 Game level, Why must it be street? |
  |
 Jan 17 2008, 08:25 PM
Post
#301
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence  Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715  |
Or maybe because it's difficult to find them in the last 12 pages. If you feel that people are missing the point so badly, perhaps you should summarize them to help get everyone back on the same page. We do have a tendency to get lost in the details on Dumpshock, it doesn't hurt to occasionally revisit the point. :) |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Jan 17 2008, 08:39 PM
Post
#302
|
|
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
Thought I just did, but you're still right.
Okay, the conversation has evolved into two separate topics, so I'll try to separate them. First off are the rules issues. My points essentially are:
I'll get to the GM stuff later. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 17 2008, 08:46 PM
Post
#303
|
|||||||||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
Thank you for summarizing Cain. We actually agree on a lot of points, but just come to different conclusions.
I personally don't like the way that longshots are handled, and would make minor modifications in my game, but wouldn't call them "hideously broken".
I would make minor adjustments to the called shot rules, but wouldn't call them "broken" either. They just don't always fit the way I like to play.
Agreed (sort of). The rules seem to be crafted to allow a group to go either direction with their games, and as a result are not ideally set up for either extreme. That said, they're usually relatively decent if the gaming group wants to follow 'the middle path'. And they have enough built in flexibility that they're easy to modify to the style that I prefer.
Agreed. But not too bad for that middle path of "simulationist enough for suspension of disbelief but abstracted enough so that I don't feel like I'm in Trig class."
Disagree, but don't mind that you think so. If you have better rules, please post them. If I like them better I'd be happy to house-rule them into any games I might run.
Disagree, but not strongly. I don't agree with all the rules in the RAW, and do have some house rules, but don't think that it makes the RAW worthless. I still think the general framework of the game is pretty good. And the things that bug me aren't necessarily the same things that bug anyone else, so there's no way to please everyone. |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Jan 17 2008, 08:54 PM
Post
#304
|
|
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
The GM points are largely as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 17 2008, 08:58 PM
Post
#305
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
First off, points 3-7 all involve some degree of subjective judgment. We can't agree on what things like gritty or cinematic even mean around here, so while some people will agree with some of these points and some people will disagree with some of them, that subjective section makes it pretty tough to really get anyone to change their mind. Now your first two statements are pretty much statements of absolute fact. There's no "too many" or "seems". As for the longshot rules, you know, every time I look over them it really rubs me the wrong way that past a certain point no amount of modifiers will make the task any more difficult, until the GM flatly forbids it, which may or may not be seen as reasonable by the players. That bugs me. And yet, on the other hand, I have yet to see that actually come up as an issue at the table. But that's just my experience, so it doesn't mean other groups aren't having the kind of problems that could come out of that. As for the called shot rules, again, bypassing armor seems reasonable to some people at not to others. Some people think there should be a viewport, and other's don't. For me, I allow people to bypass armor normally for partial armor (armor jacket, etc) and for total armor (full security armor, citymasters, etc) the bypass armor effect bypasses 1/2 of their armor, which a similarly reduced penalty. Still -1die/point bypassed. It still lets them hit a "vulnerable spot", without ignoring armor completely. Of course, I'm fixing it with a house rule, so for my part I'm reinforcing your claim 2 and 7 with that. I'm not sure if the -4 dice, +4DV is broken. I tend to think it is too generous of an exchange, but I'm not sure if it's broken or not. edit: Oh, and I completely forgot: Thanks for summarizing your points. I was getting pretty lost. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 17 2008, 09:12 PM
Post
#306
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
Okay, a few replies needed there and I want to get my response in before this thread gets any more heated. With regard to :
It does follow. One cannot have responsibility with out power. You gave a work example where you thought this was the case, but what you showed was that you can have blame without power. Can someone actually be responsible for something that they have no power to affect? Of course not. But a GM has real responsibility and to support it requires the GM having authority. Players recognize that this is the case and are usually willing to grant the GM that authority. But this is really ignoring the context of what I was saying. It was a direct reply to your statement that people here had the attitude of treating their players like children. I was pointing out (correctly) that everyone here was very big on the responsibility of the GM toward his players.
I'm not so great on Latin but I can see a problem with the above - I made no appeal to popularity to support my argument.
I don't think the analogy is useful. A GM prepares a game for the players, and hopefully walks a careful line between neutrality and bias toward the players, trying to provide both a little challenge and some reward. That's not a situation I've ever found myself in with co-workers - having to keep them on their toes and tease them with rewards. Maybe I'm working in the wrong sort of job, though. ;)
It's not really a strawman. You did say that we were "missing the forest for the trees" and the only way I can interpret that is that we were focussing too much on the examples and not the overall principle. If there's another interpretation that you meant then please put it as I have stated that's how I read your statement twice previously and you have had ample opportunity to correct me. If this is what you mean, then it's not a straw man to say that you're saying this. And as what you've been trying to establish the existence of this general principle through the use of your examples, it is only right that we examine them to see if they stand up to a comparison with the printed text (which most of us don't think they do).
No, I'm saying something more insidious. There have been two arguments present in this thread: 1. The Shadowrun Rules Are Broken. 2. If Rules Are Broken Is It Reasonable for a GM to Compensate with Common Sense? You have taken arguments for the second point, where most people will say "Yes, a GM should compensate for broken rules" and applied them to the first point by several times responding "but the GM wouldn't have to if the rules weren't broken." The conflation of the two is masterfully done, but point 1 remains to be seen as you've yet to provide an example of their brokenness that stood up to an actual comparison with the written text. And you've also nicely slipped a misrepresentation into the above as well as I never said that "people's points support your arguments." That's not so much a straw man as a straw- ninja
Nope. Didn't. But I think you may have tried to pull a Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur in your own response. ;) -K. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Jan 17 2008, 09:27 PM
Post
#307
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 698 Joined: 26-October 06 From: Iowa, United States Member No.: 9,720 |
Called Shot I just realized is the only place, where you can buy hits as 1 dice = 1 hit. This is only capped by the armor of the object you are shooting at. Standard buying hits is 4 (or is it 3) for 1. I'd just never really thought of what a called shot was actually doing.
This I think is to make up for the cyber armor of left arm, stacks with cyber armor of right arm, stacks with armor jacket, stacks with helmet.... You shoot me in the leg for an armor of 16... But for people who aren't stacking armor (ridiculously) it breaks apart. And in the case of vehicles, where you can't armor your hubcaps so its more difficult to shoot your windshield... Get cyberlimbs on your vehicle! Wow, armor is... Amusing. (This post was not put together as an argument, but rather a train of thought...) |
|
|
|
|
Jan 17 2008, 09:30 PM
Post
#308
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Just to highlight this but of knasser's post for a moment: @Cain: You may or may not have a point with all this (I have yet to declare sides, and continue to simply heckle all from the fence) but you're really not doing yourself any favors by using such overly elaborate examples. Extreme examples are fun, but when you use an elaborate example in order to demonstrate that something is fundamentally broken, we get a dozen pages arguing the validity of the example and no one even looks at the point you were originally trying to make. If you could choose a simpler, less disputable example, we (that Dumpshock, the royal we) might be able to cut through some of the minutia and get to the heart of the matter. You say that people are missing the forest for the trees, well man, stop making such weird f'ing trees. :D |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 17 2008, 09:32 PM
Post
#309
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Actually, narrow bursts do exactly this. The difference is that the recoil penalty can be negated, you need a weapon capable of it, and it uses more ammo. But fundamentally, +1DV in exchange for a 1 die penalty: narrow bursts. edit: Oh, and the narrow burst won't help you get past hardened armor, the called shot DV-modifier will. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 17 2008, 09:37 PM
Post
#310
|
|
|
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 |
...risking all here (think I have enough Edge left). I really disagree with the first two and am "so-so" on the third of the GM points.
Point 1. Without the GM having a higher level of authority and importance, there is no focus to the game session for the players, unless they all want to GM by committee (gosh that sounds so much like my RL job). Point 2. Who then is supposed to adjudicate the rules when an impasse occurs? Do you waste most of the session arguing rule points back and forth until the GM throws up her hands out of disgust and acquiesces to the players' desires? Been there in the past both as player and GM and it's not what I consider to be very much fun. Point 3. I agree to a point, the GM shouldn't be a total iron fisted dictator, but still needs to exact a solid level of authority to keep the game session under control such as when dealing with rule debates, player focus (e.g. limiting OoG tangential discussions), or dealing with an unruly/overbearing player. If she doesn't, the game will be taken completely away from her and she's just wasted her time. [OK, OK, I know, I swore off this thread a while back when I moved the original discussion topic to a new one] :noflame: BTW: knasser, excellent response. Kind of beat me to the punch on some of this but that's OK. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 17 2008, 09:43 PM
Post
#311
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Well, technically it is capped at +4/-4. You are combining the two seperate options for Called Shots. The first option allows you to subtract dice from your Pool equivalent to the target's armor on a 1 for 1 basis (obviously topping out at the rating of that armor), which is not quite the same as a 1 dice = 1 hit. The second option allows you to take a variable Dice Pool penalty of -1 to -4 in exchange for an equivalent DV bonus. This is exactly what you are refering to, but it has an upper limit of +4/-4. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 17 2008, 09:49 PM
Post
#312
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Yeah, the called shot to bypass armor is really just trading DP for DP. You roll less to attack, they roll less to defend. In general, it breaks even. It's only really useful when 1) You're trying to get past hardened armor. 2) You don't want your physical damage to be converted to stun. 3) You're already in longshot territory anyway (or close enough to it) so who really cares about penalties? Now granted, most GMs would call BS if a character performing a long shot started taking on additional voluntary penalties, but sometimes my case 3 can be combined with my case 1, and it really is the only valid strategy to do damage. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 17 2008, 10:24 PM
Post
#313
|
|
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
It doesn't really apply to the issue of balance, but Called Shot is also vital for an endless number of special scenarios - do you need to hit the vulnerable power-supply on the underside of the experimental drone, do you need to destroy the staff that contains the enemy magician's inhabiting ally spirit, can you get the grapple-gun through the little window at the top of an otherwise smooth, domed roof? You could make a distinction between called shots for damage purposes and called shots for scenario-specific instances - depends on what purposes your talking about it for - but if you don't, then this is relevant. There needs to be a called shot rule because sometimes people will want to make them. -K. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 17 2008, 11:35 PM
Post
#314
|
|||||||||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
Re: the GM points:
Largely dependant on the preferences of the players. I suppose it might be possible to LARP a quasi-SR type of game that didn't even have a GM. However, in all the SR games I've ever played, if the GM didn't show up, we couldn't play. But if one of the 4-5 players couldn't show up, we'd hand-wave a reason that PC couldn't make the run and continue. Since "Can't play without him" > "Can play without him", the GM might be more important to an individual game than any one of the individual players. YMMV. That doesn't necessarily mean that his word needs to be the law, but it does mean he's an essential element of the activity.
Again, depends on the players you have, the knowledge and objectiveness of the players, and player preferences. Ultimately someone's got to have the final say, though, in situations where the GM and the player don't agree on what the outcome should be. In my games (whether playing or GMing) players get to argue their points, and often end up convincing the GM of their POV, but the GM had the final say in what happened. And if I didn't like what the GM (or the player) did, I'd talk to them OOC.
True. It's supposed to be collective fun, not somebody's power trip.
Also true. But that does not mean that it can be avoided in all cases.
That's entirely subjective, and might vary depending on the desires of the individual group. I'd interpret your statement as "I like games I play in or GM to have roles/responsibilities spread amongst all the players." Which is great, but don't tell me that I'm wrong or not playing a good game if I don't like to play the same way you do.
Definitely agree. In the co-worker example before, you suggest that the guy with the mission has responsibility but no authority. I agree with some previous posters who have responded that the two go hand-in-hand. The co-worker in the scenario has the implied authority associated with his boss's assignment ("The boss wants you to help me with this...") and with the company's mandate that employees have to work to acheive things that are in the company's best interest ("Do you want to be remembered as a contributor or an impediment to this project?"). |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Jan 18 2008, 03:43 AM
Post
#315
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
Untrue. To use another work example, my ex was placed in charge of payroll for her department. She had the responsibility to see that it was done correctly. However, she had no authority to make sure that others filled out their time sheets properly, and was responsible to make sure they were. She could influence them: "If you don't get this done right, you may not be paid properly." But actual authority? She couldn't say: "You didn't get it filled out right, you don't get paid for it" or "If you get your paperwork wrong one more time, you're on probation." To go back to my parenting example, I'm responsible for making sure my daughter is educated correctly. But what happens if the school district is teaching Christian creationism as equal to evolution? What authority do I have to force them to change the curriculum? I could go into a long and protracted legal battle, or I could perhaps simply withdraw my child from school and teach her myself. But both require more resources and authority than I actually have.
Ahem: Your argument was:
The only support for your argument is "What many people have been very clearly saying...." Ad Populum. Fallacy #1, for those keeping score.
You've distorted my argument into something you can attack. Straw Man. Fallacy #2. And the Circumstantial Ad Hominem makes for #3.
Guilty. 8)
I thought I did. The Shot Heard Round the Barrens. Plus which, if it bugs people so much, simply swap out Mr. Lucky's flechette pistol with an anti-vehicular rocket in the Citymaster example. It changes nothing, except to possibly make the shot more difficult.
All good games have an element of committee to them. The players go to the GM with their expectations, and the GM tries to make them happen. The chairman of a committee doesn't really have more authority than the members. When it comes down to it, he gets the same vote as everyone else. He has more influence, in the ability to set which things go where on the agenda; but if the entire committee goes against what he wants, he's got to go along with it. Additionally, there are several games, such as Capes, which have no GM at all. They're fun for those who like the highly-narrative, lightly-ruled game, and have a large-ish following on the web. So, no-GM games can and do work.
The rules encyclopedia guy. There was a recent thread on RPG.net covering this very topic. The rules guru doesn't have to be the same as the GM, and it sometimes runs smoother that way. Put the rules lawyer to work for you, instead of against you.
Funny, this came up in my last D&D session. All the GM had to say was: "Meanwhile, back in the game..." and everyone snapped back to attention. No "solid level of authority" needed, no ultimatums, nothing. I even did that once, to the same effect, and I definitely was not the GM.
Exactly one of the points I wanted to make. Called Shots require automatic GM fiat, and they crop up with distressing regularity. This shows that GM fiat is necessary for the smooth operation of SR4, and that is A Bad Thing.
In EVERY good game you've played in, I'll bet money that the players had the responsibility of playing their characters accurately and in a manner that was fun for everyone. It might be unspoken, but it's there. That's why we deride munchkins so much: they destroy the fun for everyone. It is the responsibility of every player, at the bare minimum, to not be a disruptive munchkin. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jan 18 2008, 06:08 AM
Post
#316
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,416 Joined: 4-March 06 From: Albuquerque Member No.: 8,334 |
Okay, this whole responsibility vs authority thing has been bugging me a lot, but I couldn't get in a position to post due to me having less time at the computer on my days off (go figure, huh?).
Let me say this very simply: You CANNOT delegate Responsibility, you can only delegate Authority. By granting the GM power of any sort, the players are granting him Authority. If he abuses it, the responsibility is still on the shoulders of the players, because they made the choice to give him the authority in the first place. NO ONE can change that simple fact. Anyone with basic military or paramilitary experience would know this inside and out. If I designate Peon01 to do a task, I am granting him authority to carry out that task within whatever guidelines I set down. However, the responsibility to see it through is mine. If he fails to perform, or bungles things up, or flat out slacks off, then it's MY ass on the line, first and foremost. I can then bring down consequences on him after the fact, but the fact remains that I chose him to do the task, it is my responsibility. Insofar as your ex is concerned, it's her JOB to keep the books tidy, so to speak. She is not granted the authority to beat the employees about the head and shoulders. No one is granting her the responsibility either, because it's her JOB. And even if she had an assistant, she's still responsible for things being done and done properly. As for your examples/ideas regarding the called shots and longshot rules being "horribly broken", provide us VALID examples that are NOT contradicted by RAW, and maybe we can discuss the basis of your argument. Until then, you're simply making wild, unsubstantiated claims just to stir up crap. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 18 2008, 06:22 AM
Post
#317
|
|||||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
Untrue. First of all, the GM isn't granted power by virtue of his position. He is granted respect. From that respect, springs influence. Second, while I have no military or paramilitary experience, I did undergo nurse's training. When delegating a task to a non-nurse, I am not granting them any sort of authority. I am telling them they have a responsibility to do a task.
It was her job to do the payroll correctly. She could not do the job correctly if the timesheets weren't filled out properly. (GIGO, for those that remember that acronym) She had no authority to make them fill out their sheets properly. Therefore, she had responsibility without authority (but with influence, which isn't the same thing.) This is commonly known as a "Catch-22". [edit]Oh, and yes:
The Citymaster is valid, but I'll repost one that no one is disputing: The team's van is barreling up to the waterfront, only to discover their target's speedboat is already a klick out to sea, dodging its way at full speed through the Seattle waterfront traffic. The troll sam shouts: "Drek! I can't get a bead!" So, Mr. Lucky grabs the HMG from the troll, which he can barely lift, and takes a shot. The conditions are bad: Extreme Range (-3), Partial light (-2), With Glare (-1) and Heavy rain (-4, this is Seattle, after all). Mr . Lucky is in a moving vehicle (-3) as is his target; the GM assigns an additional -3 to reflect the boat's speed and pitching. The target has total cover (-6), and since Mr. Lucky only has the vaugest idea what he's shooting at, he gets the -6 Blind fire penalty. To make, matters worse, Mr. Lucky has two Serious wounds, for 9 boxes on both monitors (-6). He's never even picked up an HMG before (-1), but the thing is already set to full auto; so he goes for a narrow burst (-9, doubled to -18 because it's a heavy weapon and the gas-vent system is fouled due to an earlier critical fumble). Mr. Lucky is at -53 to hit. He could try to aim, but since there's no point, he simply hauls the thing into the general direction and fires. He has a negative dice pool, so he spends a point of Edge, giving him 8 dice to roll. He could simply *buy* two successes with that; if he were to roll, he'd average 2.66 successes, rounded up to 3. Since his target is an average wageslave, he only has his Reaction of 3 to defend with, which will average one success-- not enough. And since Mr. Lucky called for a Narrow Burst, there's simply no way the target can soak. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jan 18 2008, 06:40 AM
Post
#318
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,416 Joined: 4-March 06 From: Albuquerque Member No.: 8,334 |
Cain, I never said one iota about influence or respect. Why? Because they have no bearing on the points I brought up and the ones I disputed that you were trying to make. Authority vs Responsibility has absolutely NOTHING to do with influence or respect, given the context of our discussion. Please try to stay on track. Second, if that non-nurse does not do what you asked them to, a task that you are obviously responsible for, given you used the term delegating, who gets in trouble first? You, or the person you delegated to? And if you expect them to get ANYTHING done, you MUST grant them authority, otherwise all they can do is twiddle their thumbs. So with regards to your ex, let's pose a hypothetical. She goes to Employee Joe and tells him that she needs him to correct his timesheet because it's wrong, and her job requires her to make sure they're correct. He refuses. What does she do? Does she leave it as is or correct it herself? If in the latter case, she's unsure of the exact corrections needed, does she make something up, or go with the as-is? She has authority and responsibility. Had she no authority, she couldn't even try to work with or approach the employees. Honestly, Cain, I think your versions of authority and responsibility are horribly skewed. As for your Citymaster example, show how it's valid. You CANNOT bypass all the armor because the RAW specifically states that if no vulnerable point exists (to be determined by the GM), then you can't use it to bypass armor. You're firing into a mobile armored brick. There's not some magical hole you can shoot into that kills the driver every time without ever touching the armor. As for the boat example, yes, it's technically feasible. Is it realistic? No, but not everything in SR is. And I think a few of the posters here agreed with your boat example (this is my 2nd time agreeing with it I think). Does it mean the rules are horribly broken? Not necessarily, and certainly not to the extent you feel they are. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 18 2008, 07:02 AM
Post
#319
|
|||||||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
She went to someone with authority. In short, she went to her boss. He could then say: "Do it right, or you won't be paid." And, he had the authority to back it up.
I could easily say the same about you. However, since that would get us nowhere, let's drop the Ad Hominems and focus on the subject at hand, shall we?
Easily done. The main objection is in the choice of weapon, which I admit I chose for reasons of hyperbole. Let's swap it out for an Anti-Vehicular rocket. What constitutes a vulnerable point for an slivergun should logically be different for a rocket, yes? Mechanically, however, there is no difference. The example stands.
Ah, so it's a matter of degree then? To what extent do you feel they are broken? As it stands, there's nothing that prevents Mr. Lucky from piling on even more modifiers for even greater effect. The only reason I stopped at -53 was because I was running out of canon negative modifiers to apply. I could go to -1,000,000, and have the same chance of success... but also +1,000,000 dice worth of benefits. That is what's horribly broken. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Jan 18 2008, 07:43 AM
Post
#320
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,416 Joined: 4-March 06 From: Albuquerque Member No.: 8,334 |
An AV Rocket isn't going to be aiming for a super vunlerable spot. They'll be aiming for (maybe) a spot protected by less armor, but on an APC or similar vehicle, there won't be any spots with absolutely no armor (otherwise it becomes horribly ineffective as an armored personnel carrier), so it'll still have to go through the armor. The difference between the AV Rocket and the slivergun though, is that the AV rocket is going to shred that armor because that's what it's designed to do, whereas a flechete weapon will more than likely just bounce harmlessly off the armor. With regards to the running out of dicepool, you're right, it's a matter of degree. Once you hit 0 dice pool, the reasons and whyfores are largely irrelevant at that point. After all, without luck (Edge), there's absolutely zero chance to hit your target or pull off whatever task you're aiming for. That said, Edge is there for a reason, to be that lucky shot. Edge has a limit on how it can be spent, and how it refreshes. If the GM doesn't want it to refresh quickly so as to keep the players wary and frugal with their expenditures, the rules specifically allow and state that he can do so. Unless I'm completely mis-remembering (a possibility, I'll grab the books later), the GM has complete and utter control by RAW over how and when the Edge pool refreshes. That in of itself is more of a balance than many would give it credit for. I would wager a number of GM's might be refreshing edge too often, causing their campaigns to spiral out of control rather quickly. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 18 2008, 07:53 AM
Post
#321
|
|||
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
The GM has control on how often Edge refreshes. But the book has certain suggestions on how often a GM should refresh Edge. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 18 2008, 07:55 AM
Post
#322
|
|||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
While I don't have my book handy (hard drive crashed) I believe Edge automatically refreshes at the start of every story, if not session, without direct GM permission. I have never, ever, had Edge refresh mid-stream. Which, incidentally, also massively over-punishes low Edge characters while only mildly inconveniencing high-Edge ones. Edge is also broken, for a number of reasons; however, it gets overlooked by its role in the Longshot test. The ability to front-load Edge can massively overpower a game. However, you do highlight one point of mine. The rules are dependant on Edge for that impossible shot, so much so that the core mechanic actually breaks down without it. However, that goes wildly against the dev's stated intent of a "darker, grittier" game. One cinematic option doesn't make a game cinematic; but it's deeply imbedded enough to ruin is as a "gritty" game, and doesn't do so well as a middle of the road game either. It's like what I see happening to a lot of martial arts: they steal a lot of cool ideas from other people, without considering how it all fits together. At any event, it only takes one -1,000,000 shot to wreck a game. Suppose that shot is at Juan Atzcapotzalco? At +1,000,000 in benefits, does he even stand a remote chance of survival by the rules? The GM will have to go for all sorts of fiat to fix his plot afterwards, which wouldn't be necessary if the rules had more sense to them. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 18 2008, 08:09 AM
Post
#323
|
|||
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
The auto-refresh per session rule is for SRMissions if I am not mistaken. Otherwise, the refresh per session was simply another suggested method. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 18 2008, 09:15 AM
Post
#324
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
I have to agree with Jhaiisiin about your ideas of what authority means. If your wife was unable to affect someone else's filling out of a timesheet, then your wife cannot be held responsible for them not doing so correctly. She can be unfairly blamed for it, but you are confusing actual responsibility for something else. If her role was to go and inform the manager if these hadn't been done and didn't then, then she has the responsibility to do that and no more. When I say someone has responsibility for something I mean precisely that. Not that someone in your wife's office might misuse the word. It sounds like her actual responsibility is to monitor for mistakes in timesheet filling and her authority only extends so far as to achieve this. Presumably she has the authority to inspect people's timesheets. Authority concordant with responsibility in a functioning system.
No. That's not an argument. You said other GMs posting here were regarding their players as children and thinking that they had authority over them because of this attitude. I responded that everyone was very clear that they were saying something different and stated what they were saying. I explained quite clearly in the part you did not quote. For someone who is so hot on quoting principles of logic, you should pay more attention to what I have actually written. I wrote that "people are saying something different to what you have said they are saying." That is not an appeal to popular opinion, that is a correction of fact.
We'll go through this for the fourth time. I think by now I can refine my response to this down to a haiku: I say what Cain says. Four times, he says it is wrong. But will not correct. I have stated four times that I interpret your criticism about "missing the forest for the trees" to mean that we are focusing too much on your examples of how the rules are broken and missing the overall point you are making. But your point (the rules are "badly broken") only follows from the specific examples ("called shot bypassing armour", "targetting people you don't know are there") which have failed to stand up. And this interpretation I have stated four times and responded to. You have had ample opportunity to say why my understanding of your 'forest for trees' statement is wrong, but you only post links to definitions of "Straw Men". If you meant something else then explain yourself, but my interpretation is the only reasonable one that I can think of and my response to it is valid and certainly not a strawman.
At last - agreement on something. 8) Your specific rules examples are being addressed already and I expect Frank will be along soon (having had a nice relaxing cup of tea), so I'll leave those for now.
Again with the analogies! The role of the GM demands that he be both neutral and biased toward the players. It is not possible to run a game without having more power to influence the world than the players. Authority follows directly from having power.
There are many, many games out there that don't have GMs. Tennis for example. But Shadowrun is not one of them and my players have always liked the focus and preparation that I give to a game as GM. They would not like a rambling story that they generated themselves. Because it is necessary to have someone in the role of neutral antagonist in the group (GM) who must have the power to fulfill that role, they give me the authority to do so.
Unless you're playing chess then there are going to be things that are in dispute and require a ruling. In these cases, the best positioned person to do so is normally the GM who is neutral and takes responsibility for a fun game. This comes as the result of an impasse as the poster you quoted said. You seem to be assuming that this happens immediately and without a preceding discussion amongst the group. If that discussion resolves things, then fine. If we reach impasse as the poster stated, then go to the GM as the person whose responsibility it is to be neutral. Players don't want to be neutral - they want to engage in the world and identify with their characters goals and wants. They want to transfer all resistance to their characters actions onto another, not finding ways to let their character fail.
See to a large extent, the GM is the game. Without her, the game does not happen. Without the world delivered through her, there is no other reality. When people place the game as more important than whatever other issue was distracting them, they usually place the GM's role as more important too. As I keep saying, the players grant the GM authority themselves, whilst you keep saying that the GM should not be an iron-fisted dictator. Ultimately, you are free to try and run a game as a committee if you want. I, and most others here, do not play that way and don't appreciate being told we are treating players like children. We find that assuming responsibility for the running and direction of the game leads to a better experience for all. And having responsibility for the smooth running of the game means dealing with things that upset that running. To deal with those things a GM must sometimes exert his power to affect the game and that can be legitimately described as using authority. Authority can be legitimate, when it is granted willingly by those subject to it, or it can be illegitimate when it is seized against people's volition. But you can't say that a GM does not have more powerful tools to control a game than players and if the GM chooses or needs to use those tools, then he is using his authority. If he does not use those tools, then he is not exerting his authority. But in either case he has it. Your argument that a GM should not use authority to get his way over the players is not the same as our argument that a GM possesses authority and may use it to ensure a good game.
That does not follow. We're now talking about the circumstances that arise in the game, e.g. a drone has a vulnerable power supply underneath it. That is not GM fiat in the normal sense of the term here, it's simply plot. Nor is it GM fiat to say that it requires a Called Shot to strike that power supply. That's simply a suggested use of the called shot rules as written in the BBB. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jan 18 2008, 09:33 AM
Post
#325
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
'GM Fiat' is only really required in the Called Shot rules to determine the presence of a vulnerability in a target's armor, which occurs only in the armor-bypassing option. Even then, common sense should prevail in most cases. The other options are pretty straight forward, requiring no extraordinary GM intervention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd February 2025 - 12:09 AM |
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.