 Game level, Why must it be street? |
  |
 Jan 14 2008, 03:56 PM
Post
#226
|
|
|
The ShadowComedian  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,538 Joined: 3-October 07 From: Hamburg, AGS Member No.: 13,525  |
and here i thought the hollow-point of artillery was the big boom of the explosive charge in the projectile O.o
|
 |
 
|
|
Jan 14 2008, 04:07 PM
Post
#227
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
The explosie just means that it doesn't have to be 100% accurate. It'll still kill you if it hits you on the head without exploding. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 14 2008, 05:21 PM
Post
#228
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,416 Joined: 4-March 06 From: Albuquerque Member No.: 8,334 |
That's just it, though. It's not "technically-legal." You can't aim for a spot unprotected by armor when there isn't one. It's that simple. Stop ignoring reality for your crazy examples. The example about the longshot with the HMG against the driver of the open-topped boat works as a valid example. The citymaster destruction by a heavy pistol doesn't. Trying to keep pressing the latter is only weakening your arguments. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 14 2008, 05:45 PM
Post
#229
|
|
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
You're derailing yourself again. The point is that it's equally easy to make a minus fifty-three roll as it is to make a minus five-hundred-and-three roll. You can pile on the modifiers all you like, getting all kinds of extra effects out of the deal. And this helps break the system.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 14 2008, 05:52 PM
Post
#230
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,416 Joined: 4-March 06 From: Albuquerque Member No.: 8,334 |
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. You're right, there's no difference in the difficulty once you pass the Zero-Dice-Pool threshold. At that point, the GM has to exercise his common sense. Just because the rules state that something might be *possible* doesn't mean it should always be allowed. The rules can't cover every possible situation, and that's why there's a GM to moderate things and adapt on the fly. Some thing *should* be 100% impossible. Sometimes you find barriers or problems you just *cannot* solve in a specific way, and thus you must find another way or abandon the problem altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 14 2008, 05:55 PM
Post
#231
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
But the counter point is: So What? Yes, a long shot test gives you a tiny to mid size dicepool regardless of how many penalties you are operating under. That's exactly what it does. And despite you harping on this fact for several years, you haven't actually found yourself a perfect actual example of where that would be a problem. To put things in perspective: since you've been on this exact cusade I graduated from college, went to help clean up hurricane damage, provided hospice care for my ailing grandfather while he wa dying of spinal cancer, recertified my EMT, worked on an ambulance, wrote pieces which were accepted and published in two separate books which got reasonably good reviews, got accepted to medical school and moved to Eastern Europe. OK? You've had a lot of time to work on this. And still all you've got is some hyperbole about how some horrendous example might come up which would cause this to be a problem at some point in the future. And frankly, I'm sick of it. Several people have expressed that they are sick of it. So seriously: put up or shut up. If you haven't found an actual problematic example by now that will get people to rally to your cause, I'm willing to bet that it's obscure enough that I personally don't even care. -Frank |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 14 2008, 06:06 PM
Post
#232
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,416 Joined: 4-March 06 From: Albuquerque Member No.: 8,334 |
Oh, and Cain, you weren't arguing that point. You were arguing how it was possible to shoot someone inside an armored bubble and somehow bypass the armor in the process. You've switched points, and your latest point actually has merit.
Course, I agree with Frank. The 1 in a million shot is an edge roll, and there's not much wrong with that. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 14 2008, 06:25 PM
Post
#233
|
|||||||||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
I don't think I can match Frank for passion here, so let me perform the more menial work of cleaning up some loose ends in the aftermath.
Argument by metaphor is poor argument. The real case is that the argument can only be proved by examples, so pardon us for picking apart the ones you have offered. The CityMaster example is explicitly not allowed by the rules because the rules say exactly: "Calling a shot means that the character is aiming at a vulnerable portion of a target, such as a person’s head, the tires or windows of a vehicle, and so on. The gamemaster decides if such a vulnerable spot is accessible." You keep applying the called shot rule to examples that are deliberately constructed to not be possible in order to try and show that the called shot rules are broken. The City Master argument is dead.
But so what? Once you reach a certain level of difficulty, nothing else is going to impair your chances. It honestly doesn't matter if the target is invisible if I'm already blind-folded. Things that are actually impossible remain impossible, you don't look up "Impossible Task" on the difficulty chart and find that it's -30DP and say, fine, I take my shot. Nowhere does it say that you can teleport bullets with "luck."
I've been around Dumpshock for quite a long time and what I remember is a lot of threads that ended up in long repetitive arguments when they were derailed into an tirade about the Longshot and Called Shot rules by you. How many times have you done this now, Cain?
Massive Disconnect. Horribly Broken. I forget all the rest of the hyperbole you've come out with. Cain, you are the only one who finds Shadowrun 4th to be so extremely wrecked by these two rules. -K. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Jan 14 2008, 06:34 PM
Post
#234
|
|
|
Old Man of the North Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 10,116 Joined: 14-August 03 From: Just north of the Centre of the Universe Member No.: 5,463 |
As a tangential issue that arises from the acrimonious counter-claims:
What is a GM for, if not to make decisions about what is and is not possible? Why have a GM at all if you devise a rule-set that purportedly eliminates such decisions? And who in their right mind would want to play a game like that? ("The rule book is HOW MANY pages??") I've played Shadowrun since it first came out, and it has generated far fewer rules questions than just about any other game I've played. That's been just fine for me and all the other players. Let the GM decide, off the cuff if necessary, and lets get on with the fun. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 14 2008, 07:02 PM
Post
#235
|
|
|
Bushido Cowgirl Group: Members Posts: 5,782 Joined: 8-July 05 From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats Member No.: 7,490 |
...pbangarth, thank you. :)
After all isn't that what this is all about? I deal enough with discussion (and arguments at times) on whether this or that is the correct procedure at work in RL. The last thing I want is my leisure time to mimic my time "on the clock". Yes, there will be times when something doesn't make sense. And yes it needs to be dealt with. However, the GM is the final arbiter and if he or she knows the rules as they stand then making whatever decision is required to get things moving again is in everyone's best interest. ...just my two Zlotys' worth. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 14 2008, 07:10 PM
Post
#236
|
|||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
I agree. I've just been avoiding putting the same point myself out of a fear that it would be pounced on as part of the argument of how broken SR4 is, getting a quick "that shouldn't be necessary in a well-designed system" in response. With a polite nod to toturi's different approach to the game, I don't think any of us would ever actually have a problem with these rules in play. I just think that the strongly worded abuse the SR4 system was getting was not at all deserved. It's wholely academic to our games. It's just not the first time I've seen a thread go spiralling off into a high-pitched bitch-fest when these exact same two examples have been brought up. I reckon I owe it to other GMs to put the counter-case (though Frank was usually a post or two ahead of me. ;) I think, barring any new points, I'm done here. Happy gaming to all, say I. :) -Khadim. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 14 2008, 08:39 PM
Post
#237
|
|||||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
this statement is antithetical to me. the whole point of rules is to lay out what is and is not possible; and between those two extremes, how hard any given action is to succeed at. that's that all those numbers are for. the GM's purpose in the game is to create content for the players to interact with. he's there to play the NPCs, basically. as a player, i very much prefer to, in effect, GM my own numbers. if i want to take a shot, i look at the situation the GM has described (including the mods he's listed), apply whatever mods that derive from my own action (burst fire, take aim, called shot, whatever), and roll. all the GM has to do is review my roll for errors. this gives him more time to do the thing that rules, by their nature, can't do--breathe life into the game.
but it does matter. there are degrees of 'impossibility', if for no other reason than the fact that this game frequently deals with superhuman characters. if my target is invisble but i can narrow down his location via my awesome sense of hearing, being blindfolded could make the difference because i wouldn't know to shoot high over the waist-high concrete barrier i think he's behind. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 14 2008, 08:45 PM
Post
#238
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 941 Joined: 25-January 07 Member No.: 10,765 |
Purely a tangental point: I recall the 'called Shot' rule had a -4 dice for a +4 power effect, which is the only called shot rule we've ever used at the table.
Isn't 'bypassing armor' strictly an optional rule the GM can use or not use? 'Cause I'm thinking that +4 power isn't going to break the game with Mr. Lucky against a City Master any time soon either. Eh. My last game died when the Gm got tired of arguing with his wife. Too bad, my bio-adept gunslinger was totally ruling the game by means of underhanded trickery and generally being the smartest player at the table (not hard, most of 'em weren't out of highschool.... there are upsides, surprisingly, to gaming with youngsters....) |
|
|
|
|
Jan 14 2008, 09:09 PM
Post
#239
|
|||||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
No. The Called Shot rules have a couple of options ...
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 14 2008, 09:20 PM
Post
#240
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,416 Joined: 4-March 06 From: Albuquerque Member No.: 8,334 |
And therein lies a disagreement. Rules are there to provide the basic mechanical framework for a world, and give you what you need to figure out how the world works, but it's the interpretation of those rules that determines the actual flow of the world, and what does and does not work. If a rule specifically states something can or cannot happen, then that's how it is (ignoring house rules atm). SR4 generally (and specifically in the case of called shots) left it's wording fairly concise. Some people want it to be more verbose to fully state something cannot be done, but that's because they're ignoring the existing wording. Extra words aren't needed to solidify the points already presented unless you have a player who's just trying to weasel every single rule to get the most bang for their buck, so to speak. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 14 2008, 09:52 PM
Post
#241
|
|||
|
Bushido Cowgirl Group: Members Posts: 5,782 Joined: 8-July 05 From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats Member No.: 7,490 |
...been there, GM'd that type of situation, and argued the pros & cons here (in another thread). Are there things in the rules I don't particularly like? Yes. Are there things in the rules that I really like? Yes. Does my group and I housrule some things where we see fit? Yes. Does this mean the game and rules are inherently bad? No, else we would not still be playing it. ...in this respect, I'm with knasser. The train has gone so far off the topical track it's now sinking in the river and I'm not that good a swimmer. :grinbig: |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 14 2008, 09:58 PM
Post
#242
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 941 Joined: 25-January 07 Member No.: 10,765 |
Thank you, Fortune. The key is that the rule specifically states that the GM must approve the call. If the GM doesn't think you should be bypassing Citymaster armor to shoot pilots, by RAW he can say so. Its the rules.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 14 2008, 10:24 PM
Post
#243
|
|
|
Cybernetic Blood Mage Group: Members Posts: 3,472 Joined: 11-March 06 From: Northeastern Wyoming Member No.: 8,361 |
Although I can't double check just yet I seem to recall that by RAW a DM can simply throw the entire book away and make whatever calls he/she wants, so that isn't really a rebuttal. (OF course, as long as Edge is kept at what I consider a reasonable level even the longshot rules aren't too hard to handle, although I do make use of my DM Hammer of Doom if the longshot sets off my BS Detector.)
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 14 2008, 11:13 PM
Post
#244
|
|
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
This is kind of relevant given the discussion is veering into the pros and cons of Edge. I actually have a different approach that I've sometimes mentioned here before, more akin to the old karma pool rules in previous editions. I've compiled my house rules here and the Edge one is third one down. I actually have a couple of other house rules but I can never remember what they are - obscure things that don't come up often, anyway. I'll flesh out the Clarifications section so there's actually something in it sometime, if it's of use to anyone. -K. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 15 2008, 03:09 AM
Post
#245
|
|||||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
You've hit the nail smack dab on the head. After which point of changing the rules, are you not playing Shadowrun anymore? If some GM converted the whole damn thing to D20, would he be playing the same game as the rest of us? One of the problems here is that people aren't differentiating between "common sense" (which ain't that common, folks) and house rules. The basic rules should provide the common sense for you, and minimize or eliminate the need for house rules. "Common sense" varies from person to person, and genre to genre. Look at my sig; there's one guy who thinks Luke should never have been able to hit a thermal exhaust port; so Star Wars is the wrong genre for him. One of the issues is that SR4 attempted to go for "gritty realism", yet baked a cinematic "impossible shot" roll into the core mechanic. In a game like Wushu, the Citymaster shot would be a perfectly valid move. That's because that game revels the over-the-top, cinematic action. In a more realistic game like GURPS, such a move would be impossible, unless you're playing under one of the most cinnematic options. In SR4, it's kinda impossible and kinda not. Basically, it's weak and wishy-washy when it comes to delivering both genre conventions and rules to support the same.
Do you really want to get into it over what constitutes a good and bad argument?
Untrue. If the odds of you winning the lottery are millions to one, adding one more number to hit changes your odds considerably. I could get into the statistics of it, but it's probably excessive. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jan 15 2008, 03:19 AM
Post
#246
|
|
|
Cybernetic Blood Mage Group: Members Posts: 3,472 Joined: 11-March 06 From: Northeastern Wyoming Member No.: 8,361 |
I'm a huge fan of house rules, and have a pile of them myself, but you make some really good points. Personally I don't really mind the idea behind longshot tests because once in a while I like the idea of making that one-in-a-million shot against all odds, I just don't like the idea that it is something that your Mr. Lucky can pull off at will, in addition to all of the other crazy stuff that characters with outlandish dicepools can pull off in a Fixed TN universe. (And bear in mind that I happen to like the Fixed TN, Floating TNs was the one aspect that I really hated about Shadowrun, although I can't really explain why, just a matter of taste I guess.)
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 15 2008, 03:52 AM
Post
#247
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,269 Joined: 18-September 06 Member No.: 9,421 |
I actually think they handled the called shot stuff fairly well, and I've never had a problem with Long Shot tests either. Long shots aren't a big deal unless you have shitty(in my opinion people who try to do things they know don't fit into that type of game are shitty players- if it does fit in your game then that is all well and good and have fun) players or are bothered by hypotheticals. They work fairly well in all situations where someones dice pool is barely reduced to 0 or below. At least for me. Sure, Rule Zero in every game system is and should be "The GM is always right." or something to that effect, but the designers knew that they could not outline all possible ways to use the called shot rules or even all the possible situations in which the few possibilities they listed could be used. So, instead of just leaving it to the original stating of that rule earlier in the book, the called shot rules well... see for yourself.
Emphasis mine. They realized the space limitation they had and instead of devoting a major section of text to what vehicles can be shot at where and what effects it has and the same for armors and such they just said that the GM can decide. I mean, I don't know about you, but speaking as a GM myself I've got no problem with that. I mean, it stands to reason that most cars would still look similar but that military vehicles, especially APCs, would have no windows and one small door. Maybe in your world APCs are made of several layers of plate glass, or have a big target on the driver, cool, whatever. As for the klick out to see shot, I really have no problem with it. I probably wouldn't allow it in my game because as stated before Mr. Lucky has no real way of knowing where the hell his target is. Just a vague form of a boat speeding through the water. Maybe not even that, I forget and don't want to go read it again. But other than the ability to identify where a target is, sure give it a shot. I don't understand why the hell they are shooting Joe Wageslave anyway. I just can't see anything even remotely this extreme ever coming up in game, maybe it does in yours and that bothers you, if so cool, be bothered. I just don't see why it bothers you that much. Chris |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 15 2008, 03:56 AM
Post
#248
|
|||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
Now *this* just set me off. Let me lay this to rest once and for all. THE GM IS NO MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANY OTHER PLAYER!!! That is to say, every player has a role in the game. The GM's role is more intensive, seeing as how he's got more responsibility, but that doesn't mean his idea of fun should come before anyone else's. Everyone's concept of fun is equally important to the success of a game. I see way too many GM's who think their version of Rule 0 allows them to wield an iron fist in a velvet glove. That is NOT the case. The GM has the responsibility to provide conflicts for the character players to interact with. That's the only difference between his role and that of a character player. I agree with toturi. Rule 0 is: Have Fun. Not: "Try and wield absolute power beneficiently." |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 15 2008, 05:02 AM
Post
#249
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,416 Joined: 4-March 06 From: Albuquerque Member No.: 8,334 |
Given that the GM is running the game, and without him, you've got nada, I'd wager he's a *little* more important than any single player. I agree it shouldn't be a totalitarian ruled environment, though. Of course, if it is, then you're likely not having fun, in which case you're likely not playing a game.
As for Start Wars, the thermal exhaust port was a legal vulnerable point that allowed you to funnel a proton torpedo right into the heart of the damned facility. An armored APC is NOT going to have that where you can toss a bullet right into the driver's face without taking the armor into account. Stop being ridiculous. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 15 2008, 05:24 AM
Post
#250
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,116 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,449 |
The GM shouldn't wield ultimate power - GM fiat as a substitute for the rules is bad, because it makes the rules meaningless. And the rules are good because they quantify things, letting players make meaningful choices in character creation and battle tactics, and they also add a true random element to the game.
However, a GM should have the ability to quickly resolve rules disputes in order to maintain the flow of the game. And as the person providing content to the other players and acting to facilitate the flow of the game, the GM should have more say in how things are run - approving characters for play, implementing house rules where he/she feels they are needed, and so on. It's a fine line to walk. Some GMs are overbearing bullies, and other GMs let munchkin players walk all over them. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd February 2025 - 04:18 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.