Meh,
Any system can only model the game reality so far. The rest is up to common sense.
Even things like called shots are not really needed as it's incorporated in the basic rules.
The more net hits you got, the better your shot hits a weak spot and does more damage.
See, no need for extra rule stuff.
All the extra rules about called shots & others are nice to spice up the game and model freaky events, but it's usually also those rules that tend to be broken/rules-lawyered by the powergamers.

I really don't need rules that tell me when a CityMaster has a weak spot to be targetted and when it doesn't.

Last time I played SR we had an elf, two mages and a cyborg on the team. We played in a world with magic and dragons and other goofy critters. Technology merged with humanity, and the vast computer network was populatet by AIs and what not. That is not even remotly realistic.

SR is plausible, sometimes, to a certain extent, but not realistic and I have never seen written on paper that it tries to be realistic (which it would have failed the moment where it does not take place in, you know, reality. And magic is flat out).

Incorrect. You love saying 'Ad Hominem' but you seem confused on when it applies.

Example of an Ad Hominem:

Cain: As my example of the 'knifing a citymaster shows, the rules are clearly broken

Spike: Cain's example is wrong because he is a frog.


What actually happened:

Spike: Cain is a frog.


See the difference? I'm not 'disproving' your arguement by attacking you. I'm 'attacking you' as a stand alone act. Your arguements have been diseccted logically and without recourse to 'ad hominem' enough in the last month alone to satiate my need for debate on the matter for the rest of the edition. Quite frankly, I'm tired of every thread devolving into another round of

Cain: Knife a city master! BROKE RULEZ

Everyone else: This makes no sense because of X, Y, Z

Cain: AD HOMINEM, PLAY SAVAGE WORLDS!!! Knife CITYMASTERS!

Everyone Else: Ad Hominem this, bitch!






Let me dissect this for you:




I don't care if you love it or not. I wouldn't care if you leave it or not. But your constant attempts to convince OTHER PEOPLE to leave it is aggrivating. Compound that with your bullish attitude towards your little pet arguements and utter inability to acknowledge other people's valid counterarguements makes you a giant boulder in the middle of the freeway of exchanged ideas. If you can't stop being a boulder, then yes, get out of the road.



Normal people would take that as a sign. We've progressed from gently nudging you into adopting 'community standards' or whatever to outright, blatent chastizing. Of course, you seem to view this as a mark of pride, which would put you into the 'holy warrior on a crusade' catagory in my book.




Strawman and Ad hominem. No one has, in my view, ever defended 'holy canon', particularly in regards to your 'examples'. In fact, one of the devs even said that 'yes, thats what we intended' for several of your examples, yet somehow you marked him as being 'anti-cain' when the time came to 'put up or shut up' when asked to prove Mr. Lucky in front of all of DumpShock with him GMing the senario.



Assumption. Not only do I prefer the older edition (and I do mean Older Sr1/2 all the way), possibly out of nostalgia, but from the sounds of things, my expirence with different gaming systems is vastly wider than your own, as shown by my refutation of your ludicrious use of Exalted as 'balanced at higher levels'. Exalted is many things, but balanced is not one of them. In fact, 'not broken' is not one of them. I've played on both sides of the screen and I could break it down for you in exacting detail. But this is not the forum for it. Thus it can hardly be that I consider SR4 the 'end all' etc. I doubt most of your 'opponents' feel that way either. Relevant to this: My new signature will be (some time today) taken from another forum and discusses how all game engines are flawed models of reality, and the choice is simply which flawed model you wish to use.




Never said it was. But there is a huge difference between using negative words and challenging the rules and actively convincing people to leave the game for another system. I've participated in quite a few debates here, on both sides of the rules. You claim to enjoy shadowrun, as a setting if not as a rule set; I hate to break it to you, but if you succeed in convincing people to migrate from SR4 to Savage Worlds or Wushu, Shadowrun will die. Thus you are either a fool or a liar. See also the 'boulder in the road' analogy earlier in this post.

Cain, I'm sure someone has asked before and I have missed it, but I am genuinely curious. What system is your favorite system? Not game world, you obviously like the SR setting, or I hope to god you do because you hang around here a lot, but what system do you take the least offense from? I mean, I agree with you to a certain extent, SR has required me to interpret things a lot, but I am an inherently fair person, and the people I play with are my friends and know this so while they may or may not agree with everything I decide, they know I am open to other interpretations outside the game. Used to be during the game, but like the college professor who tells students they can argue for their test answers, I found myself spending more time arguing than I did playing because my players can be munchkiny little bastards sometimes. Two are obsessed with not dying, one wants to be able to do everything, and the other just wants to help me make a good story(bless his English majoring heart.) So, while it doesn't bother me, I can see where you are coming from. So, what system DO you approve of? or is all this more a protestation of the way PnP RPGs are written in general?

Chris

I've heard he likes the Savage Worlds system...

I think it's OK, but doesn't really have a 'flavor' - that's one of the reasons I prefer the old Deadlands system over the D20 or Savage Worlds versions. Even though it arguably has more loopholes and rule oddities, it just flows with the setting better.



...wait, did Cain say he runs SRM games? If he's GM'd some at DragonCon, I think I know some people who have played with him.

Savage Worlds, a system that is so easily abused the term broken is no longer fitting.

Wow, this is spot on for me as well, minus the English major bit. eery

Cain - I'm well aware of what Ad Hominem means and apparently have a better understanding of it than you do. Spike has provided a clear example of how you misuse the term and what it actually means. Now you made a sweeping statement that you didn't need to argue against any of my points because it was an "ad hominem." Now if that were true then I think it would be very easy for you to quote the part of it that you believe is such an attack. But instead of doing so, you merely assert again that it simply is. I ask to be shown my ad hominem in that post. It's a simple thing to ask, isn't it?

Now what I do see in this thread is a whole lot of arguing with toturi about when and whether a GM should break with RAW. Firstly, no-one will convince toturi away from his ultra-RAW position and secondly, nobody should feel they have the right to. toturi plays in an unusual way but I respect that. You will note that he is not telling anyone else that they are wrong to play differently. However, he's come in on the trails of a long argument and I think it's been mistaken that he's come in on a particular "side." In fact, (and correct me if I'm wrong toturi), his allegiance is simply to the rule book.

And that is where we come back to Cain's mode of argument. Because frequently Cain references the "Long-shotting the Citymaster" problem as if it were some sort of established example and says that if this problem were fixed, GM's would not have to make a house rule on it. Frequently, people will point out that the example doesn't actually work but eventually, someone will pick up on it and then the following happens:

Cain: The problem lets you knife an armoured vehicle so the rules are broken.
Poster: It's easily fixed - just use common sense.
Cain: If the rules were written right in the first place, you wouldn't need to.
Poster: It's fine to use common sense.
Cain: Shouldn't have to.

And then the argument erupts which is what Cain wants because implicit in the arguing over whether or not it's okay to use common sense, he's slipped in the assumption that you need to. We then get people arguing that it's inevitable that a GM needs to actually use common sense which Cain casts as validation for his position that the rules are "horribly broken". In fact, the Citymaster example has never stood up on the occasions that Cain has actually tried to support it. However, I wont (as Cain does) simply say that the example works or doesn't and expect acceptance. The thread in which the Citymaster example is finally thrashed out is here and I strongly suggest anyone read through it and ask themselves if they really have anything to add to it before they reopen the debate. It runs to 14 pages and consists in large part in trying to keep Cain to the actual examples, several instances of pointing out where he has ostensibly misread the rules and concludes with pretty much the entirety of Dumpshock considering the Citymaster example invalid.

So before considering whether the counterpoint of X is valid or not, let us first demand that it be shown that X exists at all, because Cain takes any discussion about ways of dealing with broken rules as an opportunity to crow about how the rules are broken. I'm not convinced, and I'm not sure anyone else is convinced, that the SR4 rules are "horribly, badly broken" so you have to wonder after three years of this, what Cain's motivation is in continuing to rage against their brokenness here on Dumpshock. It surely cannot be the belief that anyone will be persuaded.

Cain didn't respond to this, but I'll defend him for once. He is massively overstating his case, but boiling it down I think what he is saying is this: the book allows the infantile masturbator to really pull some bogus crap. And that's fair. I just don't see it as a problem because infantile masturbators ought to be avoided at all costs. I could play God's Perfect System of Heavnly Goodness with a jackass of a GM, and it would still suck. It would be nice for a system to attempt to minimize GM shittyness, but since even the best system can achieve only limited steps towards this aim, I think it's hardly a damning critique of the game.

Basically, Cain's argument consists of showing how bitchy players with a bad GM could fling the system at each other like so much feces and end up with a pretty retarded game. I think it's a valid point, but I think it has low relevance. The Horrible Game from Hell is such an outside case that it can't be the basis for a strong critique of the game. Because this seems to be the basis of the majority of Cain's arguments against GM discretion, I think that even if he's correct on all points, he doesn't prove very much.

EDIT: *sigh* all you guys jumping into the public free for all debate are really making it harder for me to torch Cain's arguments, because he can always ignore me and get sidetracked onto other arguments that are easier to beat up on

Well in theory, but in my case he seems to mainly just dismiss everything I say as "ad hominem and can therefore be discarded" so I wouldn't worry overmuch about sidetracking.

But on a more serious note, whilst you are doing a wonderful job of the torching and I don't mean to detract from that, Cain has been shown to be wrong on countless occasions but only once can I remember him ever admitting it (and he then later retracted it). So I doubt you'll ever convince him which just leaves you with demonstrating your well-phrased arguments to the rest of us in which case the fact that Cain ignores them doesn't matter.

Then again, watching his responses to your points is pretty fun, so you may be right. I'm happy to clear out in favour of a Larme v. Cain death match. Go for it.

-Khadim.

I agree, Khadim, I think it would be a very interesting match. Glad you jumped into DS this year, Larme, and consider this your official initiation ceremony. I think everyone who has been here more than 6 months has gotten into a hate match with Cain at some point.

Chris

There are times when I post something online and go to myself "That was pretty good, but I wish I could have said it better"... and then, usually, someone else comes along and I have to change my mind to 'That was absolute ass, I wish I could have posted what he just did'...

This is one of those times.

So: Kudos.


And while I am with Knasser in that it is absolutely amusing to watch you tear apart Cain's arguements (in a different way than it was to watch Frank surgically demolish them in the other thread), I have to admit that my purpose is different than yours and knassers. I am no longer interested in his position, either to see if its valid or to disect it for all to see the squirmy bug at the heart. I am here to dissect CAIN. His motivation, his raison d'etre (sp?). I suspect a rat, and wish to expose him.

I've been very big on denouncing fools from the mountaintops lately. I'm putting my talent to good use at last*



Hopefully it won't prove too distracting. I need the entertainment.








*you know, the whole takes one thing...

Savage Worlds, instead of a 300 page book that says just wing it, it's a 150 page book that says just wing it.

And now we have gone completely off-topic

This right here is the Ad Hominem. Because you're discussing me far more than my argument. It's also a straw man, but you probably knew that.

This is also an Ad Hominem, because your only defense that "it be shown that X exists at all" is dependant on me being wrong.

You want examples of broken rules? Look at the Shadowrun forum of Dumpshock, and count the number of rules threads. I continue to show the most extreme examples, which seems to get stuck up people's excretory orifices; but no one can stop it without invoking GM fiat. How many broken rules does it take to equate to a broken system? I contend that SR4 has crossed that point, and relies on GM fiat to cover itself. Two serious mistakes.

Another Ad Hominem. Your argument is that this all comes because I'm a troll. This entire paragraph is a logical fallacy, and is therefore properly discarded.


Correct! But the converse is also true: a good GM can make even the suckiest system into an enjoyable experience. The "goodness" or "Badness" of a game has to exist independantly of the quality of GM running it. The best systems can, if played according to RAW, minimize a lot of the damage a bad GM can cause.

That alone is not a damning critique of SR4, you are absolutely right there. However, in conjunction with the many, many other issues, SR4 starts looking less and less like a good system, and starts to look more and more like a crappy one.

Wow. I'm new here but after reading this thread I'm left with the feeling that Cain rejects common sense, in general and in Shadowrun specifically. I mean really, knifing a CityMaster is silly. If the BBB contained all the rules to eliminate the need for common sense we wouldn't be able to afford it.

Not to get myself embroiled in the hate-fest or anything, but I hate you.

I mean, seriously, if infantile masturbators are suddenly unwelcome on Dumpshock, then I'm fucking done, and so is 99% of everyone else. You couldn't pick any better derogatory term than "masturbator?" Jackass.

Not an Ad Hominem if the actual subject being debated is the personage and arguement style of Cain, no. Then it is entirely relevant to the argument at hand.

But you'd know that if you'd payed attention.



I suggest that the burden of proof lies with you. Now, I know you are going to say 'I've Proven it', and then, maybe, repeat the same arguement. Sadly it doesn't work like that. Strike Sadly. It doesn't work like that. Lets call this an informal Peer Review. You've presented a thesis, and people have shot down your arguements, often in exacting detail. You have not rebutted in any meaningful way, ever. Saying 'you're wrong' is not an Ad Hominem, certainly not after pointing out the many massive flaws with your arguement.

Let me clean it up a little.

your 'thesis' is that the rules are horribly broken. In fact, I'll expand that to say your thesis is that 'the rules are horribly broken to the point that you would all be better off playing Wushu or Savage Worlds'.

You then attempt to prove this with a few arguements, specifically Mr Lucky, Knifing a citymaster and hosing some poor, nameless bastard on a boat down with a machine gun.

Now, the audience that is reviewing your arguements, your Dumpshock Peers, look at your three arguements and systematically take them apart.

Mr Lucky, they show, is the system working as intended and isn't really broken.

The Knifing a citymaster is ludicriously flawed and relies on infantile masturbatory fantasy behavior on all involved to even come up. Since most of us know not to rely on infatile masturbatory fantasy behavior at the game table, we all say 'never happens'. Your only rebuttal is to shout that 'it can happen if you play with masturbatory infantile idiots!!!" to which we reply: Why the fuck would we play with them, and in regards to your thesis (that we'd be better off playing SW and Wushu), that shit can happen there too.

The nameless mook on the boat? A dev came in and said: sure, sprayign nameless mooks with a machine gun is not all that hard, particularly if you are the lucky sort. In fact that seems to be the entire principle behind machine guns anyway:putting out lots of bullets and hoping you hit enough people to make it worthwhile. This arguement subsequently seems to disappear.


Now, we have, as your peers, dismissed all three arguements that support your thesis, thus we declare that your thesis is invalid. You fail to rebut, fail to present newer, stronger arguements. Concluding that you are wrong, at that point is not an ad hominem, it is simply a reflection on your utter failing to support your case meaningfully.

As I said, the burden of proof lies with you.



Fine, support that theory with some proof. Having been here for a while the only 'broken rule' that I can actually think of is 'Bloodzilla'. One broken rule, followed by a whole slew of rules that 'Cain doesn't like'. How many rules that 'Cain Doesn't Like' does it take to make a system broken? Well, if 'cain doesn't like' is the only criterion, I'd say an infinite number.

Then too, you have to prove that a GM Fiat is objectively a bad thing. Note that key word: objectively. The fact that you don't like it does not mean it is bad. To many of us, the Fiat is a feature, not a bug. Of course, for all your protestations, Savage Worlds requires Fiating. Most of us don't have examples readily to hand, because amazingly enough, this is a Shadowrun Forum... Go Figure. As for Wushu, you replace GM fiating with player Fiating. Big Improvement, buddy.



Actually, you have to really... I do mean REALLY read into that to get an Ad Hominem out of there. More to the point: Frank pointed out, and you predictibly ignored him, in the other thread that logical fallacies have no place in debates with you as you are not arguing logical, but emotional, positions. Against an Emotional Arguement there is no logic to attack, therefore all counter arguements will eventually fall into one or another of the logical Fallacies. Now: I'm not an expert on the nuances of logical and emotional arguements from a collegiate perspective, so I'll have to take his word for it. If you want to counter his point then by all means. If you don't I'll have to take your silence as assent.

Though I will suggest that it seems I'm a bit sharper on 'Logical Fallacies' than you are. Just sayin'.




See, you acknowledge, right here, that most of your problems with the game come from sucky GM's, and that with a good GM the game is fine. You THEN go on to establish the least controverial position known to man: that this is true of all game systems.

So: Shadowrun is broken because sucky GM's making bad calls make is a terrible game expirence.

That, in essense is the sum total of your entire, three year long, tirade against Shadowrun.

Wow.

And you wonder why I assign you transparent ulterior motives?

The idea you follow up with, that somehow your chosen systems are less susceptable to bad GMing or more easily 'good GMed' is purely subjective. I'd love to hear your 'many many' issues, since so far the ones you've named are hardly manifold and are hardly issues except to you.

Hrm... lets see if I can help you out here:

GM fiating: exists in virtually every game out there, and is a feature not a bug for many (most) players.

Lucky characters can do amazingly lucky things: System working as designed.

Characters can start near or at the top of their game in one specialized field: feature not a bug.

What else?

That's three. Only three things, and every one of them is purely a personal choice.

Fine, we get it. You don't like Shadowrun. I'd suggest this is due to a predilicition on your part for 'lighter' systems, not an inherent flaw in the Shadowrun rules.

If you don't like it, that's fine. Don't play it then. Don't comment on it on a Shadowrun specific forum then. And be polite enough to those who think it works just fine to let us enjoy the game WE like, as we let you play, and enjoy the games YOU like.

Very simple, really.

It's almost a shame to add anything to Spike's epic, but I'm afraid I'd like to make my own response as well, though it will overlap.



But Cain - it is precisely your argument that the above paragraph is discussing. Besides, there is an entire, long post there that you chose to ignore so don't characterise my posts as being nothing but the above. Nor is it an ad hominem as it's not an attempt to undermine your argument. It wasn't even addressed specifically to your argument but was a comment about your argument to other posters here.

Like Spike, I'm finding it increasingly unnecessary to address your actual argument because you are leaving my counterpoints to stand unopposed. Instead, there is increasingly little left to discuss other than your persistence in stating it.

However, for the third time of asking I'm going to challenge you to quote the part of that post you dismissed as "an extended ad hominem" and show where in it there is an ad hominem. As not doing so makes it look like you were lying and quoting is easy, we can only assume that you aren't doing so because you are unable to. I.e. you were lying.



No - you continue to state that this is so and most of us continue to say you're wrong. It is not outrage at finding SR4 mechanics are broken that gets up people's arses, it is that over the last few years you keep starting this same, same argument and never accept anything anyone says to you on the subject even when its been pointed out that you have actually misread the rules.



You're the only one that thinks that. Even those that disagree with me do me the honour of conceding that I put together a well thought out argument. Every time that you make a false justification for not dealing with what someone has said to you, it makes it look all the more as though you are unable to deal with their points. Do you not realise that or do you care only for convincing yourself you're "winning" (your words) an argument.



No, my conclusion is that you are a troll. Either you genuinely, actually are unable to understand people's counterpoints to what you say, or you genuinely derive emotional or psychological satisfaction from winding up people you've never met by posting inflammatory statements on online forums. In either case, I am beginning to think you actually need help. I can only guess at what you are like as a person in real life.

And no Cain - that's not an ad hominem by any stretch of the definition.

Hooray, I win! Cain conceded my point! *looks out the window just as a flock of pigs flies past*

As for the system being judged independently of the goodness or badness of the GM, I think you have something there. Except that your arguments about GM fiat being bad cannot be relevant unless you assume a GM who uses their discretion badly. From an abstract perspective where we do not consider whether the GM is bad or good, your arguments don't prove anything. If we think about bad GMs, all you prove is that when a bad GM is present, the game is bad, which is true in all systems, so it's not much of a thing to prove. You assert this point, you state that it proves something significant (in combination with unnamed many many points, anyway). And then you claim that the high likelihood of the problems with GM discretion never materializing because people generally stay in games with only good GMs, is totally irrelevant. You can't have your cake and eat it too -- it's just as important that bad GMs can make the vague rules into a horrible mess of an unfun time as it is that a good GM, or even a mediocre GM will not.

As to the statement about many many other problems, it's vague enough that I'm not going to bother taking issue with it right now. There's really no way to respond except "Nuh uh," which doesn't really lead anywhere.




This qualifies as a flame. I'm pretty sure flames are not welcome on Dumpshock. Instead of reporting you, however, I will explain myself. I did not make this phrase up myself. It was paraphrased from (I think) Spike, who used the word infantile to describe the kinds of people who would throw tantrums over an RPG, and he used 'masturbatory' to refer to GMs who are only running a game to go on a pointless power trip and "win" against the comparatively powerless players. By using that word, I was simply continuing the thread of discussion. Should I have substituted a better word? Maybe, but I don't think I deserve to be flamed over it. Secondly, not only did I not choose the word myself, but I also was not trying to be offensive with it. If the word offends you, I apologize for that. It wasn't intended to be a derogatory term at all. I don't think people who masturbate are infantile, in fact I support masturbation as a healthy way to release sexual energy The phrase "infantile masturbator" was just an amalgam of two unrelated terms that another poster used.

However, if you're going to flame people based on a simple, one-time less-than-great word choice, maybe you ought to be done with Dumpshock? Trolls are one thing, but out and out flamers are something Dumpshock really doesn't need.

Spike: Your entire post is a personal attack, written by someone who has made it his personal goal to attack me. You've stated as much, pretty explicitly. So, not only have you completely misconstrued or misunderstood just about every point of mine, you've done it in such a way that it can only be considered flamebait. So, like knasser, I'm ignoring you not only because you're making personal attacks and logical fallacies, but because I'm a bigger man than that and I won't be baited into starting a flamewar.

So, my response to your "epic" post: Straw man. Ad Hominem. And many other fallacies to list. Thus, not a logical argument, and correctly dismissed.


I'm a father. If there's anything I've learned from dealing with small children, it's that you need to repeat things in order for it to get into their heads. Actually, from my perspective, there's lots of people throwing similar arguments repeatedly at me, so I have little choice but to throw the same one back.

Which one? You've made several posts that have just gone on and on about me, and made no counterpoint to my arguments.


Nope, that's straight-up insults. (And an Either-or fallacy, but that's beside the point ) You have no argument at all, just flames.


Now, this is a new point, and one well worth debating. The problem with GM fiat is that it's just that: an arbitrary decision, based on the lack of rules. It only occurs when there's a difference of opinion, and both parties cannot "win". Having to decide between two players (one of which might be the GM) will reek of favoritism, no matter who wins. Even though the loser may be gracious about it, RPGs aren't supposed to be about winning and losing. By that perspective, GM fiat is always a bad thing, because to forces a winner and a loser.

GM fiat, exempting bad GM's blatantly ignoring the rules, only occurs when there's a rules loophole. SR4, being essentially a totally new game, is loaded with bugs and loopholes. Bloodzilla, Agent Smith, the Citymaster, spirit pacts, combat spells, the matrix rules, the Pornomancer, called shots... these and many other areas need work. They rely on GM fiat instead of solid rules. It's kinda like Windows ME: There's potential there, but the execution is beyond shoddy.

Now, how "bad" this is depends on your perspective. Mine is that in comparison to other game systems out there, SR$ isn't worth the money you spend. Another perspective would be a Forgite one, where the perfect game blends Narrativist/Gamist/Simulationist perspectives well enough that all preferences are covered, and enjoyed. SR4 also fails that test miserably. A third perspective would be to look at how innovative the game is; again, SR4 fails, because most of its good concepts have been lifted from other games. (The bitter irony is that Shadowrun was the inspiration for many games, including the World of Darkness.)

PS: Someone a ways back asked what system I prefer. That's a hard one to answer, and it depends on my mood. If I want heavy crunch, I'll go to HERO. If I don't want to deal with hard numbers, but still want tactical crunch, I'll go Savage Worlds. If I want over-the-top action, Wushu is my best bet.

But overall, the two systems I like best are probably Adventure! and-- believe it or not-- Faery's Tale. Faery's Tale in particular. Part of it is because I have a five-year-old daughter, and I'm going to use it to introduce her to roleplaying. The system is easy enough to be used by kids, yet complex enough to challenge adults. You can read more Here.

What I like best about both systems is the fact that the have "Dramatic Editing" mechanics, where the player can directly affect the course of the game and the narrative, without sacrificing any of the rules or game reality. In Faery's tale, not only can you use Dramatic Editing to get yourself out of a tight spot, you can use it to put yourself *into* one, which I found to be amazingly fun. So, put down Faery's Tale as my favorite system, even despite its flaws.

but airbags and other safety gear are not necessary equipment for a car

would you pay as much for a car without those as for one with?

This is also a new one, you're talking about adversarial relationships between players and other players, instead of players and the GM, which is more sensible.

But just because the GM uses fiat to decide who wins in a fight between players doesn't mean it's going to be bad. Like say player A is driving a citymaster and is going to run over player B. And player B just has a knife, oh no! Can he called shot the citymaster and ignore its armor? Maybe if he got underneath it he could, and cut some fuel lines or something... So the GM makes some kind of opposed test where the one player tries to run over and the other tries to drop prone between the wheels and get under the vehicle. That required GM fiat to decide that if you got under a citymaster, you could damage it with a knife. But was it an unfair call? Would Player A think there was favoritism because player B got a fighting chance?

One feature of your arguments is that you tend to assume that fiat usually involves saying "No, nyah." But it can just as easily be "yes, I will allow you to do exactly what you want to if you make X rolls." If the GM is fair, there will be no basis for accusations of favoritism. Anyone whose feelings are hurt by a well reasoned GM call that goes against them is too immature for an RPG and should check out WoW. Nobody will notice another immature person on WoW



You're treating all of those things as foregone conclusions as if you have proved them. If your opponents are to be believed, you haven't proved that any of them are broken, only vehemently stated that you dislike the way they work. The fact that you're one of the only ones on the board to repeatedly suggest that SR4, a commercial game produced by experienced, professional developers is "shoddy," suggests to me that this is not exactly a fair assessment. Your lack of support doesn't prove it, but I think it's unfair to call the game shoddy for how it was intentionally created. There are a few loopholes, but relying on GM fiat was the developer's choice. You might think that was not the best possible design, but the game's popularity indicates that in reality, it holds together pretty nicely. If it was actually shoddy, I think lots and lots of people would hate it as much as you. That's just my basic common sense judgment.



I really don't want to bring other game systems into it to prove how good SR4 is. Every time you do, people ask for specific examples, you provide examples, people tell you that you're full of crap because those systems are a jillion times more shoddy, and it goes nowhere.

The fact is, comparing an RPG system to another one is apples to oranges. There are so many variables that go into making a system good or bad that you can't just line them up and do a straight objective comparison. Case in point: every time you talk about how great Wushu and Exalted systems are, people with just as much knowledge of those systems disagree.

The only relevant question is whether you have fun playing the game. If you don't, make a few house rules, or play another game. The devs can't make a system that pleases everyone equally, as is indicated by how many people tweak and house rule on Dumpshock not because things are broken, but just because they don't quite like them enough. You can insist that the system is bad all day and all night, but comparisons to other systems are essentially meaningless. They just show your preference - you like other systems more than SR4. That's not terribly relevant to other people, but you tend to state it as an objective fact, which really gets peoples' dander up.



Thank you for proving my point. You highlight good systems by talking about what you enjoy about them. If someone likes SR4, you're not going to go very far throwing the same old "it sucks and is not worth $50 argument" at them. It doesn't matter what the game's flaws are. I think it's legitimate to talk about the game's flaws. But by telling us that it is shoddy and bad, all you're doing is making people angry. That's called trolling in net slang. Even if your purpose is not to simply generate controversy, it's definitely a troll of an argument and you should consider keeping it under the bridge. If you do, people will be able to focus on attacking your arguments instead of impugning your character.

Actually, I consider the GM to be just another player. So PvP conflicts include arguments involving the GM. I know it's a controversial position to take, but it's also another topic.


That's exactly what the Citymaster example is. Someone makes a technically-legal set of rolls, and pulls off a fourth-wall breaking stunt. The GM fiat here is saying: "I don't care what you roll, or what the rules say, you can't do it." And *that* kind of fiat almost always leads to hard feelings and arguments.


Of the above, only the Citymaster is in dispute by current RAW, and that only because the called shot rules require GM fiat. And when I have demonstrated objective numerical imbalances, someone complained that the imbalance wasn't big enough too be a problem. Numerical imbalances are always a problem in a high-crunch game like Shadowrun, because enough of them can create a game-breaker. It doesn't even require a bad player, either: someone who has the best skills for everything will steal the spotlight from everyone else, reducing the fun of a game. This is why niche protection is such a big deal.



Ah, but if people are going to make arguments based on SR4's popularity, I can only defend it by showing how it stands in relation to other games' popularity. And it has to be similar games as well, with similar distribution: Wushu Open has been downloaded a few million more times than SR4 pdf's, but that's hardly a fair comparison. I'll gladly drop the line of argument if others do, but I don't think that'll happen anytime soon.

Question: How many house rules does it take to make it into another game? One of my contentions is that SR4 requires so many house rules, some people are effectively not playing the same game.

First point is a straw man. The SR ruleset explictly gives the GM an elevated position and adjucation powers.

Your second point is also a straw man, as the decision has specifical adjucation procedures associated with it.

your third point is factually incorrect, as you argument has been rebutted on points grounds aside from the adjucation procudure (such as the shooting through barriers rule) and you provided no further rebuttal in previous discussions.

i will not address your remaining two points as they are not statements, though I am willing to mount an in depth attack on specific points of pinnacle enterainments grasp of game balance as required.

First point: The GM did not magically stop being a player, and his goal of having fun didn't stop when he stepped behind the screen. Also, no ruleset can give someone an "elevated position" or adjudication powers. They can say he should have it, but it can't hold a gun to your head and say: "The GM is a superior being. Trust the GM"

Second point: I don't see any "special procedures" associated with it, beyond asking for the GM's permission. Which, as explained before, is A Bad Thing, since it directly forces the GM to choose between his story and his players.

Third point: You don't have to invoke the shooting through barriers rule to specifically target a passenger in a vehicle. See p162, BBB. I've actually posted this many times, but it always gets lost in the argument over GM fiat.

That's what a bad GM does. You're basing an argument about a system flaw on the GM's quality, which you said we shouldn't do. A reasonable GM would say "you can do it as long as there's some rational explanation of how it would make sense." That's fair. If the player wants to shoot their pistol into the citymaster's exhaust port, then ok. But if they say "I want to walk up to the citmaster and knife it right in the side and it will die cuz the rules say I can, and I'll throw a tantrum if you don't let me," the GM is totally justified in saying no.

Your argument against fiat, again, seems to be that fiat can be abused to make unfair calls. But making unfair calls is the hallmark of a bad GM. Your entire argument boils down to: IF you have a poor GM THEN the game will be bad. You extend this to a non sequitur fallacy: THEREFORE the game is bad.



Which is why the GM should ensure that their players are all around the same level of ability, or at least cover fairly discrete areas of specialization. You could have the best sammy in the world plus an OK mage, but the sammy isn't going to steal the magic spotlight no matter what. The problem is only when you have two characters of the same specialty, one great, one not... But that's something that is easily dealt with by helping the character create sheets that work together as a team. It's the GM's job to set up a good game, I know you're going to parade out the tired old "can't make the GM do actual work," but that's just going to fall flat again. It's the GM's job to make the game work, if they don't try don't blame the system for not having a mind of its own and doing it for them.



My point is, it's popular enough that it's pretty clear it doesn't suck ass like you claim, or at least lots of people think so. More people might play other games, but that's neither here nor there. The quality of the system itself can be judged by a simple question: is it going bankrupt? If yes, it's probably "shoddy." Lots of shoddy games have failed. Shadowrun is far from failing, so the argument that it literally, objectively sucks does not hold much water.



The thing is, you claim to have "proved" that there are "problems" with every core mechanic of the game. If someone accepts that, then yes, you can't play without houseruling the basic nature of the game. But if you don't (and almost everybody doesn't) it's clear that few if any house rules are required. House rules are added as a matter of taste, only very rarely is there a place where they are "necessary."

And keep in mind that the rules mention shooting tires, windows, and the like. Some people might say that's "fluff", and that "fluff" can be disregarded, but those people are jackoffs who should be ignored. You can't target a weak spot unless you know the weak spot.

Additionally, the exhaust port on the Citymaster is way too small to hit, even for a computer.

That's more-or-less exactly what I've said in multiple threads on the Citymaster. "There's always a thermal exhaust port." That hasn't stopped the vast majority of people from screaming "Munchkin" or worse; or saying more-or-less exactly what I posted above: "I don't care what you roll, or what the rules say, you can't do it."


Palladium Games isn't going bankrupt, and RIFTS is considered to be the epitome of shoddiness. Lack of bankruptcy is not proof of quality.

The core mechanic of the game can't do its job properly without the Longshot test. And I *have* proven what abuses can result from that. The matrix rules are heavily houseruled by many people (core mechanic altered to Logic + Skill, capped by Program), and direct combat spells are always being debated. I don't even have to discuss the issues with Bloodzilla, possession + channeling, Spirit Pacts, Improved Invisibility, the Increase Reflexes spell, and the like. The imbalance between otaku and their Sprites is well-documented. The vehicle combat rules are mutually-contradictory. I'm not the one "proving" all these things, these are all well-known topics on Dumpshock. I'm just collecting them all into one big ugly package, and showing all the flaws at once. (Well, ok. I let others take the smaller examples; I focus on the big extreme ones.)

When you look at it this way-- when you see there are problems with every core mechanic on the game-- then doesn't the whole thing start to look shoddy? I love Shadowrun at least as much as anyone here, but I'm not blinded by the shiny newness of the thing. Just because I love the game, doesn't mean I'm blind to its flaws.

Straw man - we discussing working within a ruleset, so obviously the ruleset can make declative statements that we attempt to abide by.



Deliberate misquoting to construct a straw man. I said specifically that the ruleset gives special adjucative powers to a nominated particpant and recuses itself from making a comprehensive decision.



You still haven't actually rebutted franktrollman's point as per the previous thread, and instead have just constructed a strawman and rebutted that. I agree it is certainly possible to specifically target a passenger in a vehicle, for example, the rider of a motorcycle.

Please do not deliberately misquote me and then rebutt straw man arguments after acusing others of making strawmans and launching personal attacks!

That still does not mean the GM stopped being a player, or that his "authority" does not stem from the rulebook. All the GM's authority stems from all the players in the game, including himself.


Actually, you didn't; but let's pretend like you did. The fact that the rules "recuses itself"(sic) instead of providing clear guidelines is a sign of shoddy work. Would you accept it if your car's owner's manual said: "It's up to you to decide how often you want to change your oil"?


First of all, which thread? There's been lots of them. Second, the only point of yours I saw was a reference to shooting through barriers. If you read the page I cited, you'll see that shooting through barriers is not required to target a passenger. I've repeated this many times, and I fully expect that I'll need to do so again.

okay, but I'm not sure what your point is.

Second point: Straw man, you need to logically prove that it is a sign of shoddy work.

I find this difficult as we are playing a game in which the GM is expected to provide the narrative, the game rules merely provide a conflict resolution framework. The called shots rules provide a oppotunity for the players to violate the tennets of the conflict resolution framework in specific ways with the approval of the provider of the narrative. The narrator can presumably choose the grounds on which he will allow such a violation.

To provide an example from one of your favourite game systems which you are upholding as a bastion of quality, its much like the Deadlands: Reloaded (a Savage Worlds setting) exemption by which the GM can, at his discretition provide a way for a Blessed to gain his powers back if he falls foul of the extremely unfair "you have a 1% chance of loosing all your magical powers every time you cast a spell" rule, or a DM in D&D may let a paladin who has violated his code of conduct conduct a specific undefined service in conjunction with attonement.

The subject we are supposed to be debaqting is obvious rule problems in SR4, presumably wiht the intend of making consistend house rules to help fix them.




Funnily enough if you replace the knife with an auto shotgun firing soft lead slugs. The example works WITHOUT the armor bypass option of called shots. you end up doing about 21-22 damage before burst modifiers, and uyou can use the burst to reduce enemy defense dice. now 21 damage will become 9 damage after 36 dice of soak on average. but then there is the second burst. and that is with normal ammunition. My first counter examples were dissected and disproven (damn errata on ammo types) but the reworking proved Assault rifle and shortgun can do it. Also, given that many of the 'no armor bypass' arguements included devs saying that the citym,aster is a light tank. there is no freaking way in hell that it should be taken out with a half dozen shotgun slugs.

Ad Hominem (to no one in particular, I just wanted to take part in the discussion)!

I <3 that (for ten characters)

Just did; but since that's not going to go anywhere, how about you offer us a definition of what's shoddy and what isn't? I can't make a logical argument without definitions.


That's part of it, though. The Called Shot rules are part of the mechanics of the game, the "conflict resolution" part. They shouldn't break the game, and as a basic part of combat, they shouldn't need direct GM intervention each and every time. Don't forget, the +4/-4 issue is still out there, and it's a huge numerical imbalance. Such that skilled characters need seldom choose another option. You may end up needing GM intervention on each and every combat roll.


Now where did you get that idea from? Please show me where I've called Savage Worlds "a bastion of quality". I've shown where it handles some things better than SR4 does, but that doesn't make it a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination. This is rather what I mean when I say that people tend to read my posts for things to get offended at, instead of reading my actual points.

You didn't prove anything. You drew a bad analogy that doesn't even apply. I expect that all components of my car will have extensive physical testing for hundreds of thousands of hours applied which I'm never going to get from an RPG of any stripe. I'd ask you to define shoddy as you brought the term into the debate. How about we go with a legally defined definition? I'm sure you can dig one up.





Is just a sampler of times you hold the game out as a bastion of quality. A simple search turns up pages of them. You repeatedly and frequently contrast the subject of discussion to savage worlds, and then use savage worlds as a example of 'quality' design. Thus you hold savage worlds out as a bastion of quality.

Incidently, as the game suffers from the guy with less skill is better at shooting that the guy with more skill in the dark problem, I'd hate to classify it as smooth as the probability curve in action resolution isn't. Also the constant lying down in combat is very annoying. Wild west duels at noon are just stupid when the guy who wins initative shoots then lies down. The completed gimpedness of the superpowers magic users compared to the one skill magic users is also very funny.

The fact that random choices in character generation can give you up to 40% extra build points (taking the veteran of the wild west power and getting a favourable outcome, which can also cripple you if you get a bad outcome) and exclusive access to a second IP pass (regular shadowrun players will appreciate exactly how hardcore being the only guy who can act twice is), and that blessed have a 1% chance of losing their powers every time they ast a spell, and a huckster has a 3% chance of just dying every time he casts a spell alone pretty much caps the game in the ass for me in terms of quality.

Okay, since you insist:

1. of poor quality or inferior workmanship: a shoddy bookcase.

Now, a quality game will give you rules, and a shoddy game won't. Saying "Just wing it" or "GMs can make up whatever they want" or "GM discretion" and not providing rules is shoddy. SR4 lies on that end of the spectrum, requiring GM fiat for many of the core mechanics.


Not "a bastion of quality". Please show where I've ever said Savage Worlds is perfect, or even close to it. Faster and Smoother, yes. Better than SR4, most likely. But "a bastion of quality"? Don't think so.

As for your Deadlands: Reloaded issues, I don't have that book handy. But as I recall, The Veteran of the Wild West edge probabilities are quite different than what you're relaying. I can also think of many ways to get a second action in a SW turn. At any event, that's also way off topic, so I'll just say you're probably exaggerating and drop it.

Whoa, what?

Autoshotgun: 7P
Called Shot (Damage): +4P
Longarms dicepool of 34: +10P

Do you have some other, more plausible way to get to the magic DV of 21 to beat the armor of the Citymaster?

-Frank

He doesn't have to.

*sigh* I see this one won't die until I repost it, so here we go again:

Here's the example: Mr. Lucky needs to take out the Citymaster chasing their van, so he aims through the window at the driver. (Specifically aiming at a passenger, pg 162, not a called shot yet.) He's using an AVS (8P-f) loaded with Unobtanium rounds, and our modifiers are as follows: -2 recoil, -3 extreme range, -3 for being seriously Wounded, -3 for being in a moving vehicle, -6 for his target having total cover, -1 for his cover, and -2 for the light rain. To top this all off, he calls a shot to bypass the armor of both the vehicle and the driver (a gun port is open by a fraction of an inch). Assuming the driver was in heavy armor with helmet, that's an additional -12, and then we factor in the Citymaster's armor of 20. That's a total dice pool penalty of -52. It could be worse than that-- Mr Lucky might not have a pistols skill at all-- but it's largely irrelevant, since there's absolutely no way he's going to have a positive dice pool. He now spends a point of Edge. 8 Edge = 2.66 successes, which rounds up to 3. The driver can't use his vehicle skill to dodge, since he was specifically targeted; and he requires a Perception test at -6 to even notice that he's been hit. Assuming that the driver has a body of 3 (his armor has been bypassed, so the AP penalty of the flechette round does not apply), he'll be taking an 11P wound, and will likely score 1 success-- not enough, he'll be taken out instantly. The vehicle will now need to make a crash test: it has a threshold of 3, using a Pilot of 3, and a handling penalty of -1. It fails, crashes, and likely kills everyone inside.

Don't worry. I'm sure it will die now that it has been reposted.

Oh, and for the modification: Later, Mr. Lucky starts working out, and has Muscle Enhancement installed, so his Strength is now 8. The citymaster is whizzing past them, and is going to come back for another pass, so he only will get one shot at this. He just ran away from Lone Star, so he has no handguns, but he grabs a combat axe from his fallen troll buddy, and aims for the driver through the same gun port. He does for the exact same called shot, spends Edge, and scores the same three successes. Once again, he dishes out 11P, which the driver is unable to soak.

The citymaster crashes, but another one is on its way. The GM rules that the combat axe broke when it was slammed through the side of a moving APC, but the troll also has a knife. Mr. Lucky jumps on top of the Citymaster, and plunges his knife through the opening in the roof hatch. He calls the shot to bypass armor again, and this time gets a whopping 6 successes! That's enough to wipe out the third driver.

Yes, these examples are unrealistic. That's exactly the point. The rules don't support realism, they don't support abstractions, and they don't provide a good middle ground.

wel a point of edge was supposed to have been spent.
My original example was a variant on Cain's example so I used a variant of Mr Lucky

hence 8 of the dice come from luckiness, and 6s get rerolled so each 10 dice should produce 4 successes so a nmeed a dicepool of about 25 dice

Which is, of course, why every called shot comes with a "at the GM's discretion" caveat that you continue to ignore (so you can rattle off the same silly examples over and over again). You can maintain some fashion of realism (in reference to the above examples, at any rate) simply by saying "sorry, it doesn't work like that," and calling it a day. It's right there in the rules.

Now, to me, anything with "GM's discretion" explicitly stated next to it in the rulebook should, instead, be in a shaded box at the end of a chapter somewhere, and presented from the get-go wholly as an optional or advanced rule... but, well, there you go.

Of course, anyone (myself included) bringing up the fact that your examples are, while not rules breaking, rules bending (or at the very least "a portion of the rule (GM fiat) ignoring"), you come back with talk about how GM fiat is a pile of crap and no one should pay money for a book full of GM's discretion rules. And then someone else comes back with something about how every RPG every relies on a GM working with his group and making decisions, and then you come back with something about how some other game is cooler because the GM doesn't have to do it as much, and then someone else comes back with something you call an Ad Hominem, and then someone calls your mother ugly, and then you stab their Citymaster to death, and then the thread hits page umpteen thousand.

And I wouldn't have such an extreme problem with it, either. Go figure.

Actually, my biggest issue is that it's a part of basic combat. Called shots is an option for everyone. If a GM has to interpret an especially tricky rule interaction involving three different books, that's one thing. Having to resort to GM fiat every roll of every combat, in a system like Shadowrun, is likely either a result of laziness or bad writing.


Ssh! I'm going for a page count record!

People should, for once, try to understand that even APCs today, much less light tanks, do NOT have windows to shoot through.

Armored cars, on the other hands, have often very, very durable windows - again nothing one would qualify as a weak spot.

*Put on his flame retardant vest*
*Dodge the Ad hominem arguments*

For me there are several obvious rule problems in Shadowrun :

-Spirits : too powerful for too little drain, sure you can get unlucky and have a 12S drain to resist when you summon that force 6 spirit, but once he's there, there goes the opposition.
The most broken one is the task spirit, it renders all tech characters obsolete, you can have a better technician than anything on earth (ok not right away or risking physical drain, but in my eyes it's a nonsensical infrigement of the magical in the technical, what's the point of them, doesn't the spirits already make a magician a jack of all trade anyway ?)

-The dice pool penalities : the way those are handled press the players to have large dice pools (for example in a firefight or tense social situation you could be looking at -6 or more dice). Absolute modifiers like those prevent "average" characters (rolling 8 dices) from contributing to those scenes, this causes specialisation, which leads to boredom from the non specialised players.
Besides it means that the specialist will anihilate any opposition in less stringent conditions (which is normal I guess since SR is a high powered game anyway).

-Armor : with Arsenal and the form fitting body armor, nearly anyone can reduce an assault rifle round to stun damage. An average man (body 3) can get armor 9 without encumberance, a sammy (or worse, troll sammy) can reduce an assault canon to stun damage. This in my eyes is nonsensical and don't make for a gritty or even realistic game.

-Magic : can only be opposed by magic, hackers or technomancers by their counterparts, whereas sammy can be opposed by anything from spells, spirits, drones or sammys. A hacker has several limitations on how he can annoy you (you can switch all wireless off, no real RAW disadvantage, mostly fluff), but you can't shut down magic around you.

Well I've specifically referenced the post, but it is here. It's quite long, talks extensively about the meaning and context of the dice modifiers in the Called Shot rules and you told everyone that it was nothing but an extended ad hominem. Again, I invite you to demonstrate how this is the case or stop using the words "ad hominem" to avoid discussion.



It's up to you to prove that the above are broken rules as most of us would disagree. Only Bloodzilla is universally considered to be a mistake and I believe it's shortly to be addressed in the SM Errata or FAQ. I mean, "Improved Invisibility" is a broken rule? The Logic + Skill capped by Program is a flavour adjustment that I originally proposed here a while ago and took off. It wasn't done to avoid abuse, but just to make Logic an important part of hacking again. (Actually, I proposed a cap by Logic and someone else then changed it to use Logic and cap by Program but the purpose is the same).

funny, was aiming for grills and air intakes and similar points of nastiness

I don't remember any grill on the almost 50 years old M-113 I served on. I do not think there will be a grill on a armored personell carrier 60 years from now.

Not going to comment on the Task spirit at the moment, but I'll just say that there are a couple of counterpoints to the utility of spirits (and this isn't saying you're points are wrong, just offering some thoughts). The first counterpoint is that to get really good use out of spirits, you need to bind them and that is an expensive habit. If expenses are deducted from the team, then maybe this isn't noticed, but most characters I've seen would object to one of the team spending twenty times what they do to supply each run and then demanding it back from them. There's also a lot of mileage that can be got from making sure services are enforced and that spirits are not simply controlled by the player as secondary PCs. Again, not saying that you're wrong, just that it's seemed to work out okay for me.



This to me isn't a problem. For one, I want the players to be forced to try and adjust the situation in their favour. They should have to go to the effort of trying to find ways of removing negative modifiers or bringing in positive ones. But I like Shadowrun to be a game that requires a lot of thought. Even great ability is easily and suddenly derailed by bad circumstances or poor strategy.

My thoughts, anyway. And hey - welcome to Dumpshock. You picked a great thread to get stuck in with.

Regards,

-Khadim.