I don't have a huge issue with the GM bending the rules a bit (like increasing NPC dice pools), to keep the story moving along, not just to keep a certain key NPC alive.

As a GM, I have done so.

I don't do it to abuse the characters, and dont' use it that often, but have done it in the past and have no doubt that I will do so in the futur.

Now, I have also done the opposite, and instead of allowing and increadibly lucky roll of the dice tell me that I have just done 22 DV to the already 6 points of damage char, I have adjusted it to just enough to put them on the verge of death, uncouncious, bleeding to death and on the ground. If the player had purposely placed his torso of the end of the barrel of a main battle tank, then he get's what he deserves. But not from just bad luck.

To me, that is part of the GMs job. Keep the game fun and interesting.

I don't fudge to keep the story along ; the the rolls tells a good part of the story! Leave them alone!

Insanely great and poor rolls are responsible for over 50% of the comic relief and nail biting drama of any adventure, both coming from the PC and the NPCs.

And the knowledge that the best laid plans can get FUBARed by lady luck is what makes a successful plan rewarding for the players.

If you can always count on the GM to "put the story back on track", which litterrally means you are railroading the PC, than what merit do they have when they are successful?

---

Obviously, the fact that I make the story on the fly make me more zen about the player wrecking my 30 seconds worth of preparation. I never have anything more prepared than NPCs, their motivations and a basic situation that covers only the beginning of the session.

If the PCs didn't come up with crazy ideas, I'd have very little twists, and if critical rolls (both for the PC and NPCs) didn't routinely fail, I'd have very little complications.

But you can only count on PCs for crazy ideas and on the dice to screw them up.

Sometimes the Gaming Gods demand a sacrifice. Unfortunately, I am and game with a lot of players like that, but it's come to our attention that something is wrong for the number of runs that go off with virtually no casualties (and very rare serious casualties or deaths).

i voted for predictability because it's the closest synonym listed for consistency. rules should make sense internally, whether or not they're realistic, complex, varied, fair, or whatever.

I am not saying to have a Deux Machina make sure that every player survive every little scrap they get into.

I am saying that I will probably fudge the roll when lady luck get's ridiculous, and when the players can't see the fudge.

Players do die, but I dislike it when a character that has been around for months, dies just because of the dice gods.

If the normal play is that characters are changed every couple of months, then having a character die is no big deal, but when you are playing long term campaign style, having a character die due to bad dice rolls has a larger impact.

In one of the groups I play with, we have some characters that have been around since 1st ed. To lose one of those, simply due to bad dice rolls, would be a travesty to the players, even the ones that say to let the chips fall where they may.

Just my two cents, IMMV.

A character who has an Edge rating can always HOG on a bad roll. It becomes a choice between losing a point of Edge and being forced to make a karma investment to regain it and starting over completely. If the player thinks that the character is worth the karma investment required to regain the Edge then he will HOG. It is as simple as that. There is no need to fudge rolls unless the PC has already burnt all of his Edge, a rather unlikely scenario and one deserving of a horrific death.

The great thing about the HOG rule is that it gives the GM an excuse (and often no choice but to) completely change the direction of the campaign or take a short break from the primary theme in favor something different. Heck, if done right the PC in question can earn enough karma to restore his lost Edge while recovering from the circumstances of the HOG (being captured, becoming a wanted criminal as opposed to an anonymous criminal, a game of high-stakes poker with Death and several other powerful supernatural entities on the metaplanes with each chip representing a week of your life.)

Okay, my opinion:
For me the rules themself are for a mixture of realism and ease of use, as much ease for players as the GM.

Without the SR rules framework we would have nothing. With it we have a good solid basis, and if you need to bodge together rules on the fly you have an easy format available.

Mixture could be mixed in with realism in a way I guess. It wouldn't be realistic for a decker to use the exact same dice rolls for hacking a host as shooting someone. I know the dice pool mechanics are identical, but the dice pools are different thus realism brings mixture.

You're right. Sorry, I'm still in SR3 mode.

I voted predictability though in truth fairness is why predictability is the reason for rules.

Rules are to provide a common understood way to determine the outcome. (as opposed to cowboys and indians on whom ever screams the loudest and then punches the other person out (though I guess those qualify as rules).


Rules provide a predictable (which then in truth become atleast semi-'fair') way to determine the outcome.

I would prefer constitant rather then predictable, but in general If X+Y=Z, then X+Y should always equal Z.

This sort of discussion of rpg theory is what http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/ is for, if one really gets a kick out of this thing. Its all about RPG design, and one of the big questions are always what the rules are for. In essence, what they are for depends on the game.