Full Version: Isn't possession overpowered?
| QUOTE (Brahm) | ||
Exactly. Following backwards to changing the rules to fit the made up vision that doesn't fit the the rules. |
So are we to assume that; dispite all fluff text to the contrary, Manifested spirits are in posession of "animal-like" anatomy?
I have no problem accepting the fact that APDS works better against spirits (CRUNCH) while at the same time allowing a spirit's imunity to take some form other then a "magic wall" which prevents them from being injured by attacks which fail to penetrate (FLUFF). My Devil's Advocate argument was intended to demonstrate the futility of trying to reconcile how spirit's "work". I am not comitting 'b', since I am not advocateing changeing the rules on account of my choice of how do describe the critter power "Immunity to normal weapons".
You don't have to have an anatomy for electricity to cause problems, you just have to be susceptible to any of the many effects electrical discharges have.
I thought about giving a list but it would just be an example of my lack of knowledge regarding the aftereffects of electrical discharge, so I'll let someone with more knowledge and/or time to read wikipedia a chance to list them.
I thought about giving a list but it would just be an example of my lack of knowledge regarding the aftereffects of electrical discharge, so I'll let someone with more knowledge and/or time to read wikipedia a chance to list them.
| QUOTE (Lebo77 @ Aug 9 2006, 04:01 PM) | ||||
So are we to assume that; dispite all fluff text to the contrary, Manifested spirits are in posession of "animal-like" anatomy? |
No, but your description that fits very poorly with the rules and that one you just gave are not the only two choices. Drag together all the canon descriptions in a post and I'll show you want I mean.
| QUOTE (Lebo77) |
| So are we to assume that; dispite all fluff text to the contrary, Manifested spirits are in posession of "animal-like" anatomy? |
Who needs animal-like anatomy? Spirits have been around (in SR) for the last 60-odd years... people have figured out how to shoot at them.
Or maybe there's some basic rule of thumb that works pretty well, like "shoot at the biggest part" or "shoot at the middle."
| QUOTE (Lebo77) |
| Personaly, I feel like non-magical PCs and NPCs SHOULD be essentialy helpless against high-force spirits. Let the mages and Killing-hands (or weapon focus) equipped players deal with them. You want to shoot them with a grenade and pray? OK, that migth do something. You want to make an "attack of will" against it (see Street Magic)? Great! Personaly but I don't think it would make much diffrence if you said that successses (or called shot) don't count for stageing up damage against immune spirits. Shooting a pistol against a F-6 Spirit is typicly an excercise in futility now (most of the time, baring an elven pistol god fireing APDS or something), the change woudl not be that significant. |
The problem I have with that is that it basically gives the mage PC the ability to walk all over any mundane opposition without exposing the group at all. The only fix to that is that all NPC groups must have magical support, which imo is unrealistic. Even then you get all sorts of tactical problems, like whenever one sides loses their mage, the other team retreats, hides and summons a spirit and cleans up the rest. So basically if the PCs gets their mage incapacitated, it's game over.
| QUOTE (Brahm) | ||||||
No, but your description that fits very poorly with the rules and that one you just gave are not the only two choices. Drag together all the canon descriptions in a post and I'll show you want I mean. |
Oh sure. Some spirits sometimes appear as strange looking metahumans. I get that. I also know that electricty has a multitude of effects (I have an Electrical and Computer Engineering degree) on all kinds of things. Feel free to ignore the first line of my previous post. Respond to the rest where I explain that I am NOT poposeing a rule change and am therefore not comitting behavior "b".
To what, the madness in the last paragraph about cranking up the game dominance by spirits being a good thing?
By the way Lebo77 do you have Street Magic? If so you should check out On The Form Of Spirits, page 90-92 as it talks about all materialized spirits composing of the exact same substance along with seemingly feeling pain from physical damage to their form.
| QUOTE (Brahm) |
| To what, the madness in the last paragraph about cranking up the game dominance by spirits being a good thing? |
No. I want you to agree that I am not doing this:
b) the GM starts visualizing in the fluff way of seeing things, and then works the rules backwards to match it so that much ass kicking by the spirit ensues.
I am not "working the rules backwards". I am not proposeing a rules change.
As to "cranking up the game dominance by spirits", I am not doing that either since I am encourageing useing the rules as written. (while provideing fluff text that is more interesting then "the attack bounces off".) You can argue that spirits as written are very powerfull, but saying I am "cranking up the game dominance by spirits" by encourageing the use of the FanPro-written rules is not a logicly correct argument.
As for the ad hominim attack of describeing my statements as "madness" I will allow it to pass through me as a hold-out round through an air spirit.
| QUOTE (Lebo77 @ Aug 9 2006, 04:39 PM) |
| I am not "working the rules backwards". I am not proposeing a rules change. |
Then what do you mean by this?
| QUOTE |
| Why should APDS work beter against things immune to normal weapons? |
Because canon is that they do. Same thing with electrical damage of whatever spirits.
EDIT
| QUOTE |
| As for the ad hominim attack of describeing my statements as "madness" I will allow it to pass through me as a hold-out round through an air spirit. |
Like your Fruit Loop necklace granting you the power of many suns, so are the hold-out rounds through an air spirit!
What's he's said amounts to "it makes no sense to me that the rules work that way, but I follow them."
| QUOTE (Brahm) | ||||
Then what do you mean by this?
Because canon is that they do. Same thing with electrical damage of whatever spirits. |
That was a component of a devil's advocate argument. (Nice quote out of context by the way. Do you work for any any political campaigns?) I was demonstrating the futility of attempting to reconsile the fluff text regarding spirits and the crunchy rules. We are discussing a game here. A game which involves Magic, siprits and dragons. Forceing the mechanices to perfectly allign with the descriptions and our impressions of how things "should work" will likely never happen.
I am simply encourageing the use of the rules as written (so as to not further enhanse the hoop-kicking power of spirits and preserve a modicum of game balance) , while embraceing a more expansive concept as to the function of the "immunity to normal weapons power" from a descriptive perspective (FLUFF).
Where is your confusion on my position, and where is your aggreement that I am not comitting falicy "b"?
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| What's he's said amounts to "it makes no sense to me that the rules work that way, but I follow them." |
Not so. I understand why they work that way from the perspective of game balance and design. The fluff explination is NOT coherent with the rules in some cases, but I don't see that as a problem.
Oops. Missed the devil's advocate part.
| QUOTE (Brahm) |
| By the way Lebo77 do you have Street Magic? If so you should check out On The Form Of Spirits, page 90-92 as it talks about all materialized spirits composing of the exact same substance along with seemingly feeling pain from physical damage to their form. |
Yup. I do not feel that effects my argument at all. There is some fluff text which states that spirits have no internal structures and are composed of some form of protoplasm which can adopt any shape. How does that effect my central position that the rules as written work, and that the descriptions of air and other amorphus spirits in OTHER fluff text describe them as being non-solid? This "protoplasm" the text mentions does not require the spirit to be a solid does it? What about water elementals?
| QUOTE (Grinder @ Aug 9 2006, 09:53 AM) | ||||
Who cares about the german developers anyway? |
I for one do. The fact that you are disaffected with some game direction decisions doesn't mean that individual writers aren't worthy of consideration and their ideas aren't exceptionally cool.
| QUOTE (Brahm @ Aug 9 2006, 07:44 PM) | ||
It would given the armor Immunity to Normal Weapons. It might make some sense that it would increase their armor rating, but there don't appear to be any rules for it. So basically by canon there is no support for that improving the protection of the wearer. |
This sort of option is entirely up to the GM. The possession rules as written allow for it (even if you're looking a threshold of 3), however, don't forget that Possession modifies any of the object's stats the GM considers likely. In armor this would mean not only granting it Immunity to Normal Weapons but also increasing Ballistic and Impact... something to consider. My player who tried this hadn't considered the problem he now had to deal with the impact of the modified armor values :evil:
edit - synner chimed in
AHHH! Modified B/I puts a damper on some exploits I hadn't even seen yet. So no 10/10 Hardened polo shirts for the Body 4 and down crowd.
Just pointing out that some things that look like advantages aren't always so. SR4 puts a lot of emphasis on the GM and his group deciding what is appropriate and what isn't in their games. Personally I'm a sucker for the way rules lawyers tend to be defanged when a printed rule actually says that ultimately it's the GMs call. Which is perfect for me I like my rules with a little flex, and its not like my players don't get a say.
Does this mean no two games are going to be exactly the same? Of course it does. It's just recognizing something that happens anyway. Take the "Tweaking the Rules" options in Street Magic. I forsee a lot of groups using options presented there. I know I am. But the decision is up to individual groups to tailor the core rules to their style of play.
Does this mean no two games are going to be exactly the same? Of course it does. It's just recognizing something that happens anyway. Take the "Tweaking the Rules" options in Street Magic. I forsee a lot of groups using options presented there. I know I am. But the decision is up to individual groups to tailor the core rules to their style of play.
But, nonetheless, a rulebook often invokes the GM when a rule is not good enough to be consistent, balanced and is not able to "stay on its own feet" as a way of cureing the sick rule.
Good rules should always provide a balanced and well thought through example of how a GM can do it, if he decides to follow the rule. One does not have to point out that rules can be changed, as this is an obvious thing.
Rules are there to give players and GMs a common ground to estimate a situation. If everything is "up to the GM" this basic concept fails. Either make a rule for something (so players and Gms know what to expect of asituation), or dont (in which case the GM decides things, and players know that he will decide things, because there are no rules for it). But IF you make a rule, make it so that there are no GM desicions needed to change the rule. If a rule is subject to change, it misses its popurse.
After all I am playing a game with a given ruleset because it saves me the hassle of finding common ground with my players and save me the time to balance everything myself. If I have to decide and balance the ruleset myself, because everything is up the GM, then I can make my own rules and do not have to buy a ruleook.
The popurse of a rulebook is to give rules, and not to tell the GM that he can decide things himself. This he already knows, even without a rulebook.
Good rules should always provide a balanced and well thought through example of how a GM can do it, if he decides to follow the rule. One does not have to point out that rules can be changed, as this is an obvious thing.
Rules are there to give players and GMs a common ground to estimate a situation. If everything is "up to the GM" this basic concept fails. Either make a rule for something (so players and Gms know what to expect of asituation), or dont (in which case the GM decides things, and players know that he will decide things, because there are no rules for it). But IF you make a rule, make it so that there are no GM desicions needed to change the rule. If a rule is subject to change, it misses its popurse.
After all I am playing a game with a given ruleset because it saves me the hassle of finding common ground with my players and save me the time to balance everything myself. If I have to decide and balance the ruleset myself, because everything is up the GM, then I can make my own rules and do not have to buy a ruleook.
The popurse of a rulebook is to give rules, and not to tell the GM that he can decide things himself. This he already knows, even without a rulebook.
| QUOTE (Serbitar) |
| If I have to decide and balance the ruleset myself, because everything is up the GM, then I can make my own rules and do not have to buy a ruleook. |
There is a difference between dictating a rule and allowing the GM to decide whether how best to fit it into his game. A good example of this is the much debated Called Shot rule. The rule says what advantages a character can get when using the option, it establishes when you can use it, and it gives the GM final say if the shot is possible or not. Some GMs will even allow you to use Called Shot in a Blind Fire or total darkness situation, others will not. That doesn't make the rule broken or even incomplete, it just puts the onus of establishing what the appropriate level of realism is in a given game on the person running the game.
The called shot example (although I consider the rule broken btw, but thats not point of the discussion) is (mostly) OK for me, but let me explain further:
The point of a ruleset is that when nobody (especially the GM) says anything, by default, the general ruleset applies. Thats what the ruleset is for.
This means that everybody has a general baseline. If something is not mentioned it is by default up to the GM (who else shoudl decide).
This it is important for a ruleset to always give a default solution. Even if the default solution is "WHEN rule X applies is up to the GM" as long as the rule stays the same when it is actually applied.
What has to be avoided are thing like "you can do it this way or that way, this is up to the GM" without giving a default solution. This does not help anybody as the rules will have to be discussed before gamplay, no matter what, or the players will not know what rule will be used (which might be bad, because maybe they are planning actions having one or the other solution implicitly in mind).
This also means that rules suggestions that are not marked ten times as optinal and not part of the standard rule set are a bad thing, because of they were not there, the GM would have the freedom to decide on the fly. But because the suggestions are there, players might assume that one or the other rule will be used and thus get into trouble when the GM thinks otherwise but forgets to tell players . . .
This is especially important for rules on very unusual things. Nobody will take the time to discuss every optional rule in SR4 and decide which one to take and which not to take. So it is important, that on occasions when a rule is used that is not used often, the GM can take the rule and apply it without having to think about the balancing and other issues.
If a rule does not balance the game for you, then it should not be written down.
To elaborate on the posession rule: The rule should either be balanced fully, or come with some advice for the GM about exploitable armor and such. This also helps the player who can decide that the GM might not allow something. If the rule is just written tehre, a player will in first order assume that it will be applied. As I said, this is what rules are for, after all.
Balancing is also a very important aspect of rules and a rulebook should deliver balancing and give hints on what could break balancing instead of saying: Well, this is a rule, but its not fully tested, so everything is up to the GM to fix balancing.
This post and my other post further up should not be taken as serious criticism, but I think that sometimes the ruledesigners are making their life too easy by invoking the allmighty "the GM will fix it" paragraph.
The point of a ruleset is that when nobody (especially the GM) says anything, by default, the general ruleset applies. Thats what the ruleset is for.
This means that everybody has a general baseline. If something is not mentioned it is by default up to the GM (who else shoudl decide).
This it is important for a ruleset to always give a default solution. Even if the default solution is "WHEN rule X applies is up to the GM" as long as the rule stays the same when it is actually applied.
What has to be avoided are thing like "you can do it this way or that way, this is up to the GM" without giving a default solution. This does not help anybody as the rules will have to be discussed before gamplay, no matter what, or the players will not know what rule will be used (which might be bad, because maybe they are planning actions having one or the other solution implicitly in mind).
This also means that rules suggestions that are not marked ten times as optinal and not part of the standard rule set are a bad thing, because of they were not there, the GM would have the freedom to decide on the fly. But because the suggestions are there, players might assume that one or the other rule will be used and thus get into trouble when the GM thinks otherwise but forgets to tell players . . .
This is especially important for rules on very unusual things. Nobody will take the time to discuss every optional rule in SR4 and decide which one to take and which not to take. So it is important, that on occasions when a rule is used that is not used often, the GM can take the rule and apply it without having to think about the balancing and other issues.
If a rule does not balance the game for you, then it should not be written down.
To elaborate on the posession rule: The rule should either be balanced fully, or come with some advice for the GM about exploitable armor and such. This also helps the player who can decide that the GM might not allow something. If the rule is just written tehre, a player will in first order assume that it will be applied. As I said, this is what rules are for, after all.
Balancing is also a very important aspect of rules and a rulebook should deliver balancing and give hints on what could break balancing instead of saying: Well, this is a rule, but its not fully tested, so everything is up to the GM to fix balancing.
This post and my other post further up should not be taken as serious criticism, but I think that sometimes the ruledesigners are making their life too easy by invoking the allmighty "the GM will fix it" paragraph.
| QUOTE (Lebo77 @ Aug 9 2006, 05:03 PM) | ||
Yup. I do not feel that effects my argument at all. There is some fluff text which states that spirits have no internal structures and are composed of some form of protoplasm which can adopt any shape. |
It certainly do does affect your position that the fluff explination is not coherent with the mechanics of the rules. For example it does state that there is no apparent central nervous system, but it then goes on to describe how it is affected in a way similar as though it did. Also whatever the apparent physical composition and appearance of the spirit appears to be, it interacts with physical objects in the same way. Outside of the elemental reactions specified under the spirit types, such as fire spirits reacting with water.
So it might look like water, or 'air', which not all water or air spirits do, but it simply isn't water or air. The spirit's body also reacts with physical objects in the same way no matter it's appearance.
In short it is an explaination that is consistant with the mechanics so as to avoid the player confusion I was talking about before.
| QUOTE |
| How does that effect my central position that the rules as written work, and that the descriptions of air and other amorphus spirits in OTHER fluff text describe them as being non-solid? |
Quote?
| QUOTE (Serbitar) |
| The called shot example (although I consider the rule broken btw, but thats not point of the discussion) is (mostly) OK for me, but let me explain further: <snip> Balancing is also a very important aspect of rules and a rulebook should deliver balancing and give hints on what could break balancing instead of saying: Well, this is a rule, but its not fully tested, so everything is up to the GM to fix balancing. |
Problem is you're considering the rule unbalanced without GM intervention, when in fact it works pretty well. There's nothing inherently wrong with possessing armor for instance. For most armors in SR (and a lot of the equipment which might raise problems - heck even a trashcan), its going to be a threshold of 3-4 requiring a spirit of Force 11+ to have a fair chance of accomplishing possession. Even if you're playing high-powered campaigns you're unlikely to have many services owed by such high force spirits. So while it might be a cool one-off solution it doesn't mean you're going to be using it all the time.
As for giving additional advice- there's only so much space and Street Magic is crowded - which is why we're working on something extra.
Is that something extra free?
It will be.
Excellent. Is that something a FAQ, or will it be jucier?
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| It will be. |
Cap or No Cap: The Drinking Game
I'll see what I can put together for an idea for the FAQ in the next day or few. Because I was feeling sort of confident about what was capped and what wasn't. But now I'm certainly not. I'm not alone in my confusion either, or I wouldn't be busting on you about it.
Well, OK I might anyways. But I feel better about it this way.
P.S. Your PM box appears to be turned off or full. Do you want me to email it or post it?
| QUOTE (Brahm) | ||||||
It certainly do does affect your position that the fluff explination is not coherent with the mechanics of the rules. For example it does state that there is no apparent central nervous system, but it then goes on to describe how it is affected in a way similar as though it did. Also whatever the apparent physical composition and appearance of the spirit appears to be, it interacts with physical objects in the same way. Outside of the elemental reactions specified under the spirit types, such as fire spirits reacting with water. So it might look like water, or 'air', which not all water or air spirits do, but it simply isn't water or air. The spirit's body also reacts with physical objects in the same way no matter it's appearance. In short it is an explaination that is consistant with the mechanics so as to avoid the player confusion I was talking about before.
Quote? |
Don't have my books in front of me, but I recall Air spirits as clouds, tornados, ect. and Fire spirits as bonfires (sometimes with metahuman shapes). See the illustrations next to the spirit stats for one .
In fact, I could use the given fluf text to blster my position. It describes that the apperience of the spirt makes no diffrence in how it effects the real world. "A spirit can cut you in half just as well with a cardboard tube as with a katana." I woudl argue therefore that the effects ON the spirit could appear diffrently yet have identical effects. The giant bolder that is trying to eat you might simply bounce the bullet off it's skin, while the tornado spirit allows it to pass harmlessly through. The effects the spirit experiences from these events may be exactly the same.
As for implying that the fact that spirits feel pain dispite not having a central nervous system, implies that is responds to ALL stimuli as if it HAD a central nervous system. Octopuses' nervous system is barely "centrilized" in that it has a number of nerve clusters which can control each arm indipendently of the central "brain". Yet it has been conclusively shown that they can feel pain. This is so well known that in the U.S. they are required to be given anesthesa before surgery. So the spirits may be able to feel pain, but may have a completely diffrent way of feeling it. We as players are not told what that is (we have EXPLICITLY not been told, as in they have said that the in game experts don't know).
What exactly is your position anyway?
| QUOTE (Lebo77 @ Aug 9 2006, 09:03 PM) |
| Don't have my books in front of me, but I recall Air spirits as clouds, tornados, ect. and Fire spirits as bonfires (sometimes with metahuman shapes). See the illustrations next to the spirit stats for one . |
Those are tiny little B&W inks. Plus the fire spirit looks decidely not like a fire, and the air spirit is also at least partially humanoid and appears to not be translucent in any way. Hard to tell from the pose that water spirit is in. But I think we've found a good part of the problem. How about picking this up again when you have the books in front of you and can provide some specific quotes?| QUOTE |
| What exactly is your position anyway? |
That you are choosing to interpret selectively and over extrapolate, and then proclaim that the other parts of the book don't match up with [your overly extrapolated selective interpretation of] the other parts. Plus that doing so creates unnessasary confusion and a misunderstanding of the rules.
| QUOTE (Brahm) | ||||
Those are tiny little B&W inks. Plus the fire spirit looks decidely not like a fire, and the air spirit is also at least partially humanoid and appears to not be translucent in any way. Hard to tell from the pose that water spirit is in. But I think we've found a good part of the problem. How about picking this up again when you have the books in front of you and can provide some specific quotes?
That you are choosing to interpret selectively and over extrapolate, and then proclaim that the other parts of the book don't match up with [your overly extrapolated selective interpretation of] the other parts. Plus that doing so creates unnessasary confusion and a misunderstanding of the rules. |
OK, I had forgotten the exact artwork in SR4, and my recollection was faulty. For better artwork: See the artwork on page 177 of the SR4 main book. This looks like an air spirit if I have ever seen one... and LOOK... The poor human in the picture appears to be firing into the maelstrom with no effect! However, such artwork is not a "quote" so here you go: See the sidebar on page 96 of street magic under the subheading "Air". A number of the options there would be sufficiently "non-solid" for my reasons. See also "Fire" (the following page), where the aura of flame is described. All of this goes to my central point: spirits are flexible, and the description (not the mechanics) of how their powers work should be too.
You assert that I am making "selective interpretations". Please, enlighten me as to which sections of the cannon texts I am neglecting to include in my approach. As for my extrapolation being "excessive" that is highly subjective. I have provided several quotes to support my position ("Considering that literally hundreds of magical traditions are practiced worldwide, the sky’s the limit.", "A spirit can cut you in half just as well with a cardboard tube as with a katana.") As for rules confusion: I am used to playing with old SR players who have about 15 years of RPG experience each. They are able to seperate the mechanics from the in-game fluff text with no problems. In fact I award a role-playing karma every mission for the best description of an action. "I shoot him" is lousy. "I duck under the gunfire, spin around, my long coat flapping in the wind, aquire the target and double-tap two shots to his head" is better. No game mechanical effect, but much more interesting.
You have refused agree that I was not comitting the deadly sin of "b" from about two or three pages back, and you have never responded to several points I have made regarding this. May
I take your silence on this issue as a surrender of the point?
| QUOTE (Lebo77 @ Aug 9 2006, 10:52 PM) |
| A number of the options there would be sufficiently "non-solid" for my reasons. |
Visually perhaps. However page 92 shows that they are all in fact the same materials acting in the same way. So in truth none is less solid than the other. Further, since the rules also show to us that APDS do indeed work better than regular ammo for all spirits and Stick'n'Shocks do stick and shock all spirits, we find that your supposition lacking.
Page 92 is itself a solution that satisfies all the statements of the rule books. It where, and I'll assume this was Frank Trollman that wrote that though perhaps Synner can shed some light on that, all the tibits on spirits from the BBB and Mag are brought together and reconciled.
| QUOTE |
| As for rules confusion: I am used to playing with old SR players who have about 15 years of RPG experience each. They are able to seperate the mechanics from the in-game fluff text with no problems |
In this case it is your separation of fluff from mechanics that is at the core of the issue here. Because they together for the description of the functioning of the world, one does not lord over the other. Until they are reconciled in your mind you haven't grokked the text....or the errata isn't out yet.
In this case though they can be reconciled without errata.You are under the mistaken impression that your chosen visualization is fully supported by Shadowrun canon. But all you have done is cherry picked some partial passages, which you the over extrapolate in issolation to support your visualization as well as different ones. Then you have then chossen to ignore other parts that you incorrectly claim are irreconcilable with the parts you choose to favour.
So go ahead and change spirits from their canon nature, it is indeed your group's game to do as they wish. But please spare us trying to claim you haven't, or that the 'mechanics' are not in sync with the 'fluff'. You are stuck on a false dilema.
| QUOTE |
| You have refused agree that I was not comitting the deadly sin of "b" from about two or three pages back, and you have never responded to several points I have made regarding this. May I take your silence on this issue as a surrender of the point? |
Sorry, got off track and missed getting back to that. It was the essense of 'b)', except you decided not to actually do anything about the false dilemma you created other than complain and shrug.
P.S. It is possible that slugs that don't penatrate pass through spirits. However if this is so you are also left with the mind bending oddity that non-penetrating AND penetrating slugs both seem to pass through the same 3D point in the spirit with one harming and the other not. Likely happening with both solid and non-solid appearing spirits alike (or things then get really freaking wierd). That is the crux of it though, because if you didn't see a problem with that to start with you wouldn't see a contradiction with APDS working as they do.
not to go combining anyone's cheerios with piss again, but if anyone ever wondered exactly where my issues with SR4 spring from, Synner has summed it up more succinctly than i've ever managed:
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| SR4 puts a lot of emphasis on the GM and his group deciding what is appropriate and what isn't in their games. Personally I'm a sucker for the way rules lawyers tend to be defanged when a printed rule actually says that ultimately it's the GMs call. |
| QUOTE (mfb @ Aug 10 2006, 12:22 AM) |
| not to go combining anyone's cheerios with piss again, but if anyone ever wondered exactly where my issues with SR4 spring from, Synner has summed it up more succinctly than i've ever managed |
So what you are really saying is that Synner is a much better writer than you?
Urine for everyone's breakfast cereal!
| QUOTE (mfb) | ||
not to go combining anyone's cheerios with piss again, but if anyone ever wondered exactly where my issues with SR4 spring from, Synner has summed it up more succinctly than i've ever managed:
|
What he said.
| QUOTE (SL James) | ||||
What he said. |
That makes sense since a whole lot of primarily online players I've talked to have a problem with this type of approach. Most prefer detailed and specific rulings with the least amount of leeway possible so as not to lead to misinterpretation problems. That's a significant difference from tabletop where such issues can be ironed out on the fly across the table among friends. The net (whether PbP or chat-driven games) is not a particularly good environment for hashing out style and
But ultimately it has to do with putting your trust in the guy whose shouldering the burden of telling the story and running the game in the first place. Sure there are plenty of crappy GMs (probably as many as crappy players) out there but the fact that a rule says that "when in doubt, it's the GM's call" doesn't mean the players have no input. This sort of thing can and is hashed everyday around game tables just by having the players sit down and bring up and issue, and everyone come to a concensus (or at least majority) decision that the the GM then enforces.
To bring up the much maligned Called Shot rule yet again - the whole Called Shot/Blind Fire issue came up in playtesting with my group (I purposefully included a rules lawyer with a few munchkin leanings). We stopped the game for 5 minutes, while I put the situation to the group and asked them what level of realism they wanted me to employ. They (with one exception - guess who?) agreed that Calling a Shot at someone hidden behind a polarized/opaque car window shouldn't be possible and the GM should veto the shot and we went back to the game. The issue won't come up again because we have a reference point.
I want to underline that the vast majority of the time the fundamental rule stands on its own and is in itself quite balanced, SR4 just calls on the GM to decide whether its applicable or not in any given situation.
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| For most armors in SR (and a lot of the equipment which might raise problems - heck even a trashcan), its going to be a threshold of 3-4 requiring a spirit of Force 11+ to have a fair chance of accomplishing possession. |
Man, your dice must hate you.
My players are already advocating I should stop rolling openly, as it's 50% hits in average, with the occasional 90%.
A Force 10+ Sprit doesn't have to roll - he can trade his 20 dice into 5 Hits and posess nearly anything.
On average, a force 6 Spirit will posess anything technical.
| QUOTE (Synner @ Aug 9 2006, 08:29 PM) |
| Problem is you're considering the rule unbalanced without GM intervention, when in fact it works pretty well. There's nothing inherently wrong with possessing armor for instance. For most armors in SR (and a lot of the equipment which might raise problems - heck even a trashcan), its going to be a threshold of 3-4 requiring a spirit of Force 11+ to have a fair chance of accomplishing possession. |
Edit: I looked it up, a spirit rolls 2xforce to posess things.
The probability of 6 dice getting 3 hits is 32%, and 10 dice is 70% http://www.serbitar.de/stuff/probabilities.xls (are the rule designers using probability calculators, btw ? they definately should). This means that a force 5 spirit will generally do it and one can try to summon 3 force 3 spirits who will do it
My I ask how you arrive at force 11+? I find this quite wierd (and unnerving) as a rule designer should be familiar with his probabilities.
As a workarround I would suggest the following: As long as the armor is not full body armor, the invulnerability does only apply to the armor, not to the wearer, but only adds FORCE to both armor ratings.
Regarding a FAQ: This thing should have been out about 6 month ago . . . Thats why I appreciate somebody actually commenting on questions. Rob and Adam never do that.
| QUOTE |
But ultimately it has to do with putting your trust in the guy whose shouldering the burden of telling the story and running the game in the first plac |
Again: This has nothing to do with trust and good/bad GMing. This has to do with having a common ground. To give another example:
We were in the "silent" phase of a run, as a player decided to fire a silenced shotgun at somebody. He was thinking that this was perfectly acceptable, as he had red the rules about silencers and how hard it is to hear such a shot from a certain distance away (which also apply to shotguns).
But the problem was, that most of the players and the GM thought that something like a shotgun shot is noisy as hell.
In the end we decided to stick to the rules in this case and in the future treat a shotgun shot as noisy as hell.
But you get the problem: In a game, where players have to "fight" against a certain scenario, make plans and judge situations, the players and the GM need to have a common ground. This can only be achieved by tight, and consistent rules. (Though in this case, it was not a rules problem,a s the rules were clear)
SR is no story telling RPG (although you can play it this way) where the GM tells a good story and the players sit back and should not care about rules too much. Instead it is mostly the players vs a scenario, and as such the sceneario (which includes the rules) have to be well defined, especially as everything is only a virtual construct and the players are supposed to act as if they were professionals in their field. Everything that is optional in SR4 forces the players and GMs to discuss things beforehand, and as this is not often done, creates problems on the fly.
| QUOTE (Serbitar @ Aug 10 2006, 08:49 AM) | ||
Edit: I looked it up, a spirit rolls 2xforce to posess things. The probability of 6 dice getting 3 hits is 32%, and 10 dice is 70% http://www.serbitar.de/stuff/probabilities.xls (are the rule designers using probability calculators, btw ? they definately should). This means that a force 5 spirit will generally do it and one can try to summon 3 force 3 spirits who will do it |
The trade in rule is only applicable when the subjet has an exceptionally large pool (and is unlikely to fail) - this is unlikely to apply to Possession.
Apologies regarding the 11+ Force, it was meant to be 11+ dice pool (but I was at work, ran the numbers in my head and rushed to post - something that happens all too often these days and I need to be more careful with. This is why I don't post in an official capacity).
However, this post did bring to my attention one issue. To wit: Possession was initially written to require one net hit (meaning 4 hits on a threshold of 3), this final print version of the power was adjusted to reflect the basic Threshold mechanic. Not entirely sure how that eluded me (there was a lot of stuff to crosscheck and reference) but its also behind any discrepancies in my posted math.
| QUOTE (Synner @ Aug 10 2006, 04:27 AM) |
| Apologies regarding the 11+ Force, it was meant to be 11+ dice pool (but I was at work, ran the numbers in my head and rushed - something that happens all too often these days, and is why I don't post in an official capacity). However, this post did bring to my attention one issue I'll be bringing up for errata. To wit: Possession (like Inhabitation) was initially written to require one net hit (meaning 4 hits on a threshold of 3). This seems not to be the case in the final print of the power. Not entirely sure how that eluded me but its also behind any discrepancies in the math. Whether this will be tweaked in errata remains to be seen, but I hope so |
I see, that can happen.
A threshold test succeds when you reach the threshold. I would not change the way how treshold tests work. This leads to special rules for everything. If something has to be adjusted, then just double the threshold for possesion, that fixes about everything (and gives the preparation rule some sense).
| QUOTE (Brahm) | ||
|
Nope, try again: "a recombinant protoplasm that replicates function, mass, texture and properties near enough as to provide no physical difference." from page 92 of Street magic indicates that while the material may be that same, it's properties change depending on the spirit. So if an air spirit looks like a tornado, it IS a tornado...
As for ignoreing other cannon text in the process of "cherry picking" please provide me with the quotes I asked for in my previous post.
| QUOTE |
P.S. It is possible that slugs that don't penatrate pass through spirits. However if this is so you are also left with the mind bending oddity that non-penetrating AND penetrating slugs both seem to pass through the same 3D point in the spirit with one harming and the other not. Likely happening with both solid and non-solid appearing spirits alike (or things then get really freaking wierd). That is the crux of it though, because if you didn't see a problem with that to start with you wouldn't see a contradiction with APDS working as they do. |
Spirits are strange and un-natural? They don't obey the conventional laws of physics? The nature of them is not fully explainible? Wonderfull! You have finaly seen the light!
| QUOTE (Lebo77) |
| Spirits are strange and un-natural? They don't obey the conventional laws of physics? The nature of them is not fully explainible? Wonderfull! You have finaly seen the light! |
| QUOTE (Lebo77 @ from earlier) |
| I fail to see how a small piece of high-velocity lead, no matter how accurately placed could force the physical form to disipate in the same way (by blowing the "mass" of the creature all over the room.) |
The question always was when are you going to see the light?
| QUOTE (Brahm) | ||||
The question always was when are you going to see the light? |
Another quote taken from my devil's advocate argument taken out of context? You sure you don't work for any political campaigns? Read more carefully next time.
Got those citations to refute my "cherry picking" yet? Thought not.
| QUOTE (Lebo77) | ||||||
Another quote taken from my devil's advocate argument taken out of context? You sure you don't work for any political campaigns? Read more carefully next time. Got those citations to refute my "cherry picking" yet? Thought not. |
For brevity I just used that one, the rest of the paragraph is the same. As is the second paragraph. But please, explain what you ment by it. Because I'm just going by this:
| QUOTE (Lebo77) |
| Not so. I understand why they work that way from the perspective of game balance and design. The fluff explination is NOT coherent with the rules in some cases, but I don't see that as a problem. |
So again, when are you going to see the light?
| QUOTE (Brahm) | ||||||||||
For brevity I just used that one, the rest of the paragraph is the same. As is the second paragraph. But please, explain what you ment by it. Because I'm just going by this:
So again, when are you going to see the light? |
*sigh*
Do you understadn that the post you are refrenceing was done to illustrate that the mechanics and the descriptions are not coherent? If not then this discussion is pointless becasue if you are unable to grasp that concept then my deeper point will be beyond your capibilities.
Also... I had asked for CANNON citations. Last time I checked my posts were not blessed by the SR4 line developer.
What light would you have me see? Your light seems a bit dim to me, perhaps that is why I have been unable to see it.
| QUOTE (Lebo77 @ Aug 10 2006, 09:38 AM) |
| Do you understadn that the post you are refrenceing was done to illustrate that the mechanics and the descriptions are not coherent? |
Yes.
| QUOTE |
| What light would you have me see? |
That your assertion that the game mechanics and game descriptions are not coherent is in truth incorrect. Only your interpretation of the descriptions are, to some extent and not even entirely there although it is inconsistant with one particular line. That others exist which are coherent with the mechanics.
Is actually any standard spirit able to possess things?
Cant find a spirit with the posession power, where are they?
Cant find a spirit with the posession power, where are they?
It doesn't depend on the spirit type - it depends on the conjurer.
| QUOTE (Serbitar) |
| Is actually any standard spirit able to possess things? |
The Tradition of the spirit dictates Materialization or Possession. One or the other, if that is what you are getting at.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.