Or maybe because it's difficult to find them in the last 12 pages.
If you feel that people are missing the point so badly, perhaps you should summarize them to help get everyone back on the same page.
We do have a tendency to get lost in the details on Dumpshock, it doesn't hurt to occasionally revisit the point.

I personally don't like the way that longshots are handled, and would make minor modifications in my game, but wouldn't call them "hideously broken".

I would make minor adjustments to the called shot rules, but wouldn't call them "broken" either. They just don't always fit the way I like to play.

Agreed (sort of). The rules seem to be crafted to allow a group to go either direction with their games, and as a result are not ideally set up for either extreme. That said, they're usually relatively decent if the gaming group wants to follow 'the middle path'. And they have enough built in flexibility that they're easy to modify to the style that I prefer.

Agreed. But not too bad for that middle path of "simulationist enough for suspension of disbelief but abstracted enough so that I don't feel like I'm in Trig class."

Disagree, but don't mind that you think so. If you have better rules, please post them. If I like them better I'd be happy to house-rule them into any games I might run.

Disagree, but not strongly. I don't agree with all the rules in the RAW, and do have some house rules, but don't think that it makes the RAW worthless. I still think the general framework of the game is pretty good. And the things that bug me aren't necessarily the same things that bug anyone else, so there's no way to please everyone.

First off, points 3-7 all involve some degree of subjective judgment. We can't agree on what things like gritty or cinematic even mean around here, so while some people will agree with some of these points and some people will disagree with some of them, that subjective section makes it pretty tough to really get anyone to change their mind.

Now your first two statements are pretty much statements of absolute fact. There's no "too many" or "seems".
As for the longshot rules, you know, every time I look over them it really rubs me the wrong way that past a certain point no amount of modifiers will make the task any more difficult, until the GM flatly forbids it, which may or may not be seen as reasonable by the players. That bugs me. And yet, on the other hand, I have yet to see that actually come up as an issue at the table. But that's just my experience, so it doesn't mean other groups aren't having the kind of problems that could come out of that.

As for the called shot rules, again, bypassing armor seems reasonable to some people at not to others. Some people think there should be a viewport, and other's don't. For me, I allow people to bypass armor normally for partial armor (armor jacket, etc) and for total armor (full security armor, citymasters, etc) the bypass armor effect bypasses 1/2 of their armor, which a similarly reduced penalty. Still -1die/point bypassed. It still lets them hit a "vulnerable spot", without ignoring armor completely. Of course, I'm fixing it with a house rule, so for my part I'm reinforcing your claim 2 and 7 with that.
I'm not sure if the -4 dice, +4DV is broken. I tend to think it is too generous of an exchange, but I'm not sure if it's broken or not.

edit: Oh, and I completely forgot: Thanks for summarizing your points. I was getting pretty lost.

It does follow. One cannot have responsibility with out power. You gave a work example where you thought this was the case, but what you showed was that you can have blame without power. Can someone actually be responsible for something that they have no power to affect? Of course not. But a GM has real responsibility and to support it requires the GM having authority. Players recognize that this is the case and are usually willing to grant the GM that authority.

But this is really ignoring the context of what I was saying. It was a direct reply to your statement that people here had the attitude of treating their players like children. I was pointing out (correctly) that everyone here was very big on the responsibility of the GM toward his players.

I'm not so great on Latin but I can see a problem with the above - I made no appeal to popularity to support my argument.

I don't think the analogy is useful. A GM prepares a game for the players, and hopefully walks a careful line between neutrality and bias toward the players, trying to provide both a little challenge and some reward. That's not a situation I've ever found myself in with co-workers - having to keep them on their toes and tease them with rewards. Maybe I'm working in the wrong sort of job, though.

It's not really a strawman. You did say that we were "missing the forest for the trees" and the only way I can interpret that is that we were focussing too much on the examples and not the overall principle. If there's another interpretation that you meant then please put it as I have stated that's how I read your statement twice previously and you have had ample opportunity to correct me. If this is what you mean, then it's not a straw man to say that you're saying this. And as what you've been trying to establish the existence of this general principle through the use of your examples, it is only right that we examine them to see if they stand up to a comparison with the printed text (which most of us don't think they do).

No, I'm saying something more insidious. There have been two arguments present in this thread:
1. The Shadowrun Rules Are Broken.
2. If Rules Are Broken Is It Reasonable for a GM to Compensate with Common Sense?

You have taken arguments for the second point, where most people will say "Yes, a GM should compensate for broken rules" and applied them to the first point by several times responding "but the GM wouldn't have to if the rules weren't broken." The conflation of the two is masterfully done, but point 1 remains to be seen as you've yet to provide an example of their brokenness that stood up to an actual comparison with the written text.

And you've also nicely slipped a misrepresentation into the above as well as I never said that "people's points support your arguments." That's not so much a straw man as a straw- ninja

Nope. Didn't. But I think you may have tried to pull a Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur in your own response.

-K.

Just to highlight this but of knasser's post for a moment:

@Cain: You may or may not have a point with all this (I have yet to declare sides, and continue to simply heckle all from the fence) but you're really not doing yourself any favors by using such overly elaborate examples. Extreme examples are fun, but when you use an elaborate example in order to demonstrate that something is fundamentally broken, we get a dozen pages arguing the validity of the example and no one even looks at the point you were originally trying to make. If you could choose a simpler, less disputable example, we (that Dumpshock, the royal we) might be able to cut through some of the minutia and get to the heart of the matter.
You say that people are missing the forest for the trees, well man, stop making such weird f'ing trees.

Actually, narrow bursts do exactly this. The difference is that the recoil penalty can be negated, you need a weapon capable of it, and it uses more ammo. But fundamentally, +1DV in exchange for a 1 die penalty: narrow bursts.

edit: Oh, and the narrow burst won't help you get past hardened armor, the called shot DV-modifier will.

Well, technically it is capped at +4/-4. You are combining the two seperate options for Called Shots.

The first option allows you to subtract dice from your Pool equivalent to the target's armor on a 1 for 1 basis (obviously topping out at the rating of that armor), which is not quite the same as a 1 dice = 1 hit.

The second option allows you to take a variable Dice Pool penalty of -1 to -4 in exchange for an equivalent DV bonus. This is exactly what you are refering to, but it has an upper limit of +4/-4.

Yeah, the called shot to bypass armor is really just trading DP for DP. You roll less to attack, they roll less to defend. In general, it breaks even. It's only really useful when
1) You're trying to get past hardened armor.
2) You don't want your physical damage to be converted to stun.
3) You're already in longshot territory anyway (or close enough to it) so who really cares about penalties? Now granted, most GMs would call BS if a character performing a long shot started taking on additional voluntary penalties, but sometimes my case 3 can be combined with my case 1, and it really is the only valid strategy to do damage.

Largely dependant on the preferences of the players. I suppose it might be possible to LARP a quasi-SR type of game that didn't even have a GM. However, in all the SR games I've ever played, if the GM didn't show up, we couldn't play. But if one of the 4-5 players couldn't show up, we'd hand-wave a reason that PC couldn't make the run and continue. Since "Can't play without him" > "Can play without him", the GM might be more important to an individual game than any one of the individual players. YMMV. That doesn't necessarily mean that his word needs to be the law, but it does mean he's an essential element of the activity.

Again, depends on the players you have, the knowledge and objectiveness of the players, and player preferences. Ultimately someone's got to have the final say, though, in situations where the GM and the player don't agree on what the outcome should be. In my games (whether playing or GMing) players get to argue their points, and often end up convincing the GM of their POV, but the GM had the final say in what happened. And if I didn't like what the GM (or the player) did, I'd talk to them OOC.

True. It's supposed to be collective fun, not somebody's power trip.

Also true. But that does not mean that it can be avoided in all cases.

That's entirely subjective, and might vary depending on the desires of the individual group. I'd interpret your statement as "I like games I play in or GM to have roles/responsibilities spread amongst all the players." Which is great, but don't tell me that I'm wrong or not playing a good game if I don't like to play the same way you do.

Definitely agree.

In the co-worker example before, you suggest that the guy with the mission has responsibility but no authority. I agree with some previous posters who have responded that the two go hand-in-hand. The co-worker in the scenario has the implied authority associated with his boss's assignment ("The boss wants you to help me with this...") and with the company's mandate that employees have to work to acheive things that are in the company's best interest ("Do you want to be remembered as a contributor or an impediment to this project?").

Untrue. To use another work example, my ex was placed in charge of payroll for her department. She had the responsibility to see that it was done correctly. However, she had no authority to make sure that others filled out their time sheets properly, and was responsible to make sure they were. She could influence them: "If you don't get this done right, you may not be paid properly." But actual authority? She couldn't say: "You didn't get it filled out right, you don't get paid for it" or "If you get your paperwork wrong one more time, you're on probation."

To go back to my parenting example, I'm responsible for making sure my daughter is educated correctly. But what happens if the school district is teaching Christian creationism as equal to evolution? What authority do I have to force them to change the curriculum? I could go into a long and protracted legal battle, or I could perhaps simply withdraw my child from school and teach her myself. But both require more resources and authority than I actually have.

Ahem: Your argument was:

The only support for your argument is "What many people have been very clearly saying...." Ad Populum. Fallacy #1, for those keeping score.

You've distorted my argument into something you can attack. Straw Man. Fallacy #2. And the Circumstantial Ad Hominem makes for #3.

Guilty.

I thought I did. The Shot Heard Round the Barrens. Plus which, if it bugs people so much, simply swap out Mr. Lucky's flechette pistol with an anti-vehicular rocket in the Citymaster example. It changes nothing, except to possibly make the shot more difficult.

All good games have an element of committee to them. The players go to the GM with their expectations, and the GM tries to make them happen. The chairman of a committee doesn't really have more authority than the members. When it comes down to it, he gets the same vote as everyone else. He has more influence, in the ability to set which things go where on the agenda; but if the entire committee goes against what he wants, he's got to go along with it.

Additionally, there are several games, such as Capes, which have no GM at all. They're fun for those who like the highly-narrative, lightly-ruled game, and have a large-ish following on the web. So, no-GM games can and do work.

The rules encyclopedia guy. There was a recent thread on RPG.net covering this very topic. The rules guru doesn't have to be the same as the GM, and it sometimes runs smoother that way. Put the rules lawyer to work for you, instead of against you.

Funny, this came up in my last D&D session. All the GM had to say was: "Meanwhile, back in the game..." and everyone snapped back to attention. No "solid level of authority" needed, no ultimatums, nothing. I even did that once, to the same effect, and I definitely was not the GM.

Exactly one of the points I wanted to make. Called Shots require automatic GM fiat, and they crop up with distressing regularity. This shows that GM fiat is necessary for the smooth operation of SR4, and that is A Bad Thing.

In EVERY good game you've played in, I'll bet money that the players had the responsibility of playing their characters accurately and in a manner that was fun for everyone. It might be unspoken, but it's there. That's why we deride munchkins so much: they destroy the fun for everyone. It is the responsibility of every player, at the bare minimum, to not be a disruptive munchkin.

Untrue. First of all, the GM isn't granted power by virtue of his position. He is granted respect. From that respect, springs influence. Second, while I have no military or paramilitary experience, I did undergo nurse's training. When delegating a task to a non-nurse, I am not granting them any sort of authority. I am telling them they have a responsibility to do a task.

It was her job to do the payroll correctly. She could not do the job correctly if the timesheets weren't filled out properly. (GIGO, for those that remember that acronym) She had no authority to make them fill out their sheets properly. Therefore, she had responsibility without authority (but with influence, which isn't the same thing.) This is commonly known as a "Catch-22".

[edit]Oh, and yes:

The Citymaster is valid, but I'll repost one that no one is disputing:

The team's van is barreling up to the waterfront, only to discover their target's speedboat is already a klick out to sea, dodging its way at full speed through the Seattle waterfront traffic. The troll sam shouts: "Drek! I can't get a bead!" So, Mr. Lucky grabs the HMG from the troll, which he can barely lift, and takes a shot.

The conditions are bad: Extreme Range (-3), Partial light (-2), With Glare (-1) and Heavy rain (-4, this is Seattle, after all). Mr . Lucky is in a moving vehicle (-3) as is his target; the GM assigns an additional -3 to reflect the boat's speed and pitching. The target has total cover (-6), and since Mr. Lucky only has the vaugest idea what he's shooting at, he gets the -6 Blind fire penalty. To make, matters worse, Mr. Lucky has two Serious wounds, for 9 boxes on both monitors (-6). He's never even picked up an HMG before (-1), but the thing is already set to full auto; so he goes for a narrow burst (-9, doubled to -18 because it's a heavy weapon and the gas-vent system is fouled due to an earlier critical fumble).

Mr. Lucky is at -53 to hit. He could try to aim, but since there's no point, he simply hauls the thing into the general direction and fires. He has a negative dice pool, so he spends a point of Edge, giving him 8 dice to roll. He could simply *buy* two successes with that; if he were to roll, he'd average 2.66 successes, rounded up to 3. Since his target is an average wageslave, he only has his Reaction of 3 to defend with, which will average one success-- not enough. And since Mr. Lucky called for a Narrow Burst, there's simply no way the target can soak.

Cain, I never said one iota about influence or respect. Why? Because they have no bearing on the points I brought up and the ones I disputed that you were trying to make. Authority vs Responsibility has absolutely NOTHING to do with influence or respect, given the context of our discussion. Please try to stay on track.
Second, if that non-nurse does not do what you asked them to, a task that you are obviously responsible for, given you used the term delegating, who gets in trouble first? You, or the person you delegated to? And if you expect them to get ANYTHING done, you MUST grant them authority, otherwise all they can do is twiddle their thumbs.

So with regards to your ex, let's pose a hypothetical. She goes to Employee Joe and tells him that she needs him to correct his timesheet because it's wrong, and her job requires her to make sure they're correct. He refuses. What does she do? Does she leave it as is or correct it herself? If in the latter case, she's unsure of the exact corrections needed, does she make something up, or go with the as-is? She has authority and responsibility. Had she no authority, she couldn't even try to work with or approach the employees.

Honestly, Cain, I think your versions of authority and responsibility are horribly skewed.

As for your Citymaster example, show how it's valid. You CANNOT bypass all the armor because the RAW specifically states that if no vulnerable point exists (to be determined by the GM), then you can't use it to bypass armor. You're firing into a mobile armored brick. There's not some magical hole you can shoot into that kills the driver every time without ever touching the armor.

As for the boat example, yes, it's technically feasible. Is it realistic? No, but not everything in SR is. And I think a few of the posters here agreed with your boat example (this is my 2nd time agreeing with it I think). Does it mean the rules are horribly broken? Not necessarily, and certainly not to the extent you feel they are.

She went to someone with authority. In short, she went to her boss. He could then say: "Do it right, or you won't be paid." And, he had the authority to back it up.

I could easily say the same about you. However, since that would get us nowhere, let's drop the Ad Hominems and focus on the subject at hand, shall we?

Easily done. The main objection is in the choice of weapon, which I admit I chose for reasons of hyperbole. Let's swap it out for an Anti-Vehicular rocket. What constitutes a vulnerable point for an slivergun should logically be different for a rocket, yes? Mechanically, however, there is no difference. The example stands.

Ah, so it's a matter of degree then? To what extent do you feel they are broken?

As it stands, there's nothing that prevents Mr. Lucky from piling on even more modifiers for even greater effect. The only reason I stopped at -53 was because I was running out of canon negative modifiers to apply. I could go to -1,000,000, and have the same chance of success... but also +1,000,000 dice worth of benefits. That is what's horribly broken.

An AV Rocket isn't going to be aiming for a super vunlerable spot. They'll be aiming for (maybe) a spot protected by less armor, but on an APC or similar vehicle, there won't be any spots with absolutely no armor (otherwise it becomes horribly ineffective as an armored personnel carrier), so it'll still have to go through the armor. The difference between the AV Rocket and the slivergun though, is that the AV rocket is going to shred that armor because that's what it's designed to do, whereas a flechete weapon will more than likely just bounce harmlessly off the armor.

With regards to the running out of dicepool, you're right, it's a matter of degree. Once you hit 0 dice pool, the reasons and whyfores are largely irrelevant at that point. After all, without luck (Edge), there's absolutely zero chance to hit your target or pull off whatever task you're aiming for. That said, Edge is there for a reason, to be that lucky shot. Edge has a limit on how it can be spent, and how it refreshes. If the GM doesn't want it to refresh quickly so as to keep the players wary and frugal with their expenditures, the rules specifically allow and state that he can do so. Unless I'm completely mis-remembering (a possibility, I'll grab the books later), the GM has complete and utter control by RAW over how and when the Edge pool refreshes. That in of itself is more of a balance than many would give it credit for. I would wager a number of GM's might be refreshing edge too often, causing their campaigns to spiral out of control rather quickly.

The GM has control on how often Edge refreshes. But the book has certain suggestions on how often a GM should refresh Edge.

While I don't have my book handy (hard drive crashed) I believe Edge automatically refreshes at the start of every story, if not session, without direct GM permission. I have never, ever, had Edge refresh mid-stream. Which, incidentally, also massively over-punishes low Edge characters while only mildly inconveniencing high-Edge ones. Edge is also broken, for a number of reasons; however, it gets overlooked by its role in the Longshot test. The ability to front-load Edge can massively overpower a game.

However, you do highlight one point of mine. The rules are dependant on Edge for that impossible shot, so much so that the core mechanic actually breaks down without it. However, that goes wildly against the dev's stated intent of a "darker, grittier" game. One cinematic option doesn't make a game cinematic; but it's deeply imbedded enough to ruin is as a "gritty" game, and doesn't do so well as a middle of the road game either. It's like what I see happening to a lot of martial arts: they steal a lot of cool ideas from other people, without considering how it all fits together.

At any event, it only takes one -1,000,000 shot to wreck a game. Suppose that shot is at Juan Atzcapotzalco? At +1,000,000 in benefits, does he even stand a remote chance of survival by the rules? The GM will have to go for all sorts of fiat to fix his plot afterwards, which wouldn't be necessary if the rules had more sense to them.

The auto-refresh per session rule is for SRMissions if I am not mistaken. Otherwise, the refresh per session was simply another suggested method.

I have to agree with Jhaiisiin about your ideas of what authority means. If your wife was unable to affect someone else's filling out of a timesheet, then your wife cannot be held responsible for them not doing so correctly. She can be unfairly blamed for it, but you are confusing actual responsibility for something else. If her role was to go and inform the manager if these hadn't been done and didn't then, then she has the responsibility to do that and no more.

When I say someone has responsibility for something I mean precisely that. Not that someone in your wife's office might misuse the word. It sounds like her actual responsibility is to monitor for mistakes in timesheet filling and her authority only extends so far as to achieve this. Presumably she has the authority to inspect people's timesheets. Authority concordant with responsibility in a functioning system.

No. That's not an argument. You said other GMs posting here were regarding their players as children and thinking that they had authority over them because of this attitude. I responded that everyone was very clear that they were saying something different and stated what they were saying. I explained quite clearly in the part you did not quote. For someone who is so hot on quoting principles of logic, you should pay more attention to what I have actually written. I wrote that "people are saying something different to what you have said they are saying." That is not an appeal to popular opinion, that is a correction of fact.

We'll go through this for the fourth time. I think by now I can refine my response to this down to a haiku:

I say what Cain says.
Four times, he says it is wrong.
But will not correct.

I have stated four times that I interpret your criticism about "missing the forest for the trees" to mean that we are focusing too much on your examples of how the rules are broken and missing the overall point you are making. But your point (the rules are "badly broken") only follows from the specific examples ("called shot bypassing armour", "targetting people you don't know are there") which have failed to stand up. And this interpretation I have stated four times and responded to. You have had ample opportunity to say why my understanding of your 'forest for trees' statement is wrong, but you only post links to definitions of "Straw Men". If you meant something else then explain yourself, but my interpretation is the only reasonable one that I can think of and my response to it is valid and certainly not a strawman.

At last - agreement on something.


Your specific rules examples are being addressed already and I expect Frank will be along soon (having had a nice relaxing cup of tea), so I'll leave those for now.

Again with the analogies! The role of the GM demands that he be both neutral and biased toward the players. It is not possible to run a game without having more power to influence the world than the players. Authority follows directly from having power.

There are many, many games out there that don't have GMs. Tennis for example. But Shadowrun is not one of them and my players have always liked the focus and preparation that I give to a game as GM. They would not like a rambling story that they generated themselves. Because it is necessary to have someone in the role of neutral antagonist in the group (GM) who must have the power to fulfill that role, they give me the authority to do so.

Unless you're playing chess then there are going to be things that are in dispute and require a ruling. In these cases, the best positioned person to do so is normally the GM who is neutral and takes responsibility for a fun game. This comes as the result of an impasse as the poster you quoted said. You seem to be assuming that this happens immediately and without a preceding discussion amongst the group. If that discussion resolves things, then fine. If we reach impasse as the poster stated, then go to the GM as the person whose responsibility it is to be neutral. Players don't want to be neutral - they want to engage in the world and identify with their characters goals and wants. They want to transfer all resistance to their characters actions onto another, not finding ways to let their character fail.

See to a large extent, the GM is the game. Without her, the game does not happen. Without the world delivered through her, there is no other reality. When people place the game as more important than whatever other issue was distracting them, they usually place the GM's role as more important too. As I keep saying, the players grant the GM authority themselves, whilst you keep saying that the GM should not be an iron-fisted dictator.

Ultimately, you are free to try and run a game as a committee if you want. I, and most others here, do not play that way and don't appreciate being told we are treating players like children. We find that assuming responsibility for the running and direction of the game leads to a better experience for all. And having responsibility for the smooth running of the game means dealing with things that upset that running. To deal with those things a GM must sometimes exert his power to affect the game and that can be legitimately described as using authority.

Authority can be legitimate, when it is granted willingly by those subject to it, or it can be illegitimate when it is seized against people's volition. But you can't say that a GM does not have more powerful tools to control a game than players and if the GM chooses or needs to use those tools, then he is using his authority. If he does not use those tools, then he is not exerting his authority. But in either case he has it. Your argument that a GM should not use authority to get his way over the players is not the same as our argument that a GM possesses authority and may use it to ensure a good game.

That does not follow. We're now talking about the circumstances that arise in the game, e.g. a drone has a vulnerable power supply underneath it. That is not GM fiat in the normal sense of the term here, it's simply plot. Nor is it GM fiat to say that it requires a Called Shot to strike that power supply. That's simply a suggested use of the called shot rules as written in the BBB.

First off, in for argument's sake , let's state that the boat and the person on the boat are both barely visible, maybe illuminated by lightning over the Sound. This should be counter any argument on whether the shot is possible in the targeting stage and the GM ruling that you might as well be shooting in the opposite direction.

So now, Mr. Lucky (him, the guy who is blessed by Lady Luck far above and beyond other mortals) has his -53 to hit and an uncontested Long Shot at the guy on the boat.

Now, let's break that down. Mr. Lucky has an 8 dice pool to roll (again, because he's so amazingly lucky he makes the coupiers weep at Caeser's just by walking by). Mr. Lucky doesn't get to buy successes, because 8 is neither "an
exceptionally large dice pool," nor is he "unlikely to fail," nor does your firing an unfamiliar weapon from the team's van as it barrels up to the waterfront dodging its way at full speed through the Seattle waterfront traffic qualify the situation as "non-threatening and non-stressful." (p.55, SR4).

So with the gamemaster's agreement, he makes the Long Shot roll. After all, that's his thing. His gimmick. This is what he blew a huge chunk of his BP on. He's not only one of the luckiest people in the world, his rating ensures there's pretty much no one of his level.

So he rolls and he gets his 2,66 or 3 successes.

Now, it's the gamemaster's turn. He's got a number of options that you always seem to forget when outlining these examples. These are entirely scaleable and adjustable to the style of play of each particular group (I'll just highlight the obvious options) and they apply in this example or the vaunted Citymaster example:
a) He deems that this kind of lucky strike is perfectly in keeping with the playstyle of his group and works with the plot and decides the "average wageslave" just rolls his 3 Reaction (per your example).
b) He deems that this kind of lucky strike is stretching believability and the tone of the game as his group plays it, but could serve the plot. Consequently he decides the "average wageslave" is entitled to some luck too. So besides rolling his 3 Reaction, the GM uses any of the Edge options available to the NPC (who as a typical human wageslave has Edge 2) to enhance dodge.
c) He deems that this kind of lucky strike is beyond believability and the tone of the game as his group plays it and/or does not serve the plot (ie. he needs the wageslave to escape), and so decides the "average wageslave" is entitled to get lucky too. So besides rolling his 3 Reaction (just in case the NPC gets really lucky), the NPC burns Edge and "escapes certain death" (the NPC suffers a grazing hit and falls to the floor of the boat).

In options (a) and (b) Mr. Lucky is still likely to hit, though he has less of an edge (as it were) in option (b) since the wageslave can boost his own roll. Whether the gamemaster choses to use Edge or not for the NPC is his call, but the system assumes balance; both sides have access to this advantage and there is no reason both sides should not use it. In my games, option © would probably be saved as a GMs trump card to keep a plot on course, but strictly speaking it's just as valid an option as the others.

Whether Mr. Lucky gets to make a second try is up to the GM, I'd certainly allow it. The NPC still has 1 Edge to burn too. The checks and balances are built into the system, if you are ignoring them the problem is yours.

PS: I liked Mr Lucky so much that I actually had him lead an opposing team of runners against my players while playtesting an upcoming campaign. As a gunslinger he was on par with the combat specialists on the team, but his vaunted Edge was effectively cancelled out by my players choices and own Edge use. He died.

Untrue. And another Straw Man, to boot.

Appeal to Ridicule. Just because you make a joke about it does not make you correct.

The Shot Heard Round the Barrens example has held up, unarguably. The Citymaster example is under heavy, but unfinished, argument. The Straw man you used was in saying: "look ignore the examples and just assume they're right...", implying that I'm admitting either of my examples are wrong.

Additionally, you are Begging the Question, since you claim it "only follows".

BTW, when are you going to tackle The Shot example?

I've personally run Wushu games like that. In fact, that's part of the point of Wushu. It is certainly more than possible to run a game with the exact same world-influencing power as the players. What's more, it's possible to run Shadowrun like that, albeit with a lot of huge modifications.

There are many games that allow players to take large chunks of narrative control. Right off the top of my head, I can name: Adventure!, Spirit of the Century, Faery's Tale, Buffy, Serenity, Truth & Justice, Angel, Battlestar Galatica, and the aforementioned Wushu and Capes. And that's in under 30 seconds.

YMMV, of course; but you haven't actually played any narrative games, have you? In the Forgite sense of the word.

*Everyone* takes responsibility for having a fun game.

Good players don't deliberately step on one another, or disrupt the game unnecessarily. They don't pull attention-whoring stunts, in or out of character. They roleplay their characters accurately, but not annoyingly. These are all responsibilities of a good player.

The GM is not required to be that person. It can be any member or members of the group who know the rules and are willing to take on the role. Again, there was a large RPG.net thread on this very subject: there are many gamers, including some Shadowrun players, who have said this method works perfectly for them. YMMV, of course, but don't go assuming that it cannot work. You are making an Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

And *now* I see someone treating his players like children. Players can be neutral and impartial as well, especially if they're entrusted with the responsibility of doing so. And you know what? They are. You trust them to report their stats accurately, track ammo, not cheat on die rolls, and so on and so forth. If you have mature players-- which I believe you've claimed-- then you should not assume they'll cheat or act biased just to make things easy on their characters.

As far as points b) and c) goes, unless the GM is applying house rules, Joe Wageslave only has Edge equal to his Professional Rating, which is zero. The GM would have to suddenly decide on the fly that Joe Wageslave was ex-security, granting him a higher Professional Rating, in order for him to use Edge. In other words, more GM fiat. Additionally, Joe can't use the "Escape Certain Death" clause, since that's for PC's. He'd have to use the Hand of God rule, which is reserved for Prime Runners. So, in order for that last examples to work, Joe would have to suddenly go from unProfessional wageslave to Prime Runner status, all before the bullets hit him.

Actually Joe Wageslave does not have a RAW template. If the GM was going to run as close to RAW as possible he has several choices.

1) Use a Grunt template for his NPC. Grunts range from Professional Rating 0 to 6 and the only Grunts that appear singularly are the Lieutanants.

2) He can create his own Prime Runner.

3) He can use 1 of the sample Contacts in the book.

In order to use Edge, for Hand of God, he will need to have been created with the Prime Runner rules.

While I feel that Cain's example is not exactly correct, he is right in the sense that out of the 3 RAW/near-RAW methods of statting Joe, the GM can only have chosen 1. However if said Joe was instead Bob the Bullyboy of Street Mob/Rent-A-Cop/Humanis Policlub association, then certainly it would reflect what Cain has posted. In such while he is wrong in the specifics, he is correct in general.

We've been over this before. You are confusing the rules for NPC Grunts (which apply only to "groups of similar NPCs") with stand-alone, individual NPCs. Those rules only apply to grunts/groups. The giveaway is that Professional Ratings, like Group Edge and Lieutentants are subheaders of the rules for Grunts (which in turn apply to the fast resolution of actions typically combat with groups of "similar characters"). I'm pretty sure that even you wouldn't debate that Group Edge and Lieutenants don't apply to individual characters so why the heck would Professional Ratings?

Joe Wageslave, Arnold the Armorer, and Boris the Bartender don't have Professional Ratings. You'll also note that none of the Contacts do, nor is it mentioned under Prime Runners for that matter.

Since I'm having to repeat this for the third time, I'll see to it that it makes the next FAQ.

As I've noted above the Grunt rules are not intended for individuals, and the bok specifically states what circumstances they are intended to be applied to in the first two paragraphs under the relevant header (Grunts, p. 272).

So effectively for individual NPCs, particularly those that are important to the plot (such as someone the PCs would be chasing in those circumstances), gamemasters can opt between either to stat the NPC under the Prime Runner rules (if they're memorable characters, in this case probably an Inferiorone) or stat out an individual as a Contact (or borrow the stats from a similar Contact) for everyone else - just like you see in any published adventure. You do not use the Grunt rules for individual NPCs (even though they're a good source for baseline stats).

Baseline human NPCs have Edge 2 / metahuman NPCs have Edge 1. This is exemplified by the Contacts in both SR4 and the Contacts booklet (which actually contains a typical wageslave in the form of the Corporate Secretary with an Edge, you guessed it, of 2).

Actually this is incorrect, since we're bandying RAW about, please quote where the rules say that Edge use to "escape certain death" is an option available only to Player Characters?

While Escape Certain Death clause do not explicitly exclude NPCs from burning Edge, however, if we are to do so, it would render the Hand of God rule (p277 SR4) obsolete and superfluous. If the Hand of God were to have any real use, then it can extrapolated that Grunts and Contacts do not get to use the ECD rules either. If we were to allow Escape Certain Death for NPCs, I think Cain might have more uncomplimentary things to say about the rule set.

Since you are the Assistant Developer, I'd defer to you, especially if you want to dig yourself in deeper.

The objection would be that there are multiple ways to lead to the same messy end. Yes, a very messy problem.

The variant edge rule (HOG) as you put it was not articulated as just a variant, in fact the rule is explicit on the treatment of Prime Runner Edge, while the Escape Certain Death clause was put in a chapter that was PC centric.

So it is a developer intent to leave it to the GM to decide which Edge rule he wishes to use for his NPCs? While the rules does not state explicitly so, the variant HOG rule is misleading in that it appears the Prime Runners should use the HOG rule and that the Contacts are out of luck with respect to burning of Edge, especially since the HOG rule appears just before the Contacts.

While the absence of a clear ruling is not critical, it is central to this particular discussion.

Actually no. The Edge rules appear in the general Game Concepts chapter and not the essentially PC-centric Creating a Shadowrunner chapter.

Let me begin by clarifying my use of the term "variant rule". There is only one significant difference between the "escape death clause" and HOG. The difference being that in the basic rule requires you burn 1 Edge, whereas HoG (especifically intended for Prime Runner NPC use) requires that the NPC burn all his "remaining Edge" (aside: take note of the phrasing, since it also implies that NPCs can burn Edge on other stuff, ie the other options listed under Burning Edge on p.68). Hence why I described it as a "variant."

To put it simply the intent was/is for (non-Grunt) NPCs to be able to use Edge in the same ways as characters - with a variation on the escape death clause which is the HOG rule (and which makes PCs a little more durable).

As I mentioned previously this subject will be addressed in FAQ and possibly errata.

I disagree. I think HOG is very much secondary to this particular discussion - so much so I'm willing to set aside the gamemaster's option c from my original post in the interest of continuing the discussion.

Cain contends that the Long Shot rules are broken (specifically in the case of Combat tests where Thresholds don't apply). I'm saying he's forgotten to factor in Edge use by the opposition (which he didn't, check his example) and which partially counters but does not cancel Mr Lucky's advantage. This is an integral element of the system balance. I obviously recognize that high Edge does give a significant advantage and allows almost impossible results. However, as people like Frank have pointed out already it just isn't as effective as Cain thinks because the system has a built-in counterbalance in NPC Edge use.

Cain then responded by saying that (a) the character doesn't have Edge to use (which is just plain wrong) and (b) HOG doesn't apply (a point which I'm entirely willing to concede at this point in the interest of further discussion).

(note: I've been down this path with him before. Usually his next step is to argue that the system is broken because it demands Edge use to counterbalance Edge use).

Given that I'm willing to set aside the HOG issue to make my point, the rest of my post remains.

There is no reason, by the rules, why a fully stated individual NPC with Edge (such as a Contact or a one-off character made by the GM) can't use Edge in the same manner as characters. The only characters that don't have Edge to use in some way are "unProfessional" Grunts, but since the wageslave doesn't qualify as a grunt in any reading of the rules Cain's counterargument is beside the point.

...sounds like a very nice place to work, are they hiring? If we don't get our timesheets in that evening it's like we committed a cardinal sin.

...that's nice, who fills this role? In our current group (and most other groups I've been in) this is part of the GM's purview. If I would have allowed the last "Rules Shyster" I had in a recent campaign that amount of control he would have ended up running (and ruining) the campaign to his liking.

...sounds like you have a very attentive nd contentious group. That isn't always the case for sometimes it almost comes to smacking people upside the head with the core book or rolling the dice and shouting something like "two cyberzombies with Vindicator miniguns come into the room and open up...role initiative" to get their attention. I was actually told I was no longer welcome in a group I was playing in once because I addressed the issue that there was more OoG tangential banter than actual playing of the game. I had tried to bring this to everyone's attention in a very diplomatic manner only to get the icy cold shoulder. I don't set aside my valuable time for gaming just to BS on unrelated subjects for most of the evening.

What it comes down to is that every group of players, every campaign every GM is different. I could easily make an argument on these very same issues that is completely different based on some of the experiences I had.

First off, you posting about how various people are using argument tactics which are logically invalid is tiresome and annoying. Since you are offering arguments based on opinion, which is itself logically invalid, other people using such arguments back is perfectly lefit. Indeed, once someone has invoked the appeal to authority, the only possible reply is the ad hominem. So saying "You're using ad hominem!" is a waste of all of our time. Yes, we know we are using ad hominem. That's because you keep using an appeal to authority so the only recourse is to discredit you. Since you aren't falling back on logic or reasoned arguments, the replies you get aren't themselves logical.

To which I can only say: "What did you think was going to happen?"

These are potentially factual arguments and subject to factual rebuttal. In fact, they've been discreditted utterly as you originally phrased them. Now it's possible for you to create a new scenario which "works" but you have not done so.

As it happens though, once you do create a scanario, it will then be perfectly permissable for people to make fun of you rather than engaging your rules argument. Why? Because once you have a rules scenario where X, Y, and Z happen, it falls to opinion to determine whether those events are actually a problem. Which means that people don't have to argue that the wording of the rules does not support your conclusions (although they can), they can skip all that and come back with a simple appeal to ridicule. The responses:

• Possibly, but you're a dumbass. (ad hominem)
  
• Could be, but that will never happen and doesn't matter. (trivial rejection)
  
• I have no problem with that. (appeal to authority)
  
• Why are you still talking? (appeal to ridicule)

Are all completely legal and valid ways to argue that point. Because what you've done is construct the argument:

1. X
2. Y
3. .: Z
4. I personally find Z to be bad. (Appeal to Authority)
5. .: X + Y are bad.

So because you have an emotional argument in at step 4, people don't even have to engage with the logical arguments at steps 3 and 5. They can, but it's not necessary. And indeed so long as you don't even reformat your 3 and 5 into something which hasn't had more holes torn in it than the Shroud of Turin, that's all that's left for us.

So yeah, you're still wrong, and your argument is still tiresome (ad hominem baby!)

And see, there's nothing even to argue here except whether you personally are a poopy face. Sorry, but these are all emotional arguments. I've carefully highlighted the weasel words which remove every one of these points from being subjected to logical analysis. How many is "too many"? What would be "better"? Better to whom? Seems to whom? Me? No. Absolutely not. So... you then? So what?

Having basically subjected your last five points to direct analysis it appears that they are literally:

1. My opinion counts more than other people on this thread.
2. My opinion is that SR4 is bad.

So yeah. Have fun with that. The second part is true, but meaningless without the first part. The first part is a completely baseless assertion. I reject it and further rebut it in the only possible fashion: direct ad hominem attack.

You sir, are wrong. I never should have fathered you.

-Frank

I may have been wrong about the "Escape Certain Death" clause, but it renders "Hand of God" obsolete, which clearly wasn't the intent. However, NPCs burning Edge is also one of the cheesier tactics a GM can pull, especially with one-shot NPCs. One shot characters are mostly unaffected by loss of Edge. Prime Runners are, via Hand Of God, since that burns *all* their Edge. But if they can choose to use both, then we get into an issue: they can ECD until they run out of Edge, then HoG all they like (since it only requires they burn their remaining edge, which is zero.

Actually, in this case, he'd be statted out as a living McGuffin. As he's still an unnmamed character, and it's be a stretch to qualify him as a contact by those definitions. We can restat him as a sattelite dish and get the same effect.

The choose someone else, or choose the Rules Guru by vote. If all the players agree that he'd make a good rules guy, then what can you do?

Well, for one, thank you; most people here have been attacking my group and gaming style, accusing them of being immature. You're the first to say in a counterargument that they don't have anything less that a wonderful, perfect, mature and obedient group that somehow becomes power-made lunatics when entrusted with the slightest bit of narrative control. Okay, I exaggerate, but that's the general vibe I'm getting.

Luckily, my father is an unmitigated ass without any ability for form a logical argument. Unfortunately for you, screaming that I do not have a logical argument does not make it so. I only brought up the logical fallacies for Knasser, who specifically asked for them.

I also note that you left the rules examples totally alone. Silence is assent, you realize. Because you went on an ad hominem rant, you've essentially conceded that my rules examples-- and my conclusions!-- are valid.

Now, would you like to debate the point, or would you like to go and scream yourself hoarse some more?

But it does make you funny, which is often more important than being correct.

...this particular fellow basically had read the books (including Street Magic) cover to cover while the rest of us were still getting accustomed to 4th ed. He would speak up on the rules only when it would give his character a distinct advantage over anyone else. When it came to rules issues involving other characters, I was usually the one who had to look things up. This person was the same disruptive player I spoke about in another thread a while back.

Based on this, I still believe it is the GM's responsibility to maintain a sound knowledge of the rules so that everyone gets a fair shake.

As to player groups. I have been in a lot of different situations, some very good and others (like the example I cited) very bad. Not so much power-mongering, but more from the point of being inconsiderate and disrespectful.

I'm sorry; what's your point?