and the results of the Open test likewise floating based on a series of variables some of which are outside of player control and some of which have to be selected from a list.

The other is an opposed test between two characters where the TN floats based on circumstance.

---

If people are telling you that figuring the results and odds of an open test coupled to a success test is "too complicated" while running any number of success tests one after another is not - maybe that's just not something you can objectively disprove. Possibly, quite possibly, people are getting pissed off at you because they have told you that in their experience doing that particular mathematical exercise is a pain and you told them repeatedly that in "absolute terms" they were somehow wrong.

-Frank

Talia Invierno View Member Profile	Aug 6 2007, 05:43 AM Post #92
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689	Sorry, but it's not an Open Test. Open Tests don't have TNs (defined both in Shadowbeat and the BBB), and the surgery rules do at every step. A modified or derived TN is still a TN.

Fuchs View Member Profile	Aug 6 2007, 08:45 AM Post #93
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,328 Joined: 28-November 05 From: Zuerich Member No.: 8,014	In my experience, the surgery rules were looked at when they first came out for SR1 or 2, not sure anymore, then people stated that they were unfair since they gave the possibility that all other things equal, luck would mean one character got more essence left for the same amount of implants than another, which our group felt we did not want to have in game. Complexity and such did not come into play at all - back then, we'd have gladly spent a day figuring out the rules. We simply did not want to have characters pay uneven amounts of essence for the same implants due to lucky rolls. I think this aspect wasn't mentioned before.

FrankTrollman

Aug 6 2007, 04:03 PM

Post #94

Prime Runner

Group: Banned
Posts: 3,732
Joined: 1-September 05
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Member No.: 7,665

QUOTE (Talia Invierno)

Sorry, but it's not an Open Test.

Open Tests don't have TNs (defined both in Shadowbeat and the BBB), and the surgery rules do at every step. A modified or derived TN is still a TN.

Are you high?

QUOTE (Man & Machine @ page 144)

Additionally, each Surgery Test made is treated as an open-ended Success Test. The target number for this is called the Surgical Threshold. The base Threshold is the test's target number. Count down the Procedural List, marking off options achieved by successes. Surgical options can modify the Threshold as options are reached on the Procedural List. Apply any Threshold modifiers; all such modifiers are cumulative. If the high result of the Surgical Test does not meet the modified Threshold, that option is not achieved, nor are any further down the list, even if there are successes remaining.

-Frank

Bull

Aug 6 2007, 04:40 PM

Post #95

Grumpy Old Ork Decker

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,794
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Orwell, Ohio
Member No.: 50

QUOTE (FrankTrollman)

QUOTE (Talia Invierno @ Aug 6 2007, 12:43 AM)

Sorry, but it's not an Open Test.

Open Tests don't have TNs (defined both in Shadowbeat and the BBB), and the surgery rules do at every step. A modified or derived TN is still a TN.

Are you high?

Oookay. Time to put an end to this. Talia, Frank, to your corners. You're just butting heads now and refusing to back down. Since you're not making any progress, and it's just frustrating the both of you, I think it's time to close up shop before anything gets out of hand.

Bull

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »