The difference is that GM fiat is unpredictable, and not guaranteed to be the same from one appearance of a situation to the next appearance of the same sort of situation. It destroys the ability for players to predict the outcome of their actions.

House rules, which are also bad but significantly less bad than GM fiat, are different because instead of unpredictable on-the-spot rulings, they are guidelines that are put firmly in place that will be followed every time they apply.

Example: a vehicle crashes into another vehicle. Saying "well, the other vehicle will resist 4S3" is GM fiat. Saying "a vehicle that has been crashed into will suffer damage based on the relative speeds and masses of the vehicles according to this [formula or chart]" is a houserule. The first doesn't let the players know anything about what will happen next time a vehicle is about to crash into another vehicle. The second does.

~J

Just catching up, so sorry if some of this is repeated.

At some point in any RPG, GM Fiat will be required, as the rules cannot possibly cover every situation. But when GM Fiat starts being required to cover many situations that ARE covered in the rules, that points out flawed rules. All RPGs are going to have rules that break down in some situations. Pointing out that the rules are a bit wonky doesn't neccessarily mean that the people pointing out the flaw hate the game, it may mean that they'd like to see the game improve.

Over time, SR3 is going to fade away in popularity due to the introduction of SR4. I have been playing Shadowrun for years, and am beginning to play SR4, though I still play SR3 too. There are some things I love about the new edition, and some things I loathe about it, but even if I hated the new SR4 rules to the point I only wanted to play SR3, I'd still want to bring up issues with the new rules so that they hopefully would be improved, because as time goes on, finding a group of people interested in playing the older editions is going to be harder.

Those who play ANY edition of Shadowrun should have an interest in seeing SR4 to well, even if they have no plans to switch to the SR4 rules. If the game doesn't do well, the Shadowrun community as a whole will get smaller, and eventually made fade away. So to those who can't stand to see any criticism of SR4, chill out a bit. A critical review of the rules may help to make them better.

I disagree wholeheartedly, but we're getting close to topic-derailing.

~J

Except SR4 isnt really that wonky a system. Is it perfect? No. But no system is (as has been stated before)

I think part of the reason why you dont for example under SR4 see stuff like the old SR3's version of Hardened and Vehicle armor is purely because of the fact that ammo got so advanced it effectively acts like AV rounds. Which under SR3 rules you could infact get for a pistol.

So now you just effectively have regular and AP (Yes I realize there are other types like EX-EX but thats not really the point, it's really just a weaker AP version). Now while making a 'long range snapshot' would likely be abit far fetched IRL. It actualy isnt impossible for some one whos really good with a rifle and has a well calibrated iron sight or scope. Infact it's easier to do with an iron sight. And with very minimal time to aim (Just a few seconds which still falls under a snapshot) you can still be pretty accurate.

Now granted your not bloody likely to MAKE the shot, nor are you going to be able to even see a target beyond a certain range. But snipers from back in the napoleonic and civial war eras made plenty of very long range shots (for the weaponry used), with far poorer weaponry than we have today. And with nothing other than an iron sight to boot. Infact I'm pretty sure if I dug through some of my books on the history of sniping I could even find specific examples of ranges from that era and shots made. Not all of them were extreemly long aiming periods either. Infact, taking a very long time to aim isnt really a good thing in many cases as it's your body supporting the rifle. In cases where it's not then it doenst matter as much of course.

So lets make an actual 'realistic' example of a scenario where you might be sniping at some one in Shadowrun (Something I've done quite abit of actually, and hell I'm going to pull out something I did in SR3 but convert it to SR4 since thats the system were discussing)

Basically here is the setup on the run I was on:
Convoy with various security vehicles, moving along a canyon. We allready knew the route and all that fun stuff, setup an ambush. And I set myself up with my sniper rifle down the far end. Rifle in question was a Ranger arms SM-3 loaded with AV rounds. Now since those dont exsit in SR4 we'll change that to APDS sinc ehtats the closest you get. I was setup, under cover, prone with my rifle supported with a bipod. The angle afforded me full view of the road ahead with practically no blindspot (A second sniper infact was covering the areas I couldnt see and vice versa)

Rifle skill: 6
Improved Rifles Adept Ability: 2
Quickness 6: Converts to Agility 4
Total dice: 6+2+4=12

Now since this is SR4 and I can easily and cheaply use a smartlink with an Adept, I'm damn well going to do so. So lets add another +2 dice from the smartlink since we want to go for 'extreme' examples. Also for this we'll ignore the range issue since vision magnification is also in use, and the range to the target is well within 'long range' of the rifle itself.

Total dice for test: 14

The target: Truck driver, behind armored glass, wearing body armor.
Target has:
Good Cover: -4 dice
Attacker Firing From Cover: -1
Attacker In moving Vehicle modifier (We'll add this because the target is instead the one in the moving vehicle): -3
Total Penalty: -7
Dice Left for Test: 7

Now using the roller at: http://www.imasy.or.jp/~miyamoto/rpg/javas...t/sr4Tools.html
I've Rolled the test 10 times:
Test 1: 3 hits
Test 2: 3 hits
Test 3: 5 hits
Test 4: 3 hits
Test 5: 3 hits
Test 6: 2 hits
Test 7: 1 hit
Test 8: 1 hit
Test 9: 4 hits
Test 10: 2 hits

So in every case I hit him. This without taking an aiming action. However this si with all the necessary gear. Being 'zoomed in' allready etc. Now lets switch it around abit. Make it at long range, without magnification, or a smartlink
Dice Pool: 14 - 2= 12

The target: Truck driver, behind armored glass, wearing body armor.
Target has:
Good Cover: -4 dice
Attacker Firing From Cover: -1
Attacker In moving Vehicle modifier (We'll add this because the target is instead the one in the moving vehicle): -3
Long Range: -2
Total Penalty: -9
Dice Left for Test: 3

Rolls to Hit:
Test 1: 0
Test 2: 0
Test 3: 1
Test 4: 0
Test 5: 2
Test 6: 1
Test 7: 0
Test 8: 2
Test 9: 0
Test 10: 2

So pretty much a 50/50 chance of hitting him without taking an action to aim. This also isnt taking in any other possible mofiiers such as glare from the sun, lighting levels etc. The round in question still also has to not only punch through the armored glas, but then the man afterwards. Realistically it's not an impossible shot. Now is that 50/50 chance better than what you'd get IRL? Hard to erally say, I'd say it's abit on the side of unrealism but keep in mind the shooter was allready setup well ahead of time and the 'snap shot' in question isnt a true snapshot when you think about circumstances, since it only required minor adjustment of the rifle at the most. And that, I can assure you from RL experience is quite possible to do iron sight. Its a great deal harder to do with a scope actually, but then in SR4 you have a smartlink and no need for a scope, the smartlink also convientnly places a crosshair right in your view.

Considering this is an RPG with dragons, magic, nonhuman races, spirits, mutants, cyberware, bioware and all sorts of other things that dont exist in this world. I hardly feel that that's overly streatching the realm of 'realism' for the setting. So what exactly is wrong with the rules surrounding SR4s range combat?

Keep in mind, my character is human, a stat of 4 is for some one 'trained'. A skill of 6 means he's just shy of world class. Add in his 2 dice from the improved combat adept ability and he's actually above world class. He's better than bloody james bond. If he were the total top of the line sniper in the world he'd have:
Longarms: 7
Augmented Agility: 9 (Or 10 for an elf)
Total dice: 16 (17) not counting combat ability powers.
At that level he's not just the best he's bloody well beyond superhuman. And easily earns the 'Legend' status the 7 in a skill gives you.

I got lazy and didnt double check my spelling. A runner team has been dispatched to.. deal with you for pointing out my errors!

Okay, since people have taken exception with Mr. Lucky and the Citymaster, I'm going to modify mfb's example, and show you the flaws on a smaller scale.

The ship, sailing out to sea, is almost a mile away (1500m). His target is wandering around on deck, calling over a commlink and gloating, so the decker has triangulated his location based on signal strength. The target also has full heavy armor on, which has reduced his Reaction pool to nothing. The team has a Ranger SM-4 loaded with EX-EX, but no one left who has the longarms skill.

Mr. Lucky grabs the sniper rifle, which he's never used before (-1), tosses open the van door as it's moving, and fires a snaphot (-3). This is at extreme range (-6) and the target has good cover (-4). He's Seriously Wounded (-3), and is firing from cover himself (-1). And, since this is Seattle we're talking about, it's raining (-4). Now, he calls a shot to bypass armor (-12, assuming no shield). Total modifiers: -34. Since Mr. Lucky isn't going to have any dice pool left, he spends a point of Edge. Now he's got 8 dice to work with, which averages to 2.66 successes, rounded up to 3. Total damage code: 13P. Assuming the target has a Body of 3, that amounts to 1 success: not nearly enough. He dies on the spot.

Now, this is the exact same thing as the Citymaster example, just on a less-exaggerated scale.

You mean the old dungeon crawls were you cleared a room and moved to the next until you got the the boss and kicked his ass. basically anyone outside your team or town was the enemy, especially if they were in a cave or castle.

Would your power armor have no stats?

~J

Be reasonable everyone for crying out loud.

You want to make the rules tighter than a tart's skirt go right ahead, you're not doing anything wrong.

You want to play it loose and fast go right ahead, you're not doing anything wrong.

It's all a matter of style.

As to what does and doesn't constitute SR, let's take some examples.

Some people play Battletech without involving the clans because they feel they're overpowered. There are more than enough conflicts not involving the clans to account for this, thus you are still playing Battletech.
You could play any number of games and play down a certain faction or race and stillb e playing taht game. Maybe you play SR, but certain corps or other groups like Humanis just don't happen to crop up. It's still SR.

So list of house rules or not, it's somehting for every GM and every player to decide. Either way the unreasonable snap shot or banana up the exhaustshould not even be rolled for, it's just different groups would come to that conclusion in different ways.

And let's remember the realism of certain things, most especially firearms, depends on the group. Many players won't have touched a real firearm ever, myself included because I'm in Britain. Remember that many, many countries do not allow legal firearms.

If you have a group made up of computer specialists you'll find the matrix will have some quirks, if you're playing with a lot of firearms enthusiasts or ex military people similarly with firearms, and so on. No two groups are the same. This isn't particularly avoidable, especially in a game with a setting so closely linked to reality.

Yes, linked so closely to reality. I don't compare SR to reality a huge amount because that would be silly, but SR includes firearms and computers etc. THese are things we can reasonably expect people to have RL knowledge and experience of, at least in a noticeable percentage of the player base. On the other hand I would not expect many people to have RL knowledge of "magic missiles".

Okay I think I can clear this up. On pg 54 it says:

Thank you, you did clear it up. That paragraph right there covers a substantial part of what GM fiat is, which is what we're complaining about. That paragraph is, to paraphrase McMurray, "where the bad GM touched me".

~J

so how about a shadowrun tournament at a convention?

Anyone else here a bit lost on there double talk argument?

Yes but your ability to ignore the rule is granted by that rule. If you ignore that ability then you no longer have the ability to ignore that rule. Therefore that rule stays put!

Besides it was to point out that the ability to change any of the rules is IN the rules. In fact it gives you a page of ways to change the rules and various suggestions. SR4 seems to be fairly house rules friendly.

Talking about circular logic does exactly crap for any debate, just makes you look stupid. Circular logic by its nature can never resolve any debate because it does not come to a concrete conclusion.

However you can look at the meaning if you are even slightly able to read between the lines, "Here's a framework and do what you will with it."

And remember there is a difference between cheating and inconsistency, please decide which is the issue. I agree that simply deciding "The bad guys have a vehicle faster than yours" could be cheating, but it could also be integral to the plot. If you don't trust a GM to make the best possible story without being unfair then you have a GM problem, not a mechanics problem.

You say the rules should stop GMs being able to do this? Imagine the result of the fudge, it could be worse... or it could lead to another intricate and deep plot twist. Saying a GM shouldn't have that kind of power is silly because it can completely invalidate their role. You have to trust a GM to choose when to fudge, and to fudge for the benefit of the players even if they can't see it right then. There are plenty of times you have to trust people in RL, this is just another one.

Now as I said if you want to play it differently you can, just don't try to impose your views on everyone else.

Yeah, you should definitely know it before you change it, but that's not an SR4 issue, it's a crappy game master issue. Almost every game out there (every game I've read, the "almost" is just to cover my ass) says at some point that the rules are just guidelines, and the group should have fun.

The same SR4 section that says change a rule if you think you need to also says the GM should know the rules very well, and that changes should be kept to a minimum.

I hate to beat a dead horse even more (and to come out of lurking after so long for what seems like a small, flippant, remark), but has no one else heard of the Oberoni Fallacy? The BBB seems to have codified it en mass.

I have to agree with mfb in large part here, and to me the game development seems to be 'loose' or whatever word you may wish to use.

See, it's not a matter of "where the bad GM touched me," but rather the expectations of the social contract we all enter into when we sit down at the gaming table. The rules of a system are the "physics" of the gaming world; it's the shared basis in which we, until house ruled or GM fiatted, come to expect as normal and what we should expect an outcome to be. The problem is the rules are so purposefully vague that I have a really hard time coming to grasp what should happen because the entire system is riddled with GM caveats.

As a GM, nothing would please me greater than throwing the BBB at a new player, tell him he's responsible for learning the basics and the next session giving him the low down on the house rules or specific devations from canon that our gaming group uses once he gets on the same page in regards with the RAW. But I have little confidence in the BBB so that after reading the rules that Bobby and Bill will even be in the same chapter, let alone on the same page. And that, I feel, is a detraction from the new edition.

I do wish to add that I do quite enjoy SR4. Very much so- just it could have been better is all I'm saying. That, and having to teach new players "my" version of Shadowrun is a little more effort than I appreciate.

Unfortunately the Long Shot Test description does not say either way whether or not the negative pool modifiers also apply to the long shot test itself.

Some people may be assuming that when you do the Long Shot Test that you automatically get to roll Edge number of dice without the negative modifiers applying anyway.

There's a difference if you still get to apply the negative modifiers. adding 8 edge to negative 34 modifier, as has been cited in some cases, would make the shot still difficult.

The Oberoni Fallacy doesn't apply here. The situation isn't "there's a problem, but you can house rule it so there's no longer a problem" it's "some people don't like some things, if so, they can house rule them."

As I stated McMurray, the statement was slightly flippant.

The problem isn't within the rules themselves, but rather, in the relative lack of rules. There is no fundament on which I can rest my expectations if the rule system is in large part a "GM's judgement call." The fact that I bought a book of rules that tells me repeatedly that the GM can make up his own rules kinda makes me wonder just wtf I did buy.

There really aren't as many rules holes in SR4 as people seem to think. These threads usually stem more from rules that people don't agree with than rules that don't exist.

There are rules for a lot of things. There are a bunch of places where the rules are unclear - some of those have resulted in a general consensus here on the forum (i.e how modifiers interact with attribute caps) and some are still less clear (i.e. what can you do once you've got a thousand copies of an Agent).

SR4 is a complete system rewrite, simplifying a game system with 10 years of sourcebooks. The developers didn't even *try* to fit all the game rules into the main book - the full decking rules won't be out for a while. In a couple other places, decisions were made that have weird consequences - look at how the existence of the attribute cap impacts relative power level beween metahumans and spirits.

The primary reason that roleplaying games have rules at all is to help the players visualize a shared game world - even if the game master isn't an utter genius who can simulate the physics of gunshots in his head while also correctly visualizing a computer network penetration. These events, and any other events that are reasonably common in the roleplaying game, should be resolved by the game rules.

In SR4, there are reasonably common situations that the game rules don't cleanly handle. In addition, there are numerous places where exactly what the rules are is unclear (what are the mental attributes of a flesh form spirit?). These are flaws. The FAQ will solve some of them, others we'll be stuck with until SR5 eventually happens.

One basic fact is that it's easier to play a tight system loosely than it is to tighten up a system that is loose to begin with. That's why I prefer my game systems to start tight...

Often the reverse is true. In a tight system the players can be calling the GM to account with page references all the time and it bogs down into lawyerism, even if you aren't playing with true rules lawyers. It just takes a situation where one guy decides the specific tight interpretation of a rule in the books benefits him more in that situation, and they all end up at it.

IME, the situation cx2 describes is far more common that the opposite.

If that's a problem you legitimately have, just go ahead and tell your players "No rule books at the table, rules disputes after the session". An even cleaner solution would be to actually have your house rules written up beforehand, which can easily include the rules you're not using (i.e. We're playing D&D 3.5, but without combat manuevers like Bull Rush and Grapple).

I personally find that getting to know what the rules actually are is an excellent way to avoid rules-lawyering problems. I've seriously found that they mostly only come up when the GM hasn't bothered to read the book.

It is far easier to add than remove.