 Game level, Why must it be street? |
  |
 Jan 20 2008, 09:33 PM
Post
#426
|
|
|
Running Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,416 Joined: 4-March 06 From: Albuquerque Member No.: 8,334  |
Isn't the story, the ability to play a person in a chronicle of (possibly) epic proportions, the reason most people sit down to play? I mean sure, fun is the core reason, but I thought role playing gamers came to the table to role play a character (whether their version is the supermunchkin or the consumate actor is really irrelevant). Maybe I'm mistaken. Of course, I tend to gravitate to games where I can be *not me* and actually experience things that I can't do in real life. *shrug*
Although, truth be told, I've always found that games (*very* generally speaking) fall into one of two catagories. Combat Oriented and Story Oriented. The difference? Base Attack Bonus. If there's any stat like this (such as in Rifts, d20, etc), it's combat. Everything else is generally more Story oriented, though some less so than others. It's just a matter of how the GM chooses to run them. You *can* play a d20 system as a Story based game, but it's much harder because of how the game is designed. You can run a WW game as a hack'n'slash, but again, it's not really aimed at that, and so it's a little more difficult. It just seems like Cain views the Storyteller system as the ultimate suck because the GM is this almighty director who forces his players to do what he says or else, and that's just not how it goes. The rules don't say that. The spirit of the rules don't imply that. That's Cain just not liking the system for whatever reason. |
 |
 
|
|
Jan 20 2008, 09:38 PM
Post
#427
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
My bad. I was not very clear. I meant the emphasis in Storyteller games is on the GM's overall story more than those of the individual Players. I'm not saying that this is inherently wrong. Just that the core concepts of the game are different. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 20 2008, 09:58 PM
Post
#428
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,416 Joined: 4-March 06 From: Albuquerque Member No.: 8,334 |
Fair enough. I can agree with that to a degree. I guess both myself and our other GM's have always viewed it in such a way that the story cannot exist without the players, so the focus must be on them so that things can still move on. Hell, we've had entire epic story lines that revolved entirely around the players and their development. I guess it boils down to how a GM runs things in the end. A mediocre GM can take a story, and give the players parts. A good/great GM can come up with an idea, let the players make up their own parts, and make it all work together to make the best story possible. My experience tends towards the latter. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 21 2008, 09:25 AM
Post
#429
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
"Not in my game" aka: "My way or the high way!" is what I call the nuclear option. Generally speaking, gentle suggestions and negotiations work better than throwing down the gauntlet. I think you'll agree, based on your experiences, that this tactic works better than the heavy-handed approach.
Ooh, a threat *and* an ultimatum. You're really not proving your case. Each and every logical fallacy you provide, only strengthens the Citymaster example's validity.
It's all a matter of degree, and gets into a slippery slope question. We know that extreme isn't okay; but what degree of it is?
The issue here is that Fastjack should have produced a mechanically superior product. He can't. He can add non-mechanical flourishes and arpeggios, by scoring a critical success. Even at a trivial encounter, there should be some benefit. As for the rush job bit goes, Mr. Lucky stands a higher chance of botching; but unless he gets a critical botch (not likely with 8 dice), his program is only going to be quirky, not inoperational. Which also has been factored into the example.
The original example, as posted by mfb and cited by me in the last post, was merely a -15 shot out to sea against a normal target. With or without Edge, the sam in question is better off not aiming, and still stands an unholy chance of success. If we factor in even a small Edge of 3 for the sam, things get disgusting very quickly. To quickly go over the small example: The various modifiers on the sam total to -15. He has 20 in his applicable dicepool. Without factoring in Edge, he's going to score 1.66 successes, rounded up to 2. Joe Normal, presuming he isn't caught by Surprise by a one-kilometer shot, gets his Reaction of 3 to defend with, which equals 1 success: not enough. If we factor in Edge on both sides (which is only fair), Sam the sam's now has an exploding dicepool of 8, which equals approximately 4 successes. Joe has 5 exploding dice, which equal to 2 or 3 successes. Still not enough.
Here's another problem. Mr. Lucky, as written and posted multiple times on Dumpshock, *is* a combat specialist. He's throwing 20 dice for pistols, 6-8 dice for most other categories, and has that insane edge to fall back on. Mr. Lucky is more than a match for any combat character. He breaks the game in two ways: by having a huge dicepool, and by having a huge Edge. In addition to dominating combat, he can temporarily dominate (or at least match) the other specialists. Let's compare Mr. Lucky to a more balanced character. Gary Generalist has an Edge of 3, throws 15 dice for pistols, and 8-10 in most other categories. A nice, well rounded character, yes? Mr. Lucky completely dominates him in pistols, is only slightly behind him in most other skill categories, and can completely trump him if both invoke Edge. By hyperspecializing and buying up Edge, we have a fixed formula for dominant characters. And carbon-copy characters, due to rule superiority, is a major balance issue for any game. Even D&D avoids this problem neatly, due to their feat system.
Not really, since we'd have to invoke optional rules that do opposite things to counter my points. Heck, one optional rule is to chuck everything and start from scratch, but the resulting bundle of house rules wouldn't help our discussion, which is of the canon ruleset.
It wasn't one of mine, but it has been brought up earlier in this thread. I forgot about it too, until I reread everything from the beginning. At any event: "I piss on the Don's mother and try to convince him it's kinky" is a valid use of the Seduction specialization, even if it's extreme. And the point stands: the pornomancer stands a decent chance of pulling it off, despite some hefty penalties. And without invoking Edge.
Really? I come to game with a loose framework. Based on the players choices, I don't adapt my story to fit them in-- I rewrite the whole story based on what they;re doing. The players choose which elements of the story-- developed by myself or otherwise-- to turn into plot hooks. You're used to thinking in the box.
That's one of the more useless arguments, which also has been brought up in defense of SR4. If you end up house ruling everything, at what point are you not playing the same game as everyone else? I could easily port the Shadowrun world over to the Wushu system, and there'd be no loss of story or feel. Would I still be playing Shadowrun? What happens if I converted it to GURPS or d20? Those have more of the tactical crunch that Wushu lacks. Basically, the "change whatever you like" clause is the ultimate in developer laziness: "We can't be bothered to fix anything, so we are going to make you to do it for yourself."
Close, but not quite. It's not the story, otherwise we could read a book and get the same story. It's the ability to build a story *together* that attracts people. You are building your own chronicle.
Actually, I listed several White Wolf/Storyteller games that didn't disempower players. Adventure! and Exalted are two of them. I haven't gotten into Scion yet, so I can;t comment on it, but I understand that it also focues on player empowerment.
The difference between a player-centered session and a player-centered RPG is that the first depends entirely on GM goodwill. Good or bad, it's up to the GM to empower the players. In a player-focused RPG, the players are mechanically encouraged to add to the story, and are given several means of doing so. The GM's job, in these cases, is to blend the two goals together on the fly. Since player input come sin faster and more frequently, the Gm needs to be more on his toes.
I'd add that the best GM's comes up with an idea in conjunction with the players, let everyone define their roles in and out of game, nd have everyone work together to make the best shared experience possible. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jan 21 2008, 10:07 AM
Post
#430
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
No. This is not the case. I don't know what you think logically invalid arguments mean or do, and you certainly are using a lot of them yourself. But an argument which is logically invalid is not necessarily a bad argument. Appeal to majority, for example, is a logically invalid argument. However it is an emotionally valid argument and if you are making an emotional argument it is the standard. --- Now when it comes down to it, all of your arguments center on the emotional argument that you don't like what happens in the SR4 rules and therefore that the SR4 Rules are BAD! That's not a logical argument, and it is not subject to logical analysis or logical argumentation. If you hold out the double standard that you intend to make an emotional argument and demand that everyone else take a step back and only counter only with Logical arguments, you are being disengenuous. Emotional arguments are only countered with other emotional arguments. --- So you have the logical argument:
That's the argument right? Well, logically the Damage and Passengers rules also state that the target always get Partial, Good, or Blindfire Cover. And the Blindfire rules go to page 157 where it tells us that a weapon of insufficient size automatically fails. So if the vehicle is fully enclosed (like the citymaster), you need an anti-vehicle weapon to punch through. Your one-shot example fails. --- But we made that logical argument a long, long time ago. And you're still clamping on like a terrier. So obviously we're in emotional argument territory. Where we aren't convincing each other with page citations, because we have all the page citations. There's no more logic to be had. You've seen the logic and you refuse to accept it because you have an emotional ax to grind. And now we make fun of you, because that's the level this argument has degenerated to! You refuse to engage with the logical arguments that say that your example is wrong, and continue to make the emotional argument that SR4 is "bad" and "seems poorly made" and shit. So yeah, we make emotional arguments right back: You seem unreasonable. You are a jerk. Your mouth is filled with too much talk, and not enough cock. -Frank |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 21 2008, 10:23 AM
Post
#431
|
|||
|
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 |
Reflect that statement in the light of your behaviour in this thread. Take into account what Frank said about emotional arguments. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 21 2008, 10:38 AM
Post
#432
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 992 Joined: 2-August 06 Member No.: 9,006 |
I have used GM Fiat to save the villian, but I have always done it the Comics Way: The situation is such where the players don't have the villian in a nice, secure room where they strip search him, tie him up, shot hi in the head, heart, decapitate him, and stick is body in a blender. No, it is where they kill the villian, but the building begins falling down around them, or the police or army or what have you arrive right after that. The villian could be dead..or he could only LOOK to be dead. I had a villian back in SR3 who had actually, because of the "Close calls" with the players become a very low essence individual. Now, though, here is one thing I do not see how you can go with a completely loose framework that you will tear down completely. Try this: The Setup is: A Meteor is heading to the earth, and the players have been selected to go up and take it out. They are have already made it up into space and are en-route. The player thrown twist: The guy who is flying the shuttle what have you decides, withut really asking or telling anyone, that he is going to change the course and go to Ares thing heading to Mars. What do you do: A) Remind him gently that if he does that, all human life on earth is going to be destroyed b) Say nothing, and let the meter hit the earth c) Forget about the whole meteor thing, and begin the trip to mars(in a shuttle, BTW, that does not have the life support or supplies to even catch up to said ares ship going to mars..so you can essentially end the whole thing right there) More realisticly: The Setup: The Runners have been hired and agreed to perform an extraction of a old man who also happens to be one of the rival corps leading Nano-scientists. The man has a (Stereotype!) beautiful receptionist who pretty much knows nothing except the scientists name and the department she works in. The Player Twist: The Runners decide that, rather then extracting this creepy old dude, they would rather extract the receptionist. What do you do: a) Have it turn out that the receptionsit really is the one behind all the scientists research, and, in fact, was actually the scientist, not the old man the Johnson thought it was b) Have the Johnson get angry at the runners for extracting the wrong person, shoot her infront of them, and not pay them c)Remind the players that their characters are being paid to get the old man, and that the Johnson will not pay them if they do not bring the correct person. d) Have the receptionist turn out to be the targets wife, and that she will not leave without him. (Of course, no matter what, if the runners do not get the old man out, they will not get paid.) |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jan 21 2008, 10:48 AM
Post
#433
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 772 Joined: 12-December 07 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 14,589 |
And never be afraid to put civilians in danger if your group is of the more heroic archetype. Give them the choice between capturing the villain or saving the helpless old lady about to be crushed by the aforementioned falling building and all but the most hardened of players will make the moral choice.
If your Shadowrunners are a group of tried and true criminals who would just as soon shoot their grannies in the back for a nickel as look at her, this situation might backfire. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 21 2008, 03:13 PM
Post
#434
|
|
|
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 |
Scenario Mars:
I´m blessed with players that would not try to destroy the world. That would be a real problem, likely ending in a majority vote for "he does not do that". Because: Scenario Receptionist: The runners are free to make their own decisions. There is a preconceived notion about how the run will proceed (on my part), but that is usually not what happens. So yes, they are free to take the receptionist instead of their target. I give the challenge, not the solution. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 21 2008, 03:49 PM
Post
#435
|
|||||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
OK, with your Citymaster example laid bare, I think it only fair to move on to the next installment: Fast Jack's Highschool Project "Now teh Newb is become teh Roxxor." "Only teh Roxxor of Camping!" -A New Hope, l33t dub The setup: Fastjack decides that he is going to make a program at Rating 2. Why is not important. He can physically purchase twice the required number of hits so he succeeds. Done. Mr. Lucky (or any character with a low dice pool) decides to produce the same level of program, spends an Edge, and most likely also succeeds. Both characters have achieved the same result (albeit at different cost). The problem as identified by Cain:
OK, let's go after the logical argument here first. The logical argument formalizes to:
Which of course is a Begging the Question fallacy. The circular reasoning is broken by the fact that the person who chose to get a result which was not mechanically superior was in fact the person who got the result which was not mechanically superior. Boom: definition and conclusion in one, see Reasoning, Circular. But hey, you've got an out. And rather than wait until you stumble upon it yourself I will just give it to you. Since every Logically Valid argument contains its conclusions within its premises, the entire concept of "Begging the Question" as a logically invalid fallacy is flawed. All logically valid arguments can be reformalized to be circular and thus the idea that a circular argument is logically invalid is a holdover from a simpler time when people didn't understand logic very well. The fact that an argument is Begging the Question is not a valid reason to discount its validity. Sigh. Fair enough Kierkegaard, we can for now accept the logical validity of such an argument. This in terms means that we have to attack the premises of said argument rather than its structure. And since the premises and conclusions are in this case the same, we can attack any part of it and the whole thing will break like a wheel with a wedge. Now we could attack the mechanical premises or the emotional premises. As it happens I doubt there is a single person here who doubts over much that a 16+ die pool is capable of getting 2 hits, nor do I think anyone here is willing to make claim that Fastjack is incapable of choosing a Rating of 2 for a program he produces. So let's go for the emotional premises:
Why? This is an emotional premise because it refers to "should." Cain is making the emotional plea that Fastjack's higher dice pool ought to produce a game mechanical benefit in this circumstance. I reject this claim utterly. Cain is emotionally wrong in this instance. Fastjack selected his Rating, and he selected the number 2. He could have bought successes at Rating 4, and would have been quite likely to succeed at a Rush Job given a Rating of 5. Even 6 or 7 is well within possibility if he rushes it out twice and hopes for the best. But he chose to attempt a Rating of 2. Why? I don't know, and neither does Cain. Maybe Fastjack is making an intentionally gimped program because he wants someone to fail at some later task. Maybe he wants to use it to impersonate a script kiddy with much worse funding. Maybe he is disguised as a mild mannered software programmer and is trying to not blow his cover by revealing how awesome he actually is. We don't know, because it's not part of the discussion. What is part of the discussion is that Fastjack chose (for whatever reason) to make something that was not as good as what he could really make. And that another person (for whom that truly is the limit of their abilities) could crank out the same thing. I say, from a strictly emotional standpoint that this is Good. I would regard it as a problem in the game if highly skilled individuals did not have the option of choosing to perform below their real abilities. As Cain's example shows, this is not the case in SR4. A highly skilled individual can perform at their ability or well below it if that is what they want to do. And thus a potential problem I might have had with SR4 is averted. -Frank |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 21 2008, 03:52 PM
Post
#436
|
|||||
|
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 |
...you obviously haven't dealt with the dumbass I have. You haven't had someone basically try to wrest control of your campaign away like I have. Sometimes the Nuclear Option is the only way. :mushroomcloud: |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 21 2008, 05:04 PM
Post
#437
|
|||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,416 Joined: 4-March 06 From: Albuquerque Member No.: 8,334 |
And now you're telling me how I think. Cain, I'm trying to have a civil debate with you, but you're making this extremely difficult. Beyond that, you completely misinterpreted my point. You'll notice I stated that the GM comes up with the storyline (i.e. the framework, basis, general thought behind the game sessions), develops the plot points (potential things the players might choose to follow up on), and then adapts based on their choices. I didn't say he adapts everything to make sure the players stay on his story, or that his story in the end is more important than the player's choices or desires. I never said that. You are assuming this. I said adapt the story. Adaptation can be minor changes, or broad sweeping redesigns as needed.
Again, you miss what I've said. The players aren't reading scripts. They actively contribute to, and alter the story as it pans out. Sometimes the story the GM had in mind bears no resemblance to the story that evolves. That's just the way of it. Any decent GM lets the story evolve on it's own and provides the fluff to make it enjoyable. And now with regards to your Citymaster. My best friend and I have taken a poll of the local 5-7 year old demographic. They didn't know what an APC was, so we used a Tank instead in the example. We asked them this: "If you shoot at a tank with a gun to try and kill the driver, what happens?" Almost unanimously, they said the pistol does nothing at all, because it's a tank and you're not using a good enough gun. I said almost because Jimmy was of the opinion the Tank blows up, but he's kind of a powergamer, so we can discount him as being in the minority. On the other hand, they did say magical Wolverine bullets would go right through the tank, but as Shadowrun has no rules for that, we can discount that option entirely. So in short, even the 5-7 year olds think your example is bogus, Cain. Thus, you're wrong. The defense rests. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jan 21 2008, 05:53 PM
Post
#438
|
|
|
Cybernetic Blood Mage Group: Members Posts: 3,472 Joined: 11-March 06 From: Northeastern Wyoming Member No.: 8,361 |
Mars
I roll with the blows, and if none of the other characters bother to check on their course before they hit the point of no return then they all die in space. Next campaign. Chica The Johnson either shoots her in front of them or the Runners find out later that she was sold to help the Johnson recoup some of his costs, well, provided that the Runners live long enough that is. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 21 2008, 06:23 PM
Post
#439
|
|||||||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
Actually, you've obliquely fallen into one of Cain's Hefalump traps, through no fault of your own. That "Not in my game" quote from me was seriously misinterpreted. I was not saying it to any player, I was saying it to Cain's odd beliefs in defense of my players. I.e. I was protecting them against Cain's attitude to non-GM'ing that they would not enjoy. Cain has once again taken words from one of us, stripped them bare of any surrounding context then dressed them up again in clothes of his own design. Cain would call this a straw man if I did it. As Cain did it, it's probably more fairly called a straw dinosaur, monstrous distortion that it is. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jan 21 2008, 06:28 PM
Post
#440
|
|||||||||||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
That's exactly what it means. Since the rest of your arguments are appeals to emotion instead of appeals to logic, I'm going to discard all the rest. There's no point in using logic and reason to face down sheer blinding emotion.
D) Let the other players revolt, and force the guy to turn around. If they don't want to do that, then they think that a trip to Mars is more fun than the meteor, so I may as well readjust to deliver what they want. Ryu answered the other one.
I haven't dealt specifically with your dumbass, but I have dealt with some pretty severe ones before. When gentle prodding doesn't do the trick, usually outright peer pressure will. That's how we've kept our current dumbass in line. Rather than regularily threaten to throw him out of the game (which I may be mistaken, but that's what it sounds like you are doing) we keep him in line in other ways. Like asking his wife to talk with him. :evil:
My apologies. That wasn't my intention.
What I meant was, in the games I'm referring to, the players and the GM affect the story on a more primal level, and work together to develop the plot points. For example, in Faery's Tale, one player might suggest that when sneaking into a castle, instead of the knight being just some opposition, one player suggests that could be the sprite's old weapon master, long since fallen from grace. Suddenly the whole plot changes, because instead of sneaking it, he could challenge him to a duel for passage. That'd awake the whole castle, but by the Faery laws, they're supposed to respect it... but now, they'll be facing tricks instead of battle. Unlike most Dramatic Editing mechanics, where the player would spend point to make it stick, he'd be given a point or two for coming up with such clever derail.
I did bring up the Magic Bullet theory. Stranger things have happened. If you want a cinematic example, watch the original Batman movie. |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Jan 21 2008, 06:40 PM
Post
#441
|
|||
|
Uncle Fisty Group: Admin Posts: 13,891 Joined: 3-January 05 From: Next To Her Member No.: 6,928 |
:rotfl: |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 21 2008, 06:41 PM
Post
#442
|
|
|
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 |
...because I'm tired of [quoting]...
@knasser: Looks like I better watch my step next time. :grinbig: @Cain: Unfortunately when such a person refuses to get the clue no matter how hard you and the others try, the "final option" you speak of is the only one left. It already is a forgone issue and the rest of the group is much happier now. Sometimes you just have to drop the million tonne s**thammer. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 21 2008, 06:42 PM
Post
#443
|
|||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,416 Joined: 4-March 06 From: Albuquerque Member No.: 8,334 |
You're intentionally ignoring and discounting any intelligent discourse coming from Frank. He, along with many others in this thread have cited the page numbers and rules debunking your Citymaster example, and you still insist it's a perfectly legal example.
Feedback is welcome and even sometimes employed in our games, however we've all been of the opinion it's best to let the game play out WITHOUT the players knowing what's happening ahead of time, or basically turning the game one way or the other by changing NPC's or what-have-you. You get more genuine reactions and situations when the players are broadsided by that plot twist they never saw coming. Not knowing where the story is going keeps our players interested, intrigued and on their toes. They're constantly guessing at what the GM might have planned, and make their plans for it. The GM, on the other hand, sometimes doesn't have a clue what's coming next, but lets the story unfold however it will, allowing the player's assumptions to generate the next line in the plot. It's a surprisingly effective way of running the game, but requires a GM who can think up entire scenarios on the fly as the game changes course.
Yes, but you can't have magic bullets in Shadowrun, so that's really irrelevant. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jan 21 2008, 06:43 PM
Post
#444
|
|||
|
Uncle Fisty Group: Admin Posts: 13,891 Joined: 3-January 05 From: Next To Her Member No.: 6,928 |
What, where the Joker shoots down a plane because he's got a long barrel? Ok then. Wow. I feel bad 'cause now I think you're going to try to debate this point now too. Sometimes it's better to just let things go. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 21 2008, 06:52 PM
Post
#445
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,416 Joined: 4-March 06 From: Albuquerque Member No.: 8,334 |
Oh, he's talking about *that* shot? I thought he meant the one where Batman bounces the bullet off his glove, the wall then into the Joker's face. Either way, it's a cinematic thing, which would in Shadowrun be an Edge roll at best.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 21 2008, 06:54 PM
Post
#446
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
The irony of your constant linking to definitions of logic grows ever clearer. An invalid argument on one side does not add validity to the other. Observe: Arguer 1: 2+2 = 5 Arguer 2: You're an idiot! Arguer 1: That's an "ad hominem" therefore I'm right. See the logical fallacy in your claim, Cain? And as it so happens, Frank's threat and ultimatum is not a logical fallacy, but simply a threat and ultimatum. (One he appears able to deliver on reading recent posts).
You want a distinction of what degree is okay and what isn't? Well I can't put my finger on the line exactly, but I'd say a GM saying "Well he was wearing armour underneath his clothes that you didn't check for so the villain's still alive so there!" is reasonably considered to be on the other side of the line than "A chemically sealed tank that doesn't require windows or viewports to drive doesn't allow you a clear shot at the driver." But as Frank pointed out, your argument amounts to "I don't like where the line is drawn" and everyone else here seems happy with that.
Yes he can. He decides to write a rating 4 program which he can pull off with bought hits quite comfortably. You're the one that chose the program to be beneath what he can do when you said he was writing a rating 2 program (which you chose because it's about the upper bound of what Mr. Lucky can reliably be expected to produce).
You weren't even aware of the rule's affect on this until I brought it up. Or else you chose to leave it out of your original example. And you also keep rephrasing what I'm saying. Mr. Lucky does not "stand a higher chance of botching." He stands a 50/50 chance of botching whilst Fastjack stands none at all.
Which leaves my point completely unaddressed. Mr. Lucky is doing what Mr. Lucky is designed to do and allowed to do by the rules - he is lucky. He has invested a huge number of points in being lucky. The fact that you don't like it is a flavour issue and if you don't like that being part of the game don't allow the character in your game.
So Mr. Lucky is in fact a gun-bunny anyway.
That makes no sense. There's a guideline on how to run modifiers on the very same page as your longshot example. It is suggested that GMs might like to use this. The only reason you can argue your rainy day shot (which is already invalid for other reasons previously stated anyway), is because you choose to refuse these guidelines so that you can say that SR4 is "horribly broken". And when the guidelines were pointed out to you by yours truly, you could only justify your ignoring of them by starting the argument that choice is bad. You, the same GM that is so vehement in attacking us all for being inflexible and authoritarian is condeming the rule book for offering a flexibility to GMs. NOT, before you say it, demanding GM Fiat, but a choice of how to play things consistently. Why do you hate freedom?
Page reference for this optional rule, please? Mine was on Pg. 55. :)
So to summarise your point, you will grab onto any argument you can find anywhere at any stage in the thread in order to justify your aim of showing SR4 to be broken. Cain - your agenda is visible from Mars! And if the pornomancer uses magic on the don to mesmerise and cloud his mind (which if I remember the build he does), then yes, he probably can get away with pissing on people. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jan 21 2008, 06:55 PM
Post
#447
|
|||||
|
Uncle Fisty Group: Admin Posts: 13,891 Joined: 3-January 05 From: Next To Her Member No.: 6,928 |
I think that was what Cain was getting at, but that far exceeds both my heavy pushing of the "Suspension of Disbelief" meter and breaks by B.S.-o-meter. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 21 2008, 07:05 PM
Post
#448
|
|||||
|
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 always loved that scene. It makes no sense that the Joker should be able to shoot down the Batplane. It's also inexplicable how he just stands there holding out his arms in mock invitation to the missiles that explode harmlessly around him. But it makes perfect sense thematically and that's what I love - the deliberate pitting of logic vs. theme and the victory of theme. At that moment, the audience understands intuitively that we have entered a different state and it sets things up perfectly for the final showdown in the church tower. I should so be a film critic. -K. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 21 2008, 07:28 PM
Post
#449
|
|
|
Uncle Fisty Group: Admin Posts: 13,891 Joined: 3-January 05 From: Next To Her Member No.: 6,928 |
This may seem a little late in coming, but Frank is taking a couple weeks off for comments made above. Let's all keep the conversation civil and clean shall we? No personal attacks, name calling, and so on.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 21 2008, 07:44 PM
Post
#450
|
|
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
This thread is done for me, too. I must have re-typed the same point multiple times now even after I said I was done with it all. I'm satisfied to my own beliefs. I think most others here have probably been persuaded to one position or another if they wish to be and Cain clearly isn't going to budge for reasons of his own.
It's been fun. Hope there is no ill will between myself and anyone else here. If so, complain and I will apologise. Peace, -K. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 15th February 2025 - 10:51 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.