Game level - Dumpshock Forums

Game level, Why must it be street?

Options

Synner

Jan 18 2008, 09:33 AM

Post #326

Runner

Group: Members
Posts: 3,314
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado
Member No.: 185

I've been avoiding posting to this thread but here goes. Let's take this one apart.

QUOTE (Cain @ Jan 18 2008, 06:22 AM)

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.

First off, in for argument's sake , let's state that the boat and the person on the boat are both barely visible, maybe illuminated by lightning over the Sound. This should be counter any argument on whether the shot is possible in the targeting stage and the GM ruling that you might as well be shooting in the opposite direction.

So now, Mr. Lucky (him, the guy who is blessed by Lady Luck far above and beyond other mortals) has his -53 to hit and an uncontested Long Shot at the guy on the boat.

QUOTE

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.

Now, let's break that down. Mr. Lucky has an 8 dice pool to roll (again, because he's so amazingly lucky he makes the coupiers weep at Caeser's just by walking by). Mr. Lucky doesn't get to buy successes, because 8 is neither "an
exceptionally large dice pool," nor is he "unlikely to fail," nor does your firing an unfamiliar weapon from the team's van as it barrels up to the waterfront dodging its way at full speed through the Seattle waterfront traffic qualify the situation as "non-threatening and non-stressful." (p.55, SR4).

So with the gamemaster's agreement, he makes the Long Shot roll. After all, that's his thing. His gimmick. This is what he blew a huge chunk of his BP on. He's not only one of the luckiest people in the world, his rating ensures there's pretty much no one of his level.

So he rolls and he gets his 2,66 or 3 successes.

Now, it's the gamemaster's turn. He's got a number of options that you always seem to forget when outlining these examples. These are entirely scaleable and adjustable to the style of play of each particular group (I'll just highlight the obvious options) and they apply in this example or the vaunted Citymaster example:
a) He deems that this kind of lucky strike is perfectly in keeping with the playstyle of his group and works with the plot and decides the "average wageslave" just rolls his 3 Reaction (per your example).
b) He deems that this kind of lucky strike is stretching believability and the tone of the game as his group plays it, but could serve the plot. Consequently he decides the "average wageslave" is entitled to some luck too. So besides rolling his 3 Reaction, the GM uses any of the Edge options available to the NPC (who as a typical human wageslave has Edge 2) to enhance dodge.
c) He deems that this kind of lucky strike is beyond believability and the tone of the game as his group plays it and/or does not serve the plot (ie. he needs the wageslave to escape), and so decides the "average wageslave" is entitled to get lucky too. So besides rolling his 3 Reaction (just in case the NPC gets really lucky), the NPC burns Edge and "escapes certain death" (the NPC suffers a grazing hit and falls to the floor of the boat).

In options (a) and (b) Mr. Lucky is still likely to hit, though he has less of an edge (as it were) in option (b) since the wageslave can boost his own roll. Whether the gamemaster choses to use Edge or not for the NPC is his call, but the system assumes balance; both sides have access to this advantage and there is no reason both sides should not use it. In my games, option © would probably be saved as a GMs trump card to keep a plot on course, but strictly speaking it's just as valid an option as the others.

Whether Mr. Lucky gets to make a second try is up to the GM, I'd certainly allow it. The NPC still has 1 Edge to burn too. The checks and balances are built into the system, if you are ignoring them the problem is yours.

PS: I liked Mr Lucky so much that I actually had him lead an opposing team of runners against my players while playtesting an upcoming campaign. As a gunslinger he was on par with the combat specialists on the team, but his vaunted Edge was effectively cancelled out by my players choices and own Edge use. He died.

Cain

Jan 18 2008, 10:30 AM

Post #327

Grand Master of Run-Fu

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,840
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178

QUOTE

You said other GMs posting here were regarding their players as children and thinking that they had authority over them because of this attitude.

Untrue. And another Straw Man, to boot.

QUOTE

I say what Cain says.
Four times, he says it is wrong.
But will not correct.

Appeal to Ridicule. Just because you make a joke about it does not make you correct.

QUOTE

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.

The Shot Heard Round the Barrens example has held up, unarguably. The Citymaster example is under heavy, but unfinished, argument. The Straw man you used was in saying: "look ignore the examples and just assume they're right...", implying that I'm admitting either of my examples are wrong.

Additionally, you are Begging the Question, since you claim it "only follows".

BTW, when are you going to tackle The Shot example?

QUOTE

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.

I've personally run Wushu games like that. In fact, that's part of the point of Wushu. It is certainly more than possible to run a game with the exact same world-influencing power as the players. What's more, it's possible to run Shadowrun like that, albeit with a lot of huge modifications.

There are many games that allow players to take large chunks of narrative control. Right off the top of my head, I can name: Adventure!, Spirit of the Century, Faery's Tale, Buffy, Serenity, Truth & Justice, Angel, Battlestar Galatica, and the aforementioned Wushu and Capes. And that's in under 30 seconds.

QUOTE

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.

YMMV, of course; but you haven't actually played any narrative games, have you? In the Forgite sense of the word.

QUOTE

In these cases, the best positioned person to do so is normally the GM who is neutral and takes responsibility for a fun game.

*Everyone* takes responsibility for having a fun game.

Good players don't deliberately step on one another, or disrupt the game unnecessarily. They don't pull attention-whoring stunts, in or out of character. They roleplay their characters accurately, but not annoyingly. These are all responsibilities of a good player.

QUOTE

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.

The GM is not required to be that person. It can be any member or members of the group who know the rules and are willing to take on the role. Again, there was a large RPG.net thread on this very subject: there are many gamers, including some Shadowrun players, who have said this method works perfectly for them. YMMV, of course, but don't go assuming that it cannot work. You are making an Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

QUOTE

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.

And *now* I see someone treating his players like children. Players can be neutral and impartial as well, especially if they're entrusted with the responsibility of doing so. And you know what? They are. You trust them to report their stats accurately, track ammo, not cheat on die rolls, and so on and so forth. If you have mature players-- which I believe you've claimed-- then you should not assume they'll cheat or act biased just to make things easy on their characters.

QUOTE

a) He deems that this kind of lucky strike is perfectly in keeping with the playstyle of his group and the serves the needs of the plot and decides the "average wageslave" just rolls his 3 Reaction. (per your example)
b) He deems that this kind of lucky strike is stretching believability and the tone of the game as his group plays it, but could serve the plot. Anyway he decides the "average wageslave" is entitled to get lucky too. So besides rolling his 3 Reaction, the GM choses to use any of the Edge options available to the NPC (who has Edge 2).
c) He deems that this kind of lucky strike is beyond believability and the tone of the game as his group plays it and does not serve the plot (in fact he needs the wageslave to escape), and so decides the "average wageslave" is entitled to get lucky too. So besides rolling his 3 Reaction (just in case the NPC gets really lucky), the NPC burns Edge and "escapes certain death."´

As far as points b) and c) goes, unless the GM is applying house rules, Joe Wageslave only has Edge equal to his Professional Rating, which is zero. The GM would have to suddenly decide on the fly that Joe Wageslave was ex-security, granting him a higher Professional Rating, in order for him to use Edge. In other words, more GM fiat. Additionally, Joe can't use the "Escape Certain Death" clause, since that's for PC's. He'd have to use the Hand of God rule, which is reserved for Prime Runners. So, in order for that last examples to work, Joe would have to suddenly go from unProfessional wageslave to Prime Runner status, all before the bullets hit him.

toturi

Jan 18 2008, 11:21 AM

Post #328

Canon Companion

Group: Members
Posts: 8,021
Joined: 2-March 03
From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG
Member No.: 4,187

QUOTE (Cain)

QUOTE

a) He deems that this kind of lucky strike is perfectly in keeping with the playstyle of his group and the serves the needs of the plot and decides the "average wageslave" just rolls his 3 Reaction. (per your example)
b) He deems that this kind of lucky strike is stretching believability and the tone of the game as his group plays it, but could serve the plot. Anyway he decides the "average wageslave" is entitled to get lucky too. So besides rolling his 3 Reaction, the GM choses to use any of the Edge options available to the NPC (who has Edge 2).
c) He deems that this kind of lucky strike is beyond believability and the tone of the game as his group plays it and does not serve the plot (in fact he needs the wageslave to escape), and so decides the "average wageslave" is entitled to get lucky too. So besides rolling his 3 Reaction (just in case the NPC gets really lucky), the NPC burns Edge and "escapes certain death."´

As far as points b) and c) goes, unless the GM is applying house rules, Joe Wageslave only has Edge equal to his Professional Rating, which is zero. The GM would have to suddenly decide on the fly that Joe Wageslave was ex-security, granting him a higher Professional Rating, in order for him to use Edge. In other words, more GM fiat. Additionally, Joe can't use the "Escape Certain Death" clause, since that's for PC's. He'd have to use the Hand of God rule, which is reserved for Prime Runners. So, in order for that last examples to work, Joe would have to suddenly go from unProfessional wageslave to Prime Runner status, all before the bullets hit him.

Actually Joe Wageslave does not have a RAW template. If the GM was going to run as close to RAW as possible he has several choices.

1) Use a Grunt template for his NPC. Grunts range from Professional Rating 0 to 6 and the only Grunts that appear singularly are the Lieutanants.

2) He can create his own Prime Runner.

3) He can use 1 of the sample Contacts in the book.

In order to use Edge, for Hand of God, he will need to have been created with the Prime Runner rules.

While I feel that Cain's example is not exactly correct, he is right in the sense that out of the 3 RAW/near-RAW methods of statting Joe, the GM can only have chosen 1. However if said Joe was instead Bob the Bullyboy of Street Mob/Rent-A-Cop/Humanis Policlub association, then certainly it would reflect what Cain has posted. In such while he is wrong in the specifics, he is correct in general.

Blade View Member Profile	Jan 18 2008, 11:31 AM Post #329
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,009 Joined: 25-September 06 From: Paris, France Member No.: 9,466	But doesn't Joe Wageslave not having a RAW template mean that he doesn't exist? :silly:

Ryu

Jan 18 2008, 11:46 AM

Post #330

Awakened Asset

Group: Members
Posts: 4,464
Joined: 9-April 05
From: AGS, North German League
Member No.: 7,309

QUOTE (Cain)

And once again, lest people take the metaphor too far: a GM is like a parent, but the players are not like children. Which is an attitude people here continue to take.

QUOTE (Cain)

QUOTE

You said other GMs posting here were regarding their players as children and thinking that they had authority over them because of this attitude.

Untrue. And another Straw Man, to boot.

Critias View Member Profile	Jan 18 2008, 12:10 PM Post #331
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714	Show of hands time, everyone. Raise your paw if you're likely to change your mind in either direction, into the "ZOMG it's borken and GMs are just players!" camp or the "everything is fine, GM fiat works!" side of the aisle, due to this thread. Anyone? Anyone?

Synner

Jan 18 2008, 12:41 PM

Post #332

Runner

Group: Members
Posts: 3,314
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado
Member No.: 185

QUOTE

As far as points b) and c) goes, unless the GM is applying house rules, Joe Wageslave only has Edge equal to his Professional Rating, which is zero.

We've been over this before. You are confusing the rules for NPC Grunts (which apply only to "groups of similar NPCs") with stand-alone, individual NPCs. Those rules only apply to grunts/groups. The giveaway is that Professional Ratings, like Group Edge and Lieutentants are subheaders of the rules for Grunts (which in turn apply to the fast resolution of actions typically combat with groups of "similar characters"). I'm pretty sure that even you wouldn't debate that Group Edge and Lieutenants don't apply to individual characters so why the heck would Professional Ratings?

Joe Wageslave, Arnold the Armorer, and Boris the Bartender don't have Professional Ratings. You'll also note that none of the Contacts do, nor is it mentioned under Prime Runners for that matter.

Since I'm having to repeat this for the third time, I'll see to it that it makes the next FAQ.

QUOTE (torturi)

1) Use a Grunt template for his NPC. Grunts range from Professional Rating 0 to 6 and the only Grunts that appear singularly are the Lieutanants.
2) He can create his own Prime Runner.
3) He can use 1 of the sample Contacts in the book.

As I've noted above the Grunt rules are not intended for individuals, and the bok specifically states what circumstances they are intended to be applied to in the first two paragraphs under the relevant header (Grunts, p. 272).

So effectively for individual NPCs, particularly those that are important to the plot (such as someone the PCs would be chasing in those circumstances), gamemasters can opt between either to stat the NPC under the Prime Runner rules (if they're memorable characters, in this case probably an Inferiorone) or stat out an individual as a Contact (or borrow the stats from a similar Contact) for everyone else - just like you see in any published adventure. You do not use the Grunt rules for individual NPCs (even though they're a good source for baseline stats).

Baseline human NPCs have Edge 2 / metahuman NPCs have Edge 1. This is exemplified by the Contacts in both SR4 and the Contacts booklet (which actually contains a typical wageslave in the form of the Corporate Secretary with an Edge, you guessed it, of 2).

QUOTE

Additionally, Joe can't use the "Escape Certain Death" clause, since that's for PC's. He'd have to use the Hand of God rule, which is reserved for Prime Runners. So, in order for that last examples to work, Joe would have to suddenly go from unProfessional wageslave to Prime Runner status, all before the bullets hit him.

Actually this is incorrect, since we're bandying RAW about, please quote where the rules say that Edge use to "escape certain death" is an option available only to Player Characters?

toturi

Jan 18 2008, 01:01 PM

Post #333

Canon Companion

Group: Members
Posts: 8,021
Joined: 2-March 03
From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG
Member No.: 4,187

QUOTE (Synner @ Jan 18 2008, 08:41 PM)

QUOTE

Additionally, Joe can't use the "Escape Certain Death" clause, since that's for PC's. He'd have to use the Hand of God rule, which is reserved for Prime Runners. So, in order for that last examples to work, Joe would have to suddenly go from unProfessional wageslave to Prime Runner status, all before the bullets hit him.

Actually this is incorrect, since we're bandying RAW about please quote where the rules say that Edge use to "escape certain death" is an option available only to Player Characters?

While Escape Certain Death clause do not explicitly exclude NPCs from burning Edge, however, if we are to do so, it would render the Hand of God rule (p277 SR4) obsolete and superfluous. If the Hand of God were to have any real use, then it can extrapolated that Grunts and Contacts do not get to use the ECD rules either. If we were to allow Escape Certain Death for NPCs, I think Cain might have more uncomplimentary things to say about the rule set.

Since you are the Assistant Developer, I'd defer to you, especially if you want to dig yourself in deeper.

Ryu View Member Profile	Jan 18 2008, 01:17 PM Post #334
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309	So the objection would be that multiple ways lead to the same end? Problem?

toturi

Jan 18 2008, 01:36 PM

Post #335

Canon Companion

Group: Members
Posts: 8,021
Joined: 2-March 03
From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG
Member No.: 4,187

QUOTE (Ryu)

So the objection would be that multiple ways lead to the same end? Problem?

The objection would be that there are multiple ways to lead to the same messy end. Yes, a very messy problem.

Synner View Member Profile	Jan 18 2008, 01:38 PM Post #336
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185	Cain included a rule that doesn't exist in his argument to counter one of my points. I am pointing out he is wrong regarding whether or not NPCs can use Edge in that manner under a strict reading of RAW. Should the core rules be clearer about NPC use of Edge? Yes. I have never, and will never, say that the SR4 system is perfect. The absence of a clear ruling on what NPCs can and cannot do with Edge, is not IMHO a critical flaw (however, since there is no rule against it gamemasters can do as they see fit). Regarding the developer's intent, I can vouch for the fact that Hand of God was intended as a variant escape clause for Prime Runner NPCs (note that the term Prime Runners is a misleading and what it actually refers to are "signature characters" or named characters). I can also vouch for the fact that Contacts are essentially ready-made signature characters and "named" NPCs intended to use the same ruling. I can also vouch for the fact that it was not intended to encompass Grunts/groups. Finally, I also know this issue (Edge use by NPCs) and a few others will be addressed in the future, first in FAQ and then in errata. Even disregarding option C in my reply to Cain's example (which under the most common interpretation of RAW would only be applicable if the wageslave were a "named" character - ie. an "inferior" Primer Runner), Cain's counterargument to my post hinges on a falacy: that the Professional Ratings and their relevant impact on Group Edge somehow applies to individual NPCs which it doesn't. I'm willing to discard option C until such time as a clarification is printed (though strcitly under RAW as rules lawyer GM has that leeway). The rest of my analysis of his example remains. Individual NPCs get to use Edge. If the situation Cain depicted were to appear in a scenario, the NPC would be stated out as an individual. Setting aside option C for the moment, the NPC could still use all the options available with Edge.

toturi

Jan 18 2008, 01:58 PM

Post #337

Canon Companion

Group: Members
Posts: 8,021
Joined: 2-March 03
From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG
Member No.: 4,187

QUOTE (Synner @ Jan 18 2008, 09:38 PM)

Cain included a rule that doesn't exist in his argument to counter my point. I am pointing out he is wrong.

I have never, and will never, say that the SR4 system is perfect. The absence of a clear ruling on what NPCs can and cannot do with Edge, is not IMHO a critical flaw (since there is no rule against it gamemasters can do as they see fit).

Regarding the developer's intent, I can vouch for the fact that Hand of God was intended as a variant escape clause for Prime Runner NPCs. I can also vouch for the fact that Contacts and "named" NPCs were intended to use the same ruling , though leaving the option completely up to the GM. Finally I can also vouch for the fact that it was not intended to encompass Grunts/groups. Finally, I also know this issue (Edge use by NPCs) and a few others will be addressed in the future, first in FAQ and then in errata.

The variant edge rule (HOG) as you put it was not articulated as just a variant, in fact the rule is explicit on the treatment of Prime Runner Edge, while the Escape Certain Death clause was put in a chapter that was PC centric.

So it is a developer intent to leave it to the GM to decide which Edge rule he wishes to use for his NPCs? While the rules does not state explicitly so, the variant HOG rule is misleading in that it appears the Prime Runners should use the HOG rule and that the Contacts are out of luck with respect to burning of Edge, especially since the HOG rule appears just before the Contacts.

While the absence of a clear ruling is not critical, it is central to this particular discussion.

Synner

Jan 18 2008, 02:44 PM

Post #338

Runner

Group: Members
Posts: 3,314
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado
Member No.: 185

QUOTE (toturi @ Jan 18 2008, 01:58 PM)

The variant edge rule (HOG) as you put it was not articulated as just a variant, in fact the rule is explicit on the treatment of Prime Runner Edge, while the Escape Certain Death clause was put in a chapter that was PC centric.

Actually no. The Edge rules appear in the general Game Concepts chapter and not the essentially PC-centric Creating a Shadowrunner chapter.

Let me begin by clarifying my use of the term "variant rule". There is only one significant difference between the "escape death clause" and HOG. The difference being that in the basic rule requires you burn 1 Edge, whereas HoG (especifically intended for Prime Runner NPC use) requires that the NPC burn all his "remaining Edge" (aside: take note of the phrasing, since it also implies that NPCs can burn Edge on other stuff, ie the other options listed under Burning Edge on p.68). Hence why I described it as a "variant."

QUOTE

So it is a developer intent to leave it to the GM to decide which Edge rule he wishes to use for his NPCs? While the rules does not state explicitly so, the variant HOG rule is misleading in that it appears the Prime Runners should use the HOG rule and that the Contacts are out of luck with respect to burning of Edge, especially since the HOG rule appears just before the Contacts.

To put it simply the intent was/is for (non-Grunt) NPCs to be able to use Edge in the same ways as characters - with a variation on the escape death clause which is the HOG rule (and which makes PCs a little more durable).

As I mentioned previously this subject will be addressed in FAQ and possibly errata.

QUOTE

While the absence of a clear ruling is not critical, it is central to this particular discussion.

I disagree. I think HOG is very much secondary to this particular discussion - so much so I'm willing to set aside the gamemaster's option c from my original post in the interest of continuing the discussion.

Cain contends that the Long Shot rules are broken (specifically in the case of Combat tests where Thresholds don't apply). I'm saying he's forgotten to factor in Edge use by the opposition (which he didn't, check his example) and which partially counters but does not cancel Mr Lucky's advantage. This is an integral element of the system balance. I obviously recognize that high Edge does give a significant advantage and allows almost impossible results. However, as people like Frank have pointed out already it just isn't as effective as Cain thinks because the system has a built-in counterbalance in NPC Edge use.

Cain then responded by saying that (a) the character doesn't have Edge to use (which is just plain wrong) and (b) HOG doesn't apply (a point which I'm entirely willing to concede at this point in the interest of further discussion).

(note: I've been down this path with him before. Usually his next step is to argue that the system is broken because it demands Edge use to counterbalance Edge use).

Given that I'm willing to set aside the HOG issue to make my point, the rest of my post remains.

There is no reason, by the rules, why a fully stated individual NPC with Edge (such as a Contact or a one-off character made by the GM) can't use Edge in the same manner as characters. The only characters that don't have Edge to use in some way are "unProfessional" Grunts, but since the wageslave doesn't qualify as a grunt in any reading of the rules Cain's counterargument is beside the point.

Kyoto Kid

Jan 18 2008, 04:32 PM

Post #339

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

...OK I usually don't quote & pick apart arguments statement by statement because it makes for excruciatingly long posts. However I just cannot agree with your take on the GM's role (or seeming lack thereof). :noflame:

QUOTE (Cain)

QUOTE (knasser)

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?

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."

...sounds like a very nice place to work, are they hiring? If we don't get our timesheets in that evening it's like we committed a cardinal sin.

QUOTE (Cain)

QUOTE (me)

Point 2. Who then is supposed to adjudicate the rules when an impasse occurs?

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.

...that's nice, who fills this role? In our current group (and most other groups I've been in) this is part of the GM's purview. If I would have allowed the last "Rules Shyster" I had in a recent campaign that amount of control he would have ended up running (and ruining) the campaign to his liking.

QUOTE (Cain)

QUOTE (me)

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.

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.

...sounds like you have a very attentive nd contentious group. That isn't always the case for sometimes it almost comes to smacking people upside the head with the core book or rolling the dice and shouting something like "two cyberzombies with Vindicator miniguns come into the room and open up...role initiative" to get their attention. I was actually told I was no longer welcome in a group I was playing in once because I addressed the issue that there was more OoG tangential banter than actual playing of the game. I had tried to bring this to everyone's attention in a very diplomatic manner only to get the icy cold shoulder. I don't set aside my valuable time for gaming just to BS on unrelated subjects for most of the evening.

What it comes down to is that every group of players, every campaign every GM is different. I could easily make an argument on these very same issues that is completely different based on some of the experiences I had.

FrankTrollman

Jan 18 2008, 05:16 PM

Post #340

Prime Runner

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

QUOTE (Cain)

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.

First off, you posting about how various people are using argument tactics which are logically invalid is tiresome and annoying. Since you are offering arguments based on opinion, which is itself logically invalid, other people using such arguments back is perfectly lefit. Indeed, once someone has invoked the appeal to authority, the only possible reply is the ad hominem. So saying "You're using ad hominem!" is a waste of all of our time. Yes, we know we are using ad hominem. That's because you keep using an appeal to authority so the only recourse is to discredit you. Since you aren't falling back on logic or reasoned arguments, the replies you get aren't themselves logical.

To which I can only say: "What did you think was going to happen?"

QUOTE

My points essentially are:

The Longshot test rules are hideously broken.
The Called Shot rules are broken

These are potentially factual arguments and subject to factual rebuttal. In fact, they've been discreditted utterly as you originally phrased them. Now it's possible for you to create a new scenario which "works" but you have not done so.

As it happens though, once you do create a scanario, it will then be perfectly permissable for people to make fun of you rather than engaging your rules argument. Why? Because once you have a rules scenario where X, Y, and Z happen, it falls to opinion to determine whether those events are actually a problem. Which means that people don't have to argue that the wording of the rules does not support your conclusions (although they can), they can skip all that and come back with a simple appeal to ridicule. The responses:

Possibly, but you're a dumbass. (ad hominem)
Could be, but that will never happen and doesn't matter. (trivial rejection)
I have no problem with that. (appeal to authority)
Why are you still talking? (appeal to ridicule)

Are all completely legal and valid ways to argue that point. Because what you've done is construct the argument:

1. X
2. Y
3. .: Z
4. I personally find Z to be bad. (Appeal to Authority)
5. .: X + Y are bad.

So because you have an emotional argument in at step 4, people don't even have to engage with the logical arguments at steps 3 and 5. They can, but it's not necessary. And indeed so long as you don't even reformat your 3 and 5 into something which hasn't had more holes torn in it than the Shroud of Turin, that's all that's left for us.

So yeah, you're still wrong, and your argument is still tiresome (ad hominem baby!)

QUOTE

The core ruleset (leaving out options) can't seem to decide if it's meant to be over-the-top cinematic or gritty, dark, street realistic.
The core ruleset (leaving out options) can't seem to decide if it's meant to be simulationist or abstract.
The system requires too much GM fiat for a simulationist system, and is too rigid for an abstract one.
The system requires GM fiat to handle situations that would be better handled by better rules.
The system requires too many house rules.

And see, there's nothing even to argue here except whether you personally are a poopy face. Sorry, but these are all emotional arguments. I've carefully highlighted the weasel words which remove every one of these points from being subjected to logical analysis. How many is "too many"? What would be "better"? Better to whom? Seems to whom? Me? No. Absolutely not. So... you then? So what?

Having basically subjected your last five points to direct analysis it appears that they are literally:

My opinion counts more than other people on this thread.
My opinion is that SR4 is bad.

So yeah. Have fun with that. The second part is true, but meaningless without the first part. The first part is a completely baseless assertion. I reject it and further rebut it in the only possible fashion: direct ad hominem attack.

You sir, are wrong. I never should have fathered you.

-Frank

Kyoto Kid View Member Profile	Jan 18 2008, 05:32 PM Post #341
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	...Frank, I think you just had the final word on this entire derail. There's nothing more to see here people...please move along.

DTFarstar View Member Profile	Jan 18 2008, 05:37 PM Post #342
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,269 Joined: 18-September 06 Member No.: 9,421	I know I really shouldn't comment, but... I am sitting in an empty classroom on campus in an hour that I have between classes and I have had to spend the last ten minutes restraining myself from laughing so as not to disturb the classes next to me. Tears appeared at the effort required. Frank, you wonderful bastard, quit being so damn funny! That said, that was a very nicely formed argument. Continue on. Chris

Moon-Hawk View Member Profile	Jan 18 2008, 06:09 PM Post #343
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715	Synner: Thanks for clearing up (at least somewhat) edge use, ECD, and HoG for NPC's. That's definitely material needed in the next FAQ, in my opinion.

Cain

Jan 18 2008, 06:17 PM

Post #344

Grand Master of Run-Fu

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,840
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178

QUOTE

Cain included a rule that doesn't exist in his argument to counter one of my points. I am pointing out he is wrong regarding whether or not NPCs can use Edge in that manner under a strict reading of RAW.

I may have been wrong about the "Escape Certain Death" clause, but it renders "Hand of God" obsolete, which clearly wasn't the intent. However, NPCs burning Edge is also one of the cheesier tactics a GM can pull, especially with one-shot NPCs. One shot characters are mostly unaffected by loss of Edge. Prime Runners are, via Hand Of God, since that burns *all* their Edge. But if they can choose to use both, then we get into an issue: they can ECD until they run out of Edge, then HoG all they like (since it only requires they burn their remaining edge, which is zero.

QUOTE

The rest of my analysis of his example remains. Individual NPCs get to use Edge. If the situation Cain depicted were to appear in a scenario, the NPC would be stated out as an individual. Setting aside option C for the moment, the NPC could still use all the options available with Edge.

Actually, in this case, he'd be statted out as a living McGuffin. As he's still an unnmamed character, and it's be a stretch to qualify him as a contact by those definitions. We can restat him as a sattelite dish and get the same effect.

QUOTE

...that's nice, who fills this role? In our current group (and most other groups I've been in) this is part of the GM's purview. If I would have allowed the last "Rules Shyster" I had in a recent campaign that amount of control he would have ended up running (and ruining) the campaign to his liking.

The choose someone else, or choose the Rules Guru by vote. If all the players agree that he'd make a good rules guy, then what can you do?

QUOTE

...sounds like you have a very attentive nd contentious group. That isn't always the case for sometimes it almost comes to smacking people upside the head with the core book or rolling the dice and shouting something like "two cyberzombies with Vindicator miniguns come into the room and open up...role initiative" to get their attention. I was actually told I was no longer welcome in a group I was playing in once because I addressed the issue that there was more OoG tangential banter than actual playing of the game. I had tried to bring this to everyone's attention in a very diplomatic manner only to get the icy cold shoulder. I don't set aside my valuable time for gaming just to BS on unrelated subjects for most of the evening.

Well, for one, thank you; most people here have been attacking my group and gaming style, accusing them of being immature. You're the first to say in a counterargument that they don't have anything less that a wonderful, perfect, mature and obedient group that somehow becomes power-made lunatics when entrusted with the slightest bit of narrative control. Okay, I exaggerate, but that's the general vibe I'm getting.

QUOTE

You sir, are wrong. I never should have fathered you.

Luckily, my father is an unmitigated ass without any ability for form a logical argument. Unfortunately for you, screaming that I do not have a logical argument does not make it so. I only brought up the logical fallacies for Knasser, who specifically asked for them.

I also note that you left the rules examples totally alone. Silence is assent, you realize. Because you went on an ad hominem rant, you've essentially conceded that my rules examples-- and my conclusions!-- are valid.

Now, would you like to debate the point, or would you like to go and scream yourself hoarse some more?

Fortinbras

Jan 18 2008, 06:20 PM

Post #345

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 772
Joined: 12-December 07
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 14,589

QUOTE (Cain)

QUOTE

I say what Cain says.
Four times, he says it is wrong.
But will not correct.

Appeal to Ridicule. Just because you make a joke about it does not make you correct.

But it does make you funny, which is often more important than being correct.

hyzmarca View Member Profile	Jan 18 2008, 06:39 PM Post #346
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456	It would be rather easy to remove the longshot test simply by stating that dice pool modifiers can never reduce a DP below 1 but the threshold increases by 1 at 0 and for every 2 below zero. Thus, huge longshots remain possible but are extraordinary difficult.

Kyoto Kid

Jan 18 2008, 06:42 PM

Post #347

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

QUOTE (Cain)

QUOTE (me)

...that's nice, who fills this role? In our current group (and most other groups I've been in) this is part of the GM's purview. If I would have allowed the last "Rules Shyster" I had in a recent campaign that amount of control he would have ended up running (and ruining) the campaign to his liking.

The choose someone else, or choose the Rules Guru by vote. If all the players agree that he'd make a good rules guy, then what can you do?

...this particular fellow basically had read the books (including Street Magic) cover to cover while the rest of us were still getting accustomed to 4th ed. He would speak up on the rules only when it would give his character a distinct advantage over anyone else. When it came to rules issues involving other characters, I was usually the one who had to look things up. This person was the same disruptive player I spoke about in another thread a while back.

Based on this, I still believe it is the GM's responsibility to maintain a sound knowledge of the rules so that everyone gets a fair shake.

As to player groups. I have been in a lot of different situations, some very good and others (like the example I cited) very bad. Not so much power-mongering, but more from the point of being inconsiderate and disrespectful.

Apathy View Member Profile	Jan 18 2008, 07:00 PM Post #348
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046	Cain, I don't think that most people here have any problem with you not liking any particular rule, or the SR4 rules in general. Nor would it be appropriate to say that you and your group play wrong. As long as you and your friends are enjoying things, then more power to you. But your opinions about these percieved rule problems and the best gaming style are just that: opinions. They're no more valid than anyone else's, and other people's opinions that the game is not broken, or that they like to game a different way have just as much standing on these boards. If you had said "I really don't like that rule X can be exploited. [opinion]", then many people (including me) would agree with you. Even saying "I hate rule X so much that the game isn't fun for me. [opinion]" wouldn't have earned much rebuttal, though most people wouldn't have cared either way. It's just when you say "Rule X is broken, and anyone who doesn't think it's broken is wrong. [opinion stated as if it were fact]" that people come out of the woodwork to wiz in your wheaties. Who are you to tell me that my gaming style is wrong if I like my GMs to have the authority to make final decisions in the game?

Stahlseele View Member Profile	Jan 18 2008, 07:33 PM Post #349
The ShadowComedian Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,538 Joined: 3-October 07 From: Hamburg, AGS Member No.: 13,525	while we are at it . . what does an SR4 Char get out of an Cortex-Bomb? one point of lost edge?

Moon-Hawk

Jan 18 2008, 07:35 PM

Post #350

Genuine Artificial Intelligence

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

QUOTE (Stahlseele)

while we are at it . . what does an SR4 Char get out of an Cortex-Bomb?
one point of lost edge?

I'm sorry; what's your point?

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »