I have already explained how I run my games. Must I do it again?

In regards to the pocket secretary geting hit with a bullet...

I did not "create" the shot just to take away the item. I used an already existing shot to accoomplish that goal. Also, I had planned on upgrading them with a prototype version wtih more features etc. as part of the current run.

But, as a player you would not know that and would have walked away. To which I say, "Don't forget your dice..."

I do not understand how you would just walk away on "principle" because I tweaked your character. If it was supposedly malicious, why would I reward them?

And again, my players choose what they want to do, and I choose how the world reacts to them. In that case I decided on the fly to take away a players ability to call so that they would more appreciate the new item they were going to receive. If you do not lose anything, what would be the purpose of aquiring new stuff?

I reward my players for dealing with adversity. Would it be fun for them if I didn't?

Do you find excitement and enjoyment in a lack of challenges and lack of plot? Would you prefer a game that is centered in an arena where you combat mobs and do nothing else?

How am I supposed to create a world for your characters to inhabit if I am not supposed to create events? Am I supposed to create plots for your characters or not?

If I have a plot, I am railroading.
If I don't have a plot and GM on the fly, I am railroading.

What is it you expect?

Bullet Proof Glass Barrier Rating 4
So my bullet proof shades have a barrier rating of 4.
Each and every item in SR has a barrier rating. You just need to decide what the items are made of.

Kage, my players do not interact with the world, they are the world. The game centers around them and they are the stars of the show.

As for them avoiding a plot and you thinking it boring... That seems to be when they have the most fun. When they get to decide where to go, what to do, and how to do it, they have a blast. Some games, like the one I described earlier, don't have any plot at all, just reactions on my part based on what they do. Sometimes I take a little more initiative and interact with their world by tweaking the direction and flow of the game.

Whatever my methods, my goal is for my players to have fun. I just introduced two new players into my game and they asked me to run my SR game on their D&D night. They enjoyed it that much.

I am not the best GM. Frankly, I am not that good at all. I am, however, very good at reacting to what they do and that keeps things fresh and fast paced (and gives me less headaches).

I have found that they have the most fun not only when they decide the flow, but when they have to work for their ends. The games that I have given a bunch of stuff to them for cheap, they were bored. I just want my players to have fun and will do whatever it takes to accomplish that. Is that wrong?

I already noted that they took a bullet. It was a nasty bullet. I did not 'create' that bullet. There were already in a firefight. I was looking for a quick and easy way to get rid of that characters Pocket Secretary and that shot gave me an easy, mess free solution. The two reasons I wanted them without a communication device were so that they could not call in backup, and to introduce a better model.

They decided to take the job, they decided to approach the task in the manner that they did. Their actions allowed me to build a short adventure for them. At any moment they could have stopped and sat down, allowing security to apprehend them. Or, they could find a way to get out.

I have learned over time that my players stick to what they already have. The Poc Sec was something they needed and allowed them to call for help and get an extraction. They players loved the suspense on not being able to call for help that adventure. They had fun. Again, is that wrong?

It's just like determining ORs, which you, Polaris, seem to have no problem with arbitrarily assigning.

ROFL I HAVE done that. They decided to race RIGHT after they got them. A failed driving test sent one car into another... =) And that was how the night started...

hmm...page 96 "cannon" companion states as follows:

Armor Degradation (optional) (still being a number greater than zero, so it being a rule, therefore eliminating the "I am never wrong" statement of Polaris)

A character who takes a Moderate wound or greater damage from a non-Stun attack suffers armor damage. The armor loses 1 point for every multiple of it's appropriate value, (Impact or Ballistic) represented by the Power of the attack. For example, a character wearing an armored jacket takes a hit from a submachine gun burst with a Damage Code of 10S. The jacket has a Ballistic Rating of 5. If the character takes at least Moderate Damage, the attack permanently reduces the rating of the armor by 2 points (10 / 5 =2).
This rule also applies to Impact Armor, Hardened and vehicle armor (but not critter armor).

I hate being wrong, but I hate being a know it all, too.

The LurkingTroll

Losing the ability to argue with a GM = unfair and unplayable?
Why are you spending your game time arguing with the GM? You are supposed to be playing with the GM not against the GM or againt the other players - you cry "unfair" but in relation to whom? Who are you competing against such that fairness is requisite? Most games I have played in are entirely unfair; the players always seem to win.

Then you say it is a GAME not a STORY?
It is a Story Game..... it has elements of both - the idea is to have a general set of rules that give a framework to build the story on - by definition the rules don't cover everything and therefore it is CANON that you MUST make house rules for the parts not covered. Your idea that the absence of a rule means that it is impossible for that mechanic to take place without breaking the rules by making a house rule is absurdly rigid.

IMO destruction of worn gear only adds to the flavor and sense of being in the game. Saying that there are no, nada, none rules governing the destruction of worn items is untrue. Every item in the game can be assigned a barrier rating and object resistance by the GM using the tables as a guide. Therefore by implication they can also be destroyed. When and how they are destroyed is intentionally left open since there are an infinite number of ways and limited space in the rule book. It is just as unworkable to require that the GM present every "House Rule" for ratification by the players. This would either require decades as every possibility is discussed and determined - or would give away aspects of the coming game.

For example - the stuffer shack fight in First Run has "House Rules" governing the destruction of the junk on the shelves. Does the GM have to - before running that game - explain to the players the mechanics of this stuffer shack house rule - especially since the TN mods imposed by it could very well mean the difference between life or death for the players? Of course not. If the life of the player is not given that protection - then why should the gear on the player be given enhanced protection?

Just because Shadowrun lacks a hit location table does not mean the GM is being "unfair" by choosing to allow the possibility or even inevitability of personal object destruction. You imply that the purpose of the destruction is to punish the player - instead it is an opportunity to play the game in an unexpected way. Destroyed items give motivations to players, give them losses not confined to a health status, force them to solve problems in unconventional ways, and create interesting emotional states in the characters.

You also describe "railroading" as if it is some horror. A certain amount of railroading is necessary in any game. Especially if the GM is spending lots of time preparing for certain events or encounters. Sure it can sour a game if done in excess - but a certain amount of railroading can preserve well prepared game presentations that are enjoyable. If it makes the difference between the GM presenting a disjointed unexpected encounter loaded with "um" "lemme look this up" "just a sec" "wait it didnt happen that way i just found the rule" "actually he didnt say that he said this" and a well prepared encounter with flavor, props, excitement, adventure, heroics, and fun - then I as a player would be willing to have a little railroading so I could have fun. If you want absolute adherence to rules - where nothing happens without a mechanic for it - then go play a computer game. The games I have GMed and played in have always come with the caveat that the GM has the final say in anything that happens and can do anything they want at all. The players have the final say in whether they show up to play next time or not. These two rules make for fun gaming. Listening to a fellow gamer spend half the play session fighting over whether the GM can break thier pocket secretary or not != fun gaming.

You have an overwhelming need to be right that is amusing. You play semantic games to redefine the issues so that you can distinguish your posts as touching some other point and everyone elses as "wrong." Posting that shadowrun is a GAME and NOT a STORY is just one example.

The necessity of house rules is canon. Therefore the absence of a rule over some mechanic does not create a canon rule against the mechanic - it is merely silent on the issue. Any determination of the canon is by definition a house rule, including the determination that the mechanic is forbiden in the game. Your insistince that personal gear is "sacrosanct" is just as much a house rule as any other method for determining the possibility of collateral destruction of objects.

Another example - say one of your players spends all his free time with the ladies. (The character not the player) There is no canon rule for determining if he gets an STD or if he gets one pregnant. Is he therefore immune in the game from either of these possible outcomes? No matter how the GM handles it - the GM has made a house rule. If the character is immune to both - then the house rule is such. If the GM makes a set of rules to allow the possibility after the fact that the player has indicated their behavior and then the player throws a fit and walks out of the game - was the GM a bad GM, or was it the player who had a bad attitude.

If instead the player gets in gunfights, explosions, hit by acid balls, falls 3 stories on broken concrete, and beat within an inch of his life by a troll with brass knuckles, and the rules are silent on the issue of collateral damage, is the player really within reason to suggest that the GM has no right to determine if damage was done to the characters gear? Does the player have the right to walk away? Of course - nobody is forcing anybody to play this game. Is the player walking away for a good reason? Yes - such a player probably thinks they are competing with the GM or with the other players in a GAME where there is a winner and should therefore probably go play a fair game like checkers.

The purpose of the game is not to play out the inevitable results of a ruleset - or even to explore those results. It is to create a framework where a set of people can cooperatively make a interesting and fun story; such that we can pass the time here in life so that our perception of the time period between birth and death will be shorter. We play this game because we our rushing to our deaths which is the same reason anybody seeks out fun.

3Threes

I really don't know about the no-competition-therefore-it-is-fair part. And please don't quote Canon with me (I'll probably do it better )

The GM should be in sympathy with the heroes. But sometimes the GM isn't really on the side of the good guys. I submit as evidence the phenomenon known as the Very Evil GM .

You said that there is no need for fairness since there is no competition? I say you are wrong and the Canon rules back me up. I quote from pg. 251 fo the BBB, "Be Fair!" Two words, quite simple. What part of BE FAIR did you not understand? Did you read the rulebooks before you started playing or did you just make up the rules on the fly? Justifying your lack of knowledge (pg. 251, BBB) with "It's ok to houserule"?

One more thing. It is not a Story, not a Story Game, but a Roleplaying Game. Jeezus! What are gamers coming to nowadays?

Sphynx and thunderchild are two seperate people.

What, don't your Roleplaying games have stories? Or is it just one big string of combats and rules.

GM: Okay, new initiative pass. What is everybody doing?
Player1: I'm picking up the remote and turning on the trid.
GM: Okay, you can make the remote ready with a simple action and then turn on the trid with another, but you can't change the channel until your next initiative pass.
Player2: I'm going into the kitchen to get Ork Rindz to snack on.
GM (consulting blueprint of the apartment): Sorry, that exceeds your movement. You can get 3/4 of the way to the cupboard, but you'll have to actually get there and open the cupboard on the next turn. It'll be a free action to locate the Ork Rindz, though.

I mean, really. I think we can all agree that at least that there is as much story in a roleplaying game as there are rules.

Spirits pity the character who is taking a bathroom break.

Sorry my bad, don't see thunderchild around any more and sphynx has a character called thunderchild i believe. Forgot you were there, glad you remember it.

Well enough of that anyway.

So, what do you think - is pissing an exclusive complex action or just a complex one? I mean, could you imagine trying to summon a spirit while taking a leak? That would be one insulted spirit.

There is a minor joke in my group that the Task Pool's best feature is that it really helps you squeeze out those stubborn ones when you're on the can.

I don't know about you but a story is something I read before bed. I never played a story game before, so I can't tell you what that is. I play RPGs with my friends.

Ah. Then your smiley is correct. You are a newbie.

No fair. I'm a dwarf, movement rate x 2. Naturally, I can't run as fast as you!

You could if his Quickness was 4 and yours was 6!

Nope! High Force Levitate plus Movement Power can beat that.

yeah, um... sure - i think that only the very bestest poster should quote canon - the rest of us can make reference to magic cards and D&D books to make our points - we should make a poll to see who should be granted the title of the King of Shadowrun - could you start one up tot? I just wouldn't know who to list besides you ...

If you told 100 people to write an essay on what BE FAIR means then you would get 100 different answers. I have seen arguements that make the whole "depends on what the definition of 'is' is" look reasonable. words have context and that context can make and word mean 100 million different things. You wave words around like they are talisma used to ward off thought.

Of course a certain amount of fairness is needed in order to sustain friendly interactions - but the kind Polaris asks for is really more appropriate for a competition and not the kind of fairness necessary in a roleplaying game. Polaris assumes the GM is out to get him and interperetes the rules in the way that best sheilds him from an imagined attack from the GM, threatening that if he doesnt get his way then he will leave.

I dunno - maybe GMs really do have it in for him, but I tend to play with people I like so I haven't ever felt the need for the GM to "BE FAIR" in the sense that Polaris was using the word. When it was possible that my GM was making rulings that could possibly be interpereted as unfair to me, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and didnt stress about it. For Polaris the mere possibility that a GM could be unfair is unacceptable.

The GM needs to have a certain leeway when managing the game/story in order to keep it interesting and fun. Rules are not the primary concern and judicious breaking of rules can enhance the enjoyment of the game.

In one of the games we played we made a house rule that no rules argument can take longer than 5 min and at the end if it looked like it could go either way then we flipped a coin and that was the rule. Not the best way to ensure the most technically accurate version of the rule but it let us play the game instead of wasting time arguing over game mechanics.

I read them - thank you for asking - your interest in me as a person is flattering. I didn't know you cared. Though there are plenty of people who just start playing and read the rules later and I don't see anything wrong with that; rules can stifle creativity.

It is always ok to houserule. Everyone lacks knowledge. The two are unconnected. Don't worry though your quip didn't escape me - i know you meant it as an insult; but your Mother and I still love you.

My terminology was chosen to match a previous post. Story Game = roleplaying game if you were confused. Sorry to make you stress out.

Here is the useful content of your post, for which I am grateful. In contrast to the rest of the post it is a useful addition and contained information to help me better understand my position and clarify my articulation. You could have confined your post to just this, but then I would have been robbed of the chance to get a view of the person behind the post. What a delight that has been.

I admit that on the topic of fairness, my previous post was misleading and too general. See above for my clarification, which may possibly still contain error and likely fails to exactly articulate the idea I am trying to express.

3Threes

Hell no, It was just a comment on your ability to argue a point!

It was no warning. (and trust me it's a good thing you don't know the Knuckler combustion reference. 130+ post in 3 days i think. It got a bit heated)

Actually, that was perhaps his most reasonable defense. He was asked "is there a sexual relationship between you and that woman" or something similar, and while there was not one at the moment (is being present tense) there had been at one time. He screwed all that up badly, but that question was not an example of it.

~J