Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Do GMs have to follow the SR4 rules?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Eleazar
I am going to give a series of hypothetical scenarios and would like to hear what people think about them. Another good question to be thinking of during these scenarios is, should the GM allow the players to shape the outcome of the run even if it isn't the one the GM wanted? I know these are tough questions but I am sure every now and then it comes up during a run.

Here they come:

1. A GM decides that he wants to ambush a specific player, but the players know they are in a combat zone and are expecting combat. The NPC that is setting up the ambush had a very poor Infiltration skill compared to the players elite Perception skill. Should the GM decide that the NPC automatically succeeds and ambushes the players even though he had no chance to hide from the players?

2. There is a hostage situation and one of the runners on a team is trying to diffuse the situation. The GM knows that other runners are on the way and they would be able to take care of the situation and will be arriving very shortly. The runner engaged against the enemy with the hostage stalls because he is a social adept and talks things through. The social adept is able to stall the enemy long enough to have the other runners arrive on time. Should the GM decide that even though the runners arrived on time that it shouldn't happen this way and instead their out of luck, because the GM didn't want that to happen?

3. So, the runner's don't get there in time and it is up to the Social Adept. The enemy with the hostage is in melee range and doesn't have a high enough initiative to go first in the Initiative order. The initiative is rolled and the GM doesn't get enough hits on the initiative test and the Social Adept wins. Should GM use edge after the roll even though it has to be done before the initiative roll and must be announced if it is being done?

4. Lonestar is on the tail of the runners in a high speed chase, and the mage decides to summon a Force 8 Air Spirit and start with the Accidents. He rolls surpisingly well, better than the GM wanted, and is able to get 5 services from the spirit. The spirit materializes and starts using the Accident power on the vehicles. The mage announced in advance that he would use Accidents to mop up the floor against the Lonestar tailing them. The GM decides Lonestar had a Force 10 Beast Spirit all along even though they didn't. The Beast Spirit then comes out of no where and materializes inside the players car to combat the spirit. The GM realizes this is a mistake and instead decides the Beast Spirit engages in Astral Combat, even though he already said it materialized. The GM then realizes a Beast Spirit isn't going to do what he wanted and instead says it is an Air Spirit instead. The mage responds and finds out which vehicle the mage who summoned the Beast Spirit is in. The mage then has the Air Spirit uses accident on the vehicle in high speed pursuit that the summoner is in. The summoner has no chance of surviving the crash due to the physical damage from the Beast Spirit and that it was at such a high speed. Should the GM decide that the summoner should have 1 physical box left, so that he can send the Force 10 spirit on a remote quest because the players have sped away and are out of range of the summoner, still being pursued by other Lonestar cars?

5. The runner's are engaged against enemies in combat and are doing better than the GM expected. The GM for plot reasons doesn't want the players to do well. Should the GM decide to raise enemy's attributes and skills and give them things they didn't have to begin with that the players would have noticed?

In fact, lets say the GM did all the things mentioned because he thought it was very important to the story. Should the GM at a whim decide to break the rules of the game because he wants the story to go a certain way or doesn't like where the players are taking it? Should the GM implement rules that benefit him greatly, but are not in the SR4 rule book? These said rules the GM implements also only apply to his NPCs benefit and the players are not notified of them.

Are rules really even important in a game to facilitate gameplay? Should games have structure or should GMs be allowed to break or change rules on the fly as they see fit even thought it negatively affects the runners characters, but advances the GMs goals and story?
Jaid
you're not asking if the GM should break the rules.

you're asking if the GM should railroad the players into doing what he wants. and to me, the answer is no. this isn't a computer RPG, and if i wanted to be forced to take one specific path and no other, then i would go play a computer RPG and avoid the arguments over whether my plan should be able to work or not.
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (Eleazar)
I am going to give a series of hypothetical scenarios

Hypothetical? Yeah, sure. sarcastic.gif

QUOTE (Eleazar)
Should the GM decide that the NPC automatically succeeds and ambushes the players even though he had no chance to hide from the players?

Automated success is only given when the ambusher is not detected, but able to predict the targets movements.

QUOTE (Eleazar)
Should the GM decide that even though the runners arrived on time that it shouldn't happen this way and instead their out of luck, because the GM didn't want that to happen?

Talk-only will get you to some places, but not all.
Social skills are nice, but the ain't no magic - a determined enemy in this situation will usually impose a 8-9 dice penalty, which is usually enough to make the talks go nowhere.

QUOTE (Eleazar)
Should GM use edge after the roll even though it has to be done before the initiative roll and must be announced if it is being done?

RTFM - Edge can be used before and after.

QUOTE (Eleazar)
<Speed-Spirits>

Never heard of Schrödingers Cat - or the uncertainty grenade?

QUOTE (Eleazar)
Should the GM decide to raise enemy's attributes and skills and give them things they didn't have to begin with that the players would have noticed?

Get another GM.
TheUrbanMonkey
In general, the GM should be bound by the same rules that the players are bound by. A good GM can modify his story on the fly to account for the actions of the players.

If you make things happen just because you want them to, and don't let the players affect the story at all, then it's no longer a game.

EDIT: One exception: If the PCs can't find the body, then the bad guy isn't really dead. That's the only time I will intentionally break the rules of the game. I'll occasionally bend them, but only to bring someone back who they thought dead will I break the rules.
Thanee
QUOTE (Eleazar @ Feb 4 2007, 04:39 PM)
1. A GM decides that he wants to ambush a specific player, but the players know they are in a combat zone and are expecting combat. The NPC that is setting up the ambush had a very poor Infiltration skill compared to the players elite Perception skill. Should the GM decide that the NPC automatically succeeds and ambushes the players even though he had no chance to hide from the players?

Of course not. That would be just plain silly. When something happens, it should make sense. When the ambusher is not good at hiding, he should better bring some luck (he can use Edge for the Infiltration roll, for example).

QUOTE
2. There is a hostage situation and one of the runners on a team is trying to diffuse the situation. The GM knows that other runners are on the way and they would be able to take care of the situation and will be arriving very shortly. The runner engaged against the enemy with the hostage stalls because he is a social adept and talks things through. The social adept is able to stall the enemy long enough to have the other runners arrive on time. Should the GM decide that even though the runners arrived on time that it shouldn't happen this way and instead their out of luck, because the GM didn't want that to happen?


Hell, no! When the players act smart, then goddamn let them succeed! Smart acting should be encouraged.

QUOTE
3. So, the runner's don't get there in time and it is up to the Social Adept. The enemy with the hostage is in melee range and doesn't have a high enough initiative to go first in the Initiative order. The initiative is rolled and the GM doesn't get enough hits on the initiative test and the Social Adept wins. Should GM use edge after the roll even though it has to be done before the initiative roll and must be announced if it is being done?


Actually, Edge to go first in an Initiative Pass is always spent after determining the Initiative Score (at the beginning of the particular Initiative Pass). wink.gif

QUOTE
4. Lonestar is on the tail of the runners in a high speed chase, and the mage decides to summon a Force 8 Air Spirit and start with the Accidents. He rolls surpisingly well, better than the GM wanted, ...


Cut.

Why does the GM not want the player to roll well? There is something seriously wrong in this picture. The GM is not the opponent of the players. He should always have a neutral position.

Alright, continue.

QUOTE
...and is able to get 5 services from the spirit. The spirit materializes and starts using the Accident power on the vehicles. The mage announced in advance that he would use Accidents to mop up the floor against the Lonestar tailing them. The GM decides Lonestar had a Force 10 Beast Spirit all along even though they didn't. The Beast Spirit then comes out of no where and materializes inside the players car to combat the spirit. The GM realizes this is a mistake and instead decides the Beast Spirit engages in Astral Combat, even though he already said it materialized. The GM then realizes a Beast Spirit isn't going to do what he wanted and instead says it is an Air Spirit instead.


Well, in some situations it's fine to have things happen despite the GM hasn't thought about them before. That's cool, because the GM cannot know everything. The GM surely isn't an expert in Lonestar tactics, so this kind of 'fudging' can be used to have Lonestar act in a professional manner.

Like... ok, this would probably happen a lot to them, they surely would have taken precautions, so the mage will have a spirit summoned before and kept available to use in such a case.

It should not be overdone and used in every possible situation, only sparingly and only when it makes sense (i.e. the GM has not thought about something, which really, really makes sense for the NPC to have done).

It's also a means to play someone with a very high Intelligence (i.e. a dragon). Surely he had thought about that and taken precautions. That the GM does those retroactively is just a means to achieve this level of Intelligence and planning.

But again... sparingly is an important term in this context.

QUOTE
The mage responds and finds out which vehicle the mage who summoned the Beast Spirit is in. The mage then has the Air Spirit uses accident on the vehicle in high speed pursuit that the summoner is in. The summoner has no chance of surviving the crash due to the physical damage from the Beast Spirit and that it was at such a high speed. Should the GM decide that the summoner should have 1 physical box left, so that he can send the Force 10 spirit on a remote quest because the players have sped away and are out of range of the summoner, still being pursued by other Lonestar cars?


No. Roll damage, spend Edge if necessary. If the guy goes down, than this is what happens. Let the players have fun!

QUOTE
5. The runner's are engaged against enemies in combat and are doing better than the GM expected. The GM for plot reasons doesn't want the players to do well. Should the GM decide to raise enemy's attributes and skills and give them things they didn't have to begin with that the players would have noticed?


That might be ok, in the right circumstances. Like... ok, these guys really don't do what they are supposed to do. Surely, security guards who clash with armed assailants on a regular basis, would be better trained or better equipped. Let's see what I can do here, without having them suddenly change into something else. Some subtle changes here and there, and things should go more smoothly.

I already mentioned the term 'sparingly' above... it applies here as well.

QUOTE
In fact, lets say the GM did all the things mentioned because he thought it was very important to the story. Should the GM at a whim decide to break the rules of the game because he wants the story to go a certain way or doesn't like where the players are taking it? Should the GM implement rules that benefit him greatly, but are not in the SR4 rule book? These said rules the GM implements also only apply to his NPCs benefit and the players are not notified of them.


The GM should ask this question to him- or herself:

Do I want to tell a story (no interaction) or play a roleplaying game (interaction).

QUOTE
Are rules really even important in a game to facilitate gameplay? Should games have structure or should GMs be allowed to break or change rules on the fly as they see fit even thought it negatively affects the runners characters, but advances the GMs goals and story?


Indeed, the rules are very important. The rules give everyone a foundation to base their view of the world on. Things usually happen in a somewhat expected fashion according to these rules. That's why they are there in the first place, so everyone is on the same level, and not one guy (the GM) dictates everything, while the rest just sits there in awe about the great story.

The game is played in a cooperative fashion between the players and the GM. smile.gif

Have fun!

Bye
Thanee
nezumi
QUOTE (Eleazar)
1. A GM decides that he wants to ambush a specific player, but the players know they are in a combat zone and are expecting combat. The NPC that is setting up the ambush had a very poor Infiltration skill compared to the players elite Perception skill. Should the GM decide that the NPC automatically succeeds and ambushes the players even though he had no chance to hide from the players?

Firstly, be careful about your terminology. Player is the person sitting at the table, character is the made-up person in the game. It may get a little confusing if you don't.

In this case, the GM should have given the NPC reasonable skill before the setup. However, things happen sometimes, and a player rolls an extraordinary success. In these cases, that's fair, the PC got lucky. If you're not going to follow the dice, why bother rolling them? Let the PC get the jump on the NPC. IF the NPC getting the jump on them is absolutely required for the story, either make sure the NPC has bonuses from hiding in a great spot and has equipment to make sure he isn't going to be seen, or explain OOC that you're not prepared for this, give them a bonus for spotting the guy, but continue on. This means the player in question still feels he succeeded and profited from his great roll and that he can trust the GM, but you get to keep the plot more or less intact.

QUOTE

2. There is a hostage situation and one of the runners on a team is trying to diffuse the situation. The GM knows that other runners are on the way and they would be able to take care of the situation and will be arriving very shortly. The runner engaged against the enemy with the hostage stalls because he is a social adept and talks things through. The social adept is able to stall the enemy long enough to have the other runners arrive on time. Should the GM decide that even though the runners arrived on time that it shouldn't happen this way and instead their out of luck, because the GM didn't want that to happen?


I'm a little lost on the situation. Are the new runners NPCs or PCs?

Regardless, if the PC can talk his way out of trouble, he should be able to. Again, that's what he spent all those points to be able to do. If your players say they'd much rather enjoy the story than their characters it's different, but in general, let them have their successes.


QUOTE

3. So, the runner's don't get there in time and it is up to the Social Adept. The enemy with the hostage is in melee range and doesn't have a high enough initiative to go first in the Initiative order. The initiative is rolled and the GM doesn't get enough hits on the initiative test and the Social Adept wins. Should GM use edge after the roll even though it has to be done before the initiative roll and must be announced if it is being done?


The GM is not required to announce his intentions, how he's splitting up his combat pool, so on and so forth. The players have to to avoid their changing tactics after the dice have fallen, but GMs need to be able to keep quiet to increase suspense. The GM can, at his discretion, use edge as long as he doesn't make it clear. This is called "fudging the dice". He lies about the roll but makes sure he doesn't get caught so the players don't think it's unfair or they're being abused.

QUOTE

4. Lonestar is on the tail of the runners in a high speed chase, and the mage decides to summon a Force 8 Air Spirit and start with the Accidents. He rolls surpisingly well, better than the GM wanted, and is able to get 5 services from the spirit. The spirit materializes and starts using the Accident power on the vehicles. The mage announced in advance that he would use Accidents to mop up the floor against the Lonestar tailing them. The GM decides Lonestar had a Force 10 Beast Spirit all along even though they didn't. The Beast Spirit then comes out of no where and materializes inside the players car to combat the spirit. The GM realizes this is a mistake and instead decides the Beast Spirit engages in Astral Combat, even though he already said it materialized. The GM then realizes a Beast Spirit isn't going to do what he wanted and instead says it is an Air Spirit instead. The mage responds and finds out which vehicle the mage who summoned the Beast Spirit is in. The mage then has the Air Spirit uses accident on the vehicle in high speed pursuit that the summoner is in. The summoner has no chance of surviving the crash due to the physical damage from the Beast Spirit and that it was at such a high speed. Should the GM decide that the summoner should have 1 physical box left, so that he can send the Force 10 spirit on a remote quest because the players have sped away and are out of range of the summoner, still being pursued by other Lonestar cars?


This is a bit of a tough one, since it becomes clear the GM isn't quite sure what he's up to. In general, you need to determine early on how much GM fudging is acceptable and under what conditions, and it should never, ever, ever become common. The cases I would allow myself to fudge:
1) For suspense purposes, I don't announce planned actions to the players. If I messed up or if the first attack was way too weak or too powerful, I'll decide if I'll take a second attack and what it's like. In your case, that would include the use of edge. I generally only change actions against the player's favor when the action is otherwise trivial and therefore boring, and change it into their favor when they're about to get whacked from unusually good rolls on the part of the opposition.

2) The GM pre-planned what was going to happen and misread or misremembered his notes (for instance, in this situation, the Beast spirit materialized when the GM, who was managing four cars and twelve NPCs, meant for him to engage in astral combat). This is a case where the GM can apologize OOC and say "I'm sorry, this is tough. According to my notes he would have engaged in astral combat." He may decide to give a bonus for his mistake.

My players have come to realize that, when I'm running an in-person game, there's a LOT of management that goes on. While they're worrying about 1 character, I worry about 10. Mistakes will be made, and I need a little more leeway to deal with them. However, I've told them that a mistake will never be in a player's disfavor. If I said he did one thing and they reacted, they get a chance to change their actions and the NPC suffers a penalty or something to "make it up to them". The game is a compromise, and if they're giving me the kindness of letting me change my actions, I'll give them a hand's up in responding. Never, ever openly abuse this power, it's one they give you out of kindness. If the GM is undependable, the game becomes frustrating.

3) When a player is about to die, I will fudge the dice ever so slightly in one direction or another. I report fewer successes than the NPC really got. I use this very rarely, and I never use it twice in the same encounter for the same PC. If they get two Deadly Wounds, they're dead.

4) When I screwed up. As I said above, if I made a mistake, the players shouldn't suffer. They get a free 'bonus'.

5) When neither of us care. We know they'll succeed. I throw dice, "yes, you succeed". This is generally in place of actually looking up rules or writing down stats, since if you know the rules, you might as well do it properly. My players have fought more than a few battles against nobodies with shifting stats because I couldn't remember if his body was 3 or 4 between one phase and another and no one cared (because they cleaned up).

I never fudge for the purpose of preserving the plot. If the players beat the plot, they beat the plot, and that's all there is to it. Many GMs and players prefer no fudging goes on at all. That's fine, that makes for a more exciting game. But no matter what, the most important thing is the players must trust the GM to be fair and impartial, and that means fudging must be used only very rarely and very discretely. Most of the examples so far are clearly not appropriate for fudging the dice.

QUOTE

5. The runner's are engaged against enemies in combat and are doing better than the GM expected. The GM for plot reasons doesn't want the players to do well. Should the GM decide to raise enemy's attributes and skills and give them things they didn't have to begin with that the players would have noticed?


The first rule of fudging is never let the players notice. You can bump up the stats by at most 1 point, but no new gear unless the NPC would have a reason to have it, and certainly no new gear the PCs should notice. Sometimes the PCs get a milk run, let 'em enjoy it. They'll be ground into the dirt later.


QUOTE
Should the GM at a whim decide to break the rules of the game because he wants the story to go a certain way or doesn't like where the players are taking it?


Not on a whim, that would violate the idea of the GM being fair.

QUOTE
Should the GM implement rules that benefit him greatly, but are not in the SR4 rule book? These said rules the GM implements also only apply to his NPCs benefit and the players are not notified of them.


I don't see why not, as long as they're fair and make sense. However, the rules need to be made clear to everyone before gameplay.

QUOTE
Are rules really even important in a game to facilitate gameplay? Should games have structure or should GMs be allowed to break or change rules on the fly as they see fit even thought it negatively affects the runners characters, but advances the GMs goals and story?


That depends on the expectations of the group. I know groups who prefer minimal rules that are only made up when necessary and rarely written down. However, I don't think Shadowrun is the game for them.


All in all though, I'm thinking these are semi-rhetorical questions and you have a problem with your GM. WHy are you asking here instead of talking with him about why you feel slighted?
MaxHunter
I don't think these scenarios are hypotethical at all, neither.
There's obviously a communication problem there; the GM and the PCs are using different kind of approaches to the game. Power characters / "realistic" NPCs
That could have been solved by bettter communication out of gameplay or better, during character creation, however, there's no excuse to overtly fudging with "reality" just because the outcome wasn't what was expected.

IMO what the Gm did in all these situations was unnecesarily antagonistic and unsportmanlike. One should be more creative and flexible. As it were, it destroyed "suspension of disbelief", let alone fun.

I have fudged some rolls ocasionally, (quite rarelly, in fact) but the priority has always been to make the game more fun for EVERYBODY. Plus, nobodt ever could tell
wink.gif

There is a distinct need for confidence in any leadership role, and GMing is all about leadership. Dictatorships; or worse, dictatorships with inefficient propaganda just don't work

Cheers,

Max
Clyde
It absolutely depends upon the players. Let me put a question out there, though: would this GM bend the rules in the favor of the players in search of a better story?

HYPOTHETICAL: The runners are infiltrating a corporate research complex. However, a roving security hacker that the GM had pre-placed would easily see them with the FLIR sensor on his drone. The GM decides that the hacker is distracted by a personal phone call and misses the runners.

In THAT situation, everyone is tossing the rules aside in search of the coolest possible story.
Blade
QUOTE ("Eleazar")
Should the GM decide that the NPC automatically succeeds and ambushes the players even though he had no chance to hide from the players?


I'd say no because it wouldn't be fair to the PC, and what's the point of having a high perception skill rating if you can't see a poorly prepared ambush ?
If you really want the PC to be surprised, you can look for ways to give positive modifiers to the NPC (they know the place, they know what the PC's are up to) and negative modifiers to to PC (dark alley, lot of background noise)...
You can also have the NPC be lucky : there's a sudden totally unrelated explosion a bit further, but close enough to be distracting for the PC.

But even in that case, follow the rules and see how it goes. If one of the runner see the ambush coming even with all these modifiers, he will deserve it and be really proud of it. Your story might take some unexpected way, but it can be interesting too. (And if you want predictability, don't use dices in the first place).

QUOTE ("Eleazar")
Should the GM decide that even though the runners arrived on time that it shouldn't happen this way and instead their out of luck, because the GM didn't want that to happen?


Didn't understand this one. Could you please rephrase it ?

QUOTE ("Eleazar")
Should GM use edge after the roll even though it has to be done before the initiative roll and must be announced if it is being done?


Once again, if you want to be fair to your players (and not being often is a bad idea) yes. If you really need the NPC to act first, just think of using edge first.

On the other hand, the players aren't supposed to know if you've rolled anything and if you decided to edge or not, so you can still act as if you used edge before.
After all, you might do the same for a player who forgot to use edge before rolling the dice. So for this one, I don't think it's a major issue.

QUOTE ("Eleazar")
Should the GM decide that the summoner should have 1 physical box left, so that he can send the Force 10 spirit on a remote quest because the players have sped away and are out of range of the summoner, still being pursued by other Lonestar cars?


First, I think that the scene lacks consistency. If the GM is a begineer, the players should not be to severe so that's ok. I don't really see what's the real question here, but I think that with some more experience, the GM will be able to better deal with those situations wink.gif

QUOTE ("Eleazar")
Should the GM decide to raise enemy's attributes and skills and give them things they didn't have to begin with that the players would have noticed?


It depends on the situation. I think that with more experience the GM will be able to tell what opposition to use to do what he'd like.
If the GM wants the player to be sure to lose, he just have to make sure the opposition is really too strong. If he gives even a slight chance for the players, then it means that he allows them to survive.

As I said earlier, those unexpected outcomes sometime lead to interesting situations, and so it might be interesting to let it go that way. Furthermore, one battle isn't everything. Maybe the players can get away this time, but the ennemies might come back later and finish the job.

One day, my players faced another runner team for some kind of confrontation. It was supposed to be a long and hard battle but, with some luck, the boss of the opposite team got nearly killed at the beginning. Instead of stating that he didn't get hurt, I made the opposite team run away. The PC weren't able to follow them and the confrontation was just postponed.

QUOTE ("Eleazar")
In fact, lets say the GM did all the things mentioned because he thought it was very important to the story. Should the GM at a whim decide to break the rules of the game because he wants the story to go a certain way or doesn't like where the players are taking it? Should the GM implement rules that benefit him greatly, but are not in the SR4 rule book? These said rules the GM implements also only apply to his NPCs benefit and the players are not notified of them.


I think that the rules introduce some unpredictability that is useful to keep (after all, it's interactive storytelling, the players should have more than a side-effect on the story). Most players won't like it if everything is planned in advance and they can't do anything else. One way out is to make it look as if it wasn't intentional at all, but you have to be a very good GM to achieve that.

Of course, you can always influence the outcome of events. If you want the PC to lose a battle just have the opposition be strong enough for them. But you have to be consistent : a megacorporation that really wants to capture the runners will be able to send enough elite troops to do the job (which will be planned carefully) so that's no wonder if the PC get caught. But it's not the same for a gang. The gang might try to ambush the players and overrun them... but the PC can always get away. So don't be surprised if they do.
And if the PC get away from the megacorp, let them the satisfaction of having survived through impossible odds. Tell them that you didn't expect them to make it, and they'll be very happy about it. You might have to rework a bit your scenario (just end the session and work on it until the next) or consider that the megacorp will try again with even more means.

But don't ever (in my opinion) play with different rules. Rules are here for fairness too, and if you aren't fair, the players won't like it.
ornot
Most of the previous posts have summed up my feelings. The GM seems inexperienced or lacks an understanding that the GM isn't against the characters, but neutral and fair. Fine, he's worked on this plot and that requires cetain things to happen, but they don't for whatever reason; well he's just got to roll with the punches, adjust things on the fly and plan for more eventualities in the future.

In my experience the players seem to lose about 30IQ points when they sit down and I'm forced to fudge the rules so that they actually can get anywhere close to completing the run.

As an example, the runners had been hired to liberate some information from an investigative reporter before he broadcasts the data. I developed floor plans, security procedures and all that jazz for the news corp's building. I thought of all the means they might use to get in; sleazing past the guards on the door, shooting their way in, breaking in the back door, even swinging across from a neighbouring building! Instead they decided they'd wait outside for the target to leave the building and pop a cap in him then. When the Star came by to move them on, the two runners watching the building (an orc and a human, both male) decided to book a room in a nearby hotel so they could watch the newscorp's doors. So the orc goes in and orders a room for a few hours, then comes back out to get his 'friend'. They spend the night in the room, but nothing happens.

In desperation I have their media contact call them to tell them the reporter frequents a strip bar in town, so they head on down there to wait for him. When he comes in they are watching him and fluff their shadowing rolls, so his bodyguards come over to have words. Inspired by their previous experiences in the hotel they decide to pretend that they are gay and were only checking out the bodyguards. This doesn't fly so well, this being a strip joint and all. At his point I gave up helping them be subtle, guns came out and lead began to fly. I ended up completely changing the plotline with the reporter actually being leaned on by the mafia, and being perfectly content to give them the paydata (+ his own fee) for going and taking out the mafiosa that had been giving him trouble. Cue gunfight in mansion and lots of heavily armed mafia goons.
cetiah
QUOTE
I am going to give a series of hypothetical scenarios and would like to hear what people think about them. Another good question to be thinking of during these scenarios is, should the GM allow the players to shape the outcome of the run even if it isn't the one the GM wanted? I know these are tough questions but I am sure every now and then it comes up during a run.


Part of the nature of roleplaying is that there are MANY different styles of play, many types of GMs and players. It's part of the fun; it's part of the hassle; and most groups need to stay playing together for awhile before they settle a lot of play-style issues.

There are some people who might say, for example, that a GM should allow anything the players want to do. There are others who might say that if the GM has a fun place in mind where he wants the story to go, he should try to take the story there if he can. Myself, I believe most GMs place a LOT of work into their games - more than most players realise. Players can bitch about character choice all they want, but if the game doesn't turn out fun then it's going to be seen as the GM's fault which really isn't fair since he put several hours or days of work into something the PCs just sidestepped. That being said, the best moments in a GM's time at the table are when the players do something cool and unexpected that has reprecussions through the rest of the story that you can now make into more games.

I've also found that most players don't really want "player choice" in their games so much as they want the illusion of player choice. They want to make a decision that has some kind of impact on the game. Some players get this through combat options, others through character generations, others through plot, or NPC interaction... either way, preparation, good notes, and impromptu skills are critically important. And players should respect how difficult it is to get and keep this balance during a game.


QUOTE

1. A GM decides that he wants to ambush a specific player, but the players know they are in a combat zone and are expecting combat. The NPC that is setting up the ambush had a very poor Infiltration skill compared to the players elite Perception skill. Should the GM decide that the NPC automatically succeeds and ambushes the players even though he had no chance to hide from the players?

All your answers are going to be "It depends." Ultimately, it's up the group. They have what is called a "social contract" in game design theory. Does the GM have to follow the rules? Or can he bend them for what is fun for the game?

If he wanted to ambush a given player character for a given plot situation I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The fact is, player characters are almost always impossible to ambush in any way. If you ever want to do something to a player to get him motivated into the story, you almost always have to handwaive some situations away. This is a tradeoff of Power. Players like having Power, generally, but it cuts off the GM's options on how to setup a game. To achieve the proper balance both sides must be willing to grant the other what they need to have a proper game. You see this in stories, movies, comic books, and television shows all the time... the hero always gets beet in the beginning.

Also, the problem with the GM following the rules all the time is that sometimes the game gets reptitive. For the GM as well as the players. Nothing spices up stuff like an ambush, and sometimes you want ambushes to be about the descriptions and drama, not about die rolling.

Also, sometimes the entertainment of the group is a critical factor. The GM has a whole group of people he needs to entertain, and sometimes for that to happen one player has to be singled out. Ambushing one player for the entertainment of the group isn't a bad tradeoff from a GM's view, so long as that one player isn't continually singled out. Inevitably, not everyone is going to like what you do as a GM and a GM has to accept this. It's best to learn to adapt for the player's styles though.


QUOTE
2. There is a hostage situation and one of the runners on a team is trying to diffuse the situation. The GM knows that other runners are on the way and they would be able to take care of the situation and will be arriving very shortly. The runner engaged against the enemy with the hostage stalls because he is a social adept and talks things through. The social adept is able to stall the enemy long enough to have the other runners arrive on time. Should the GM decide that even though the runners arrived on time that it shouldn't happen this way and instead their out of luck, because the GM didn't want that to happen?


Probably not, but again "it depends". The bottom line is that some GMs really aren't capable of running "on the fly" and want things prepared out. If your GM can't run the game a certain way or isn't comfortable doing so, it's really not fair to ask him. If you don't like the way your GM handles this situation, either adapt to his style, talk to him about it, or find another GM.

I have done instances where I've started a session with "Okay, some of the stuff that happened last session didn't happen that way after all. Here's what happened." Usually they're only minor changes, but I'm doing it because I've thought of a fun direction the campaign could go in that could give us plots and sub-plots for months.


QUOTE
3. So, the runner's don't get there in time and it is up to the Social Adept. The enemy with the hostage is in melee range and doesn't have a high enough initiative to go first in the Initiative order. The initiative is rolled and the GM doesn't get enough hits on the initiative test and the Social Adept wins. Should GM use edge after the roll even though it has to be done before the initiative roll and must be announced if it is being done?


Absolutely.
C'mon. Picture how this scene would have went if the GM never fudged anything. I've had D&D games where I let the monster fight up to -50 hp just because I was amazed at how easily the PCs took him down to 0. I didn't tell the PCs and they had a fun experienced although were amazed at how hard it was. Later the PCs asked how many hitpoints it had. I told them. I don't mind revealing how I fudge stuff to players (i think it's only fair), so long as its between sessions.

The point is that sometimes the "climactic scene" you arranged isn't very climactic at all and either you've got to fudge something or else not have dramatic scenes in your game. Alternatively, some GMs take the shotgun-approach and just through scene after scene at players expecting at least 1 or 2 to turn out fairly dramatically, by chance or circumtance. That works for many, but not me.

QUOTE
4. Lonestar is on the tail of the runners in a high speed chase, and the mage decides to summon a Force 8 Air Spirit and start with the Accidents. He rolls surpisingly well, better than the GM wanted, and is able to get 5 services from the spirit. The spirit materializes and starts using the Accident power on the vehicles. The mage announced in advance that he would use Accidents to mop up the floor against the Lonestar tailing them. The GM decides Lonestar had a Force 10 Beast Spirit all along even though they didn't. The Beast Spirit then comes out of no where and materializes inside the players car to combat the spirit. The GM realizes this is a mistake and instead decides the Beast Spirit engages in Astral Combat, even though he already said it materialized. The GM then realizes a Beast Spirit isn't going to do what he wanted and instead says it is an Air Spirit instead. The mage responds and finds out which vehicle the mage who summoned the Beast Spirit is in. The mage then has the Air Spirit uses accident on the vehicle in high speed pursuit that the summoner is in. The summoner has no chance of surviving the crash due to the physical damage from the Beast Spirit and that it was at such a high speed. Should the GM decide that the summoner should have 1 physical box left, so that he can send the Force 10 spirit on a remote quest because the players have sped away and are out of range of the summoner, still being pursued by other Lonestar cars?


Again, it seems like the GM is just trying to accomodate for the challenge. He doesn't seem like he's experienced, or maybe just not experienced as the players with the rules. Imagine how hard that is. Challenging players who know the rules better than you do.

He doesn't sound like a very experienced GM, but it sounds to me like he's trying to do everything he can to extend the length and drama in each scene. Why fight him on that? If you see what he's trying to do, maybe YOU should come up with ways Lone Star would have of stopping/counter on you. Ultimately, the game would be more fun for it, I think.

QUOTE
5. The runner's are engaged against enemies in combat and are doing better than the GM expected. The GM for plot reasons doesn't want the players to do well. Should the GM decide to raise enemy's attributes and skills and give them things they didn't have to begin with that the players would have noticed?

I've done this quite a few times. I prefer to do it subtelly, if possible.

QUOTE
In fact, lets say the GM did all the things mentioned because he thought it was very important to the story. Should the GM at a whim decide to break the rules of the game because he wants the story to go a certain way or doesn't like where the players are taking it? Should the GM implement rules that benefit him greatly, but are not in the SR4 rule book? These said rules the GM implements also only apply to his NPCs benefit and the players are not notified of them.


This sounds like your game became a power stuggle between the GM saying "it needs to work this way" and the player saying "it needs to work this way", each for their own reasons. If both sides cooperated a little more in helping eachother's "duty" it would help a lot.

QUOTE
Are rules really even important in a game to facilitate gameplay? Should games have structure or should GMs be allowed to break or change rules on the fly as they see fit even thought it negatively affects the runners characters, but advances the GMs goals and story?

Every group has different answers to these questions. I think of "GM rules" as guidelines on how not to screw over the players accidently. Too many liberties leads to too many things not taken into account. I have a Mission Builder I designed for my games, for example, that gives the GMs "points" on how many times he can break the rules. To get more GM points, he has to give some helpful scenes/clues to the players. It helps me manage my games, but its not a playing style appropriate for everyone.
Glyph
This so-called GM should just write a damn novel. He's sure as hell not running a role-playing game.


A role-playing game is interactive. That means that the GM has a plot, but everyone sitting at the table has a say in where that plot winds up going. The GM has more say than the others, because he is describing the whole game world to the players and running the actions of every person that they encounter. And he also sets up the story.

But the story should be something the players can affect, not something with a predetermined outcome. Shadowrun is already fairly linear - they are playing people who do jobs for money, so it's fairly easy to plunk the PCs down into the plot. Someone hires them to do a job, and away you go. If you want more personal motivations, then hey, the GM also runs all of the PCs' friends, loved ones, and bitter enemies.

Once it gets going, though, the PCs will surprise you. Roll with it. Maybe they find a way to bypass your security. Maybe introducing a love interest doesn't work when the character is more annoyed by the NPC than attracted to her. If every step of the plot is set in stone, and there is only one way to get from point A to point B, then it's not a plot, it's a story. The plot should be something that will go on with or without the PCs, but can be affected by them once they are in it.


The other thing about a roleplaying game is that it is a game. The dice are a very important part of the game. They allow the players to make quantifiable choices in what their character is good at. Then, the dice both allow them to simulate that level of skill, and add a genuine random element to play. The GM may occasionally need to adjust things on the fly, but dice rolls should not be fudged. It makes player choices for their character meaningless, it's unfair, it's cheating, and it erodes the trust that should be there between the players and the GM. Would you be okay with a PC giving himself 4 extra successes because "it would be more dramatic if I made that difficult shot"?

There are a few proponents of fudging on these boards, but I don't think even they would approve of those examples. Advocates of fudging generally use it to keep the PCs alive, not to make them fail. Which is what the GM in your example seems to be doing, in every single instance.

nezumi
By the way, the answer to the thread title is "no, 3rd edition is acceptable also."
eidolon
While I don't think a GM should railroad the players into a predetermined ending for a run, nor do I think that this is the appropriate place or manner of handling a disagreement with your GM. Sitting down at a table, away from the gaming session, and discussing things might work better. I understand the need for catharsis, but if I were your GM I would (rightly, IMO) be a little miffed.

QUOTE (cetiah)
If both sides cooperated a little more in helping eachother's "duty" it would help a lot.


Well said.

(And to avoid confusion, this is not me as mod at all. I'm just giving my personal views here. Disclaimer, just in case and all that.)
James McMurray
QUOTE (Eleazar)


QUOTE
Should the GM decide that the NPC automatically succeeds and ambushes the players even though he had no chance to hide from the players?


Yes, but he should do it within the rules. It's incredibly easy for a 0 stealth character to ambush a 12 perception dice character: stick them far away and behind a pane of tinted glass. Cars work great for this, as they also let you get away faster if the ambush fails.

QUOTE
Should the GM decide that even though the runners arrived on time that it shouldn't happen this way and instead their out of luck, because the GM didn't want that to happen?


No.

QUOTE
Should GM use edge after the roll even though it has to be done before the initiative roll and must be announced if it is being done?


Spend edge to go first, not for extra dice.

QUOTE
Spirit stuff


It takes approximately 2-3 rounds for Lone Star to attain massive spirit support if they need it: one to call it in and have the mage on duty retrieve it, the second and possibly third for the mage to lead them to the scene. There's no need to fudge anything.

QUOTE
Should the GM decide to raise enemy's attributes and skills and give them things they didn't have to begin with that the players would have noticed?


Let them win, and remember it for later.

QUOTE
Should the GM at a whim decide to break the rules of the game because he wants the story to go a certain way or doesn't like where the players are taking it?


If you want to tell a story to your players, write a book.

QUOTE
Should the GM implement rules that benefit him greatly, but are not in the SR4 rule book? These said rules the GM implements also only apply to his NPCs benefit and the players are not notified of them.


Possibly. A rule of "all NPCs get 3 bonus dodge dice to assign how they want every turn is a crappy rule. Inventing a piece of experimental gear that does the same thing (perhaps with some downsides that the NPCs don't care much about) works great. In short, if you want something brand new as a rule and don't want the players to have it, make it a spell or piece of gear (preferably bioware). They'll eventually figure it out and may start researching at that point.

QUOTE
Are rules really even important in a game to facilitate gameplay? Should games have structure or should GMs be allowed to break or change rules on the fly as they see fit even thought it negatively affects the runners characters, but advances the GMs goals and story?


For me, if a GM throws the rules out the window I'll get bored and wander off, or turn destructive and start seeing how much I can screw with his prescious story (depends on the day, usually it's the former). Other players like a story.
Eleazar
For me, my position is that the rules are there for a reason. I don't have any problem with the GM "fudging dice" or doing things that add challenge to the game. In fact the GM could have done many of the things he did if he could have found some way to make them believable in the game and not nearly as obvious to the players. I also believe there should be some balance in giving players some control over the game and the GM control of the game. Unless of course, the GM is good at taking that control and it still results in a believable game. Given the chance, I think the GM should act within the rules to enact what he wants to happen. He should also though relate information to the players that would be necessary for them to act in a situation. For instance, if the character doing the ambush has a heck of a lot of modifiers adding to his infiltration, the scene could be run rendered thusly to the players:

You come across a part of the Barrens and this is a part where no electricity gets to. It is late in the night so it is rather difficult to see anything as you walk through the very poorly lighted cratered landscape of potholed roads. You see what seem to be many abandoned and dilapidated buildings and some that look to have been worn down heavily or falling completely apart. It is difficult to hear anything at all right now due to the intense windstorm that has picked up increasingly since you have first entered the barrens and entered this remote side of them. The windstorm is flushing particles of sand, dust, and debris making it difficult to see.

Obviously it makes it very believable when the players with high perception scores cant do a darned thing. It also makes sense that if an enemy knew they would be coming to this location and had their position through whatever means, he would ambush rather easily.

As opposed to what happened in the hypothetical situation. I will describe this situation more detailed:

The players meet up at a ran down Hotel building where they are looking for a target with very valuable deltaware cyberware plans. The mage sends a spirit to investigate the building and he notices that the place has at least 6 gangers armed with guns. The players mage has expended all the services on the other spirit and decides to summon another one before they enter the building. The player mage is able to summon a Force 8 spirit. As soon as the spirit is summoned the ganger mage ambushes, overcasting a very high force spell and knocks the player mage out. This particular ganger is wearing very bright neon tattoos and is loud and clunky.

The players do not know the exact location of the gangers but they do know they are in the building. The player mage was attacked by the ganger mage from the 2nd story window(hiding) and the GM decided it was an ambush. This rather poor hider of a mage(wasn't using any magic to hide and had poor infiltration) was not noticed by any of the 4 other characters that were looking at the building expecting enemy combatants and had full view of the 2nd story window..
Eleazar
One last thing to make things clear:

I said these are hypothetical situations for a reason. These do not reflect in any way what happened exactly in the game and are my best attempts to create related scenarios. Therefore they are, in fact, hypothetical. It is very possible I am greatly overstating what happened or greatly understating them, only I know. I was wishing to spark a discussion about the GM following rules and when it might be ok to not always follow them or when it is rather egregious.
Slump
I think the best way for a GM to not have to fudge is if they are clever. Basically, if you can think of a way to use your prepared materials no matter which way the PCs turn, then the players think they have control, which is just as good as them actually having control, because they can't tell the difference.

For example, imagine that the PCs are going through a maze that has one-way doors. It doesn't matter which direction they turn, since they have no way of knowing what was down the other path, so the GM only needs to have a single path mapped out. The PCs could think that they just got really lucky, or maybe they used divination magic to determine the correct path, or they could have stolen a map. The point is that it doesn't matter what mechanism the players used, the result would have been the same.

With this method of GMing, though, the GM needs to have destinations and goals, but the actual path doesn't need alot of detail.

So, in the lonestar chase example, what was the GMs goal in having Star chase the PCs? What was the GMs goal in handwaiving in a mage with a force 10 spirit?

If the goal of the chase was PC capture, then just put a roadblock up ahead. After all, nobody can outrun motorolla (i.e. Star just radios ahead, they have alot more people than the runners do). The roadblock can contain mages with spirits. After all, at this point, they know that the runners have access to magic.

If the goal was to have a dramatic chase scene where the PCs fight tooth and nail, then let the spirit crash the chase cars, more Star can pick up the chase, only to be destroyed/stopped by the PCs. Eventually the PCs can make it to the barrens where gangers pull out LAWs to play target practice with the remaining visible Star, and it's no longer worth it to pursue the PCs.

In either case, the handwaiving was simply adding more characters to the scene in a rational manner, rather than just "oh yeah, they have a mage now." And who cares if the Lonestar mage survives? If he's supposed to be a recurring antagonist, then handwaiving him into the chase as a nameless mage isn't a very good method of introducing him. If you really want him to survive, then just have the PC's turn on the news and hear the heart-wrenching piece about the critical condition of the lonestar mage in the ICU, and how "Lonestar promises to find the dangerous criminals who are currently at large because they eluded capture during a daring high-speed shootout"
mfb
how about this: if the GM is fudging, i think the players should never know. how much or how little fudging the GM does to keep the game running depends on the GM (and the players, to be honest). but if and when the GM fudges, he should make every effort to disguise that fact from his players.
warrior_allanon
to my knowledge the GM that ran our games never fudged a roll, and that is the disclaimer every player should be able to make. That said, he always learned from underestimating us. When we learned how to stop taking bullets by using armor and cover, (mostly ballistic armor, most of our characters had a VERY high quickness) so he sent things that went after our impact side, (melee combat, animals) we learned to deal with things through high firepower to the point that we had as a team earned the nickname "The Mighty Ducks" so he started sending us on missions that required a lot of stealth which brought up the quote from the files:

QUOTE
CH-"Why did you decide to hire us?"
NPC-"I heard your reputation on the street."
CH-"If that were true sir, you wouldnt have hired us for a stealth mission"


And this was all before we reached the "Queen Euphoria" module since he liked to use the pre-made modules

No GM should ever railroad a storyline, but they should be inventive enough to get things back on track through subtle manipulation. That said, i say to remember, though the GM is interested in building a story, HE IS THE ENEMY, if your inventive enough to frag him over, do it, he may not appreciate it, but the good ones will always learn and the better ones will learn how to use it against you later.
lorechaser
QUOTE (warrior_allanon)
to my knowledge the GM that ran our games never fudged a roll, and that is the disclaimer every player should be able to make.

I completely disagree with that statement. I trust my GM enough to know that he will do what's going to be the coolest, most fun, or best for the game.

I don't want him fudging everything, but sometimes, the dice just don't cooperate, and it's better if it happens the way it *should* have happened.
Cthulhu449
Hypothetical doesn't mean thinly veiled, similar incidents from a game you recently played, nor is it a way to fool yourself into thinking you are asking anything more than "am I right, huh huh?" on the Dumpshock boards. If you had a problem with some DM rulings in a gaming session take it up with them; you'll both get something out of it, and it will be a lot more constructive than what strangers on the boards can offer. I only offer this non-answer due to my suspicion of the facetiousness of the original post.

If these events you described in no way reflect events in real life I appologize, but the descriptions were far too specific and, dare I say, leading for me to feel they were in no way based on actual gameplay.

But good luck with your game either way.
toturi
My important NPCs are often human. The goons are not. 3 guesses why and the first 2 don't count. Edge. That's right.

I don't fudge, if there's no way rules-wise(apart from the "GM sez" rule) for the villain to survive, then he does not. Plenty of Edge, however, ensures that he does.

Having said that, some groups like to play "gamebook"-style, where their actions are predeteremined and all they need to do is turn to page XYZ. Others want a more freeform game. I run my games more freeform but strictly according to the rules.
cetiah
QUOTE (warrior_allanon @ Feb 4 2007, 09:27 PM)
That said, i say to remember, though the GM is interested in building a story, HE IS THE ENEMY, if your inventive enough to frag him over, do it, he may not appreciate it, but the good ones will always learn and the better ones will learn how to use it against you later.

Like I said, everyone has different styles. In my campaigns, the GM is certainly *not* the enemy. In fact, I generally don't care whether my players succeed or fail; I just want to make sure every has fun, is surprised once and awhile, and the story turns out interesting. (The story isn't important to a lot of players both in this forum and in my gaming group, but it's the reason I play so its high on my list of priorities.)

My point is that I'm trying to emphasize, once again, everyone has different playing styles and you won't find any answers to your questions here; only conflicting views. I think of the GM as a referee and storyteller, not the opponent.

That being said, Eleazar, if you're really interested in this topic, here's some interesting resources for you to consider:

The GM's role
How Different Games Define a GM
Power, Information, and Play in RPGs
What is a GM?
The GM Element; consideration and overview

And just for fun:
Gamemaster Rules of Admonition
Only a Game
Vaevictis
Rules of GMing And Rule Breaking (In the Sense that Rules are Guidelines):

1. GMs can break the rules at will.
2. The GM should not lightly do so.
3. The GM should make it a habit of providing as few game mechanic details on his side of the GM shade as possible so that the players will only rarely detect that the GM has broken the rules.
4. If the GM has a specific outcome in mind, and is intent on making things happen that way, then the GM should craft the scenario in such a way that it never comes down to die rolls, or in such a way that the desired result is reasonably probable if dice do end up rolling.
5. If the GM fails to follow the above rules, the players will begin to suspect that the GM is cheating.
6. No good has ever come from the players suspecting that the GM cheats.
apollo124
The only time is a game that I have ever really fudged on the rolls was in a D+D game where the uber-power PC's had been mopping up the floor with godly Avatars then ended up fighting Tiamat herself. Even though the PC's had the best initiative possible, the goddess still went first. Even at that, I followed the rules I had on hand to manage the situation.

IMO, running a game, you should place fun at the top of the list, and solid rules that everyone follows allows for the most fun. We always had the best time figuring out what the GM had in mind and then countering it with in-game logic. Always got extra karma for finding a neat way around the best laid plans of the GM.

Example: In a module (I don't remember which one) the players were accused of murdering a music exec with a chip. So the PC's decided to break into the morgue, chop off the guys head, and bring it back to the lair to download what was in the guys' headware memory. Totally not included in the original module, but it worked logically in the SR universe. I gave them extra Karma for coming up with that idea.
ShadowDragon8685
QUOTE (apollo124)
The only time is a game that I have ever really fudged on the rolls was in a D+D game where the uber-power PC's had been mopping up the floor with godly Avatars then ended up fighting Tiamat herself. Even though the PC's had the best initiative possible, the goddess still went first. Even at that, I followed the rules I had on hand to manage the situation.

IMO, running a game, you should place fun at the top of the list, and solid rules that everyone follows allows for the most fun. We always had the best time figuring out what the GM had in mind and then countering it with in-game logic. Always got extra karma for finding a neat way around the best laid plans of the GM.

Example: In a module (I don't remember which one) the players were accused of murdering a music exec with a chip. So the PC's decided to break into the morgue, chop off the guys head, and bring it back to the lair to download what was in the guys' headware memory. Totally not included in the original module, but it worked logically in the SR universe. I gave them extra Karma for coming up with that idea.

THIS is why I keep saying the best guy to have as a Contact is the Chief Medical Examiner of the City Morgue!
Adept_Damo
QUOTE (Cthulhu449)
Hypothetical doesn't mean thinly veiled, similar incidents from a game you recently played, nor is it a way to fool yourself into thinking you are asking anything more than "am I right, huh huh?" on the Dumpshock boards. If you had a problem with some DM rulings in a gaming session take it up with them; you'll both get something out of it, and it will be a lot more constructive than what strangers on the boards can offer. I only offer this non-answer due to my suspicion of the facetiousness of the original post.

Actually I said that if he wanted to argue about rules that he should come here to do it. He and the GM are brothers so their arguing in the game session never seems to find a resolution, and me and the other players were sick of playing yahtzee waiting.

Btw, i was the adept from the hostage, and I had a hot hand on my initiative roll 16. /shrug, the other guy blew the hostage's brains out and destroyed the optical chip we were after.
Ravor
Ok, now that I understand what is really going on I have two answers, I'll give the short one first...

(Short Answer)

Unless you want to DM a game yourself, then yes, the DM can do everything that you are complaining about, we can break any rules we want to at any time. We aren't God, God is merely a NPC that we control, ect, ect...

Of course, all that power at our fingertips means nothing without players sitting across the table, so we have to tone things down or we can't play either...

(Long Answer)

Ok, lets go through this point-by-point with my opinions as a DM myself...

-1- It depends, as a general rule I'd say no, with exceptions. In the more detailed version of the story, it depends on how the DM handled the handwaving, were there curtains or shades? However, personally I would rather apply modifers instead of fiat, but then again I think I would have dropped a gas genade at the team's feet or something alot nastier since we are talking about delta grade cyberware plans, but then again thats just me.

-2- Social Adepts aren't the be-all, end-all. No matter how good you are at talking, you can not ask the Lone Star grunt yelling freeze to put down his gun and engage in gay sex with you and your pet goat, he simply isn't going to listen to you even if you have 30+ dice to roll. Same thing applies to hostage situations in my opinion, you can stall to a certain point, but once the baddie decides to pull the trigger, then he is going to pull the trigger regardless.

-3- You as a Player have to declare when you are using Edge, me as a DM doesn't. Besides, I'd rule that it is common sense to say that the baddie in this case was using the Delayed Action rules, in which case, the baddie does get to pull the trigger first, no matter what.

-4- I agree with you on this one, if the Star fragged themselves then they fragged up, if your DM wanted the chase to go on, then have more porkers show up in addition to setting up an ambush further up the road on the runner's most likely paths.

-5- As long as it is kept low key then I don't have a problem with it, after all in an actual firefight you have gunshots, yelling, smoke, muzzle flashes, and people running and ducking for cover, ect... Unless you are giving up actions to do nothing but study the battlefield then you aren't going to notice everything in perfect detail, and maybe not even then. Of course, they aren't going to pull a Panther Cannon out of a coat pocket, and it might work both ways, maybe you were mistaken and they aren't as well equiped as you first thought they were...

Garrowolf
well I love the composure roll. Sometimes NPCs do something stupid or freak out.

I also love the idea that the PCs are not the point of what the NPCs are doing. I had a game where the PCs were all set up to take a major attack from this gang but they had serious flaws in their defenses. I got out of it by having the gangers misunderstand the reason for the PCs randomly attacking them in the first place. They went to settle a score with the gang that they thought sent the PCs.

Fudge rolls and swap meanings for things all you want. Add things that make no sense so that they are looking over their shoulders because they know something is going on but they don't know what. I introduce strange things that I don't know what they mean all the time. It might get them out of a problem but I make them think that they might have caused themselves worse problems down the road.

With a little work and imagination and a good bluff there are no GM mistakes. There is just foreshadowing. wink.gif
Mistwalker
QUOTE (Adept_Damo @ Feb 5 2007, 02:33 AM)
QUOTE (Cthulhu449 @ Feb 4 2007, 10:04 PM)
Hypothetical doesn't mean thinly veiled, similar incidents from a game you recently played, nor is it a way to fool yourself into thinking you are asking anything more than "am I right, huh huh?" on the Dumpshock boards. If you had a problem with some DM rulings in a gaming session take it up with them; you'll both get something out of it, and it will be a lot more constructive than what strangers on the boards can offer. I only offer this non-answer due to my suspicion of the facetiousness of the original post.

Actually I said that if he wanted to argue about rules that he should come here to do it. He and the GM are brothers so their arguing in the game session never seems to find a resolution, and me and the other players were sick of playing yahtzee waiting.

Btw, i was the adept from the hostage, and I had a hot hand on my initiative roll 16. /shrug, the other guy blew the hostage's brains out and destroyed the optical chip we were after.

Then the brother who is not GM, should object once during the game, then get on with the play, once the GM brother has made his ruling, even if it is the wrong one.

Rules arguing should not, in general, happen during game play. Accept that the GM, and players, will make mistakes.

If it is a big mistake on the GM's part, then the GM always has the option of sweetening the pot in some way for the players, to make up for the bad call.
If it is a big mistake on the player's part, then the GM can have a lot of fun.



A GM can always add in more NPCs, re-inforcements, etc... In the example given, with a few gangers in the building, there could have been more in surrounding buildings, the sewers, nearby on bikes/in trucks, etc...

It is a fact of life, that the players will always find some way to mess up the GMs plans. If they do so in such a way that the story suddenly ends, so be it, the players have a mysterie that can plague them (or not) for a long time to come.
The players may have failed in their run, possibly take a reputation hit, and move on.

My players mess up my plans all the time. So, some items, NPCs, plotlines that I liked, but didn't use cause of player actions, I just recycle and use again in another adventure.
knasser
A lot has already been said. I'll post my opinions on each of your cases using Insert-O-Text. Hopefully, there are still a few useful things left for me to add:

QUOTE (Eleazar)

1. A GM decides that he wants to ambush a specific player, but the players know they are in a combat zone and are expecting combat. The NPC that is setting up the ambush had a very poor Infiltration skill compared to the players elite Perception skill. Should the GM decide that the NPC automatically succeeds and ambushes the players even though he had no chance to hide from the players?


First off, it seems as though a lot of the rolling is being done in the open. It's not uncommon for GMs to make their rolls privately, which allows them to fudge discretely. That is also an argument against it, but in the case of an ambush a GM is entirely justified in rolling secretly without explanation for what he is doing. I sometimes roll dice just to spook players.

That said, the GM should not just overrule the dice. Dice should only be overruled for the sake of common sense, e.g. if a grenade is forced down someone's trousers, they're not going to be allowed their dodge roll. The scenario of someone with poor stealth skills being spotted by someone with very high perception rolls who is already expecting danger is not such a scenario. Over-ruling the dice here weakens belief in the game world and also denies players the benefit of their hard spend build points. If the GM wants to stack the deck then it should be done within the rules using situational modifiers. E.g. dice pool penalty for extensive cover for the ambusher. But once this is done, the dice should be allowed to fall where they will. Sometimes it's appropriate to over-rule the dice for the sake of sparing a player who is being badly punished for something that is not their fault, but never for the sake of punishing a player when they have played well (or built their character smartly).

QUOTE (Eleazar)

2. There is a hostage situation and one of the runners on a team is trying to diffuse the situation. The GM knows that other runners are on the way and they would be able to take care of the situation and will be arriving very shortly. The runner engaged against the enemy with the hostage stalls because he is a social adept and talks things through. The social adept is able to stall the enemy long enough to have the other runners arrive on time. Should the GM decide that even though the runners arrived on time that it shouldn't happen this way and instead their out of luck, because the GM didn't want that to happen?


If you're talking about the GM fudging rules or dice rolls to nullify the player's success in stalling the enemy, then no - he should not interfere in this way. Doing so is a clear signal that the GM is taking control of the player's own characters, through unjustly manipulating the outcome of their actions. A GM controls everything in the world except for the player's characters. The players fun is derived from being able to act. Take that away (or make actions meaningless) and you take away fun from the players. There are plenty of other ways the GM could affect the outcome within the rules if he wanted. Not that he should mind. Clever playing should be rewarded.

QUOTE (Eleazar)
3. So, the runner's don't get there in time and it is up to the Social Adept. The enemy with the hostage is in melee range and doesn't have a high enough initiative to go first in the Initiative order. The initiative is rolled and the GM doesn't get enough hits on the initiative test and the Social Adept wins. Should GM use edge after the roll even though it has to be done before the initiative roll and must be announced if it is being done?


You're mistaken here. You spend the point of edge to go first at the start of the initiative pass, i.e. after everyone has rolled. In this case the GM is within the rules, however, it would be possible for any player character to also spend an edge point and go first assuming that he or she had a higher initiative score than the enemy. If the GM ignored that then you would have the same problem as fudging in the previous example.

QUOTE (Eleazar)
4. Lonestar is on the tail of the runners in a high speed chase, and the mage decides to summon a Force 8 Air Spirit and start with the Accidents. He rolls surpisingly well, better than the GM wanted, and is able to get 5 services from the spirit.


Whoah, woah, woah. He what? This is an aside, but I think it's important. A force 8 air spirit is tough. Summoning one mid-combat with no preparation is even more impressive. I'm not saying that you shouldn't play at this high level but any mage capable of pulling this off quite frankly shouldn't be bothered by a few cops. I think there's a chance here that there's a misunderstanding of the rules.

Assume a really powerful starting mage with Magic of 6. (The normal average for a mage is three, you know). Give him a really wow summoning skill of six with a specialisation in Air Spirits. For real madness, add in a mentor spirit that grants bonuses and a summoning focus at Force 2. You've got 18 dice on your summoning roll. Utterly ridiculous. (You'd wonder if the mage is able do anything else). But that's your uber duber tweaked out summoner that you could have at char gen. Now a force eight spirit rolls eight dice on its own roll so on average you'll get three successes, And you'll take 6DV Physical on average. But that's average. All it would take is for the GM to roll six hits (and we've all seen that happen on eight dice often enough), and you're resisting 12DV Physical.

The point of all this is twofold. Firstly, any mage able to pull this off, and furthermore willing to take the risk it entails, should be able to take out any pursuing lone star cops. This is heroic stuff and it is wildly unfair of a GM to say that it can't stop a handful of street cops. It's particularly unfair seeing as the mage could simply instruct the spirit to "kill those cops" as a single service and have it slaughter them all in five rounds. Secondly, it shows just what crazy resources the GM has given those cops in having a Force 10 spirit on call. You have two scenarios here. Either you have a crazily powerful summoning mage working as a cop doing high speed pursuits when any corp would pay him 100,000 nuyen.gif a year to work for them. Or else you have someone back at the station binding force 10 spirits ready for use. Even a powerful mage is risking his life doing this. If you had a one in eight chance of dying everytime you did this (spirit rolls 6 successes on 10 dice) and you were asked to do this once a month as a job, how many months do you think you would work there? It just doesn't make sense that Lonestar have this sort of resource or deploy it for the sake of a few runners that they can track down later.


QUOTE (Eleazar)
5. The runner's are engaged against enemies in combat and are doing better than the GM expected. The GM for plot reasons doesn't want the players to do well. Should the GM decide to raise enemy's attributes and skills and give them things they didn't have to begin with that the players would have noticed?


Perhaps. If it's important to the game and the GM has miscalculated the opposition. But to openly fudge statistics is clumsy. There are plenty of ways a GM can turn the tide without this sort of heavy handedness. But really, should he even do that? If the players do well, the more power to them. They should be rewarded.

To summarise, it sounds like your GM is having trouble with rolling with the punches. When the players surprise you, have good luck or show smarts, you should accept that. Accept it and go with it. Player pulls out a Force 8 Air Spirit? Great - have the cops fall back and send them a Johnson with a bigger, more dangerous job. They clearly need to move up a power level and will enjoy it when the Johnson seeks them out and refers to the event as the reason. Of course, Lonestar will not go away. They never do. wink.gif

Never run the rules one way for yourself and a different way for the players. That's a violation of trust.
tisoz
QUOTE (Eleazar)
I am going to give a series of hypothetical scenarios

Right.

QUOTE
Should games have structure or should GMs be allowed to break or change rules on the fly as they see fit even thought it negatively affects the runners characters, but advances the GMs goals and story?


That is the power of being the GM, so yes, the GM can do whatever he damn well pleases.

The power of the player is walking out of the GM's unfair game. (I prefer to do it loudly and memorably, ask Sphynx wink.gif , although this gets you remembered as an ass by those you walked out on.)

Players put up with standards of GMing based on the supply of other GMs in their area and the players desire to game.
lorechaser
Knasser did a pretty good summary for me. While the Force 8 spirit is tough, it's doable, esp. with Edge.

And if you had summoning 6 (air spirits), why *wouldn't* you spend the 5 bp to get a mentor that gave bonuses?

But overall, it does seem like your GM is having problems getting off-script, which is usually just a flaw of a newer GM. He could easily have handled all those situations without you knowing it, but he isn't sure how. Give him some advice. Print out some of the solutions. And work with him.

Or, if you'd rather, find a new group - because w/o help, he's gonna stay this way, and you're gonna be mad.

Off the top of my head solutions:

QUOTE (Eleazar)

1. A GM decides that he wants to ambush a specific player, but the players know they are in a combat zone and are expecting combat. The NPC that is setting up the ambush had a very poor Infiltration skill compared to the players elite Perception skill. Should the GM decide that the NPC automatically succeeds and ambushes the players even though he had no chance to hide from the players?


1. Why did the NPC have a low skill? Fix that. After he's dead, the PCs find his chameleon suit. Or the NPC has hired a backup. The PCs see him, and go after him, only to have a shot ring out from an entirely new direction, where the well-paid sniper is lurking. The sniper disappears after firing his shot, because that's all the NPC could pay for.

QUOTE (Eleazar)

2. There is a hostage situation and one of the runners on a team is trying to diffuse the situation. The GM knows that other runners are on the way and they would be able to take care of the situation and will be arriving very shortly. The runner engaged against the enemy with the hostage stalls because he is a social adept and talks things through. The social adept is able to stall the enemy long enough to have the other runners arrive on time. Should the GM decide that even though the runners arrived on time that it shouldn't happen this way and instead their out of luck, because the GM didn't want that to happen?


No. But the GM is free to use any one of a number of responses. 1. The aforementioned "You can't change my mind, I don't care." 2. Monitors. "Oh, I see! As you've been talking to me, your friends are sneaking up to take me out!" *blam blam*. 3. Drugs/Insanity. Suddenly, the hostage taker just screams, and starts firing. Later, looking at his body, he's got needle holes all up and down his arms, or is frothing at the mouth, what have you.

QUOTE (Eleazar)
3. So, the runner's don't get there in time and it is up to the Social Adept. The enemy with the hostage is in melee range and doesn't have a high enough initiative to go first in the Initiative order. The initiative is rolled and the GM doesn't get enough hits on the initiative test and the Social Adept wins. Should GM use edge after the roll even though it has to be done before the initiative roll and must be announced if it is being done?


Use the rules correctly, or simply declare that he had been holding his attack action. But fundamentally, just tell them players "He goes first." If they protest, say "No, he does." If the players are questioning every roll the GM makes, that's a problem of its own.

QUOTE (Eleazar)
4. Lonestar is on the tail of the runners in a high speed chase, and the mage decides to summon a Force 8 Air Spirit and start with the Accidents. He rolls surpisingly well, better than the GM wanted, and is able to get 5 services from the spirit.


The above mentioned "more cops"

QUOTE (Eleazar)
5. The runner's are engaged against enemies in combat and are doing better than the GM expected. The GM for plot reasons doesn't want the players to do well. Should the GM decide to raise enemy's attributes and skills and give them things they didn't have to begin with that the players would have noticed?


Let the PCs spot one NPC obviously calling for backup. Or reaching down in to a suitcase or a locker. Or drones. Etc.
Kyoto Kid
QUOTE (Cetiah)
There are some people who might say, for example, that a GM should allow anything the players want to do. There are others who might say that if the GM has a fun place in mind where he wants the story to go, he should try to take the story there if he can. Myself, I believe most GMs place a LOT of work into their games - more than most players realise. Players can bitch about character choice all they want, but if the game doesn't turn out fun then it's going to be seen as the GM's fault which really isn't fair since he put several hours or days of work into something the PCs just sidestepped. That being said, the best moments in a GM's time at the table are when the players do something cool and unexpected that has reprecussions through the rest of the story that you can now make into more games.


[edited for clarity]

...this is pretty much how I handle it. I have learned to expect the PCs to do their own thing. Yes I put a lot of time into designing campaigns as I have mentioned before, and yes it can be a burn when a scene that involved a lot of work is passed by (this happened big time in a recent campaign). However For every inaction there is still some kind of action going on behind the scenes. For example, if the team doesn't go to the installation where the bomb is, the bomb still goes off & they hear about it in the news. It may or may not have implications on their lives. There have been many times that the PCs even help me "write" segments of a campaign through tangents they take.

As a matter of fact during a "downtime" scene before the current run I am doing, two of the mage characters nearly died before the initial meet when one failed both her binding and drain tests and fell unconscious. She was summoning a fire spirit and it went out of control. Were it not for the second mage standing over her and taking what would have been the telling blow (being pretty badly damaged in the process), it would have been back to the chargen drawing board. Needless to say, the other mage was awarded Karma for her act. The mage who attempted the bining is now very apprehensive even about summoning spirits.

For a large scale mission I usually outline several paths that the PCs may take (the old "decision tree" format) Admittedly, this is easier to pull off when you know players and how they think.

Usually the only "fully scripted" scenes I write out are the beginning of the campaign/mission and the meet in order to give the PCs hooks and to set the basic tone and feel. From there things become more fluid. Instead of fully plotted out settings, I employ a lot of "Behind the Scenes" segments of ongoing events that occur whether the PCs are involved or not. Sometimes they hear about it on the newsstreams, sometimes they blunder into in the area where it happens.

After a session is completed I usually write up a brief review of what took place and the implications that might arise (I call these "fallout" segments). I kind of look at it as what they refer to in sport as a "halftime adjustment". This way I can be more prepared for the following session. Linked to this is sort of "briefing" I write called "What it is and Where it's at" (similar to the old "What Has Gone" Before" segments in previous SR run modules) which outlines what occurred in the last episode. This is more for the players' benefit since we usually meet every two to three weeks instead of weekly and players tend to often forget things which their characters would remember.

Do I fudge rolls? occasionally, but moreso for the PCs benefit like when they are really in a jam or at an impasse. There are times I shortcut the rules (this was particularly so with SRIII decking) to keep things from bogging down or get to a convenient break point because it is getting late & everyone is getting a bit punchy.
Synner667
Interestingly enough, there's a GURPS Cyberpunk scenario that starts off like this..
..Unsuspecting PCs get shot at by well concealed, can't miss NPC.

The result ??
The NPC misses the 1st shot, because anything else would be unfair to the PCs and not in the spirit of interactive entertainment.

After the 'warning' shot, all bets are off and the PCs had best get under cover or lose their heads !!


Synner667
danzig138
QUOTE (lorechaser)
but sometimes, the dice just don't cooperate, and it's better if it happens the way it *should* have happened.

If the dice aren't "cooperating", then you shouldn't be rolling dice for the outcome. That's what I've never understood about fudging dice rolls. Why bother to roll if you're just going to use a pre-determined outcome? Why not just have a short paragraph to read describing the preferred result?

While it's not my thing, I understand that some GMs and players game to tell stories - but if this is your playstyle, you should go at it like a story. Cut scenes, in medias res, all that jazz. Just leave the dice in the bag 'til you get to a part where you actually want the chance of odd things happening.
Kenshi
My 2 cents...

As a general rule, when I am the GM, I make the run more challenging than the players can handle and then tone it down "on-the-fly". That way, if I have to bend the rules, it's usually in the players favor.
laughingowl
AS a very long time GM.

GMs ARE THE RULES!

We cant break the rules because we decide what the rules are..

Now if we randomly change the rules especially in a visible and dramitic way, the randomness of it all will greatly put off players.

I will very regulary 'adjust' dice results.

A sense of randomness and/or the actions matter are vitally important to the players. Also though is a 'good story'. I will gladly adjust in favor of 'a good story' regardless' of whether that is in favor of the players or against them.

If all of the above are examples of your GM unless over a very long time, the certainly points to a new GM, trying to deal with the unexpected and 'make a good story' but unfortunately dealing with it poorly

In short the only 'rule' the GM has to follow is:

Make a fun game or lose your players!
Slash_Thompson
a small disclaimer: always check with your players what sort of game they want in terms of whether or not you should bend outcomes for a better 'story'. If you are a player, make it clear to your GM which sort of game you prefer

I'm also a longtime GM like laughinghowl, but I have a very different approach to how I handle dice rolls and story. (I do respect laughinghowl's approach and have enjoyed games on both sides of the screen that were run that way - but it's not my preferred style.)

I don't adjust the outcome of any rolls. this means I won't protect my villians from the dice, and to provide consequence to actions: I won't protect their characters from the dice either. There are rules mechanics to protect players (and villians!) from truly bad luck.

sometimes this means a blowout (for either side) that's ok. Many epic stories involve the occasional blow out.

a good game means that things a player does (or doesn't do) *matter*. A good story will naturally flow from that.
fistandantilus4.0
To quote OneTrikPony's sig:
QUOTE
We have rules because we need to establish limitations. With no rules were just playing Cowboys & Indians with Fingerbullets.


If you're running in to these kinds of problems, it's probably just a lack of experience in buidling the encoutners properly. It gets learned with tme and through making mistakes. I wouldn't suggest throwing in random extra weights to make it lean more your way for an encouter. A GM has to be versatile enough to move with things as they come.

Think of it this way: the players don't know what's coming at them and mostly react to scenarios that the GM presents. How can you expect anything less from teh GM? It's not like they're going "off script". Any scenario/adventure you write should realistically be more like guidelines that hard and fast "this is the way it goes". Otherwise, what the hell are the players doing there?

The thing that I've found works really well for balancing an off situation, is to give EVERYONE edge. Just make it a normal attribute that everyone has. Let the players know that you're doing this before the game starts. Most NPC's will only have 2 or so edge, and you certainly don't HAVE to use it wit hevery NPC or every encounter. But that way you can give your self that little bit of space t owork that can make the difference.

I'm not going to address each of the scenarios, because that's been done a lot already. I would say though that randomly adding spirits or weapons or chaning any of them that are already in play is a bad thing. This says to the players "I'm not going ot be consistent. I'm going to change things on a whim. And no, you can't do that." That's just unfair and makes for bad feelings all around. As a general rule of thumb, think "Would this piss me off if it happened to me as a PC?"
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