Then you can't really play many games, can you?

MFB: (and I wonder what the "mf" stands for): Obviously your idea of what constitutes a problem and mine is completely different. You feel likeSR4 has so many problems in it hat it's unplayable. I disagree.

Again, if you don't play SR4, and you don't play SR3 (or at least think it sucks), why are you on an SR board? Other than the obvious "because I like to troll" answer of course.

haha. you're calling me a troll in the same post where you call me a motherfucker? wow.

i'm here because i like SR. i've given this question more extensive answers in the past; if you're really interested, go find them.

i do indeed like my idea of what SR should be. but i also like SR.

"Go find them" you seem to be mistaking me for someone who cares enough to put forth some effort. You, and other internet personas like you, just aren't worth that much effort. I'm only putting forth this much effort because I'm bored. Eventually I'll grow bored of your predictable sillinesses and move on, much like I recently did with Cain. But in the meantime, you must love abuse or you wouldn't have hung around here so long.

I never called you a motherfucker. I wondered what MF stood for. If you personal opinion is that the most likely answer is "motherfucker" then I pity you.

I also never called you a troll. I said that "because I like to troll" is an obvious answer to that question. It's one I've heard quite a few times, from people who were honest about why it is they do the things they do.

right. you 'just wondered'. what are you, in fifth grade? at any rate, unless there's any more actual discussion going on, hasta.

Hooray!

So, anyway, what I particularly like about SR4 are the static target numbers and the lack of dice pools. It makes each individual die's worth much more consistent and therefore easier to eyeball a character's expected performance level. I find that useful as a GM when creating the opposition and useful as a player to gauge what I'm supposed to be able to do reliably.

Woohoo! And to think, all along all I had to do was inquire about his moniker.

not throwing the baby out.

Well, that leaves your statement watered down.

untrue, for i have thrown out the bathwater and am even now towelling the baby!

wow, this metaphor has careened wildly out of control.

So you love SR but don't play it?

i play SR3 in lieu of a better system. if/when that better system is completed, i'll play that.

Good luck.

'Toweling' is a strange term for performing invasive surgery.

And so the circle closes.

thank-you.

You're welcome.

How can I be reporting GM Fiat? I haven't run the game yet. I'm reporting what I'd do if I had to, but luckily for me (as I've said before) I don't have to. Nice try though.

what are your thoughts on the necessity in SR4 of the GM adjudicating thresholds on the fly, then?

Necessity?

absolutely. that was the answer i recieved when i asked about shooting a stationary target at long range--if the modifiers don't reflect how difficult the shot should be, the GM needs to raise the threshold. you don't need a threshold against a living target, because they get a chance to dodge. but with stationary targets, you have to raise the threshold. or, at least, that's what everybody told me. moreover, that's exactly what the text of the Threshold section in SR4 says.

Oh, I see.
You are confusing fixed estimations with changes on the fly.

As a sidenote, no, you don't usually change threshold in ranged combat, that's what dice pool modifiers are for. It was one of your biggest gripes.

they're not fixed. that's the whole point. if the GM has a perfect memory, they might be, i suppose. but the reality is that players are going to face different thresholds at different times, while performing the same actions in the same circumstances.

That's a pretty moot point, as that is always the case in any gaming system using a 'difficulty' table for estimations.

On the long run, those estimations tend to fixed values, too, as that's how the learning works - even if situations are not the same, just similar.
Of course, in the beginning, there may be some variation, but this is mostly unintentional, opposed to changing things on the fly.

except that in most games, you don't use the difficulty table for common tasks (shooting, for instance)--you use the specific difficulties and modifiers that the game provides for those tasks. in SR4, you are supposed to use GM discretion to determine much of the difficulty of common tasks. at least, that's what everyone tells me when i point out how easy it is for high-end characters to perform very difficult tasks. if you, personally, don't do that, then you are the first SR4 player i've talked to who doesn't, and i have some questions for you regarding sniping in the dark.

"Gaming isn't about only accepting the rules we like and discarding the rest." Incorret. Every game out there will have rules my group likes and rules we don't. It's called "house rules" and it's an integral part of every gaming experience outside of tournaments, and even those generally have a few tournament rulings or bannings thrown in.

"Would you put the blame more on your own skills, rather than the system? " When did I ever say the system was perfect? When did I ever say it had to be? For that matter when did I ever say there was nothing wrong with my gaming / GMing skills? When did I ever say there had to be.

Tard.

---

On the side topic: I freely admit to changing things on the fly if needbe. I won't do it to make sure pet NPCs survive," or "prevent the group fro accomplishing task X," but if I drop down some stats wth the assumption the the guy is a threat and it turns out he isn't, I'll change those stats. Lofwyr shouldn't become a pussy because I had a brain fart.

Of course, if you're looking to play a street level and gritty SR4, you probably won't squeeze every last die out of the system to craft your living legend. Luckily for us SR4 let's you start as a gimp or a god. Go team!