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
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (mfb)
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!

Basically, mfb has claimed one of McMurray's approaches to be invalid, and is stating that McMurray is presenting that approach again without defending its validity. Not really a joke, though I could see how one might find it funny.

~J
mfb
i was referencing my own post, halfway up the page.

edit: what Kage said.
Moon-Hawk
QUOTE (mfb)
i was referencing my own post, halfway up the page.

Oh, yeah, that would make more sense then. embarrassed.gif
Sorry to interrupt the flow, everybody. I'll let you get back at each others' throats now. biggrin.gif
James McMurray
QUOTE
I submit that something that is, as much as anything can be said to be, objectively one thing (bad, in this case) can be subjectively considered good.


The problem being that it's not objectively bad that the rules are loose.

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


It does, but it has nothing to do with what you quoted, since I'm not telling anyone to do anything other than actually use the copy of the game they've got. Although, I believ that if a small group of posters here would just buy another game things would flow much smoother at times.

I'm not saying "a good GM will make good calls" (although he will). I'm saying that if the guy doesn't even bother reading the rulebook he's automatically a poor GM.

And I'm still looking for how any of this is objectively bad, rather than just your opinion.
mfb
you keep inserting random things into what i say, McMurray. it's getting annoying. i said nothing about whether or not a given GM has or has not read the rulebook. what i did say is there is a wide gradiation between "good GM" and "bad GM". most GMs fall between the two extremes of never making a bad call (the ultimate good GM) and always making bad calls (the ultimate bad GM). a group under a mediocre GM--that is to say, not the best, but not the worst--is more likely to have more fun with a game that doesn't force the GM to make lots and lots of rules calls than they are to have fun with a game that does force the GM to do so, for the simple reason that in a game where the GM has to make fewer calls, he will make fewer bad calls because he will have less opportunity to do so.

SR4 is built on the assumption that the GM will be a good GM, who makes good calls almost every time he makes a call at all. most GMs are not good GMs--they're not bad GMs, they're just not good ones. therefore, SR4 is built on a faulty assumption.

i'm not sure where you're coming up with this "opinion" objection. i think SR4 is a badly-designed game--yeah, that's my opinion. it's based on points that, according to your previous sig, you accept as being true.
Kesslan
I dont see personaly where SR4 ever forces the GM to make alot of calls. Except perhaps for certain areas that are not yet covered by new SR4 books. I mean comparing the SR3 main book to the SR4 main book and personally I find the SR4 main book actually covers more than the SR3 one did. But thats just personal oppinion.

So now you want to get into custom guns/armor etc. Well SR3 it was ALL in the cannon companion. Now some of the mods are at least in the main book under SR4 and I'm sure alot more specific info will be presented in the new armory book when ever the heck it comes out. Thats hardly a failure of the SR4 system. Thats like saying SR3 was a horrible failure because all the advanced rules etc arnt there if you take away and forget everything you know about the rules in the SR3 expansion books (MITS, M&M, CC, SC etc)

Granted it doesnt get terribly specific about some stuff like EX and EX-EX ammo. Which means GMs need to make certain assumptions about it or at least allready do. I mean unless I"m mistaken (At work without my books to refer to atm) it specifically states under explosive ammo that it can explode in your gun. Not just fire, but flat out blow up in your hand. It certainly does that under SR3. And NO OTHER ammunition does that. Even when you throw it into a fire technically speaking. Thats somethign the rules dont really cover. Now granted EX and EX-EX rounds probably should be abit more specific but thats a really bloody minor thing.

As to the issue say with how fires are handled, and what can/cant catch fire being up to the GM. Thats less of a failure of the system as perhaps failure of common sense of the GM. I mean the average person realizes geee.. if I put my shirt in the fire it will itself catch fire! OMG! eek.gif MY WORLD IS COLAPSING! twirl.gif WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE! dead.gif

I mean the rulebook shouldnt -have- to cover that kinda crap. And then for advanced rules for vehicles (Not to mention a badly needed expansion of available vehicles) no doubt that will all be in the new rigger book, just like all that fun stuff was in Rigger3. So it's lack of being in the SR4 book I'd hardly call a glaring oversight.

I mean as it stands, yes there are alot of gaps still, but how many of them are simply there becuase the relevant books that will cover those areas simply arnt there yet? Thats hardly something to be called a failure of the system. And most RPGs I know of are the same way. You get the main book that covers the basic core rules, and then you have all the expansion rulebooks.

D&D: You have the players guide, the GM guide, the monster manual, the umpteen expansion books for epic players, evil players, additional races/magic/gods/dragons/etc

Heavy Gear: you have the core book, the equipment guide, and an assortment of other books that add/update rules (Though been slightly condenced since the new books put out under the hybrid Silouette/OGL D20)

SR3: you have the core book, MITS, CC, SC, R3, the two SOTA books, Dragons of the sixth world and so on and so forth.

And the monstrocity that is the Palladium RPG system is even worse (Love the settings, but god they really need a new and far better gaming system)

I think one of the few games that isnt like this -might- be Paranoia. But the whole point of that system seems to be for the GM to find a way to kill you anyway.
cx2
Under SR4 rolls for things can be fudged up quickly and with minimum of mess for almost anything you need a roll for. Hardly any major calls that can go badly wrong.

Non-rolled stuff though is more about the *intent* of the GM. If the GM intends for the players to have fun then he will tend to make better calls, if he intends for the story to go on at all costs he'll screw them over.

GM quality is how well they make stories and portray the world, along with occasional helping hands if the players paint themselves into a corner. This last part isn't as serious as it sounds, it's adapting the story on the fly if the players say miss an important clue or something major with the story line goes wrong and shouldn't happen often.

Now the intent is a part of GM quality, but not all of it. A GM who is horrible at stories, but with good intent is probably far better than a halfway decent GM with regards to stories, but with terrible intent.
Kesslan
Indeed, and personally at least I point out to anyone wanting to play in an SR game I run, that I am abit more on the realism side. At the same time I also realize that some times I can unintetionaly create horrifically vicious traps that PCs just dotn think of because their not USED to a GM pulling said stunts on them so I compensate abit

Best example I can give was one run on Shadowrun: Seattle I ran. It never wound up finishing unfortunately due to people not being able to get togeather again etc but oh well. Basic surmize of it was, PCs go in, nab some artifacts from a dig site and get the heck out.

They had alot of detail ahead of time, they knew it was a hard run with a high payout. They knew they were giong into an armed camp with moderately well equipped guards (Basic body armor, assault rifles) and that the head 'security specialist' was basically a heavily cybered merc.

I'd allready planned out the basics of what I thought migh thappen, adjusted things on the fly as it came (for example they did alot more sniping than I expected and they got really lucky in a few cases) ok fine not a problem. So they get into the main compound, start heading down the stairs into the undergroudn tomb

They still hadnt heard a thing about the sec head leader though they knew he was probably setting iup camp in the tomb itself, which is where the objective was known to be. What they didnt expect was the fact that as a merc and an experienced soldier the guy would boobytrap the stairwell with a claymore mine.

I gave the lead PC not one, not two but THREE perception checks to notice the unconcealed wire, very dim light while he wasnt using lowlight etc. The perception targets were right out of the book for noticing a thin tripwire under those conditions (SR3 system I think the TN was cool.gif and you needed something like 3 hits to fully notice it. First test he gets nothing, second he only gets one and the third he only got one. This was largely because my intent wasnt to totally kill him which the claymore at pointblank range definately would have (specially with the SR3 chunky salsa effect of explosion rebound in a confined space)

So end result was he -almost- set it off and just barely in time noticed the wire pressing into his leg. STory goes on they meet the 'big bad boss' and get a hell of a tougher fight than they expect. I had him tossing grenades at them, firing from cover, moving around, falling back or advancing etc. Ran him basically like a PC. Thats not something most PCs seem to be used to. ANd thats fine. Overall they seemed to enjoy it alot more and still havent forgotten that NPC either.

I mean to me that seems more or less decent GMing. I wouldnt call it bad if some one else wasnt as linent either, SR is ment to be brutal and deadly. But I tend to lean more towards a good story myself with some decent (if some what bent) realism.

But in either case, on the matter of intent, in such a setup a GM could well intend to purposely maim/kill the characters to 'teach them a lesson'. But at the same time no rules would have had to have been bent/broken/rewritten etc at all. Which all comes back to the same thing realy. Both systems have basic modifiers to cover such events etc. And sticking to the numbers and rules could very easily kill the PCs both under SR3 and SR4. This is hardly a problem with the rules, simply if a problem exists it's purely because of the players, the GM or both.

I mean a good GM to me doesnt let a few holes in rules stop them from just making a decision on the fly much like they allways have to do if and almost allways inevitably when the PCs do something they dont expect. A good GM also looks at what sort of playstyle is expected. Something gritty, something about average to the total munchkin "I'm going to play as a great dragon in charge of a mega corp who has a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons at his disposal!"

If there are issues with players not liking the rulings it's likely you either have an incompatible GM/Playerbase or one or both parties are simply really bad. In which case you really should just try to find a setup that works alot better for you. Personally I'm certainly not the type that enjoys games where I can just make a longshot test with an incindary armorpiercing explosive bannana up the tailpipe of an APC and blow it up.

The fact that I dont like such gameplay hardly at all would make me a bad GM. I state flat out what I expect of an SR game and if people dont like it, find another GM cause it's alot of damn work as it is, and i'm sure as hell not goign to put that much work into something -I- dont also get to equally enjoy as much as the players. There's a give/take relationship there on a certain level really. I try to make the game fun for people but at the same time I have the expectation that the game will progress in a relatively (for SR) realistic game as opposed to a total munchkin driven acid trip. Cause I dont like that kinda thing and I certainly in such a situation would make a terrible GM becaue I'd not only hate the game at that point but I woudlnt even bother trying.

So if I were to disallow such a longshot would that really make me such a terrible GM? Personally I dont think so. I mean if it was some other thing like player says OK I wanna do this! And I'd be like umm... I dunno. How exactly do you expect something like that to actually work. Debate come to a consensus and then make a ruling on it. If it seems reasonable enough within the expected game setting, ok go for it. Otherwise nope, sorry cant do that, try thinking of something else.
James McMurray
I know you didn't say anything about reading the rulebook, I did. Your complaint is that loose rules cause unfairness and inconsistency. My reply is that the rulebook tells the GM to make sure to be fair and consistent. Hence, if he reads the rulebook, your worries are not valid. If he doesn't read the rulebook, then he's a crappy GM no matter how torqued the rules are.

QUOTE
a group under a mediocre GM--that is to say, not the best, but not the worst--is more likely to have more fun with a game that doesn't force the GM to make lots and lots of rules calls than they are to have fun with a game that does force the GM to do so, for the simple reason that in a game where the GM has to make fewer calls, he will make fewer bad calls because he will have less opportunity to do so.


Then play a tighter game. Not every game is perfect for every group. If SR4 doesn't suit someone, they should play something else.

QUOTE
i'm not sure where you're coming up with this "opinion" objection. i think SR4 is a badly-designed game--yeah, that's my opinion. it's based on points that, according to your previous sig, you accept as being true.


My objection is that you state your case as if it were fact. You insist that SR4 is a bad game, when it's really just a bad game to people like you. I disagree that loose rules make for lots of bad calls, and my experience proves me right. You think they do, and your experience proves you right. So either one of us is lying, or it really does boil down to good GM vs. bad GM, regardless of how many times you say it doesn't.

QUOTE
I dont see personaly where SR4 ever forces the GM to make alot of calls.


Me neither, but apparently for some people it does, even though when asked they won't cite actual laundrey lists of unanswered questions.
mfb
QUOTE (James McMurray)
I know you didn't say anything about reading the rulebook, I did. Your complaint is that loose rules cause unfairness and inconsistency. My reply is that the rulebook tells the GM to make sure to be fair and consistent. Hence, if he reads the rulebook, your worries are not valid. If he doesn't read the rulebook, then he's a crappy GM no matter how torqued the rules are.

James McMurray, you can fly. you don't need machines or anything, you can just lift off the ground and swoop through the air. go on, try it. what's that? despite having read that you can fly, you actually can't fly? hm, i wonder if the same principle applies to being a fair and consistent GM.

QUOTE (James McMurray)
Then play a tighter game. Not every game is perfect for every group. If SR4 doesn't suit someone, they should play something else.

so, like i said. if SR4 doesn't work for a given group, it must be the filthy pirate'sgroup's fault. that's a really crappy way to design something--if the user knows what he's doing, he's fine, but if he needs assistance, none is provided. SR4 tells you to be a good GM. well, golly! i'd have never thought of that on my own. seriously, who needs to be told to be fair and consistent when they GM? every GM thinks they're fair and consistent, even the bad ones.
Kagetenshi
To be fair, at least for me the idea that that was explicitly important was a bit of a revelation to me at about age 10. I never believed that they were undesirable, I just never specifically thought of them as goals. That being said, aside from staking out a tiny little box for "players/GMs too young to know the difference without being told", it doesn't change your point at all.

~J
James McMurray
QUOTE
hm, i wonder if the same principle applies to being a fair and consistent GM.


Give how vastly seperated the two are, I doubt it. Nice try at argument by analogy, but your analogy doesn't hold, which means it's a fallacy.

QUOTE
so, like i said. if SR4 doesn't work for a given group, it must be the filthy pirate'sgroup's fault.


Not at all, and I never said that. I've said all along that the game doesn't work for all groups, not that some groups are too <insert negative adjective here> to use the game. It's the game's fault that it doesn't work for them, but it's not the game's responsibility to work for everyone, nor is it possible for a game to work for everyone.

QUOTE
seriously, who needs to be told to be fair and consistent when they GM?


Apparently a lot of people, or damn near every RPG wouldn't feel the need to point it out in their advice section.

QUOTE
that's a really crappy way to design something


Certainly, by your ideas of design it's crappy. But it seems to work for a lot of people, and win a few awards, so maybe your ideals aren't the objective values you seem to think they are.
mfb
you're always making everything binary, an either/or choice. black or white, ketchup or mustard, good analogy or complete fallacy. the flying example is an obvious exaggeration, and you're certainly more likely to become a fair and consistent GM by reading that you should be one than you are to be able to fly because you read you could. that doesn't mean that flying is a bad example--just an exaggerated one. it's not false, it's overblown to make the flaws more obvious. when i create an image for a webpage i'm designing, i usually work at 200% or more magnification so that i can more easily see where i screwed up. the principle i referred to--that being told you can do something doesn't automatically empower you to do that thing--does indeed apply to both examples, which makes it a non-fallacy.

QUOTE (James McMurray)
Not at all, and I never said that. I've said all along that the game doesn't work for all groups, not that some groups are too <insert negative adjective here> to use the game. It's the game's fault that it doesn't work for them, but it's not the game's responsibility to work for everyone, nor is it possible for a game to work for everyone.

yeah, but the differentiation here is between good GMs and everybody else. which goes back to the point i keep harping on, about the responsibility of the game to be easy to use. SR4 is not easy to use--it's easy to work around. those are two completely different things.

re: my ideas of crappy--Windows is a really popular operating system. that doesn't make it non-crappy.
James McMurray
Dude, the differentiation is between loose and tight. to use your Windows analogy, it's telling someone that if they don't like SR4 (Windows) so badly that they won't play it, they should try something else (command line Linux or Mac perhaps).

But yes, I do believe fully that if someone doesn't read the book and follow what it says, they're a bad GM for that game.

I'm sorry if you think your example was valid even though it was porly chosen and by your own admission overblown to exaggerate flaws. If I take a picture of someone and black out the teeth to exaggerate the flaw of that tiny gap, is it still a good picture of them? No. Depending on how exaggerated it was (and your example was insanely exaggerated) you may not even be able to recognize the face. Certainly you can't look at someone trying to fly and think "oh, there goes a guy trying to GM."

Maybe if you could provide some actual examples of the system creating a bad GM instead of "well, he's gotta think, and so he'll screw up." Or perhaps an example of how the systemn forces inconsistency and unfairness. If you can't, then it comes back to GM skill. A GM will be as consistent as he wants to be, and as fair as he wants to be. Apparently YMMV, but that's what my decades of gaming have shown me, in loose and tight systems.

The only people I hear complaining about loose systems are the ones with horror stories, sure in the "knowledge" that GMs are just waiting for the slighest slip up to become bad GMs. It's crap. It's projection at it's worst. It's assuming that because either you or people who have terrorized you from the GM seat can't make a good game with loose rules, that nobody can.

If you like the game, play it. If you don't like it, don't play it. If you like the rules, use them. If you don't like the rules, don't use them or change them.

It seems blindingly obvious to me. What's stuck in your eye and not letting you see it?
eidolon
I don't think it's a matter of having to see it one way or the other. Just like anything else in gaming, it's 100% subjective even when it looks like it's not. We all have our preferences, and rarely are they 100% the same.
James McMurray
Exactly.
toturi
QUOTE (James McMurray @ Dec 7 2006, 06:25 AM)
If you like the game, play it. If you don't like it, don't play it. If you like the rules, use them. If you don't like the rules, don't use them or change them.

It seems blindingly obvious to me. What's stuck in your eye and not letting you see it?

As long as you do not state that the blindingly obvious as a canon rule unless it really is a canon rule. Then it is not a case of what's in my eye but what AR sim are you running and how can I avoid it?

As long as the exaggeration can happen according to the rules(whether it be by the GM or by a player), it doesn't matter whether you like it or not. If every answer to a game mechanic question was "if you don't like it, change it if you are the GM" then why bother even posting the question or answering it.
tjn
QUOTE (James McMurray)
Dude, the differentiation is between loose and tight. to use your Windows analogy, it's telling someone that if they don't like SR4 (Windows) so badly that they won't play it, they should try something else (command line Linux or Mac perhaps).

Look, the setting is one of the greatest of any rpg's I know. I wanna play in that setting, but the only main book for rules of that setting has some serious flaws which are based upon reasons that have been supported in countless examples within this thread. We're not basing our objections on opinons themselves, but upon reasons which give rise to those opinions. You're only defense is to tirelessly say it's about the differences between a loose system and a tight system and personal preference therein. You give no reasons for your position, but state it endlessly.

QUOTE
I'm sorry if you think your example was valid even though it was porly chosen and by your own admission overblown to exaggerate flaws.

It was valid. If the premises are true (that being told you can do something), and the conclusion is correctly inferred from that premise (does not necessarily mean you can do it), is what makes an arguement valid. If you wish to disagree with centuries of western logic, go right ahead. Still doesn't make your opinion right.

QUOTE
Maybe if you could provide some actual examples of the system creating a bad GM instead of "well, he's gotta think, and so he'll screw up." Or perhaps an example of how the systemn forces inconsistency and unfairness. If you can't, then it comes back to GM skill. A GM will be as consistent as he wants to be, and as fair as he wants to be. Apparently YMMV, but that's what my decades of gaming have shown me, in loose and tight systems.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The system does not make a good GM or a bad GM. But the system can mitigate the impact of a bad GM, while not hindering a good GM.

Look, mathmatically, this is obvious. Let X equal a percent of how often the GM makes a good call. The higher the number, the better the GM is. Now for every call the GM makes, there is X chance of it being a good call. And if another call, the chance of both calls being good are X times X, or X squared. A third call becomes X cubed and so on.

So, let's take an extrordinary GM, who makes a good, fair, and consistant call 95% of the time. I'm certainly not that good, but I rather doubt anyone can be that close to perfect anyways. Now, over the course of a gaming night, lets say he has to make 10 calls. This is a fairly conservative number, but let's use it to illustrate a point: 95% raised to the 10th is 59.87%. That means there's a 40% chance that our extrodinary GM has made a mistake somewhere in the course of the game. Now in a good gaming group, that 40% chance to make a mistake isn't going to really hurt the game, but it may bog the game down for five minutes while people either check books, make their case one way or another, or the GM thinks about his decision.

Now let's take a more average GM, say he makes three good calls out of every four, 75%. Now, lets put him in the SR4 system that has him making calls, whether on thresholds or rule clarifications, or even just fudging a bit because the system gives little advice in a situtation. He does this 30 times over the course of a night. You know the chance of him making it through an entire session without making a bad call? 0.0018%, or less than one chance in five thousand. I don't like those odds.

Maybe you do. This is the point of opinion. Not the fact that every call the GM makes has the potential for being an unfair, inconsistant, or bad call.

QUOTE
The only people I hear complaining about loose systems are the ones with horror stories, sure in the "knowledge" that GMs are just waiting for the slighest slip up to become bad GMs. It's crap. It's projection at it's worst. It's assuming that because either you or people who have terrorized you from the GM seat can't make a good game with loose rules, that nobody can.

You certainly don't listen very well if that's all your hearing. You know what's crap? You're assuming that everyone who speaks up are those recounting "horror" stories. In fact I'd hafta say my gaming career has been relatively benign. I never had a killer GM, I never had a horrible GM. I've had some really average ones, but no GM has made me want to walk away from the table (players on the other hand...).

You are assuming everyone has this 'kneejerk' reaction to what you define as a 'loose' system. You mention the WoD as another 'loose' system, but the reasons stated has nothing to do with the 'loose'-ness of the WoD. The WoD is simple and consistant. SR4 has shown itself to be only as consistant as the GM that runs it.

And that is why it's a bad system. And yes, I'm going to use the Oberoni Fallacy right here because you keep making it.

We state: "The problem with the SR4 system is that it's only as consistant as the GM that runs it."

You retort with: "There is no problem with the system because if a good GM runs it, the system is fine."

QUOTE
If you like the game, play it. If you don't like it, don't play it. If you like the rules, use them. If you don't like the rules, don't use them or change them.

And if we like debating about the relative worth of those rules to find the ones we should or want to change?
James McMurray
QUOTE
As long as you do not state that the blindingly obvious as a canon rule unless it really is a canon rule. Then it is not a case of what's in my eye but what AR sim are you running and how can I avoid it?


When did I ever say that any of this was a canon rule? The closest I've come is pointing out the GM Advice, which is, blindingly obviously, advice and not a rule.

QUOTE
As long as the exaggeration can happen according to the rules(whether it be by the GM or by a player), it doesn't matter whether you like it or not.


Are we talking about the same exaggeration? The one about people learning to fly because they were told they could in a book? I fail to see how that can happen according to the rules.

QUOTE
If every answer to a game mechanic question was "if you don't like it, change it if you are the GM" then why bother even posting the question or answering it.


I see now it's your turn to exaggerate. I never claimed that the answer to every mechanics question is "if you don't like it, change it if you are the GM."

What is it with Dumpshock and people putting words in other mouths?

QUOTE
You give no reasons for your position, but state it endlessly.


Do you want reasons? It's only my opinion. My reasons are probably the same reasons you draw your "it should be tighter" opinion from. I actually have stated them several times, but perhaps you did not read that far back in the thread (we have been here a while).

1) The game puts down rules, but they're loose ones.

2) This looseness allows for a group to easily play exactly what game they want rather than the game the designers decided on.

3) To use the Longshot test example: SR4 doesn't say "you can't take a longshot test if your dice pool would be at negative X." Instead they leave that up to each GM to decide.

4) No game system can cover all the bases. Some try to cover as many as they can and the holes are that much bigger. SR4 is honest up front and says, "we have to leave some holes right now, but we'll cover as many as we can."

5) tight systems are usually very stable, but they're also usually very prone to falling apart if tampered with. Loose systems are usually better accomodating to house rules because there are fewer interrule relationships to strain again with even seemingly minor changes.

All of those combined (as well as a few I can't think of right now) make me enjoy the looseness of SR4. Is is a perfect system? No, and if you've been reading you'll know I've said that several times. Is loose the best way fora game to be? Not in all cases, and I've listed tight games I love (if you've been reading you'll know which extremely tight game is my favorite system ever).

QUOTE
If the premises are true (that being told you can do something), and the conclusion is correctly inferred from that premise (does not necessarily mean you can do it),


The difference is that one is something that is completely unlearnable from a book (it's actually impossible, but why quibble over tiny details). The second is something that you can learn from a book, because it's all theorycraft. You'll probably need a few sessions to figure out exactly which options work best for you and your group, but you can learn almost everything you need to know about being a GM by reading. So no, the example isn't a good one, it's not even close. Maybe if the example actually bore some similarities to GMing, instead of being a physical impossibility.

QUOTE
You're putting the cart before the horse. The system does not make a good GM or a bad GM. But the system can mitigate the impact of a bad GM, while not hindering a good GM.


You keep saying things like "you've never given your reasons." Things that the casual observer would take to mean that you've actually been reading what I'm writing. But that statement (which was wrong) coupled with this statement (which is wrong) seem to contradict you. I've said almost exactly what you just said in other posts. I've never claimed that SR4 (or indeed any system) would make or break a GM. I've never claimed that more rules won't help a GM who has problems in the rules portions of the job.

My only response to the math thing is that it certainly looks good, but this is not an area where you can decide one, how good a GM is, two, how many "bad" calls are made, and three, whether the looseness of the game frees the GM up and makes his calls better or not.

for some a tight game is an invitation to crapsville, because of reason number 5. In my group for instance we have four players/GMs. Everybody takes a turn in the big chair every now and then. Only one of us is a strictly-by-the-book guy. The rest of us like to tinker. One GM in particular can't even look at a game without figuring out lots of improvements he'd make if he ran it. For that type of GM a tight system is can be ruinous, because the large interrelationships between each rule make large changes painful.

For GMs like that, and other personality types for who loose is better, SR4 is great. For others, they can either wrangle themselves to fit it, wrangle it to fit them, or change.

QUOTE
He does this 30 times over the course of a night.


IMX that's a high number. I've never played an SR4 game where a GM was forced to make 30 calls in one evening (we usually play for at least 8 hours).

QUOTE
You certainly don't listen very well if that's all your hearing. You know what's crap? You're assuming that everyone who speaks up are those recounting "horror" stories. In fact I'd hafta say my gaming career has been relatively benign. I never had a killer GM, I never had a horrible GM. I've had some really average ones, but no GM has made me want to walk away from the table (players on the other hand...).


Can I play the same "I was really exaggerating, yeah... that's it" maneuver that mfb did? smile.gif If not, then I retract the statement and replace "the only" with "it seems like the only, although not all."

QUOTE
"There is no problem with the system because if a good GM runs it, the system is fine."


Dude, really. Please join the ranks of people that read. I've never said there are no problems with the system.

QUOTE
And if we like debating about the relative worth of those rules to find the ones we should or want to change?


Then debate away. That's what dumpshock is for. smile.gif
mfb
QUOTE (James McMurray)
If I take a picture of someone and black out the teeth to exaggerate the flaw of that tiny gap, is it still a good picture of them? No. Depending on how exaggerated it was (and your example was insanely exaggerated) you may not even be able to recognize the face.

we call those "caricatures", and people enjoy them because they are so easy to recognize. the fact that unaided flight is impossible is, itself, irrelevant--because neither flying nor being fair and consistent are something you can suddenly do because someone told you you should do them.

QUOTE (James McMurray)
My only response to the math thing is that it certainly looks good, but this is not an area where you can decide one, how good a GM is, two, how many "bad" calls are made, and three, whether the looseness of the game frees the GM up and makes his calls better or not.

sure you can. the math is scalable, that's the point. however many calls a GM makes that a given player would classify as "bad", there will be more of them in a loose game than a tight game, because a loose game will, by design, require more GM calls. if there are more calls being made, then there will be more bad calls being made.


QUOTE (James McMurray)
Maybe if you could provide some actual examples of the system creating a bad GM instead of "well, he's gotta think, and so he'll screw up." Or perhaps an example of how the systemn forces inconsistency and unfairness.

how about a GM who doesn't allow a sniper character to take a long-range shot in the dark? "but the modifiers are right there!" complains the player. "-6 for full darkness, -3 for range, -6 for target hidden--that leaves me 3 dice! i should get to roll!" but the GM says "i don't care, it's stupid, no one could make that shot."

how about a GM whose players start bumping up against the stat/skill caps? endless opportunity for screwing up there. pretty much nothing but opportunity to screw up, matter of fact.
Cain
Let's go back to the Windows analogy. SR4 is kinda like WinME, To a really skilled, technically-minded specialist, ME posed no significant problems. To the crowd that consistently mistook CD-Rom slides as cupholders, it was a nightmare.

What about the rest of us? Guess what, ME was a nightmare. (I've had to rip ME off two different computers now, both times with the assistance of Microsoft programmers. Not fun.)

You get a really skilled GM, they can run anything, and you'll have fun. FATAL, Wraeththu, you name it. Get a crappy GM, and they won't even be able to handle easy and difficult to mess up systems like Wushu or Savage Worlds. But for the average GM, FATAL and SR4 Wraththu are going to be difficult to pull off, and Wushu is going to be almost too simple.

Now, let's try the socratic method again:
QUOTE
1) The game puts down rules, but they're loose ones.

Loose rules are neither fair nor predictable, since the very looseness means it can be applied dfferently in different situations. A loose rule is no rule at all. *Broad* rules are different, but you've consistently referred to the rules as "loose", and I won't insult your intelligence by assuming you don't know the difference.
QUOTE
2) This looseness allows for a group to easily play exactly what game they want rather than the game the designers decided on.

If they don't want to play the game the designers wrote, why did they fork over $40 for the books? Why not write the system themselves, to best suit their own style of play?
QUOTE
3) To use the Longshot test example: SR4 doesn't say "you can't take a longshot test if your dice pool would be at negative X." Instead they leave that up to each GM to decide.

No, it actually spells out explicitly what happens at -1, -2, etc, all the way to -X. The problem is that individual GM's don't *like* it when things get to -X becuse it dispels suspension of disbelief. This is why GM fiat is a bad thing, because you can never tell where the line will be drawn: -X +1, -X+2, -X +10, etc. Maybe it'll even be at -2. The problem here is that "suspension of disbelief" is a subjective term, and therefore cannot precicely match anyone else's levels. So, subjective = unfair to someone.
QUOTE
4) No game system can cover all the bases. Some try to cover as many as they can and the holes are that much bigger. SR4 is honest up front and says, "we have to leave some holes right now, but we'll cover as many as we can."

Wushu. You can cover all the bases with minimal holes, if any. At any event, that doesn't excuse a game system from trying for perfection within either a tight or broad ruleset, nor does it mean we as consumers should accept a less-than-sterling product.
QUOTE
5) tight systems are usually very stable, but they're also usually very prone to falling apart if tampered with. Loose systems are usually better accomodating to house rules because there are fewer interrule relationships to strain again with even seemingly minor changes.

Tight systems can be unstable as all hell, right out of the box. HERO is a good example of this, and FATAL takes the cake, although Shadowrun often falls in this category as well. Loose systems fall apart on their own accord, as The Last Exodus demonstrated. Broad systems, such as Savage Worlds, Truth & Justice, and Wushu, combine the best of stability while providing many options for the players.
Kesslan
QUOTE (mfb)
SR4 is not easy to use--it's easy to work around. those are two completely different things.

Personally I find SR4 VERY easy to use. It's not like... some other games (With settings I love) Like say... ohhh I dunno.. Rifts? The new 'ultimate rules' edition fixed alot of crap with it but it still contradicts itself like crazy and 'optional rules' are spread out across some 40 odd books.

SR4 by comparison has a reasonably quick and easy system.

A skill is rolled by using stat X and skill Y as a pool. Modifiers ABCD may apply as approprite. Add/subtract as necessary then roll the remaining dice. AIm for X# of hits or more hits than the other guy in an opposed test. End of story.

Adding complexity to a system does NOT make it an easy sytem to use. Infact it makes it technically harder becaus then you have to factor in even MORE stuff. And then you have to also remember 'in the heat of the moment' that hey wait there's X modifiers that also apply and X situations that you have to roll X skills for blah blah blah blah.

It can really slow down a game system. ANd alot of games are that way. That isnt to mean that a really detailed system is necessarily bad. But it doesnt allways make it 'good' either.

SR4 may not be the simplest system around (Hell the simplest is flipping a bloody coin or somethign) but it's hardly ultra complex, and it does the job very well in my oppionin and I find it a hell of alot easier to keep track of than I ever foudn SR3. SR3 I found was overly complex and I still dont quite fully understand some of the SR3 Magic/Matrix rules. SR4 on the other hand I understand most of it quite well and in either case I can quite easily come up with appropriate tests on the fly without having to heavily reference the books.
Kesslan
QUOTE (mfb)
QUOTE (James McMurray)
Maybe if you could provide some actual examples of the system creating a bad GM instead of "well, he's gotta think, and so he'll screw up." Or perhaps an example of how the systemn forces inconsistency and unfairness.

how about a GM who doesn't allow a sniper character to take a long-range shot in the dark? "but the modifiers are right there!" complains the player. "-6 for full darkness, -3 for range, -6 for target hidden--that leaves me 3 dice! i should get to roll!" but the GM says "i don't care, it's stupid, no one could make that shot."

how about a GM whose players start bumping up against the stat/skill caps? endless opportunity for screwing up there. pretty much nothing but opportunity to screw up, matter of fact.

On the issue of the sniping in the dark. I hardly consider it making the "GM Bad" just because techncially the system allows it. That really depends on how realistic a game your wanting to play. I like more realistic games. Which means to me if it's pitch black and a guy is under cover. It's perfectly fair that the GM goes and says. I'm sorry but you cant do that. I'd be ok with him maybe making it a longshot test or allowing the shot if tehre's say the odd muzzleflash giving the guy away or there was some other way for the player to have a 'general idea' of where the guy is at the very least. Be it noise or something else.

To me if I want a 'realistic game' a GM allowing such a shot without taking that kinda thing into consideration isnt as good as one who does. Doesnt mean I'd necessarily consider them a bad one for allowing it though.

On the matter of Players starting to hit the skill/stat caps... umm how is that an issue? And how is that an opertunity to start screwing up? To me that just means the players are ready for tougher challenges, and overall are more capable of overcomming penalties that 'lesser' characters couldnt (such as making the above shot in the dark).

Now in the above scenario if the idea was that 'no realism' would be applied and then the GM suddenly made such a ruling, then yes thats to a degree a bad GM call. If however the expectation was that some realism would be inforced, that's not a bad call at all thats a very good one, because then breaking that and allowing the shot when there's no indication to an effectively blind character isnt too realistic. I mean yes it is to a certain extent, certainly a blind person coudl arguably manage to shoot someone, but the odds are really kinda against it without at least -SOME- sort of decent clue to the persons location. Add in cover and their far more likely to hit said cover than the person behind it without some borderline supernatural sense.

On the other hand if it was very dim lighting (as opposed to total darkness) or the player had (and used) an ability that allowed them to see in said total darkness (which is akin to being blind) such as thermovision, astral perception etc. ANd still not allowing the shot then that IS a horrible GM call and I'd definately say thats a bad GM. If the player had none of that at their disposal on the other hand. Then I'd totally disagree. So the example to me doesnt really stand up to the 'this is a bad GM! no matter what you say!'

Because otherwise your group would fit into one of the aformentioned catagories. Where you all expected a really loose version of reality where people can accurately and precisely take shots at people in complete darkness. Or your more the type that thinks thats not really accurate. And maybe you decide right then and there to settle some more accurate chance based system to cover such things in the future. But that isnt a failure of the game system at all from my stand point. Thats really waht you'd call at that point an 'advanced rule system' rather than a 'basic rule system' which is al SR4 is at this poitn in time untill more books come out with said advanced rules
mfb
complexity isn't what i'm talking about here. clearer guidelines for special effect called shots wouldn't make the rules more complex, per se.

QUOTE (Kesslan)
On the issue of the sniping in the dark. I hardly consider it making the "GM Bad" just because techncially the system allows it. That really depends on how realistic a game your wanting to play.

it depends on a lot of things. i'm not saying the GM who disallows such a shot is making a bad call (not after i've said how much i dislike the result of those combined modifiers). i'm saying it puts the GM in a situation where it's very, very easy to make a bad call. a GM prone to making such calls is very likely to get tripped up by that situation.
Kesslan
QUOTE (mfb)
complexity isn't what i'm talking about here. clearer guidelines for special effect called shots wouldn't make the rules more complex, per se.

But that is to a degree added complexity. Not much I'll certainly give you that but it -is- because then you have to take into account how many potential special effects? And then how many are you going to forget about because no one happened to think of them at the time?

Players I find as a whole are allways comming up with stuff I havent thought of at all, nor had others. This being either a GM or player myself. I've also seen some GMs get nastily creative some times.

I've never yet seen a rule system that can possibly take any and all 'special effects' into account. Could SR4 use more? Certainly. But I dont consider those 'basic' rules at all. More along the lines of 'advanced' rule sets. I'm hoping at least that a book comes out that does indeed cover the wider range of not quite so commonly (But common enough to make sense having predefined rules for) occurances in ranged/melee combat.

God knows I"ve run into my share of situations in game systems where something I did specifically wasnt covered by the rules at all. I've -usually- however had a good GM who's either made a reasonable call on it. And by good and reasonable, at least put forth a reasonable grounds for why than made the call rather than 'just cause'. I've even had some discussions with said GMs later and while maybe the roll was 'fudged' at the time a proper house rule came out of it for later use. I may not allways (And certainly have not allways) agreed necessarily or liked the call itself but usually I find them to be fair.

To me thats a good GM. One that just does everything 'because I say so' isnt quite so good. They may still make reasonable calls. But I personally feel in situations like that there should at least be some sort of discussion or reason given for the call being made as it was. Though it certainly sint the time to get into some huge discussion/argument for the sake of the game still going ahead.
Kesslan
Actually now might be a good time to put in an example of what I at least feel is 'bad GMing' since some folk seem to want a solid example of 'Good GM, Bad GM'

Now I at one time played alot of RPGs on MUSH/MUX/MOO text based interface. I dont so much anymore but thats largely due to the difficulty finding a place thats even still active around the same time of days as I can be online.

Several years ago, I was playing on a MUSH called Rifts: JITU. I hate the Palladium system. But I still love playing Rifts cause of the setting. So I just swallow my hatred of the crappy system and play it anyway.. So at one point I ran into the following scenario.

Myself and several other PCs were poking around the ruined remains of several skelebots and other wreckage following several months of some heavy fighting with the Coalition States. We were there purely on a salvage mission, and were specifically looking for intact skelebot reactors to use for some upcomming projects.

So we bring in a massive cargo container to haul scrap metal and other salvageable goodies away in, the area is relatively hilly but due to the large use of incidnaries/ordenance/other the area was relatively clear cut with little to no foliage left. At this point the Staffer who was GMing the scene poped a supprise attack uppon us as several skelebots had been left in fully functioning order diguised as 'destroyed' units and they promptly started opening fire on us.

Now for those of you not familar with rifts, one of the weapon systems utilized by skelebots is a hand held 'railgun' (really a massdriver but what ever). This system is fed by a belt feed from an ammo drum at the back. The cable itself even has an 'MDC' (read hitpoint) value to be destroyed and thus severed. Leaving the gun with at best one more volley to use before it goes empty.

Now my character in question was basically setup to be an assassin. He was good with rifles, could snipe quite well and was also really good in melee combat. He wasnt so great in non combat areas but he was still a little twinky by most other RPG standards but thats Rifts for you. At any rate. durring the fight I 'run off' and find myself some cover, and begin promptly sniping at the skelebots. Namely the ammo feeds for their railguns. The guns alone dont do much damage but having 15+ wailing on you will end most people rather quickly. And thats exactly the kinda thing that was happening. All the bots were ganging up on one target at a time. (Which is sorta by the book but not really fair to the players in my oppinion). My weaponry couldnt possibly take otu the skelebots in a single hit but I could in one or two hits sever the feedline to their guns. Which would even thigns for us quite quickly.

So I set about doing this. sniping away blah blah blah blah. The rifle I was using also happend to have an underslung grenade launcher, which I hardly used becuase in rifts Greandes are.. for the most part, pretty bloody useless, trying to take out basic infantry with one is like trying to take out a tank with a firecracker. They still have the odd use but not much their also horribly expensive.

The entire fight I was using them at all, I was doing quite well doging and I was intentionaly moving away from the container to draw fire -away- from it, and clearly stated that as my intention. SUddenly mid fight, my internet connection crapped out for all of about 15-20 minutes. and when I log back in. My previously undamaged armor is not only heavily damaged, but the container is shot to useless slag and i'm takign cover behind it and i'd fired off all 4 of my very expensive and useless grenades beacuse the GM said so.

SUffice it to say I was pissed off. That in my oppinion is -very- bad GMing. Takign control of my character without asking, doing so without giving me much time to get back on when people are known to be somewhat prone to disconnnection and further more giong completely against everything I specifically stated my character intended to do. Not to mention that my character had almost (and I'm pretty damn sure WOULD have) died while I wasnt even online due to circumstances totally beyond my control.

Now granted this example is with antoher RPG system, but both situations could techncialy be covered by the RPG system since nither system specifically 'disallows' what happened, called shots or what ever. Hell the palladium has even less rules/definitions surrounding whats possible/not possible than SR4 does for things like 'called shots' and sniping.

Now for my idea of a 'Good GM' they'd have at least waited the 15 mins or so as is customary for a MUSH before continuing, and they'd have at the very least had the courtesy to have my character continue his stated actions and goals, rather than totally reversing them against all reason, having my character run around in the open under the concentrated fire of 15 enemies specificallyt rying to kill him just so the GM can trash all our plans and shoot the hell out of the container etc. Never mind that there was plenty of other cover to use etc.
mfb
QUOTE (Kesslan)
But that is to a degree added complexity. Not much I'll certainly give you that but it -is- because then you have to take into account how many potential special effects? And then how many are you going to forget about because no one happened to think of them at the time?

more modifiers != more complexity. not by themselves, to any significant degree. sure, such a set of modifiers couldn't possibly cover everything--but they'd at least give a solid set of examples on how to handle things they don't cover.

QUOTE (Kesslan)
I've even had some discussions with said GMs later and while maybe the roll was 'fudged' at the time a proper house rule came out of it for later use. I may not allways (And certainly have not allways) agreed necessarily or liked the call itself but usually I find them to be fair.

To me thats a good GM.

sure. agreed. but my whole point is that a game shouldn't require a good GM to run okay. it's never going to run well under a bad GM, we all know that. but it shouldn't require a good GM, is what i'm saying.
Kesslan
QUOTE (mfb)
QUOTE (Kesslan)
But that is to a degree added complexity. Not much I'll certainly give you that but it -is- because then you have to take into account how many potential special effects? And then how many are you going to forget about because no one happened to think of them at the time?

more modifiers != more complexity. not by themselves, to any significant degree. sure, such a set of modifiers couldn't possibly cover everything--but they'd at least give a solid set of examples on how to handle things they don't cover.

QUOTE (Kesslan)
I've even had some discussions with said GMs later and while maybe the roll was 'fudged' at the time a proper house rule came out of it for later use. I may not allways (And certainly have not allways) agreed necessarily or liked the call itself but usually I find them to be fair.

To me thats a good GM.

sure. agreed. but my whole point is that a game shouldn't require a good GM to run okay. it's never going to run well under a bad GM, we all know that. but it shouldn't require a good GM, is what i'm saying.

Ehh it sort of does. It's yet more stuff to keep track of so its thus more (not necessarly significantly so but still more) complex. But thats my oppinion and I as I'm sure I've said before, I dont consider it necessarily a 'bad thing'. Just yet more stuff I have to keep track of, even though I find stuff like that is infact very handy to have, because then I can keep a handy dandy chart nearby and quickly work up the modifier total.


On the GM side of things, to me really you only have three types of GMs. A good GM, a Bad GM and an inexperienced GM. Most inexperienced GMs I find turn into good ones, but not all. And at the time they can sort of go either way but thats not really something a rule system will make or break. How they handle the situation as it comes up is what makes or breaks it in my oppinion. If I'm GMing a system and somethign comes up (As has happened under SR3 when I had one full mage doign all sorts of stuff I wasnt used to handling) I'd quite simply state Umm ok I"m not quite sure how this works. And quickly go over with said player about the rules, look them up what ever and make a call from there assuming one really needed to be made.

An inexperienced GM who at least references the rules should ultimatley (Albeit with abit more work perhaps) manage to run a game just as well as 'Mr. Ultimate Good GM'. And if they dont have the makings of a good GM no matter what the rules say their not going to be a good one at least at that time. I've seen a few bad GMs turn around and actually change (Though not too often to be honest but it -can- happen, there's still several I avoid like the plague even among the ones that have 'improved').

So ultimately -any- RPG 'requires' a 'Good GM' to play it. Good does not equate being 100 percent familar with the rules. It equates being capable of making 'reasonable' calls based uppon the information at hand. And if you make a call and a player says. But rule X states this, and it's a 'reasonable' request for the game style your working in then by all means you should run with it. However just cause the rules state tehcnically X is possible, doesnt mean you should just give in and let the player do it if your going with X degree of realism. If however X degree of bent realism would make it reasonable, then yes you should allow it.

So it all comes down to finding a GM who GMs to the sort of 'realism setting' you expect. Some allow totally silly off the wall thigns cause the idea really is just to have fun and the group as a whole doesnt give a hoot as to how 'realistic' the game is. I've certainly been in several games where stuff just got kinda silly but it wasnt ever ment to be 'realistic' in the first place and silly totally implosible stuff was to be occasionaly expected. (Like one D&D game where my Kender got the party pack mule completely wasted on dwarven spirits, and then the GM had us passing a field of pot plants that I cant qutie recall how they caugh tfire so everyone got high and the Mule eventually ODed and died)
Penta
QUOTE (Kesslan)
Several years ago, I was playing on a MUSH called Rifts: JITU. I hate the Palladium system. But I still love playing Rifts cause of the setting. So I just swallow my hatred of the crappy system and play it anyway.. So at one point I ran into the following scenario.

...

The entire fight I was using them at all, I was doing quite well doging and I was intentionaly moving away from the container to draw fire -away- from it, and clearly stated that as my intention. SUddenly mid fight, my internet connection crapped out for all of about 15-20 minutes. and when I log back in. My previously undamaged armor is not only heavily damaged, but the container is shot to useless slag and i'm takign cover behind it and i'd fired off all 4 of my very expensive and useless grenades beacuse the GM said so.

SUffice it to say I was pissed off. That in my oppinion is -very- bad GMing. Takign control of my character without asking, doing so without giving me much time to get back on when people are known to be somewhat prone to disconnnection and further more giong completely against everything I specifically stated my character intended to do. Not to mention that my character had almost (and I'm pretty damn sure WOULD have) died while I wasnt even online due to circumstances totally beyond my control.

...

Now for my idea of a 'Good GM' they'd have at least waited the 15 mins or so as is customary for a MUSH before continuing, and they'd have at the very least had the courtesy to have my character continue his stated actions and goals, rather than totally reversing them against all reason, having my character run around in the open under the concentrated fire of 15 enemies specificallyt rying to kill him just so the GM can trash all our plans and shoot the hell out of the container etc. Never mind that there was plenty of other cover to use etc.

Kesslan: I'm a long, long time player on MUSH/MUX/MOO environments, so know of the environment in which you speak.

What you speak of is not a problem of any system, period, it's with the staffer running the fight. A good system, a bad system, it would make no difference.

1) 15 minutes is a fairly long time. Every MU* has a different custom in that regard, and at some point you just can't wait any longer.

2) If it isn't likely you're going to be back soon, in the GM's estimation, they have to do something. This GM made a very, very bad call.
James McMurray
QUOTE
because neither flying nor being fair and consistent are something you can suddenly do because someone told you you should do them.


I never said they were.

QUOTE
sure you can.


Really? How many bad calls do you make on average?

QUOTE
how about a GM who doesn't allow a sniper character to take a long-range shot in the dark?


That would be a case of modifying a loose system to fit the desires of the group. If the entire group except the GM wants it, he should be democratic. Luckily it;s a loose system, so making that call is an easy one.

QUOTE
how about a GM whose players start bumping up against the stat/skill caps? endless opportunity for screwing up there. pretty much nothing but opportunity to screw up, matter of fact.


How so? They either decide to remove the skill and stat cas or they don't. The system is not going to fall apart.

QUOTE
What about the rest of us? Guess what, ME was a nightmare. (I've had to rip ME off two different computers now, both times with the assistance of Microsoft programmers. Not fun.)


Given how many people seem to like it, and the fact that it's won several awards, I think that "it's a nightmare" thing is your take, not the general perception. But ok. If SR4 is a nightmare to you, don't use it. It's as simple as that.

QUOTE
Loose rules are neither fair nor predictable


Rules are fair and predictable based on what they do, not looseness or tightness. It's possible to have unpredictable tight rules (like SR3's multiple systems that work different from one anoter) and it's possible to have unfair tight rules. Nice try though.

QUOTE
If they don't want to play the game the designers wrote, why did they fork over $40 for the books?


That's not what I meant and you know it, because we've been over this several times. go back and reread the thread if you can't keep up with the rest of us.

QUOTE
No, it actually spells out explicitly what happens at -1, -2, etc, all the way to -X. The problem is that individual GM's don't *like* it when things get to -X becuse it dispels suspension of disbelief. This is why GM fiat is a bad thing, because you can never tell where the line will be drawn: -X +1, -X+2, -X +10, etc. Maybe it'll even be at -2. The problem here is that "suspension of disbelief" is a subjective term, and therefore cannot precicely match anyone else's levels. So, subjective = unfair to someone.


Of course you can predict it. All it takes is GM/Player communication. "Excuse me, Mr. GM Sir (of whatever you call him), do you think it's reasonable for me to kill a man inside a citymaster with a sharpened stick in the dark from 50 feet away?" "No? Ok then, what should we agree on as a limit to negative modifers in a ranged attack longshot test?" Just because subjective can be unfair doesn't mean it will be. That's what talking things through is about.

QUOTE
Wushu. You can cover all the bases with minimal holes, if any. At any event, that doesn't excuse a game system from trying for perfection within either a tight or broad ruleset, nor does it mean we as consumers should accept a less-than-sterling product.


So go away and play Wushu and Savage Worlds already. This however, is an SR4 board. Your constant proselytizing is out of place.

QUOTE
Tight systems can be unstable as all hell, right out of the box.


When did I say otherwise? And what the hell do I care about HERO on an SR4 board. Unless you're suggesting the designers replace the system with it, it doesn't matter how loose or tight it is, nor how stable or unstable. Again, your poroselytizing is out of place. People come here for SR4, not to hear you preach.
mfb
QUOTE (James McMurray)
QUOTE (mfb)
sure you can.

Really? How many bad calls do you make on average?

zero. i am perfect in every way. but seriously, McMurray, i know you've taken algebra. i know you understand the concept of a variable in an equation. you don't need to know the value of the variabe in order for the equation to work. if you want to come up with a real number, sure, you need to define the variable--but we're not looking for real numbers, just a simple "more than" or "less than" result. if x is the number of bad GM calls in a system that runs with less GM intervention, and y is the number of bad GM calls in a system that requires more GM intervention, x < y.

QUOTE (James McMurray)
QUOTE (Cain)
What about the rest of us? Guess what, ME was a nightmare. (I've had to rip ME off two different computers now, both times with the assistance of Microsoft programmers. Not fun.)

Given how many people seem to like it, and the fact that it's won several awards, I think that "it's a nightmare" thing is your take, not the general perception.

haha, there are people who like WinME? i guess somebody has to, if only to fill out the far ends of the bell curve. people whose sole purpose on this planet is not to fulfill statistical expectations, however, don't like WinME.
DireRadiant
QUOTE (mfb)
QUOTE (James McMurray)
QUOTE (mfb)
sure you can.

Really? How many bad calls do you make on average?

zero. i am perfect in every way. but seriously, McMurray, i know you've taken algebra. i know you understand the concept of a variable in an equation. you don't need to know the value of the variabe in order for the equation to work. if you want to come up with a real number, sure, you need to define the variable--but we're not looking for real numbers, just a simple "more than" or "less than" result. if x is the number of bad GM calls in a system that runs with less GM intervention, and y is the number of bad GM calls in a system that requires more GM intervention, x < y.

So a system with zero GM calls is therefore perfect?

Go have fun.
Konsaki
Sounds alot like playing with a Computer for a GM...
eidolon
When this thread gets reduced to snark and jabs, it will be closed.

If you have anything to actually add to the discussion, I encourage you to do so. If all you want to do is prove that you win the internet, I discourage it.
Konsaki
Wrong thread... my bad...
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Konsaki @ Dec 7 2006, 05:15 PM)
Sounds alot like playing with a Computer for a GM...

Not in the least. There's that whole other side, the "story and interaction" bit.

~J
mfb
QUOTE (DireRadiant)
So a system with zero GM calls is therefore perfect?

it's certainly perfect at the task of preventing bad GM calls. i don't think you'll find that i claimed anywhere that that's the only goal worth pursuing in game design.
eidolon
I still notice that there has been a lack of even an attempt to name a game or system that is, however.

Which, as long as we realize that saying "a system that has zero GM calls" is sheer wishful thinking (not on all parties' part, mind you, I'm aware), is fine.

You can call for what you would see as improvements to a system, and provide reasons that you feel that they would be improvements, but you can't say "compared to The Perfect Game, SR4 is too loose, and bad", because that's baseless, IMO, because TPG doesn't exist.

(note that I'm not trying to say that this pokes holes in anyone's positions beyond any time someone compares SR4, or any system, to the mystical TPG wink.gif)
Fortune
QUOTE (eidolon @ Dec 8 2006, 09:57 AM)
I still notice that there has been a lack of even an attempt to name a game or system that is, however.

Actually, a couple have been named, specifically Wushu, as being an example of certain points being made. At the time though, even after having been asked to supply specific names, the poster was then accused of merely prosthletizing, and once again told to go away and play another game (which I personally don't think adds anything at all to the discussion, or to the overall forum atmosphere itself).
mfb
QUOTE (eidolon)
You can call for what you would see as improvements to a system, and provide reasons that you feel that they would be improvements, but you can't say "compared to The Perfect Game, SR4 is too loose, and bad", because that's baseless, IMO, because TPG doesn't exist.

granted. but, then, i don't think anyone's asking for a system that perfectly eliminates bad GM calls. that'd be nice to have, but it's not a realistic goal. SR4's not being compared to some mystical paragon of game mechanics.
DireRadiant
QUOTE (mfb @ Dec 7 2006, 05:27 PM)
QUOTE (DireRadiant)
So a system with zero GM calls is therefore perfect?

it's certainly perfect at the task of preventing bad GM calls. i don't think you'll find that i claimed anywhere that that's the only goal worth pursuing in game design.

Instead of Reductio ad absurdum let's get into that hard hard algebra stuff.

iA + jB = F

where
i = probability of GM Intervention
A = value of GM intervention
j = probability of Rules covering
B = value of rules (usefulness)

F = Fun!

Some things to consider
i + j != 1
i > 0
J > 0
A can be positive or negative
B can be positive or negative
(I do not believe A and B have a defined relationship to each other that can given a formula)

We could extend this further by adding
C = Number of rules, and modifying the formula as follows

iA + jB + jC = F

We could spend forever arguing this, but I'm only going to point out that all I want is to keep F at a high value, and the relative values I assign to ABCij are going to be different then anyone else's.
eidolon
edit: Oops, I'm slow. This was written in response to mfb's preceding post.

It has been implied a few times, mostly in hyperbole.

I can't speak directly to Wushu, but I highly doubt it's the grail that it was made out to be. Of course, that's simply me being wary of anything of that nature that I read. The old "find out for yourself" thing kicks in, even when I have no such intention. cool.gif
James McMurray
QUOTE
i know you understand the concept of a variable in an equation.


What I'm saying is that GMing is a function of a huge number of variables. Trying to reduce it to one and then saying "see, the formula is right" is a waste of time, especially since one of the things that factors into GMing is system, and many GMs like a loose system. But I already said all that, so I guess it doesn't really "add anything."

QUOTE
haha, there are people who like WinME?


I was referring to SR4. There are a lot of people that like SR4 and it has won several awards.

QUOTE
Actually, a couple have been named, specifically Wushu, as being an example of certain points being made. At the time though, even after having been asked to supply specific names, the poster was then accused of merely prosthletizing


That was my fault. It's my typical reaction to Cain, whose only reason for visiting this board seems to be to tell everyone that SR4 sucks and his flavor of the month is the best thing since sliced bread. Perhaps Wushu is a very tight loose system, but just saying "this game is the roxxorz" adds no more than "then go play it."
eidolon
There are lots of things that win awards that go on to suck mightily. wink.gif

edit: no intended implications there beyond "awards mean drek-all sometimes", btw
James McMurray
True, but they also don't tend to sell well, garner a large following, and generally kick ass. SR4 does all those, in spite of what cain, mfb, and a few others think.
Fortune
QUOTE (James McMurray @ Dec 8 2006, 10:29 AM)
... but just saying "this game is the roxxorz" adds no more than "then go play it."

If that is what had happened, you'd have a good point. I was specifically not trying to point any fingers though.
mfb
QUOTE (Dire Radiant)
Instead of Reductio ad absurdum let's get into that hard hard algebra stuff.

well, you certainly did put up a lot of letters. hard to argue with them, since you didn't try to prove anything with them. regardless, i really don't see what's so hard to grasp, here. if someone is prone to screwing up, and you give them lots of chances to screw up, they're going to screw up a lot. if you give them less chances to screw up, they're going to screw up less.

QUOTE (James McMurray)
What I'm saying is that GMing is a function of a huge number of variables. Trying to reduce it to one and then saying "see, the formula is right" is a waste of time, especially since one of the things that factors into GMing is system, and many GMs like a loose system. But I already said all that, so I guess it doesn't really "add anything."

see above. the basic principle doesn't require algebra; i only went there because you were arguing the point on an algebraic basis without taking into account all of the germane principles of algebra.

QUOTE (James McMurray)
Perhaps Wushu is a very tight loose system, but just saying "this game is the roxxorz" adds no more than "then go play it."

not point. Wushu was brought up, as i recall, as a counterpoint to the idea that game designers can't make a loose game that covers all the bases. it wasn't brought up for its own sake at all.

and as for sucking mightily, well, lots of people bought WinME.
Cain
QUOTE
I was referring to SR4.

Cool. I wasn't. <snarky comment snipped> I've yet to see any awards ME has earned. However, both can be BSOD'd very readily, as this thread has demonstrated.

QUOTE
Perhaps Wushu is a very tight loose system, but just saying "this game is the roxxorz" adds no more than "then go play it."

You *asked* for a system, then ignore it when I provide one. This can be referred to as an Ignoring the Evidence fallacy, At any event, your claim was that no system managed to fit the criteria of tight and broad (although nice try at shifting the language again!); Wushu defeats your premise. Capes also is a game that totally lacks GM fiat. And i don't even play Capes. So, there's your counterevidence. I'll also add that saying "SR4 roxxors" isn't any more productive.
James McMurray
QUOTE
see above. the basic principle doesn't require algebra; i only went there because you were arguing the point on an algebraic basis without taking into account all of the germane principles of algebra.


I've argue the point other ways as well, but you don't seem to have seen them. Might I suggest rereading the last few pages?

QUOTE
Cool. I wasn't.


No, but you were trying to compare SR4 and WinME. I decided to ignore the inappropriate comparison and remain on topic. I'm sorry if that confused people.

QUOTE
Wushu defeats your premise. Capes also is a game that totally lacks GM fiat.


Excellent. Do you have any proof, or are we expected to take you at your word?

QUOTE
I'll also add that saying "SR4 roxxors" isn't any more productive.


You're right. Luckily I haven't said that, or I'd have egg on my face right now. And, I'll suggest again that you may want to reread a little of the thread, or indeed the entire thread, as my stance has never been the equivilent of "SR4 Roxxors." Yes, I do think SR4 is a really cool system, but it's not my stance in this discussion. My stance in this discussion has always been that if you don't think SR4 roxxorz, you're well within you're rights, and are free to change it or play something else.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (James McMurray)
Luckily I haven't said that, or I'd have egg on my face right now.

QUOTE (James McMurray)
they also don't tend to […] generally kick ass. SR4 does […], in spite of what cain, mfb, and a few others think.

This is no time for yolks.

~J
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