Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The hardest thing about SR4 is....
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
Irian
Agreed. The GM decides about the outcome, but the runner can look as cool as he/she wants while getting it smile.gif
Blade
Sure, if it allowed the player to describe the outcome, I see what it would lead to:

"Ok, I created a mage specialised in counterspelling with the magic resistant quality, a fire resistant body armor and all kind of possible fire resistance bonuses. I ask a friend to cast a fireball at me. I roll 59 dice. Cool! I have 4 net hits! So here is what happens:

I negate the fireball. Lofwyr who was passing by is so impressed that he decides to give me all his money and tons of karma. Oh, and I get two hot elf chicks in the process."

wobble.gif
toturi
QUOTE (Fortune @ Sep 5 2007, 05:15 PM)
QUOTE (SR4 pg. 59)
A critical success means that the character has performed the task with such perfection and grace that the gamemaster should allow her to add  when describing it.


'Flourishing detail' does not necessarily equate to 'outcome'.

whatever flourishing detail she likes

The outcome is described by the GM which the player is able to add whatever detail she likes to. The outcome is still determined by your dice rolls. Positive net hits should not have negative outcomes. Negative net hits should not have positive outcomes.
Ol' Scratch
No, that's not what it says.

It says the GM still determines the outcome based upon the events, and the player should (ie, within reasonable limits) be allowed to add unimportant, flashy details to it. Yes, that critical success totally knocked the General's rank insignia off when it hit his chest. No, the critical success didn't cause the bullet to richochet off the General's insignia, nail his six guards between the eyes, before finally ricocheting back to the General and killing him dead.

As Fortune said, "flourishing details" doesn't equate to "outcome." It equates to "adding some fluff to the description, as long as it doesn't interfer with the outcome in any notable way."
toturi
QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein @ Sep 5 2007, 07:56 PM)
No, that's not what it says.

It says the GM still determines the outcome based upon the events, and the player should (ie, within reasonable limits) be allowed to add unimportant, flashy details to it.  Yes, that critical success totally knocked the General's rank insignia off when it hit his chest.  No, the critical success didn't cause the bullet to richochet off the General's insignia, nail his six guards between the eyes, before finally ricocheting back to the General and killing him dead.

As Fortune said, "flourishing details" doesn't equate to "outcome."  It equates to "adding some fluff to the description, as long as it doesn't interfer with the outcome in any notable way."

No, it does not say that. It says "any flourishing detail she likes". It does not say fluff, or any unimportant, flashy detail or does not interfere with outcome in any notable way. No, it does not say those things. It means that the player cannot change the outcome from a positive one to a negative or a negative to positive, it means that the player get to add a detail that flourishes the description of the outcome.

GM: You convince the Johnson to increase your pay willingly.

Player: To the amount I want. This is the flourishing detail I like.

GM: You hit the general and you see him drop to the ground in a spray of blood.

Player: Dead.
Fortune
QUOTE (American Heritage Dictionary)

Flourish, Flourishing

v.  intr.

  1. To grow well or luxuriantly; thrive: The crops flourished in the rich soil.
  2. To do or fare well; prosper: "No village on the railroad failed to flourish" (John Kenneth Galbraith).
  3. To be in a period of highest productivity, excellence, or influence: a poet who flourished in the tenth century.
  4. To make bold, sweeping movements: The banner flourished in the wind.

v.  tr.
To wield, wave, or exhibit dramatically.


n. 

  1. A dramatic or stylish movement, as of waving or brandishing: "A few ... musicians embellish their performance with a flourish of the fingers" (Frederick D. Bennett).
  2. An embellishment or ornamentation: a signature with a distinctive flourish.
  3. An ostentatious act or gesture: a flourish of generosity.
  4. Music A showy or ceremonious passage, such as a fanfare.


QUOTE (Dictionary.com)
flour·ish

–verb (used without object)
1. to be in a vigorous state; thrive: a period in which art flourished.
2. to be in its or in one's prime; be at the height of fame, excellence, influence, etc.
3. to be successful; prosper.
4. to grow luxuriantly, or thrive in growth, as a plant.
5. to make dramatic, sweeping gestures: Flourish more when you act out the king's great death scene.
6. to add embellishments and ornamental lines to writing, letters, etc.
7. to sound a trumpet call or fanfare.
–verb (used with object)
8. to brandish dramatically; gesticulate with: a conductor flourishing his baton for the crescendo.
9. to decorate or embellish (writing, a page of script, etc.) with sweeping or fanciful curves or lines.

–noun
10. an act or instance of brandishing.
11. an ostentatious display.
12. a decoration or embellishment, esp. in writing: He added a few flourishes to his signature.
13. Rhetoric. a parade of fine language; an expression used merely for effect.
14. a trumpet call or fanfare.
15. a condition or period of thriving: in full flourish.


I don't think the word means what you think it means.
Irian
Flourishing. Meaning "ornamenting". Something that doesn't really change the thing, but surrounds it in a decorating way.

Edit: Too late, Fortune did it much better smile.gif
toturi
Yes, so the GM describes a successful action and you add whatever "flourishing details" you want to it. Unless the detail doesn't embellish a successful action or does not make the result any more dramatic, it is a "flourishing detail" even under those definitions. The detail does not change the fundamental fact that the action succeeded, it embellishes it, it makes it dramatic. It is unlikely the player will choose a detail that downplays the success. The word is meaningless in the context.
Irian
That's nonsense, please stop it already. A detail CAN change the outcome dramatically. Simply example: You not only hit someone, but the bullet penetrates the target and kills the three people behind it. That's a detail that doesn't change "Success or Failure" but it really changes the outcome. And it's surely not a "flourishing" detail.
toturi
QUOTE (Irian @ Sep 5 2007, 11:16 PM)
That's nonsense, please stop it already. A detail CAN change the outcome dramatically. Simply example: You not only hit someone, but the bullet penetrates the target and kills the three people behind it. That's a detail that doesn't change "Success or Failure" but it really changes the outcome. And it's surely not a "flourishing" detail.

Change it to hit the 3 people behind and it can be a flourishing detail - kill only factors in when you roll damage. Just not the way you want it to flourish! Which is why I said it is meaningless in context.

A flourishing detail does not alter the fundamental nature of the success or its premises.
NightmareX
QUOTE (Kyoto Kid)
Suffice to say, this particular situation has since been resolved.

How KK?
Spike
QUOTE (Cain)
QUOTE

Ah yes, I agree. I was sad to see the shadow-slang go away, replaced by boring modern profanity. I found it an import nuance for giving the characters a sense that this is a different time and culture. The increased sexual content also seems to be an attempt to make the game more "edgy" and appeal to a different market that wants that sort of thing. I just hope it doesn't sully the overall quality of the game.

It bugs me more that the shadowslng only mostly went away, to leave just enough to be completely jarring and incomprehensible.

As far as the sex thing goes, I wouldn't mind it if it had been handled tastefully. Prurience is a good word for how it's been handled, though. Every time I read the orgy spell, I hear Beavis and Butthead: "Uh. Uh-huh-huh."

Speaking of shadowslang:

Dreck as apparently an increasingly popular real world 'polite' invective. I've seen it in mainstream news articles, I believe I've heard it on TV.

On the otherhand, I grew up in a swearing household (is that even a term?) and one thing that was laughable to me way back as a nipper when I got my SR1 after months of waiting was the silliness of made up swear words.

While some have grown on me a bit, in general I'm happier when 'Shit is Shit' and not 'Dreck'.

Adding color to the world through langauge is all well and good, but focusing on the 'invectives' just makes it silly and... well... prudish.
Adarael
Well, shit is only shit and not dreck if you're talking to people who don't swear in yiddish. I worked for a guy when I was a teenager who only swore in yiddish.

He kept saying 'the dreck that comes out of most people's mouths drives him meshuggah.'
Malachi
I can concede that the Shadowslang is a matter of personal opinion. Some people may think it sounds silly to have these "imitation" words. I, conversely, find that profanity greatly degrades the quality of the work from an artistic standpoint (couldn't you think of anything else to say?).

I should also note that the shadowslang was not exclusively invectives but also general expletives ("Oh drek!"), adjectives ("The run got all fragged up!"), and neither ("What's up omae?")
Dashifen
I never thought the imitation words were silly, but I actually find the use of curse words to add to artistic standing of SR4. But, then again, I tend to curse like a sailor so my perspective may be skewed.

wobble.gif
laughingowl
QUOTE (Irian)
QUOTE (laughingowl)
Also to the 'word on the street says you are too high priced... we can't afford you...'

Just as a sidenote: This is something, I would integrate into the outcome of the Negotiation roll, because Negotiation will also show you, what your Johnson CAN and WANT give you... I would let the player decide to get the maximum, but stay in the Johnson's "That's ok" limit or get more, but risk a "You're expensive" reputation... Normaly a very good Negotiater should decide that before he starts...

Trian..

This I totally agree, with players can very well chose 'lesser' results...

If I had decided that they run paid 10,000 and each hit was a linear 500 extra (rarely will I do a linear, but alot of pre-written are...) ...

If the run got an amazing 30 net hits (Bothered to use edge for some reason... and alot of exploding dice..)


I MIGHT allow them to get the full 25,000 nuyen ... However I wouold probably also give something like:

"You steady and skillfull negoationtion convinces the Johnson that the details of this job are going to require atleast an extra 15k to cover expenses and risks, however, during the talks, the Johnson seems to get worried when the amount broke 18,000. You are pretty sure the 18k is all he was budgeted / allowed. While he seems to think he can scrape the extra together and is willing to pay it, you get the distinct impression he is going to have to be explaining the extra 7k (or covering it himself)"

The player could then chose to be 'generous' and balk down the payment some, (which would earn corresponding direct street cred and or very like in this case get a loyality 1 contact out of this johnson (since they bailed his arse out).
laughingowl
QUOTE (toturi)
QUOTE (laughingowl @ Sep 5 2007, 02:20 PM)
QUOTE (toturi @ Sep 5 2007, 04:10 AM)
QUOTE (laughingowl @ Sep 5 2007, 11:05 AM)
Player MAY state desired outcomes... and GMs (if reasonable) will often run with the outcomes...  but ONLY GMs can state outcomes.

No, most of the time only the GM can state the description of the outcomes. There is an exception.

When is the exception?

Critical Success.

tourti:

Coming into it a little late but since your post was a reply to me...

As others have said...

Flourishing detail is not chaning the 'outcome' it is adding adjectives to the outcome...


With an amazing shot, your shot drops the squad leader of the opposing security team...

(player) "Putting the round directly between his eye exploding his head like a watermelon..." (good flourishing detail, doesnt really change anything ... unless they needed his old headware memory smile.gif

(player) "covering the three nearest security guards in the splattered blood and brains...." (even this I would probably allow as no 'real effect' (though if somebody made an intimidation attempt to make them run, this 'flourishing detail' probably WOULD get a -1 threshold or so...."

(player) "covering the visor so they are totally blind and can't see whats going on....." (HELL NO.... the player now has gone from 'flourishing detail' to 'additional effect' the PLAYER can not make this call....

Now that being said... if they player scored very very well I might make the rulling to allow the above .... if I felt he had enough additional sucess on the attack roll... that he could have aimed in such a way to also cause this... but that is 'outcome' not 'flourishing detail' and that is my call (especially since no rules cover it.....
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (Kyoto Kid)
QUOTE (Cthulhudreams)
...Look at from the corp perspective - I don't send you out with a bottomless expense budget. I (the black ops line manager) assign an expense budget, you (The johnson) work with it. If pretty boy elf won't work with the expense budget, he doesn't get the job.
< snip >

...your points are well put and echo responses to the same concern I had expressed in past threads relating to this very topic.

I have since adopted a lot of these suggestions.

At the time this was getting out of hand it revolved around a single player who had abused the magic and adept system to the Nth degree. The character in question was a control/social mystic adept who used a Spirit of Man to boost her already obscene Charisma. It was either escalate the conflict (which didn't work) or throw up the hands and give her the top price just to keep things moving along for the other players. The thing is this same player also was in my old SRIII campaign with a similar type of character and never was able to pull off the level of stuff she did in 4th ed.

One of the downsides of your last suggestion is that the team doesn't accept the offer and walks. Basically the game session is over and everyone just wasted their time getting all their stuff ready and travelling to the location where the game was held. This was a distinct possibility I faced and personally I was not into doing all the prep work and drag myself halfway across town only to pack everything up after 15 minutes and go home. So it usually came down to cave into (and feed the ego of) the one player so the other players had a mission to go on, or have the Johnson stick to his offer & pack everything in when the team's spokesperson declines the offer.

Yes this was a player issue, but one that I feel was precipitated by the way the mechanics were set up.

Suffice to say, this particular situation has since been resolved.

The true way of the Jedi is to have a couple of runs reserved as emergency runs so that there is always a decent alternate.
Kyoto Kid
QUOTE (NightmareX)
QUOTE (Kyoto Kid @ Sep 4 2007, 01:33 AM)
Suffice to say, this particular situation has since been resolved.

How KK?

...old group dissolved, eventually, new group formed.

Again this was more heavily detailed in another thread and centered around a fairly disruptive and spotlight hogging player (who BTW, was also a long time acquaintance which made things even more difficult). The rest of the members basically said they had enough with this player and after the session was over mentioned they were not returning. Needless to say I felt totally embarrassed by the whole affair as I had brought a couple of the new players on board.

Back then, it was a very difficult situation for my hometown seemed pretty starved of SR players. Lots of people into the game that shall not be mentioned, Vampire, and Warhammer, but not so much SR. At the time, if I wanted to play SR, I felt had to make the best of a not so good situation. Yes, a big mistake in 20-20 hindsight.

After the dust settled and a bit of "damage control", I started looking for a new group for the RiS run. This time I spoke with prospective players one on one before we had our first meeting, telling them a bit about, the campaign setting, what style I ran in etc. A couple from the former group also re-joined. I guess this time my "Edge" paid off and I now have a very good group of players (and to my surprise, two campaigns going, one I am running (RiS) and one I actually get to play in instead of being the GM).

...however, let's put this to rest for it really has little to do with the main topic.
toturi
QUOTE (laughingowl)
tourti:

Coming into it a little late but since your post was a reply to me...

As others have said...

Flourishing detail is not chaning the 'outcome' it is adding adjectives to the outcome...


With an amazing shot, your shot drops the squad leader of the opposing security team...

(player) "Putting the round directly between his eye exploding his head like a watermelon..." (good flourishing detail, doesnt really change anything ... unless they needed his old headware memory smile.gif

(player) "covering the three nearest security guards in the splattered blood and brains...." (even this I would probably allow as no 'real effect' (though if somebody made an intimidation attempt to make them run, this 'flourishing detail' probably WOULD get a -1 threshold or so...."

(player) "covering the visor so they are totally blind and can't see whats going on....." (HELL NO.... the player now has gone from 'flourishing detail' to 'additional effect' the PLAYER can not make this call....

Now that being said... if they player scored very very well I might make the rulling to allow the above .... if I felt he had enough additional sucess on the attack roll... that he could have aimed in such a way to also cause this... but that is 'outcome' not 'flourishing detail' and that is my call (especially since no rules cover it.....

Except for the fact that unless you are invoking the GM-trump-card rule, it is "flourishing detail that she likes". It would mean that as long as the player holds out on the "she likes" part(I do not think anyone is actually going to dispute what that means), it would be an impasse so long as you continue to define "flourishing" to exclude what she wants to add.
Fortune
Sure, as long as it doesn't change the basic outcome of the action.
Donk
Allrighty Then,

I think this topic has strayed a bit Tangentilly a bit long enough....

Does anyone have and "hardest thing" comments about Street Magic and/or Augmentation?

-Donk
toturi
QUOTE (Donk)
Allrighty Then,

I think this topic has strayed a bit Tangentilly a bit long enough....

Does anyone have and "hardest thing" comments about Street Magic and/or Augmentation?

-Donk

You mean apart from Blud-lactus and its cyber tits and dick/s? biggrin.gif

Them cyber penile implants are really hard. sarcastic.gif ohplease.gif
Zhan Shi
I found Augmentation to be very tittilating.

Sorry, could'nt resist.

But to answer your question, I did'nt have anything against either book rules wise. You may want to check out the Augmentation: ask the developers thread.
Hartbaine
Is aug only avail as an E-Book or something? I usually order my stuff from Amazon, since I live an hour or so from the nearest actual city, so far it's not avail there...

Am I not in the loop or something??? rotfl.gif
Zhan Shi
No, it's been published. I would recommend nobleknight.com. Never had a problem with them.
Fortune
From the Shadowrun Web Site ...

QUOTE
Augmentation Street Date — August 31st!

Just a reminder that the street date for Augmentation is this Friday, August 31st. This means if your local gaming store has already ordered it, they should have received their copies this week and are allowed to start selling it on Friday. If stores have yet to order copies, they can start getting them within days of ordering them. Call your local game store and let them know you want Augmentation from Catalyst Game Labs!
Hartbaine
Awesome, thanks.
dhyde79
ok, lemme reach back and comment on a couple things here.....

(from page 1)

QUOTE

I would say that Carlos Hathcock was combination of extremely high skill, extremely high agility attribute, and natural talent for the work he performed. He does not hold the record for most kills, but some of the more outstanding ones, one until recently was a record for the longest kill.


this has always been a huge pet peeve of mine, and I don't say this to dog the achievements of one man, but, army snipers, marine snipers, and snipers of all other branches of the service have had just as much happen that, had the right people decided to try to measure things out and make a big deal out of, would have gotten them just as much credit as Hathcock got, he just was one of the first and did it in a place that wouldn't get anyone in trouble for admitting that they did it.

QUOTE

...Perception being a Physical Skill


I'm still coming to terms with this, as well as Dodge being a required skill instead of something you rolled your quickness attribute to test, as well as having to have a counterspelling skill (to have spell defense dice)

once you start to think about the fact that there are some that are WAY more perceptive than others, it makes sense that it became a skill. I understand it, I just hate having to remember it.

(from page 2)



QUOTE

(toturi)
Look at it from a game mechanic point of view. The roll ensures that the Johnson sucks it up and takes the fall. All the negative aspects of the result of the roll should already be factored into the roll itself. If the negotiator wins despite the negative modifiers these negative repercussions would produce, then the Johnson sucks it up. It is not the pretty elf boy won't work within the budget, it is the pretty elf boy convinced you that the budget is too small and it is unworkable. Since you have been convinced, you get the short end of the stick to work it so that the pretty elf boy gets his nuyen and you get your job done.


(irian)
Personally, I wouldn't allow that a simple roll makes the target brainless  Even if the Johnson succeds very well, the Runners will NOT work for free... So, I would rule that there are limits: A very good negotiation result will make the Johnson go to his limit - but he will not use more than his budget is, simply because he is not allowed to do so. At the very best, he will call his boss and ask.


(toturi)
I'll do that as soon as you show me where RAW states that there is a limit. Common sense tells me that if the rules do not state a limit, there isn't one. As long as you cannot do that, common sense simply cannot suffice.


please, tell me that this arguement was to prove a point and not actually serious, there's NO way you can talk someone out of money they don't have. it's really just that simple....I don't care how good your negotiations roll was, if the J only brought "X" amount of money, that's all you can talk him into paying you, or, you may talk him into more but when he gets back and you complete the run, you may find out you're being paid the excess in merchandise or company credit or something totally non-tangable

QUOTE

Why the hell can't you hit Zurich Orbital with a Hold Out with 10000 hits?


did I miss the page that says that you get extra range for every "X" number of hits?

as far as the arguements against having the sexual augmentations and rules in the books, honestly, my opinion stands at this: if you're mature enough to play a game in which you're running about planning and killing people, you certainly should be mature enough to accept that sexuality is a fact of life, and there are many parts of the world that're far less closed off about things of a remotely sexual nature than most people are in the US. Personally I wouldn't hesitate to utilize them....for example, how about a character who was in a catastrophic vehicle collision and lost the left side of his body from half way down the hips on, so, his left leg is fully cyber replaced, and, so that he might actually have some hope of maintaining a slight bit of dignity, he had a cyber-penis installed so that he might actually be able to please a woman if he by chance were to actually get a romantic interest NPC...

as far as the cussing and such goes, I honestly would like a mix of both, I can see the arguements that the current profanities have been around and they're not likely to go away, however, I also use ones like "frag" and "drek" while at work communicating with coworkers to convey the point of profaning without risking getting into trouble for using "vulgar language" and offending a customer.

all in all, I like 4th, I liked 3rd...I think I'm going to have far less math to do in 4th than I had in 3rd, which, makes me happier when gaming. (but a lot more to do in character gen)
hyzmarca
My issue with the codification of the cyberpenis and breast implants isn't the fact that they're sexual so much as the fact that Pamela Anderson is down a point of magic.
Playing a guy who was in a horrible car accident and has his penis replaced is great. But if you're playing a mage who had his penis replaced you automatically loose 10 BP and have your Magic cap reduced by 1.
The result is mechanical penalties for fluff roleplaying choices. Fluff roleplaying choices should have fluff roleplaying advantages and disadvantages.
I'm not advocating that everything must be balanced. That's silly. But codified penalties for pure fluff choices does nothing but penalize those who want to use the fluff in their roleplaying.
WearzManySkins
QUOTE

QUOTE

I would say that Carlos Hathcock was combination of extremely high skill, extremely high agility attribute, and natural talent for the work he performed. He does not hold the record for most kills, but some of the more outstanding ones, one until recently was a record for the longest kill.



this has always been a huge pet peeve of mine, and I don't say this to dog the achievements of one man, but, army snipers, marine snipers, and snipers of all other branches of the service have had just as much happen that, had the right people decided to try to measure things out and make a big deal out of, would have gotten them just as much credit as Hathcock got, he just was one of the first and did it in a place that wouldn't get anyone in trouble for admitting that they did it.


Interesting, so Sargent York's feat, any old sniper of the day could have done? That is kinda like saying "The Blonde Knight Of Germany"(Eric Hartmann) record of kills any old pilot could have done.

Yes it takes skill, training, but it also takes being at the right place, right time and right person.

From my experience US Military Snipers take well deserved pride in what they have accomplished, everyone whom(Mil Snipers) I have spoken with hold Hathcock in high esteem. Not only for the unique feats he accomplished, but also for what he did to bring US Military Snipers schools/training to SOTA.

A major part of what Hathcock did was counter sniper work, how could one get in trouble for that?

During acts of War or so called ones, many things are done, some not real nice to know that they take place, but that is why it is called War.
mfb
QUOTE (WearzManySkins)
A major part of what Hathcock did was counter sniper work, how could one get in trouble for that?

by telling stories about missions that didn't happen.
toturi
QUOTE (dhyde79)
QUOTE

(toturi)
Look at it from a game mechanic point of view. The roll ensures that the Johnson sucks it up and takes the fall. All the negative aspects of the result of the roll should already be factored into the roll itself. If the negotiator wins despite the negative modifiers these negative repercussions would produce, then the Johnson sucks it up. It is not the pretty elf boy won't work within the budget, it is the pretty elf boy convinced you that the budget is too small and it is unworkable. Since you have been convinced, you get the short end of the stick to work it so that the pretty elf boy gets his nuyen and you get your job done.


(irian)
Personally, I wouldn't allow that a simple roll makes the target brainless  Even if the Johnson succeds very well, the Runners will NOT work for free... So, I would rule that there are limits: A very good negotiation result will make the Johnson go to his limit - but he will not use more than his budget is, simply because he is not allowed to do so. At the very best, he will call his boss and ask.


(toturi)
I'll do that as soon as you show me where RAW states that there is a limit. Common sense tells me that if the rules do not state a limit, there isn't one. As long as you cannot do that, common sense simply cannot suffice.


please, tell me that this arguement was to prove a point and not actually serious, there's NO way you can talk someone out of money they don't have. it's really just that simple....I don't care how good your negotiations roll was, if the J only brought "X" amount of money, that's all you can talk him into paying you, or, you may talk him into more but when he gets back and you complete the run, you may find out you're being paid the excess in merchandise or company credit or something totally non-tangable

QUOTE

Why the hell can't you hit Zurich Orbital with a Hold Out with 10000 hits?


did I miss the page that says that you get extra range for every "X" number of hits?

It was totally serious. If the GM so chooses to state that the effect of the successful roll was that the Johnson pays more, then it is so. Or if the roll was a critical success, then the player may have a say as to what detail she would like to add.

Whoever said you were out of range? Like everyone else, you ASS-U-ME that Z-O is out of range. Did I miss the page that says you were out of range?
Cain
QUOTE

I'm still coming to terms with this, as well as Dodge being a required skill instead of something you rolled your quickness attribute to test, as well as having to have a counterspelling skill (to have spell defense dice)

once you start to think about the fact that there are some that are WAY more perceptive than others, it makes sense that it became a skill. I understand it, I just hate having to remember it.

It's not so much that Perception is now a skill (although the fact that you can now skillwire it is just silly) but that it's a physical skill. The only physical skill that doesn't link to a physical stat. So, if you're infirm, you're also oblivious... but you can buy a reflex recorder to make up for it. Like so many other things, this is just too silly for the game.

QUOTE
please, tell me that this arguement was to prove a point and not actually serious, there's NO way you can talk someone out of money they don't have. it's really just that simple....I don't care how good your negotiations roll was, if the J only brought "X" amount of money, that's all you can talk him into paying you, or, you may talk him into more but when he gets back and you complete the run, you may find out you're being paid the excess in merchandise or company credit or something totally non-tangable

Once again, canon sillyness. According to RAW, there's no upper limit to the number of successes you can get. So, there's no limit to the amount of money you can squeeze out of a Johnson. What's more, since this is likely to be a critical success, you can also talk him out of that nice watch he's wearing and the designer jacket his wife just blew a month's salary on.

Even if the excess is merchandise or corp scrip, it's more money for the team. There is absolutely no limit to how far a social adept could theoretically go. One point of Edge, and the 30-dice pornomancer gets exploding 6's... talk about disgusting.

QUOTE
as far as the arguements against having the sexual augmentations and rules in the books, honestly, my opinion stands at this: if you're mature enough to play a game in which you're running about planning and killing people, you certainly should be mature enough to accept that sexuality is a fact of life, and there are many parts of the world that're far less closed off about things of a remotely sexual nature than most people are in the US.

In addition to what Hyzmarca said, there's the fact that it took up time and effort that could have been spent on something more useful (Like an index), took up a ton of space that could have provided more usfeul stuff (like more cyber- and bio- toys), and was generally handled with all the maturity of Beavis and Butthead. Your opinion is valid, but it doesn't address the problems with how Augmentation deals with sexual augmentation.
WearzManySkins
QUOTE (mfb)
QUOTE (WearzManySkins)
A major part of what Hathcock did was counter sniper work, how could one get in trouble for that?

by telling stories about missions that didn't happen.

Oh what stories are those?

References please.

WMS
Draconis
QUOTE (toturi @ Sep 11 2007, 06:42 AM)
QUOTE (dhyde79 @ Sep 11 2007, 01:33 PM)
QUOTE

(toturi)
Look at it from a game mechanic point of view. The roll ensures that the Johnson sucks it up and takes the fall. All the negative aspects of the result of the roll should already be factored into the roll itself. If the negotiator wins despite the negative modifiers these negative repercussions would produce, then the Johnson sucks it up. It is not the pretty elf boy won't work within the budget, it is the pretty elf boy convinced you that the budget is too small and it is unworkable. Since you have been convinced, you get the short end of the stick to work it so that the pretty elf boy gets his nuyen and you get your job done.


(irian)
Personally, I wouldn't allow that a simple roll makes the target brainless  Even if the Johnson succeds very well, the Runners will NOT work for free... So, I would rule that there are limits: A very good negotiation result will make the Johnson go to his limit - but he will not use more than his budget is, simply because he is not allowed to do so. At the very best, he will call his boss and ask.


(toturi)
I'll do that as soon as you show me where RAW states that there is a limit. Common sense tells me that if the rules do not state a limit, there isn't one. As long as you cannot do that, common sense simply cannot suffice.


please, tell me that this arguement was to prove a point and not actually serious, there's NO way you can talk someone out of money they don't have. it's really just that simple....I don't care how good your negotiations roll was, if the J only brought "X" amount of money, that's all you can talk him into paying you, or, you may talk him into more but when he gets back and you complete the run, you may find out you're being paid the excess in merchandise or company credit or something totally non-tangable

QUOTE

Why the hell can't you hit Zurich Orbital with a Hold Out with 10000 hits?


did I miss the page that says that you get extra range for every "X" number of hits?

It was totally serious. If the GM so chooses to state that the effect of the successful roll was that the Johnson pays more, then it is so. Or if the roll was a critical success, then the player may have a say as to what detail she would like to add.

Whoever said you were out of range? Like everyone else, you ASS-U-ME that Z-O is out of range. Did I miss the page that says you were out of range?

This thread and logic still scares me. "Common sense tells me that if the rules do not state a limit, there isn't one." Otherwise known as the I can do whatever the hell I want unless you can show me the printed text that says otherwise clause.

Player: "I'm gonna pull a rabbit out of my ass and throw it at corpsec distracting him long enough for me to get away."

GM: "You're going to....wha?"

Player: "Rabbit...Ass... what part of that didn't you get?"

GM: "Um..I'm pretty sure you can't do that.."

Player: "Why not? Show me the rule that says I can't transport small furry mammals in my rectum!"

GM: "Screw this I'm going to go play Halo 3. Let me know when reality smacks you upside the head."
Critias
QUOTE (WearzManySkins)
QUOTE (mfb @ Sep 11 2007, 01:30 AM)
QUOTE (WearzManySkins)
A major part of what Hathcock did was counter sniper work, how could one get in trouble for that?

by telling stories about missions that didn't happen.

Oh what stories are those?

References please.

WMS

FWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

That's the sound of "the point" flying right past WMS's head.
toturi
QUOTE (Draconis @ Sep 11 2007, 03:32 PM)
This thread and logic still scares me.    "Common sense tells me that if the rules do not state a limit, there isn't one." Otherwise known as the I can do whatever the hell I want unless you can show me the printed text that says otherwise clause.

Player: "I'm gonna pull a rabbit out of my ass and throw it at corpsec distracting him long enough for me to get away." 

GM: "You're going to....wha?" 

Player: "Rabbit...Ass... what part of that didn't you get?" 

GM: "Um..I'm pretty sure you can't do that.." 

Player: "Why not? Show me the rule that says I can't transport small furry mammals in my rectum!" 

GM: "Screw this I'm going to go play Halo 3. Let me know when reality smacks you upside the head."

The rules tells you what you can do. If those rules do not state a limit to those actions, then there is none.

Player: "I'm gonna pull a rabbit out of my ass and throw it at corpsec distracting him long enough for me to get away."

GM: "There are no rules for pulling rabbits out of asses. But if you roll Sleight Of Hand well enough, you can pull a rabbit out of your ass if that's what you like."
hyzmarca
How big is the rabbit, how big is the PC, and does the PC regularly engage in exercises to increase his carrying capacity? Because, a small rabbit, yeah, it'll work. I'd require that it be on his carried equipment list, however.
Draconis
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
How big is the rabbit, how big is the PC, and does the PC regularly engage in exercises to increase his carrying capacity? Because, a small rabbit, yeah, it'll work. I'd require that it be on his carried equipment list, however.

Well I had a Vampire character that once hid a painting....uh nevermind.

Yes equipment list, I can see the GM thinking. "Hmmm how did that one slip by me?"
Player: *points to character sheet* "Right here bitch, Rabbit in Ass. The ultimate hold out weapon."
hyzmarca
Armageddon!

rotfl.gif rotfl.gif rotfl.gif rotfl.gif

While the keister actually is a viable rodent storage compartment, the original sentiment stands.

A better example would be that the game doesn't specify that you can't eat an aircraft carrier whole without chewing. But common sense says that you can't. Also, it would make aircraft carriers sort of useless.
Kyleigh Wester
This argument is kind of silly considering that the game changes from GM to Gm, not just in house rules, but by how the house rules are taken. Personally, I take things with a grain of realism. Unless you actually shuved a rabbit up your ass before the mission, you can not pull it from there. You can't shoot space stations and you definitely can't take more money then someone has. If I played with players that insisted they could though, needless to say, all my Johnsons would have maxed out willpowers and pre-prepped anti social abilities so far out the ass that everytime the PCs open their mouth they lose 500 Nuyen. I can see it now. If theres anything i've learned it's never, EVER, piss off your GM. because he does have the power to fuck you.

I'd say it's best not to do physics defying stuff that pisses off your GM, because he can and will seek vengence.
Draconis
QUOTE (Kyleigh Wester)
I'd say it's best not to do physics defying stuff that pisses off your GM, because he can and will seek vengence.

Ya after you shoot Z-O out of the sky it'll fall on you. biggrin.gif
darthmord
I believe the operative phrase is...

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and go well with ketchup.

Note, I've always assumed the GM was a dragon.
eidolon
QUOTE (Draconic)
Otherwise known as the I can do whatever the hell I want unless you can show me the printed text that says otherwise clause.


When I'm getting ready to run a game, the first thing I do is go through all of the books with a magic marker and black out that clause.
WearzManySkins
QUOTE (WearzManySkins)
QUOTE (mfb @ Sep 11 2007, 01:30 AM)
QUOTE (WearzManySkins)
A major part of what Hathcock did was counter sniper work, how could one get in trouble for that?

by telling stories about missions that didn't happen.

Oh what stories are those?

References please.

WMS

rotfl.gif

Wrong Again biggrin.gif

I am attempting to find out if that poster has any real information to back up that.

Or was just regurgitating non factual information, with out verifying same.

As for verifying I would ask said poster to post such to
http://www.snipercentral.com/
http://www.marinescoutsniper.com/
http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/

And then see that those in the "trade" have to say about that posters "So Called" information. biggrin.gif

WMS
Adarael
I prefer to leave that clause in there, and just black-marker the crap out of any player that uses it.

Preserves the books, don't you know.

And, uh... WMS? You did, in fact, miss the point. They were saying he could have gotten in trouble by talking about missions that 'didn't happen' - that is to say, missions that they didn't want him to admit occurred and were black ops, CIA-funded, or otherwise compromising to national policy/security secrets.

Sorry. You missed it.
WearzManySkins
@Adarael

From all I have read or heard about Carlos Hathcock he never spoke/wrote of anything that was not "allowed".

Did he do "Spook" missions, more than likely, but for me that will be unverifiable. Thanks the Gods, my clearance was never anywhere near that level.

As for the point, you are in part correct. smile.gif

As for the original point, the "Spook" ops may have better shots taken or at better ranges and even with better rifles, but being "Spook" ops we will more than likely never know.

There is a possibility that Carlos Hathcock himself made better shots under even more conditions, but since if they did occur under "Spook" ops, we will never know.

For non "Spook" ops, Carlos Hathcock's accomplishments are most impressive. From what I have gathered he did not "Beat his own drum" to gain fame.

WMS
Adarael
Let's back up. You asked:

"How could a counter-terrorist sniper get in trouble for talking about sniping?"
The responding funny was, translated,
"He could talk about black ops that nobody's supposed to know about."
You said,
"Prove he did any!"

It was just a funny. I don't think anyone was trying to make a serious point with the crack.
WearzManySkins
OK lets back up

QUOTE

this has always been a huge pet peeve of mine, and I don't say this to dog the achievements of one man, but, army snipers, marine snipers, and snipers of all other branches of the service have had just as much happen that, had the right people decided to try to measure things out and make a big deal out of, would have gotten them just as much credit as Hathcock got, he just was one of the first and did it in a place that wouldn't get anyone in trouble for admitting that they did it.


Carlos was not just another sniper. He was an outstanding, gifted and talented person. To me what is quoted above is Dogging his accomplishments, despite words to the contrary. That is like saying just any baseball player could beat Ty Cobbs records.

I said
QUOTE

A major part of what Hathcock did was counter sniper work, how could one get in trouble for that?


Response was
QUOTE

by telling stories about missions that didn't happen.


How is counter sniper work and "Spook" ops related?

WMS
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