I think most GM's are like you Deek, we fudge to save the players life. The balance issue is a perfect example of fudgeing. I spend about 4 hours preparing a 5-6 hour session. That time is done working on flavor, setting, story, and lastley NPC stats which I usually just have a generall idea of and make up the rest as I go along to avoid any railroading.

It comes off as better game, everyone has fun and no one feels cheated because it was immpossibly hard or super easy. Cain has said a few times he achieves virtually the same thing with his style, which is great, I am glad their are multiple ways of GM'ing. I think the cooperative style isn't for me though. On the rare occasion I do get to play, I just want to get into my character and not worry about anything else.

I don't want to belabor the point, just to give some other examples. This and this are examples of group collaboration beyond just character backstory and rules interpretation. Now, SR has a distinct setting and a metaplot, so the discussion would be somewhat different than what my groups did in those threads, but I really think that SR can be run effectively that way.

That's not to say that other GM/player relationships or playstyles aren't valid or fun. I'm just a big believer that RPGs as a hobby can't improve unless these things are discussed.

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion. And, might I add, that so far this has been a very civil and enjoyable one to read.

I certainly agree with you on improving the gaming experience through discussion. To digress just a smidge, my biggest hangup has been, honestly, just the way I think of GMing. I tend to focus on the GM during a session, not all the other work before and after. So, when I read the term "collaborative GMing", I instantly try to think of it in terms of during a gaming session. And all I can come up with is rotating the GM during the session (which I think would be tough) or someone have a group effort every step of the way (kind of like a wushu game, which again, I think is tough).

Now, when collaborative GMing examples bring up a group of people talking about setting, encounters, etc outside of the active session...I normally haven't thought of that as collaborative GMing. Collaborating, yes, as the group is all adding to the campaign and giving the GM ideas...but its still up to the GM to "make it so" and present that at the table during a session.

Sorry for the digression, but I am still trying to wrap my head around all this collaboration. Its tough because all these collaboration examples are things I have incorporated in my games for quite some time, yet I don't view myself as a collaborative GM...

So, to get back to topic, a related common mistake I have made is incorrectly interpreting some rule or concept and then trying to force it on my players instead of rereading, discussing and agreeing that my interpretation was wrong. I think that goes hand in hand with leaving your ego at the door!

I disagree. Having the players throw dice at one another as an alternative to convincing one another is one of the worst ideas I have ever tried. It stats to lead down the path of the characters controlling the players, instead of the other way around. And, IME, it has lead to more hurt feelings then simply letting them talk it out normally. It even seems to result in an escalation to in game violence more than any other conflict resolution method I have tried. It's long been my groups rule that negotiation/con tests are fine for the PC vs NPCs, but are never resorted to in an attempt to change a PCs mind. At best I can be called upon to determine the things a PC knows for a fact, and all other assumptions are left up to the players to make for the PCs themselves. Or to step in if a player is using OOG knowledge to greatly on behalf of his character.

Though when the players disagree steadfastly disagree on what rout to take, there are no easy answers as a GM. The first thing I try to do is offer a little guidance as to which route better fits the situations as it stands. Many times disagrements will arise becaue of a misunderstanding of the situation, thats my fault as Gm, and my job to clean it up. Other times I can provide some insight as to the likely outcome of some plans, if this is knowledge the characters should concievably have. Such as "your character knows that shooting up the mall will likely bring a heavy Lone Star response," or some such. Often times though this advice is impossible to give, either because it forces the players decisions to much, it may tip my hand to the players to much, or I may know of unexpected suprises around the corner that make my advice less then impartial.

Next I try and mediate the disagrement. I clearly state what I see each players position as, and each players disagrement. I don't try and convince the players what to do, simply to try and help them take a step back and see one another positions and reasons for anda against it. Most of the times this works, but some differences aren't resolvable even with mediation. Its then when OOG measure are resorted to to solve the impass. I may also choose to tip my hand a little bit more at this point and give out a little bit of information than the players should normaly have. I do this especially if the matter of disagrement if pretty trivial in terms of matter to the plot.

If none of the above measures work, then we resort to one of a couple OOG resolution options. We either put it to a vote, and go with what the majority decieds. We may roll a dice or use RPS or some other impartial method of deciding. Or I may simple choose for the players, generally based upon the way past decisions have gone (we did it Bobs way last time, so we will do it Gregs way this time).

Your Milage May Very of course, I can see how using in game mechanics could work for some groups, but its been an abject failure for mine.

---

As to fudging dice, I think thats another matter of opinon. I've been known to do it a time or to, but it has almost always been to correct a mistake I made as GM (who would have known that a Gang of Ninja Assasins with gyro mounted HMG would be to much of a match for the players!). I used to do it in situations to let important NPCs or such escape, but then I realised I didn't have to, important NPCs can use edge to avoide their fate just like PCs can. Most of the time I don't explicitly announce such edge expedantures to the players though, instead I'll just say something like "he miraculouly dodges". They have no way of knowing it as characters, and it helps to avoid an edge expendature war between the players and I.

While I belive that fuding dice can be an important tool for the GM to use, its not one you should have to use to often. You should only be rolling dice in situations where you expect to have an uncertain outcome. If you already know the way things should turn out, you shouldn't be rolling dice. Or more preciely, you should have engineered the situation as far as possible that dice rolling is unecessary. Some of the times the PCs can upset these situations either through good planning or dumb luck. And generally you should allow this. The vast majority of the times I have had to fudge some rolls have been on occasions where I really should have planned better and made the rolls impossible.

That has mainly been about fudging rolls against the players. There are times when you should fudge rolls for the players as well I think. I do this mainly to preserve fun in my game. The mage getting geeked by a ganger before he even gets an IP may be a legitamate results, but probably isn't much fun in game. The player may be able to use edge in these situations, but this is not always the most fun result as well. Since its mostly a matter of hits against him anyways, knocking down the improbable 6 hits the ganger rolled on his 6 dice to a still improbable 3 hits may be a good idea. Doing this behind the screen can help maintain suspenion of disbelief for the players. It can also work the other way. If the players have been doing their legitamate best to defeat some Big Bad guy, but the dice aren't falling there way, you can fudge some on their behalf as well. I think it is okay to overule the dice from time to time in the name of fun.

As always with everything YMMV though. This is just what works well with my group.

----

Here is one mistake that DOESN'T very though:

Thinking you have found the 'one true path' to GMing instead of adapting your style to meet the needs of your group. Groups and players are different. What works well for one group may be a disaster for another. Assuming that you know best what style works for a group without taking a look at the realities of that groups play is probably the biggest mistake a GM can make. If you understand that, everything else is gravy.

Strangely, cost wasn't it. Even on characters that had more than enough money to afford it, had both legal and fake SINs and were constantly in danger, I haven't taken it. I think it's more that I *never* used it, so now I don't bother.

That said, our games tend to be a little less deadly, allowing multiple healing spells on the same person, allowing for LOS healing, etc. We're toying with the idea of going as deadly as RAW can possibly get, or worse. Maybe I'll start buying up the contracts then.


Common GM Mistake:
Giving the players too much power/karma/gear/etc and wrecking game balance as a result. One of my GM's is notorious for this, and he's had to reset his game back to zero a couple of times because he simply couldn't find opposition that we couldn't overcome without breaking a sweat.

Edge *pool* refreshes at GM discretion. Edge *burning* can be done as long as the player has a positive Edge score. Even if the player has exhausted his Edge pool, he can still burn Edge for whatever reason.

I'm not sure if anyone has thrown this one out there (I'm way too damn tired to read through the whole thread) but:

The number one mistake young GMs make is not talking to their players about how the group wants their game to work. 9 out of 10 problems are interpersonal conflicts between the people at the table and if the group just talks openly about things they usually find simple solutions.

That is of coarse unless you happen to play with that one guy who actually *is* there to ruin everyone else's fun... If you happen to be so unlucky the only option is to stab that guy in the throat and ask him politely not to come back (note: stabbing in throat is optional).

Cain, I've seen you mention that before, and I'm still a might confused on one specific point. If character X has used all of his edge pool, how can he burn edge? He's totally out of edge at the moment, so that option should not be available to him. The book doesn't say you can use that option at 0 Edge. And Zero is not a positive number, thus you shouldn't be able to use it in that case... Did I miss something there?

He my be using "burn" in the old sense that you could burn karma. Even if your edge pool is at zero you can burn a point of your edge attribute to do something. It is gone your attribute is now 1 point lower and when edge does refresh it refreshes at the new, lower number. [rant] Having said that, edge is a worthless piece of crap and is used by many people to prety much own the game by only having 5 or 6 points of edge, they can do anything they want. Combat Pool was waaaay better [/rant]

Shadow pretty much got it. You can burn your Edge Attribute even if your Edge Pool is at zero. The book is quite clear that the two actions are very distinct. You can even burn Edge on an action where you've already spent it, since the restriction is on spending Edge. You can burn as much as you like.

Yep, "Burning Edge" in my book is when you reduce your Attribute by a point permanently to save your sorry hoop. Of course, if your Edge Attribute is zero, you're up the Arcology without a decker...

Now, as to Combat Pool versus Edge Pool - well, I'd disagree based on the point that I see Edge Pool as similar to the 3rd Edition's Karma Pool. Combat Pool is reflected in 4th Edition by the Attribute Rating being added to the Skill Rating for the test. Plus you don't have to calculate the bloody thing being reduced in a combat round because now you can make your Dodge Tests at the set Skill+Atrribute Rating. A hell of a lot simpler and more PC friendly as it doesn'e effectively run out. As to the Edge Pool being better than Karma Pool, well my reasons there are that it gives the starting characters a better chance of survival until they've burnt it off a bit but then got enough experience to make them harder (a bit like Fate Points in WFRP). Plus the Edge Pool has a limitation due to its rating. The Karma Pool would keep going up until you died. With 200 Karma point characters having 20 Karma Pool this got to be a bit impossible to kill the more experience you got. Even with the ninja-HMG-toting Cyber-enhanced velociraptors...

We're not allowed to directly compare editions, but I can say that Combat pool was an elegant and simple mechanic that worked well, and allowed for more "tactical" combat, since much fo your effectiveness depended on how you managed your Combat pool. Karma pool could be managed by using a staggered-rate system, which dramatically slowed down the pool increases.

Meh... I was never a fan of the Dice Pools. Maybe I never had very "strategic" players, but they never really wanted to use them, what with their pre-allocation and such. One of their biggest criticisms of SR was that Dice Pools were difficult to manage.

You keep saying that, but it's still not true. We were asked at the time (three years ago) to tone down those kind of posts to help alleviate what was looking to be an unending flame war. There is no actual official Dumpshock moratorium on edition comparisons, despite your continual assertions to the contrary.

Hmm lets see...

Forgetting that you are there to have a good time too.

Losing sight that the extra power of decisoin making is given to you to create a provocative, evocative, interesting and fun experience for your players.

Asking for to much feedback. Asking for to little feedback.

Being to lax with your guidence.Being to strict.

Being afraid of killing characters. Killing characters without thought for the story and PC fun.

Not understanding your PC's psycology, history and motivation. Not knowing what your players want from the game. Not knowing what you want from the game or planning how to find out, give and progress all three desires.

Indulging in your pet project/concept/npc at the expense of the players enjoyment.

Power tripping with the authority given to you in exchange for providing a good game. Being afraid to use this authority to provide a good game.

Running save the world plots. Constantly.

Failing to sell a concept for the game to the players, or adapting said concept, to run a good game.

Not enough prep. I don't care what style you use to get there, there is a minimum amount of work to produce a session. lay the foundations for the great moments. They are rarer if left to chance.

Realise you can over plan.

Wrong plot style for the type of medium. LARP plots need alteration to work table top, novel/tv/film stories need to be adapted. styles of story must mesh with the metaphor of the game.

Breaking the illusion of the suspension of disbelief.

Failing to preserve the illusion of choice for the PCs and therefore the players.

Not that you were given, probably not. As one of the pro-SR4 people IIRC, I doubt that any official warnings were handed to you.

You said nothing about private warnings. You made an erroneous blanket statement about the general Dumpshock posting rules.

From Pgs 67-68 in BBB


The book is pretty clear IMHO that spending edge and burning edge are in fact two different actions. It doesn't 100% clarify if you can burn edge if you have no edge left however but I think the spirit of the rule is that as long as you have an edge stat still you can burn it.

-Josh

Burning Edge is seen by some as a "get out of death free" card, but really, it means that you are so deep in trouble that you have to lower an Attribute point to escape it.

I liked the old Combat Pool, but as someone who liked playing sorcerers, I saw how unfair it was to sammies and adepts. They had to split it between offense and defense, while characters like sorcerers could use it solely for dodging, and use spell pool to pimp their attacks. I don't wholeheartedly like everything about SR4, but I do like that dodge and counterspelling are skills, now.

That still doesn't mean you can't make a broken combo out of the trick. There's about two or three things I can think of that can make the autosuccess nature of burning Edge into an overpowering combination.

A few weeks ago, I was playing in a game against a Nataki with the Lucky edge, maxed out at eight. We had to try and kill the thing eight times; because every time it took lethal damage, the GM burned an Edge on its soak roll. When combined with all its other abilities, it ended up needing the intervention of GMPC's to save the day.


While I see where you're coming from, I don't agree that having Dodge and Counterspelling were necessarily the right move. I had toyed with the idea of merging the various pools into one Action pool, derived from attributes. I never had the chance to try it out, though.

One would think that if a character had to constantly burn edge in a combat that the character probably wouldn't have 8 edge to start with (due to burning edge like crazy in another combat.) Players burning edge like that would seriously destroy their character. A GM using that trick is just... well lame. Every mook with 1-3 edge would be able to save themselves at least 1 to 3 times if a GM wanted to ram the players in the backside the GM certainly could.

Was the GMPC's just better then your party? Did they also gang probe your party?

Anyways if it is a player or a GM the biggest thing is extremes. A GM taking anything to the max sucks. GMing is an art as well as being a good player. There are various nuances to being a good GM, but the easiest one that makes a GM a good GM is being aware of the players and being able to shape the story for the short term and the long term. The players are getting board so you throw something in that makes them interested in playing. It's mainly about reading the other side and responding to their needs. A player that does not do this or a GM that does not do this and respond appropriately generally can never be awesome.

I can't really think of too many broken combos involving burning Edge. Yeah, you can start with Edge: 2, burn it to survive, and buy it up relatively cheap. But you'll be constantly paying out that 6 karma. Everyone else will be playing badasses, and you'll be playing Mai-chan's Daily Life.

Or you can use that same trick to get critical successes, but honestly, that will still be expensive - you'll be losing Karma faster than you gain it. I imagine you're thinking of auto-soaking deadly damage or dealing out insta-kill attacks, but "critical success" is kind of hard to quantify for soaking damage, attacking, and a few other things, so some of your ideas might not fly by the GM. Also, this has to be something the character could accomplish, so if there's no way your wounded character could soak down the damage from that Panther cannon, all he can do is burn Edge to merely survive.

As far as the GM goes, that sounded like a case of pure GM dickery to me, even before the GMPC "had to" step in. The more horror stories you share about the GMs you have played under, the more I understand why you're so hardcore about collaborative gaming...

Well, the worst combo involving burnt Edge I can think of is the spirit trick. You summon a Force 12 spirit, spend Edge as normal; and if/when you fail, you just burn a point of Edge for 4 automatic successes. You so the same thing if you're in danger of dying from the Drain. After you've earned back the 6 karma (1-2 runs, normally), you do the same trick on a Binding or Invoking roll. Net result is a max of 12 karma for a 8 services from a Force 12 Great Form spirit. Not that bad of a tradeoff, if you think about it.


And that's just the ones I played under. I was at least as bad. I like to think I've recovered, but collaborative gaming is the only guaranteed cure that I know of.

And if the drain kills them?

EDIT: Double post, sorry

The trouble is, that spirit is only going to be hanging around until the next sunrise or sunset - so you can't really wait one or two runs to bind it. And trying to bind a Force: 12 spirit would likely take two burnt Edge points - one to successfully bind it, and one to not get killed by the Drain. So you would have to have an optimized build and get lucky, to summon it and soak the Drain, then spend Edge twice. Assuming that you can drop your Edge to 0 (the rules don't say; some GMs would probably disallow it), that's 9 Karma and 6,000 invested in this spirit. Might be worth it, but daaamn. Hope the rest of the team appreciates the sacrifice.

Nice list.

- Spending too much time on stuff that is relatively minor.
- Not getting enough sleep, which can lead to you not being on top of your game.
- Not being flexible with the players when they veer off course.
- Not having a solid grasp of the game system that you are running.

Not to mention that you can only burn edge for a critical success on a test you are capable of succeeding on, for many magicians this may arguably not be the case. You can't spend edge for critical tests you have no hope of succeeding on. I would rule that you could only use critical success if you could potentially roll more hits then the spirit could buy. Which doesn't exclude most magicians, but does exclude obvious abuses of this situation. Fewer magicians would be able to bind a spirit however.

This same concept also would apply to resisting the drain, which is especially true since a Force 12 spirit could conceivably spend edge to pretty easily raise the drain above the number of dice a magician has to resist. A force 12 spirit spending edge before the roll would have an average of ~10 hits, for a physical drain of 20! In which case the mage obviously has no hope of succeeding on this test and so couldn't invoke the critical success rule. The drain from attempting to bind such a spirit with an average of about ~13 hits with edge re-rolling failures and a drain 26 makes this just about impossible for anyone. And I'm still unconvinced that burning edge to resist drain or other damage is an appropriate use of this rule in the first place.

Add to all that, that a powerful Force 12 spirit (which has 12 points of edge mind you) could conceivably burn a point of edge for critical success as well if it really didn't want to be bound.

But frankly I'm not that concerned by this so called exploit. If a character wants to burn such massive amounts of edge for such a spirit I would let them. It's obviously important to them. I mean were are talking up to 4 points of edge here, 1 for summoning, 1 for summoning drain, 1 for binding, and 1 for binding drain, and then maybe invoking on top of all that (can't recall if thats a whole nother set of success and drain tests or not). Which is a huge outlay of resources for an expendable asset.

A character willing to spend 4 edge can do pretty much whatever they want.

That presumes that the mage doesn't spend Edge for exploding dice in the first place. "Impossible" and "possible" are actually well-defined in this case: assuming Magic 6, a Force 13 spirit is clearly impossible. A Force 12, however, is just as clearly possible, just difficult.

The big issue here isn't the karma expenditure, but the fact that you've got 8 services off a force 12 spirit, which is highly difficult to get any other way. If you're using those services carefully, you've basically got an irresistable force waiting to happen. Certainly no conventional weapon is going to touch it!

Oh, would you have enjoyed 1st Ed Cain, where you could summon a Force 20+ spirit with a Magic 1 character by just buying automatic successes with Karma on a 1:1 basis and do the same to resist the Drain code too.

Anyhow, enough of that, lets get this thread back on track. Mistakes made as a GM:

Running a game for ~15-20 players. Nope, know your limits and stick within the ~3-8 range depending on your style and confidence. Ipersonally find 5 is a good number for SR.

Five seems to be the magic number of PCs for any "team based" (D&D, etc.) PnP RPG. I wonder why this is? Someone should do a study.

You don't think I didn't witness players doing just that? I played SR1, you know.

Oh, and for the record: while you could burn Good Karma to survive, you couldn't stage it down to nothing without a using up a lot of karma.