Full Version: I guess I'm a munch?
| QUOTE (Dissonance @ Mar 1 2006, 03:46 PM) |
| I guess I'm weird in the fact that I'd like to have more spells. I could see how adepts could really benefit from multi-initiation, but as a mage or a shaman, I'd likely put off initiation once I get the one or two metamagic techniques I wanted. Generally, Centering and Masking. I did have fun with the one guy who knew Tattooing, though. |
The trade-off won't likely be as forced in SR4 because everything comes out of the one BP pool. SR3 character generation was kind of fragmented that way with different little pools of resources here and there. Even paying cash you were limited to 50 Spell Points total for spells, binding foci, initiation, and ally spirits (I could be wrong about that last one, that is a bit fuzzy in my memory). In SR4 you don't have as many of the same hard barriers to allocating during character generation. EDIT Although you do have limits on individual type of things such as the limit of double your Spellcasting rating for the number of Spells you can buy, and the limit of Magic attribute number of foci bound.
Another thing to remember is that Initiating remains fairly cheap in SR4, but it is separate from raising Magic. Together they are a lot more expensive than in SR3, although arguably each total point raised in Magic means more.
It is hard to properly assess Initiating far out ahead of Magic as we only have a small sample of the metamagic, but I suspect that Initiating out a couple of Grades ahead will be fairly common for Magicians. Right now it looks like Adepts will only Initiate immediately before raising their Magic because the current metamagic list is far less useful for them.
My mage started with Magic 4 (bought to 5, then got some implants). I bought my Spellcasting up to a 6 in chargen because A) that's his primary role in the group, and B) starting with 12 spells gives the character a welcome flexibility.
He's had about 34 karma earned so far. The first thing I did with my karma was buy specializations in every ungrouped skill that was central to the character. It was an efficient buy and it added the appropriate flavor based off his background and personality.
The very next thing I did was buy up my Magic to 5. I thought about initiating before upping my Magic, but a number of Detection spells seem to work better after 5 hits and I didn't much care to take Physical drain from them. Then there's the fact that spells cast at Force 5 basically have identical drain as their Force 4 counterparts.
Right now I'm debating taking my first initiation or upping my Body and/or Edge. The Body point would give me another soak/recover die, another Physical damage box, and let me wear another 2 points of armor before getting encumbered. Another point of Edge is comfortable in a self-explanatory way. Snagging my first metamagic is tempting, too (pretty much anything except Quickening is good to pick up early on).
In any case, I'll probably pick up a second Initiate grade before moving my Magic up to 6. I have no immediate need to throw anything at Force 12, and right now a Force 5 is about as good as a Force 6. Two useful metamagic abilities, though, would be nice. Cheaper, too.
Ahh, happy decisions.
He's had about 34 karma earned so far. The first thing I did with my karma was buy specializations in every ungrouped skill that was central to the character. It was an efficient buy and it added the appropriate flavor based off his background and personality.
The very next thing I did was buy up my Magic to 5. I thought about initiating before upping my Magic, but a number of Detection spells seem to work better after 5 hits and I didn't much care to take Physical drain from them. Then there's the fact that spells cast at Force 5 basically have identical drain as their Force 4 counterparts.
Right now I'm debating taking my first initiation or upping my Body and/or Edge. The Body point would give me another soak/recover die, another Physical damage box, and let me wear another 2 points of armor before getting encumbered. Another point of Edge is comfortable in a self-explanatory way. Snagging my first metamagic is tempting, too (pretty much anything except Quickening is good to pick up early on).
In any case, I'll probably pick up a second Initiate grade before moving my Magic up to 6. I have no immediate need to throw anything at Force 12, and right now a Force 5 is about as good as a Force 6. Two useful metamagic abilities, though, would be nice. Cheaper, too.
Ahh, happy decisions.
Physical Mask FTW.
Sure, you might risk your immortal soul for doing it, but what better cover than pretending to be an ork male between the ages of 16-24 during your next run?
ASIDE: I really don't like the fact you can magically heal physical drain now. That's just.. it really rubs me the wrong way.
Sure, you might risk your immortal soul for doing it, but what better cover than pretending to be an ork male between the ages of 16-24 during your next run?
ASIDE: I really don't like the fact you can magically heal physical drain now. That's just.. it really rubs me the wrong way.
What was your cyberware? I'm thinking of having my nihilistic fairy godfather of a Chinese village be a pure mage; what would be a good thing for him to have if I wanted burnout? And is burnout worth it once they bring spell anchors in that don't act as astral beacons when they're not activated?
I've houseruled around the whole healing physical drain thing to say it couldn't be done magically. Otherwise things get nonsensical.
| QUOTE (Shrike30 @ Mar 1 2006, 07:45 PM) |
| I've houseruled around the whole healing physical drain thing to say it couldn't be done magically. Otherwise things get nonsensical. |
Yes and no. Casting drain during action still is the same threat. Just like any other character if you can make it to a safe place with decent conditions a mage and a FirstAider you mostly get back on your feet. In fact FirstAid has more of an impact than Heal because FirstAid fixes Stun, can easily be rolling more dice, and doesn't have a chance of causing damage to the medic.
I like it because it is harder to end up with a player as a spectator for weeks of game time because they took damage. Getting back in the game may not float your realism boat, but in a fantasy world Realism is dubious and can bite my trouser cobra if it starts screwing with fun at the gaming table. Sitting around with nothing particular to do while other people play usually isn't a lot of fun.
You make a strong point, Brahm. I forget that heal isn't an instant spell. I suppose it'll be more of a problem when you get expendable anchored healing potions.
| QUOTE |
| So when it comes time to spend karma to bring their Edge from 3 back up to 5 they won't notice that their teammate was able raise their Magic from 5 to 6 and have nearly enough left over to Initiate? If he doesn't notice it with one other PC how about when he looks around the table and sees the other PCs doing similar things? Maybe he'll be stupid enough that it will take him twice. Or maybe he'll first have to play without those 2 points of Edge for a bit for it to sink in. But only the daftest won't notice, and in the end it doesn't matter if he notices or not. Eventually the PC is going to end up dead because Edge isn't forever, and a HoG only delays death. |
And in the meanwhile, I have to deal with a moron who hasn't learned his lesson. Or one who keeps his Edge low enough that replacing it doesn't cost him so much. Killing off the character for blatant stupidity is a much more effective object lesson than hoping he notices over the long haul.
The old HOG rule was much scarier than the "escape certain death" clause. Losing *all* your Karma Pool, and only being able to pull it off once, kept it in line. I've had players refuse to use HOG, preferring to have their characters go out in a blaze of glory than try to continue with a zero karma pool-- and this caused an amazingly fun storyline to emerge, as the rest of the team set out to have revenge on the guys who murdered their chum. I cannot imagine like that happening under the Edge rules.
If constantly having to use up Karma to replace a damaged Attribute, while watching everyone else get better, isn't enough...
then remember, the book says it's not a free ride. A character will escape death, but can still be hospitalized, captured, etc.
then remember, the book says it's not a free ride. A character will escape death, but can still be hospitalized, captured, etc.
| QUOTE (Cain @ Mar 2 2006, 02:07 AM) |
| And in the meanwhile, I have to deal with a moron who hasn't learned his lesson. Or one who keeps his Edge low enough that replacing it doesn't cost him so much. Killing off the character for blatant stupidity is a much more effective object lesson than hoping he notices over the long haul. |
If he is that bad and he keeps his Edge low? It isn't going to take long. Besides, just because he survives certain death doesn't mean his character doesn't end up captured and jailed for 25 to life wishing he was dead. It just means not dead....at that moment. Yes, sometimes there are things that are worse death. If you as the GM can't imagine them then maybe you just aren't mentally twisted enough to be a GM?
| QUOTE |
| The old HOG rule was much scarier than the "escape certain death" clause. Losing *all* your Karma Pool, and only being able to pull it off once, kept it in line. I've had players refuse to use HOG, preferring to have their characters go out in a blaze of glory than try to continue with a zero karma pool-- and this caused an amazingly fun storyline to emerge, as the rest of the team set out to have revenge on the guys who murdered their chum. I cannot imagine like that happening under the Edge rules. |
That is the symptom of a bad thing. You have a hard time imagining it because the overproportioned dependency on the Karma Pool isn't there anymore. Ya, if I had a 20+ die Karma Pool that was effectively the core of the player because Karma Pool dominated the game so much that'd be a tough security blanket to let go of.
It certainly doesn't preclude a player deciding their character is going out in a blaze of glory rather than cow down. It also doesn't preclude they get in too deep, burn through all their Edge, and end up dead anyway.
| QUOTE |
| If he is that bad and he keeps his Edge low? It isn't going to take long. |
Since most of the archetypes in the book are Edge 1-3, he won't be that low. And in the meanwhile, I have a disruptive influence in my games, and I can't give him a legal object lesson. I've tried all kinds of twisted things to characters, and I can tell you that the simple threat of PC death works better than Bubba the Love Troll with a crate of sandpaper Trojans.
| QUOTE |
| You have a hard time imagining it because the overproportioned dependency on the Karma Pool isn't there anymore. Ya, if I had a 20+ die Karma Pool that was effectively the core of the player because Karma Pool dominated the game so much that'd be a tough security blanket to let go of. It certainly doesn't preclude a player deciding their character is going out in a blaze of glory rather than cow down. It also doesn't preclude they get in too deep, burn through all their Edge, and end up dead anyway. |
I've been playing since 1989, and I've never seen a character that was run all the way through (e.g., not created and advanced with Karma pre-game) that had a double-digit karma pool. The players who refused to let their characters use HoG had less than five karma pool, and one only had three. I can't imagine people using the escape certain death clause in nearly the same way, since it's not as severe or as dramatic.
For example, one time when a player invoked HoG was when he was essentially going to sacrifice himself, staying behind to try and disarm a nuclear device while his teammates escaped. It seems much less dramatic to have a player say: "Eh, a nuke? What the hell, I've got an Edge of 2."
| QUOTE (Cain @ Mar 2 2006, 02:55 PM) |
| It seems much less dramatic to have a player say: "Eh, a nuke? What the hell, I've got an Edge of 2." |
At that point, I'd gently remind the player that the rules answer to the gamemaster, not the other way around. If you take a nuke to the face, you die. Obvious metagame munchkinisms warrant penalization.
Or if you want to stick within the rules so as to avoid an argument altogether, inform the player that burning that point of Edge during a nuclear blast manifests a freak tear in the space-time continuum and the character is launched into the year 3000 with total amnesia. And no, you're not going to run that campaign, so he'd better make up a new guy for 2070.
| QUOTE (Cain @ Mar 2 2006, 01:55 PM) | ||
Since most of the archetypes in the book are Edge 1-3, he won't be that low. And in the meanwhile, I have a disruptive influence in my games, and I can't give him a legal object lesson. I've tried all kinds of twisted things to characters, and I can tell you that the simple threat of PC death works better than Bubba the Love Troll with a crate of sandpaper Trojans. |
If they aren't dieing, they are being captured and incarcerated perpetually, they aren't having things happen to them that are blatantly setting them back immensely, and the GM isn't pulling punches then guess what? Your disruptive influence isn't really all that disruptive. He certainly isn't playing with a blatant disregard with his characters well being because permanent Edge burns aren't going to cover that up.
I used Hand of God twice in SR3, and neither of those characters were played past that session. The one died shortly after anyway, the situation was just that bad. The other, with good behavior, should have a chance of early parole somewhere around the time the mana drops off and the 7th World starts. Or he's dead too. I don't recall the exact details of his sentencing.
| QUOTE | ||
You have a hard time imagining it because the overproportioned dependency on the Karma Pool isn't there anymore. Ya, if I had a 20+ die Karma Pool that was effectively the core of the player because Karma Pool dominated the game so much that'd be a tough security blanket to let go of.
I've been playing since 1989, and I've never seen a character that was run all the way through (e.g., not created and advanced with Karma pre-game) that had a double-digit karma pool. The players who refused to let their characters use HoG had less than five karma pool, and one only had three. I can't imagine people using the escape certain death clause in nearly the same way, since it's not as severe or as dramatic. |
Then I see you as having a somewhat limited imagination. Hey, how about you go see Thelma & Louise to suppliment your imagination why a character would die rather than live.
| QUOTE |
| For example, one time when a player invoked HoG was when he was essentially going to sacrifice himself, staying behind to try and disarm a nuclear device while his teammates escaped. It seems much less dramatic to have a player say: "Eh, a nuke? What the hell, I've got an Edge of 2." |
That strikes me as a rather cavalier metagaming use of HoG in either system. If the character doesn't have at least a hairpin and a wad of chewing gum with enough time to to MacGyver their way through defusing the bomb (as in being normally able to roll a Skill test) then with me GMing I doubt they would end up with a playable character.
But no, HoG doesn't mean the exact same thing in SR4. In so small part because "Hand of God" doesn't even exist in SR4. If you don't adjust your GMing to compensate for that then the results aren't going to be that great because you are GMing a different set of rules than the ones being played! Given that death is typically a much shorter trip away in SR4, I view it as a very good thing that a once in a PC's lifetime rule isn't in there.
If a player insists on surviving ground zero for a nuke, I'm fine with that.
"Looking around, you aren't sure where you are. Based on watching a lot of trid, your guess is you're on the astral plane."
"But I'm mundane!"
"You aren't sure where your body is. You think it might have been destroyed in that really bright flash a moment ago."
"Looking around, you aren't sure where you are. Based on watching a lot of trid, your guess is you're on the astral plane."
"But I'm mundane!"
"You aren't sure where your body is. You think it might have been destroyed in that really bright flash a moment ago."
| QUOTE |
| At that point, I'd gently remind the player that the rules answer to the gamemaster, not the other way around. If you take a nuke to the face, you die. Obvious metagame munchkinisms warrant penalization. Or if you want to stick within the rules so as to avoid an argument altogether, inform the player that burning that point of Edge during a nuclear blast manifests a freak tear in the space-time continuum and the character is launched into the year 3000 with total amnesia. And no, you're not going to run that campaign, so he'd better make up a new guy for 2070. |
I also do a lot of SR Missions, where you're not allowed to monkey with the RAW. If someone finds an abusive loophole in the rules, you *have* to allow it in Missions, since all the fixes are house rules.
| QUOTE |
| If they aren't dieing, they are being captured and incarcerated perpetually, they aren't having things happen to them that are blatantly setting them back immensely, and the GM isn't pulling punches then guess what? Your disruptive influence isn't really all that disruptive. He certainly isn't playing with a blatant disregard with his characters well being because permanent Edge burns aren't going to cover that up. |
You're pushing the line, here. I've seen players who have had all of that happen to them, and they didn't stop. A single PC death, and they stopped. Hell, just the threat of PC death is usually enough. Once that threat is removed, however, I've seen good players start getting stupid. If you've GM'ed a lot, you'd know that subtle hints and threats are much better at keeping games flowing than flagrantly abusing your GM abilities to throw wild penalties at problem players.
| QUOTE |
| Then I see you as having a somewhat limited imagination. |
And *that* was over the line. I haven't been insulting your obvious lack of GM experience, so you can quit insulting twenty five-plus years of GM experience. I can't imagine it, because it's not going to happen in SR4. The rule clearly says that they get to "survive to fight another day". As a Missions GM, I am not allowed to give a PC a well-deserved lifetime incarceration once they've invoked the "Escape Certain Death" rule, because they have to be able to fight later on. In my home games, I can change the rule; but in Missions, it's the RAW or nothing. Once the rule is invoked, there is nothing a GM can do without invoking GM fiat, and inviting charges of favoritism.
| QUOTE |
| That strikes me as a rather cavalier metagaming use of HoG in either system. If the character doesn't have at least a hairpin and a wad of chewing gum with enough time to to MacGyver their way through defusing the bomb (as in being normally able to roll a Skill test) then with me GMing I doubt they would end up with a playable character. |
He did have both skills and tools, although he was at a serious penalty. And I'm glad you weren't GMing, if you're just arbitrarily deciding who gets to have a playable character or not. I believe in fair play. It was a wonderfully tense scene, that left everyone sweating and shaking and laughing in the end. None of that would have happened if I did what you're saying: screw over the player because he found something clever to do.
| QUOTE |
| But no, HoG doesn't mean the exact same thing in SR4. In so small part because "Hand of God" doesn't even exist in SR4. |
Wrong. Page 277. Besides which, I'm not referring to the HoG rule in SR4; I'm referring to the "Escape Certain Death" clause under the Edge section.
| QUOTE |
| If you don't adjust your GMing to compensate for that then the results aren't going to be that great because you are GMing a different set of rules than the ones being played! Given that death is typically a much shorter trip away in SR4, I view it as a very good thing that a once in a PC's lifetime rule isn't in there. |
You can adjust your GM style all you like; that does nothing for a poorly written, broken rule that allows infinite lives in the hands of a munchkin. And so far, I haven't seen anything that shows that a munched-out character is any closer to death than previously-- and let's face it, we're only discussing munched out characters in the hands of problem players. You have to throw something huge at them to get their attention; and the threat of death is as big as it gets.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| You can adjust your GM style all you like; that does nothing for a poorly written, broken rule that allows infinite lives in the hands of a munchkin. And so far, I haven't seen anything that shows that a munched-out character is any closer to death than previously-- and let's face it, we're only discussing munched out characters in the hands of problem players. You have to throw something huge at them to get their attention; and the threat of death is as big as it gets. |
No, there's bigger, and it directly addresses the core issue of a problem player:
"I'm not running games for you anymore."
| QUOTE (Azralon) | ||
No, there's bigger, and it directly addresses the core issue of a problem player: "I'm not running games for you anymore." |
Great for home games. What do you do for Missions?
I don't. 
| QUOTE (Cain @ Mar 2 2006, 04:53 PM) | ||
I also do a lot of SR Missions, where you're not allowed to monkey with the RAW. If someone finds an abusive loophole in the rules, you *have* to allow it in Missions, since all the fixes are house rules. |
Missions is another excellent place to not have a 1 use limit. You show up with your character at the table of a problem GM and your character is even more screwed.
| QUOTE | ||
You're pushing the line, here. I've seen players who have had all of that happen to them, and they didn't stop. A single PC death, and they stopped. Hell, just the threat of PC death is usually enough. Once that threat is removed, however, I've seen good players start getting stupid. If you've GM'ed a lot, you'd know that subtle hints and threats are much better at keeping games flowing than flagrantly abusing your GM abilities to throw wild penalties at problem players. |
If I'd GM'ed a lot??? You aren't just pushing the line, you stepped right over.
As for character dead or character in jail forever because they used a point of Edge to have their execution stayed. Character is gone out of play, player doesn't have him anymore, the character is effectively dead to the player. If the player is too stunned to realize that the character is effectively dead to him then I suggest you get yourself a different player.
| QUOTE | ||
And *that* was over the line. I haven't been insulting your obvious lack of GM experience, so you can quit insulting twenty five-plus years of GM experience. I can't imagine it, because it's not going to happen in SR4. The rule clearly says that they get to "survive to fight another day". As a Missions GM, I am not allowed to give a PC a well-deserved lifetime incarceration once they've invoked the "Escape Certain Death" rule, because they have to be able to fight later on. In my home games, I can change the rule; but in Missions, it's the RAW or nothing. Once the rule is invoked, there is nothing a GM can do without invoking GM fiat, and inviting charges of favoritism. |
Sure, they get to live to fight another day.....once someone mananges to break them out of high security prision. Hey, high adventure!
I think though we see here the core of the problem. Missions. Welcome to large scale public campaigns and the social stunted munchkin pricks that gravitate towards them because they can't find a private campaign that will put up with them.
| QUOTE | ||
He did have both skills and tools, although he was at a serious penalty. And I'm glad you weren't GMing, if you're just arbitrarily deciding who gets to have a playable character or not. I believe in fair play. It was a wonderfully tense scene, that left everyone sweating and shaking and laughing in the end. None of that would have happened if I did what you're saying: screw over the player because he found something clever to do. |
Um, if he had the tools, skill, and time then he didn't to "escape certain death" in SR4. He would still burn a point of karma to buy a critical success on the Test which is something different.
So don't scold me and my GMing because you didn't describe the situation properly.
| QUOTE | ||
Wrong. Page 277. Besides which, I'm not referring to the HoG rule in SR4; I'm referring to the "Escape Certain Death" clause under the Edge section. |
And it says "Hand of God" where? That's right, it doesn't.
| QUOTE | ||
You can adjust your GM style all you like; that does nothing for a poorly written, broken rule that allows infinite lives in the hands of a munchkin. And so far, I haven't seen anything that shows that a munched-out character is any closer to death than previously-- and let's face it, we're only discussing munched out characters in the hands of problem players. You have to throw something huge at them to get their attention; and the threat of death is as big as it gets. |
That differs from SR3 in what way? That differs from any munched out character in any RPG in which way? You haven't seen anything that shows that a munched-out character is colser to death because you missed the part about running out of Edge.
| QUOTE (Azralon @ Mar 2 2006, 05:33 PM) |
| I don't. |
I tried a large scale public campaign. Living Greyhawk to be precise. Oi vay! Talk about a pack of backstabbing politics, innane S&M style GMs, and socially stunted players. Perhaps the percentages of these weren't a lot different than the general gaming population, and there were some great people in there too. Unfortunately I didn't like playing the hen digging through the cowpie for the kernels of goodness.
| QUOTE (Brahm) |
| And it says "Hand of God" where? That's right, it doesn't. |
Um, page 277. Second column. Halfway down. In big bold letters.
The point is SR3 "HoG" is comparable to SR4 "escape certain death", while SR4 "HoG" is does not have a corresponding rule in SR3, beyond regular old GM whim saving an important NPC. So SR3 HoG is not the same as SR4 HoG, and this can cause confusion. SR3 HoG is comparable to SR4 escape certain death, but SR4 does have a rule called "Hand of God".
| QUOTE |
I also do a lot of SR Missions, where you're not allowed to monkey with the RAW. If someone finds an abusive loophole in the rules, you *have* to allow it in Missions, since all the fixes are house rules. |
Strictly speaking, that's not quite true. I'm saying this as the guy that runs the Shadowrun Missions campaign. There's one very important rule that always needs to be considered first.
| QUOTE (SR4 p. 54) |
| When the rules get in the way of the story, ignore the rules and tell the story. |
If there's a rules flaw that somebody's exploiting to make your game suck, don't let him exploit it. That's the Alpha and the Omega. If the player takes up issue with your GMing, he's welcome to e-mail me at missions@srrpg.com or to PM me here about it later.
| QUOTE (Moon-Hawk @ Mar 2 2006, 06:04 PM) | ||
Um, page 277. Second column. Halfway down. In big bold letters. The point is SR3 "HoG" is comparable to SR4 "escape certain death", while SR4 "HoG" is does not have a corresponding rule in SR3, beyond regular old GM whim saving an important NPC. So SR3 HoG is not the same as SR4 HoG, and this can cause confusion. SR3 HoG is comparable to SR4 escape certain death, but SR4 does have a rule called "Hand of God". |
Oops, I stand corrected. I missed that one. But that is NPC only.
EDIT And burns all Edge, so it is somewhat closer to it's SR3 namesake.
HEHE hey Brahm move to central Florida. we have fairly stable players of that play Missions at the largest con in Florida and tend to have good if not great gaming sessions. and hey look at it this way ya got till February 16th - 18th, 2007 to get here lol.
Now if only we can get Fanpro to show some support and show up to the con next year heck I'll offer my services to help at the booth if that will get them to show up.
Now if only we can get Fanpro to show some support and show up to the con next year heck I'll offer my services to help at the booth if that will get them to show up.
If a player has his character sodomized, beaten, his toys taken away and then is left in a perpetual BTL loop...that may very well be what he deserved. But at least he survived certain death and can run some day in the future, presuming he doesn't die from BTL overdosage.
IMO--Just keep burning your Edge permanently, you will either not advance or die to some punk with a Predator when you have run out entirely.
IMO--Just keep burning your Edge permanently, you will either not advance or die to some punk with a Predator when you have run out entirely.
| QUOTE (Brahm @ Mar 2 2006, 07:04 PM) |
| Unfortunately I didn't like playing the hen digging through the cowpie for the kernels of goodness. |
Absolutely.
In many other games the PCs are the shiny heroes (incompetent or not) to some degree. They have to at least be all cooperative enough to -- in theory -- work together in some semblance of a team. I mean, that's not always the case, but that's the general idea. In D&D, alignments give a shorthand description of what's to be expected within a particular character's range of behavior. So anyone playing a jerk (inadvertently or not) can get called down on it in-character.
On the other hand, in SR, it's almost a given that each PC is going to be "dirty" in some way. Shadowrunners are mercenaries, and mercenaries probably aren't going to be nice folks. At worst you're the Terminator and at best you're Robin Hood. This does not lend itself to cooperative teamplay.
That's why I just don't bother playing SR with people I don't know. Our characters -- even if they're the biggest bastards on two legs -- need to have a professional teamwork ethic at the very least (otherwise they quickly become dead or unpaid mercenaries). Sure, Bob Adept might hate CyberSteve for fundamental religious reasons, but as long as they both do their jobs and cover each other on a run then it's still worth having them teamed up. Any rivalry then becomes flavorful side entertainment rather than a gamebreaking waste of time.
It's hard to find players who understand that and aren't also personally annoying for entirely out-of-game reasons.
| QUOTE |
| If I'd GM'ed a lot??? You aren't just pushing the line, you stepped right over. |
Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot. If you want to make this civil again, start by watching your own mouth.
| QUOTE |
| As for character dead or character in jail forever because they used a point of Edge to have their execution stayed. Character is gone out of play, player doesn't have him anymore, the character is effectively dead to the player. If the player is too stunned to realize that the character is effectively dead to him then I suggest you get yourself a different player. |
So, because a player does something by the rules, you advocate permanently screwing over his character? Wow, how come you don't have his gun blow up in his face every time he draws it? Or why don't you just say that Drain causes a mage to suffer permanent stat damage, just because he's got a good centering skill?
You can't apply penalties just because. There is a thing called "fair play" which does a lot to ensure enjoyment for everyone.
| QUOTE |
| Um, if he had the tools, skill, and time then he didn't to "escape certain death" in SR4. He would still burn a point of karma to buy a critical success on the Test which is something different. So don't scold me and my GMing because you didn't describe the situation properly. |
Don't make assumptions, either. I don't need to describe about a year's worth of gaming to lead up to one example. And I will scold your GMing if you keep suggesting that I arbitrarily screw over players for following a *legal* loophole that I don't like. Gaming is supposed to be fun for everyone, and not just for the GM to toss out his every whim.
| QUOTE |
| And it says "Hand of God" where? That's right, it doesn't. |
So, how do you like the taste of foot?
| QUOTE |
| That differs from SR3 in what way? That differs from any munched out character in any RPG in which way? You haven't seen anything that shows that a munched-out character is colser to death because you missed the part about running out of Edge. |
In comparison to SR3, Edge regenerates a lot faster than Karma Pool, and it almost always starts much higher. You might see a difference after two years of solid gaming, but you'll still see the abuses right from the start of the game. You are *less* likely to run out of Edge than Karma Pool, because you'll have more to spend, and it recovers faster.
| QUOTE (Cain @ Mar 3 2006, 12:18 PM) | ||
So, how do you like the taste of foot? |
Quite the rare delicay for me, I must say.
However notice that where you were talking about there was not a Hand of God. Come on in and join the feast!Oh wait, you are already here. No need to get civil, conversation is over.
| QUOTE |
| Quite the rare delicay for me, I must say. However notice that where you were talking about there was not a Hand of God. |
Umm...
| QUOTE | ||||
And it says "Hand of God" where? That's right, it doesn't. |
Right where I said it does. Page 277. Page references are a wonderful thing.
| QUOTE (Cain @ Mar 3 2006, 12:41 PM) | ||||||||
Umm...
Right where I said it does. Page 277. Page references are a wonderful thing. |
For N-P-Cs. But it doesn't say Hand of God at Escape Certain Death! Which is where I was talking about.
Now go get bent....and maybe even learn to be GM before you preach about it.
| QUOTE |
| For N-P-Cs. But it doesn't say Hand of God at Escape Certain Death! Which is where I was talking about. Now go get bent....and maybe even learn to be GM before you preach about it. |
You said it didn't exist, which was wrong. I suggest that you not only learn to GM, but you learn to read the rules fully before you comment. There's little details such as "fair play" "enjoyment for everyone" and "not playing favorites" that really help improve a new GM's style.
| QUOTE (Cain @ Mar 3 2006, 01:09 PM) | ||
You said it didn't exist, which was wrong. I suggest that you not only learn to GM, but you learn to read the rules fully before you comment. There's little details such as "fair play" "enjoyment for everyone" and "not playing favorites" that really help improve a new GM's style. |
Yes, and if the GM doesn't have the spine to close blatant exploitation of loopholes and enforce the spirit of the RAW then he puts in jeopardy "enjoyment for everyone". The jerk that gets his fingers smacked may not enjoy that momment. But sometimes, like the song says, you can't please everyone so you might as well please yourself. Or at least most of the people at the table.
| QUOTE |
| Yes, and if the GM doesn't have the spine to close blatant exploitation of loopholes and enforce the spirit of the RAW then he puts in jeopardy "enjoyment for everyone". The jerk that gets his fingers smacked may not enjoy that momment. But sometimes, like the song says, you can't please everyone so you might as well please yourself. Or at least most of the people at the table. |
Closing loopholes is fine. You just say, prior to the game: "I think rule such-and-such is broken, and I'm not going to be using it in the game. We're instead going to run with substitute X". That's playing fair.
What's not playing fair is: "Hey! You shouldn't have done that, now I see that rule's broken! Bad boy, here comes the Bovine THOR enema!" You don't penalize players for using broken rules. Instead, you tell them what house rules you're using before the game, so the situation never comes up. If you missed something, call it a learning experience for yourself, and remember to discuss it with your players before the next game starts. The sign of a new or bad GM is one who'll proceed to screw over the player, just because he did something that wasn't expected, but by-the-book legal. Players can and should be innovative, and constantly discover new ways of doing things; poor GM's don't seem to understand this, and punish players who try new things.
| QUOTE (Cain @ Mar 3 2006, 01:36 PM) | ||
Closing loopholes is fine. You just say, prior to the game: "I think rule such-and-such is broken, and I'm not going to be using it in the game. We're instead going to run with substitute X". That's playing fair. What's not playing fair is: "Hey! You shouldn't have done that, now I see that rule's broken! Bad boy, here comes the Bovine THOR enema!" You don't penalize players for using broken rules. Instead, you tell them what house rules you're using before the game, so the situation never comes up. If you missed something, call it a learning experience for yourself, and remember to discuss it with your players before the next game starts. The sign of a new or bad GM is one who'll proceed to screw over the player, just because he did something that wasn't expected, but by-the-book legal. Players can and should be innovative, and constantly discover new ways of doing things; poor GM's don't seem to understand this, and punish players who try new things. |
However that is NOT applicable here. You realize that there could be issues. You have the opportunity to do something about this up front. Yet you just through your hands up and say you can't because it is Missions, that your hands are tied.
Wrong. RAW gives you the leeway you need to deal with it.
| QUOTE |
| You realize that there could be issues. You have the opportunity to do something about this up front. Yet you just through your hands up and say you can't because it is Missions, that your hands are tied. Wrong. RAW gives you the leeway you need to deal with it. |
Yeah, but you're not advocating RAW, are you? You're advocating permanently screwing over players. There's a difference between saying "We're going to replace rule X with Rule Y" and saying: "I think Rule X is broken, so if you look like you might try it, your character will be teleported into a cell, transformed into a duck, and then have to last thirty hours with Bubba the Love Troll wielding a four-foot dildo. Oh, and then I'm going to take all your gear, reduce all your stats to one, take away all your contacts, and have Lone Star waiting around the corner every time you try to buy gum."
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Yeah, but you're not advocating RAW, are you? You're advocating permanently screwing over players. |
Wrong, try reading again. You might even want to peruse dunner's post. You did read that, right?
Over and out.
| QUOTE | ||
Wrong, try reading again |
Let's see:
| QUOTE |
| then with me GMing I doubt they would end up with a playable character. |
| QUOTE |
| Sure, they get to live to fight another day.....once someone mananges to break them out of high security prision. Hey, high adventure! |
| QUOTE |
| As for character dead or character in jail forever because they used a point of Edge to have their execution stayed. Character is gone out of play, player doesn't have him anymore, the character is effectively dead to the player. |
In all these cases, you're advocating rendering the character unplayable for using a legal rule. IMO, that's permanently screwing over a player character. Maybe not to you, but I don't know how heavy-handed you like to be in your games.
| QUOTE |
| You might even want to peruse dunner's post. |
I did. Precicely what does that mean? That if I don't like what a player does, I can screw him over? Nope, not at all.
Even in house games, you have to have fair standards. Moreso in Missions.
It'd probably be a good idea if Missions used a rule along the lines of:
"If a player burns a point of edge to avoid certain death, the character survives but may no longer continue in the scenario. The player should then email the Missions coordinator and describe what happened. The Missions coordinator will then provide to the player with a description of what consequences await the character."
Or just come up with a standard cert with three options that you can check. One might be loss if gear, another might be a flaw or attribute damage, and the last might be incarceration (gain of notoriety and the like).
I agree that you do have to standardize the penalties for using the rule in Missions. I disagree that you have to remove the penalties.
"If a player burns a point of edge to avoid certain death, the character survives but may no longer continue in the scenario. The player should then email the Missions coordinator and describe what happened. The Missions coordinator will then provide to the player with a description of what consequences await the character."
Or just come up with a standard cert with three options that you can check. One might be loss if gear, another might be a flaw or attribute damage, and the last might be incarceration (gain of notoriety and the like).
I agree that you do have to standardize the penalties for using the rule in Missions. I disagree that you have to remove the penalties.
What TinkerGnome said.
| QUOTE (TinkerGnome @ Mar 3 2006, 03:10 PM) |
| I agree that you do have to standardize the penalties for using the rule in Missions. I disagree that you have to remove the penalties. |
Ya, Cain removing the penalty allowed under RAW because he sees it as "screwing" with the character or player is certainly at the heart of this. He is creating his own problem with his on interpretation.
That cert sounds like a good way to proceed to find the solution for Missions.
| QUOTE (Brahm) |
| Ya, Cain removing the penalty allowed under RAW because he sees it as "screwing" with the character or player is certainly at the heart of this. |
I certainly understand it, though. I've played enough shared campaign games to know that there are asshole GMs out there that will gladly rip your character sheet to shreds with glee in their eyes. Giving guys (and gals) like that the leeway to brutalize your character isn't something I'm really comfortable with. Thus I am definitely in favor of having consistancy and/or limitations imposed on the consequences.
| QUOTE (TinkerGnome @ Mar 3 2006, 03:30 PM) | ||
I certainly understand it, though. I've played enough shared campaign games to know that there are asshole GMs out there that will gladly rip your character sheet to shreds with glee in their eyes. Giving guys (and gals) like that the leeway to brutalize your character isn't something I'm really comfortable with. Thus I am definitely in favor of having consistancy and/or limitations imposed on the consequences. |
In my brief Living Greyhawk career, which was about 6 month I think, I encountered a GM that decided that he didn't like the payout from the module. So he went out of his way to screw with the module to make it tougher for the PCs to succeed. Even changing around orders and locations of NPCs. When our group pulled together as a team at the table and still rocked though he again changed the things up and reinterpreted the goal that was required to be met.
They had this alignmenth thing back then, that you couldn't do an Evil act. They changed it shortly afterward to a limit of 1 non-grossly Evil act for every 6 realtime months partially because of such dork GMs because when we later found out what he had done he retroactively declaired that he was going to turn in a PC and de-cert for an Evil act, even though he hadn't said a peep up until then. He certainly acted like it was all cool.
That was pretty early on, I was there when Living Greyhawk started up. Not sure what they do with that now.EDIT
I think it was no coincidence that from a GMing point of view he was widely seen was one of the worst players locally that you could end up with at your table.
He certainly was no barrel of monkies either to have as a player fellow player.
| QUOTE (Brahm) | ||
Ya, Cain removing the penalty allowed under RAW because he sees it as "screwing" with the character or player is certainly at the heart of this. He is creating his own problem with his on interpretation. That cert sounds like a good way to proceed to find the solution for Missions. |
The problem isn't the penalty in the RAW. Lifetime incarceration, loss of all gear, and Bubba the Love Troll aren't listed as consequences of burning Edge. In fact, other than the loss of Edge, there isn't any penalty listed in the RAW at all: the character is left broken and bleeding, and maybe you can take him out of the session; but you're not within your rights to pull out the GM hammer.
Standardized consequences would be a good thing, but right now I can't advocate anything much beyond what the RAW suggests, without a very good reason. The spirit of the rules indicates that it's an escape to fight another day, a la the various James Bond villans; even though the player might be raping the spirit of the rules, that doesn't mean the GM should.
| QUOTE (TinkerGnome) |
| It'd probably be a good idea if Missions used a rule along the lines of: "If a player burns a point of edge to avoid certain death, the character survives but may no longer continue in the scenario. The player should then email the Missions coordinator and describe what happened. The Missions coordinator will then provide to the player with a description of what consequences await the character." |
Because the specific situations can vary dramatically and because I'd prefer to let each GM run their own game, I'd prefer not to implement a house rule like this. Rather, I'd prefer that the GMs use their best judgment for any given situation. In the event that the player and the GM disagreed about the situation, the player then has his prerogative to contact me.
In the event that a player were to contact me about this, my first action would be to contact the GM and get both sides of the story before pronouncing any sort of ruling.
Different groups have different play styles. I'm not going to say that a story driven game is always better than a combat driven game is always better than a strict adherence to the rules game. I'm just hear to deliver adventures and do my best to try to see that everyone enjoys themselves.
Well, to be fair, we don't know if there is going to be an issue with the rule in Missions yet. I have a feeling that one will probably manifest over time, but that's just my feeling.
| QUOTE (Cain @ Mar 3 2006, 04:21 PM) |
| The problem isn't the penalty in the RAW. Lifetime incarceration, loss of all gear, and Bubba the Love Troll aren't listed as consequences of burning Edge. In fact, other than the loss of Edge, there isn't any penalty listed in the RAW at all: the character is left broken and bleeding, and maybe you can take him out of the session; but you're not within your rights to pull out the GM hammer. |
It isn't a GM hammer, and it isn't a penalty for using Edge. It is the downside of working yourself into a crappy situation. All burning the point of Edge does is keeps the character from dieing at that point. The still have to contend with the situation they are in, and the ramifications of that. Reading into it that they cannot die 30 seconds later because they are bleeding profusely and nobody is able to bandage them up, or reading into it that they are not arrested and jailed, and perhaps even executed for their crimes, or that the character is guaranteed a chance to come back and extract revenge, belongs in here.
| QUOTE |
| It isn't a GM hammer, and it isn't a penalty for using Edge. It is the downside of working yourself into a crappy situation. |
It *is* a GM hammer, if all you're doing is slapping down a character for using a loophole. You've stated multiple times that the way you'd stop a player from abusing the ECD clause is to permanently screw over his character. In addition to the fact that permanently screwing over a character is the ultimate expression on the GM hammer, you're not pulling it out because the player worked himself into a crappy situation. You're pulling it out because he used the ECD clause when you didn't like it.
If a player managed to escape certain death through clever roleplay, you'd probably applaud him, and reward him with extra karma. But if a player uses ECD, you advocate making him bend over without lube. Well, that's just clever use of the rules. Why are you now heaping extra penalties on top of the character? The answer is: Because the GM doesn't like the way the player got out of the situation. That's why it's a GM Hammer, and why it's unfair to slap someone with extra penalties just for burning Edge.
| QUOTE (Cain @ Mar 5 2006, 04:13 AM) | ||
It *is* a GM hammer, if all you're doing is slapping down a character for using a loophole. You've stated multiple times that the way you'd stop a player from abusing the ECD clause is to permanently screw over his character. In addition to the fact that permanently screwing over a character is the ultimate expression on the GM hammer, you're not pulling it out because the player worked himself into a crappy situation. You're pulling it out because he used the ECD clause when you didn't like it. If a player managed to escape certain death through clever roleplay, you'd probably applaud him, and reward him with extra karma. But if a player uses ECD, you advocate making him bend over without lube. Well, that's just clever use of the rules. Why are you now heaping extra penalties on top of the character? The answer is: Because the GM doesn't like the way the player got out of the situation. That's why it's a GM Hammer, and why it's unfair to slap someone with extra penalties just for burning Edge. |
The 'loophole' is only created by a poor understanding and application of the RAW.
I am proposing not reading into the rules the 'loophole'.
You are basically arguing two different situations and mixing them up to allow you to moan about the results either way. You are the source and architect of your own problem. It doesn't exist without you.
If burning Edge to survive is going to allow "infinite lives" and poor play (together), then you're probably giving out too much Karma. I mean, you need some to regain that point of Edge, and the player's not going to be winning any awards for Good Roleplaying or Clever Planning or Advancing the Storyline or Not Being a Jackass, so what's he going to get, one or two, maybe three in a run? And it seems reasonable to not award that one point for surviving, because he only survived due to freak luck/divine favor/whatever, not due to the character's actions as such. So really 0-2 points per run. And if the player is playing the other runs well, not getting into near-certain-death situations, role-playing, planning well, and achieving objectives, then the game's not being that badly disrupted probably.
I know it's kind of late and I know that I should read through the other few pages of stuff, but honestly, I don't really want to.
My thoughts on burning edge to avoid death? It should be a thing you use in order to have your buddies bring you back, should you die and be unable to stabilize immediately.
Situations where they can't get to you afterwards, such as superior numbers, overdamage to an obscene degree a la chunky salsa or instagib, or a straight up TPK?
You die. Otherwise, they should be able to drag your ass out of the fire, so to speak.
My thoughts on burning edge to avoid death? It should be a thing you use in order to have your buddies bring you back, should you die and be unable to stabilize immediately.
Situations where they can't get to you afterwards, such as superior numbers, overdamage to an obscene degree a la chunky salsa or instagib, or a straight up TPK?
You die. Otherwise, they should be able to drag your ass out of the fire, so to speak.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.