Well, I can't speak for the others, but I understand that nobody died.

I guess I just feel like having seemingly unimportant details like that hamper or reduce the effectiveness of my character would be very annoying. Especially since my character doesn't represent myself teleported into the World of Shadowrun and being ignorant of how things work, but instead represents someone who has always lived in the World of Shadowrun.

I'd rather get a quick explanation of the game from the GM. That way there'd be no chance of my interpreting things like, "Well, you didn't say you ducked as you entered your car so take some damage as you plough your mouth into aluminum" as GM harassment. There'd be no chance of my missing the point of the "lesson". I'd understand right away the basics of gameplay explicitly stated.

Good thing you're not playing in my game then isn't it? Especially since you seem to have missed the post where I stated that I was only that specific until the players understood what I meant about SR being a very different game.

Amusement was had by all involved.


Our styles differ. So be it.

If you're this unwilling to accept even the faintest bit of criticism, why make a thread asking people for their opinions? Calm down. It's just the intrawebs.

I very much doubt that I'd require a balance test for standing upright on a flat surface. Yes, standing is a learned skill, but we can assume that most characters will have learned this skill during infancy. We can have fun forcing PCs to re-learn standing upright after HoGing a sniper's headshot, but the RAS override issue is a bit much. If you fall asleep while standing upright, then you are probably going to remain upright.

Of course, I would instead point out that the character is a Technomancer and the RAS override is a part of the Sim Module, formerly known as the ASIST Converter, and this feature can possibly be disabled (rules for doing so probably won't be out until Unwired, though one could extrapolate from SR3). Technomancers, access the Matrix using their "radio brains" instead of a Sim Module. There is little reason for them to lose voluntary motor function in VR.

As long as your players are enjoying themselves disregard everything you see on this board.
Personally I think a certain level of harshness is requires in a game of shared fantasy with fictitious characters in a made up world. Otherwise the suspension of disbelief and the sense of achievement over an obstacle is lost.

How much you use the rules is a matter of personal preferance negotiated with your players. There are no rules police. As long as your consistant and fair and it works for your group your doing a good job.
Raising the subject on a public board is literaly just asking for trouble.

Martial Arts is, by occlusion, the 'Attack' specialisation, nothing more, nothing less.

A Specialisation grants you more dice on a certain aspect of a Skill - but that aspect was alread in the Skill before... of course you can use a Taser without taking the Taser Specialisation.

So, GMs, bear in mind that henceforth, according to the Book of Rotbart van Dainig, whenever you are giving the least of your NPC gangers an Unarmed skill even of 1, they have practical knowledge of Martial Arts, and any advantages that might go along with that.

I've been leary to post on this topic but I think you guys should back off of Nerf'd. His players are having fun, he's not being malicious and he ASKED THE PLAYER IF HE WAS GOING INTO VR WHILE STILL STANDING. THE PLAYER said yes. If the player lacks the common sense to avoid such a potentially lethal situation, then SR is not a good game for him. I assume my players PCs do many things that they do not state (because they don't know the system or the genre as well as I do), but occasionally I ask if they do certain things (usually as multiple choice questions) and if they choose the stupid option, they suffer for it. How bad depends on how important it is, how dumb their choice was, and how well it fits into the story. There is a reason for the common sense edge, and I recommend it for characters who's players seem to lack it.

During my GM "career" I have sometimes used "reality checks". They are some sort of rolls depending on game system we are using at the moment. If the check succeeds I tell the player(s) certain facts about the game world that their characters know.

I use these rolls when players really seem to be totally at loss about what their actions might cause to them. So far often they have just said "Yeah, I know..."

Actually, the take on it I read is 'I run a realistic and unforgiving game', which is totally fine. He's allowed to run a game how he wants. His question (as far as I could tell) was thoughts on his style, and how forgiving or unforgiving the rest of the GMs on Dumpshock are in their games.

What he got was mostly people attacking him over his choice of attention to detail.

I run a similar game, where if you make bad choices, bad things happen. If you don't agree with it, that's fine, just don't expect people to take non-constructive criticism laying down.

In the Shadowrun world your average runner is the truest form of disposable and deniable asset. Technically, a Lone Star beat cop could shoot a runner and dump the body in an alley, and there would be far less repercussions for his actions than killing someone with a SIN. Corporations hire runners to hit other corps, while repelling runner incursions with lethal force. Runners tend to go places and see things the average wageslave wouldn't even hear about, so death is always close by when you run the Shadows. Not to mention the large organized crime groups, insect spirits and shedim looking for hosts, and the plethora of metacritters that have no problem killing runners for fun or food. Ghouls have a lobby trying to get them rights and better treatment, which means there's more of a drive to protect the people who eat people than there is concern for the average runner.

Based on that, I run a Shadowrun game that's pretty unforgiving when it comes to actions like standing on a rooftop and then going full VR or fully astral. It's a move the player should know better than to do. The fact Nerf'd asked a second time for confirmation of the action shows he's not a total uncaring bastard.

I've noticed this trend of dogpiling on people with differing opinions. It's most common on MMORPG boards, where one person asks for their preferred character class to get a boost in a certain area, which fits their viewpoint of that class. Other members of the class in question then go ballistic, as that change totally doesn't fit their image of the class at all. There, that kind of behavior is understandable. If player A's idea goes live, ALL players of that class have to adjust.

Here, if Nerf'd decided to run a game where every time a critical glitch was rolled, a character DIED, it would not affect the way other people ran their games one bit. But people came at him like if he wasn't 'corrected' or converted to 'the one true style of GMing™' that it would affect more than his game. It won't. I can run a Shadowrun game using the Xbox FPS game as canon and it wouldn't stop anyone from playing the game their way. The Catalyst crew is not going to chime in and say 'Wow, we think everyone should play just like Nerf'd does, as his style is now considered the 'right way'.

I think the key issue is people need to stop saying things like 'you're wrong' or 'I'd never play in a game like that!'. Odds are, you're not invited to play anyway, and being right depends on who's behind the GM screen at that moment, to be honest. Instead I'd recommend saying things like 'I don't run games like that, but if it works for you and your players, keep on keeping on!'. Or if you don't agree with running a game with more micromanagement, ask if that takes more time, or takes focus from the story.

I'm not saying don't disagree, but for the love of Bob let's take the tone down a notch.

Besides, most of you recall FASA never got around to checking on all the SR2 games to ensure they were being played correctly. That was because my players refused to let them leave until they explained why grenades were more dangerous as a choking hazard than with the pin pulled.

The way I see it. Instead of Nerf'd going OOC and explaining to the new technomancer that this was an unwise idea. He kept everyone IC, and had the world show the technomancer that it was a bad idea to go full VR without having stable seating. He didn't injure the technomancer. But it showed that next time, (as in, now the player knows to sit down before going VR), he will have consequences instead of being GM fiated to safety for the purposes of learning.

I think this approach keeps people more immersed in the game world, than breaking out and saying "Well, you have an agility of 3, and computer of 4, so your dude knows not to do this before he sits down."

If the technomancer did it again, I'd say Nerf'd would be free and clear to just say "roll body + half impact for falling damage".

Except that the Cannon Companion rules were completely insane and the idea of specializing in a martial art is even more insane.

I've used them in-game, quite successfully.

Insane or not, they were by-the-book canon.

That would make you insane, too.

This is why I dislike threads like this. They invariably go the same way. Someone states their position, then generally a few people agree with them. Then someone points out Issue X. Some more people agree. Then the OP gets annoyed at it. Then some people pick sides. Then it goes back and forth eventually culminating in complaining about the process of it all, since the original point has pretty much been left at the way side.

If you post asking for people's opinions, you're going to get them. Nice or not. You can of course defend your position, but really it just comes down to people's take on the game and how they like to play it. This particular one has been relatively civil compared to some others. Don't worry, we'll have this same thread again in a month or two. Just please keep it polite and try to cut back on the snarky comments.

Actually as a GM I would rule that the ganger with Unarmed Combat 1 would know some martial arts. Mainly since martial arts is just disciplined street fighting. The gangers would know how to kick, punch, throw and dodge, just like a white belt practitioner of Karate. They just wouldn't have the "discipline" of the white belt. Their form would be sloppy and maybe even loose but they would still have the same effectiveness as the white belt.

Well personally I fall into the "it's the character's skills that count, not the player's" camp, meaning that I wholehearty agree that the ( Strength 1 ) Sammy got what was coming to him, but I very strongly disagree with the Technomancer example, his character knew what going into full-VR meant, so the player should have been told. Of course, if the player had still said yes then all bets are off.

Of course, the usual disclaimer of as long as everyone at the table is enjoying themselves then no "bad-fun" is going on, ect, ect...

I still like the fact that he kept the lesson in game, made it slightly annoying, but not problematic for the player. Keeping things in game tends to help keep everyone at the table in game, which helps the feel of the world overall.

In all the years I've been gaming the biggest disagreements that have come up at the table were all based on when a player and a GM were understanding a world differently. Both were using their common sense and when there's a disconnect feelings end up getting hurt.

I really don't like GMs that will bruise characters (even if it's just egos.) For saying the wrong thing. I've never walked from a game because of this but only because I game with RL friends.

We have enough fun and jokes at the table , humiliating players (even slightly) when you're not both on the same wavelength is just plain wrong IMO. One of the jobs of the GM is to interpret what the players are saying and weave it into the game world. That takes a little bit of understanding ( "hear what I mean , not what I say")

I'm glad you and your players are all having fun but I think this is one area where a lot of GMs can improve if they are looking for everyone to have even more fun.

Whenever I see a thread like this, I wonder how many of the diehard opponents and proponents have stable, long-term games of which they are a part. (Wouldn't that make for an interesting discussion, if each person had to precede their post with a statement not only of years of experience playing, but of how long their longest campaign lasted?)

Oh god, please no, Talia. It would devolve into the boards of MMORPGs; "What you say! You're not a max levelled character, your opinion is MEANINGLESS!"

Which could be an interesting statement, if so many max-levelled MMORPG PCs hadn't been shopped out to eastern Europe or India for professional levelling.

But, as to how things might apply here:

I don't reply to firearms threads, as my experience with firearms is so comparatively minimal as to make any contribution I could make worse than minimal.

Outside SR3 rules questions I don't reply to vehicle pimping threads, as my experience with vehicle engines falls far short of many here: and so I learn far more than I would be capable of adding.

Why shouldn't experience in maintaining a long-term, stable campaign be a valid and even expected self-limiter for posting in a thread critiquing GMing style of a long-term GM? What is that advice worth, otherwise?

You know the saying 'Yeah, I know the game is rigged - but it's the only game in town.'?

It doesn't really matter how much experience someone claims to have - only if he is able to avoid mistakes.
And if someone is posting a pretty basic GM mistake (the clown railroad) as an example and asks for opinion, it doesn't matter how much experience the person pointing it out has - the fact that it was pointed out means: enough.

Someone capable of sustaining a long-term, stable campaign is obviously already capable of avoiding the fatal mistakes of GMing.

To opine otherwise smacks of frustrated wish fulfilment.

You didn't catch the mocking irony of the first post?

I caught the failed try of irony. It hurt.

Failed, in this case, may lie in the eye of the beholder

Which reminds me ...

Fairly early on I realized that if I stayed involved, it was going to turn into a pissing match - so I stepped back and just watched. I realize that everyone is not going to agree with my style, but I thought that the very fact that I still have the vast majority of my players would have counted for something.

Apparently not.

That being said, most of the the posters (with a few glaring exceptions) have been able to give me good feedback as to things I might change. I probably won't pull a trick like the TM rolling down a roof again, but that's a moot point - the player learned from the experience, and went on to play much better. Everyone laughed, everyone understood the lesson, and everyone went on. I never had to remind any of that group about being aware of their surroundings again - which, to me, is really the point.

So, to most of you, thank you for being forthright in your opinions, and forthcoming with your suggestions. I have and will take them into account.

To those who un-named folks who got all hot under the collar about the rules - chill out. Funny thing about being GM, I seem to remember being told that I'm the ultimate arbiter of the rules, as long I'm not outright breaking them and making my players unhappy.

As this seems to be a general misunderstanding elaborated further in another thread:

The reason why I play is to have a good time. If the GM doesn't get that concept, then I'm not interested in playing.

Now, the Shadowrun book does provide for different types of play. But the players have to agree that they will have a good time playing a detailed game like the OP runs.

I waited a while to see what the majority was going to decide before I ventured an opinion...

Not really. I just didn't care that much and I didn't have much to contribute until now.

From your intial post, I was leaning toward you were mistaken and not really a brutal GM but a jerk. But then when some people offered some criticism and you followed up with a post or so giving further details, especially the rooftop explanation, I thought you were being pretty fair.

It works that way a lot around here. Someone posts the bare parts of the story. They get smacked around. More of the story gets revealed. The new details put an entirely different slant on the story.

That's why I was so patient before offering an opinion.

Okay. That's enough trolling and baiting for one thread. If you can manage to make this constructive in any way in the next few posts, it stays open. Otherwise, it's getting closed.