I'll play in a game that James writes. But then I'm kind of cheating because I usually read to the end of a sentence. I guess it's an unfair advantage.

Like I said, you and mfb have convinced me by your inability to read sentences that I have underestimated human stupidity. You can continue if you'd like, but you've already swayed your audience.

you can continue ignoring the part where i've shown that even reading to the end of the sentence won't necessarily keep someone from misinterpreting it, if you like. but you won't be contributing anything useful to the discussion.

It doesn't have an epicentre. YOu can't use Richter scale for something that doesn't have an epicentre. Richter scale is not appropriate for the effects table in SM.

EDIT: Changed to be less excitable and more polite. Sorry.

Oh, joy, another one. Or are you just James on an alt?

Okay, I'll repeat this one last time for your sake: It doesn't take willful ignorance. It takes natural ignorance and ego. Guess what are two natural traits of humans?

Now, the ignorance would cause someone to identify the magnitude with the Richter scale, and the ego would cause them to stop reading. Bingo. Problem is born. Now, considering the number of stupid people, this will probably lead FanPro to having to errata the power. I mean, besides the fact it appears they already have to just because of the duration.

The fact that we've already had two people on the thread who were confused by the wording for a few moments. These people at least bothered to read on and recognize their mistakes.

Doesn't have to refer to scales. Just takes popular media and common knowledge to do that. You know, common knowledge. That one item that keeps everyone from thinking of a furry animal known as a koala whenever you say the word "turtle."

No, I haven't. I don't have the book yet, so I'm going off what people are saying in this thread.
If I'm way off-base, it's cause I haven't read the relevant section and should, perhaps, shut my cake hole.
Sorry, back to your regularly scheduled flamewar.

edit: Oops, I quoted your more excitable and less polite version. It's okay, we cool.

Strange. I could say that at the point where you are repeating yourself (as you have started to), that you are not contributing much more to the discussion. I could say that... but I've decided to strike a politer tone than you.

Yes, someone can read the whole thing and misinterpret it but I don't think such a person would really be able to play Shadowrun. They would have tripped up far before reaching the Quake power.

Considering how James words his examples, I don't see how he can write any ruleset that's coherent.

Just out of curiousity, how many times did you fail English before they just passed you on to the next level? Because so far mfb and I have bothered to go through and examine your example and point out how the wording is off. You have yet to manage to point out how it's not. About the only reason I've come down to your level and used insults is the simple fact that I finally realized you're not going to listen to reason.

not to put too impolite a point on it, but you're wholly incorrect. a person can be intelligent enough to not only play SR, but to point out flaws in the rules that even the game developers cannot reconcile, and to contribute new material to the setting--and still misinterpret the wording of the quake power.

LilithTaveril, there's very little point in trying to bait someone who agrees with you.

I suspect the vast majority of people on these boards have no problem at all with the wording but that James is the only one stubborn enough to try and maintain some perspective against a very vocal handful. Thought I'd chip in and say so. Also, seeing as you didn't respond to my earlier posts, I thought I'd remind you that the word magnitude is appropriate to use with the SM table as well as the other scales (which are not mentioned).

That's kind of you. But I did actually grasp your point earlier. I just think it's unsupportable. The level of ignorance it would take not to find that table or fail to understand the contents would be deliberate. Lets say that someone initially assumes that it refers to the Richter scale despite there being no reference to the Richter scale in the book at all. They would then have to deliberately ignore the table in favour of their interpretation contradicting the written text. That is willfull ignorance.

Are you one of these people? Were you confused by the description?

An extreme analogy, thus misleading and prejudiced. An accurate one would be thinking of a polar bear when the word bear is used despite the type of bear being not being specified. Following on from that analogy the equivalent power description would be "The bear power summons a bear, the type of bear is listed on pg. 101). Fairly unambiguous to me.

not true, as i continue to point out and you continue to not respond to. there's nothing necessarily differentiating the SM table from the Richter/moment scale. as i've said several times, the SM table could quite easily be looked at as a listing the SR4 game effects earthquakes of Richter/moment magnitudes 1-8.

If you're discarding what the game designer says in favour of your own ideas, then I think the game designer is absolved of any failing. There's not much they can do about your decision to discard what they've written.

The majority of the people on these boards have played the game for a long time, have at least a working knowledge of the mechanics of what's in the game, and can either provide you with an explanation as to why something's not realistic or point you to someone else who knows or a discussion where it was dealt with. Even I can tell you why certain aspects of the recoil system in SR are unrealistic. However, in no way are we the majority of people who play the game, and in no way are we an example of the average player of PnP RPGs.

No, that's ego. Willful ignorance is if they came on here, had it pointed out, and still refused to use the table. Willful ignorance requires there be no option but choosing to be ignorant. In this case, there is an option where they can be ignorant without choosing to by simply letting ego get in the way.

And, that aside, this is the most rediculous part of the argument. So, after your reply to the above, let's agree to not continue it.

Actually, no. But that's because I don't know that much about earthquakes, are aware of my ignorance on the subject matter, and simply choose to follow whatever the book says. That aside, go back and look in the topic. You'll find which two were confused by it.

/me gives knasser a cookie.

Okay, I didn't expect that reply. But, it's only fair.

Glad to have brought a new angle to it.

The keyword in the above is 'easy.' Firstly, I dispute that the writers made it easy to misunderstand and secondly I dispute that the designer hasn't sufficiently attempted to minimise misunderstandings. Firstly, magnitude is the correct term to apply to such a scale as is used in SM. Secondly, I believe the second part of the sentence which points at the results table kills any remaining ambiguity. Only by ignoring this table can you apply different results to the power than are intended.

Scenario 1 is that someone ignorant of what the points on the Richter scale signify reads the power and incorrectly thinks that the table describes these points. That's unfortunate, but could only be avoided by an additional redundant sentence saying "This is not a Richter scale." If the writing were at this level generally, the negative consequences would be much increased page count and cost, and alienating the majority of readers who found the writing cumbersome, redundant or even patronising. These consequences would, in my opinion, far outweigh any resolutution of ambiguity (which I am far from allowing exists).

Scenario 2 is that someone who is familiar with the Richter scale looks at the table. In this case, they will realise that it is not the Richter scale as the effects of each level are quite different and there will be no confusion. They might as you proposed, choose to discard the results in favour of their own ideas, but as I said, I don't think you can really fault the designers for someone who conciously disregards their writing.

So in either of these cases, familiarity with the Richter scale or not, the correct results are used. That at least is the ultimate goal of a power's description.

But I am maintaining that the second half of the sentence in question is pointing it out. Any ignorance must be deliberate. You cannot fault the designers if a player fails to read to the end of the sentence, surely? It clearly states use table X. Now either the player doesn't bother to look up the table or ignores what it says, but either is a deliberate act of preserving ignorance. If you're saying that a player can remain ignorant of the existence of that table then we are at an impasse. I cannot believe this is possible with anyone capable of building a character.

*munch* Choc-chip - nice!

I will concede that we here on DS will generally have a better grasp of the rules and are less likely to misinterpret. You have a point there. But I still find it hard to swallow that people will be confused by this or that if by some true miracle they were temporarily, that the state would survive their first discussion or use of such a power in their group. Or even a second reading of the power.

no, it's a correct term. there are others that would work just as well--or better, in my opinion.

you can also get results different than intended by exceeding the table. if, for instance, one managed to get 12 hits on a quake test, one might think that the resulting quake could split the earth in half/shake everything in the radius to its component molecules.

No, but I can hold the designers at fault for a wording that can concievably lead to misinterpretations without requiring a concious effort to do so. The fact we've already had two people who frequent this forum have that problem is an example of how easy it can be unconciously done.

I concede on the issue of whether or not it's concious.

Actually, I've got a great example of that happening: Great Cleave and a bag of rats. It was a misinterpretation of the wording of Great Cleave that became popular. A careful reading didn't allow it, but the misinterpretation persisted until WOTC was forced to reword the entirety of the Great Cleave entry to eliminate any possibility of it. In fact, it was quite a number of those that lead to 3.5 comming into existance.

Ok, Im not a magnitude wrong person in what would be a clear and classical sense. I am for the clear writing of rules to avoid the further retardation of our favorite games that are consistently ruined by lack witted, I want everything now children. No I wouldnt have skipped the line in the text and assumed anything, though like I said I would have had a gut reaction to, especially if I was sleepy while reading the rules.

And how can I prove that people will do the same thing?

While working at USR tech support my co-worker (sat next to each other so I could hear his call) had a guy bitch and complain his Wireless router didnt work. After some deduction we found out the router was still in the box. The guy explained that the box said wireless on it, so why does it nee to be taken out of the box?

I had a guy argue with me so much I was eventually forced to let him talk to my superviser because we had (I dont work there anymore) a no hang up policy and he refused to. The arguement? The front of the box had a sticker on it, put on in the store that said windows 98 compatible. The side of the box system requirments panel said 98SE minimum. He refused to believe that the sticker wasnt ours and I had better get his modem to work in a 8 year old OS, that is now no longer supported by MS.

I had a woman call and tell me that Dell told her all she needed to get online wirelessly was this wireless card. Unfortunately they recommended one of ours. After some work I found she had no router, let alone a wireless one. She refused to believe me she needed a wireless router because Dell told her all she needed was the card.

I had a woman call, the TV was so loud in the background I couldnt hear her. I said ma'am the TV is too loud, I cant hear you. She then begins to yell her problem into my ear instead of turning the tv down.

I had another guy call me up and say my router was broken, even though he had 4 other computers on the same router working fine. I got this information after he spent 5 minutes of my time telling me all the certifications he has in IT. I asked him to tell me his IP address, he couldnt, didnt know where to find it, had to walk him through it. Asked him to ping his router, couldnt do it, didnt know the command or where or how to find his routers IP. Then after teaching him I asked him to do a loop back test, agains hadnt a fucking clue what I meant. Talked him through the loop back, his card was fried. I told him he had to replace it. He asked how I knew it was broken. I had to explain to him the loop back test failed, the IP address didnt exsist not even a APIPA showed and you have 4 FUCKING OTHER COMPUTERS ON MY ROUTER, ITS NOT THE ROUTER. He then asked how he would fix the problem, I had to explain to him to remove the old card, buy a new one, then put the new one in there and since hes using XP pro, it should have a generic driver he could use and itll be fine. He asked for a NIC as a recommendation, I sent him to linksys.

I had another guy calling me to buy a modem. After explaining to him we were tech support we dont sell products he again asked to buy a modem from me. I was going to find what he wanted then give him the number to sales. I asked him what sort of modem he wanted. He responds with an IBM modem product number. I tell him that we dont sell IBM modems. He responds but you do sell modems right? I say yeah, USR modem, IBM is a seperate company, we are not affiliated and have never been. He asks why a modem company that sells modems wouldnt sell an IBM modem. I again had to tell him he called USR we make our own modems, IBM, the company that makes the modem you want is our competition, we are not going to sell our competitions modems for them. He then asked who he should call, I laughed and told him Hewlette packard.

I have so many more stories like this I could fill 7+ pages of posts myself.

That is why I hate people and wish they all would die of burning crotch rot. Its also why things that require thinking should never be mainstream. I so wish all PnP companies could live and survive off the money they get from niche markets, it would be so much simpler. I dont think the word magnitude is that bad of a word choice especially with the Follow the table on page X for reference thing. But in a world where it seems some people are constently reminded to inhale and exhale a little pre-caution is in order.

Like I said before and it has been said many times, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and whos going to bitch more? Stupid people that cant figure out a simple rule or things are too hard for them? Or people that have an ounce of brains and can figure it out on their own and enjoy difficult tasks?

And about the LARP and the fireball. Depending on how they want the rule to be, they should drop the "into" word and say something like: IF a fireball is envoked in the confines or evoked and thrown from outside in to the confines of a structure it loses its area effect abilities. Unless they just meant, IF a fireball is envoked and thrown against a structure it loses its area effect abilities. OR any mixture of the way the spell could be envoked and where it is thrown to make it clearer as to what happens. Sadly this is the only real rules squabble in the game and it has several pages of banter like this here on their forum.

SR has tons of these ambigouities, this is just the latest incarnation and wont be the last, so why let them be if you can stop it?

How many people do you know that discussed great cleaving a bag of rats seriously? I know a bunch that joked about it, but none that would actually try it in a game.

It was the source of two years of arguments on the DnD forums. They'd kill a rat and then cleave an enemy. Rinse and repeat.

One rat, not so much, it was gathering a whole bagfull of rats, and dropping them all at your feet at once. As they skitter and scatter away from you, they exit your square, provoking an attack of oportunity for each one that exits. Take your AoO, rat dies, get a free cleave attack. Repeat until you run out of rats.

You haven't been at DS long, have you?

If your attack triggered by the cleave could trigger it's own cleave, the rat was unnecessary. If the triggered attack isn't enough to trigger it's own cleave then all you've done is kill a rat. I guess I'm just not understanding the scenario you're describing:

1) Guy kills rat and generates cleave
2) Guy's cleave attack kills enemy and generates cleave
3) go to 2 until no enemies remain in reach or the cleave does not kill someone

If you leave step one out you have the exact same scenario except some poor rat gets to live another round.

1) Guy kills enemy and generates cleave
2) Guy's cleave attack kills enemy and generates cleave
3) go to 2 until no enemies remain in reach or the cleave does not kill someone

Could you perhaps lay out the procedure for me, as I'm really curious about how it was supposed to work?

Nevermind, RunnerPaul supplied the missing piece of information.

Aha! That was the missing piece in Lilith's equation. That makes sense, and draws memories back from the dregs of my brain. I remember it being discussed but also never actually being seriously attempted.

I didn't think so. If you had you'd know that people here will argue much longer about the interpretation of one word or phrase than anything else.

Actually, I was demonstrating a point. Now, consider how that entire conversation went just because of a lack of clarification. Now, imagine if that lack of clarification were written into a roleplaying game.

Oh, and no, people here won't. People at WOTC boards are still arguing about the orange ioun stone, and it's been how many years since it was introduced?

People here won't what? Argue for years about something? Have you checked the archives?

Hrm ... at this point (page 8 now?.. yeah I'm quoting from 7 I think) I think most of us can safely presume to say (note, I'm not using absolutes here) that no matter what the intent of the writer or the editing/re-developing done by "those-in-control" may or may not have been that the Quake Power is definitely something of seriously misinterpretable mechanic.

Knasser, one suggestion that I might make is that next time a power or mechanic is suggested/submitted and you are somehow involved, can you at least therefore make certain that the table of "effects generated by the power/ability" do not also look something like the effects most oft described by someone detailing the Richter Scale of Magnitude then? I mean seriously, that table is also quotable from a few people I know that study geology and or geo-topography. And all I did was walk up (email in one case) and ask ... "can you tell me what I might expect with an Earthquake of Mag 4 on the Richter Scale"? They aren't gamers, aren't on this forum but are available here locally. They described almost verbatim what that table indicates. I really and truly believe it is a moderately safe presumption that the examples are so closely reflective of known impactive effects of earthquakes that it appears like effects described by people using Richter or MMI.

I figured I'd also use these links.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq4/severitygip.html

http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/cl.../magnitude.html

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Richt...magnitude_scale

Note, the links are for general comparison. You aren't dealing with "Willful Stupidity" here folks, you are dealing with diluted public education and public perceptual awareness.

Okay, we've seen examples on all sides now, and in truth pretty much chunks of everyone are both right and wrong. We aren't really even discussing the mechanics anymore but the semantics of the mechanics and how a more clearly defined example of the semantics might allow for less experienced players to more accurately interpret a given power for game playability.

I'm not talking "Willful Stupidity" here and people should learn that couching terms like that just so they don't directly call someone else on the forums "stupid" gets none of us any further in clarity. It also does little more than inflame readers/responders.

As I believe most of us would really have just appreciated is just having the mechanics and examples for the mechanics to have been given that much more clearly in the text. And if we're talking about "they only have so much space", please turn to page 109 of Street Magic and tell what that huge gray box is supposed to be please. In our PDF print (both printout and digital document) that entire side-bar is nothing but gray space. Literally.

My complaint with situations that arise such as this is when people say "we have limited space" but then digital errors such as this one arise. Does anyone else have something different???

The only part of that I take issue with is "seriously." It is misinterpretable, if you elect not to read the table that it points you to.

Moon-Hawk: that's exactly right. Apparently there are people that don't think "bonuses never stack with themselves" apply in this case, for whatever reason.