QUOTE (raggedhalo @ Jan 23 2009, 05:25 AM)

QUOTE (Larme @ Jan 22 2009, 12:19 PM)

Why should anyone have to do more bookeeping, and pay more nuyen just to be a hacker? Name one good reason, other than realism. T
Because hackers (have the potential to) take up way more time than any single other character type and exclude most other characters while they do so. A little bookkeeping equalises things a bit.
Duh... wha? Let me paraphrase that to make sure I understand your argument. 1) Hackers take up too much time. 2) Therefore, we should add bookeeping, so they take up MORE time. Like, seriously? That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. Hacking rules should be kept short and sweet if you don't want hackers to dominate game time. Remember that everything the Hacker does takes up GM time -- saying "I want to roll to hack the patch for my pirated prog" is a DETRIMENT to the other players, not an "equalizer." I agree with your first premise, but the logical conclusion to draw from it is that optional rules should be cut out in favor of streamlining the system. The hacker wants to take up extra time dealing with pirated programs and patches and shit? Too bad. Tell him to buy the programs at book price, or write them himself, and shut his gob.
QUOTE
Also it provides the opportunity for smartarse non-hackers who keep a suite of programs all at Rating 6 to discover that they've got a trojan and their commlink's now part of a proxy network for an elaborate money-laundering scam. At least in my games.
Well, if you're talking about springing random "consequences" on PCs just to torment them, then I'm against that. I think it's the hallmark of a bad GM. But if you mean plot-related things, that is you'd only trigger the trojan on them if you meant for it to lead to some action and adventure, then that's ok. But I don't think you need stupid bookeeping rules to do that, you can just handwave it. As long as it's a fun time, your PCs shouldn't complain.
QUOTE
Precisely! Without additional complexity/orphans, Shadowrun/Cheney will soon discover their powers fading and will sink into obscurity. *grin*
I think this is supposed to be a joke, but I don't exactly get it. All I hear is that you're saying more complexity = necessary for Shadowrun to stay afloat. I call bullshit on that one.
QUOTE
I hate the GM-fiat approach to stuff. When your argument boils down to "because I say so" I feel like you've lost the cooperative nature of RPGing. I'd rather run my game like a constitutional monarchy than a benevolent dictatorship.
I'd rather run my game like an author cooperatively writing a story than like a government of any sort. The hacker doesn't get to waste our time with extra bookeeping, why? Because that's a distraction from the plot, it has nothing to do with anything, it's just simulationist, techno-fetishist masturbation. If PCs complain about handwaving, you just have to tell them "settle down guys, this is leading somewhere interesting." The cooperative nature of RPGing is about the GM creating situations, and the players advancing the plot by roleplaying within those situations.
Now, I understand that there are GMs who cannot prevent themselves from doing everything they can to fuck the players in their cornholes, because they're sadists at heart. If you're one of those GMs, then by all means, stick to the rules. There are also players who think that the goal of the game is to "win" by beating the GM's NPCs, a la Dungeons and Dragons. If you have those kinds of players, you'd better stick to the rules by the letter. But IMO, if that's the gaming situation you have, D&D 4e is your game. Everything is pre-programmed, and everything is totally fair as long as you follow the rules, not much fiat required. But Shadowrun is not a game of quests and dungeon crawls, it simulates a living, breathing world which moves at a super-modern fast pace. Things escalate in ways that would be impossible in D&D, and for this reason it's impossible to have a fair relationship between the players and GM. Even if you follow every rule, the GM can always win, so adversarial playing is a complete waste of time. You have to start off, from the beginning, realizing that the bad stuff that happens to the players is an obstacle to overcome which is supposed to create fun, not a vessel for the GM's sadism. If people can't get past that, then I think they're in the wrong game.