...dead?

Only if you ignore what I've just told you. The intent was for HOD to work exactly like a limited form of ECD - with the limitation that it burns all the Prime Runner/NPC's Edge.

Whether you think its cheesy or not is irrelevant.

The opposition using Edge is an integral part of the equation. One you are chosing to ignore in your examples (ironic since they both revolve around using Edge in the first place). Your analysis is flawed if you don't factor it in.

You mentioned a few posts back that Combat tests don't have Thresholds. Good call. Combat tests are opposed tests and as such Edge can and does factor in - on both sides. If the player tries something that the gamemaster thinks is neigh impossible in the context of the game the group is playing, then he should make it neigh impossible - there is no reason he should stop at piling on negative modifiers.

I've said above that I'm willing to set aside burning Edge (to invoke HOG or otherwise). Let's do that.

I think you need to reread what I posted. What I said was that Prime Runners were intended to use HOG rather than the basic rule (forcing them to burn all their Edge as opposed to 1 Edge). What I meant by my aside is that there is at least one other reason for Prime Runners to burn Edge (for instance getting a critical success) and this work just the same as for PCs.

Regardless, in the interest of continuing this discussion, I reiterate what I said above. Let's ignore option C. Let's forget burning Edge. Let's ignore the whole ECD/HOG contention. It isn't that important. What is important, is that the your NPC wageslave can still use his Edge to:
a) boost his dice pool and call on the Rule of Six.
b) boost his dice pool after the roll.
b) make a reroll.
All of which can affect the outcome of your Long Shot resolution all without burning Edge.

You can blow smoke all you want, but the rules are clear.

I'm not sure whether you're laboring under the illusion that the categorization of NPCs as Grunts, Prime Runners and Contacts is all inclusive in which case you're just plain wrong - the rules for Grunts, Prime Runners and Contacts are simply "guidelines for gamemasters" to facilitate using NPCs. Or whether you're just trying to be difficult to make your example stick.

There have always been and always will be partially or fully developed one-off characters written up for the purpose of an adventure and which fit none of the aforementioned categories (ie. the bouncer at the club door, the cab driver you need to take you across town, the corner drug dealer, or the wageslave trying to escape in a boat with the briefcase the runners are after). Your wageslave on the run can't help but to be one of them, since Grunt rules apply only to "groups of similar individuals" (and are essentially intended to speed up conflict resolution) and everyone else (including most Grunts) get some sort of Edge to use.

Everybody else gets stated out as an individual. This means they have Edge. For instance: Human bystander A waiting to get into the club has at least Edge 2, the human girlfriend on his arm has Edge 2 too, the troll at the door has Edge 1 or more.

If this were a scenario written up in an official book the NPC would recieve get a one line write up and basic stats at the very least. If it was a home brew game it'd probably be a character put together on the fly. Regardless, he'd still be stated out and have an Edge rating. We can ask for a call of hands to see how many people would handle it otherwise if you'd like.

Once you accept the wageslave has Edge and can use it (again, let's put aside Burning Edge for the moment), there is no reason why it shouldn't factor into your example - reducing even Mr. Lucky's odds and making the proposition increasingly less likely even to his cousins Mr Amazingly Lucky (Edge 7) and Mr Legendary Lucky (Edge 6).

Oh, there is no way you are blaming me for you posting endless definitions of logical fallacies. Do you recall the following interchange?

To which I replied "I'm fine to do so if it's in dispute." And this is specifically asking for all your links? You keep using this word 'specifically,' I do not think it means what you think it means.

Now onto more serious matters - like humour:

No, but it does not mean I'm wrong. A point delivered with humour, nay panache, remains a point. Four times I carefully stated what my understanding of your comment was before replying to it, whilst you four times accused me of setting up a false argument to demolish without explaining what you had meant instead. But more interestingly, when you finally do respond with what you meant we find that I had it right all along. Now you may or may not agree with my response to what you said, but I did respond to it correctly and it was no straw man.

There is no forest if there are no trees and until people are satisfied that your examples of "horribly broken rules" actually stand up, you can't condemn people for not accepting your overall forest, I mean point. Your response of

supports my point. We are still examining your two trees before deciding if this is a suitable spot to break out the picnic hampers. A number of people here (and a majority, I think) would disagree that the Citymaster example is still under unfinished argument. They would say that the argument is well and truly finished. And before I get another link in my face, no that is not Appeal to Majority, it's a response to your assessment of the state of the argument. As to "The Shot Heard Round the Barrens example has held up unarguably," I think unarguably doesn't mean what you think it means, either.

I haven't "tackled" The Shot example, because it would be repetitive and others have put it better than I have, anyway.

I'll concede any points about there being games out there that don't require a GM to have greater power than the players solely due to ignorance of the games that you mention. But as you say yourself, Shadowrun as written could not be played like that. Which begs the question of why you are criticising all of us Shadowrun GMs for playing it that way.

All very true, but the GM has greater responsibility for a fun game because the GM has greater power to influence the game's fun content. A GM has the power to stop players from doing any of the things you frown upon in the above quote. The GM in fact has more power to stop players from doing any of those things than other players. Furthermore the GM is of demonstrably neutral to at least a passable extent because the GM has the power to wipe out the party at any second.

It is not an Appeal to Tradition fallacy if I say that 2+2 =4 just because it has equalled 4 historically. Nothing in my post either referred to previous tradition or implied this. My point was simply that the GM has a responsibility to be neutral which is pretty easy to demonstrate. I honestly think by this point, you're just looking for ways to tick off more of your Logical Fallacies whether they fit or not. Are you able to argue without Appeal To Www.Nizkor.Org/ ?

And this is personal. You're telling me how I run the game having never met me or played with me. I'm also pretty sure I never described my players as "mature." Please read what you quoted me as saying a second time? Is there anything in there where I refer to players cheating or acting biased? No there isn't and though you inferred it, I did not imply it either. My players have never wanted to be neutral or impartial. They have always wanted what their characters wanted, they have always wanted to fight and win or get the +4 Longsword and slay the wraith-king. The last thing they need or want is to sit back and say "I think the Wraith King should probably attack my character first - I'm a Wizard and I've only got five hit points left, so I'm obviously the most vulnerable target." They want an opponent they can hate and I provide. They want foes that they can outwit or that can outwit them. They don't want to play two sides against each other and feel the lack of engagement that it brings. Players can be honest. Players can grudgingly admit to me that they probably wouldn't know that their scout was killed by a lycanthrope and have silver arrows drawn and ready. But neutral? Not in my game!

A GM however, is neutral, has to be neutral, is demonstrably neutral, at least to a sufficient degree to keep the game running. A GM can after all, drop a cow on the party at any moment. And that's why they have a logical basis for being neutral as far as the rules go, too. I never said that the GM need be the rules expert (though that is normal). I said that the GM was the final recourse when an impasse is reached. And so he or she is.

And do I treat my players like children? I tease them, I lie to them, I mess with their heads, reward them and punish them. Perhas I do. But if your implication is that I patronise them or think they're beneath me then you're implying something far, far worse than anything to do with the game - you're saying that I or others here treat children partonisingly or as if they're beneath them. I really, deeply dislike that. Children are the most precious things most of us have. To treat players as if they're children should be to treat them with the greatest of respect.

And that I stand by.

Not exactly. ECD (Escape Certain Death) as its been called above means the character gets to live and that's all - what exactly happens to him is up to the GM. He could be paralyzed, he could be in a coma for years, or he could get lucky and the kink bomb was a dud. Gamemaster's call.

I will change my mind about SR4 being flawed if Cain can find an example of how it is that actually stands up. So far, the examples have been easily disputed with quotes from the actual book. I doubt in any case I'd ever go as far as to agree it is "horribly, badly broken" seeing as I've never had much of a problem with it since it came out. The lifting rules are the only thing that really leapt out at me as a terrible mistake and that is a minor thing.

As regards the GM authority point, I think I'm right (else I wouldn't be arguing it obviously) and I think Cain's aversion to it has more to do with the word authority than it does the meaning in this context. After all, he has advocated having a "rules guy" who everyone agrees to abide by. This is no different to everyone agreeing to grant the GM authority which is the normal approach. Splitting authority in this manner is more likely to cause problems however. Aside from the likely cases whereby a GM would have to share priveleged information with a player and the fact that the GM role has an in-built neutrality whilst a player's neutrality has no basis other than good will, there would inevitably be clashes between the two "absolute" authorities - the one in charge of the world and the one in charge of how it behaves. I don't know the games that Cain plays, but they seem markedly different to the way Shadowrun works and it is Shadowrun that is the subject here.

Loosing 1 point of permanent edge is the minimum repercussions to ECD. There is no upper bound.
edit: I changed my mind. The exclusive upper bound is death.

...repetitio

Also, excellent observations on the "Rules Guy".

Figures. Am I correct in thinking that to make a latin word, you just have to replace the end of an English word with an 'o' and 'um' or an 'us.' I suppose the trick is in knowing which one to use with any given word.

And thanks,

-Khadim.

EDIT: Actually, I think Winner of the Thread title has to go to Ryu for managing to make an excellent point without actually saying anything at all. Very Zen.

Um... Cain, you can't burn "remaining" edge if there is none left. If you need apples to survive, of which you have only 2, and I take them both away from you, how do you continue to survive on Zero indefinitely? You can't. Remaining means a portion of the original value. Zero is a complete depletion. You can't burn the "remaining" amount if there is no amount to burn. How you completely missed this is beyond me.

Correctum.

You had to comment on it... I thought it was so much better leaving it undisputed.. As in no one thought that this should even be argued, because it was obviously way out there.

I think you mean Cain, not Critias. But I've been enjoying it if I'm honest. If Cain doesn't work for a political party, he should. Catching all the tricks has been a fantastic logical workout.

-K.

You disagreed with me as to what constituted a good argument. I educated you otherwise. And since you did it again, I'll point out that you just committed a Red Herring.

When you deliver one with actual humor, let me know.

And unfortunately, a fallacious argument does not hold up. The only support for your argument is to make fun of it, which helps prove I'm right. Appeal to Humor, a fallacious argument, which could be discarded.

The Shot Heard Round the Barrens has held up. No one has attacked it directly, with canon citations. The best that has happened is Pete pointing out that I haven't calculated for Edge in the response. Which doesn't mean that the hypothetical -1,000,000 shot still isn't broken, it's just that theres ways of possibly offsetting some of the +1,000,000 of benefits. IMO, one or two dice isn't going to make a big deal against 1,000,000, but I'm not a mathematician.

Wrong. Everyone has more-or-less the same responsibility to see that these things happen. And the same authority. In fact, sometimes the GM has less. Let's say that the disruptive player's girlfriend is there as well. Who's more likely to more power over him: The GM, with an unknown relationship; or an intimate companion?

One disruptive player can overwhelm a GM's best efforts. Which is why it's the responsibility of every player to be cooperative.

Another Straw Man. Where did I criticize "all Shadowrun GM's"?

I'm saying there's another way, yes. A better way. And there's a significant sample of people who like it. And I think you'll discover that the better Shadowrun GMs out there tend to follow aspects of this approach anyway.

Ah, there it is. The "Not in my games! Wah!" Argument. Which, in addition to being an Appeal to Force fallacy, tends to show that a GM is ready to throw the punitive approach at his players.

Again, the Shot Head Round the Barrens. You certainly haven't tried to attack it, nor has Frank, and the best argument so far is that it could be countered to a small degree if you make Joe Normal into the equivalent of a Prime Runner. If it's so easily disputed with a quote, why haven't *you* posted a single page quote for the last four or so pages?

I've seen the "Rules guy" approach work successfully, with Shadowrun. It causes fewer problems actually; because if the GM makes a rules gaffe, the rules guy can quickly come up with: "But it could have happened this way instead!" allowing the GM a fast retcon. And fast retcons are certainly a lot more fair, open, and acceptable than GM fiat. Instead of the GM saying: "I want it to happen that way, so it happens that way, no matter how unfair it is!"; you get: "Okay, that wasn't fair, how about this instead? I want things to go this way, and maybe I should go about it slightly differently."

Sure.

Maybe that's the problem. The 'one or two dice' against 1,000,000 that you cite is purely obfuscation. The maximum Dice Pool for the Mr. Lucky in your Shot Heard Round The Barrens example (or any other example from Mr. Lucky's Longshot Warehouseâ„¢) is 8! You could have -1,000,000,000 to your Dice Pool, and will still have a maximum of 8 dice for any given Longshot. The addition of a couple of dice to the defender's Pool via the legitimate use of Edge can indeed make a huge difference against Mr. Lucky's 8 dice.

Why can't Fastjack buy more automatic hits with his huge Dice Pool, gauranteed to be up around 16? Or better yet, even roll for successes, which more than likely will give him 5 or so hits?

Reread toturi's post. We've made the assumption that the target is a faceless, nameless wageslave. For our purposes, a grunt. I've already spoken as to what would happen if Joe were a Prime Runner instead.

The Citymaster example is -52. The Shot Heard Round the Barrens is -53. Mechanically speaking, and as far as the rules are concerned, The Shot is the most difficult of the two.

As far as stacking on the modifiers go, that's rather the point. In theory, I could keep going to the -1,000,000 point, gaining the equivalent of +1,000,000 in benefits. I know it's not a 1:1 tradeoff, exactly, but this much is true: the more modifiers you pile on, the more benefit you get. And since the odds of success don't change, there's no reason to not pile on the modifiers as deep as you can.

So, while Mr. Lucky might get only(!) 8 dice, he gets the same 8 dice if he's making a standard shot, a called shot for +4 damage, or a called shot while standing on his head whistling Dixie.

Because it makes no difference. Two successes are all that is needed. Fastjack could go for a Critical Success, but that doesn't give him anything more than a flourish... which I already factored in.

Synner is using the Prime Runner/Contact rules, where the NPCs have Edge. Cain's example is using the Grunt rules, where the NPCs share Edge and in the case of Professional Rating 0 Grunts, have no Edge.

It would not be unreasonable for Cain to go back and reword his example such that the target in question is the last fleeing member of Humanis Policlub mob(canon Professional Rating 0). The difference in the usage of the rules, IMO, lies in the wording of Cain's example. He could easily have said the guy driving the Citymaster was a Humanis member and some of the other Grunts are sitting in the back.

"Religious dogma"

Jhaiisiin mocks our jihad! So...jihad on Jhaiisiin!

I dunno. I'm kind of on the "everything is fine, GM fiat works!" side right now, but if Cain explains his point of view and goes through his Citymaster takedown example seven or eight more times, I miiiight change my mind.

One thing at a time. I haven't gotten past the "Shadowrun is perfect! How dare you challenge the Holy Canon!" part yet. There are still people who say there aren't any serious flaws in SR4. Once I'm done bringing them around to your point of view, then I can demonstrate how broken it really is.

I've only programmed in original BASIC, so I'm going to have to take your word for a lot of things. However, I do recall that I can write out the code, and eventually input it into a computer later. I might not be able to test the program, but there's always a chance (Edge) that I got it mostly right on paper. There may be quirks, sure; but I factored that into my example.

At any event, the question isn't precicely the time involved. The problem is that, mechanically speaking, he can do just as well at the same task.

Actually I feel that the example was quite valid up until Synner presented his writer/dev intentions. Then it became necessary to modify the example in light of the new clarifications(which in itself is another symptom of how flawed the SR4 rule set is).

Cain did tell us that he intended the NPC to be. I had pointed out to him that based on his descriptions, his intention did not strictly match the canon descriptions. But since it was his example, I see no point in requiring him to cross the Ts and dot the Is so assiduously.

I didn't say serious flaws. Some rules annoy me, but I mod as desired and enjoy the rest. Ultimately, all you can offer is your opinion, which I've already heard. Now you just bore/annoy me with repetition and condescension.

There's something of a disconnect here. Nothing that "Synner presented" that is directly relevant to this example is not plainly written out in the rules and has been all along (with the exception of possibly extending HOG to all "named" NPCs and which is largely irrelevant to this example).

No one I've seen has disputed that NPCs have Edge (even most Grunts). In fact, the vast majority of NPCs in the game have Edge, and the most evident flaw in all of Cain's examples is that the NPCs never use it (ie. once again, in his latest programming example, FastJack doesn't use his Edge. If Mr. Lucky can, why can't FastJack?), even though the PC attacker is making the max of his. Cain is saying the Edge / Long Shot rules are flawed and he's chosing to ignore an element of the rules to prove his point.

Look at the core book. It is clear that all Contacts get Edge. "Prime Runners"/signature characters get Edge. Even most Grunts get Group Edge. Why the heck wouldn't they be able to use it? Where does the system put restrictions on Edge use by NPCs? And what does my clarification change with regards to how the Edge rule set works and has worked from the onset (disregarding viability of HOG for non-Prime NPCs)? Let's disregard my comments as to author's intent. Let's assume HOG works as written and is restricted to Prime Runners (since it is pretty irrelevant to my point and simply a question of wording). How does the rest of what I elaborated upon, regarding NPC Edge use (all the other Edge options beside Burning Edge), somehow become a "rule set flaw."

The book offers you the rule and tells you all (well almost) NPCs have Edge (a dead giveaway is the little chart with NPC and Critter Stats). Why wouldn't they be able to use it (like you would have used their combat pool in SR3)?

Edge use is an element built into the system and blatantly obvious to anyone who has read the book. The Edge rules, introduced in the core Game Concepts chapter (along with such things as metatypes and Attribute definitions) is clearly open to all characters (PCs and NPCs alike). How can you make a statement about the validity of rule set if you're ignoring one aspect of the rules? If you've ignored Edge use by NPCs that is your problem, not the system's.

I see too many GMs forgetting to pour on the visibility modifiers to Spellcasting dicepools and then complaining Combat spells are overpowered. Same mistake. Just as you can't evaluate Spellcasting without considering the impact of typical visibility modifiers that are built into the rules, you can't evaluate Edge balance without considering that it works for both sides involved.

Now back to Cain's example:

I'll concede that Cain's example is a valid one under the rule set. However, it hinges on so many exceptions it is not representative of either the entire rule set or even the standard Edge / Long Shot rules.

It can potentially happen, if the escaping wageslave was somehow the last of a posse of unProfessional wageslaves that picked a fight with a team of professional runners, if he managed to escape and get on a boat, if the runners decided that this grunt was worth chasing to the dockside guns blazing through the pouring rain and heavy traffic just to make sure none of those hardy unProfessional wageslaves survived (as unlikely as that might seem). I concede that it might concievably happen (not at my table, but at some theoretical table somewhere). And in that unique situation, Cain's analysis is correct, Mr Lucky makes a brilliant and utterly unbelievable shot. In fact it's the type of really lucky shot that earned him his handle. To which I'll add the wageslave in the boat is an unimportant and unfortunate grunt (otherwise you wouldn't be using the Grunt rules) that's meant to go down easy (again that's thy the Grunt and that any GM who allows this extreme situation to happen probably has no problem with Mr. Lucky's fortuitious shot taking him down.

However, Cain chose to make a sweeping statement based on an exceptional example. "Exceptional" because this is the one exception to the rule that NPCs get Edge and that factors into the calculations of the Edge mechanic in every other circumstance.

What I'm pointing out is that contrary to what Cain stated several pages back this gimmick does not allow Mr. Lucky to take down Lofwyr (cause Lofwyr is sure as hell going to use his own Edge to boost his pools and make Mr Lucky's 8 dice look laughable) or even the Citymaster in his other vaunted example (cause that rigger or driver is not going to be an unProfessional Grunt). And he hasn't been able to refute this.

In every other (more probable) scenario and set of circumstances, the use of Edge by the opposition (which any other opposition will have) reduces Mr Lucky's chances significantly. Fortune pointed out it becomes 1 or 2 dice against 8 dice (impossible to modify) but that is incorrect. Edge can be used to boost an existing pool and open it up to the Rule of Six. Meaning that one-off character wageslave (stats ripped from the Corp Secretary contact) would be rolling 5 dice to dodge the shot (and not 3) and the Rule of Six might factor in. This against the 8 dice rolled by the Luckiest Man Alive at the top of his game.

By the way people keep forgetting that last bit .

Mr Lucky is simply one of the handful of luckiest men alive in the entire world. He's past legendary, he's past exceptional, he's almost one of a kind (he has a Rating of 8).

The gamemaster who approves (remember that phase of CharGen?) this (perfectly valid) character build is accepting that some of the stuff this guy does, and only him, is going to stretch believablility, borders the supernatural, and will impact the game in a few rare and extreme circumstances - and not as Cain would have us believe on a regular basis. The GM who approves this character is allowing the Luckiest Man Alive into his game. It's up to him to evaluate the (actual) ramifications (as opposed to Cain's hyperbole examples) and decide whether those are acceptable in his game with his group's playing style. It might not be acceptable (as much as a perfectly valid Body 30 Troll with no stealth skills and specializing in heavy weapons might not be acceptable in a team of black ops infiltrators) or it might - approval is up to the GM. Of course if he approves the character its also up to him to provide an adequate challenge to Mr Lucky.

But getting back to the example, the problem here is Cain's Long Shot demands an extreme set of circumstances, that I personally have never seen occur at a table but admit are feasible (see above). I've shown that his example relies on a set of exceptional circumstances a) an extreme situation stretching believability rare), b) the NPC having no Edge (rare), and c) the shot coming from Mr Lucky with a full 8 Edge (rarer still). Assuming those extreme circumstances come into play at all, I can't see anyone questioning that it is a rare and extreme situation, rather than a common example of mechanics use. So my question is how does something that happens once in a blue moon, calls for a set of unusual circumstances, depends on the only exception to the NPC Edge use, and only ever happens to a unique character that is one of the world's most consistently fortunate individuals, suddenly extend to the entire Edge mechanic and become a "rules system flaw"?

It is, in fact, a rare exception that the rules allow in very peculiar circumstances. It is feasible, though highly unlikely, but it certainly doesn't color the entire SR4 system, nor does it unbalance the Edge rules.

Let me put this another way. How many of you have Mr. Lucky at your tables? And of those that have how many have encountered anything remotely similar to these situations? I have had Mr Lucky at my table - a min-maxer and rules lawyer to boot. And so far he's died two horrible deaths and never lived up to the hype - in fact, he's now Mr Not Quite So Lucky because he's burned 2 Edge to remain alive and he's seriously reconsidering whether the BPs poured into the Exceptional Attribute and Lucky were worth it.

Well I'm educated in that I've had a refresher on some latin terminology, but what you link to never seems to match up with what I've actually said. In the example right above where I'm typing, for example: Frank tells you to stop posting these links every other paragraph and you say that it's because I asked you to. I pull up the actual quote in which it proves to show otherwise and you respond with "Red Herring" which your link says is "changing the subject." Well I admit you're the expert in that area but I don't see how it applies to me directly answering a comment of yours.

And since you've slipped in another little straw mman I'll just put in a quick correction. I didn't "disagree with [you] as to what constituted a good argument." I said that argument by metaphor was poor argument and you asked me if I really wanted to get into what made a good or bad argument. I said 'sure, if we need to.' But it was you that disagreed with me on this specific subject, not me commenting on the validity of any of these "logical fallacies" you keep linking to. And incidentally, the implication ever since is that you do think argument by metaphor is good argument. Isn't there a fallacy for this?

I'll have to ask for a show of hands for this one. It may technically be an Appeal To the Majority, but I like being told I'm witty.

If you couldn't see the point I was making and only saw an attempt to be funny, then there's a problem and it's not on my end. But wait... I see in the very next line you contradict yourself by responding to the point I made in that joke. This is a Reducto Ad Senilium. (You'll notice that I separated out the humour into a separate sentence that time, in case it obscured the actual point from you).

Okay, well at least the Citymaster example has been laid to rest. As to the Shot Heard Round the Barrens, I'd love to see you actually get to -1,000,000 dice pool of penalties. Would you like to actually try it or are you going to re-phrase your argument to a scenario that could actually happen?

But anyway, taking some of the less hysterical examples you've been posting to address, hitting the grunt on the boat - does it really qualify as "horribly, badly broken" as you've been saying? Firstly, it's an extremely contrived situation. Secondly, you have a character that is specifically built to be lucky. You may or may not like the flavour of that, but it's a viable build under the rules and the only likely outcome of it is that the target loses a few boxes of physical. And this is in a scenario that has been deliberately constructed to break the rules. Why your PCs are trying to shoot an unnamed wage-slave on a boat from extreme range in a storm, in the dark, during an earthquake, whilst near death is something we haven't got into yet.

Anyway, your extremely luck-optimised character can pull off only a few edgy shots per adventure. Contrast that with a more balanced samurai who can consistently pull off good results. If luck being a trait of a character does not appeal to how you want to run your game flavour-wise, then by all means change it as I have (fixed edge progression is one of my three house-rules). But it's not unbalanced.

And I think it's also worth quoting the guidelines on modifiers from the BBB itself:

In your examples you are directly ignoring the guidelines that are presented in the book itself.

Now moving on to the question of GM authority, I think this argument is going to turn into a big mess because I don't think you will ever accept my definitions of terms. You don't like the use of the word authority though you have said thing similar to what I have said using different terms (e.g. in your proposal of a "rules guy" that everyone submits to). As I have said in every comment I have made in this all along - a GMs has legitimate authority because players give it to him willingly. Still, I'll make a couple of minor comments on what you posted because something needs to be said in response.

I said "power." The GM has more power to influence the events of the game than everyone else. Do you dispute that? If so, I think you'll be the only one. Having markedly greater power to control the events of the game, the GM has greater responsibility for how it turns out. Do you see what I did there? I put forward a reason for why things were the way I concluded. I didn't just say "Wrong. It is this way because I think it is this way."

Now you are conflating separate things. Who has more power of the player, the girlfriend or the GM? Could be either. Who has more power over how that player affects the game? The GM. Unless this is a Magic Girlfriend +5 that bestows the five times a day ability to change reality (I used to have one of those... six times a day if I took Zinc supplements), then she does nothing to increase a player's ability to alter the game world. You want to talk about who has greatest claim to a player's attention, go ahead - I'm not interested. But when it comes to influencing the game world, it is the GM. And it is this that matters most because that is what shows the GM has both greater responsibility to be neutral and greater responsibility for how events in the game proceed.

You have misquoted me which must have been difficult as my words are just a few lines above your own. I said you are "criticising all of us Shadowrun GMs" which in the context was fairly obviously referring to all of us in this thread that you have been criticising.

Better Shadowrun GMs? I doubt it. Different ways for different groups, and you're again being insulting. Though that said, based on this thread, I have trouble imagining you playing in some power-shared, right-through-reasoning committee group as you describe. I would think a "I am right because I am" approach would suit you better. It's been the basis of much of your argument here in this thread. Toturi, yes (n.b. you are only capitalised due to beginning a sentence, apologies). Toturi (again) may be more capable of neutrality than any GM I've ever seen and toturi's players seem to enjoy his unique style so all is good. But I don't think toturi is representative. More importantly, whilst I have in the past criticised him for his approach to GM'ing, I don't recall him ever actually criticising mine unlike you in the following quote:

Soooooooooo out of context. When I said "not in my games," it was at the end of a long piece about defending the fun of my players against things that threaten it. Not in my games indeed, I stand by that. I whip my players like dogs and they lurrrrve it (and you can sig me on that). So let's just drop the "Wah!" shall we? Or were you trying to join in on the humour thing?

Done. See above. Though the counterpoints that others have made do not require turning "Joe Normal" into the equivalent of a Prime Runner. That is not true.

Ah, so the principle is flawed if the GM is a bad one. Four things then. 1. The same applies to your "rules guy" if he's a bad one. 2. If the GM is a bad one then there are an infinite number of ways that the game can be redirected other than breaking rules. The existence of a rules guy will not compensate for a GM with an agenda. 3. The existence of two authorities in the game will sooner or later lead to conflict. 4. The IMPORTANT point you have missed is that the ceding of authority to your "rules guy" is exactly the same as the ceding authority to a GM. So your outrage that a GM should be given authority over players by players is hypocritical when you have the same principle operating under a different name in your own group (assuming that you do play this way).

Well that's so much better.

I think for me this thread is drawing to a close. It has been a fun exercise to do all this logical wrestling. It was never really of much relevance to real games as 99.9% of GMs confronted with a player who tries to shoot someone whilst pointing the gun in a random direction will likely just laugh and no harm will be done to the game unless you have an insanely argumentative player that wont accept the stupidity of what they're doing. However, I can now see it starting to turn into something less pleasant (perhaps I'm going "Wah! Not in my thread") so unless you can come up with some interesting counterpoints to what I've said above I think I shall shortly be moving on.

-Khadim.

I think I'm getting this now. So someone who argues by repeated recourse to fallacy would be an expert in fallatio? Or guilty of Reducto Ad Fallus?


.
.
.
Okay, I have finally yielded to temptation. I apologise. I am done. This thread will be available as a saddle-stitched hard-bound coffee-table edition from Lulu.com. All proceeds to go to http://www.nizkor.org.

-K.

Ah, you caught that before I deleted it. I should explain that I made a comment to Buster about the use of the word Jihad, but I edited it out again because his joke only worked because of alliteration and he had to use a 'j' word and I didn't find the use of the word offensive. I'm not an expert on the history of the language, but the word today is not only used to mean violent action. It is also used to mean other sorts of struggle. You can tell what is meant by the context though. But really, in English it is a loan word and when someone in the West says a Jihad, you know they're thinking of fanatical muslim soldiers or something like that. I'm sure I could think of other loan words where the copied meaning is different to the original, though in this case it's not so much different as just more limited. Crusade might not actually be a bad equivalent (ironic or not) as people use it today to mean all sorts of things other than picking up a cross and invading the Middle East for the glory of Rome. (Though a jihad can be personal and crusade is usually a group thing, yes?) I honestly don't know if the original meanings of jihad were exclusively military or not and couldn't prove it either way if I did. I'm as reduced to wikipedia as the rest of you if you're going to start asking me questions of historical accuracy. I was raised in the UK and my first language is English. But jihad does have more meanings in arabic than struggle by violence today, so it's not right to take it to mean only the one thing. As you say, it can and does also mean a spiritual struggle within oneself. It's a powerful concept, not a casual one.

And this is seriously off-topic.

Again, I'm going straight for your emotional appeal in between step 3 and 5. Who cares?

Yes, Fastjack could write a rating 2 program, answer a Jeopardy question, bake a cake, or do anything else that is well below his skill level without spending an Edge and Mr. Lucky could spend an Edge and do the same thing. So what?

The task as defined is entirely binary: you do it or you don't do it. The fact that one person can barely do it and another person can do it or something much more difficult is completely lost in this example. Similarly a trollish cybersam can leap over a small gap with ease. Mr. Lucky might spend an edge to do the same thing. What is the problem?

Your Fastjack example is not problematic. I accept your logical argument all the way up until you add the emotional content: that this is in any way a bad thing. Fastjack can buy the hits needed to microwave a burrito or drive his car across town, is it problematic that Mr. Lucky can spend an edge to accomplish these inconsequential tasks while whigged out on qualudes? Why?

What is the problem here?

---

We're in non-logical argument territory here. We both accept that FastJack can accomplish minor tasks and that Mr. Lucky can be bleeding from the intestines and spend an Edge to accomplish those same minor tasks.

It now falls to you to make the emotional argument that there is in fact a problem with this state of affairs. I'm prepared with my argument: t seems entirely reasonable to me. What's yours? Justify your existence.

-Frank

A minor point, and made mainly because Frank doesn't usually leave anything for other people to pick up on, but it's not necessarily the same thing. Cain's original point was that Mr. Lucky could accomplish the same thing as FastJack in the same time. In fact, FastJack is more than capable of using the Rushing the Job rules (SR4,pg. 59) and accomplishing the task in half the time it takes Mr. Lucky. The odds of FastJack achieving this without glitching with a dice pool of 16 and point of edge for a re-roll are reasonably small and the odds of a critical glitch are minimal. At the same time, if Mr. Lucky tries to rush the job, the odds of a glitch are fifty-fifty and a critical glitch within the realms of possibility. Remember, Mr. Lucky lives by the long-shot, he's going to hit critical glitches more often than others. So if it comes down to a race between the two, FastJack can confidentally bang out the code in record time whilst Mr. Lucky risks flawing his software.

You also have to ask yourself what being lucky on a software creation roll means. Maybe Mr. Lucky has a half-finished search program from his under-graduate computer course that he dropped out of. Maybe he finds a handy How-To on the Matrix that meets his needs. Edge is luck, we are told, so once you apply the fluff, it doesn't seem so terrible in this example after all. It's certainly not unbalanced game-wise and as Frank points out, the opinion that this represents some "horribly broken" rule-set remains opinion. One that not many people seem to share.

Ooops. I said I was done. Sorry - just hadn't seen anyone make these points in relation to the software example, yet. NOW I'm done.

-K.

Technically, I specifically did state that Edge would provide the addition of one or two dice to the defender's Pool. I merely left off the exploding factor, because I was unsure just how much that would affect things.

I thought it was funny.

You get 20% more hits on average over and above the increased dice pool. However, that's average. You get rewarded for success with more success, failure looks exactly the same whether you explode or not. So you get a much flatter curve in addition to the increased everage hits.

So your chances of getting 1 or more hits doesn't change, but your chances of getting 4 or more hits becomes astoundingly better.

-Frank

I actually covered that in the last example. Even with two or more exploding dice, that only changes Joe Normal's probable successes into two instead of the three required. He'd still get spudged.

I have, as a player. To date, Mr. Lucky has yet to spend all of his Edge in a SRM or home game. He's also pulled off two "impossible" pistol shots, one at -12, and one at -18. True, those weren't longshots; but that goes back to mfb's point that high dicepools break the game as well, without needing to invoke Longshots or Edge.

There are many reasons why it's broken, which start adding up. First is the fact he can make the shot at all. Second, it could easily happen on a smaller scale, with less Edge involved. Third is the shattering of suspension-of-disbelief, although this more concerns the Citymaster example. Fourth is the fact that luck trumps skill. Fifth is the total destruction of niche protection: eight times a game, Mr. Lucky can potentially outshine a specialist in their field. Sixth is the total obsolescence of generalist characters; a character shouldn't need to involve a variety of obscure skills more than eight times a game (unless it's part of the core plot, in which case there should be a specialist in it anyways). Seventh is the disconnect between the core book's intended "gritty, street" game and the wildly cinematic effects of a Longshot. Again, it's like the designers did what a lot of modern martial arts are doing: stealing a bunch of cool ideas from elsewhere, without really stopping to think about how they all fit together.

The character I'm specifically referring to is my own personal creation, who (after some Karma) has 20 dice in Pistols, and averages 6-8 dice in most other categories. He lacks technical skills, but for that he's got skillwires with a Skillwire Expert System. He can not only consistently pull off good results, he can consistently pull off amazing ones as well.

Actually, no one ever "submits" to the rule guy. You're confusing power and influence again. He has no power to enforce the rules, he's just faster than consulting a book.

Yes, because we've all seen the stories (if not posted about them) of the one unruly player who completely destroyed a game session, despite all the "power" a GM wields. Do you dispute that?

Except my point is that this isn't actually necessary. Going back to my two examples, in Wushu, all a GM really does is provide flavor text and set challenges. If you boil down a Shadowrun GM's tasks, that's all they're doing as well. And then we get into games like Capes, which don't require a GM at all. And you can easily port the Shadowrun world into either system.

I've played a fair amount of Wushu, mostly in the Roanoke setting. I haven't played Capes yet, but I've read the free version. I have played a goodly amount of Truth and Justice, plus a bundle of other games that have shared narrative control mechanics.

Sort of. As you can tell, I'm not very good at the humor thing. Snide remarks are more my style.

1. The rules guy has no actual authority, just influence. His job is to cite the rules.
2. Not entirely, but it goes a long way towards exposing one.
3. I've yet to see that happen. Or hear of it.
4. As I've been saying, who's ceding authority anywhere? We're only ceding influence.

Let me give you an example of a rules guy. Let's say that someone in your group just got his hands on Arsenal. He's already read it cover-to-cover several times. by the time he brings it to game. You're thumbing through it, and some of the stuff seems very cool, but you don't have the time to go over it with a fine-toothed comb, so you quickly jot down a few notes. Later, you turn to the book owner and say: "Hey, I can't remember, what was the damage code for a Victory Autocannon again? Okay, thanks."

Congratulations. You just nominated a rules guy. He may not be the same one you go to for Magic, nor base combat rules. You certainly haven't ceded him any power over your game. But you've shown him that you respect him; and from that respect, springs influence.