Game level, Why must it be street? Options

[Jhaiisiin]

[Nightwalker450]

How do you do shadowrun without a GM? I would love it if everyone could just sit down and play, instead of one person having to spend (hours, days, weeks, months?) planning whats going on. And then that person having to surrender everything to the players because the rules don't say that they can't stop a vehicle with a hold-out pistol.

I'm the rules lawyer in my group (I feel dirty saying that, but I am). But when the GM says something happens, I don't argue on how its not possible or whatever. He says some hacker saw me through my rating 10 stealth, yet I never caught him with 6-7 hits on my analyze ok. Its my job as our teams hacker to learn from my mistake (whatever it might be), and figure out how to avoid this in the future. My character doesn't have the BBB so as a player I go with what the GM says is happening.

When I say I'm the rules lawyer, I'm the one who's constantly flipping through the book to find what dice should be rolled, or correcting players/GM on what should be rolled. If the GM says something happens, well even the BBB says that he's right. If he's given skill name/object type/whatever, and I can find the chart I'll correct him. So if called shot requires a GM approval, thats the rule.

[Ryu]

The parent/child relationship is not what I am thinking about. I think my post after the one you cited explains what I mean.

The moderator example you give is actually fine. The moderator is only one stakeholder amongst others, but he is given a few rights to make things move on. That gives him authority. Maybe to make demands that noone follows, but that is an authority, too.

You should remember your own argument - players are free. If they don´t assign a high priority to the game, I will never move a campaign on. But we are playing in about the same constellation once per week (some hard time constraints can´t be avoided). That was different when 25% of a given session where spend on rules discussions.

Important things can always be discussed out of game time, its mostly even better that way. And outside the game there is no GM.

[knasser]

On the subject of GM authority, I believe that a GM does have greater authority in the running of the game than the players. That authority is granted to her by the players who are obviously alone in being able to do so.

A GM creates the world, its inhabitants and the adventures within it. It is fantasy to think that authority does not reside within the GM. Arbitration of the rules is such a minor thing in comparison. In my history as a GM (over a decade), players have usually granted me authority in rules interpretations and it's partly because as a GM I'm expected to know the rules far better than they, but for the main it's because as GM they realise it's important for me to have that authority if the game isn't going to turn into nothing but people telling stories at each other.

-K.

[Apathy]

[Fortune]

I have been thinking about how to word a response to Cain, but probably wouldn't have come up with anything better than that.

[Nightwalker450]

(Could we get a name change to this topic since it's now more GM role than game level?)

Something in a different thread made me think of this. The team entirely derailing and deciding to screw their jobs and head to a different city. I haven't had to deal with this per say, but I have had players who would practically refuse to go along with the group in any way shape or form. And were dead set on me finding a way to "inspire" their character to go along, but railroading them would make them angry. Its a starting character for crying out loud, how should I know what you have in mind for them. If the whole team derailed I could probably handle it but I'm not one who's going to run a private campaign for one person while trying to cater to the other 4 people in the group who are actively trying to be a team. Little to say, since our last campaign fell apart (people moving, time schedules changing etc...), they weren't invited back when we started our next campaign.

[Fortune]

[klinktastic]

Honestly, it is both the GM and the players who hold responsibility for running the game. The GM must listen to the players and their aspirations for their characters. In kind, the players must allow the GM to weave a world that can accommodate each players' desires. Therefore the players must work together to develop complimentary character/story hooks.

Additionally, both parties must be dedicated to the game. If people stay engaged with the game, both the GM and the players will exude more effort, which in turn fuels further interest. This should be the primary focus of the GM, because he must make the players care about their character and want to see their prospective characters develop and grow. We all no nothing kills a gaming group like one bad player or someone who only shows up occasionally. Consistent gaming will also increase enthusiasm, furthering the group and the game.

So, I think its save to conclude, that both the players and the GM are responsible for the success of the group as a whole, each with their respective parts in keeping the group going and fun.

[Fuchs]

Game situations will always be open to interpretation, even if the rules were iron-clad. The GM is responsible for creating the game world's details. He plays NPCs, so he ultimately decides how they think and act. Of course there's a basic consensus about the game between players and GM. Players should know what to expect, generally, from NPCs and the world so they can play their characters.

But the players should not start to pull out the rules books, and go on about how a street cop NPC is not supposed to have three initiative passes if the GM has decided that that particular street cop is a former SWAT member who was demoted for sexually harassing a co-worker, and now is patrolling streets on foot for some time, as part of a plot even.

Ultimately, you either trust your GM to run a fun game, or you don't. And if you don't, then all the shared responsibility and all the veto power of the group won't solve your issues.

[toturi]

[Ryu]

The deductions a player makes are often wrong, but I very much enjoy if they think about the game world they are in. And they can only notice deviations if they have a standard to compare to. I even sometimes explain things after the game; including what I had originally planned and where they deviated from that.

What I strongly suggest is having a list of security companies with defined traits, so that not every opposition is tailored for your group. Mitsuhama runs drone-heavy, KE is basically heavy infantery once the shooting starts, LS street cops castle in and wait for the FRT... The players don´t notice individual stats (excepting things like multiple IP of course).

[Fuchs]

[Cthulhudreams]

Debates about the GM importance miss the point imho, I reckon it's more that is role is different. The GM is the facilitator for the session in the players work through a plotline focused on their actors. The GM provides all the supporting details and the grease to allow this to work.

Thus for me, as in 'real' facilitation of strategy sessions or whatever, the GM's most important task is to ensure that the players are all thinking in roughly the same direction, understand each others perspectives, and are coming at the situation with enough common ground to actually have some fun. If he doesn't, the group won't work that well.

Or if you want to put it in another context, the players are the actors in an improvised episode of friends, but the GM is the director.

[knasser]

[Cain]

I hate to keep bringing up Wushu, since it's a totally different kind of game than Shadowrun, but there are lessons to be learned from it. In Wushu, the only major difference between the players and the GM is that the GM sets challenges, and provides the bulk of the flavor text.

The role of the GM can be boiled down to those two tasks. Everything else he/she does stems from those objectives. Things like narrative control, rules interpretations, and the like are optional, and can be shared amongst all the players without problems.

I can already hear the cries: "But the GM needs to have total rule control to fix disputes!" Sorry, but I've personally witnessed many games where the GM was not the rules expert. Someone else would fill that role, acting as rules arbiter and walking encyclopedia.

I hear a lot of talk about GM's resolving rules disputes, but I also hear a lot of talk about how you don't have that issue with mature players. The fact is, the punitive approach is indicative of a GM who thinks because his role is like a parent, his players are therefore like children. That's exactly why this sort of attitude gets under my skin so much.

[Jhaiisiin]

You're the only one using the Parent/Child analogy, Cain. Facilitator is far different than parent/child.

[knasser]

I haven't had time to read this thread properly and have now caught up with it. Cain - you make far too many unjustified leaps of logic and you have been misleading people.

The biggest leap is how you keep hammering home the point that if a GM has to use their own judgement then the rules weren't sufficient, and keep arguing on this subject. Naturally reasonable GMs realise that any rule-system will require someone to make a decision on the correct interpretation or to patch a hole, but you take people's engagement in this debate as support for your argument that the SR4 rules are broken - a leap of logic. You join the arguments in a very G W Bush like manner by responding to people saying "any rules system will require some interpretation" with "if the called shot rules were properly written this wouldn't be necessary." But as many people pointed out, your called shot example is actually forbidden by the rules. The leap is unjustified.

A second leap occurred when you said:

[Fortune]

[knasser]

[Cain]

[FrankTrollman]

[Cain]

Actually, no one's ever tried to argue the Shot Heard Round the Barrens example, past a few people saying they didn't like it. Mostly, all that there has been for the last ten or so pages has been Ad Hominems and Straw men. Not much I can do, except keep repeating the same things over and over, or resort to Ad Hominem argument myself.

Note also that in this thread, I only brought up the Citymaster example because *you* misinterpreted it. You have only yourself to thank for the last eight pages or so, if you want to take it to that level.

Basically, the Citymaster example still succeeds because it is technically legal; people keep tossing physical impossibilities at it and the same rule grey areas that make the shot possible in the first place. The Shot Heard Round the Barrens succeeds because not only is it technically legal, the only thing holding it back is a GM whinging that it breaks their game. MFB's also demonstrated aptly that a less-exaggerated example can work without invoking the Longshot test. Because the first example is easier to attack, that's where everyone is focusing their attention... and ignoring the second example. You certainly haven't provided any rules to contradict it!

And the bottom line is, by the strict interpretation of the game rules: it's easier to one-shot a Citymaster than make an extreme range shot, under essentially the same conditions.

[FrankTrollman]

[Cain]

And once, again, the forest for the trees. I haven't actually tried to justify the Citymaster example past the point that it's technically legal. You're ignoring the other points, for some reason, but I personally think it's because you can't attack them so easily. Besides which, your entire argument is a combination Appeal to Emotion (with the Princess Bride quote) and Ad Hominem fallacy.

Calm down. I just re-read the entire thread, and most of your arguments are based on what other people said about mine, not what I actually said. You haven't really responded directly to any of my arguments.

Here, I'll even give you one to start with: