Dumpshock Forums > Dice Pools and how to get them (Sky High!)

Tarantula

Oct 31 2008, 02:53 PM

QUOTE (Azmahel @ Oct 31 2008, 08:25 AM)

Simply because the gun itself isn't an electronic device or. shooting the gun without the smartgun system isn't "using" the electronic device. It would be like... running diagnosis on a toaster and getting a bonus to hit someone on the head with it.

Smartguns are defined as an electronic device. As such, they work for this. Also, the purpose of a gun is to shoot things. The purpose of a toaster is to toast things. Analyze device would give you dice for shooting things with a gun, or toasting things with a toaster, but not for bludgeoning things with either one.

Edit: I was pretty sure I already did this, found the thread.

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?s=&a...st&p=724408
For those who don't want to follow the link...

Heres what I whipped up, and no, he isn't fully made, as its an intellectual exercise.

[ Spoiler ]

Edit2: For the people who want to know why I bothered posting this again:
My guy hits 31 dice. And thats without the analyze device spell, diagnostics sprites, or possession. He also has room for improvement for his agility, and possibly pick up aptitude for pistols if the GM allows it. Not to mention attuning his gun and initiating for bonuses too.

Fortune

Oct 31 2008, 02:58 PM

As I mentioned, Synner has said to expect Errata on Diagnose, especially in the area of weapons and rigging. I fully expect this type of thing to be disallowed.

Azmahel

Oct 31 2008, 03:13 PM

I don' say the smartgun wouldn't be improved, yet the smartgun needs AR to be functional
Being possessed prevents you from using AR.
so you can't use the "electronic device" of the gun -> no bonus from Smartlink and Machine Sprite
you only use the "mechanical Device" the gun still is (except you had it trigger removed, electronic fired, etc. in wich case the Spirit couldn't use ist at all)

to use another analogy: you don't get a Bonus to your running test, even if your shoes do have an internal Comlink (for counting steps, playing music, and an Biomonitor for example) with an Machine Sprite in it.

Neraph

Oct 31 2008, 03:27 PM

QUOTE (Azmahel @ Oct 31 2008, 10:13 AM)

I don' say the smartgun wouldn't be improved, yet the smartgun needs AR to be functional
Being possessed prevents you from using AR.
so you can't use the "electronic device" of the gun -> no bonus from Smartlink and Machine Sprite
you only use the "mechanical Device" the gun still is (except you had it trigger removed, electronic fired, etc. in wich case the Spirit couldn't use ist at all)

to use another analogy: you don't get a Bonus to your running test, even if your shoes do have an internal Comlink (for counting steps, playing music, and an Biomonitor for example) with an Machine Sprite in it.

(Emphasis added)

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=24123

We discuss spirits and perception. From what I remember, we determined spirits cannot process electronic data unless they have Improved Senses (Eyesight or somesuch), or are posessing someone and using that person's eyes.

Just because a spirit doesn't have real eyes doesn't mean the person loses theirs while possessed.

pbangarth

Oct 31 2008, 03:27 PM

QUOTE (Azmahel @ Oct 31 2008, 08:13 AM)

I don' say the smartgun wouldn't be improved, yet the smartgun needs AR to be functional
Being possessed prevents you from using AR.

From the Possession FAQ:

QUOTE

18) Can a possession spirit control the electronics in its vessel?
A: Possession spirits (as well as Materialized spirits) can control electronic devices using their built in controls (including AR controls if they have AR gloves and goggles) just like a metahuman. However, they don't have the ability to control electrical devices internally or use its host's DNI to control devices. The example in the book lists starting a car (just like Christine), but it isn't clear if the author was thinking of antique cars that have mechanical ignition switches or cars in 2070 which have electronic fob starters.

(italics mine)

Peter

Tarantula

Oct 31 2008, 03:30 PM

The possession faq is not official in any way.

Neraph

Oct 31 2008, 03:34 PM

Hell, neither are these boards either. You get what you paid for.

EDIT: The point I am trying to make is you ask for advice, you get advice. Not taking good advice because It's not 'legal' is silly.

Azmahel

Oct 31 2008, 03:36 PM

QUOTE ( Streetmagic)

Possessing spirits cannot percieve or operate AR ...

Tarantula

Oct 31 2008, 03:39 PM

QUOTE (Neraph @ Oct 31 2008, 08:34 AM)

Hell, neither are these boards either. You get what you paid for.

EDIT: The point I am trying to make is you ask for advice, you get advice. Not taking good advice because It's not 'legal' is silly.

True. By the FAQ interpretation though, this guy is worthless, as he relies on a cyberarm, which the FAQ says the spirit can't control.

pbangarth

Oct 31 2008, 03:41 PM

Azmahel, this is another can of worms... can a spirit see an image projected on a screen? It is argued that a materialized spirit cannot. But what about a possession tradition spirit, inside a body with two perfectly good eyes. Stick goggles on the body and project pretty, computer-generated images that emit photons. Can it see that?

Peter

Azmahel

Oct 31 2008, 03:59 PM

And in the sidebar it is stated perfectly clear that it can not.

Flavourwise one could argue that the projected light is not "natural light" and thereby cant be percieved by spirits, eyes or not.
(After all the possessing Spirit doesn't use the vessels Mental capabilities and Skill [such as Intuition or Perception] and so simply by having fleshy eyes doesn't know how to process imagery information throu them. Again a toaster cant see just by fixing eyeballs to it

)

As another note it is also nowhere noted that the addititon to the Vessels attributes can go beyond the augumented maximum of the Character, let alone increasing said maximum (it would be reasonable, but by RAW it doesn't)

pbangarth

Oct 31 2008, 07:44 PM

QUOTE (Azmahel @ Oct 31 2008, 09:59 AM)

As another note it is also nowhere noted that the addititon to the Vessels attributes can go beyond the augumented maximum of the Character, let alone increasing said maximum (it would be reasonable, but by RAW it doesn't)

This is addressed in the Possession FAQ.

QUOTE

15) What is the augmented maximum of a possessed host?
A: (host's maximum + spirit's Force) * 1.5. E.g. A human possessed by Force 4 spirit has an augmented maximum of (6 + 4) * 1.5 = 15.

As Tarantula has pointed, that is not RAW, but it is the product of reasoned discussion among many here, including the 'The Frank' (May His knowledge and wisdom be ever with us).

Peter

Fortune

Oct 31 2008, 08:00 PM

That might not be considered 'RAW', but this, from the SR4 FAQ is ...

QUOTE (SR4 FAQ)

When a spirit uses Possession or Inhabitation on a character, are the dual entity's attributes limited by the character's maximum augmented attribute values?

No. Both powers represent a merging (temporary with Possession, permanent with Inhabitation) of the character's physical body with the form of the spirit. For the duration of the possession/inhabitation, the dual entity's maximum augmented attributes are equal to (character's attribute + spirit's Force) x 1.5, rounded down.

pbangarth

Oct 31 2008, 09:41 PM

Well, we seem to have two contradicting FAQs. The difference for a human character with BOD 3 possessed by a Force 8 spirit would be:

Dumpshock FAQ: ( 6+8 ) X 1.5 = 21

SR4 FAQ: ( 3+ 8 ) X 1.5 = 16

I assume the SR4 FAQ takes precedence over the Dumpshock FAQ?

Peter

Tarantula

Oct 31 2008, 09:53 PM

I would give the SR4 FAQ precedence over forum consensus in regards to rules conflicts.

pbangarth

Oct 31 2008, 10:06 PM

I would too, even though the Dumpshock opinion makes more sense, based on the separate entities' maxima as describe in RAW:

IF

Vessel augmented maximum = 1.5 X racial maximum,

AND

Spirit augmented maximum = 1.5 X spirit Force,

THEN

combined augmented maximum = (1.5 X racial maximum) + (1.5 X spirit Force)

= 1.5 X (racial maximum + spirit Force)

Peter

hyzmarca

Oct 31 2008, 10:34 PM

QUOTE (Tarantula @ Oct 31 2008, 04:53 PM)

I would give the SR4 FAQ precedence over forum consensus in regards to rules conflicts.

The problem is that the SR FAQ version doesn't make a damn lick of sense, and actually creates the possibility of Possession causing the vessel to lose stats. Lets say a Strength 1(9) heavily cybered human gets possessed by a Force 1 Spirit. His Augmented Max is reduced from 9 to 3 (1+1)*1.5, so he loses 6 points of Strength.

Unless, of course, it is calculated using the vessel's augmented stat.

Tarantula

Oct 31 2008, 11:02 PM

SR4 FAQ:
"When a spirit uses Possession or Inhabitation on a character, are the dual entity's attributes limited by the character's maximum augmented attribute values?

No. Both powers represent a merging (temporary with Possession, permanent with Inhabitation) of the character's physical body with the form of the spirit. For the duration of the possession/inhabitation, the dual entity's maximum augmented attributes are equal to (character's attribute + spirit's Force) x 1.5, rounded down. "

So, in your example, characters attribute = 9, spirit force = 1. 9 + 1 = 10 * 1.5 = 15 max augmented.

Ragewind

Nov 1 2008, 03:49 AM

Thanks for the insightful posts, there are a few things I would like to address but I am a bit tired after tonight's events so I will bring up one point.

The Possession side bar in Street Magic is pretty clear on what the spirit can and cannot do. From the book we know..

1) Can't Use skills (I.E. Longarms, Blades)

2) Can't use Knowledge (I.E. 20th Century Roleplaying games, Lone Star Tactics)

3) Can't use Experience (I.E. The Sun rises and sets, Turn the handle to open a door)

All belonging to the person who the spirit possessed

However the Martial Arts positive quality is none of these

, nor is a Maneuver as it is a subcategory. Being a Positive Quality it enjoys a uniqueness, say like Lucky or Enhanced Attribute and does not go away when possessed, or even Ambidexterity. As such it falls outside of the realm of possession. One could argue that it might fall under "Experience" as its certainly not a "Skill" or a "Knowledge" even though its a PQ it something that a character 'Learned" while training. However even in this regard a Martial Arts ability and a Maneuver (if you buy one) does not fall into any of the predefined game terms as presented above by RAW if you will. Its a matter open to plenty of debate

and I would love to hear some opinions.

Also incidentally I am not sure if anyone actually checked out my modded post but I am able to summon a Force 10 Spirit with a Magic of 5 and 5 points in mana.

Ragewind

Nov 1 2008, 03:56 AM

QUOTE

So do explain how does setup work with firearms and how do the drones help you shoot?

Sure

QUOTE

Setup, last I checked, was a martial arts maneuver that works on melee only

This is where you are wrong, Setup among a few others, will work with any attack not just melee.

QUOTE

and even then, won't double your DP unless you get a hit with every dice you roll

Yes and No, it Effectivley doubles my dice as I would get to roll them twice to get a total number

QUOTE

. And if you use a spirit to posses you, you know, the spirit doesn't know any martial arts maneuvers.

Maybe as my the previous post from this one addresses.

QUOTE

But as they don't work anyway, not a problem.

QUOTE

Also the machine spirit's use bit odd to me as it's either you aiming or the spirit.

It can be odd to you all you want, but the rules don't care. As long as I have some sort of electronics for the Sprite I can get the bonus to my use. You could even use it on a Vibro Sword

Ragewind

Nov 1 2008, 03:58 AM

QUOTE

Again a toaster cant see just by fixing eyeballs to it wink.gif )

Actually in Shadowrun 4th Ed it can INDEED see, give it a personality and it can even tell you about that ork your wife cheated on you with.

toturi

Nov 1 2008, 04:14 AM

QUOTE (Ragewind @ Nov 1 2008, 11:56 AM)

This is where you are wrong, Setup among a few others, will work with any attack not just melee.

Setup is under the Maneuvers subsection of the Martial Arts rules.

QUOTE (p156 Arsenal @ MARTIAL ARTS)

The following martial arts optional rules provide a way for characters to expand their melee combat options.

Therefore Setup is subject to this rule. Hence Setup is explicitly applicable to melee combat options, unless the text within the maneuver explicitly states otherwise, like in Iaijutsu.

BullZeye

Nov 1 2008, 09:15 AM

Told ya, ragewind

Even if the rules don't always say every possible yes or no, one ought to be able to use enough own brainmatter to fill up the rules. I bet you would also add a machine sprite and spirit with diagnose into every stick'n'shock bullet to triple their damage, too? I think Tarantula's build is about as high as it gets without trying to exploit some rules that aren't written but ought to be obvious enough. And I'm still waiting for your examples how do you reason all those other than "the rules didn't say to this case NO, so I can do it, nÃ¤h nÃ¤h nÃ¤h nÃ¤h".

Ragewind

Nov 1 2008, 05:18 PM

QUOTE

Setup is under the Maneuvers subsection of the Martial Arts rules.

I am not debating if martial arts are for melee or ranged, they of course are for melee. Even the side bar which details the positive quality says they are for melee attacks. However Maneuver do not fall under this they are separate from martial arts. You only need martial arts to get them, they even clarify in their entry that they may be used with other options. They then go on to mention Melee or otherwise in their individual descriptions.

QUOTE

Therefore Setup is subject to this rule. Hence Setup is explicitly applicable to melee combat options, unless the text within the maneuver explicitly states otherwise, like in Iaijutsu.

What you quoted is not even a rule, just a sentence in the paragraph describing what martial arts is. Taking a sentence for one thing (Martial arts) and applying it to another (Maneuver) is not the way to prove a point. They both have their separate entries and follow different rules, in this particular case one simply precludes the other. Incidentally even the individual martial art entries have bonuses that can/are applied to ranged combat as well, not just melee. I hate to say it but Fluff does not always go with Crunch.

Also Iaijutsu doesn't specifically allow ranged attacks, it changes the base rule to make room for melee options. Just expands on the list, so to speak.

Ravor

Nov 1 2008, 09:08 PM

As permissive as toturi is in his reading of RAW, you would be better off just subtracting the dice Ragewind if he wouldn't allow it at his table.

masterofm

Nov 2 2008, 04:40 PM

Personally on the whole possession thing I find it to be pretty lame. The fact that your stats can be boosted to crazy means its not really worth it anymore to play anything but a possession mage. Make your physicals suck and boost all your mentals to insane and suddenly your better then the tank (cuz' you get stackable hardened armor = / ) whenever you just want to put a spirit inside of your meat.... Personally if I could make a call I would say whichever is the lesser of your stat times it by 1.5 for your max and round it up. However by RAW you can totally broken your physical stats *sigh*

Anyways the problem with insanely high dice pool of this character is that there are a lot of dice that can or will be clipped off of depending on any GM you sit at the table with. Some might not give you a bonus with your drones, the maneuvers are highly questionable to gain a bonus from them, and some of the dice stacking you are hoping for probably won't come true. It's like trying to use quantum as an argument. Yes there might be a place where possibly maybe you can if so then true, I don't think applies to this situation. Lets face facts if anyone slapped that character sheet down in front of a GM they would say "Um.... I'll give you half of the dice you propose but all of these don't work" is probably the best you can hope for.

Ravor

Nov 2 2008, 04:47 PM

Assuming the DM doesn't just laugh in your face as he shreds your character sheet and reaches for a heavy object to throw.

Glyph

Nov 2 2008, 06:17 PM

I'm aware this character is supposed to only be a theoretical exercise (it's certainly not playable), but honestly, if someone tried arguing that a possessing spirit should retain a martial arts maneuver, because it's not technically a skill, I would probably disallow the player, not just the character. Who wants to play with someone who's going to be arguing rules semantics with you every five minutes? It's one thing on Dumpshock, where that's what we come here for, but it's another thing in a game, where it is disruptive.

Karaden

Nov 2 2008, 07:27 PM

This has taught me that possession traditions are -way- more trouble then they're worth, as are machine sprites.

It has also taught me to remember to use the GM Smack of Doom™ when needed. "200 DP you say?" *Smack* "Oh look, a -198 to your DP"

Tarantula

Nov 2 2008, 08:13 PM

QUOTE (Ragewind @ Nov 1 2008, 10:18 AM)

I am not debating if martial arts are for melee or ranged, they of course are for melee. Even the side bar which details the positive quality says they are for melee attacks. However Maneuver do not fall under this they are separate from martial arts. You only need martial arts to get them, they even clarify in their entry that they may be used with other options. They then go on to mention Melee or otherwise in their individual descriptions.

Maneuvers are not an entirely new section. They are a sub-section of the martial arts section. With that, any global text describing martial arts that is not changed with the text in the maneuvers section, still applies. Meaning that martial arts are applicable to melee attacks only, as are the maneuvers that go with them. I have no doubt that this would be emphasized in errata if you make enough stink about it.

QUOTE (Ragewind @ Nov 1 2008, 10:18 AM)

What you quoted is not even a rule, just a sentence in the paragraph describing what martial arts is. Taking a sentence for one thing (Martial arts) and applying it to another (Maneuver) is not the way to prove a point. They both have their separate entries and follow different rules, in this particular case one simply precludes the other. Incidentally even the individual martial art entries have bonuses that can/are applied to ranged combat as well, not just melee. I hate to say it but Fluff does not always go with Crunch.

Also Iaijutsu doesn't specifically allow ranged attacks, it changes the base rule to make room for melee options. Just expands on the list, so to speak.

I'm curious to which martial arts you think have bonuses that can/are applied to ranged combat. Going through the list I see... Firefight, which reduces your ranged combat penalty of "attacker in melee combat", Krav Maga which allows take aim to be a free action and ready weapon to be a free action, and also a reduce the "attacker in melee combat". Even then, really, the only one that affects ranged combat directly is the reduction of a penalty, where you MUST be in melee combat to have in the first place.

Iaijutsu specifically allows quick-drawing of a single melee, missile, or throwing weapon, or a firearm.

Karaden

Nov 2 2008, 11:29 PM

You two would make great theologians. "No, the bible doesn't say that, look here how it is indented, it obviously means that the part about Noah's arc is a complete side story on a separate earth God was creating."

QUOTE (Arsenal p156 @ subsection Martial Arts)

The following martial arts optional rules provide a way for characters to expand their melee combat options.

QUOTE (Arsenal p158 @ subsection Martial Arts)

Maneuvers

Thus the part about melee combat extends to Maneuvers.

The quote that is causing problems:

QUOTE (ARsenal p158 @ subsection Martial Arts, sub-subsection Maneuvers)

Unless otherwise
noted, maneuvers may be used with other combat options in the same Action Phase.

Note that it doesn't mention ranged combat as being a combat option. Since ranged combat would be.. well a massive change up from the purely melee talk of the section thus far, it is safe to interpolate that since ranged combat isn't specifically mentioned as a 'combat option' it is not meant to include ranged combat.

What does 'combat option' mean then? Full defense, charge, full offense, etc.

Where did that Arsenal errata go? I doubt it mentions this specifically, so must forge on.

Anyway, the biggest damning of maneuvers being used for ranged attacks is that maneuvers is a subsection of Martial Arts, and thus subject to the same rules as Martial Arts, as is the Martial Arts Styles subsection.

hyzmarca

Nov 3 2008, 12:01 AM

When interpreting RAW, there is only one important question to ask: Awesome or Stupid? If the interpretation is stupid, then don't go with it. If the interpretation is awesome, rock on.

In this case, it takes a very great player to transform the stupidity of using Setup for ranged attacks into awesome.

toturi

Nov 3 2008, 01:59 AM

QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Nov 3 2008, 08:01 AM)

When interpreting RAW, there is only one important question to ask: Awesome or Stupid? If the interpretation is stupid, then don't go with it. If the interpretation is awesome, rock on.

In this case, it takes a very great player to transform the stupidity of using Setup for ranged attacks into awesome.

Actually sometimes it can be both. Awesomely Stupid and Stupidly Awesome.

Fuchs

Nov 3 2008, 07:33 AM

QUOTE (Karaden @ Nov 2 2008, 08:27 PM)

This has taught me that possession traditions are -way- more trouble then they're worth, as are machine sprites.

Indeed.

Tachi

Nov 8 2008, 12:05 PM

This thread seems a lot like masturbation, except without the payoff.

toturi

Nov 9 2008, 01:48 AM

QUOTE (Tachi @ Nov 8 2008, 08:05 PM)

This thread seems a lot like masturbation, except without the payoff.

The length of the thread is the payoff. Sometimes you need the exercise.

Tachi

Nov 9 2008, 07:23 AM

QUOTE (toturi @ Nov 8 2008, 06:48 PM)

The length of the thread is the payoff. Sometimes you need the exercise.

Neraph

Nov 9 2008, 02:46 PM

QUOTE (Karaden @ Nov 2 2008, 01:27 PM)

This has taught me that possession traditions are -way- more trouble then they're worth, as are machine sprites.

It has also taught me to remember to use the GM Smack of Doom™ when needed. "200 DP you say?" *Smack* "Oh look, a -198 to your DP"

The inability to cope with clever players working well within the rules shows a fault on the part of the GM and should not be used as an excuse to ignore anything you like as a GM. Just because you didn't think you can get 200+ dice to shoot or 150+ armor doesn't mean you can't, and furthermore doesn't mean you need to penalize players for finding that out.

Imagine if Albert Einstein's theories were burned or otherwise destroyed because he thought of them first. That's in effect what you're saying when you make judgements like this.

Mäx

Nov 9 2008, 03:50 PM

QUOTE (Neraph @ Nov 9 2008, 04:46 PM)

The inability to cope with clever players working well within the rules shows a fault on the part of the GM and should not be used as an excuse to ignore anything you like as a GM. Just because you didn't think you can get 200+ dice to shoot or 150+ armor doesn't mean you can't, and furthermore doesn't mean you need to penalize players for finding that out.

Expect you can't without a kind of rules weaseling that would get the player banned from most gaming tables.

Glyph

Nov 9 2008, 06:30 PM

Considering that both of your threads have been mainly people dissecting your ideas to show that they don't work that way, I would dispute both the "clever" and the "well within the rules" part. And there is a difference between powergaming (making logical but effective choices for a character) and munchkinism (trying to rape the rules with B.S. such as saying a possessing spirit should retain maneuvers because they're technically not a "skill", trying to use the setup maneuver for ranged combat, etc.). People like dissecting things in a forum, but in a game, that kind of behavior results in either a booted-out player (the optimal outcome), or a game that is ruined for everyone else.

Fuchs

Nov 9 2008, 09:40 PM

It does not matter how clever, or within the rules something is - if it harms the fun of the other players, or the GM, it's wrong.

StahlkÃ¶rper

Nov 9 2008, 11:45 PM

My Opinion:
If you want fairness in your game, dont let a single group member decide about the rules, whether gm or not.
Imo theres only one way to fair play: Try to take the rules as written as hard as you can. If something is unclear, discuss it (like we are doing here) and design a house rule. If a rule disturbs the game, discuss it and design a house rule. If you dont like a subsystem (i.e. combat), discuss it and design a house subsystem. If you dont like the whole system, discuss it and design a whole new house system (or get another one).

I remember one time I was trying to rp with a former friend as gm. I never played with him before. He said "Make a character and handle it over to me. Every character will be okay." I made a character, handled him over to the gm and he didnt like him. If he had said "Oh, no, we play with this and that rule. Sorry, but lets make a new one together" it would have been perfectly okay but thats not what he did. He laughed at me, calling me a munchkin and said "Try again. This one was total <self-censored>." I didnt try again. I actually never tried to play with him again. I dont even talk to him anymore. He didnt tell me about the rules and made fun of me and my gaming style. (Actually he was the first and only one. Maybe thats why it made me so angry.) So he better sticks out of my way as I told him.
You dont want to be like him, do you? So dont be mean to people who like any other gaming style than you. Talk to them nicely instead. I wasnt pleased that s.o. was unfair to me and I am not amused when s.o. is unfair to any other gamer.

Glyph

Nov 10 2008, 12:25 AM

I can't say whether the GM was right or wrong, because I don't have the character sheet in front of me. If you simply made a powerful character within the rules, he should have explained his campaign better if he wanted it lower-powered. But if you were using rule-bending, loophole-exploiting tactics similar to the ones in this thread, then he was justified.

I do agree that GMs should discuss the rules with everyone, and let people know what they want beforehand. House rules should definitely be told to the players beforehand. But the GM should have more authority, because he needs to run the game. The rules need to be ones that he can handle, and the characters need to be made so that they fit in the game, and can be challenged by it.

StahlkÃ¶rper

Nov 10 2008, 01:14 AM

QUOTE (Glyph @ Nov 10 2008, 01:25 AM)

I can't say whether the GM was right or wrong, because I don't have the character sheet in front of me. If you simply made a powerful character within the rules, he should have explained his campaign better if he wanted it lower-powered. But if you were using rule-bending, loophole-exploiting tactics similar to the ones in this thread, then he was justified.

I did some things like maxing one attribute and leaving another at 1, buying negative qualities which were unlikely to massively hinder the character etc. GMs like him would agree to the combat paralysis quality only if the character is a streetsam. GMs like me simply call a streetsam character with combat paralysis a freak. No wonder that his adventure ended with every pc dead, as heared. The guy is simply an idiot.
But in fact its impossible to draw a clear line between using and abusing rules. So the best way is to stick to the rules, allow anything which is within it and change them when necessary.

QUOTE

I do agree that GMs should discuss the rules with everyone, and let people know what they want beforehand. House rules should definitely be told to the players beforehand. But the GM should have more authority, because he needs to run the game. The rules need to be ones that he can handle, and the characters need to be made so that they fit in the game, and can be challenged by it.

I dont think the gm needs any authority above players. Imo devided responsibilites with everybody playing fair work best. The gm doesnt need to control the players as they are sensible adult individuals - at least not more than the player have to control the gm. If anyone tries to cheat the others there are ooc-mechanics which work well to regulate that, i.e. this "We wont play with you anymore if you keep on fudging the dices"-thing.

Glyph

Nov 10 2008, 01:47 AM

You'd get along well with Cain...

I don't think the GM is more important than the players, but I think the GM needs some slack, because he is trying to run the world. His "authority" is not there to lord it over the players, but to keep the game from bogging down into rules discussions. The proper time for most rules disputes is after the game, unless it is either a house rule being sprung on a player, or something that significantly affects the character. With a mature GM and players, disputes won't come up much, but it is good to have someone who can make a quick ruling, so the game can go on.

As far as the character, that doesn't sound too bad, really. An Attribute of 1, or any negative quality, have their own downsides. I personally feel that 1 is the lowest functional Attribute, and that negative qualities should limit the character in some way, but don't have to mess up the character every game. Some GMs feel differently, not liking low Attributes or flaws that don't come up often. But it is still impolite to simply reject a character, instead of explaining things. From what you describe, it sounds like not being in this game was a blessing in disguise.

WeaverMount

Nov 10 2008, 02:56 AM

>But in fact its impossible to draw a clear line between using and abusing rules. So the best way is to stick to the rules, allow anything which is within it and >change them when necessary.

For me comes down to whether or not a character could make the decision. A magician getting cyberware is would actually be able to think about and talk about how to much ware they could install before there magic drops a second time. I'm not sure how literally essence costs are know to characters, but something pretty damned close should be known for commercial gear. Magic loss is very measurable, and scientists have discovered WAY more complex functions than "lower of cyber or bio costs half" rule. Therefor it is perfectly valid to figure out an optimized list of ware that totals exactly 1.00 essence. Similar with flaws. If I was seriously allergic to salt water, I would move off the coast! I'm queer, and live in the San Fransisco bay area expressly to live a campaign where that social stigma basically doesn't come up.

On a larger note, this is one of the reason I really like shadow run. There SHOULD be rampant optimization among runners. The 6th world is a place where 99.99% of the population is born in debted over minerals in there bones, worked to death as slowly as economically feasible, and then have there corpses turned into soap and dog food. What does it take be in that top 00.001%? Many things, but an edge of 5, a couple DPs in the teens to 20s and a criminal psychology sure help.

Cain

Nov 10 2008, 03:17 AM

QUOTE (Glyph @ Nov 9 2008, 05:47 PM)

You'd get along well with Cain...

You know, I am still following this thread....

QUOTE

I don't think the GM is more important than the players, but I think the GM needs some slack, because he is trying to run the world. His "authority" is not there to lord it over the players, but to keep the game from bogging down into rules discussions. The proper time for most rules disputes is after the game, unless it is either a house rule being sprung on a player, or something that significantly affects the character. With a mature GM and players, disputes won't come up much, but it is good to have someone who can make a quick ruling, so the game can go on.

I agree that the GM needs more slack, simply because he's packing a higher level of responsibility. But he doesn't have authority, he has respect. If you don't/can't respect the GM, the game is pretty much doomed. A GM trying to demand respect he hasn't earned is a sad sight.

QUOTE

As far as the character, that doesn't sound too bad, really. An Attribute of 1, or any negative quality, have their own downsides. I personally feel that 1 is the lowest functional Attribute, and that negative qualities should limit the character in some way, but don't have to mess up the character every game. Some GMs feel differently, not liking low Attributes or flaws that don't come up often. But it is still impolite to simply reject a character, instead of explaining things. From what you describe, it sounds like not being in this game was a blessing in disguise.

I agree. If a Gm rejects a character, they need a reason why. Even if it's "Because I can't cope with it", at least it's a reason. For example, I ban Day Job in my games, because I don't know how to handle it. I admit that this is a personal failing, and ask the player nicely to remove it and replace it with something else. I've never had a problem with it.

Fuchs

Nov 10 2008, 08:01 AM

QUOTE (StahlkÃ¶rper @ Nov 10 2008, 02:14 AM)

But in fact its impossible to draw a clear line between using and abusing rules. So the best way is to stick to the rules, allow anything which is within it and change them when necessary.

I disagree. The best way is to make sure all involved - players and GM - share the same views of what's appropriate or not for a game. There's nothing wrong in telling a "Dumpshocked" (meaning, minmaxed to a degree rarely seen outside the site) combat monster character's player to make another character if the rest of the group plays slightly modified example characters from the BBB.

Fuchs

Nov 10 2008, 08:05 AM

QUOTE (Cain @ Nov 10 2008, 04:17 AM)

I agree. If a Gm rejects a character, they need a reason why. Even if it's "Because I can't cope with it", at least it's a reason. For example, I ban Day Job in my games, because I don't know how to handle it. I admit that this is a personal failing, and ask the player nicely to remove it and replace it with something else. I've never had a problem with it.

Given the amount of work GMs have to do to prepare for a game, there's nothing wrong with a GM banning stuff that makes his or her work harder.

StahlkÃ¶rper

Nov 10 2008, 09:53 AM

QUOTE (Fuchs @ Nov 10 2008, 09:01 AM)

I disagree. The best way is to make sure all involved - players and GM - share the same views of what's appropriate or not for a game. There's nothing wrong in telling a "Dumpshocked" (meaning, minmaxed to a degree rarely seen outside the site) combat monster character's player to make another character if the rest of the group plays slightly modified example characters from the BBB.

Deciding on whats appropriate for the game is just the same as laying down rules. If you want the group sharing the same view, youll have to talk about it and to make decisions (as a group).
Its advisable to lay the rules down before you need them and to make them universal. "No more than one attribute lower than 2 + metatype bonus" as a house rule is much more fair than "Oh, no! Dont play this streetsam! Do it again!"

QUOTE (Fuchs @ Nov 10 2008, 09:05 AM)

Given the amount of work GMs have to do to prepare for a game, there's nothing wrong with a GM banning stuff that makes his or her work harder.

I really dont think so. There is no must for the gm to do all the work. He may ask the players to take over responsibility for some parts of the game. Theyre old enough. It would never come to my mind to do more work than the players or to feel responsible for everyone having fun.