True, but it requires that scary GM Fiat thing to decide if a ram is appropriate to the situation. By your standard then, shouldn't the ramming rules be removed as a possibility during a crash?

It doesn't require GM fiat, it requires House Rules. Which are decided on and agreed to beforehand. GM Fiat, by definition, is completely arbitrary and dependant on the GM's whims. This is why a solid rule base are a good thing: they reduce the need for GM fiat.

So a house rule of "sometimes crashes might instigate rams" is ok, but a house rule of "you can't kill a man inside a buttoned up citymaster with a banana peel" is not? Interesting choice. I think I'd probably go a different direction, but to each his own.

I so want to live in Toturi's world.

OMG, a car is ramming my house!

Oh, wait. The car is totaled, but my house is fine. Huh.

German officer to higher up in WWII:

"Nein, mein lederhosen (okay, my german is non-existent. Don't tell my grandparents). Our tanks cannot proceed. The allies have put straw buildings all across the road. We cannot drive through them! The men are having to shoot them with pistols until each piece falls down."

Fine, make it a bullet fired through the tailpipe, ricocheting through the engine, and bouncing up and out the steering wheel. The point is the same. If the GM is allowed to say that X action makes sense, he should be allowed to say that Y action is ludicrous. Obviously some folks disagree, and I'd hate to play in their games, as it seems a lot of random BS will be made possible by a GM afraid or otherwise unwilling to exercise some control.

Funny... my book doesn't make any mention of shooting steering wheels through tailpipes. Your copy must be from a more current print run.

good. then we don't have to worry about GMs needing to disallow it, do we?

The GM is not ruling counter to existing mechanics. He's using the mechanics already there. You know, that rule that says the GM makes decisions. I don't have a page number handy because I'm at work, but I've quoted it several times in these discussions, as have others.

The longshot rules and called shot rules have limits built into them, tied to what the GM feels is possible. You can ignore them if you want, but then you deserve the repercussions you cause.

Hmmm... Seems like I've said that before too.

i still don't know how to respond to the concept of GM fiat as a game mechanic. laughing, screaming, and crying all seem appropriate.

I ain't fallin' for no banana in the tail pipe!


I am perfectly fine with what you call GM Fiat, as long as it's specified as such.

"The GM may increase the threshold as appropriate."

That's a flat out call for GM ruling.

"The GM can decide whether a called shot is appropriate or not."

Same there.

The try to delineate the situations where a called shot is and is not allowed is, frankly, impossible.

The good games will give you a framework you understand, and can work in. Bad ones will simply not mention it at all.

I like a game with clear deliniations, because I like pushing up against those lines and seeing what I can do. But I also completely accept that there are times when it comes down to "Ask the GM for a ruling."

Including all rules in the book is simply not possible. Sometime, somehow, somewhere something will come up that requires the GM to work something out.
Where that is in SR4 may be a lot sooner then some people like. Tough. That line is there in every RPG. At least in SR4 they actually explicitly tell you most of the time where the line is by stating when applying certain rules it's the GM's call. This does not make anyone right or wrong. This doesn't make the rules right or wrong. That's the way it is. Work out how you want to play, but the rule book isn't going to redone in it's entirety, it's not generally broken.

At least it won't be redone till Rigger 4 comes out.

I'm always at a loss when people start tossing around "GM fiat" as though it was inherently negative. Or as if it didn't exist in every game. Or as if there were some "gaming nirvana" where the GM never had to do anything but read the text. I also find it somewhat humorous when people say "GM fiat" in that negative connotation as if they never exercised it, and as if doing so were blasphemous.

"GM fiat" is part of the job of the game master. Make decisions, make rulings, arbitrate the rules as best you can, and run the game.

"GM fiat" is a cover-term for what people are usually talking about, which is "bad GMing". Bad game mastering has nothing to do with making a ruling when no standard ruling is present. Again, that's part of the job. We could wax nebulous all day on what comprises "bad GMing", but the only point I wish to make is that the concepts are not interchangeable, and shouldn't be used as if they were.

Alas, alack, it would seem my humor is lost here...

Basic gist of what I was getting at, mfb: It is absurd to think that such a rule should exist, or that there is specific need in the rules to create special safeguards against such random and exceptional things. The absurdity of the act in question should trigger the "Are you kidding me?" reflex present in most GMs. It is not a flaw in the rules that allows banana peels to destroy Citymasters, but rather a flaw in the GM.

I chose humor to illustrate my point initially, so as not to seem antagonistic.

bad GMing is not the question. the question is how hard the rules work to keep the GM from having to make stuff up. the GM has a lot on his plate already--coming up with a run, rolling and rp'ing all the NPCs, etcetera. saddling him with vague rules that force him to make a judgement call on a significant portion of the players' rolls (as opposed to just slapping a predefined modifier on there) is, to me, incredibly mean.

edit: sigh, nm. i've said what i wanted to say.

GM Fiat is like recreational drugs. A little bit is good and necessary, and keeps things from feeling stagnated, mechanical, and boring. But too much leads to inconsistencies in your reality and all sorts of wackiness. And everyone has a different idea of where the line should be drawn. Some people want it drawn at caffeine and a little alcohol, some people think a moderate heroin or cocaine habit is okay, and the spectrum doesn't stop there, on either side.
No one will ever agree, but that doesn't stop them from calling each other junkies and prudes.

@ Moon-Hawk,

Excellent point. I should have clarified that. I agree, different perspectives are great. What I mean when I say "worthless" is the thought that there will ever be one "conclusion", or that even if there were, that conclusion would be "right". Short version: yeah, made perfect sense.

It's basically a matter of playing the game you want to play or the game the designers want you to play. For some people those are the same thing. The more open the game to GM judement calls the closer you'll get to the point where you're running the game you want to run. For me SR is at an almost perfect level of rules vs. judgement. YMMV

But...but...the content of those jobs is GM fiat. The reactions of the NPC is entirely dependent on the whims of the GM.
It sounds like you're taking a neutral term and applying it only to the things you don't like.

I'm sorry, but that's not remotely convincing to me. (Regardless of whether it was supposed to be.) Again, what you're saying leads me only to believe that you've been the victim of, or have seen enough, bad GMing that you've formed that view.

There is nothing inherently negative in a GM making a call for his or her game that fills in a gap in the rules. There can be good calls/rulings and bad calls/rulings, but neither is implied simply by the fact that the GM is making the call. That's just poor logic.

What you're saying is that there should never be anything that requires the GM to make a ruling that isn't directly supported by black and white text in a rule book? I'll expect that list of all things that are possible on my desk by Friday.

And again, I'll mention that when going "theoretical" these conversations lose value. The following are rhetorical questions, etc. Feel free to discuss them of course, but I'm not really expecting direct answers. I'm just expounding on this point.

These 'better' systems, are they equally simple, or more complex? I mean, SR3 had a lot more clear rules for things, but I don't think that's a very fair comparison because the system was a lot more complex.
My point here is, if a system gains accuracy by adding complexity, it's not better or worse, it's just different. That's why I have such a hard time compaing SR4 to SR3 and calling one better or worse. They're so dramatically different in system and complexity that they're just completely different games.

That's not entirely fair, either. I don't play SR4 either, for example, yet I'm in agreement with the design choices that were made in regard to leaving some things to the GM.

And I will definitely concede one point to mfb. I was speaking in the general sense when I originally posted regarded GM fiat, and he was speaking of "GM fiat being necessary when considering the long shot rules". Frankly, I don't know the rules in question in that specific case, so I'm not qualified to speak to them.

I don't, however, think that SL James was limiting his vitriol to one specific rules example when arguing with me on GM fiat.

you're right, McMurray, i haven't learned anything new in this discussion. eidolon did, though--he gained some new perspective on the reasoning that can go on behind design choices. you, on the other, hand, would still rather play the "go away" card than engage in an interesting discussion. as i've said before, as long as there are people still interested in the subject enough to start discussions like this one (you'll notice that i entered only after the subject had alread gravitated towards the topic of rules coverage/GM intervention), i'll be happy to discuss it with them. if the subject doesn't interest you, don't participate. you act like there's some sort of unified "SR4 si teh awesomm" front that i'm charging into like the Light Brigade. there isn't, and i'm not. there's not even a unified "SR4 si teh suckz0r" front; there are a lot of things i like about SR4. so stop acting like i'm acting antagonistic. i'm not, and acting like i am is antagonistic.

anyway. let's talk definitions. i'm going to introduce the term "GM intervention" into this discussion. GM intervention can be defined as actions a GM must take in order to provide rules where the existing ruleset fails. this explicitly disincludes most roleplaying, since most roleplaying is an area that is not intended to be covered by the rules, and which no one wants to be covered by the rules (negotiation, lying, and the like might or might not be included, depending on whether or not their inclusion will help me win an argumentmakes sense). the concept of GM intervention is not binary; it's a sliding scale that starts at or around stretching existing rules to cover new situations and extends out to creating new rules from whole cloth.

every time this subject comes up, McMurray, you start in almost immediately with the whole "shut up shut up shut up" thing--no matter how many people on either side of the discussion are participating with interest. you even do it, as now, when the discussion is sedate and intelligent, going so far as to start with the name-calling when no one else in the thread is upset. but i'm obsessed? i'm not going to do this. McMurray, you want me to shut up--so i will: as far as i'm concerned, anything you post here is invisible unless and until you post something that adds to the discussion. if you feel that the discussion is a useless rehash of old material, if you feel there's nothing worth adding to it, then don't post. to be clear, i'm not doing this out of spite. i'm doing it because i would like to continue discussing this, and there are others who also seem interested. and that is all i'm going to say about that.

here's an example of the rules forcing GM intervention: special effects for called shots. according to SR4 pg 150, you can perform called shots with effects that aren't covered by the rest of the called shot rules (ie not bypassing armor, increasing damage, or disarming). but the rules for this are left completely up to the GM--not eve a hint of guidance. pure GM makin' stuff up. why even print that? of course the GM has the option of allowing a called shot to have some wild-ass effect, if he thinks it's reasonable.

edit: so of course McMurray immediately posts something worth talking about.

Well, obvisouly that's your opinion (that it's a bad target). Those folks that voted awards for the game seem to differ.

you misread, sirrah. i didn't say you couldn't create characters of different power levels--i said you could, but that the power levels are not widely seperated.