Funny how people only seem to remember the rules that will help them at the time. Rare is the player who says, "Excuse me, GM, but according to rule X on page Y, that should've done much more damage to me." Rare, and precious, and definitely deserving of bonus karma.

Completely depends on your group. For some players "the rules are the rules" and if it's in them it's sacrosanct. For other players the mantra is instead "you can't do that, it's not in the rules." For most it's somewhere in between.

That's why it's imperative that you find a system that fits the players in your group. Trying to run SR4, WoD, or other "loose" systems in the more hardcore "must be rules" group will only lead to heartache. Well, apparently heartache and much gnashing of teeth on forums about the game you* profess to hate but seemingly can't stop talking about.

* general you, not meant to refer to cx2 even though I quoted his post.

I do that, and it tends to annoy my fellow players sometimes. So how do I get the karma, will it be emailed, snail mailed, or added to my spiritual tally automatically by the computer that runs Everything?

Be wary of the CLUE files. They're funny, but a lot of them seem to stem from a GM being a jerk rather than a stupid player.

I absolutely disagree.

They both share a step: telling your players about your house rules. Adding rules has an additional step - writing new rules that work cleanly with the existing system. Anyone who's ever tried to write consistent new rules to graft on to an existing system will assure you that it's non-trivial.

I guess if you don't follow "declare your house rules before the session" policy, you might have some trouble with the sort of problem you're describing. On the other hand, as far as I'm concerned problems with undeclared house rules deserve no pity whatsoever.

This right here is part of the value of a tight system. If it becomes "all the time", perhaps the GM should review the rules before the next session?

And this is actually a perfect example. However the GM got from "EX-EX" to "noisy", it isn't supported by any sourcebook I've seen or any obvious chain of logic, so unless we haven't been told that he or she'd announced this beforehand…

~J

This is an excellent example for my next rant.

Clearly this player was new to that gaming group. They had read the rules, and thought they knew how the game worked. A sound suppressor suppresses the sound of a gunshot, ExEx ammo increases the damage. According to the rules, there's no problem here.

Then the GM is like "Ha Ha! I've got an undeclared house rule that ExEx ammo makes a shitload of noise, and so it's not compatible with silencers." If the player is me, I'd be like "That seems somewhat reasonable - it would have been nice if it were on the house rule sheet but whatever. So... the sound is at the location of the target and my position isn't revealed, right?".

With a good GM, I'd expect them to agree and we move along. With a bad GM, I'd get "No, ExEx just makes your sound supressor not work." I'd be like "Yup, I had no way to guess that's how things worked. How about I was using my Gel rounds instead." My experience would be that the bad GM would be like "No, you declared your action. You're screwed". It's at this point where I'm seriously tempted to punch the GM and leave.

The moral of the story is: This shit shouldn't come up to begin with. In a tight system, ExEx ammo would have text saying something like "Although this ammo can be silenced, it makes a loud bang when it hits the target - observers can make a Perception (4) test to notice it". In order to tighten up the game, a game master has to put in a house rule like that. In a loose game with a bad GM, this is a horrible mess that makes the game not fun.

While I somewhat agree with your assessment (in general) disagree with your example. Specific rules of that nature are as much a boon as they are a hindrance. Consider:

What happens if the ExEx round penetrates soft tissue and doesn't explode until inside the body? Increase the Perception test difficulty of hearing it? Does all that flesh, bone and fat muffle the sound? What happens if it strikes water?

Adding details means you now have to add additional details just to cover the new details you did add. And as they always say, the devil is in the details.

It's very easy to accuse game designers of missing something that you feel is crucial at a specific moment in time during play. But it's very difficult for a game designer to conceive of all the possible scenarios that rules will need to be created for.

In Babylon 5 if your spaceship's weapon does less damage then their armor then no damage is dealt. They playtested an armor damage rule but left it out for some reason. The end result is fighter crafts that can't actually hurt each other unless someone rolls a crit.

Needless to say we found the armor damage rule and implemented it. And while I did complain at the B5 boards as part of the thread where someone mentioned the rule, I definitely didn't opt to complain about it in every thread I post in.

So what you're saying, is that the GM should know how to run a game, and how to run it for his group. None of this has anything to do specifically with the system that you happen to be running, nor how tight or loose that system is. What it all boils down to is "a GM should know his group, and know the game he intends to run".

A good point. It opens up the opportunity to interject that being a good player is just as important as being a good GM. Again, not in any way connected to the system.

Oh please. The day that I believe that you remember every rule during every session because you've "reviewed" them is the day I buy you an island in the ocean of your choice. I'm a rules nerd when I'm running a game. I literally shift into "dork GM mode" when I'm running, and spend a few hours reading rules books and setting stuff almost every day. (Not lately, but I'll save you the sob story of not having a group for the last 5 months. Um, or maybe I won't.) Yet maybe every 2nd or 3rd session, some weird, unforseen, random situation will come up that nobody can remember a specific rule for.

I guess in short, I think saying "the GM should just know the rules" is a ridiculous supporting argument for an over-ruled system.

And again, an example of bad GMing is given as support for having a rule for everything. And again, I can't help but wonder what systems there are that don't have these situations that provide openings for bad GMing. I've never played one.

Emphasis mine. I think the part I bolded pretty much stands alone. I've not noticed much difference due to the system when my GM was a jackass. I was too busy focusing on the fact that the GM...was a jackass.

I understand that you don't want to be in the position of buying other people islands all the time, but you might want to review the difference between a corrective step to be taken should a particular event (players calling the GM to account) start happening very frequently (or, in the text you quoted, "all the time") and that same event happening at all, ever.

My assertion is that it is good for the players to be able to call the GM to account with page references, and good for them to actually do so. In situations where a rule exists, our group usually finds it in a matter of minutes. It is those situations where no rules or insufficient rules (or contradictory rules—I'm not saying that more rules is always better, as (for example) one can create two rules that are indistinguishable from no rules) exist that significant time is spent determining what the proper course of action is.

cx2: I'm not going to tell you how to play your game. I will argue what does and does not make a good game, and may by extension end up evaluating aspects of your game, but I do not expect you or anyone else to change your personal preferences according to either my conclusions or the thread's consensus (or consensi, as is slightly more probable).

~J

I'm having a hard time understanding where the noise is coming from. It's not like the slugs are tiny grenades. They're just fragmenting when they hit the target. It's going to be the same noise any bullet makes when it hits a target, either thud or KPWING!

Actually they DO have an explosion (Thats why their called Explosive/EX-Explosive). A very small one mind you but there is a very big difference between a 'fragmenting round' and an 'explosive round'. An 'explosive round' actually uses a certain ammount of explosive within the head. If you want to really look at the details just good 'explosive ammunition'.

Also here's a quicklink for the lazy that sort of brushes over the specifics, in this case with a 20mm round:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...tions/m1018.htm

Explosive ammo of all kinds basically works the same. Though there are still specific subtypes such as HEAP, HE, Airbursting etc. Fragmentary rounds are basically flechette rounds. They do alot more damage, but their not as good at busting through armor because of the fact that the round itself is effectively more fragile, because by design it breaks appart uppon contact. It still has most of its penatrative capability at the intial impact point of course but it's the force of that impact that fragements the round, not some explosive charge.

Yes, I know there are 'fragmentation' rounds that use an explosive charge but theres plenty that dont. Just poking about on ammunition information sites can show you the differences rather quickly.

Now on the subject at hand as to people hearing the shot. Well, thats a little different. First off the a silencer/suppresor will never completely silence a standard round. Thats why alot of asassination pistols use low velocity ammunition of a small caliber (.22 or 9mm). Though the EX-EX round would still make a noise when it hit the target it shouldnt make the gunshot itself any easier to notice.

But the book says it's a solid slug, not a slug containing explosives.

That's even less clear than just leaving the word "Explosive" as the entire description. Would actually figuring out what was meant by "explode", what the consequences of that decision would be, and adding another sentence or two to clarify have been that hard?

Again, you keep spewing this line, but it's still utter crap. Making a rules decision doesn't automatically turn a good GM into a bad one, and there's nothing in the situation that forces the GM to be inconsistent. Likewise there's nothing in the situation that forces him to be unfair.

We get that you think inconsistency and unfairness are wrong. I agree with you, and think most people would. The rulebook itself (in the GM Advice section) agree with you.

What makes no sense is your automatic assumption that any GM making a decision is immediately going to be unfair and inconsistent. SR4 (indeed any game) sometimes requires that rules decisions be made*. SR4 (indeed, pretty much any game with good GM Advice) tells the GM to be fair and consistent. If he does one but not the other you can't point the finger at the game.

Do a search for Ex-ex or explosive and read the 36 other threads on this subject. You'll get all the interpretations you want and then some.

That's the problem, not a solution to the problem.

When the percentage of GM decisions is high enough, you most certainly can, and should, blame the game. When you buy a game book, you're buying rules. If those rules are incomplete, inconsistent, or largely consist of: "Make it up as you see fit", then you haven't got your money's worth.

By the way, nice attempt to shift my language. I said any GM fiat decision is, by definition, *arbitrary*. Not necessarily inconsistant, but definitely unpredictable from the standpoint of the player. Fiat is also a decision of "Because I said so", so someone is going to not have a chance to affect the game like they normally would. That's decidedly unfair.

Let's use an example we agree on. The GM wants the PC's to be captured. The PC's start a firefight, but the GM simply says: "You lose, and wake up in a cell." This might advance the story and lead to all kinds of wonderful scenarios (Good GMing) but is still unfair and arbitrary.

So, this is not a good GM/bad GM dichotomy. It's a player-driven GM versus a story-driven one. And the story should never outshine the players.

Have you ever actually seen a dictionary? Inconsist means unpredictable. Also, unfairness due to unpredictability makes no sense. You don't have to know how something works for it to be fair.

Totally BS example. There is nothing in the rules or lack thereof that tells the GM to just say "you're captured." I agree that it's crappy GMing, but it's in no way caused by using the SR4 rule set. In fact, it's in direct violation of how the rulebook says it should be used.

I agree that your example was very story-driven. Now prove that a GM making a rule decision is forcing a story-driven game instead of player-driven one. Otherwise it's just another of your tangents.

Sorry. Edited it out.

Uh... So don't say it? Make a call. Use the time you have now instead of in the game to think it through and discuss it with the players and make the best call you can make for your group.

As an example, let's say you and I went to a gun range. On the wall are two rules: stay in your lane and don't shoot people. I tell you that although the rule doesn't specify, you should remain consistent fair when trying to determine what creatures to shoot. Is it my fault that when your dog wanders in you blow him away, even though you let your parakeet fly by without even pointing the gun his way?

of course he is. his whole point is that a game shouldn't have to depend on being run by a good GM to be fun. a game that depends that heavily on the GM is going to really suck when run by a GM who, for whatever reason, isn't up to the task. a game that's more able to stand on its own is more likely to be fun even if the GM is less than awesome.

you're sounding like a Microsoft tech answering a call about their Genuine Advantage software. something's wrong with it? must be on the user end! buy another copy of Windows, filthy pirate!

I've played great games with crappy GMs and it's always been crappy. Give me a good GM any day, and I'll play damn near any system. Hell, I've even had fun with WoD LARP, whose resolution system is rock-paper-scissors because we had a good GM. I've also had a horrible time playing the exact same game because of a crappy GM.

Again, a good GM will make a game better. And to follow your failure path (inconsistent and unfair) he has to be a downright crappy and egotistical GM, because even a mediocre one will read the rule book and do what it tells you to to when GMing (which is oddly enough to be fair and consistent).

How so? I've not once said that SR4 wsa perfect. In fact I've said several times that it isn't. What I'm saying is that your position is a subjective one, and therefore not true for everyone. What you're saying is "nuh-uh! I said it so it must be true. Neener neener neener!" (albeit a bit more eloquently)*

You are not going to convince people that your opinion is fact. You may convince them that your opinion is right for them, but that's two different things.

* See, I can exaggerate your stance from what it really is into something ludicrous as well, so why don't we agree to just talk about what people actually say?

i didn't say you did. i said that your response to just about every objection to the game rules has been "well, the GM should make a good ruling there". heck, you did it in the post just above mine. what happens when the GM isn't equipped to make a good ruling? bad things. no game can prevent that. what a good game can do is limit how often a GM has to make a call, thus effectively limiting the number of opportunities for him to make a bad ruling.

Contrast: "quality", "popularity".

~J

buy a new copy of Windows, filthy pirate. (does that count as name-calling?)

*WHOOOOOSH*
I rarely find myself in this position, but, um, can somebody explain the joke to me?
I don't get it.