Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: using the rules versus being bound by them
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3
toturi
QUOTE (mfb)
the rules are not there simply to arbitrarily define how things are done, they're there to provide a framework within which games can be played, and to reinforce the game world's reality. there are 'rules' that govern the game's reality that aren't in the book--for instance, walls do not spontaneously turn orange.

and you just said you wouldn't allow players to do stupid things simply because they have lots of dice.
QUOTE (toturi)
In the event that the player has described the event before the roll, I'd use the description(at the very most) as an indicator for determining modifiers and thresholds and editorise the PC's action if necessary.

that, right there, is exactly what you should be doing. if some player wants his character to paint himself orange and run around screaming as part of his stealth roll, you either a) make the roll fail through your preferred use of GM fiat, or b) make the player change the description of his actions. you don't just go with it, and say that the walls of the facility he's "sneaking" through turn orange in order to camouflage him.

I admit that I might have made myself clearer when I posted that. If some player wants his character to paint himself orange and run around screaming as part of his stealth roll and still succeed, then I'd editorise it such: He ran sneakily around, screaming in an inhuman voice, the echoes confusing the guards, despite his being in day-glo orange, but the color of the walls of that particular corridor was painted that exact same color by order of the security commander that morning.
Pendaric
The players are the driving force of the characters and the most important facet.
If the player chooses to do something, like orange naked guy, they should not be allowed to hide behind a rule mechanic to break the game reality.
The players choices define the essence of the game. What the character is capable of is defined by the rules. Of the two the former is more important and should be rewarded and punished as appropriate.
Character stats and well, character denote how a gm should inform a player of likely events connected to the choice, but the choice itself is still the player's.
As the character is a vehicle of the player's choice it can and should result in a metaphorical car crash if the player chooses to drive straight into the wall of reason. (This metaphorical wall of reason being defined by the in-game reality pertaining to said character's actions. wink.gif )
Without preserving the consequences of players choices over their character you lose the point of the game. The characters become statistical robots without the suspension of disbelief necessary for a good story.

(Edited for grammar and punctuation.)
eidolon
QUOTE (Konsaki)
If the books did have rules for every event that came up, would you still need a GM?

Ask a d20 developer. wink.gif

(I wish I had time to actually enter this convo. As I currently don't, I leave you with teh jokezer.)
Darkest Angel
QUOTE (mfb)
why should i as a GM go to all that trouble to explain away this character's crazed actions? i have several other players who i need to pay attention to in order to make sure they're having fun; i can't be spending all my time mopping up one jerk's mess.

Well I'm sorry then, but your issue is with the player him/herself, not an issue with the character or with the rules. If one player is taking the limelight and ruining everyone elses fun, deal with the player, not the character. That is the line that defines a vindictive GM.

I originally surmised that your post was about a PC not doing what you wanted them to do, and I'm not about that. Players decide what PCs do, not GMs, that is why they're Player characters and not NPCs. So what if they don't play by your script? If they don't, and your script is too rigid to accomodate such things then you're an author, not a GM.

A GMs job is to go with whatever the PCs do, or want to do, and come up with an explaination for absurdity in dice rolls. You should never deliberately stack odds against outcomes you don't like just because you don't like them. It keeps things fair and simple, and actually does a lot more to steer people away from stupidity than flat out telling them *no*, because if they don't succeed on one handfull of dice, they'll just feel pushed into finding ways to get another handful to achieve the stupid.
hyzmarca
There is no reason and o needs to change the color of a facility's walls to match the character. There are canon perception bonuses for an object that stands out. The guards will still have to make perception tests.

We seem to be saying three different things. WearzManySkins appears to be suggesting that characters who do things that he think deserve instant death shuld be instantly killed.
mfb seems to be saying that characters should not be allowed to attempt things that he believes are unreasonable.

I'm going to disagree with both. The ability to do things that are unreasonable is a chargen issue. If you want to place limits on characters' abilities then do so at chargen. If a player creates a character who can succeffully do these things and that character is aproved by the GM, then stoping him from using his skills in "unreasonable" circumstances (as opposed to illegal circumstances) is simply bad sportsmanship.

As Kagetenshi pointed out, a character cannot sneak while yelling. The noise will alert guards. He can, however, hide while yelling.



Maybe I should give another example. Lets say I create a dedicated blind sniper. Said sniper can't see a thing but he does have 15 rifle dice after the blindfire penalty and his senses are jacked up to the point that he can reasonable pinpoint a target by sound and smell from a hundred meters away. The blind sniper stretches belief, but it is baddasssssssss and there is a great tradition of absurdly-skilled blind warriors.

Now, this sniper will almost never miss an average mook. However, he is completely useless against a perfectly rules-legal 28 dice-before-edge dodge adept.

By the same token, a min-maxed stealth character may have to stack on huge modifiers to make the game remotely challenging. If that is the case then the GM really needs to rethink his NPC stats. If a a character with a +9 bonus (+2 object stands out, +2 sound stands out, +3 looking for object, +2 observes in detail) can't spot him then your mooks aren't giving him the slightest bit of challenge when he isn't penalizing himself. Bump up their stats and give them perception enhancements next time.


And if th eplayers is actually trying to ruin the game, call him on it long before it gets to the point where he's trying to be sneaky while orange.
knasser
QUOTE (toturi)
I admit that I might have made myself clearer when I posted that. If some player wants his character to paint himself orange and run around screaming as part of his stealth roll and still succeed, then I'd editorise it such: He ran sneakily around, screaming in an inhuman voice, the echoes confusing the guards, despite his being in day-glo orange, but the color of the walls of that particular corridor was painted that exact same color by order of the security commander that morning.


This has to be a joke. HAS to be. I cannot believe that any GM would actually run a game this way. I really can't.

QUOTE (Hyzmarca)
mfb seems to be saying that characters should not be allowed to attempt things that he believes are unreasonable.


I think what MFB is saying (and if so, I agree) is that characters should not be allowed to do things that are unreasonable AND expect dice rolls in some meta-universe above them to make the consequences illogical. Their is a fundamental assumption when a player makes a stealth roll, that the character is attempting to be stealthy. In the orange and screaming example, I as a GM would not accept that the character was trying to be stealthy. Therefore no stealth roll. I'd extend the priniciple wherever seemed relevant. If a character says I'm only using my thumbs to pick up the barbell, then penalties to the strength roll. If the player says his character is farting at the Johnson, then no, the Johnson doesn't magically decide that he likes the smell of farts because of a good roll. The player gets penalties to the negotiation roll.

I think Pendaric gave a very logical analysis of why this sort of approach on the player's part is bad, but the short version would be damaging the believability of the game is bad for it.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (knasser)
This has to be a joke. HAS to be. I cannot believe that any GM would actually run a game this way. I really can't.

You are apparently not familiar with Toturi's GMing style. It is quite consistent.

~J
Ravor
Assuming of course that you believe his discriptions of his style, personally I've come to the same conclusion as knasser.
mfb
QUOTE (Dark Angel)
Well I'm sorry then, but your issue is with the player him/herself, not an issue with the character or with the rules. If one player is taking the limelight and ruining everyone elses fun, deal with the player, not the character. That is the line that defines a vindictive GM.

yes. that is, indeed, exactly what i'm saying.

QUOTE (toturi)
I admit that I might have made myself clearer when I posted that. If some player wants his character to paint himself orange and run around screaming as part of his stealth roll and still succeed, then I'd editorise it such: He ran sneakily around, screaming in an inhuman voice, the echoes confusing the guards, despite his being in day-glo orange, but the color of the walls of that particular corridor was painted that exact same color by order of the security commander that morning.

so no matter how crazy the character is, he's always crazy like a fox? you understand there's no limit on how ridiculous this can get, right? in this case, it doesn't even take much work: the player just rolls perception beforehand to make sure the walls aren't bright orange. what do you do when the player comes up with something you can't provide an explanation for?

QUOTE (hyzmarca)
mfb seems to be saying that characters should not be allowed to attempt things that he believes are unreasonable.

close. i don't believe characters should be able to do things i believe are unreasonable in order to break suspension of disbelief. specifically, if they act in ways contary to what they're rolling, the roll won't count. after some thought, i'm willing to admit that's vindictive on my part. a non-vindictive behavior that uses the same level of GM fiat would be to simply say "no, your character doesn't act that way; come up with a new description." i don't see any reason to be non-vindictive in that situation, though. i'm probably about two seconds from kicking the player from my table anyway; the fun of having the character deal with the unmitigated consequences of his actions will amuse me and the other players. everybody at the table except one guy will be having fun, and that one guy was trying to screw with everyone else's fun. that's a lot of birds with one vindictive stone.

Kagetenshi
Ravor: it's not impossible that he's been misrepresenting his GMing style, but after four years of, from what I can remember, unbroken consistency in his stance, I don't really spend much time thinking about it.

~J
Shev
QUOTE (knasser)
This has to be a joke. HAS to be. I cannot believe that any GM would actually run a game this way. I really can't.

As far as I can tell, it's not. I CAN believe that a GM would run this way, though. If you've ever played Warhammer on tabletop, you will NEVER again be astonished with how strictly people will adhere to the Rules As Written™.

Honestly, it sounds like Toturi runs a munchkin's wet dream. As long as the munchkin has the dice to do what he wants, he can do it. Because who cares if anyone else was having fun? "The universe should revolve around ME! My 3,456 dice pool for Negotiation says so!"

*Nods in satisfaction as Universe shifts to revolve around him*

"That's better. Now make me a sandwich, Universe."
mfb
i believe toturi GMs the way he says he GMs. while the level of dedication that requires is admirable, i don't think i'd enjoy playing under him while he was dealing with a player like the one i've described. i don't have the patience. hell, i can't even hold down the shift key long enough to get a capital letter.

re: munchkins, i have to doubt there are many out there with a stronger grasp of the rules than toturi.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Shev)
If you've ever played Warhammer on tabletop, you will NEVER again be astonished with how strictly people will adhere to the Rules As Written™.

Or if you've ever played chess competitively.

~J
Shev
QUOTE (mfb)
i have to doubt there are many out there with a stronger grasp of the rules than toturi.

They don't have to. All they need is enough knowledge to know how to get an insane amount of dice to throw. Just looking at the appropriate thread on the forums, I see people coming with all sort of (legal) ways to get 20+ dice to use for vital skills. Sure, they're likely to suck at everything else, but if you have multiple munchkins, and they all work together to specialize in different areas (with some redundancy, of course)...well, actually, if you've got an entire team of munchkins, I guess Toturi's style would be right up their alley, and everyone would be having fun. biggrin.gif
Shev
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
QUOTE (Shev)
If you've ever played Warhammer on tabletop, you will NEVER again be astonished with how strictly people will adhere to the Rules As Written™.

Or if you've ever played chess competitively.

~J

Not that I doubt chess has rule lawyering, but trust me, there's no way the rules are nearly as vague, badly written, or downright negligent in some places as the Warhammer rules can be. biggrin.gif
Kagetenshi
Oh, certainly (though you've got some pretty silly exceptional conditions. Like castling and en passant, what's up with that?). I use that example to demonstrate how silly it is to expect that the rules not be adhered to.

(This in contrast to well-defined rule modifications. I'm a big fan of Bughouse and Suicide Chess, though I suck at the latter)

~J
Ravor
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Ravor: it's not impossible that he's been misrepresenting his GMing style, but after four years of, from what I can remember, unbroken consistency in his stance, I don't really spend much time thinking about it.

~J


Very true, perhaps my judgement is clouded by the fact that one of the first forums I posted on had a regular who used the main forums to 'roleplay' an alter ego known as 'Blackie'. The poster was a nice enough guy when posting as himself under a different Tag, but I remember Blackie as being a slitch from hell.

Oh well, assuming that I'm wrong then I guess the only thing I can really say is as long as his players are having fun then more power to him, but I'll never willingly sit across a gaming table from him because neither of us would enjoy the resulting experience.
Demon_Bob
Change of approach.

Pistols have a max range in the game. No matter how many die you have in Pistols you can not hit someone past that range. Bullets travel farther than the ranges listed in the rules. In RL people have been killed by bullets that have been shot more than 2 kilometers away.
So when the GM says that it is not possible for that possibliity in a social situation, I see it as being past the extreme range of your weapons.
Just as if the pistol guy said, "I run to the other end of the football field pull out my light pistal and shoot the guy in the head. I have tons of dice and equipment that lower my target number to 4. 8 hits, soak mondo damage."
Doesn't matter how many die he has the max Light Pistol range is 50m and he is at 100m, so he can't hit. Period.
So where are the rules for max ranges of social situations? No proud mother loving person who runs a vast illegal buisness with a small army of inforcers as a dictatorship, can afford to be slapped in the face by anyone. Therefore somethings are out of range.
Wounded Ronin
I agree with Hyzmarca. If you don't want a player character who has enough dice to act like some kind of anime hero then place restrictions on chargen. As long as all the player character skills, attributes, and gear are typical to typical-high instead of exceptional, you are a lot less likely to get things which are surreal in terms of their accomplishing improbable actions.

In my mind that is much more logical than allowing super specialization and the best gear at first but then deciding that it magically doesn't work just because the PC is orange and emitting sound.
Wounded Ronin
Okay, I've decided to say something bold and original for once in my life. This thread has made it occur to me.

Are you ready? Here goes:

IF YOU WANT TO TELL A GOOD STORY, MOD A FPS GAME.

Why do I say that? Because telling a story fundamentally requires that certain events have to happen, certain characters have to exist, and certain constants must remain unchanged so that the conditions for the story unfolding as planned can be met.

In a table top RPG where players can theoretically do anything ("I waste him with my crossbow!") you do not have an optimal platform for story telling. Insofar as the random nature of the rule set and potential unpredictability of player characters can allow even highly unlikely events to pass story-key evens cannot be guaranteed. Furthermore, there's always the possibility (which I have encountered quite a lot as both a GM and a player) that the player characters will simply not "get" what the GM is getting at. The GM could lay clues that suggest to the PCs that they must search the haunted house but the players either fail to notice the clues or they misinterpret them and end up searching the sewer instead.

However, in a first person shooter video game there are a lot more restrictions and rules on what the player may do. The levels can be systematically searched until the "correct" exit can be found. The NPCs can only behave in set pre-programmed ways. In effect, the story can accept some variation but in the end it will be told even if the player doesn't really get what is happening at the time. Personally, I did not understand the Deus Ex storyline the first time I played it. I only understood it on replays. But that didn't make the game derail and hang up even when I didn't know what was going on in terms of the story; the story kept progressing.

So, yeah, how's that for an idea? FPS games are a better vehicle for storytelling than a tabletop RPG.
mfb
while that's true, i'll say again that this isn't about having the narrative interrupted. it's about having the setting interrupted. the narrative is my responsibility as the GM; if the players cleverly get around the story idea i have in mind, that's on me and i'll deal with it without taking it out on the players--they haven't done anything wrong, after all.
hyzmarca
But a setting in which a character has with the stats required to perform an action exists is a setting in which that action can be preformed. You don't let a player create the Incredible Hulk and then complain when he leaps into orbit, smashes Zürich Orbital, and survives reentry without a scratch. He's the Incredible Fucking Hulk. He can do that.

It is the GMs responsibility to set the tone of the game beginning with chargen. If the GM wants certain actions to be beyond the PCs abilities then the GM should limit PC abilities rather than relying on heavily min-maxed PCs to limit their on actions. And certainly, the GM should not shoot down a perfectly legal action when a min-maxed PC is too powerful for the game's intended tone.
If you approve an Incredible Hulk, then there is no justification for then saying that he can't leap into orbit, destroy ZO with a single punch, and fall back to Earth without a scratch. If you don't want a Hulk in your games just veto him right out of the box.

If a GM lets that character through then he breaks his own setting, pure and simple. To then say that this character can't use his skills because they break the setting is unfair to the player.

mfb
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
But a setting in which a character has with the stats required to perform an action exists is a setting in which that action can be preformed. You don't let a player create the Incredible Hulk and then complain when he leaps into orbit, smashes Zürich Orbital, and survives reentry without a scratch. He's the Incredible Fucking Hulk. He can do that.

that's only true if the rules are perfect. if they are imperfect, which all rulesets are, then the GM can and should step in from time to time to fix them. sometimes, that means applying a general houserule. other times, in situations that are unique, or at least highly unlikely to come up more than once, that means making an exception. the rules should reinforce the tone of the setting, not break it down. if they fail in that regard, the GM is there to fix it.

power's got little or nothing to do with it. there's no rule saying a character can't hold his guns upside-down when he shoots them, so you don't need to be some kind of super-awesome expert shooter to go around firing accurately with upside-down guns, in SR.
hyzmarca
The difference is that there are no canon holding gun sideways modifiers. There are, however, canon orange and screaming modifiers and canon pissed the guy off modifiers.
X-Kalibur
I admire that Toturi GMs the rules so adherently. But at the same time there has to be a point where it's too much and requires punching a player in the face. You can only edit their actions so much before it requires saying "You can't do that, it's stupid and so highly improbable that I'm not letting you attempt it"
mfb
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
The difference is that there are no canon holding gun sideways modifiers. There are, however, canon orange and screaming modifiers and canon pissed the guy off modifiers.

it's the same thing. the existing modifiers are written with the expectation that they will be used as they're intended--sneaking guys act sneaky, etiquetting guys act etiquettey, shooting guys won't hold their guns upside-down. someone who acts outside that is doing something the rules don't cover, or cover incorrectly at best.
WearzManySkins
Basically gentle beings, we have two different points of view of role playing gaming. Neither is right nor wrong.

1. The world is merely a stage for the players to perform their whims upon. The GM is merely stage manager who gets out the props for the Players on the stage. The reality of the world matters not, because the Players are the world.

2.The world has a "reality", the players can interact with that reality but must abide by certain rules or conditions. The GM is the Director/Producer of the acts in progress. The Players have "limited" part of the "reality" of the world. Actions performed by the players characters can have interactions with them later in the world.

There can be combinations of the two types above but in the long run, they still either 1 or 2.

I am of the 2 variety.

WearzManySkins
Kyoto Kid
QUOTE (Shev)
If a player deliberately tries to wreck my game, I will let him know, as gently as possible, what he is doing.  I will delicately outline what I (and my other players, because I take care to GM only for a group that likes how I GM) expect out of a player.  I explain that he is ruining my and other people's fun, which is a big nono. 
 
If it continues, I will have one of two things happen: 
 
1.  His character suffers the consequences of his actions. 
 
I usually reserve this for when bringing down the smack can benefit the rest of the group.  Screaming Orange Man provides a vital distraction, getting perforated by guards while the rest of the group sneaks into the facility, or some such. 
 
2.  The player is asked to leave. 
 
Pretty much what it says.  I don't care if I'm down to two players, I'd run a solo campaign before I put up with unneeded garbage. 
 
I'm happy to say I've never had a player act like this, and thus have never needed to take either of the above actions.  However, I know it's certainly a possibility, and it's a bit of unpleasantness I'm prepared for.

...Shev, you are most fortunate.

Your "Point 1" is basically the approach I took in the meet with the NPC. The consequences were not devastating in that they did not involve any harm to said character, other than maybe a bit of ego bruising. In this case, the "smack" resulted keeping the Johnson from walking out and the mission continuing for the other characters/players.

In the end, there was another incident that occurred when the one player took issue with the way things concluded because it involved not getting the full payment (due to the way things played out through other characters' actions which BTW, the other players accepted). The session degenerated into an argument between said player and the other members of the group. This is when I decided things had gone to far and after later discussion and some thought proceeded to invoke "Point 2".

Yes, there was a lesson learned here, and I have since adapted my approach (as mentioned near the end of my post) to mimimise the chance of this occurring again. In a thread about GM/Player types in the General Gaming forum, I described this type of player appropriately as The Wrecker.

To revise my take regarding piddling on the Don's mom. Guido & Tony still show up in the middle of the night, but instead of the character getting a pair of quickcrete overshoes, he wakes up to find his wrists bound and himself suspended above a holding tank at the local Sewage Treatment facility wearing only his skivvies. smokin.gif
hyzmarca
There is, of course, a third point of view. The game world is defined by the rules which the players and GM agree to at the beginning of the game. These rules are, by default, those which are codified in the BBB and any allowed supplemental books. If a rule which is no present in the BBB or the various supplements is to be used then that rule must be made explicit at the beginning of the campaign.
Rules should rarely be changed in mid-play and rules changes or exceptions must be agreed upon by all players unanimously.

Okay, lets say that there is a guy in prison (for a crime that he did not commit). He wears a stereotypical orange jumpsuit and has an alarm collar around his neck which makes a loud noise if he is not is his cell after lights-out. He sees his one chance at freedom.
This prisoner, lets call him Patrick McGoohan, is a stealth expert and uses his skills to avoid the guards despite th fact that they can hear the loud buzzing of his infernal collar.

Scenario 2: Ralph Ellison, pissed off at how easy it is for him to waltz into high-security facilities unnotices strips naked, paints himself orange, and uses his impressive stealth skills to hide from the guards while screaming horrific taunts at them.

These two scenarios are mechanically identically. Orange guy and loud noise. However, the logic presented by some here suggests treating them differently because McGoohan is overcoming adversity while Ellison is proving his superiority.
That doesn't make sense. It would be like Chewbacca living on Endor with a bunch of Ewoks.

The rules don't specify why a sound is made, just that an obvious sound provides a bonus. The rules don't specify why an object stands out, just than an object that stands out provides a bonus. This is the same no matter why the PC stands out or why he is making noise.

There is a line to be drawn, of course. Stealth isn't a sneak key and shouldn't be treated like it. But, unless the guards have unrestricted LOS to the character, it is impossible to justify the inability for him to hide.
toturi
QUOTE (mfb)
QUOTE (toturi)
I admit that I might have made myself clearer when I posted that. If some player wants his character to paint himself orange and run around screaming as part of his stealth roll and still succeed, then I'd editorise it such: He ran sneakily around, screaming in an inhuman voice, the echoes confusing the guards, despite his being in day-glo orange, but the color of the walls of that particular corridor was painted that exact same color by order of the security commander that morning.

so no matter how crazy the character is, he's always crazy like a fox? you understand there's no limit on how ridiculous this can get, right? in this case, it doesn't even take much work: the player just rolls perception beforehand to make sure the walls aren't bright orange. what do you do when the player comes up with something you can't provide an explanation for?

Say, if the walls weren't bright orange(hence the modifier for the bright orange kicks in), the description would change to: "despite his being in day glo orange, bright colors only work when you are seen and he wasn't seen."
Glyph
I think Demon Bob's out-of-range example was the best way of putting it. It's not an issue of char-gen limitations. It's an issue of deciding what logically can or can't be accomplished by a skill. The etiquette skill isn't magical mumbo-jumbo mind control. The stealth skill isn't a magic invisibility button.

Both skills have logical limits and limitations - the trouble is that the rules assume "normal" usage of those skills and only provide some common modifiers. Therefore, the GM needs to adjudicate situations that fall outside the scope of these rules.

If someone is being an asshat, it's only a question of dealing with it IC or OOC. I can't believe how many people seem to think that screaming orange naked guy should even be getting a stealth roll at all.
toturi
QUOTE (Shev)
QUOTE (mfb)
i have to doubt there are many out there with a stronger grasp of the rules than toturi.

They don't have to. All they need is enough knowledge to know how to get an insane amount of dice to throw. Just looking at the appropriate thread on the forums, I see people coming with all sort of (legal) ways to get 20+ dice to use for vital skills. Sure, they're likely to suck at everything else, but if you have multiple munchkins, and they all work together to specialize in different areas (with some redundancy, of course)...well, actually, if you've got an entire team of munchkins, I guess Toturi's style would be right up their alley, and everyone would be having fun. biggrin.gif

Provided I do not find a canon rule that will trip them all up. Being an ass in my games means that you get to find out exactly how hardassed the can(n)on rules can be.

Sides, I need a break from rules lawyering Warmachine and Hordes. biggrin.gif And yeah, I used to play chess competitively too. You'd better scream "Adjust!" before I call "Touch!" nyahnyah.gif
mfb
QUOTE (toturi)
Say, if the walls weren't bright orange(hence the modifier for the bright orange kicks in), the description would change to: "despite his being in day glo orange, bright colors only work when you are seen and he wasn't seen."

that doesn't answer my question. what do you do when the player comes up with something you don't have an explanation for?

and the second question is like unto it: how much time do you spend countering one player's insane schemes, instead of doing things with the rest of the group?
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Glyph)
I think Demon Bob's out-of-range example was the best way of putting it. It's not an issue of char-gen limitations. It's an issue of deciding what logically can or can't be accomplished by a skill. The etiquette skill isn't magical mumbo-jumbo mind control. The stealth skill isn't a magic invisibility button.

Both skills have logical limits and limitations - the trouble is that the rules assume "normal" usage of those skills and only provide some common modifiers. Therefore, the GM needs to adjudicate situations that fall outside the scope of these rules.

The problem is that the examples given do not reach the logical limits of the skills and are explicitly permissible according to the rules. There are modifiers for the object being loud and visually standing out . If a character who attempts to use stealth is loud and stands out then he should suffer from those modifiers.

The logical limits of stealth fall somewhere just before covering your eyes with your hands and chanting "you can't see me". I believe it is around about crouching while a person is staring right at you and having your AR display the sneak icon in the low right hand corner.

Being loud and orange does not preclude taking advantage of blind spots and using the terrain advantageously. Being in a flat open room with no furniture and camera coverage of the entire area does.

In the given example, guards will be looking for him and they will know that he is there. But, they still may not be able to pinpoint his exact location. It is not unlike my suggestion to use smoke-cover and a spirit's concealment power along with the stealth skill when breaching to prevent accurate retaliation. Sure, the guards will know that you are are shooting at them, but between the smoke, the spirit power, and the use of the stealth skill they may not be able to pin down your exact location.
Being orange, of course, makes it far easier for them to spot you. Which is why the stands out modifiers exist.


Social skills are a different bunny. Social skills aren't the begining or the end of social interactions. They are simply loose guidelines. It is up to the GM to set actual NPC reactions and the limits of their reactions.
Some characters can be convinced to commit suicide by a smooth talker. Others wouldn't be swayed if Dr. King and JFK both rose from their graves to make a joint speech.

Either way, there is nothing more fun than taking cover and using negotiation during a firefight.
mfb
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
Being loud and orange does not preclude taking advantage of blind spots and using the terrain advantageously. Being in a flat open room with no furniture and camera coverage of the entire area does.

what's the point of bending over backwards for a player who is consciously attempting to disrupt the game by doing these things? isn't that just as passive-aggressive a response as doing the opposite and not letting him roll at all? the difference being that bending over backwards for the player takes time and encourages him to continue trying, whereas simply saying "no" leaves no room for argument and is much faster.
hyzmarca
I'm not suggesting bending over backwards at all. I'm suggesting playing the scenario out exactly as you would if he was using stealth without screaming, but having the noise alert the guards just as any other noise would (such as an unsilenced gunshot). The guard being alerted is not the same as the guard spotting him, however. They know that he is there but they won't know where he is exactly unless they succeed on their perception rolls.
Since we're mostly talking SR4, these perception rolls have a +9 bonus minimum and will be helped by audio enhancements and select sound filters, of course. A properly cybered guard with have a total +17 bonus. Assuming a 2/2 mook this character would have a 21 dice pool for making the perception test and could buy 5 hits. Ties go to the guard. They will give Mr loud orange infiltration specialist a run for his money. More importantly, they'll be able to make two 21 dice perception tests ever three seconds and they would be able to use Edge if it came to that. Even a fully min-max stealth elf would have trouble hiding with those modifiers without also using edge. (Mr. Mixmax could get 22 dice before if he were an adept with enhanced infiltration 3, 8 (12) agility, and 7 infiltration. He'd have 24 dice if he also had an orange and screaming specilization. Still, the difference of three dice is not reliable enough to hold off guards who are observing in detail twice a CT.

I'd only disallow stealth in those situations where no character could use stealth.

I would describe his use of stealth in the same way I would describe any othe ruse of stealth on the same terrain with the same guard placement. I would simply append the act that his screams have alerted the guards who are now actively searching for him with their +17 die bonuses.
toturi
How did you get a +9 minimum, hyz?

Perception rolls by the guards would be boosted by a +3 for Observe in Detail since they would be alerted by the screams(which themselves are either Immediately Noticeable or Obvious). It might even be that the guards after being forewarned are putting their best efforts to look for an intruder(use of Edge) and alert their supervisor to the possibility of an intruder.
Kyoto Kid
QUOTE (Glyph)
I think Demon Bob's out-of-range example was the best way of putting it.  It's not an issue of char-gen limitations.  It's an issue of deciding what logically can or can't be accomplished by a skill.  The etiquette skill isn't magical mumbo-jumbo mind control.  The stealth skill isn't a magic invisibility button.

Both skills have logical limits and limitations - the trouble is that the rules assume "normal" usage of those skills and only provide some common modifiers.  Therefore, the GM needs to adjudicate situations that fall outside the scope of these rules.

If someone is being an asshat, it's only a question of dealing with it IC or OOC.  I can't believe how many people seem to think that screaming orange naked guy should even be getting a stealth roll at all.

...this is by far the best summation of the whole discussion that I have seen.

There is playing "outside the box" which can enhance the scenario and reward the character(s) for their ingenuity, and then there is playing outside all reason and sensibility, which just ruins the game for everyone else.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (toturi @ May 22 2007, 02:15 AM)
How did you get a +9 minimum, hyz?

Perception rolls by the guards would be boosted by a +3 for Observe in Detail since they would be alerted by the screams(which themselves are either Immediately Noticeable or Obvious). It might even be that the guards after being forewarned are putting their best efforts to look for an intruder(use of Edge) and alert their supervisor to the possibility of an intruder.

Excuse me. It is +7 rather than +9. In addition to the activly looking modiifier we've also got two object/sound stands out modifiers, which add a +2 each. That give them 19 dice instead of 21 but I forgot to add the +1 for every guard. A two guard minimum would leave us with 20 if the guards have the right equipment.
knasser
QUOTE (mfb)
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
Being loud and orange does not preclude taking advantage of blind spots and using the terrain advantageously. Being in a flat open room with no furniture and camera coverage of the entire area does.

what's the point of bending over backwards for a player who is consciously attempting to disrupt the game by doing these things? isn't that just as passive-aggressive a response as doing the opposite and not letting him roll at all? the difference being that bending over backwards for the player takes time and encourages him to continue trying, whereas simply saying "no" leaves no room for argument and is much faster.


Hey MFB,

I'm over in the Offices thread. Do you want to swap for a while?

-K. wink.gif
eidolon
QUOTE (Kyoto Kid)
QUOTE (Glyph)
I think Demon Bob's out-of-range example was the best way of putting it.  It's not an issue of char-gen limitations.  It's an issue of deciding what logically can or can't be accomplished by a skill.  The etiquette skill isn't magical mumbo-jumbo mind control.  The stealth skill isn't a magic invisibility button.

Both skills have logical limits and limitations - the trouble is that the rules assume "normal" usage of those skills and only provide some common modifiers.  Therefore, the GM needs to adjudicate situations that fall outside the scope of these rules.

If someone is being an asshat, it's only a question of dealing with it IC or OOC.  I can't believe how many people seem to think that screaming orange naked guy should even be getting a stealth roll at all.

...this is by far the best summation of the whole discussion that I have seen.

There is playing "outside the box" which can enhance the scenario and reward the character(s) for their ingenuity, and then there is playing outside all reason and sensibility, which just ruins the game for everyone else.

The best thing about abstaining from entering a conversation for as long as possible is that over time, the likelihood of someone posting your general thoughts increases. Thus it is that I can just hammer:

QFT

and be understood.

biggrin.gif
mfb
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
A two guard minimum would leave us with 20 if the guarrds have the right equipment.

all you've shown is that it's harder to do it at chargen than later on. and going back and forther over this specific example still leaves the crux of the matter unresolved: what do you do when the player comes up with something you don't have an explanation for? and how much time do you spend countering one player's insane schemes, instead of doing things with the rest of the group?

QUOTE (knasser)
I'm over in the Offices thread. Do you want to swap for a while?

haha, man, i can't even tell who's on what side over there anymore.
Darkest Angel
QUOTE (mfb @ May 22 2007, 06:02 AM)
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
Being loud and orange does not preclude taking advantage of blind spots and using the terrain advantageously. Being in a flat open room with no furniture and camera coverage of the entire area does.

what's the point of bending over backwards for a player who is consciously attempting to disrupt the game by doing these things? isn't that just as passive-aggressive a response as doing the opposite and not letting him roll at all? the difference being that bending over backwards for the player takes time and encourages him to continue trying, whereas simply saying "no" leaves no room for argument and is much faster.

It all depends on context.

1) The Player is disrupting the game. Deal with it OOC.

2) The Character is proving himself. Let him roll for it.
mfb
indeed. assuming it's #1, which is what i've been discussing, i prefer to deal with it OOC by dealing with the IC effects quickly and conclusively, so that the IC portion goes on largely interrupted. the OOC portion is taken care of afterwards, unless the player is really insistent that i remove him from the game sooner.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (mfb)
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
A two guard minimum would leave us with 20 if the guarrds have the right equipment.

all you've shown is that it's harder to do it at chargen than later on. and going back and forther over this specific example still leaves the crux of the matter unresolved: what do you do when the player comes up with something you don't have an explanation for? and how much time do you spend countering one player's insane schemes, instead of doing things with the rest of the group?


No. It doesn't. The stealthiest character possible has a maximum of 24 dice before edge. That's the augmented maximums with all possible applicable bonuses fpr an orange screaming man.
There is no way for him to get better without the use of spirit powers, at which point we can hand-wave "its magic".

On January 17th of 1919, a tank containing 2,320,000 gallons of molasses burst, flooding Boston with the gooey syrup. A wave of molasses thirty feet tall crushed buildings and swept away hapless souls. 21 people died. 150 more were injured.

Common sense tells us that it is impossible for the a giant wave of molasses to sweep through Boston, destroying everything in its path. It is just too wacky to be believable. Reality tells us otherwise.
Common sense is unrealistic.

Here is how it works for me. A player tells me what action his character is about to attempt. He may ask for his character's professional evaluation of the action first and I will give a vague response based on the characters skill level and the situation at hand (a form of the old Common Sense Edge). If the player chooses to go through with the action, I set a difficulty (threshold or TN, depending on edition) based on the rules-legal modifiers for the situation. Once the difficulty is officially set, the player must roll to present metagaming.

If the action is obviously impossible (firing a gun that does not exist) then I say so instead of setting a difficulty. The player chooses again. If it is impossible but not obviously so (firing an illusory gun) then I set a negative difficulty and the roll determines how spectacularly this impossible thing doesn't happen.

Any action that has explicit predefined modifiers is possible.
In those places where the rules are painfully incongruent with reality (SR4 satlink range, for example) a house rule is defined before the game begins.

And there is the point. If the rules that we have all agreed to say that something is possible, then it is bad sportsmanship to change the rules in mid-game without the unamious consent of all players, particularly when it is done for the purpose of defeating a specific player. Imagine if a sports referee invented a new type of foul in the middle of the game because he doesn't like the way one team is playing.


There is no bending over backwards. None all. There is just consistent application of the rules that were agreed upon by all the players. If those rules lead us to a deadly mollasses flood, then so be it.
Kyoto Kid
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
Imagine if a sports referee invented a new type of foul in the middle of the game because he doesn't like the way one team is playing.

...not to defend this is the correct method of dealing with a situation though NBA officials did do so with regard to Rasheed Wallace when he was with the Portland Trailblazers. It came to the point that all he had to do is look at a ref after a whistle & he'd get T'd up. Basically his attitude made him a frequent target for technicals and ejections even when he didn't commit a foul.
mfb
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
Here is how it works for me. A player tells me what action his character is about to attempt. He may ask for his character's professional evaluation of the action first and I will give a vague response based on the characters skill level and the situation at hand (a form of the old Common Sense Edge). If the player chooses to go through with the action, I set a difficulty (threshold or TN, depending on edition) based on the rules-legal modifiers for the situation. Once the difficulty is officially set, the player must roll to present metagaming.

here's why we disagree. you're assuming the player is being reasonable, while the whole point of what i'm arguing is that he isn't being reasonable. it goes back to toturi's zeroth rule: thou shalt have fun. if someone's trying to break that rule for everyone else at the table, it's my duty as the GM to prevent it.

this isn't some new rule i'm coming up with mid-game. this is the basis of managing player interaction, to me. if you sit down at my table and you're not in the game, i'm not going to bother taking the time to use the rules against you, i'm simply going to shut you down and get back to the guys who are there for the same reason i am.
hyzmarca
No. I'm assuming that he's being a jackass ruleslawyer. However, that is a metagame issue that should be solved in the metagame, not by altering the rules. I'm not going to say "no you can't do this perfectly legal thing because I think you're a jackass". That isn't fair to the other players. If I can change the rules on him then I can change the rules on them, too. It sows confusion and chills creativity.
No. If the player is that much of a jackass then it is handled GM-to-player not GM-to-character.
mfb
your responses indicate you've never encountered the type of player i'm trying to describe. as i've already said, the problem player will ultimately be dealt with OOC, most likely by kicking him from the group. the immediate problem that crops up during the game is how to handle the in-character actions themselves. the other players, unless they're of the same type as the problem player, are going to feel nothing but relief when i step on the problem player. their creativity won't--and hasn't--been stifled by the fact that the problem player was not allowed to continue his insanity.

none of which answers the questions i keep asking, which no one has yet responded to even tangentially: what do you do when the player comes up with something you don't have an explanation for? and how much time do you spend countering one player's insane schemes, instead of doing things with the rest of the group?
Kagetenshi
Timeslicing: not just for processors anymore.

~J
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012