I thought at first it was mostly an issue of me not doing a great job at comprehending the rules. But it seems there are a fair few questions asked on the boards about what a certain descriptions really mean when you consider X corner case.

For example the thread:

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=20731

Having the flexability to let each GM determine how they want to rule on things like this is great...

Unless you have rules lawyers in your group then it becomes a nightmare.

So, what do you think?

you should just make clear to your players that you have the final say on how to interpret the rules. If it really is a misunderstanding then maybe let the player go for the first time, but tell him how you see a certain rule and that it will be played your way from then on.

Basically some parts of the rules could have been formulated better though.

In my searching for information I found alot of old posts talking about the role of the GM.

imho a game should be written as to *not* make the GM rule on nearly everything. A GM has plenty enough to keep going aside from having to curb over enthusiastic (read gouging) players.

So yeah, too open = burden

it really depends. for an experienced GM who is good at making stuff up on the spot and who prefers that method of playing, it is an advantage. but it requires that the GM be assertive, and confident in their ability.

on the other hand, if the GM is brand new to the job (or especially if new to the game or to RPGs in general) it is a pretty hefty disadvantage, unless they are just confident and like making stuff up anyways and they're playing with people who are not going to argue with them =P

of course, it also depends on the players. the more willing the players are to make a (short) case for their interpretation and leave the in-depth discussion until after the session, the better it works for your game.

so ultimately, it isn't really one or the other as a general concept, but it can be one or the other for any given gaming group for any given session.

There's things which are good (such as the GM deciding whether a spirit would go free or dissipate), and things which should have been clarified (weapon focus, must be a weapon, must bonus a weapon, can be used as a melee focus?), things which needed examples to put the rules in context (half the book), then there was the missing rules (trodes in full VR work how?)... Most of the supplements lean towards boon, the core book... not so much.

It might help if the FAQ could clarify rather than obfuscate.

I like it more flexible. But I tend to play any game fast and loose. Rules take second seat to telling a good story and having a good time (not necessarily in that order!). When I'm doing a con event or an introductory demo, I can focus on the rules to make sure that the players get a generalizable experience, but for my own games, I prefer that the book leave things open for me to interpret, tweak, change, alter, screw-with, and generally leave my mark on the game I'm running.

That being said, the only house rule that I ran with in SR4 was for serious wounds which was covered in Augmentation. Just about everything else, when I need the rule, it's in the book. I haven't found too much that was too confusing, nor have I found the need to specify things like how trodes work in VR; I'm just willing to accept that SR tech, magic, politics, and corporate interactions (or lack thereof) don't need to reflect or be reflected in our current way of life.

Though I do at least acknowledge the power of a loose and flexible game, I still feel a bit more restrictions are needed.

Probably because I do have a couple of players that will try to work the rules to their advantage. Which means I have to always be on guard anyway even with tighter restrictions.

Now this pertains to SR primarily as most other game systems we play do not have the complexity of SR.

I was adept enough with SR3 that I could usually head them off at the pass. Though SR3 is more complex than SR4 largely due to the difference in rules it was fairly easy to point to something in black and white that said. "Do Not Pass Go, Do not Collect $200...". Without that reinforcement sometimes a game would turn into a 3 hour long rules debate with the whole group, including examples and methods, dissertation ...

I think the problem with too much GM discretion isn't a player problem, it's a GM problem. No "rules lawyer" is going to faze a GM who knows how to GM.

The way things should work is the rules lawyer says "Hey look, the rules say I can do this thing." The GM thinks about whether he agrees with that, and also whether he thinks it would be good to allow that thing. Then he decides. Then the rules lawyer accepts it like a grownup. Rules lawyers are just that - lawyers. GMs are judges. And there is no higher court. So any good rules lawyer will just accept final decisions as they're made.

You get a problem in two situations. One is where the GM doesn't know how to GM, and they think they have to justify all their decisions if they deviate from the RAW in the slightest. They don't. Their job is to make the game fun, and arguing over semantics and trying to "prove" that the RAW support their ruling won't make that happen. And if you argue based completely on the RAW, the rules lawyers won't let up, since there's always an argument to be made for both sides. You have to just say "It's my decision and I'm making it," otherwise you're not doing the job of a GM.

The other problem arises when the players are pathetic, tantrum throwing crybabies. I hear from a lot of GMs on here "but I can't just decide things without an ironclad argument, since it will disgruntle the players." If you can't get players who will tolerate the GM exercising the authority that is the basis for the entire system's smooth functioning, you should probably go play an MMO or something. These kinds of players aren't rules lawyers, though. They are immature little shits who care more about being right than playing a game.

A good rules lawyer is a player problem. He can convince your entire table that you are being a heavy handed with "So all it boils down to... is that it is a GM decision eh?" You need to be more socially able than he is. I have a couple of lawyers in my gaming group. Some of the traps include,"Shouldn't we be discussing this like adults instead of making a unilateral arbitary decision?" or "I concede the fact that you are the GM but we generally feel that my argument does hold water." GM might be the judge but he is still beholden to his jury, he cannot tell them that the defendent is guilty and convict the guy. The GM can make a decision, but if the rest of the group has been convinced by the rules lawyer that what he says is right, the jury won't abide your decision.

I call my player/ friends a few things now and then. But calling a crew of 37-43yo fathers and professionals cry babies.
Or better yet that I can't GM because I can't control them is just about retarded.

Maybe in your' group there are immature players, in my group there are rational, very intelligent friends that have gamed together for 20+ years. That often times love to get in debates because it is part of the social interaction when a bunch of friends get together. Now I love a good debate among friends as well as the next guy, and I stand a bit of side tracking. But when It is time to reign it back in, standing up with pizza hanging off my chin and yelling for everyone to listen to me because I'm the fattest fuck around doesn't cut it.

Saying: "Ok lets get back to it, end of debate. This is the way we are handling it, if you have any questions read this paragraph in the book." does end it.

Now, if you want to get back and debate the OPs question, good. But slapping judgements on persons responses to the OPs question...


Edit: agreed with toturi above.

I have been GMing games for over 20 years myself, infact with many of the same people.

But I don't know the rules as well as I probably should, so something that seams reasonable now might be unbalancing in the Future. (Like giving 3 times the normal karma because we only play once a month and making someone wait 3 months just to raise a stat from 3 -> 4 seemed a little long)

Then again, in another year I probably will have the hang of things enough.

Meh! The internets are harsh series of tubes. I apologize of nothing

@toturi - You shouldn't feel like "So all it boils down to... is that it is a GM decision eh?" is some kind of attack. The answer should be yes. I should reiterate: you're the judge, he's the lawyer. Do judges apologize for issuing decisions? No. It's their job. And Shadowrun is not a jury trial. It's a bench trial. The players might participate in the argument, but they're not the ones who decide. To be sure, they have to be rasonably happy with the decision so that they don't walk out on the game. But do tensions run so high in your group that you think the players will ditch you for shutting down a rules lawyering argument so you can play the actual game?

As Slymoon says, sometimes you just have to end the debate so you can play. If your players won't accept that, then the players don't understand what the GM is for.

I don't think its a problem for PnP games, but it seems like, on these boards in the PbP section, every time a new games starts, there is about 4 pages of Q&A where people have to check and double-check the GMs interpretations of the commonly disputed rules.

For that reason, I am unhappy about them. Otherwise, it hasn't really been a problem IRL.

It is a kind of attack. It is not direct at the GM per se, it is meant for the other players' consumptions.

Shadowrun is a jury trial because the players have to be having fun. You can shut down a rules-lawyering argument, but if you continue doing that and the rules lawyer can spin it such that it seems to be your fault and reminds the rest of your players that it was the same way the last time around - "Everytime I raise a valid point, you come down with that high and mighty attitude", tension will inevitably run high.

You have to end the debate so that you can play, yes. But you could have ended the debate in favor of the rules lawyer. If your players accept that, then they have understood precisely the GM is for.

no one said it was the GM's job to shut down the rules lawyer. the indication was the the GM should try to decide what he feels is the best solution, make a judgement call, and that's it. should he listen to the rules lawyer's points? absolutely. should he agree with the rules lawyer in certain situations? absolutely. no one ever said otherwise.

the point made was that it's the GM's job to make judgement calls, and the players need to accept that because it is an absolute requirement of any PnP RPG that the GM make some judgement calls. and as was said, if the players are not willing to accept that the GM will make those calls, then they should be playing a CPRG instead, because if you're not going to allow a GM to make judgement calls then there's no point in having one.

now, if you happen to have 10 hours for a session, and everyone enjoys the debate, and you're more getting together just to get together rather than to play something, then certainly it's not a problem to have a drawn-out rules discussion. but if you've got 3 hours to play, once a month, and everyone is there to play, then there just isn't enough time to spend more than a minute or so discussing it, and then move on. i highly doubt that any game will ever be made where the rules either contradict themselves or don't cover anything. it is for precisely those situations why you have a game master instead of a chief executive of the co-operative storytelling committee.

Dude. If you have a player in your group that a) challenges your authority and b) uses that to manipulate the players to turn against you... Why??? For the love of god, why haven't you either gotten rid of him, or asked him to behave? He actively tries to undermine the game by being stubborn on technical rules issues, and you just take it? He tells you you're high and mighty for making a judgment call so that the players will unite against you and wreck the game? He's not a rules lawyer; lawyers know how to treat a judge with respect. He's a rules baby. I'd say put him down for a nap.

How do you get rid of them without appearing even worse? They do not need to tell you that you are high and mighty, they just imply to the other players that you are high and mighty. You cannot simply tell them to behave because they can make it look like you are trying to limit their roleplaying or their enjoyment of the game. They actively but subtly undermine your authority as GM.

It might be easy to deal with 1 guy. Try 2 or 3 of them. And they can tag team or false flag. One guy raises a point, the other 2 agree and build the momentum so that the rest of the players agree as well. One rules lawyer argues his case, another pretends to take your side and "grudgingly" give in, then you got no ground left to stand on. In both cases, to rule otherwise would make you appear to be an unreasonable and unfriendly person.

at that point, you're looking at getting rid of several players. unless your group is rather different from mine, that likely translates to either don't play with that group anymore (since that's just about all of them) or don't GM for that group anymore. probably the first, if they're actively coordinating their efforts and plotting to make your job as GM harder. quite frankly, it's a lot of work as is... no one needs that kind of drek.

so basically, how do you get rid of a group of players who actively work to make your job suck? simple. leave the group. (and for the record, if these are your 'friends' that are teaming up to screw you over, then perhaps you ought to re-examine what qualifications someone needs to meet before being considered a friend. a good GM is hard to come by has been my experience, so if you want there's good odds you can find another group, online if nowhere else)

In my experience, players don't tend to roll over and blindly accept every pronouncement the GM hands down. Simply saying: "I'm the GM, this is how it's going to go" is a good way to lose your GM seat, if not your group and a bundle of friends.

A good ruleset minimizes the need for GM fiat. It has few unclear areas, and protects both the Gm and the players from abuses from either side. There are no loopholes for rules-lawyers to manipulate, while still leaving enough narrative flexibility for a good story. And thus, it means everyone has more fun, and fun is the whole point of the game.

We here are too used to seeing things from the GM's point of view. Try thinking like a player more often. The things that are annoying to a GM might be exactly what makes things fun for a player. A GM is *not* any more important than any other player. You as a GM have more responsibility, but your right to have fun does not trump the players. Just because you like/dislike something does not give you the right to force it onto the other players. Being a GM does not give you an entitlement. You have the exact same right to fun as the everybody else.

I think it is important for both the players and the GM to have a good, clear and coherent basic rule set...
I don't think this limits anyone in any way, it just tells players how the "world" works, so they know what to expect...
I mean imagine the rules said "at the GMs discretion you may be allowed to dodge ranged attacks" that means players do not know how the world works, it depends on how the GM feels, having the rules allow or disallow it gives players more freedom because of this...
This doesn't mean the rules should cover everything, but it should have clear basic rules on how things work...
Not having clear rules for jumping means no player can estimate wether he can jump over a 1 meter high wall or not...
Now I know this actually has a place in RPGs like HoL and Paranoia, this flexibility of reality has no place in SR...
Other things, like for example what happens to the spirit once the body dies, should only be made with possible suggestions as GMs should be able to decide these things on a case by case basis...
Some things that the book says are at the GMs discretion really shouldn't be, this doesn't mean the GM cannot veto the players choice, like the latent awakening quality, it gives the GM the choice of when and how the character awakens, but if my players really wants his character to awaken as an Adept and I turn him into an aspected conjurer, am I really doing anyone a favor?
I am usually the GM in our groups and a good ruleset gives people the freedom and frame of reference to make the characters they want to play...

And I shouldn't write anything after coming home at 7 in the morning after drinking too much...

My rules lawyer says that he needs to know the clear rules about all the main stuff and most corner cases. His argument is that he can't design a character he will enjoy because his concept and how his character actually plays out might be very different once the game starts.

It's hard to argue against that sort of thing, but then again, when your concept is "I'm a total bad ass"....

The way to shut down rules lawyers is simple, procedure. Before play begins, decide on a procedure to use for rules ambiguities as a group. Make this procedure narrow and restrictive so that it does cannot bog down the game. Thus, the rule's lawyer's challenges will be limited by procedure during gameplay.

Though if you're rich you could buy stun belts for all of your players and require that they be worn at the gaming table to insure against rules lawyering.

Cattle prods work too...
(Just have your players wear diapers if they're sitting on nice expensive antique spanish chairs...)

I´ve always liked the Paranoia solution to rules conflicts...

*Shrugs* Although I do happen to believe that the DM is the most important person at the table, there does have to be some give & take between him/her and the players or everything will fall apart, BUT that doesn't translate into allowing your pride to be smashed like a bug by a group of people who apparently in toturi's case are willing to lie, cheat, and steal in order to win an argument about a game.

Toturi's players, based on what he's said over the years, aren't interested in lying, cheaing, or stealing anything. They are all out to have fun. Makes me wonder what you and your players are out for, since they apparently think that lying, cheating, and stealing is what makes a game fun.

I've seen plenty of GM's here brag about how they smashed the pride of a player. And then, we expect them to take it gratefully, and thank us for bending them over and pulling out the sandpaper. Well, turnabout is fair play. Players basically won't try and smash the GM's personal pride and dignity unless the GM has done the same to them first. You have to have attacked them personally in order to draw personal retribution.

*Shrugs* I read this post of toturi's as saying otherwise since he said that he has multiple (rules?)lawyers in his group a couple of posts up.

As for the rest of your post, I don't care for DM's being asses either and take a rabid dislike for such things as a statted vampire suddenly gaining multiple ( Force 8-10 ) bound spirits between her apperance in On the Run and the team trying to storm her lair to rescue a captured chummer a few days later. (Of course I also think that if they had rescued the teammate they should have geeked him for having loose lips but they is a seperate debate.)

What Authority? The GM has no power except that which is delegated to him/her by the players

True, and the authority or power ceded to the GM to run the game can be undermined by convincing other players that the GM is an ass.

I do have 2 rules lawyers who are also lawyers in my game. There was a time I took a break to deal with RL and someone else that took over running the local SRMissions that made a real hash of the rules, claiming that he favored Roleplay over Rollplay. Ironically as far as I know, he didn't run a game again, other than those cancer-causing Living Greyhawk adventures.

The facts of this scenario are morphing in response to my arguments. I get the feeling that these horrible demon players are hypothetical, not real. I'm not sure whether such hellspawn, backstabbing, petty, passive aggressive RPers exist. And if they did, any game they're in is doomed to failure. Resign yourself to just do what they want, or don't play a game with them. But for the vast majority of players, who are mature, and who are united behind the common goal of playing the game without any tantrums or manipulation, it's not an issue. I don't think arguments about the importance of GM discretion are impacted in any way by your hypothetical hell players.

Actually, they sound like the perfect bunch to play Paranoia with...

so tell him to bring you a list of every single corner case that he needs you to make a ruling on, and you'll get around to answering each and every one of them.

that being said, if he brings you a list and you don't feel like resolving it all, just tell him he hasn't got all of them (don't get specific what he's missing, mind you, but he's guaranteed to be missing something )

(in all seriousness, if his character design relies on how a specific rule works, it's common sense to make sure the rule works the way you think it does with that GM first, and is likely to result in a happier GM than designing the character and then trying to guilt-trip the GM into ruling in your favour later)

And excellent in their memorization or meticulous in their record-keeping (so that they rule the same way when it happens again). And players who are willing to tolerate not knowing up front what the consequences of their actions are.

That sounds like, respectively, a lot of extra effort and a lot of extra anti-fun to me.

It's also, you know, possible to play a game with a group that wants consistent, consistently-applied, and foreknowable rules. "Rules lawyering" in terms of knowing and quoting in detail the rules is a positive feature, and should be encouraged in all players. It is only the degenerate version which only quotes advantageous rules (despite knowing the existence of others) that deserves anything vaguely like the scorn heaped on the concept here.

~J

In my experience, most of the corner cases come from the player trying to do something cool, that the GM is completely unprepared to deal with. So, rather than deal with it and roll with the punches, the GM throws a rules-based argument in order to shut down the player's stunt. The solution to this, naturally, is to discuss things with the player before the game starts, In addition to finding ou t what the player wants to do, find out how he intends to accomplish this.

In my last SRM game, I had a player who unleashed the Agent Smith army two or three times. I had discussed the trick beforehand with him, and explained that I'd be using house rules to simplify it while leaving him powerful. He used it semisuccessfully as a massive search bot. Of course, he was warned that he'd alert many people, since that many searchers are going to garner attention, Stealth programs or no. And in cybercombat, his army ran smack dab into an equal and opposite army. Even though everything he did was technically right, and would have been a pain to deal with, I dealt with the issue with open discussion and honest discourse. Slapping down a player gets you nothing but hurt feelings on both sides.

How are the facts morphing in response to your arguments? If you do not wish to admit that a games system that calls for more GM discretion is more taxing on the GM's social skills than a rules system that spells things out clearly and unambigously, then fine. I have brought up some of my experiences. I admit that what I have stated here may be colored by my own perceptions of what had happened but they remain true and not hypothetical nonetheless.

So from what it sounds like if you

A) Have players who are pretty casual about how the game is ran

and/or

B) Your very familar with the game system and running games in general

Then it's no problem.

BUT if neither A or B are true, then perhaps this system might not work out for you after all?

I'm also not sure how many times the corner cases we discuss here on DSF actually occur in real life games (not counting games here on DSF because the games are probably filled with the same people discussing the corner cases on DSF). I've run SR4 since it was released for undergraduates, working men and women, medical school students, university professors, and a few other types. In other words, running at a reasonably large university, I get a variety of people at my tables. Not once have I encountered an Agent Smith army or a Bloodzilla or any of the other corner cases we've discussed. I've never seen a Pornomancer I couldn't handle and I rarely, if ever, feel the need to make a GM fiat decision due to rules lawyering.

Actually, I lie. I had a person want to use full-auto fire with stick-n-shocks and I decided on the spot that the electrical damage wouldn't stack. Probably not the right way to call, but, as indicated, it was a knee-jerk reaction to an unexpected action. I've since thought about that choice and wouldn't make the same one again in the future.

Regardless, I think any game is a contract entered into between the players (GM included) which indicates that they're all trying to have a good time. If you've got a bunch of people at the table arguing over rules and you're still having a good time, let it roll. If it's creating a disruption for other players then, as was stated above, ask that the discussion be tabled for the moment to be taken up by interested parties after the game.

But, then again, I think we all know that I'm in the minority that thinks the SR4 rules are pretty tightly written. That probably influences my expectation of these corner cases and may, in fact, also influence the way my players play the game in someway resulting in a reduced appearance of corner cases. I don't personally know enough about psychology and sociology, but I can imagine that it's possible that as I show people the game and train them, my point of view is shared with them and, thus, influences theirs.

I'd say it's more if you:

1. Have players who don't mind their cool tricks being shut down on a regular basis
   
   and/or
   
   
2. Are very, very good at giving your players good reasons why their cool tricks don't work.

Players need to be aware when their "cool tricks" run the risk of shutting the game down or trampling the other players chances at enjoying the game. The most important thing for players to understand is that they are not the only player and the game isn't being specifically run for them. Gamemasters have the sometimes difficult job of keeping the spotlight shifting so that no one player gets to monopolize game session time. Rule Lawyer arguments have the chance to completely derail a game session, though not much more so than the over-acting ham, the habitual interuptor, or the disorganized GM archtypes do. It's best if the "Corner Case" issues can be ironed out outside of actual game sessions. Also make sure if you're in a group with multiple GM's that everyone who GM's agrees on a ruling when it gets put together.

Your problem seems to be that you have one player that wants to minmax his char while the rest of the group seem to be rather interested in playing a role in your game. That'll lead to clashes anyway you turn and bend it because as you stated yourself the rest of the group (including you the gm) has to adjust their whole playing style to that one player in order to have anything to do when any action is happening. Imo all that could help you there, since you want that player in game, is to have a talk with him, maybe with the whole group. Tell him that he's not the only player and that his actions just spoil the fun for like everyone else. Then create the new character along with him and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of his built, maybe telling him some aspects that he could roleplay a little bit while still being the main combat char of the team but it wont help your game experience to have a terminator along with 3 average joes in your party.

So I did have a long (10 hours over the course of 3 days) talk with him.

I don't really think we came to an agreement as far as trying to make a more balanced character, but he did agree to some of the house rules, one which greatly limits the number and power of Quickened spells.

Granted, I think he is toying with me.

One character is an Adept Gun Slinger which is completely reasonable.

The other is a Mage who spends his life shapechanged into a Dog to get the good physical stats.

If I had not known this person for more then 20 years, I would had just said, "thanks for playing but..."

That's my Option B. If you can point to a clear and unambiguous set of rules that prevent a particular cool trick, then the player will generally agree without a fight. For example, I legitimately missed the fact that you can only dual-wield SMGs or smaller, so our rigger's cool idea of dual-wielding HVARs had to be shut down. Luckily enough,we did that at the start of the game, so he was able to rebuild his character concept around something different.

Once you stop the game to declare GM fiat, everyone has already lost. It doesn't matter what the ruling is. Therefore, any tactical system that minimizes GM fiat is a good one.

Did I miss it, or has no one mentioned the option of the GM saying, "Hmm... I'm not sure how to interpret that rule. Why don't we run it this way for now, and then decide on how we all want to handle it if it comes up again after the session?"

Seriously, rules ambiguities aren't all that difficult to handle as long as you give the players some input on how they should be handled, and as long as you don't feel the absolute need to come to a definitive ruling right now.

As for players wanting to do cool stuff that would be allowable from a particular interpretation of the rules, why not just make some kind of compromise, like, "Sure, I'll let you {insert really cool stunt here}, if you'll spend a point of Edge on it."

Edit: Didn't notice Dashifen's post. Or I didn't read it thoroughly. I apologize.

everyone is basically busy focusing on the negative aspects. which is ridiculous.

i haven't noticed anyone saying that it's the GM's job to always say no, but people seem to have somehow decided that that's what was meant when they say that the GM should make a ruling. the GM may very well say yes in the event of a corner case, or (and i did say this way earlier) he can say "for now, we'll handle it this way and resolve it permanently later" if need be.

i don't see why everyone is assuming that GM discretion automatically means it's time to shoot your players' dreams out of the sky and laugh maniacally as they crash to the ground as a heap of burning rubble. it could very well mean "hmm, i hadn't considered that rule... i'll allow it" just as well as "i don't think that particular rule was intended to work that way, so i'm not going to allow it".

and Cain, the whole bloody point in having a GM is for the GM to make rulings. there is no such thing as a system that never requires GM interpretation, and there never will be. GM fiat is absolutely a part of the GM's job, and using it doesn't have to be a bad thing in any way (for example, saying no to bloodzilla is not, imo, a bad thing). designing a system around covering every situation is far more likely to generate GM rulings anyways, because the more complicated a system is, the more possible it is to find loopholes. as such, any attempt to prevent GM rulings by adding rules is 2 steps forward, 3 steps back as often as not, because now instead of just the people trying to abuse things who do know the system, you basically have to know the entire system like the back of your hand just to be able to not create a problem situation. what's worse is that now the GM is going to have to memorise the entire set of rules flawlessly, including the specific wording and everything... but hey, it's not like that time could be better spent fleshing out key NPCs, coming up with awesome ideas for the campaign, or anything else useful (or apparently that's what some people must think, i guess).

seriously, it's not the end of the world (or the game) if the GM has to make a decision about the rules, and the GM doesn't automatically have to rule against the player. really, for any sort of unclear rules interpretation, the player should be taking responsibility and asking the GM before they design their character around an exploit, so that the GM and the player are on the same page. in point of fact, the GM should be involved in the character creation process to some extent, so that he knows where the players want to go with their characters, which will allow him to tailor the game to the players.

And even then, someone usually walks away unhappy right in that moment. Sometimes that's the GM, sometimes it's the player, sometimes it's the rest of the players. Handle it before the session, with a clear rulebook, and then everyone wins.

I completely agree, to use Cains previous example with the 2 HVARs, if it didn't say it's impossible in the rulebook, some players (including me) would argue that with enough strength it should be possible to pull this off, and the only counter argument I can think of is "it's a tad unbalanced..."
A rulebook with coherent basic rules gives people a framework within which to be creative...
Well, for SR at least...
For RPGs like any storyteller game and the old WEG Star Wars, the loose rules work very well...
Another example is SLA Industries (Possibly the coolest setting ever...), the very basic rules are easy 2d10 +/- mods, 11+ succeeds, but just because a lot of things aren't even mentioned it required a lot of houseruling before players know what they can expect from certain skills and/or equipment...

I think the whole bloody point of having a GM is to have him run the game as in run the story and not need to make rulings. While most game systems require some GM interpretation as the language sometimes does not lend itself to clear unambiguous statements, there can be a minimal amount of GM fiat. You could say that a CRPG requires GM fiat but I have never seen a GM needing to rule on a game mechanic there.

By the time the GM gets the entire set of rules flawless, he should be able to flesh out key NPCs and coming up with awesome ideas for the campaign or anything useful in a small fraction of the time if he didn't. So getting the entire rules set flawless is a good time investment.

Sorry, this popped up while I was typing:

BZZT! But thanks for playing!

The whole bloody point of a GM is to provide a story for people to play in. There are many systems that require minimal GM fiat to run, and Capes doesn't require GM fiat at all. GM fiat is something to be avoided at all costs, and it's always a bad thing when it has to happen. Even if the GM says yes, he ends up walking away feeling bad. You can't win.

there is no flawless rules system. it doesn't take a lot of time for a GM to make a decision on the spot. which is good, because no rules system could possibly cover every single scenario anyways. leaving the rules open to GM interpretation means that it will come up more often, but like i said, it isn't necessarily a bad thing for the GM to make a decision. it allows any given GM to decide, for example, whether they want "chrome" or "professional" to describe their game. it allows a GM to decide how important the matrix really is in their game, and how hard it is to stop someone from hacking your stuff. certainly, if you have a group of malicious rules-lawyers who are determined to force the GM to rule how they want, when they want, and to change rulings according to their desire at any given time, then it is a bad thing. then again, playing an RPG with such a group is going to turn out badly no matter what.... so why bother trying to cater to that situation?

3rd edition D&D tried to cover as many rules as possible, and there's still obviously plenty of room for problems like the hulking hurler, pun-pun, the wish and the word, nanobots, the cheater of mystra, and all kinds of other horrible, horrible things. we're talking about a company that probably has 15 times as many employees as CGL does to work on this sort of thing (maybe only 5-10 times as many if you count all of CGL's freelancers as employees) and they still don't seem to have closed all the loopholes. in a game that is utterly obsessed with balance, no less. and that's just looking at the worst problems. it has huge problems even at it's most basic level, including horrible imbalances between the classes (CoDzilla vs fighter looks kinda like Godzilla vs Bambi), skills (yay perform! totally awesome, sooooo much better than lame old use magic device) feats (compare toughness to power attack for example) and so forth. and this is seriously in a game system that obsesses over everything being balanced, and in having rules to cover as much as possible. and we're just looking at the core 3 rulebooks here (mostly just at the PHB, even). so don't try to tell me that going the way of 3rd edition D&D means less headaches for the GM.

and actually, CRPGs do use GM fiat all the time, by forcing you to go certain ways. you can say "i'm going to go do some legwork" and the CRPG can just say "shut up and go do a frontal assault" and there's nothing you can do about it. so actually, CRPGs are probably the worst example of GM fiat you can imagine, it's just that there's no person for you to try to change the mind of... unless of course you're going to write the company and try to convince them to rewrite the code. you think it takes a long time for a GM to make a judgement call of how the rules should work, try waiting for a new patch or a new expansion for a game

[edit] Cain, the GM exists to override the rules when necessary and to enforce them when necessary. otherwise, you could get the same experience out of a CRPG as you do out of tabletop, since you wouldn't need anything more than the initial input of what the story is. Certainly, storytelling is an important part of the GM's job, but you can have an RPG with no real story to it and you still need a GM. you can have a story with no rules to it, and you don't need any GM at all. [/edit]

I don't think we ever said that the RPG needs rules for everything, just, as I said, coherent and good...
For the most part SR4 is coherent and good, but there are a lot of small points where I think it would have been helpful if the writers had just said "it's like this" instead of giving none to several ways of handling it and letting the GM sort it out...
I'm _NOT_ promoting systems like rolemaster where you have page long tables you need to roll when you stab with a rapier and other tables in case you try to slash with one, and what you need to roll to tie your shoelaces...
Just in games as lethal as SR4, a good basis keeps characters alive...
(D&D however is a tool of the devil...)