Getting frusterated with SR4 rules..., and I really want to like them Options

[masterofm]

Ok so I have been playing SR4 for quite a while now and at every single twist and turn our group is routinely bickering on how rules can be applied to certain settings, and why RAW chooses to have things work one way but not the other (which then can kinda break the game.) At our table we have come up with house rule after house rule to try and jury rig the system to our liking. The problem is that when we look back on it we remember that what we are referencing is not in fact RAW, but a house rule that we had created a long time ago to make things smoother. Everything then becomes about trying to make the game work, and creating some sort of balance that allows us to work with the existing system. We don't view it as a workable system on its own however, and this is kind of a problem.

My group has really just reached that apex where we realized that to try to make this game work there is still much more time, effort, arguments, and nit picking then is really worth it at this point. I'm sorry I really want to love the system. I really really do, but I find it extremely annoying at the same time in some in game situations almost unplayable. Combat is slow and rickety, the matrix to us is one big headache, the magic system (spell casting, summoning, spirits, some traditions, spells) can just be stupidly over powered, and there are so many problems not nailed down that when you really take a long hard critical look at the set of SR4 books one wonders if it couldn't use a lot of tightening with less open ended rules. The universe is awesome, and my group and I love the fluff, however we have to consider using the same universe but with a different rule set since SR4 is giving us such a hard time.

In the end we have come to answer these questions:

Does the game have an interesting story setting? Yes.
Does the game have good clear cut rules that make sure things are clearly defined? No.
Does the game have a good balance system? No (and it has been commented by the devs themselves.)

I personally feel like when you would really love to have a rule nailed down that it is left up to the GMs discretion and vice versa (not all the time, but enough that it can be a little annoying.)

Since the first answer is such an emphatic yes it almost makes up for the rest of the failing graces that the system holds, yet I think our group with a sad groan must finish out our story arc and then find someone way to fit our characters into a different system, because like an abusive relationship we have had enough and must move on.

Sorry SR4, but we have had enough of this emotional roller coaster ride and have to get off now and the shame of it is we really don't want it to end.

[Cain]

Try SR3. It's got several clunky spots all its own, but it's also better suited for the Shadowrun universe.

There are some spots that need to be nailed down, and some parts that need to be terminated with extreme prejudice (Maneuver score, I'm looking at you!) but overall it's a good system that really carries the heart of Shadowrun.

[masterofm]

Yes, but it breaks my heart that after so long we really just have to look at SR4 as a failed rule set.

[The ubbergeek]

Try SR3. It's got several clunky spots all its own, but it's also better suited for the Shadowrun universe.

There are some spots that need to be nailed down, and some parts that need to be terminated with extreme prejudice (Maneuver score, I'm looking at you!) but overall it's a good system that really carries the heart of Shadowrun.

Carton rouge! Personal opinion =/= truth, and others seem to disagree. (Getting shades of the WOTC forums...)

Why SR4 is so 'less suited', anyway?


Same remark to OP. It's personal tastes much, don't means it's bad.

[Cardul]

Actually, it seems the problem is someone is trying to let realism get in the way of the rules.

From my and my groups experiences, if you use the rules consistently, there is not an issue. If, however, you try and rules lawyer everything, that is where problems come in. SR4 system is built more like this: THe GM is the referee, and has broad discression. Most likely, any problems with the rules are eitehr a) the GM is not using their discression to encourage the players to do "Cool and Awesome things!"(TM to Cain), or b) the players are more focused on rules lawyering then participating in a story.

[psychophipps]

I personally don't think that it's a failed ruleset, I think that it's a failed application of the ruleset. By not setting out a series of ironclad "rules" early on you can, as a developer or group of such, very easily fall into a willy-nilly mess like what we see with SR4. Add that they tried way too hard to port stuff directly across from earlier editions despite the complete shift in the system mechanics and you see the mess that we have as RAW today.

[masterofm]

I'm trying to make grammatical sense of your last sentence The ubbergeek and I just can't quite wrap my head around it. Yes I understand there is playstyle and preference to take into account, but our group is filled with nit pickers. The thing we noticed is that when you try and take a good hard look at the rules they are... well... paper thin and full of gaping holes.

psychophipps I think you bring up a very good point. However a failed application of a ruleset to me is still a set of rules that do not work. When you really tie SR4 together as a whole you get a bunch of icky gobbledy gook that needs a serious revamp to even get things running at a decent speed. I mean yes I get the GM is a ref as is a GM in any game, but having to throw out as many rules as our group has had to do, then why use the system in the first place. All our group has done is almost reach that breaking point where the rules have broken down so much and the GM is reffing to the point where the GM is less about story telling and more about reffing.

[psychophipps]

I'm trying to make grammatical sense of your last sentence and I just can't quite wrap my head around it. Yes I understand there is playstyle and preference to take into account, but our group is filled with nit pickers. The thing we noticed is that when you try and take a good hard look at the rules they are... well... paper thin and full of gaping holes.

Well, if you want rules for everything then I strongly suggest Hero or GURPS.

[masterofm]

psychophipps sorry the first response was towards the ubergeek not you. It just took time for me to write out what I wanted to say and by then you had already had a very good way of describing it. As a group we are still searching for a good set of rules that might still allow us to keep our story and characters in tact (as we are currently running a 2 year long progressive story arc and don't want to throw it in the trash.)

The problem we have is that the rules have gotten in the way of our ability to tell the story. So much to the point that we really get bogged down in trying to figure something out so we don't have the same problem the next time around. Yet this ends up happening so often the story has to get shelved for longer then I would like. That to me is the problem. Having to occasionally having to ref a call once a session would be fine, but it happens again and again every time a character wants to pull something that isn't a textbook by the numbers move.

That being said I really want to like it I really do. I love the story and our group has used the universe in a way that has just blown my mind. I have with the fluff witnessed the best RP in my life hands down. It is just such a kind of love hate kind of relationship.

[Cain]

Carton rouge! Personal opinion =/= truth, and others seem to disagree. (Getting shades of the WOTC forums...)

Why SR4 is so 'less suited', anyway?


Same remark to OP. It's personal tastes much, don't means it's bad.

How effective a game system is a personal thing. He doesn't like it, neither do I. In my case, however, I can't find a gaming group willing to try SR3, not to mention that my SR3 collection is about 300 miles away. He does have a group, and access to the internet, where you can find a complete SR3 collection on Ebay for about the cost of the SR4 base book.

Early Shadowrun rules, as clunky as they were in spots, were built for Shadowrun. They weren't cloned from another system, with details and fluff crammed into the holes. They had about fifteen years of experience playing Shadowrun, working out the kinks, and learning what worked and what didn't. The SR3R project is trying to continue that trend, so SR3 does have support. Once you eliminated the gross offenders (Like I said, my hate of the Maneuver score knows no limit), you have a system that is stable at both the low and high ends of the game. SR4 breaks in both those places.

[wind_in_the_ston...]

Masterofm, I don't understand what your problem is with the ruleset. And I'm not asking you to clarify, because you already gave an explanation, but I'll tell you my group's deal.

We play the rules as written. We don't question them unless something seems really wrong, but that seldom really happens. Our few serious concerns are usually addressed on Dumpshock, or even in the later-published optional rules, such as one finds in Unwired. The other times we question the book are when some rule was completely missed (is firing a bow a complex action?), or when the rules are too tricky to follow (hacking).

The reason I bring this up is because I think you're trying to make the rules something they shouldn't be. Is it because you want them to be SR3? Maybe. Is it because you want them to be more realistic than they were meant to be? Maybe. I'm sure it's too late for you and your group - I know how it is when you get a mindset about something - but this is my warning to others: concentrate on your character, the role-playing, the action, solving your mission, etc. and let the rules do what they do. You'll be much happier.

Edit: I just noticed where you said your group is full of nit-pickers. Okay, then maybe SR4 is not for you. But you keep writing in terms of the rules being poor. They certainly have their weak points, but on the whole I disagree.

[Cardul]

My roup uses the "Ok..here is what I am going to do, GM tells me what to roll and then if I succeed..." Simple. No looking back and forth in the rules arguing every little thing. GM's decision is final, no arguing rules at the table.
If you want to nit-pick, you are not welcome. Nit-picking slows the game down more then looking up a rule.

Our GM keeps the game moving, and fast paced. If she sometimes plays a little loose with the rules to keep it interesting, we do not care. Your group, though...I feel sorry for you if the only group you can find are a bunch of rules lawyers. Lawyers are not fun, Rules Lawyers are worse then not fun, they are Anti-Fun. Rules Lawyers are just control freaks who cannot accept that the GM is the final authority, or they are power gamers who want to make sure that they can tweak their character to the point of being invulnerable and unbeatable.

[Cain]

My roup uses the "Ok..here is what I am going to do, GM tells me what to roll and then if I succeed..." Simple. No looking back and forth in the rules arguing every little thing. GM's decision is final, no arguing rules at the table.
If you want to nit-pick, you are not welcome. Nit-picking slows the game down more then looking up a rule.

Our GM keeps the game moving, and fast paced. If she sometimes plays a little loose with the rules to keep it interesting, we do not care. Your group, though...I feel sorry for you if the only group you can find are a bunch of rules lawyers. Lawyers are not fun, Rules Lawyers are worse then not fun, they are Anti-Fun. Rules Lawyers are just control freaks who cannot accept that the GM is the final authority, or they are power gamers who want to make sure that they can tweak their character to the point of being invulnerable and unbeatable.

Conversely, rules-lawyers can be your only defense against a cheating GM.

Fudging a few rolls is one thing. But I've met two GM's who would use the "GM fiat" to force rule changes down the players throats. Often times, they'd make up rules on the spot, based on whatever they wanted to happen. They didn't care if these rulings contradicted other ones they made previously; the game was there for their amusement.

This type of GM hates nit-pickers, because frequently they don't know the rules that well themselves. They hate getting caught in their lies. Nit-pickers and rules lawyers are the only ones who know the rules well enough to call bad GMs on their bull.

How do I know so much about these kinds of GMs? I used to be one. I certainly like to think that I've improved considerably since then, but I'll let my players be the judge of that. If I am to use a house rule, I let my players know in advance, so there will be no unpleasant surprises when they discover things don't work the way they were expecting.

In short, I'd rather deal with a rules lawyer than a munchkin GM.

[Janice]

Conversely, rules-lawyers can be your only defense against a cheating GM.

Fudging a few rolls is one thing. But I've met two GM's who would use the "GM fiat" to force rule changes down the players throats. Often times, they'd make up rules on the spot, based on whatever they wanted to happen. They didn't care if these rulings contradicted other ones they made previously; the game was there for their amusement.

This type of GM hates nit-pickers, because frequently they don't know the rules that well themselves. They hate getting caught in their lies. Nit-pickers and rules lawyers are the only ones who know the rules well enough to call bad GMs on their bull.

How do I know so much about these kinds of GMs? I used to be one. I certainly like to think that I've improved considerably since then, but I'll let my players be the judge of that. If I am to use a house rule, I let my players know in advance, so there will be no unpleasant surprises when they discover things don't work the way they were expecting.

In short, I'd rather deal with a rules lawyer than a munchkin GM.

I'm not interesting in arguing about the SR4 ruleset (I rather like it personally), but I gotta say: these kinds of players don't fix bad GMs. Instead, they just create drama and bickering. The only solution to a bad GM is to leave.

[ThreeGee]

Unless the OP is going to specify his problems with the SR4 ruleset this thread is just fodder for perennial whiners like Cain.

As such it's pointless.

[Fortune]

However a failed application of a ruleset to me is still a set of rules that do not work.

I disagree. There are quite a number of people, myself included, that seem to have few problems running games under the SR4 rules set.

[Blade]

I use a lot of house rules, but nearly all of them are here to adapt the game to my needs rather than to fix problems I have with the rules. I also played RAW SR4 without any big trouble. So I wouldn't say that SR4 rules don't work.

But I can see how it can displease players and GM looking for a totally closed ruleset, since it requires some GM discretion. Less than a lot of narrative game out there, but still more than most simulationist games and more than SR3.

[masterofm]

We push our game. We as players always want to see what we could get away with next, the only difference is that if we see something that is totally broken we don't just scramble for it like some power hungry fool. The problem with that is much of what we want to do though just isn't there in the SR rules. So yeah we are rules lawyers in the sense that we go and actively try to find something in the rules that can tell us what we can and cannot do. The problem with this is that much of what we want to do when trying to push the envelope is that there is nothing really mentioned on the situations we bring up. I find quite a lot of wishy washy answers to questions where a yes or a no would really make things a whole lot easier then pausing game, or consulting dumpshock (to which then there is generally a disagreement on the question at hand.) Other times there are moments where the rules contradict itself. So fine go snark on the fact that we try to push the rules and call us nothing more then rules lawyers.

Here is why this off the cuff rules stuff does not work in our group. We have a progressive story where most everyone at the table at least pitches in what they would like to see out of the game. We have had 3 different GMs (out of a table of 4-5 people,) with three different play styles. So what do we need to do to tie it all together? Yes you guessed it the rules! We go to the rules when we have a question, because it is what can help tie together the whole story and also at the same time does not allow the characters to do whatever they want. If I wanted an "Off the cuff do whatever I felt like and get away with it" I would play a Whitewolf's Mage game. We want an awesome story, but at the same time want to have some chance, skill, ideas, and most importantly a rule set that can easily help us with all of this. I don't want a munchkin super powered game, but nor do I want everything completely tied down. However maybe our table is unique in the way we shape and play our game with a mix of story elements and rules to keep the players in check, while at the same time not turning the game into story time village with your story time conductor "railroad GM." Is it crazy that I don't want everything off the cuff, and that I don't want it to all be rules lawyered? The problem is we are turning into rules lawyers and nit picking because of the fact that the rules are not tied down enough when needed (like a large chunk of SR4's magic,) and has areas that we totally have to glaze over (like the matrix.)

Maybe it's just us. However we have tried really hard in our own way to make things work and have had a lot of fun when we didn't have to ponder over various vaguely worded rules, and then as a group come to a consensus and how we would like the rules to play out to better the game more then once a session. We love the fluff/story/universe and it's painful to have to ditch the system and find some kind of slap patch solution to the problem of keeping our characters in tact while using a different system. Like I said before I really want to love SR4 I really really do, but SR4 has problems and I think they are pretty serious after playing it for 2 years... at least with our type play style.

[Janice]

We push our game. The problem is we constantly push our game to the limit. We as players always want to see what we can get away with next. The problem with that is much of what we want to do just isn't there in the SR rules. So yeah we are rules lawyers in the sense that we go and try to find something that can tell us what we can and cannot do. The problem with this is that much of what we want to do when trying to push the envelope is that there is nothing really mentioned on the situations we bring up. Other times there are moments where the rules contradict itself. So fine go snark on the fact that we try to push the rules and call us nothing more then rules lawyers.

Here is why this off the cuff stuff does not work in our group. We have a progressive story where most everyone at the table at least pitches in what they would like to see out of the game. We have had 3 different GMs (out of a table of 4-5 people,) with three different play styles. So what do we need to do to tie it all together? Yes you guessed it the rules! We go to the rules when we have a question, because it is what can help tie together the whole story and also at the same time does not allow the characters to do whatever they want. If I wanted an "Off the cuff do whatever I felt like and get away with it" I would play a Whitewolf's Mage game. We want an awesome story, but at the same time want to have some chance, skill, ideas, and most importantly a rule set that can easily help us with all of this. I don't want a munchkin super powered game, but nor do I want everything completely tied down. However maybe our table is unique in the way we shape and play our game with a mix of story elements and rules to keep the players in check, while at the same time not turning the game into story time village. It's crazy I don't want everything off the cuff, and I don't want it to all be rules lawyered. The problem is we are turning into rules lawyers because of the fact that the rules are not tied down enough with areas that we totally have to glaze over (like the matrix.)

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I disagree mostly on the fact that I haven't seen anything in the rules that contradict themselves badly enough to unplayability or any rules that lacked what I wanted to do. It may be the fact that I played Rifts for so long, but Shadowrun 4e rules seem remarkably solid all told. There are however a lot of balance issues, but I don't care about balance so much as I used to, again, that may be the Rifts talking.

[BullZeye]

How about giving some examples where the rules weren't enough or were so utterly broken so it ruined the game?

[ElFenrir]

Our table hasn't had a problem, either. We find the rules cover most of the situations we need, and if we can't find them fast, we'll make a ruling that sounds like the best option, and then deal at the end of the game with them.

We haven't had a balance problem, either. I do hear often about balance problems, and I just haven't gotten to experience it. All the times we played the game, the party was always on the same page, all told. But the ruleset might not be for everyone; and I can respect that. SR3 might indeed be more your and your table's cup of tea.

[Cardul]

Something a fellow played did in a recent game:

He wanted to string a piece of mono-wire across a hallway at a specific height, what would amount to hitting the body of just about anything in the facility(We knew that the facility had its security composed of Human and Orks, with a couple trolls for their HTRT).
The rules do not cover what happens when you throw a grenade into a room and security guards come running out into a piece of strung monowire. So, our GM had to make a call. And she explained her reasoning as follows:

The speed of a running guard is really similar, to her thoughts, to the speed at which a monowhip is swung, so she had it do damage of a Mono-whip. Then, since it was not an actual attack, the PC had to make an Intuition, since it was involving guesswork, plus demolitions check, since demolitions includes placement of charges, such as a claymore mine., and this was similar to placing such a mine, though, since explosives were not used, she applied a 2 die penalty, 1 die for not using the right type of equipment, 1 die to represent the pure guess work involved in it.
She also had the player roll a logic+disguise check, +3 dice for the fact that monowire is very hard to see, and the only real indicators would be the attachment points on the wall. (Yes, the guy had to default on this one..he was a rather straightforward demolitionist, not one that normally hid things)
The guards, when running out, got an Intuition+perception test against the successes on the disguise test made by the PC, with an additional 2 die penalty because they were running from a grenade. Each guard after the first to run into it got a +1 die to their perception roll. Any guard who succeeded the perception roll got to roll Reaction+gymnastics to slide under the monowire, rolled against the number of hits on the original intuition+demolitions test.

None of that is in the rules. It is a situation that requires the GM to think on his or her feet. Unfortunately, it seems that the original poster's players would turn it into a an arguing match, arguing over every little bit of that, simply because it is not spelled out explicitly that that is how you do it in the rules.

To our group, if something is not covered in the rules explicitly, we just figure out what sort of skill test it would be.(Honestly...we tend to use Demolitions and Disguise for most booby traps, and the guy that did the monowire, with his Karma spend, got a specialty in Demolitions for booby traps, and bought Disguise. Next spend is going to be getting the Camoflage specialty for disguise to better hide his traps, as this was the third time he laid a trap).

I wonder if the Original Poster, though, is essentially saying that his group cannot agree on the skills(and, sometimes, attributes) used?

[DocTaotsu]

*pokes his head in*

Yeah, just talked to my players. None of them think the rules are "broken" in so far as they've been faced with a situation where they felt that the rules were preventing them from having fun. It is worth noting that we play fast and loose with the rules (Cardul has presented an excellent example of on the fly rules generation) and adapt accordingly.

YMMV, your kink is okay, but I think you're blowing the "problem" out of proportion due the eccentricities of your gaming group or play style.

Coming from a group that played D&D 3.5 I have never (alright, one exception) heard the complaint that combat is either slow or rickety. Perhaps that's because we don't sit down and calculate every modifier, every turn (I usually throw down a generic -X due to ABCD reasons and players announce they have the gear to negate some or all of that penalty). The only time combat has slowed down to a crawl was a situation where the players staged an elaborate prepared assault against an entire corporate landing force of 50-80 personnel. 7 ~480bp characters with plenty of gear made that combat slow as hell... but we still pumped it out and pushed through (and vowed never to run a combat that huge ever again).

[masterofm]

Wow Cardul way to take every single thing I have said out of context in regards to rule interpretation and what we try to create.... I said we have a table that is based on consensus. We don't just have 1 GM. If we had a single GM the single GM could say "my word is law" and players would have to accept that based on whatever reasoning was given at the moment. For consistency purposes we try to find the best solution to the situation. Generally it only takes a few minutes, but there is also the time spent finding out that the rules don't cover the situation. Can't you see it's not an argument but people trying to rationally clarify a system that has a spotty rule set? You can play this off the cuff, but its not the best option for our group.

We also talked about using monowire in such a way as a "trap" (because why not since it makes sense) we however ruled as a group that since micro drones received a -6 to spot checks (p. 102 in arsenal for reference) that monowire was subject to at least the same -6 penalty as far as spotting it as a trap and you needed very little for a contact point on either end (probably the size of a micro drone if not smaller.) We opted for the -6 penalty to spot as it was the easiest flat penalty to apply to the setting w/o having to modify too many dice rolls for various things. It then became an opposed test of the persons perception at a -6 vs. the persons demo (the monowire only be done if the demo user had a toolkit) to streamline the whole process down to a single roll on each end. We also figured that even walking into a monowire would do the same damage as getting hit by it, but that was not using an application of the rules.

I think the biggest thing is if you don't want to, or can't play loosey goosey SR4 is not a system that will work for you. I can totally see SR4 being fine if you wanted to play off the cuff, but the problem is the more invested we were in the story and the more things started happening the less and less the off the cuff style of play became an option and the more obvious it became that SR4 rules are problematic if you want at least some clearly defined borders that won't hinder game play. In the beginning SR4 was fine and we were able to work around it, but the further the game got and the more character progression that happened the more SR4 became a problem for our group.

[Cardul]

Thank you for that compliment, Doc. I am sure our GM would appreciate it if it wasn't for her disdain of Dumpshock(seriously...I may wish we had a real Official place to talk like thebattletech forums...but our GM? She was kind of hoping when here was down the last couple days, that it wasn't coming back so CGL would have to make an official forum...) I think one of the things that causes alot of problems with groups is the fear of tyranical GMs. Cain put it rather finely when he said that rules lawyers are teh only defense against such a GM.

The presence of rules lawyer, to me, indicates that there is a lack of trust in the GM. Our group actually has a player who is known for sometimes rules lawyering. Our GM, instead of going head to head with him, flat out said at the start her 3 rules: 1) She will never let a player die purely because of a crappy dice roll. 2) She is there to tell a story, and, sometimes things will happen that cannot be avoided, but she will never kill a character with them, and, no matter how bleak it might seem, there will always be a way out. 3) If she makes a rules decision on something either ambiguous, or not defined in the rules, she will explain her logic. With these, the Rules lawyer hasn't had a problem with anything she has done(even when she does not allow Edge Burns for critical successes on opposed rolls, and applies ECD only to actual, certain death, not damage taken in combat). But, the biggest thing she does is she is always upfront about what is happening. She makes all her rolls on the table, and is very much known to go, when a player rolls really badly, to go "Um..huh? I did not see that roll...do it again." We players basicly know she is not trying to kill us, so there is less of the competition feeling against the GM. We all know, though, that characters can die from doing stupid things, and, she will always warn us when a particular encounter is supposd to be at levels that are going to put the party to its limits and may kill people. (Oh gods! The CyberZombie this last week! *shudders* I am amazed no-one died...it even missed the mage with a rocket!)

Thing is, our group trusts our GM. It generally seems that many groups on here do not trust their GM....given how they not only try to argue twinking is necessary for survival, but how they always seem to react with a bit of paranoia whenever someone talks about what is going on in a campaign.