Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Take Aim and Called Shot
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
mfb
fixed TNs in the manner that SR4 employs them are bad, yes. and compared to mutable TNs, fixed TNs are much more difficult to create a good game mechanic around.

it's not that you need to increase the pool to compensate, it's the amount you need to increase it by--namely, the exact amount of the modifier applied. the things i dislike about level-based games, i dislike about that mechanic.

oh, that was a good summing up of my stance, a few posts back.
Moon-Hawk
I was the one that made it a mile.
Oops.
eidolon
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)
That's a pretty reasonable situation that I can see players getting upset over.


Whereas to me, it's a completely unreasonable request and the players shouldn't try so hard to invoke bovine bombardment. wink.gif

And yeah, pretty good summation of the two stances. Rules != end all be all of a roleplaying game.
eidolon
QUOTE
Any chance we can move any SR3 discussion out of the SR4 forum?

<mod mode> Guys, please leave moderation of the forums to the mods and admins.

There's just no need to clutter up a conversation with random "this shouldn't be here, this should go there" type stuff. If we see stuff that's drastically unrelated and out of place, we'll take care of it.

Thanks.

</mod mode>
mfb
QUOTE (eidolon)
Rules != end all be all of a roleplaying game.

i'll certainly agree with that. you can't (and, i think most here will agree, shouldn't) put strongly-defined rules on roleplaying.
eidolon
nyahnyah.gif

You keep that up, I'll start calling you Twisty McGee.
mfb
well, the part i left unsaid is that the rules should, as much as possible, be the end-all-be-all of success/failure resolution in RPGs.
James McMurray
QUOTE
McMurray, you picked another false premise. i never said i wanted high-end characters to fail at mundane tasks. i said i wanted them to be challenged by impossible tasks.


Well, given that the guy apparently knows exactly where the target is, if he's that good he can shoot by memory. And of course, since SR4 is so easily moddable, if you don't like it, change it. Again, an excellent design feature, usable with ease, and set up so that changing one thing doesn't have the horrible ripple effects you see in more complex (and also flawed) systems. Me likes. smile.gif

That specific example seems to me to be an abuse of the blind fire rules. Those rules don't mention being able to shoot something you don't know is there. that's just my interpretation though. Other groups will probably read it differently, and it's a credit to SR4 that both variations work. biggrin.gif

QUOTE
it's not exactly like levels (and i never claimed it was), but that simplistic linear approach to challenges is very similar to level-based gameplay.


Your definition of "very similar" seems to be on the fritz.

QUOTE
why would i, as a GM, allow someone to make such a shot? because the rules clearly state that such a shot is possible--moreover, they state exactly how difficult such a shot should be.


Dpes the guy know where the target is exactly? If so, let him take the shot. If not, don't let him. The blind fire rules don't say they let you shoot at random and hit something. If you don't like someone who is the best humanly possible being able to make shots like that fairly often, house rule the blind fire penalty. Hell, if it really bothers you, take blind fire capabilities away, make it -12, or whatever else floats your boat. It's easy to do, and SR4 handles it great.

QUOTE
because the rules clearly state that such a shot is possible--moreover, they state exactly how difficult such a shot should be.


Here's a hint: every game out there that allows shooting an inanimate object blindly and at range states exactly how difficult the shot will be. You complain when modifiers aren't given and you complain when modifiers are given. Personally, I don't have a problem with them making the shot. It's a game, not an exact representation of reality. You want a more realistic view, and unfortunately (IYO) SR4 doesn't give that.

QUOTE
underlying problem that higher levels of ability completely negate reasonable levels of modifiers.


Except that this isn't a problem. World class people performing world class tasks seems pretty logical to me. I think we can both agree YMMV. smile.gif

QUOTE
Guys, please leave moderation of the forums to the mods and admins.


Sorry. By making it a question I assumed it would have been clear that it was a request, not a command. I've just seen too many of these threads implode as soon as someone says something along the lines of "SR3 is better than SR4 because ___."
Fortune
QUOTE (James McMurray)
By making it a question I assumed it would have been clear that it was a request, not a command. I've just seen too many of these threads implode as soon as someone says something along the lines of "SR3 is better than SR4 because ___."


My post was in direct response to the previous one, and was quite valid in that it was comparing the usefulness of the type of systems in relation to the style of gameplay that mfb desires. The previous post (and many others in this thread) also have referenced SR3, and yet you chose to single out my post alone and respond to me in a snide manner.
mfb
QUOTE (James McMurray)
Dpes the guy know where the target is exactly? If so, let him take the shot. If not, don't let him. The blind fire rules don't say they let you shoot at random and hit something.

which requires the GM to make up rules for locating the target. realistically, there's no way someone can shoot that well without aiming, whether they remember (or see) the target's location or not.

re: similarity, reread my post. i told you exactly what about SR4 i find similar to level-based gaming. specifically, the part where a challenge of difficulty X can only be beaten by characters of ability level X+1. it's the sharp cut-off of... well, let's call it challenge rating, shall we?

QUOTE (James McMurray)
Except that this isn't a problem. World class people performing world class tasks seems pretty logical to me. I think we can both agree YMMV.

i think your logic detector may be on the fritz. if world-class characters can pretty much automatically succeed at feats of world-class difficulty, why doesn't everyone in the Olympics tie for gold? people of world-class ability often fail in the face of world-class challenges.

QUOTE (James McMurray)
Here's a hint: every game out there that allows shooting an inanimate object blindly and at range states exactly how difficult the shot will be. You complain when modifiers aren't given and you complain when modifiers are given.

well, that's because they don't provide enough modifiers, and the ones they do provide are hilariously flawed.
Drtyrm
I believe that you would get a lot more receptivity mfb, if your examples weren't so corner case. Single shot kill of a City Master driver. Snap shot at 1km in pitch darkness. You are obviously trying to "break" the system, and then complaining when it goes snap. I don't see the point here.

Chandon
Drtym -

Both of those cases are issues that the game rules should deal with. I mean - the developers included armored vehicles and sniper rifles, the game should support them.
eidolon
What Drtyrm is saying, however, is that in order for the game to not support them, you have to go out of your way to set up a situation in which it doesn't.

QUOTE (mfb)
which requires the GM to make up rules for locating the target.


Whuh..howzat? I don't follow. What exactly is causing the GM to have to make up rules?


Chandon
MFB's examples *aren't* really that abnormal though. I mean night is half the time, and if you have a sniper rifle with a range of over one kilometer, you might try to take a shot at that distance. This isn't some weird special case, it's the normal usage of that piece of equipment.

Once you get to that point, it's logical to look at the modifiers that apply before taking any action - and the fact that you can make a snap shot at that distance at all is pretty silly.

If I were designing a roleplaying game and adding rules about ranges for different weapon categories, I'd like to think that I'd sit down and consider the effects of the rules I was writing for the different classes of weapon. As it is in SR4, unaimed rifle shots at extreme range don't make a lot of sense.

The problem existed in SR3, but it was somewhat less silly with varying target numbers. The increased silliness can be explained as a side effect of the SR3 to SR4 rules migration - you can't just change target number mods to dice pool mods and expect the result to have the same properties.
Drtyrm
My point was that rules are abstractions, Chandon. Some people are fine with a rulebook that doesn't specifically state, "You cannot shoot through an APC with a handgun." Others need that in there.

I can understand the difference in opinion and playstyle. (Hell, spend some time checking out the Character Optimization forums for D&D3.5, you'll see rules lawyering at the Olympic level). I just don't see how you can come to the conclusion that the rules are "bad", since it's ultimately subjective.
Chandon
Here's the thing: The rules provide a mechanism to resolve the handgun vs. APC case. There's nothing unclear about it - there's no question about which rules apply or how to apply them. This shouldn't be a difficult special case either - the case of a gun versus armor is the most commonly used combat mechanic in the game, and vehicle armor is a simple variant of armor that's been handled reasonably well in previous version of Shadowrun.

For simple cases like this, we should have to make judgement calls like "you can't shoot through an APC with a handgun". What vehicle armor can you shoot through? How about a pickup truck door? Determining the answer to these questions is exactly why those rules were written - the defining answer should be "you can if the rules say you can".
toturi
QUOTE (Drtyrm)
I believe that you would get a lot more receptivity mfb, if your examples weren't so corner case. Single shot kill of a City Master driver. Snap shot at 1km in pitch darkness. You are obviously trying to "break" the system, and then complaining when it goes snap. I don't see the point here.

I think the point was that even if you do try to break the system, it stays unbroken.
James McMurray
QUOTE
i think your logic detector may be on the fritz. if world-class characters can pretty much automatically succeed at feats of world-class difficulty, why doesn't everyone in the Olympics tie for gold? people of world-class ability often fail in the face of world-class challenges.


In SR terms, it's because those are opposed tests, and the GM has opted to require rerolls until there's a clear winner. In other words, the superheroes are being challenged by other superheroes.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Drtyrm @ Dec 1 2006, 10:54 PM)
My point was that rules are abstractions, Chandon. Some people are fine with a rulebook that doesn't specifically state, "You cannot shoot through an APC with a handgun." Others need that in there.

That's a horrible, horrible example, unless I'm badly misunderstanding what you mean by "specifically". If the rules allow, via the interactions between firearms, armor, and vehicles (and possibly called shots to bypass armor), a handgun to shoot through an APC, there is no other reasonable conclusion than that you can shoot through an APC with a handgun. Adding a little note that says "by the way, APCs are impervious to handgun fire" makes it worse, because then you've got an exception and when you slap three meters of rolled homogenous steel equivalent on an ordinary car and then someone fires on it with a handgun, the fact that it isn't an APC means that it's perfectly pervious again.

On the other hand, if the interaction between armor, vehicles, and handguns is such that a handgun cannot shoot through an APC, there's obviously no need for a special explicit case.

James: presenting the Olympics as an opposed test is a clear violation of the opposed test's intent—reread page 57, SR4. With, granted, some exceptions, the olympics are mostly not people "in direct conflict with one another". They're each doing a task, an ordinary success test in which they are in conflict with that task, and being judged on how well they complete that task relative to others—hit-counting, roughly. Watch figure skating sometime, and notice that people do still fall down.

~J
Aemon
QUOTE (mfb)
QUOTE (Aemon)
And my point is that this encompasses EVERY SINGLE TABLE-TOP RPG KNOWN TO HUMAN KIND.

No game can encompass everything.  No game can create rules, systems, content for every aspects.  It is the job of the GM/DM/Storyteller to fill those gaps in according to the campaign they are interested in running and that the players are interested in playing.


i have acknowledged this in previous posts. you have not acknowledged that there's a sliding scale between "perfect representation of reality through the rules" and "GM just makes everything up as he goes along". my argument is that SR4 goes way too far towards the latter, and is deliberately designed to be unappealing to players and GMs who prefer something closer to the former.


Alright mfb, I acknowledge that you may feel, subjectively, that SR4 does not contain a tight enough rules system for you to enjoy.

So my question is:

Why in the bloody blue blazes are you on these forums talking about Shadowrun then?

You see, I too have found table-top RPGs that I found unappealing. Mechwarrior RPG for example. None of us got through player-creation without losing a limb. It was the dumbest character creation session I have ever been involved in and to this day, it serves as laugh for my friends and I; like a reminder of what RPGs shouldn't be. I am not, though, on the Mechwarrior RPG boards complaining about a game that I don't play.



Fortune
QUOTE (Aemon @ Dec 3 2006, 03:37 AM)
Why in the bloody blue blazes are you on these forums talking about Shadowrun then?

Because the SR4 rules set is not the sole extent of Shadowrun. As to why he visits the SR4-specific Forum itself, well the Sixth World moves on, and in order to keep current with even the non-rules portions on Dumpshock you need to visit the most-frequented Forum, namely this one.

As an aside, the whole seperate Forums thing is getting pretty lame now. But I've said enough about that in more appropriate areas.
Drtyrm
QUOTE
That's a horrible, horrible example, unless I'm badly misunderstanding what you mean by "specifically". If the rules allow, via the interactions between firearms, armor, and vehicles (and possibly called shots to bypass armor), a handgun to shoot through an APC, there is no other reasonable conclusion than that you can shoot through an APC with a handgun.


My point is more that this is all subjective. Some can live with the GM having to make a call. Others cannot. We all pretty much agree you can't find this mythical Perfect Rule System For All People. I guess I should be asking myself why I am continuing to discuss it.

QUOTE
Watch figure skating sometime, and notice that people do still fall down.


A figure skater falls, and yet still scores some points. There's no absolute failure in that sense. The difference in performances would be that some participants commit less mistakes (i.e. generate more successes). Or am I misinterpreting SR4 rules?
Drtyrm
Aemon, I think I can answer your question by quoting mfb from this thread:

QUOTE
the most recent thead that delves into discussion about why SR4 blows sucks bites is less than satisfactory to some players


Mfb is being disingenuous (at a minimum), when he says SR4 rules are too loose for him. He hates the rules, and needs to make sure we all agree I guess.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Drtyrm @ Dec 2 2006, 12:15 PM)
A figure skater falls, and yet still scores some points. There's no absolute failure in that sense. The difference in performances would be that some participants commit less mistakes (i.e. generate more successes).

I'll try to come up with a better example, because at this point the nastiness becomes how to model a figure-skating routine via one or more tests. It could be a single very difficult test, with failure still potentially being a good score but one that isn't remotely in the running for a medal. It could be a fairly easy test with umpteen successes expected for everyone, and it just being a matter of who gets the umpteenest. Alternately, it could be a series of difficult tests, which most people will fail at least one of, with "least failed tests" being a significant part of the judging.

So yeah, back to the drawing board. For what it's worth, option 1 or 3 are the ones that I would go with, but you've reminded me that 2 is not necessarily unreasonable.

Drtyrm: I know there's a tendency to characterize intense dislike as an irrational emotion, but people can come to that position, and maintain it, through rational thought processes. Besides, it's absurd that you're describing mfb's statements as disingenuous while cherry-picking quotes to present out of context.

~J
Drtyrm
I definitely see your point Kagetenshi. At high skills, everyone generates successes, so there are no total failures. Olympic weightlifting? At some point you get to a weight that some folks can't lift, and others can't. It would appear SR4 wouldn't model a weightlifting competition all that well. Should we put in some rules to deal with that occurence? OR is that what a GM is for wink.gif


Mfb said he hates SR4 rules. How is that out of context?
Kagetenshi
Note some of the posts immediately before that one, in which the topic of discussion is what is or is not constructive (and thus acceptable) discussion of SR4, SR3, or the comparison thereof. I understand you're relatively new here, so you may want to check mfb's posting history for a better idea of his humor.

I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong. Well, ok, I am, but mostly in that you say he "hates" the rules and therefore doesn't have valid arguments against them—I don't have reason to believe that he doesn't dislike them. Regardless, the statement you quoted is fairly clearly (in context) loaded with highly negative words for humorous, rather than serious, purposes, and pulling it out of context makes that far less clear.

~J
James McMurray
While the skaters aren't in the rink with one another, they're definitely still in direct competition. If there was no competition involved people would do as well during the meet as they do during practice.

The opposed tests seems to match that perfectly. I'd probably use a base threshold they have to pass, and whoever passes it the best wins. In the case of a tie continue to roll off until someone wins. If it were necessary to the game I'd determine their point scores based on how well they rolled and how many times it took to break the tie. If it were really important to the run I'd figure out a way in advance to convert excess successes to a score between 1 and 10, but most likely I'd just pick a score for the winner and guesstimate everyone else's scores from that.
fistandantilus4.0
Whether or not mfb takes issue with the SR4 rules is not the purpose of this thread.
cx2
Unless we're talking about something like fencing in terms of Olympic sport opposed tests don't really count. Direct competition is not direct conflict. Direct conflict is "Person A and person B are trying to either gain the upper hand or B is trying to stop A, where A directly affects B and vice versa".

A skater does not directly affect their opponent while they're skating. Likewise with runners, unless they do something stupid like try to trip them.

However I do personally believe SR4 is a perfectly good framework. For an RPG a framework is all you can hope for.

As to rules for locating targets, it's simple without inventing rules. If you can hear them for example you can locate them, however at 1km with the sound of the ship interfering and at long distance... plus who says the guy in question is on the open deck? Try making a called shot to bypass armour on a ship to hit a guy inside when you barely have 2 or 3 dice anyway, if that. But again there is no way to locate them.

On the other hand a guy with good skills, a night vision scope and a sniper rifle could be expected to try it. You'd just have to add another penalty to hit for the pitch and roll of the ship, even in fairly calm water.
James McMurray
If you don't think the guy in front of you has a direct affect on your performance, then the "it sucks to go last because there's a lot more pressure" thing, the "it sucks to go first because there's no bar already set" and the guy before you hitting a 9.92 not affecting your game must never actually happen. Of course, if you ever actually watch the Olympics, it happens all the time.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on what is direct conflict or not. but my method uses the rules as written to quickly and easily determine the victor in any competition. I like that. YMMV.
Fortune
I have to agree with James McMurray. His method quite adequately demonstrated a skating competition.
Kagetenshi
It doesn't actually use the canon rules. Opposed tests are explicitly between two people, not two or more.

~J
Cain
QUOTE
My point is more that this is all subjective. Some can live with the GM having to make a call. Others cannot. We all pretty much agree you can't find this mythical Perfect Rule System For All People.

That doesn't mean we should stop trying to find it. Or that we should accept something that is far from it.

Take a look at the vast number of house rule threads in these forums, and you'll see a lot of people complaining about some feature of Shadowrun. Heck, this very thread came to full life because I showed how a called shot could be used to take out a Citymaster with a handgun. That's a valid complaint; it's just that instead of discussing possible solutions and fixes, some people (James McMurray especially, but myself included) prefer to bicker over rather or not this means SR4 sucks.

For example, my solution is to abandon fixed TN's: for every die you go into the negative, you add +1 to the TN. You also need to allow exploding dice on every test. For some reason, this makes some people's vein's throb, so I try not to offer it too often.

cx2: the problem is that with those 2-3 dice, you're likely to make 1 success, and therefore the shot. Granted, the example deliberately ignores a dodge test, but you get the point. A starting character can make the shot, without invoking Edge. And if he does use Edge, the shot becomes even easier.
James McMurray
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
It doesn't actually use the canon rules. Opposed tests are explicitly between two people, not two or more.

~J

So do it as a stream of opposed tests if you have to be technical about it. I for one just realize that the rules weren't designed with olympic style competitions in mind and go with it. That is of course, if it ever actually came up in a game.
Garrowolf
Actually Troll figure skating is a beautiful sport to watch!
James McMurray
Maybe, but unless you happen to make a troll that figure skates competitively, and the GM really wants to roll it out, there's no need for the rules to care about the sport. smile.gif
Kagetenshi
Well, we're losing track of the original debate (not very original, given that it appears to have started well over two hundred posts in, but it's when I joined in so as far as I'm concerned it's the original debate wink.gif ), which is how frequently it makes sense for people with world-class abilities to fail at world-class challenges. I think the answer is a fair bit, you, IIRC, think the answer is not very often, and we're trying to come up with analogous situations from real life that will provide us an answer.

~J
Cain
I can see plenty of need for rules on troll figure skating, or at least rules that can be easily and correctly applied.

Let's say that the team has been hired to protect a professional athlete. One thing they can do is have a team member pose as another athlete. Let's say that in this case, it's speed skating. You'd need to know how far back/ahead the shadowrunner was, when the sniper shoots into the rink.

You could GM fiat it, and just tell the player: "You're too far back to help." Or, you could say: "Let's create a house rule. How about this: let's use the sprinting rules, but change the distances like so." Yes, you might have to (shock, horror!) deal with the player doing something your plot didn't expect. But if you roll with the punches, you'll end up with a game that's more fun for everyone.
fistandantilus4.0
QUOTE (Cain)
I can see plenty of need for rules on troll figure skating


Strange desire to add that to my sig. spin.gif
James McMurray
QUOTE (Cain)
You could GM fiat it, and just tell the player: "You're too far back to help." Or, you could say: "Let's create a house rule. How about this: let's use the sprinting rules, but change the distances like so." Yes, you might have to (shock, horror!) deal with the player doing something your plot didn't expect. But if you roll with the punches, you'll end up with a game that's more fun for everyone.

I agree completely, which is why when asked I gave what my house rule would be if it ever came up.

QUOTE
Strange desire to add that to my sig.


Same here. But unlike you, I can't resist the urge. biggrin.gif
James McMurray
Just found this in my notepad. If I've already posted it then just ignore it. smile.gif

Called shot rules:

QUOTE
The gamemaster decides if such a vulnerable spot is accessible.


The Abstract Nature of Rules

QUOTE
Don’t allow powergaming to run out of control,


The rules themselves are written to require GM decisions. If you don't like a game where the GM has the obligation to make choices then obviously you'll have problems with a game designed with that in mind.

The way SR4 is written gives you the tools to play the game as you want to play it. The way you seem to want it to be written would require the players to play the game the designers want to play. I like being able to play my own game. YMMV
Cain
QUOTE
The way SR4 is written gives you the tools to play the game as you want to play it. The way you seem to want it to be written would require the players to play the game the designers want to play. I like being able to play my own game.

Then play your own game, but be honest with yourself, and don't call it Shadowrun.

You can add power armor to Shadowrun, if you like. Dimensional tears, aliens, and mana points can be shoehorned in. Except when you stand back and take a look, you're "own game" isn't Shadowrun anymore, it's Rifts. You can play Rifts if you like, it's not a terrible game, but it's not Shadowrun.

I don't understand how you can play Rifts, and call it Shadowrun.
Drtyrm
I totally missed the point of your Rifts tangent. Please explain.
James McMurray
Uh.... Dude? It's still called Shadowrun. Nice try with the Rifts strawman though. Maybe responding to peoples' actual words would suit you better?
Garrowolf
Cain, could you please define Shadowrun for us and what we are allowed to do with it and not. I really need an official ruling on it.
Chandon
You are not playing Shadowrun if Cthulu kills 1d6 PCs each round.
You are not playing Shadowrun if you run into Elminster in the city of Silverymoon.
You are not playing Shadowrun if your character has a "Blood Pool" stat.
... your character is piloting a Marauder IIc.
... your character hails from the Northern Lights Confederacy.
... your character can invent a teleport spell on the fly.
... you're playing a Wookie scoundrel.
Aemon
QUOTE (Chandon @ Dec 3 2006, 01:47 AM)
You are not playing Shadowrun if you run into Elminster in the city of Silverymoon.

Chandon,

Please, Elminster lives in Shadowdale. Alustriel rules Silverymoon. Get it right! smile.gif

Cain,

Honestly, you're causing my brain cells to commit sepuku. Please just stop. Shadowrun is a system as much as it is a theme. D&D is a system in the same light. To suggest that you can't play Shadowrun without power-armour, else you need to call it RiFTS is like suggesting you cannot playing D&D without Elves else you can't call it D&D, but D&D-NOELVES.

Says who? You? Yes, your name may evoke the first children of Adam and Eve, so PERHAPS you are our progenitor and thus we must pay homage to you. But, you'll forgive me this small rebellion if I tell you that I will play Shadowrun as I see fit and still call it Shadowrun.

Thank you.
Fortune
QUOTE (Aemon)
Please, Elminster lives in Shadowdale. Alustriel rules Silverymoon.

But he does have access to a Teleport Spell or two. wink.gif
Cain
QUOTE
Shadowrun is a system as much as it is a theme. D&D is a system in the same light. To suggest that you can't play Shadowrun without power-armour, else you need to call it RiFTS is like suggesting you cannot playing D&D without Elves else you can't call it D&D, but D&D-NOELVES.

First of all, you'd call it d20. No elves necessary. D&D is a proprietary product, which by definition, includes elves. You can house rule them out, but then the game's not the same. Exactly where the line between D&D/notD&D is unclear, but you can tell when you've crossed it.

To call it Rifts when things have gone that far isn't a stretch.

QUOTE
But, you'll forgive me this small rebellion if I tell you that I will play Shadowrun as I see fit and still call it Shadowrun.

You're welcome to do so. But if you're including caped super-heroes flying faster than a speeding bullet, someone's going to point out that you'd be happier playing HERO system than the Shadowrun ruleset.

But be honest with yourself, and honest with your players. If someone comes to play Shadowrun, and you've got Supertights as an NPC, you're doing both them and you a disservuce. This is why it's best to be honest about the type of game you're playing, even if you want to call it something it's not.
Drtyrm
Your Rifts comment was totally off-point. The discussion is basically about how a GM influences a game. You decided to introduce what I guess is an argument about canon SR versus more out-there versions.


QUOTE (Cain)
You could GM fiat it, and just tell the player: "You're too far back to help." Or, you could say: "Let's create a house rule. How about this: let's use the sprinting rules, but change the distances like so."


So when I go outside the printed rules it's "GM Fiat." Bad, bad, bad.

You make "House rules." Good, good, good.

What's the difference? Do you think that you are the only GM who takes player input into account when they are running a game?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012