Metagaming, Cheating or not? When the GM does it? Options

[KarmaInferno]

online, people join games, and then dont' show up, or only show up for 2 sessions and then dissapear.
Every online game I've ever been in that involved strangers always falls apart within 10 sessions, tops.

It helps greatly to join a regular online gaming group, rather than just randomly hopping into pick-up games.

OnlineGameDay, for example, is mostly That Other Game, but it's pretty active and generally if someone schedules a game there, it goes off. If you get a reputation for not showing up to games you signed up for, well, you stop getting accepted. The community there is sufficiently large enough that reputation matters, and generally there's always extra players waiting who can fill empty player slots.



-karma

[nezumi]

Play By Post?
I don't even count that as playing an RPG.

Wow, and one post ago you were belly-aching about how someone else's opinion trumps yours?

[Yerameyahu]

sabs did say "I don't", not, 'it's a fact that…'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Everyone's so touchy. I was just teasing Fatum for calling sabs' earlier opinion "false". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Let's remember that everyone's posts are prefaced by, 'It is my personal opinion that:'.

[Grinder]

Let's remember that everyone's posted are prefaced by, 'It is my personal opinion that:'.

Well said. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/extinguish.gif)

[Warlordtheft]

I think live is better. People don't edit their comments as much, leading to a lot more hilarious: "Did you really say *that*?!" moments.

I like live, cause if it is online life is more like to interrupt and hey get you out of the house.

Besides you can't split a pizza, share dorritos and mountain dew in virtual space.

IMHO--of course.

[Yerameyahu]

I agree. For me, live is more fun. I've done both. Also, wow, we're so far off-topic. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[deek]

I like live games because I enjoy hanging out with my friends every week. Catching up on stuff, reliving old stories and experiencing and playing a game. Its fun.

I like online games because I can really focus on my character, the way he talks and acts. That's stuff that I don't normally do in my live games because my friends aren't really into it. They sometimes are, but if we really got into our characters as much as on online games, it would be way too serious and not be as much fun.

Both have their pros and cons.

[Cain]

Well, to get things back on topic, what do you think about GM's changing a rule mid-stream? I'm not talking about house rules, which are declared in advance. I'm talking about blatantly changing a rule in the middle of a game.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Well, to get things back on topic, what do you think about GM's changing a rule mid-stream? I'm not talking about house rules, which are declared in advance. I'm talking about blatantly changing a rule in the middle of a game.

I have no problem with it if it is correcting some kind of abuse. If player A came up with gimmick combination B that the GM and others did not spot, in play I see no problem with the GM saying yeah house ruling that so it doesn't work. I don't think players have some right to break the game because they found out a loop hole. There are obviously other situations where a rule-change is not kosher.

[Traul]

Depends what you call the middle of a game. I'm fine with it between two sessions, it leaves time for the players to change their character accordingly if they want to.

[Doc Chase]

Well, to get things back on topic, what do you think about GM's changing a rule mid-stream? I'm not talking about house rules, which are declared in advance. I'm talking about blatantly changing a rule in the middle of a game.

A lot of unspoken variables with that question. For certain things, such as "I'm changing the traning time to/from X to Y" isn't as much of an issue for me, though "you can no longer use Edge dice" might be. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[sabs]

Well, to get things back on topic, what do you think about GM's changing a rule mid-stream? I'm not talking about house rules, which are declared in advance. I'm talking about blatantly changing a rule in the middle of a game.

It's irritating. Although it does depend on which rule, and how, and for what reason.

But really I feel that you should never change rules mid game. If you want to change a rule, you talk about it after the session, and before the next one.

[deek]

I'm okay with the mid-stream rule change, assuming it was done for the betterment of the game (even if a player or GM gets dicked over by it). As long as the rule is consistent going forward and players get a chance to change their characters if they were abusing built to abuse it.

I really try to state up-front what I'm changing and how I'm going to rule, but when stuff comes up during the game, I'll try to make a decision right away and then by next session (which is usually a week), have a final ruling, whether it ends up being a new house rule or sticking to the majority interpretation of the book.

[Yerameyahu]

As always, the answer is 'it depends'. Maybe it's a change that makes the game more fun for everyone. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Rock N Roll]

Well, to get things back on topic, what do you think about GM's changing a rule mid-stream? I'm not talking about house rules, which are declared in advance. I'm talking about blatantly changing a rule in the middle of a game.

I do my best not to change rules mid-stream, or even mid-campaign. We are playing a rule in 4e D&D wrong and I refuse to change it in our campaign. I'll let it continue to work as we played it until our campaign ends (granted that is only 2 more pre-made adventures).

If I do change a rule, I try to discuss it with the players and give them a chance to change things about their character that are affected by the change.

I'm not sure how it would respond as I have only played a handful of short sessions of RPGs in the past decade or so.

[Shinobi Killfist]

god I'm going to use a 4e D&D example. For the wizard class they have a paragon path called blood mage and it has a power called blood pulse. (thankfully errataed) Basically it caused damage for every square you moved through. On the surface it seemed kind of powerful but okay. They people pointed out that larger size creatures take up multiple squares and for every square they move they move through multiple squares, and heck a push power is a form of movement, and you could easily push someone 4+ squares. If they take up 4 squaresx4squares =16 squares they moved through=crap tons of damage at like level 11. A player might have figured this gimmick out, and tries to use i in play. I have no problem with the GM house ruling it on the spot because it is obviously broken. I also have no problem if the GM deal with it for 4 adventures or whatever then says you know enough is enough that is out powering level 20 powers I am house ruling it. This is what I consider good in game rules changes.

Off hand I can't think of anything quite as extreme as this in SR4, but there can always be issues you don't anticipate that grate against how you run games. Sure you can try to adapt, but if you think oh direct combat spells are overpowered you may not want to end an otherwise awesome campaign just so you can insert a house rule.

[Rock N Roll]

Your example seems more like rules interpretation, not changing a rule. I will put my foot down about a rules interpretation to stop rules abuse in a heartbeat. That is the only time I pull out the 'I'm the GM' to stop an argument.

This post has been edited by Rock N Roll: Aug 23 2010, 09:05 PM

[suoq]

I'm also not sure what "changing a rule" is meant to mean.

Frequently, I've seen, in the middle of a game (and not just Shadowrun) a debate about what a rule actually means. When this happen a GM is frequently "clarifying" or "changing" a rule (often depending on one's point of view).

I've also experienced times when a GM needs to simply ignore a rule to keep the action moving. The amount of table time it takes to steal a snowplow is entirely up to how much handwaving the GM wants to do. Stealing the snowplow can be done in 5 minutes or 2 hours, depending.

It's also unfair (in my opinion) to actually expect the GM to know all the rules. Having to actually know Astral, Meat, AR, VR, and Entity (pilot/agent/sprite/spirit/etc) rules without having to look them up is really a lot to expect out of the person who also has to plan the adventure, including all that stuff the players manage to avoid doing. Because of all that responsibility and knowledge required, I don't fault any GM for making an on-the-fly decision with the understanding that if someone can actually find the rule for that case, the group may (or may not) switch to the correct rule on-the-fly.

As a metaphor, I'd compare the GM to being the World of Warcraft server. The main reason I'd compare them is that the GM clearly isn't the World of Warcraft server. The WOW server can't even meet the expectations of the average WOW player. Expecting the GM to meet those same expectations is simply unreasonable. As such, the GM needs to be cut some slack, at least as much slack as any of the players would like to be cut, only more because he's stuck with the hard job.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Your example seems more like rules interpretation, not changing a rule. I will put my foot down about a rules interpretation to stop rules abuse in a heartbeat. That is the only time I pull out the 'I'm the GM' to stop an argument.

Actually no its not an interpretation. 4E D&D did an awesome job of labeling every type of modifier, movement, etc. The stat blocks of a power had pretty much everything you needed to know about the power. While yeas they had broken rules which they are constantly errataing to make the game better, they were rock solid on defining the terms of the game so you could know exactly what a power did, and exactly how it worked. It is something I want for SR actually, I really want them to getting into the nitty gritty of defining every term and how each term works and how they work in conjunction.

[Yerameyahu]

Yeah, D&D learned the hard way to make mechanics crystal clear. Their players require it. :/

[tete]

Well, to get things back on topic, what do you think about GM's changing a rule mid-stream? I'm not talking about house rules, which are declared in advance. I'm talking about blatantly changing a rule in the middle of a game.

I'm ok with trying a rule out for a session or two even if it dramatically changes my character.

[X-Kalibur]

Yeah, D&D learned the hard way to make mechanics crystal clear. Their players require it. :/

Hah! I like it.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Yeah, D&D learned the hard way to make mechanics crystal clear. Their players require it. :/

I prefer clear. I can still houserule a clear or unclear rule, but clear rules allow everyone who is coming to the table to be at the same rules understanding point. I think more conflicts occur not from bad rules, but form people having a different opinion on what the rules mean.

[Yerameyahu]

Yes, vague rules do allow players (even theoretically benevolent players) to annoy the hell out of each other and the GM with interpretations. Very clear keywords and things (Dodge Bonus, Competence Bonus, etc.) do save lots of time in consensus-building arguments.

[sabs]

What D&D taught me is that no game can survive munchkin expansions.
*cough* *runners companion*