SR4 RAW Corner Cases are open ended (IMO), Boon or Bane? Options

[Dayhawk]

I thought at first it was mostly an issue of me not doing a great job at comprehending the rules. But it seems there are a fair few questions asked on the boards about what a certain descriptions really mean when you consider X corner case.

For example the thread:

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=20731

Having the flexability to let each GM determine how they want to rule on things like this is great...

Unless you have rules lawyers in your group then it becomes a nightmare.

So, what do you think?

[suppenhuhn]

you should just make clear to your players that you have the final say on how to interpret the rules. If it really is a misunderstanding then maybe let the player go for the first time, but tell him how you see a certain rule and that it will be played your way from then on.

Basically some parts of the rules could have been formulated better though.

[Slymoon]

In my searching for information I found alot of old posts talking about the role of the GM.

imho a game should be written as to *not* make the GM rule on nearly everything. A GM has plenty enough to keep going aside from having to curb over enthusiastic (read gouging) players.

So yeah, too open = burden

[Jaid]

it really depends. for an experienced GM who is good at making stuff up on the spot and who prefers that method of playing, it is an advantage. but it requires that the GM be assertive, and confident in their ability.

on the other hand, if the GM is brand new to the job (or especially if new to the game or to RPGs in general) it is a pretty hefty disadvantage, unless they are just confident and like making stuff up anyways and they're playing with people who are not going to argue with them =P

of course, it also depends on the players. the more willing the players are to make a (short) case for their interpretation and leave the in-depth discussion until after the session, the better it works for your game.

so ultimately, it isn't really one or the other as a general concept, but it can be one or the other for any given gaming group for any given session.

[Kanada Ten]

There's things which are good (such as the GM deciding whether a spirit would go free or dissipate), and things which should have been clarified (weapon focus, must be a weapon, must bonus a weapon, can be used as a melee focus?), things which needed examples to put the rules in context (half the book), then there was the missing rules (trodes in full VR work how?)... Most of the supplements lean towards boon, the core book... not so much.

It might help if the FAQ could clarify rather than obfuscate.

[Dashifen]

I like it more flexible. But I tend to play any game fast and loose. Rules take second seat to telling a good story and having a good time (not necessarily in that order!). When I'm doing a con event or an introductory demo, I can focus on the rules to make sure that the players get a generalizable experience, but for my own games, I prefer that the book leave things open for me to interpret, tweak, change, alter, screw-with, and generally leave my mark on the game I'm running.

That being said, the only house rule that I ran with in SR4 was for serious wounds which was covered in Augmentation. Just about everything else, when I need the rule, it's in the book. I haven't found too much that was too confusing, nor have I found the need to specify things like how trodes work in VR; I'm just willing to accept that SR tech, magic, politics, and corporate interactions (or lack thereof) don't need to reflect or be reflected in our current way of life.

[Slymoon]

Though I do at least acknowledge the power of a loose and flexible game, I still feel a bit more restrictions are needed.

Probably because I do have a couple of players that will try to work the rules to their advantage. Which means I have to always be on guard anyway even with tighter restrictions.

Now this pertains to SR primarily as most other game systems we play do not have the complexity of SR.

I was adept enough with SR3 that I could usually head them off at the pass. Though SR3 is more complex than SR4 largely due to the difference in rules it was fairly easy to point to something in black and white that said. "Do Not Pass Go, Do not Collect $200...". Without that reinforcement sometimes a game would turn into a 3 hour long rules debate with the whole group, including examples and methods, dissertation ...

[ixombie]

I think the problem with too much GM discretion isn't a player problem, it's a GM problem. No "rules lawyer" is going to faze a GM who knows how to GM.

The way things should work is the rules lawyer says "Hey look, the rules say I can do this thing." The GM thinks about whether he agrees with that, and also whether he thinks it would be good to allow that thing. Then he decides. Then the rules lawyer accepts it like a grownup. Rules lawyers are just that - lawyers. GMs are judges. And there is no higher court. So any good rules lawyer will just accept final decisions as they're made.

You get a problem in two situations. One is where the GM doesn't know how to GM, and they think they have to justify all their decisions if they deviate from the RAW in the slightest. They don't. Their job is to make the game fun, and arguing over semantics and trying to "prove" that the RAW support their ruling won't make that happen. And if you argue based completely on the RAW, the rules lawyers won't let up, since there's always an argument to be made for both sides. You have to just say "It's my decision and I'm making it," otherwise you're not doing the job of a GM.

The other problem arises when the players are pathetic, tantrum throwing crybabies. I hear from a lot of GMs on here "but I can't just decide things without an ironclad argument, since it will disgruntle the players." If you can't get players who will tolerate the GM exercising the authority that is the basis for the entire system's smooth functioning, you should probably go play an MMO or something. These kinds of players aren't rules lawyers, though. They are immature little shits who care more about being right than playing a game.

[toturi]

I think the problem with too much GM discretion isn't a player problem, it's a GM problem. No "rules lawyer" is going to faze a GM who knows how to GM.

A good rules lawyer is a player problem. He can convince your entire table that you are being a heavy handed with "So all it boils down to... is that it is a GM decision eh?" You need to be more socially able than he is. I have a couple of lawyers in my gaming group. Some of the traps include,"Shouldn't we be discussing this like adults instead of making a unilateral arbitary decision?" or "I concede the fact that you are the GM but we generally feel that my argument does hold water." GM might be the judge but he is still beholden to his jury, he cannot tell them that the defendent is guilty and convict the guy. The GM can make a decision, but if the rest of the group has been convinced by the rules lawyer that what he says is right, the jury won't abide your decision.

[Slymoon]

I call my player/ friends a few things now and then. But calling a crew of 37-43yo fathers and professionals cry babies.
Or better yet that I can't GM because I can't control them is just about retarded.

Maybe in your' group there are immature players, in my group there are rational, very intelligent friends that have gamed together for 20+ years. That often times love to get in debates because it is part of the social interaction when a bunch of friends get together. Now I love a good debate among friends as well as the next guy, and I stand a bit of side tracking. But when It is time to reign it back in, standing up with pizza hanging off my chin and yelling for everyone to listen to me because I'm the fattest fuck around doesn't cut it.

Saying: "Ok lets get back to it, end of debate. This is the way we are handling it, if you have any questions read this paragraph in the book." does end it.

Now, if you want to get back and debate the OPs question, good. But slapping judgements on persons responses to the OPs question...


Edit: agreed with toturi above.

[Dayhawk]

I have been GMing games for over 20 years myself, infact with many of the same people.

But I don't know the rules as well as I probably should, so something that seams reasonable now might be unbalancing in the Future. (Like giving 3 times the normal karma because we only play once a month and making someone wait 3 months just to raise a stat from 3 -> 4 seemed a little long)

Then again, in another year I probably will have the hang of things enough.

[ixombie]

Meh! The internets are harsh series of tubes. I apologize of nothing (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

@toturi - You shouldn't feel like "So all it boils down to... is that it is a GM decision eh?" is some kind of attack. The answer should be yes. I should reiterate: you're the judge, he's the lawyer. Do judges apologize for issuing decisions? No. It's their job. And Shadowrun is not a jury trial. It's a bench trial. The players might participate in the argument, but they're not the ones who decide. To be sure, they have to be rasonably happy with the decision so that they don't walk out on the game. But do tensions run so high in your group that you think the players will ditch you for shutting down a rules lawyering argument so you can play the actual game?

As Slymoon says, sometimes you just have to end the debate so you can play. If your players won't accept that, then the players don't understand what the GM is for.

[BlackHat]

I don't think its a problem for PnP games, but it seems like, on these boards in the PbP section, every time a new games starts, there is about 4 pages of Q&A where people have to check and double-check the GMs interpretations of the commonly disputed rules.

For that reason, I am unhappy about them. Otherwise, it hasn't really been a problem IRL.

[toturi]

Meh! The internets are harsh series of tubes. I apologize of nothing (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

@toturi - You shouldn't feel like "So all it boils down to... is that it is a GM decision eh?" is some kind of attack. The answer should be yes. I should reiterate: you're the judge, he's the lawyer. Do judges apologize for issuing decisions? No. It's their job. And Shadowrun is not a jury trial. It's a bench trial. The players might participate in the argument, but they're not the ones who decide. To be sure, they have to be rasonably happy with the decision so that they don't walk out on the game. But do tensions run so high in your group that you think the players will ditch you for shutting down a rules lawyering argument so you can play the actual game?

As Slymoon says, sometimes you just have to end the debate so you can play. If your players won't accept that, then the players don't understand what the GM is for.

It is a kind of attack. It is not direct at the GM per se, it is meant for the other players' consumptions.

Shadowrun is a jury trial because the players have to be having fun. You can shut down a rules-lawyering argument, but if you continue doing that and the rules lawyer can spin it such that it seems to be your fault and reminds the rest of your players that it was the same way the last time around - "Everytime I raise a valid point, you come down with that high and mighty attitude", tension will inevitably run high.

You have to end the debate so that you can play, yes. But you could have ended the debate in favor of the rules lawyer. If your players accept that, then they have understood precisely the GM is for.

[Jaid]

no one said it was the GM's job to shut down the rules lawyer. the indication was the the GM should try to decide what he feels is the best solution, make a judgement call, and that's it. should he listen to the rules lawyer's points? absolutely. should he agree with the rules lawyer in certain situations? absolutely. no one ever said otherwise.

the point made was that it's the GM's job to make judgement calls, and the players need to accept that because it is an absolute requirement of any PnP RPG that the GM make some judgement calls. and as was said, if the players are not willing to accept that the GM will make those calls, then they should be playing a CPRG instead, because if you're not going to allow a GM to make judgement calls then there's no point in having one.

now, if you happen to have 10 hours for a session, and everyone enjoys the debate, and you're more getting together just to get together rather than to play something, then certainly it's not a problem to have a drawn-out rules discussion. but if you've got 3 hours to play, once a month, and everyone is there to play, then there just isn't enough time to spend more than a minute or so discussing it, and then move on. i highly doubt that any game will ever be made where the rules either contradict themselves or don't cover anything. it is for precisely those situations why you have a game master instead of a chief executive of the co-operative storytelling committee.

[ixombie]

It is a kind of attack. It is not direct at the GM per se, it is meant for the other players' consumptions.

Shadowrun is a jury trial because the players have to be having fun. You can shut down a rules-lawyering argument, but if you continue doing that and the rules lawyer can spin it such that it seems to be your fault and reminds the rest of your players that it was the same way the last time around - "Everytime I raise a valid point, you come down with that high and mighty attitude", tension will inevitably run high.

You have to end the debate so that you can play, yes. But you could have ended the debate in favor of the rules lawyer. If your players accept that, then they have understood precisely the GM is for.

Dude. If you have a player in your group that a) challenges your authority and b) uses that to manipulate the players to turn against you... Why??? For the love of god, why haven't you either gotten rid of him, or asked him to behave? He actively tries to undermine the game by being stubborn on technical rules issues, and you just take it? He tells you you're high and mighty for making a judgment call so that the players will unite against you and wreck the game? He's not a rules lawyer; lawyers know how to treat a judge with respect. He's a rules baby. I'd say put him down for a nap.

[toturi]

Dude. If you have a player in your group that a) challenges your authority and b) uses that to manipulate the players to turn against you... Why??? For the love of god, why haven't you either gotten rid of him, or asked him to behave? He actively tries to undermine the game by being stubborn on technical rules issues, and you just take it? He tells you you're high and mighty for making a judgment call so that the players will unite against you and wreck the game? He's not a rules lawyer; lawyers know how to treat a judge with respect. He's a rules baby. I'd say put him down for a nap.

How do you get rid of them without appearing even worse? They do not need to tell you that you are high and mighty, they just imply to the other players that you are high and mighty. You cannot simply tell them to behave because they can make it look like you are trying to limit their roleplaying or their enjoyment of the game. They actively but subtly undermine your authority as GM.

It might be easy to deal with 1 guy. Try 2 or 3 of them. And they can tag team or false flag. One guy raises a point, the other 2 agree and build the momentum so that the rest of the players agree as well. One rules lawyer argues his case, another pretends to take your side and "grudgingly" give in, then you got no ground left to stand on. In both cases, to rule otherwise would make you appear to be an unreasonable and unfriendly person.

[Jaid]

at that point, you're looking at getting rid of several players. unless your group is rather different from mine, that likely translates to either don't play with that group anymore (since that's just about all of them) or don't GM for that group anymore. probably the first, if they're actively coordinating their efforts and plotting to make your job as GM harder. quite frankly, it's a lot of work as is... no one needs that kind of drek.

so basically, how do you get rid of a group of players who actively work to make your job suck? simple. leave the group. (and for the record, if these are your 'friends' that are teaming up to screw you over, then perhaps you ought to re-examine what qualifications someone needs to meet before being considered a friend. a good GM is hard to come by has been my experience, so if you want there's good odds you can find another group, online if nowhere else)

[Cain]

In my experience, players don't tend to roll over and blindly accept every pronouncement the GM hands down. Simply saying: "I'm the GM, this is how it's going to go" is a good way to lose your GM seat, if not your group and a bundle of friends.

A good ruleset minimizes the need for GM fiat. It has few unclear areas, and protects both the Gm and the players from abuses from either side. There are no loopholes for rules-lawyers to manipulate, while still leaving enough narrative flexibility for a good story. And thus, it means everyone has more fun, and fun is the whole point of the game.

We here are too used to seeing things from the GM's point of view. Try thinking like a player more often. The things that are annoying to a GM might be exactly what makes things fun for a player. A GM is *not* any more important than any other player. You as a GM have more responsibility, but your right to have fun does not trump the players. Just because you like/dislike something does not give you the right to force it onto the other players. Being a GM does not give you an entitlement. You have the exact same right to fun as the everybody else.

[ArkonC]

I think it is important for both the players and the GM to have a good, clear and coherent basic rule set...
I don't think this limits anyone in any way, it just tells players how the "world" works, so they know what to expect...
I mean imagine the rules said "at the GMs discretion you may be allowed to dodge ranged attacks" that means players do not know how the world works, it depends on how the GM feels, having the rules allow or disallow it gives players more freedom because of this...
This doesn't mean the rules should cover everything, but it should have clear basic rules on how things work...
Not having clear rules for jumping means no player can estimate wether he can jump over a 1 meter high wall or not...
Now I know this actually has a place in RPGs like HoL and Paranoia, this flexibility of reality has no place in SR...
Other things, like for example what happens to the spirit once the body dies, should only be made with possible suggestions as GMs should be able to decide these things on a case by case basis...
Some things that the book says are at the GMs discretion really shouldn't be, this doesn't mean the GM cannot veto the players choice, like the latent awakening quality, it gives the GM the choice of when and how the character awakens, but if my players really wants his character to awaken as an Adept and I turn him into an aspected conjurer, am I really doing anyone a favor?
I am usually the GM in our groups and a good ruleset gives people the freedom and frame of reference to make the characters they want to play...

And I shouldn't write anything after coming home at 7 in the morning after drinking too much...

[Dayhawk]

My rules lawyer says that he needs to know the clear rules about all the main stuff and most corner cases. His argument is that he can't design a character he will enjoy because his concept and how his character actually plays out might be very different once the game starts.

It's hard to argue against that sort of thing, but then again, when your concept is "I'm a total bad ass"....

[hyzmarca]

The way to shut down rules lawyers is simple, procedure. Before play begins, decide on a procedure to use for rules ambiguities as a group. Make this procedure narrow and restrictive so that it does cannot bog down the game. Thus, the rule's lawyer's challenges will be limited by procedure during gameplay.

Though if you're rich you could buy stun belts for all of your players and require that they be worn at the gaming table to insure against rules lawyering.

[ArkonC]

Cattle prods work too...
(Just have your players wear diapers if they're sitting on nice expensive antique spanish chairs...)

[Ryu]

I´ve always liked the Paranoia solution to rules conflicts...

[Ravor]

*Shrugs* Although I do happen to believe that the DM is the most important person at the table, there does have to be some give & take between him/her and the players or everything will fall apart, BUT that doesn't translate into allowing your pride to be smashed like a bug by a group of people who apparently in toturi's case are willing to lie, cheat, and steal in order to win an argument about a game.