Cardul
Jan 15 2008, 07:03 AM
The GM needs the players as much as the players need the GM. Without the Players, all the GM's work for that session goes out the window.
GM Rule Zero is: I can adjust the rules as needed to keep the game fun for my players.
Player Rule Zero is: The GM is the final word. Quit arguing about rules minutiae and play.
Player trying to make the shot at a boat a click out to sea..Well, OK..SURE I can see that, he or she might even hit the boat. However, the GM has the right to set the threshold, and if you are talking an Edge only shot with a Threshold of 5..and then, they have to damage the boat...Then, no, it is not likely that a player will take out boat with a long shot like that.
Shooting through the viewport of a CityMaster is entirely possible. Shooting the machine gunner for the squad in the buttoned up back seat, however, is not. Nor are you going to hit the gas tank. The CityMaster is NOT a Ford Pinto or a School Bus. It is an ARMOURED personnel carrier. Now, if you shoot through the driver's viewport and there is not somene sitting there..guess what: you just hit their seat. The bullet does NOT turn left, go three blocks over, hang a right, go into the ares building, zig-zag through the people there, knock on the door where the rigger is, wait for smene to open it, then go flying in to the hit the rigger dead in the head. Bullets go in a ballistic arc.
Now, if you ARE going to try the old "I am going to take this shot: Going to richoshet my bullet off the church bell, off the car door, and hit you in the back", Um..well...THAT is going to have a high threshold(4, I would think), and have a -10 or so situational penalty, then the -4 called shot penalty for the first rchet, then -4 for the second. And, I would also halve the damage after each ricochette, so the bullet would be at 1/4 damage.
That is what a GM does. The GM applies the rules, and, when something is not covered by the rules, they make a way to handle it on the spot. Oh, and the GM, not the player, assigns Thresholds. I do not care hw many dice you roll, the GM can ALWAYS assign an unreachable Threshold. I am sorry, Cain, that your GM is so incompetant as to be unable to say "Well, you can't hit him..He is behind 2 feet of vehicular armour, and your pistol just cannot break that barrier rating."
toturi
Jan 15 2008, 08:08 AM
QUOTE (Cardul) |
That is what a GM does. The GM applies the rules, and, when something is not covered by the rules, they make a way to handle it on the spot. Oh, and the GM, not the player, assigns Thresholds. I do not care hw many dice you roll, the GM can ALWAYS assign an unreachable Threshold. I am sorry, Cain, that your GM is so incompetant as to be unable to say "Well, you can't hit him..He is behind 2 feet of vehicular armour, and your pistol just cannot break that barrier rating." |
"But you see, this vehicle has a particular flaw in the vehicular armor that usually isn't particularly vulnerable, but you hit it just right and while the armor holds, the effect is such that the person you are shooting at suffers damage as if you had hit him." Mirroring your argument Cardul, I'm sorry if your GM is incompetent as to be unable to say, "I'd allow it."
It is more a matter of whether something detracts from the enjoyment of the game or it enhances the enjoyment of the game. If your group enjoys such things, then go for it. If your group does not, then don't. Competence (or the lack thereof) should not come into play, although ideally a GM should be competent enough to allow something within the rules without invoking the rule that allows him to ignore those rules he is unable(I do not want to use the word "incompetent") to adequately explain in a plausible manner.
Fortune
Jan 15 2008, 08:19 AM
The rule specifically calls for the GM to adjudicate the availability of any and all such vulnerabilities.
QUOTE (SR4 pg. 149) |
The gamemaster decides if such a vulnerable spot is accessible. |
Cardul
Jan 15 2008, 09:33 AM
QUOTE (toturi) |
"But you see, this vehicle has a particular flaw in the vehicular armor that usually isn't particularly vulnerable, but you hit it just right and while the armor holds, the effect is such that the person you are shooting at suffers damage as if you had hit him." Mirroring your argument Cardul, I'm sorry if your GM is incompetent as to be unable to say, "I'd allow it."
It is more a matter of whether something detracts from the enjoyment of the game or it enhances the enjoyment of the game. If your group enjoys such things, then go for it. If your group does not, then don't. Competence (or the lack thereof) should not come into play, although ideally a GM should be competent enough to allow something within the rules without invoking the rule that allows him to ignore those rules he is unable(I do not want to use the word "incompetent") to adequately explain in a plausible manner. |
The problem with Cain's argument is that he is saying the GM MUST allow all such vulnerabilities to exist. According to him, because the book gives the GM the decision to say "yes, you can do it" or "no, that's pure BS, and won't work," the GM must allow the flat out impossible. (Then again, he also seems to think there is a mechanical difference in difficulty between rolling just your edge dice for a -1 net dice pool, and a -300 net dice pool, even though the RAW do not indicate so.)
My GM tends to use the the 'don't say no, set a difficulty' approach, but, even she will not do that for something impossible. Now, if I could justify something really well, sure, she would let me try something that is NEARLY impossible. But no way is a bullet going to do what Cain seems to think they do and fly to Lone Star's office, through the crowded building, and hit the rigger at his console 20 miles away, let alone fly to a concrete bunker in Australia from Seattle in one combat pass.
Now, could I try to make a shot into the hydraulics on the underside of the City master? Sure. Could I shoot through its engine block? Maybe..what gun am I using? A Warhawk? Possible..a holdout pistol? That would be a flat out longshot.
However, the problem is that Cain seems to assume that if someone brought a rigged Stonewall down the street, that ANYONE can "longshot it" t take it out with a holdout pistol through the Rigger in his bunker in Atlanta(while you are in Seattle).
If something is improbably, you give it a difficulty. If something is flat out impossible, you just say so.
In your example, Toturi, a) I would have to explain how it was working, and b) would have to demonstrate that my character would know that. In Cain's GM's world, you do not have to bother as you apparently know eveyrhting about every vehicle in existence. In fact, in Cain's GM's world, why bother trying to shoot the person in the vehicle? Why not just go ahead and shoot the ammo? That will destroy the vehicle AND potentially kill/cripple the rigger from the dumpshock of being torn apart by explosions from the inside out.
As Fortune pointed out, the rule says the GM, not the player, determines if such vulnerabilities exist. Since Cain's GM NEVER says "No", and Cain comes here and complains about the system like he does, he is obviously not having fun, so the GM always saying "Yes" is obviously running counter to keeping the game fun, so thus, the GM is incompetant.(Now, if Cain does not have a GM...well, I know I would not GM for him..)
Cain
Jan 15 2008, 09:48 AM
Once again, you guys are derailing your own argument. Forest for the trees, forest for the trees. Oh, and quit the Ad Hominems and Straw Men, they really show that you have no argument.
And a GM cannot suddenly pull house rules out of his butt. For example, the rules clearly state that Thresholds do not apply in combat. Suddenly deciding they do, in defiance of the rules, is a symbol of GM asshattery in the greatest degree. The GM has neither the right nor responsibility to do so.
And now for the part where I really start to rant....
QUOTE |
Given that the GM is running the game, and without him, you've got nada, I'd wager he's a *little* more important than any single player. |
BULLDREK!!
The GM has nothing without players. He has more responsibility, but no real authority.
Don't understand the concept? You've got a mother, right? As a parent, I have a hell of a lot more responsibility than non-parents. Do I actually have any more authority than you do? Hell no. Are parents necessary for things to happen? Better believe it, bucko.
A GM is like a parent in that respect, except that the players aren't children. And that's exactly the attitude I'm witnessing here. This really sets me off.
toturi
Jan 15 2008, 09:53 AM
QUOTE (Cardul) |
In your example, Toturi, a) I would have to explain how it was working, and b) would have to demonstrate that my character would know that. In Cain's GM's world, you do not have to bother as you apparently know eveyrhting about every vehicle in existence. In fact, in Cain's GM's world, why bother trying to shoot the person in the vehicle? Why not just go ahead and shoot the ammo? That will destroy the vehicle AND potentially kill/cripple the rigger from the dumpshock of being torn apart by explosions from the inside out.
As Fortune pointed out, the rule says the GM, not the player, determines if such vulnerabilities exist. Since Cain's GM NEVER says "No", and Cain comes here and complains about the system like he does, he is obviously not having fun, so the GM always saying "Yes" is obviously running counter to keeping the game fun, so thus, the GM is incompetant.(Now, if Cain does not have a GM...well, I know I would not GM for him..) |
In my example, you as a player do not know that such a vulnerability exists. The GM says that it does because he has allowed Edge use and the Called Shot rules. You do not need to demonstrate that you know the weakness. Your GM comes up with the explanation to explain the result of his allowing you to use Edge and the Called Shot rules. As far as I can tell, Cain isn't complaining that his GM allows it but he is complaining in a generic manner that a GM should allow it and once it is allowed, strange things happen. As far as I am concerned, strange things should happen when you use Edge and there's nothing wrong with his example.
Cardul
Jan 15 2008, 11:39 AM
QUOTE (toturi) |
In my example, you as a player do not know that such a vulnerability exists. The GM says that it does because he has allowed Edge use and the Called Shot rules. You do not need to demonstrate that you know the weakness. Your GM comes up with the explanation to explain the result of his allowing you to use Edge and the Called Shot rules. As far as I can tell, Cain isn't complaining that his GM allows it but he is complaining in a generic manner that a GM should allow it and once it is allowed, strange things happen. As far as I am concerned, strange things should happen when you use Edge and there's nothing wrong with his example. |
See, there is the difference between you and my group. We see using Edge for a Longshot as those things where you are attempting something that you KNOW is not likely to work, but it is the "Slim chance, or no-chance" type situation. Situations where it is ENTIRELY luck for you to get what you need. The player has to say what they are trying for when they shoot, and tell why they think it is possible if it is something really whacky. Your example, there is no way such a thing could happen other then faulty manufacturing of the whole line. In which case, Lone Star, an Ares subisidiary, would certainly NOT have those Ares Citymasters. We would see them being sold to Knight Errant, or to the PCC.And, every runner would know about that and be using that weakness. You argue that using Edge means freaky things will happen. Me, my GM, and the rest of our players argue that Edge is just luck. Edge allows the improbable not the impossible.
Fuchs
Jan 15 2008, 12:03 PM
Since the GM usually spends more time preparing and running a campaign, he/she has more of a say in what is done and how.
toturi
Jan 15 2008, 12:36 PM
QUOTE (Cardul) |
See, there is the difference between you and my group. We see using Edge for a Longshot as those things where you are attempting something that you KNOW is not likely to work, but it is the "Slim chance, or no-chance" type situation. Situations where it is ENTIRELY luck for you to get what you need. The player has to say what they are trying for when they shoot, and tell why they think it is possible if it is something really whacky. Your example, there is no way such a thing could happen other then faulty manufacturing of the whole line. In which case, Lone Star, an Ares subisidiary, would certainly NOT have those Ares Citymasters. We would see them being sold to Knight Errant, or to the PCC.And, every runner would know about that and be using that weakness. You argue that using Edge means freaky things will happen. Me, my GM, and the rest of our players argue that Edge is just luck. Edge allows the improbable not the impossible. |
As far as I am concerned, while certain things may be statistically impossible, nothing is truly impossible. Everything is possible. Improbable simply means that the event is unlikely to happen - like a Critical Glitch on 10 dice.
Ryu
Jan 15 2008, 01:04 PM
The GM has higher authority than any player. Players that can´t accept that are not welcome in my group, regardless of who GMs on a given day.
I have had two authority-callenged players in my group, so I know all those "you have to stick to the rules, that is not what happens" arguments. The GM has to provide a fun adventure, and is supposed to stick to the rules. But fun and consistency are more important than RAW. The GM is responsible for that balance because he got the authority to call the shots.
Both players in question have had less-than-satisfactory parent relationships in their youth, so trust-issues are the core of the matter.
We do it the way tisoz says. The GM would tell the player that there is a vulnerability based on the knowledge skills of the character. I will not have a player tell me "I bypass armor". He may ask if he can, but he can´t decide. You need the armor example because it provides those nice, ultra-high negative DP mods. Our game rarely has people attempt things that reduce DPs to zero, that is not as easy as it sounds. If you sucked going in, longshot is only a genious inspiration making you competent for a few seconds.
DTFarstar
Jan 15 2008, 02:54 PM
Ok, Cain, calm down. I really didn't expect much response from my earlier post and as such just kind of typed by stream of consciousness. What I should have said instead of "The GM is always right" is that "When conflict arises between interpretations of the gaming system or when the system calls for detailed descriptions(including possible weaknesses exploitable by called shots) then the GM is the ultimate arbiter. It is his job to decide on the default interpretation of anything players disagree on in the rules and it is his job to fill in the blanks on EVERYTHING the BBB did not have the time and/or did not feel the need to explain fully. The players play their characters, the GM plays the world. It is his job to decide how everything works(yes this means interpreting the rules, if you have ever found a gaming system that did not require mutual interpretation and explanation by the GM then... well, tell me about it dammit. I have players that just don't understand things well sometimes) and make sure the world fits the players. Or the other way around depending on which one they prefer. He is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts and even reality itself in his gaming world. Simply because nothing can go forward without everyone agreeing on an interpretation of the rules and generally his will ultimately win out."
I would like to say the only bad GM I played under was more eager to help the characters than the NPCs so it was impossible for us to lose. Maybe if I played under an asshat GM that railroaded us at every turn and forced a weird interpretation of the rules down our throats I would feel differently, but in my opinion those people just shouldn't be GMs and if you stick them in ANY system they will find a way to impose their will on the players because they GM not because it is fun or they want to provide fun for their friends, but because it gives them a sense of power and they need to grow the hell up.
Chris
Apathy
Jan 15 2008, 03:02 PM
[EDIT] Deleted because it was just flame-bait.
toturi
Jan 15 2008, 03:12 PM
QUOTE (Ryu) |
The GM has higher authority than any player. Players that can´t accept that are not welcome in my group, regardless of who GMs on a given day. |
A GM does not have authority. He has the responsibilty to do certain things, but that does not give him any authority. Any GM that thinks he has authority over other players is likely to firmly rebuked in my group.
Ryu
Jan 15 2008, 03:52 PM
How can you have responsibility without gaining authority? Notice that I said "higher authority than any player", not "the authority". Notice that I also said that the GM is supposed to follow the rules.
Take the example at hand. If there was a weakness in vehicle armor, I´d very likely use option 4 and give a DP mod reflecting difficulty. Another player may call me up on "bypassing armor mods are different". Not simply accepting reasonable GM calls leads to discussion. If you are willing to accept reasonable GM calls, without checking if the rules say so, you just afforded the GM personal authority over the game. As for how the players have less authority, thats simple. They do not get to make up thresholds as they see fit.
Player/GM: "There is some previous, unfixed battle damage on his hardened armor. Real easy to hit, so the DP mod should only be -4, not -12". Who may say such things?
Maybe we have a misunderstanding about the meaning of authority. There are many different degrees of authority, and absolute authority is certainly not what I meant.
Kyoto Kid
Jan 15 2008, 04:04 PM
...however, the players also have nothing without the GM. It goes both ways. If you want total anarchy, that is fine, I don't. Before I start a campaign I sit down with all the players to make sure everyone is on the same page. I let them know that if there is a discrepancy in the rules we can stop go out of character an discuss it but we also need to agree on a solution and move on, not belabour the Nth little detail for 45 minutes like "does the sun reflecting off the mustard on the target''s soydog gives you a -1 to your DP to shoot him." If the GM has no final say on a rules impasse, than we might as well be playing Chutes & Ladders or something like that.
[edit]
@Ryu: you slipped in before I was able to post my response. I agree with your take. the Iron Fist approach the situation generally alienates the players, but the GM must still maintain a good degree of control so the game does not descend into total chaos.
...OK I'm up to five seven Zlotys now.
...I think this discussion needs its own thread for we have gotten way off base from the OP which again I found rather interesting.
Dashifen
Jan 15 2008, 04:07 PM
Deep breaths, folks. This is a great discussion, one that has made me re-examine my own feelings on the role of the GM in a game.
Non moderating message:
I agree with KK. I think the GM stuff could legitimately spin off into its own thread. It's pretty interspersed above, but if there's an interest, I can split it off of this one so that we don't have to cover any old ground. I just didn't want to do it without making sure it wouldn't come as a surprise. Thoughts?
Ryu
Jan 15 2008, 04:42 PM
My vote goes to splitting the thread.
Sincere apologies if I offended someone.
Jhaiisiin
Jan 15 2008, 04:50 PM
The thread has evolved on it's own, I think, and it's been a slow but consistent flow through the thread, so it's likely going to be difficult to split reliably. My vote would be to keep it as is.
In the gaming groups I play in, all of our players and the GM's understand 2 things: First, we're here to have an enjoyable experience, and we'll do that as best we can within the rules and such, and Second, When the GM calls "Game On," they are the god of the RPG universe. We can debate rule interpretations if they come up, but he/she has the final say-so, and no one can dispute that once the decision is made without VERY good reason. We all know this, understand this, and more importantly, we respect this boundary.
In our world, the GM not only has more responsibility, but is the single most important person at the table BECAUSE of the responsibilities he/she has. Maybe that doesn't match your experience, and maybe that torques you off, Cain, but just because you don't like it doesn't change the validity of the opinion of some of the other posters like myself who feel the GM IS more important/has more authority/is more responsible than the players.
Kyoto Kid
Jan 15 2008, 05:08 PM
...so what do we do with the original topic of "Game Level"? Do we "houserule" it to a new thread and let this "stepchild" discussion take over?
Critias
Jan 15 2008, 05:27 PM
You know, the effect you're going for, with the big font, and the underlines, and the bold, and the italics, and the color change, and the exclamation point, and the caps and all that? That effect? Yeah. It's pretty much lost when you won't, for whatever reason, cut the cutesy SR slang and make yourself say "Bullshit."
Just so you know. For, I dunno, next time you decide to flip out, or whatever.
Kyoto Kid
Jan 15 2008, 05:33 PM
...ahhh...I may not be a mod but still, this is beginning to get just a tad personal here...
Caine Hazen
Jan 15 2008, 06:00 PM
Ok kids its time for some more moderators post; we've been in IM discussing this, so here goes:
First: Use of all capital, over-sized, red letters is a written metaphor for hostile yelling. Even the use of all capitals is generally recognized as yelling. If you are so enraged and unable to debate without attempting to drown out the other voices, step away, calm down and return when you can post in a civil manner. This is mostly for Cain, but you should all take it to heart.
Second: Stop baiting, plain and simple. Critias, that's for your post mostly, but it goes for all of this.
We ask that this be brought back around to the intelligent discourse that was going on previously; this is the third admin warning, and this thread keeps coming to our attention, so we ask you to play nice.
mfb
Jan 15 2008, 06:14 PM
QUOTE (Jhaiisiin) |
Rules are there to provide the basic mechanical framework for a world, and give you what you need to figure out how the world works, but it's the interpretation of those rules that determines the actual flow of the world, and what does and does not work. If a rule specifically states something can or cannot happen, then that's how it is (ignoring house rules atm).[/quote] |
interpretation is important, but ideally, it's not required. no game system can possibly achieve that ideal, of course, but a good game system will limit the amount of interpretation necessary to run the game.
Cain
Jan 15 2008, 06:52 PM
QUOTE |
How can you have responsibility without gaining authority? Notice that I said "higher authority than any player", not "the authority". |
I said this before. I am a parent. I have a hell of a lot more responsibility than you do, assuming you're not a parent. Does that mean I have any more authority here on Dumpshock than you do? Do I have access to moderator controls?
I have a lot of responsibility. I have no more authority than anyone else to bring my plans to fruition.
And once again, lest people take the metaphor too far: a GM is like a parent, but the players are not like children. Which is an attitude people here continue to take.
QUOTE |
The GM has higher authority than any player. Players that can´t accept that are not welcome in my group, regardless of who GMs on a given day. |
This is exactly the attitude I'm talking about. "My way or the highway!" "You will do as I say, and you will like it." Sure, you claim you don't railroad your players left and right, but you demand total obesiance from your group. You may try to do it nicely, but you still insist on absolute power, and we all know what happens with that.
QUOTE |
If the GM has no final say on a rules impasse, than we might as well be playing Chutes & Ladders or something like that. |
One responsibility of being a GM is being a mediator. Does that mean a mediator has authority over the delegates? Hell, the US is trying to moderate peace talks in the Middle East as we speak. Do we have final say over anything that happens over there?
QUOTE |
It is his job to decide how everything works(yes this means interpreting the rules, if you have ever found a gaming system that did not require mutual interpretation and explanation by the GM then... well, tell me about it dammit. |
I've played several story-based narrative games that qualify. Granted, they don't even attempt to do some of the things Shadowrun does, but they do fit the bill. Coming immediately to mind are
Wushu and
Capes. Wushu doesn't involve the GM arbitrating what's impossible, that responsibility is shared amongst all the players, through use of the Veto. And Capes has no GM fiat at all.
QUOTE |
In our world, the GM not only has more responsibility, but is the single most important person at the table BECAUSE of the responsibilities he/she has. Maybe that doesn't match your experience, and maybe that torques you off, Cain, but just because you don't like it doesn't change the validity of the opinion of some of the other posters like myself who feel the GM IS more important/has more authority/is more responsible than the players. |
Spoken like someone stuck in the 80's. Have you *tried* a narrative, story-based game? Something like what a Forgite might come up with? Then you'd know that GM authority is largely optional, and a bit of a relic. You can play an RPG without the GM having absolute dominion over the players. Hell, you can have a very fun game with absolutely no GM authority at all. What's more, you an take the lessons learned from the narrative games and bring it into the traditional ones, such as Savage Worlds or Shadowrun. You're essentially saying: "Oldsmobiles are the best car on the road" when you've never driven anything but an Oldsmobile.
Kyoto Kid
Jan 15 2008, 07:22 PM
...original topic "rebooted" in new thread
Jhaiisiin
Jan 15 2008, 07:41 PM
QUOTE ("Cain") |
I said this before. I am a parent. I have a hell of a lot more responsibility than you do, assuming you're not a parent. Does that mean I have any more authority here on Dumpshock than you do? Do I have access to moderator controls? |
You being a parent has no bearing whatsoever on your status inside the realm of Dumpshock. I'm not even sure what you're trying to accomplish with bringing this up right now.
QUOTE ("Cain") |
Spoken like someone stuck in the 80's. Have you *tried* a narrative, story-based game? |
Thanks for the insults. I was born in '79, so it's hard for me to be "stuck in the 80's." For that matter, most of our group is in the mid-early 20's range as well. Our group's preferred rule set is *not* Shadowrun. As a matter of fact, it's White Wolf storyteller systems (Pre-new WOD Crap). I've even participated in free-form online RPG's that *didn't* have a GM at all. So yes, I've played that way, and our entire group (that's 9 of us by the way) respect and prefer the method of the GM being the leader of the session, and having the authority/responsibility to direct things if needed. If we didn't allow that authority, one of our players would consistently do shit that is idiotic, irrational, impulsive and flat out stupid, and then get away with it.
So no, I'm not saying "This way is the best way" because I've never done anything else. I'm saying "This is my preferred way" because I've tried and disliked the others. Stop trying to invalidate other's opinions just because you don't agree with them.
Nightwalker450
Jan 15 2008, 07:57 PM
How do you do shadowrun without a GM? I would love it if everyone could just sit down and play, instead of one person having to spend (hours, days, weeks, months?) planning whats going on. And then that person having to surrender everything to the players because the rules don't say that they can't stop a vehicle with a hold-out pistol.
I'm the rules lawyer in my group (I feel dirty saying that, but I am). But when the GM says something happens, I don't argue on how its not possible or whatever. He says some hacker saw me through my rating 10 stealth, yet I never caught him with 6-7 hits on my analyze ok. Its my job as our teams hacker to learn from my mistake (whatever it might be), and figure out how to avoid this in the future. My character doesn't have the BBB so as a player I go with what the GM says is happening.
When I say I'm the rules lawyer, I'm the one who's constantly flipping through the book to find what dice should be rolled, or correcting players/GM on what should be rolled. If the GM says something happens, well even the BBB says that he's right. If he's given skill name/object type/whatever, and I can find the chart I'll correct him. So if called shot requires a GM approval, thats the rule.
Ryu
Jan 15 2008, 07:59 PM
The parent/child relationship is not what I am thinking about. I think my post after the one you cited explains what I mean.
The moderator example you give is actually fine. The moderator is only one stakeholder amongst others, but he is given a few rights to make things move on. That gives him authority. Maybe to make demands that noone follows, but that is an authority, too.
You should remember your own argument - players are free. If they don´t assign a high priority to the game, I will never move a campaign on. But we are playing in about the same constellation once per week (some hard time constraints can´t be avoided). That was different when 25% of a given session where spend on rules discussions.
Important things can always be discussed out of game time, its mostly even better that way. And outside the game there is no GM.
knasser
Jan 15 2008, 08:07 PM
On the subject of GM authority, I believe that a GM does have greater authority in the running of the game than the players. That authority is granted to her by the players who are obviously alone in being able to do so.
A GM creates the world, its inhabitants and the adventures within it. It is fantasy to think that authority does not reside within the GM. Arbitration of the rules is such a minor thing in comparison. In my history as a GM (over a decade), players have usually granted me authority in rules interpretations and it's partly because as a GM I'm expected to know the rules far better than they, but for the main it's because as GM they realise it's important for me to have that authority if the game isn't going to turn into nothing but people telling stories at each other.
-K.
Apathy
Jan 15 2008, 09:23 PM
QUOTE (Cain) |
I said this before. I am a parent. I have a hell of a lot more responsibility than you do, assuming you're not a parent. Does that mean I have any more authority here on Dumpshock than you do? Do I have access to moderator controls?
I have a lot of responsibility. I have no more authority than anyone else to bring my plans to fruition. |
As a parent, you have a great deal of responsibility in the context of the care, safety, and development of your child. Your responsibilities as a parent are entirely limited to the context of being a parent. Being a parent does not make you any more responsible for the situation in the middle east, or the declining value of the dollar, or for hijacked threads on Dumpshock that spiral out of control. Similarly, as a parent, you have a great deal of authority in the context of the care, safety, and development of your child. You get to supervise and shape the child's initial belief system, sense of self, priorities, etc. So in your example, authority and responsibility do go hand in hand. Otherwise, you're saying that the government, teachers, strangers on the street have just as much authority to impact the growth of your child as you do.
If I'm a GM for a game, I have the responsibility to create a game world and moderate an experience that will be fun for everyone. My experience has been that the most effective approach to this includes sitting down with the players in the beginning and setting the ground rules for everyone's expectations. If there's a question on how to rule something, do we stop and spend 30 minutes leafing through source books, or 'wing it' and look it up after gaming is done? Do we want a gritty street level game or something epic? Heroic values or dark, dystopian ones? Within the context of the GM's responsibility to 'paint the world', the GM needs to have the authority to realistically relate these outcomes within the framework of the rules, and the mutually agreed-upon setting.
Being a GM doesn't give one more authority on Dumpshock, or political discussions, or anywhere else except for within the campaign but within the game he GMs he is the final authority. His ability to do this in a way that is fun for everyone (including himself) ultimately defines whether he's a good GM or a poor one.
Fortune
Jan 15 2008, 10:25 PM
I have been thinking about how to word a response to Cain, but probably wouldn't have come up with anything better than that.
Nightwalker450
Jan 16 2008, 03:51 AM
(Could we get a name change to this topic since it's now more GM role than game level?)
Something in a different thread made me think of this. The team entirely derailing and deciding to screw their jobs and head to a different city. I haven't had to deal with this per say, but I have had players who would practically refuse to go along with the group in any way shape or form. And were dead set on me finding a way to "inspire" their character to go along, but railroading them would make them angry. Its a starting character for crying out loud, how should I know what you have in mind for them. If the whole team derailed I could probably handle it but I'm not one who's going to run a private campaign for one person while trying to cater to the other 4 people in the group who are actively trying to be a team. Little to say, since our last campaign fell apart (people moving, time schedules changing etc...), they weren't invited back when we started our next campaign.
Fortune
Jan 16 2008, 04:13 AM
QUOTE (Nightwalker450) |
Could we get a name change to this topic since it's now more GM role than game level? |
That would be counter-productive for the first few pages of the thread, that are actually still on topic. New people that are interested in the listed topic will still be able to know of its existence and read the initial responses. In my opinion, anyone who is interested in continuing the discussion already is aware of the topic drift.
klinktastic
Jan 16 2008, 04:20 AM
Honestly, it is both the GM and the players who hold responsibility for running the game. The GM must listen to the players and their aspirations for their characters. In kind, the players must allow the GM to weave a world that can accommodate each players' desires. Therefore the players must work together to develop complimentary character/story hooks.
Additionally, both parties must be dedicated to the game. If people stay engaged with the game, both the GM and the players will exude more effort, which in turn fuels further interest. This should be the primary focus of the GM, because he must make the players care about their character and want to see their prospective characters develop and grow. We all no nothing kills a gaming group like one bad player or someone who only shows up occasionally. Consistent gaming will also increase enthusiasm, furthering the group and the game.
So, I think its save to conclude, that both the players and the GM are responsible for the success of the group as a whole, each with their respective parts in keeping the group going and fun.
Fuchs
Jan 16 2008, 07:43 AM
Game situations will always be open to interpretation, even if the rules were iron-clad. The GM is responsible for creating the game world's details. He plays NPCs, so he ultimately decides how they think and act. Of course there's a basic consensus about the game between players and GM. Players should know what to expect, generally, from NPCs and the world so they can play their characters.
But the players should not start to pull out the rules books, and go on about how a street cop NPC is not supposed to have three initiative passes if the GM has decided that that particular street cop is a former SWAT member who was demoted for sexually harassing a co-worker, and now is patrolling streets on foot for some time, as part of a plot even.
Ultimately, you either trust your GM to run a fun game, or you don't. And if you don't, then all the shared responsibility and all the veto power of the group won't solve your issues.
toturi
Jan 16 2008, 08:31 AM
QUOTE (Fuchs @ Jan 16 2008, 03:43 PM) |
But the players should not start to pull out the rules books, and go on about how a street cop NPC is not supposed to have three initiative passes if the GM has decided that that particular street cop is a former SWAT member who was demoted for sexually harassing a co-worker, and now is patrolling streets on foot for some time, as part of a plot even. |
The player should not pull out the books to show that a street cop should not have 3 initiative passes, but he should be correct in his deduction that said street cop is no ordinary street cop and is a Prime Runner, if his GM runs by the printed stats.
Ryu
Jan 16 2008, 09:59 AM
The deductions a player makes are often wrong, but I very much enjoy if they think about the game world they are in. And they can only notice deviations if they have a standard to compare to. I even sometimes explain things after the game; including what I had originally planned and where they deviated from that.
What I strongly suggest is having a list of security companies with defined traits, so that not every opposition is tailored for your group. Mitsuhama runs drone-heavy, KE is basically heavy infantery once the shooting starts, LS street cops castle in and wait for the FRT... The players don´t notice individual stats (excepting things like multiple IP of course).
Fuchs
Jan 16 2008, 10:20 AM
QUOTE (toturi) |
QUOTE (Fuchs @ Jan 16 2008, 03:43 PM) | But the players should not start to pull out the rules books, and go on about how a street cop NPC is not supposed to have three initiative passes if the GM has decided that that particular street cop is a former SWAT member who was demoted for sexually harassing a co-worker, and now is patrolling streets on foot for some time, as part of a plot even. |
The player should not pull out the books to show that a street cop should not have 3 initiative passes, but he should be correct in his deduction that said street cop is no ordinary street cop and is a Prime Runner, if his GM runs by the printed stats.
|
Yes. But if the players do not trust their GM they may consider this not a plot, but an error, and try to correct him. I think that a lot of the "Rules should cover all aspects, no room for interpretation" / "the GM calls the shots" argument is based upon trust issues with individual players and GMs.
Cthulhudreams
Jan 16 2008, 10:43 AM
Debates about the GM importance miss the point imho, I reckon it's more that is role is different. The GM is the facilitator for the session in the players work through a plotline focused on their actors. The GM provides all the supporting details and the grease to allow this to work.
Thus for me, as in 'real' facilitation of strategy sessions or whatever, the GM's most important task is to ensure that the players are all thinking in roughly the same direction, understand each others perspectives, and are coming at the situation with enough common ground to actually have some fun. If he doesn't, the group won't work that well.
Or if you want to put it in another context, the players are the actors in an improvised episode of friends, but the GM is the director.
knasser
Jan 16 2008, 06:57 PM
QUOTE (toturi) |
QUOTE (Fuchs @ Jan 16 2008, 03:43 PM) | But the players should not start to pull out the rules books, and go on about how a street cop NPC is not supposed to have three initiative passes if the GM has decided that that particular street cop is a former SWAT member who was demoted for sexually harassing a co-worker, and now is patrolling streets on foot for some time, as part of a plot even. |
The player should not pull out the books to show that a street cop should not have 3 initiative passes, but he should be correct in his deduction that said street cop is no ordinary street cop and is a Prime Runner, if his GM runs by the printed stats.
|
Now that is something I very much agree with. For one, it shows that a player is aware of the game setting and is attuned to it enough that oddities stand out. And following on from that, it means that a GM can be much more subtle which is always a relief to those of us that don't like to hit the players over the head with a sign saying "THIS WAY!"
If you get your players to this level of awareness and if they respond in the way toturi suggests, then you're doing something right as a GM.
-K.
Cain
Jan 17 2008, 06:31 AM
I hate to keep bringing up Wushu, since it's a totally different kind of game than Shadowrun, but there are lessons to be learned from it. In Wushu, the only major difference between the players and the GM is that the GM sets challenges, and provides the bulk of the flavor text.
The role of the GM can be boiled down to those two tasks. Everything else he/she does stems from those objectives. Things like narrative control, rules interpretations, and the like are optional, and can be shared amongst all the players without problems.
I can already hear the cries: "But the GM needs to have total rule control to fix disputes!" Sorry, but I've personally witnessed many games where the GM was not the rules expert. Someone else would fill that role, acting as rules arbiter and walking encyclopedia.
I hear a lot of talk about GM's resolving rules disputes, but I also hear a lot of talk about how you don't have that issue with mature players. The fact is, the punitive approach is indicative of a GM who thinks because his role is like a parent, his players are therefore like children. That's exactly why this sort of attitude gets under my skin so much.
Jhaiisiin
Jan 17 2008, 08:14 AM
You're the only one using the Parent/Child analogy, Cain. Facilitator is far different than parent/child.
knasser
Jan 17 2008, 08:59 AM
I haven't had time to read this thread properly and have now caught up with it. Cain - you make far too many unjustified leaps of logic and you have been misleading people.
The biggest leap is how you keep hammering home the point that if a GM has to use their own judgement then the rules weren't sufficient, and keep arguing on this subject. Naturally reasonable GMs realise that any rule-system will require someone to make a decision on the correct interpretation or to patch a hole, but you take people's engagement in this debate as support for your argument that the SR4 rules are broken - a leap of logic. You join the arguments in a very G W Bush like manner by responding to people saying "any rules system will require some interpretation" with "if the called shot rules were properly written this wouldn't be necessary." But as many people pointed out, your called shot example is actually forbidden by the rules. The leap is unjustified.
A second leap occurred when you said:
QUOTE (Cain) |
People are getting too caught up in the minutae of the example, and missing the forest for the trees.
|
To interpret your metaphor, the trees can only be examples of the rules in play and your objection be that we're focusing on the specific examples and missing the broader principle. But without trees, there's no forest and everytime we got close to your trees, we saw that they were actually just you with brown face paint holding leaves in the air. Your statement of "missing the forest for the trees" in this context is only another way of saying "look ignore the examples and just assume they're right so we can move on to talking about how they shouldn't have to exist in a decent rules system."
QUOTE (Cain) |
QUOTE (knasser) | Argument by metaphor is poor argument. |
Do you really want to get into it over what constitutes a good and bad argument?
|
I'm fine to do so if it's in dispute and I would like to close this point. The above quote was one of the rare occasions you have actually replied to one of my posts, albeit in a very minor way. But while all answers are replies, not all replies are answers and yours is certainly not - just a political style question for question. The un-cut version of the part you quoted went on to detail exactly what I thought constituted a good argument which was to say that if your contention was that the SR4 rules were (I quote) "the rules are badly done, badly thought out, and show an astonishing lack of logic" then you need to provide examples of that and the two that you have given have been shown to actually be covered by the rules.
The third leap is on the subject of GM "Parenting."
QUOTE (Cain) |
A GM is like a parent in that respect, except that the players aren't children. And that's exactly the attitude I'm witnessing here. This really sets me off. |
I don't think you are witnessing this at all. I think that the following:
QUOTE (Cain) |
. The fact is, the punitive approach is indicative of a GM who thinks because his role is like a parent, his players are therefore like children. That's exactly why this sort of attitude gets under my skin so much. |
indicates a strong preconception on your part. You have again made a leap - that having authority (if that is the best way of putting it) is equal to a "punitive approach". What many people have been very clearly saying is that they see the role of GM as one that has a responsibility to be fair and to keep the game running smoothly and happily and in an entertaining manner and that this responsibility brings with it the authority to do so. Perhaps authority has a different meaning to you as what you have been saying has treated it as synonymous with patronising and partiality. But obviously this authority is granted to the GM by the players (unless there are any GMs out there that have their players currently fastened to the table by leg-irons). No iron law prevents a player from arguing with the GM till the end of time (as you perhaps would), or from telling the rest of the group, no that's not what happens, the ork decides to let us go... but we all recognise that the game breaks at that point.
A GM has authority of course, but a good GM should always be willing to listen to reason and if she does so, then there's no reason to describe her as having "a punitive approach."
-K.
Edited to remove ad hominem
Fortune
Jan 17 2008, 09:10 AM
QUOTE (knasser) |
... unless there are any GMs out there that have their players currently fastened to the table by leg-irons ... |
I met the mother of one of my kids by doing just that, albeit with rope instead of irons.
knasser
Jan 17 2008, 05:30 PM
QUOTE (Fortune) |
QUOTE (knasser @ Jan 17 2008, 06:59 PM) | ... unless there are any GMs out there that have their players currently fastened to the table by leg-irons ... |
I met the mother of one of my kids by doing just that, albeit with rope instead of irons. |
QFE.
Cain
Jan 17 2008, 07:18 PM
QUOTE |
What many people have been very clearly saying is that they see the role of GM as one that has a responsibility to be fair and to keep the game running smoothly and happily and in an entertaining manner and that this responsibility brings with it the authority to do so. |
Responsibility =! Authority. The first part of your statement is correct, but the second does not follow.
And since you want to get into the nature of logic so much, you arument is also
Ad Populum, another fallacy. Your argument could therefore be discarded as erroneous.
Since none of you are apparently parents, how many of you work in an office? Have you ever been given responsibilities without having the authority to actually enforce changes? This happens all the time. What do you do? You do what any good GM would, and you try to influence people. To extend the analogy somewhat, going to the boss and whinging is essentially the same as shouting: "I'm the GM, it's my rules!" and BSing your way into authority you don't actually have.
Your players are your co-workers. You may, by virtual of your responsibilites, have more influence over them, but you don't have any real authority over them. And just because they can leave (another famous argument here) doesn't mean they will-- how many jobs have you had, with an annoying co-worker?
QUOTE |
Your statement of "missing the forest for the trees" in this context is only another way of saying "look ignore the examples and just assume they're right so we can move on to talking about how they shouldn't have to exist in a decent rules system." |
Straw man. That's not my argument at all.
QUOTE |
The biggest leap is how you keep hammering home the point that if a GM has to use their own judgement then the rules weren't sufficient, and keep arguing on this subject. Naturally reasonable GMs realise that any rule-system will require someone to make a decision on the correct interpretation or to patch a hole, but you take people's engagement in this debate as support for your argument that the SR4 rules are broken - a leap of logic. |
Circumstantial Ad Hominem. You're arguing that because people's points support my arguments, my citing them is false because it's in my interest to do so.
So, since you wanted to discuss the nature of the logic used, I will try and avoid any personal attacks, and simply point out that you've gone for 3 fallacies in 3 arguments.
FrankTrollman
Jan 17 2008, 07:32 PM
QUOTE (Cain) |
You're arguing that because people's points support my arguments, my citing them is false because it's in my interest to do so. |
Again and still: no they are not.
Basically at this point I don't even know what your argument is. As far as I can tell it is that:
- In a good system, I shouldn't be able to do ridiculous stuff that is inappropriate to the genre.
- Shadowrun gives players wiggle room to do "other stuff not covered by the system" so long as everyone is OK with it.
- Therefore you could potentially get a table of people to exercise this right to do this other stuff to go outside the genre of the game and common sense.
Now I
know you are going to accuse me of making a Straw Man
again, but there's nothing left to do. We can't refute your "forest"
or your"trees" - not because they are masterpieces of deductive logic - but because you don't honestly seem to have forests or trees for us to pick apart.
To show that the rules are broken, you just need an example of them breaking. But so far your broken examples have been made using
not the rules. And that just shows that
not the rules are broken. And I don't care. No one does.
Before anyone can actually argue against you with anything other than ad hominem and straw man you personally have to provide an actual argument. You have not done this. When you did provide actual concrete examples they were concretely disproved with page citations and quotes. Until you come back with new examples for us to use logic against we're jst going to continue to make fun of you.
-Frank
Cain
Jan 17 2008, 07:44 PM
Actually, no one's ever tried to argue the Shot Heard Round the Barrens example, past a few people saying they didn't like it. Mostly, all that there has been for the last ten or so pages has been Ad Hominems and Straw men. Not much I can do, except keep repeating the same things over and over, or resort to Ad Hominem argument myself.
Note also that in this thread, I only brought up the Citymaster example because *you* misinterpreted it. You have only yourself to thank for the last eight pages or so, if you want to take it to that level.
Basically, the Citymaster example still succeeds because it is technically legal; people keep tossing physical impossibilities at it and the same rule grey areas that make the shot possible in the first place. The Shot Heard Round the Barrens succeeds because not only is it technically legal, the only thing holding it back is a GM whinging that it breaks their game. MFB's also demonstrated aptly that a less-exaggerated example can work without invoking the Longshot test. Because the first example is easier to attack, that's where everyone is focusing their attention... and ignoring the second example. You certainly haven't provided any rules to contradict it!
And the bottom line is, by the strict interpretation of the game rules: it's easier to one-shot a Citymaster than make an extreme range shot, under essentially the same conditions.
FrankTrollman
Jan 17 2008, 07:50 PM
QUOTE |
Basically, the Citymaster example still succeeds because it is technically legal |
You keep using this word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
You can convince the gamemaster that the citymaster has some sort of weak point and you can make a long shot to ignore its armor. Then it rolls its Body (16 dice) and takes negligible to moderate damage. And that's it.
That's not even unreasonable. What's the problem? Where is your forest? Where are your trees?
What the fuck do you have? Justify your fucking existence.
-Frank
Cain
Jan 17 2008, 08:20 PM
And once, again, the forest for the trees. I haven't actually tried to justify the Citymaster example past the point that it's technically legal. You're ignoring the other points, for some reason, but I personally think it's because you can't attack them so easily. Besides which, your entire argument is a combination
Appeal to Emotion (with the Princess Bride quote) and Ad Hominem fallacy.
Calm down. I just re-read the entire thread, and most of your arguments are based on what other people said about mine, not what I actually said. You haven't really responded directly to any of my arguments.
Here, I'll even give you one to start with:
QUOTE ("Cain") |
In a game like Wushu, the Citymaster shot would be a perfectly valid move. That's because that game revels the over-the-top, cinematic action. In a more realistic game like GURPS, such a move would be impossible, unless you're playing under one of the most cinnematic options. In SR4, it's kinda impossible and kinda not. Basically, it's weak and wishy-washy when it comes to delivering both genre conventions and rules to support the same. |