Burst fire downsides
more expensive in money (all those bullet tokens add up)
does not add to the weapon power for the purposes of hard armor or spirits
more likely to be noticed by OpFor as burst is louder than single shot (and single shot can be silenced)

OTOH
they can be combined
recoil compensation is useful

now take a called shot for +4 along with a fully compensated full burst we get 6P+4+9 so about 19P base
sweet

Except you can't call a shot for anything longer than a Short Burst, giving you a max of 12 with something that started at DV6. If you're not worried about the base DV versus armor, you could have just ripped off a Long Burst and gotten 11, instead, with the only penalties being uncompensated recoil.

Long and Full bursts require the weapon be set to FA. You can only call a shot with a weapon set to SS, SA, or BF.

err, isnt bypass armor a specific condition now? you either get to bypass armor or you get to add x amount of damage to the attack, and the base damage still have to overcome armor or be turned into stun?

realy, i never noticed. page reference? and I will give enough benefit of the doubt to say... touche

It's on page 149:



And yes it says there too, it's either bypass armor or gain up to +4 DV, not both.

EDIT: what he said

I also agree with Larme (but not about Aiming and Called Shots ).

If I promised you an incredible game system, charged you $50 for it, and then handed you a sheet of paper that says: "Just wing it", wouldn't you say that sucks?


First of all, I *never* comment on SR3-4 differences on Dumpshock anymore. The mods asked nicely, and I've not gone against that. The SR4 fans tromp on that edict all the time, though.

Second, I wasn't the one who necro'd a six-month dead thread to deliberately start a flamewar. You can blame someone else for that.


And when they errata in the sucky version?

Basically, even if the devs had written something sucky with multiple interpretations, it only make matters worse when they do it on purpose, and say: "GM discretion will fix it!"

Yay. Finally! Although I guess there's the word 'will' that is missing.

Not to derail the called shot part of this thread, but another flaw I have with the game is the Karma costs for advancement. Compared to skills attributes are way too cheap to improve. People start looking like some eugenics experiment once they start spending there Karma.

I'm currently happy because I had remembered wrong how much attributes cost, and now that I looked it up I'm still sitting on a pile of Karma to blow.

You're not contending that's what SR4 did. If you're trying to draw an analogy, it is so overstated as to be irrelevant.

All in all, I can't comprehend the argument that the GM deciding whether a called shot is possible is bad. They could give us ten pages of fully detailed rules on when and how called shots work. Let's say the rules say that no called shot may me made if the person is wearing an S class helmet properly affixed to J class body armor (that means the wearer succeeded in a logic + armorer (2) test when putting it on), with the optional LifeSafe trauma damping system, and has a body of at least 4, and isn't surprised, and has their MediKit™ turned to "active," or some incredibly complicated bullcrap like that. It is still up to the GM to use their fiat to decide which, if any of those variables are present. The GM decides what helmet, what armor, how many dice the person had to put it on, what accessories it has, how they are configured... You could have an infinite number of rules specifying whether a called shot can be made, and this would call for an infinite number of GM decisions. In effect, the GM decides whether a called shot can be made. Whether that's based on one on-the-fly decision, or several hundred much smaller on-the-fly decisions, it is absolutely up to the GM to decide whether a called shot may be made.

The only way to have what you seem to be advocating is a system where the GM is not responsible for controlling the universe. Maybe they are only allowed to use modules, or maybe all details of all encounters are randomly rolled. Those are certainly good systems if your games are all about whether the GM can beat the players or not, because unless the GM's discretion is circumscribed, he can always beat the players. But when a GM understands his role not as adversary, but as storyteller, as SR calls for, nothing you say about the evils of GM discretion holds up -- not the laziness of the devs, not the universally inevitable hard feelings by the most mature of players -- none of it.

No, that's a summation of your argument, actually. Bit of a straw man, I confess. However, there's so many critical parts of SR4 that just say "GM discretion" instead of actual rules, it amounts to a huge set of critical flaws in a game system.


Untrue. That is part of the GM setting opposition levels. That's part of the GM's job! I thought everyone knew the difference between GM fiat and the GM's job. The GM's job is to set such things. GM fiat is when he suddenly decides that there is no possibility for a called shot no matter what the player does. It's saying: "You cannot defeat my penis-extending Mary-Sue NPC, because he will instantly have a counter for any trick you might have!"

The reason I use the Citymaster example is that it demonstrates something a desperate player might try and pull off. And saying "No" to him because it disturbs your story or breaks your fourth wall, is complete and utter cheese. The rules should help here, instead of allowing or encouraging it to happen.

Saying that rules loopholes aren't a problem if you have good players is a fallacy. What if I told you: "Your car's breaks will fail if you ever try to panic-stop. But it's not a problem, because good drivers never panic stop." Or if I said your car has no crash safety features, but that was okay because only bad drivers crash. Not only am I insinuating that you're a pad driver/player/GM, but I'm also trying to escape responsibility for something I should have done right in the first place.

Ok, at this point you are likening a necessity(Fully functioning brakes) to a discretionary rule. Your comparison of the two isn't relevant, given the perspective that it's only a game, and will not kill you. Having said that, A broken rule doesn't always mean a broken system. If you don't like a rule, then amend it. If you don't want to"house rule" then soldier on, adapt and overcome, suck it up,etc. and enjoy the game. It's not perfect, but it's damn good.

And in that case, this belongs in the Shadowrun Missions forum.

You can't always "house rule" a problem away, but see below. Additionally, if you're having to house rule everything, then you've gotten to the blank sheet game I was referring to earlier. Also, the example said your brakes will work fine, unless you do something wrong. Is it still "fully functional"? The point is, SR4 work s fine as long as you don't push the system too hard. And IME, the system gets pushed hard whenever a player tries something clever. Which all good players do at some point. So not only does the system reward twinks, it punishes good players through "GM discretion".


Ironically enough, most of the Shadowrun I've been playing or running has been SRM. So I can't house-rule things away, and GM discretion is sharply limited. Within that context, I'm sure that people can see why I'm so frustrated. You have to make everything absolutely universal, and that means sticking to the RAW. Simply saying "you can house rule it away" or "GM fiat it" doesn't help in the SRM environment.

Amusingly, I've realised Cain is doing a sort of inverse of the Ghandi principle. First he fights me, then he laughs at me (or at least makes derisive comments) and then finally he ignores me. Cain, given that on more than one occasion you have stated to people who stopped arguing with you that "silence is assent" I will assume that the principle extends both ways and that you have accepted the numerous points I made which you have ignored. Is that fair?

That's a shame as I would particularly have liked you to respond to my request to quote the ad hominim part of the post that you described as "mostly just an extended ad hominim fallacy." That's not a good thing to say about someone if you can't support it.

On a separate point, you're making one enormous leap of logic when you go from "I don't like the Called Shot rule" to "If I gave you a blank sheet of paper and told you to improvise" comments. Your extreme rhetoric does you no favours and the analogy is flawed anyway. You are not bemoaning that the sheet is blank, you are bemoaning that you don't like what is written on it. You are attempting to persuade the people who do like what is written on it that there is some objective reason why your dislike is more valid than their like. However, your dislike is only a subjective opinion. Off the top of my head, I can only think of two reasons you can correctly tell someone that their opinion is wrong - when it is inconsistent with itself, inconsistent with evidence that they can perceive or inconsistent with their perceived aims. None of these applies to my opinion, but each of these has applied to your argument at some point. For example, your dislike of the mathematics of Called Shots is inconsistent with your acceptance of the mechanics of autofire which actually takes the "imbalance" you perceive to an even greater level. Your Citymaster example (and others) have been shown to be inconsistent with what the rules actually say. And finally, it's pretty clear that your opinion runs very much counter to your presumed aim of actually enjoying the game.

If you don't trust your GM to make fair calls and run a fun game, then no amount of rules, in no RPG, will be good enough for you.

only if it was unseen, but then i dont by unseen goods without a return option...

Sr4 on the other hand was not unseen...

Good thing that Wushu isn't $50. And there's a big difference between what you describe and Shadowrun's BBB. You mean that just because the called-shot rules ask for GM discretion, Shadowrun rules are inexistent?


As far as I know, Cain isn't a die-hard SR3 fan, but a die-hard Savage Worlds fan... I don't know if Savage Worlds vs SR discussions are allowed, though.

I really doubt any RPG game system will satisfy you then.
"GM discretion" is used all the time because all of the combat/situation modifiers are decided by the GM.
Would you challenge him when your character is trying to con someone and the GM flat out told you to take a -4 penalty, without telling you why?

The CityMaster Longshot test is not an example of a player being clever, but instead pushing rules into absurdity.

I'm curious why you think the system rewards twinks? Do you mean people who look for loopholes in the rules (Bloodzilla & others).

Combat and situation modifiers are not decided by the GM, it is determined by the scenario which is in turn determined by the scenario writer who can then GM the scenario he wrote. With a good scenario and rule set, the GM can be an uncaring, unbiased and absolutely impartial god of his game world.

Citymaster Longshot test is an example of what can be done, it appears absurd because you insist on looking it from a "balanced" point of view, when there is no such thing as game balance within the game. There is simply the RAW and there is not-RAW.

No. The RAW explicitely state that the effects of called shots only happen by GM agreement, and that for bypassing armor the GM decides if such a vulnerable spot is accessible (SR4, p. 149).

RAW also state that the players and the GM are free to house rule stuff ("If something in these rules doesn't quite fit or make sense to you, feel free to change it. If you come up with a game mechanic that you think works better - go for it!" and "When the rules get in the way of the story, ignore the rules and tell the story") (SR4 p. 54).

RAW explicitely allows a GM to ignore abused rules (like long shot city master) if they get in the way of the story.

You're all missing the point of long shotting the Citymaster: it doesn't even matter. Citymasters have 16 boxes and roll 16 dice to soak damage. Go ahead and long shot its armor away - unless you're using a heavy weapon you aren't even going to do it any meaningful damage.

This particular tempest in a teapot has been going on for three years and it still matters as little today as it did when the example was first conceived.

-Frank

And why would the GM not agree? By what rule does the GM determine if such a vulnerable spot is accessible?

Since you brought up SR4 p.54, that particular piece of RAW explicitly allows the rules to be ignored. Any rule, abused or not. Nor does it say tell you who can ignore them. It does not say that only the GM can ignore the rules and tell the story. Therefore the player can ignore GM and go ahead because the rule that the GM should decide whether the armor is vulnerable or not is interfering with the story.

Yes. I quoted this because it shows that fixating on RAW and ignoring game balance, GM decisions, group dynamics and common sense does not work - and that the GM is not the god of the game world, he only rules by agreement of the players.

Without a group consensus, RAW does not work at all, since RAW itself puts players and GM, and by extension their consensus, above the rules.

There's a difference between "you lose, nyah nyah," and "no, you can't knife the Citymaster." Wouldn't you agree?



Telling the player "no" because it breaks the story might not be right. But telling him no because it's an obvious rules exploit that defies any basic notion of reason seems fine, doesn't it? They player should understand that armored vehicles are not vulnerable to knives, it should not come as a shock, or seem unfair that just because there's a loophole in the rules, he can't use it to do something really stupid.



But what if you had a car with faulty breaks, but god was watching over you and would prevent your breaks from failing? That's what we have in a GM. We have an arbiter that says "sure, there are loopholes, but we're not going to use them in my game." The breaks can't fail, because someone has absolute discretion to prevent them from failing. And no matter how many times you repeat that mature adult players are going to have their feelings hurt if they GM tells them they can't use a loophole, it isn't true. This is a definitional question. By definition, mature adults are not going to feel sad when they "lose" a GM discretionary call. It's part of the game, and they will keep on playing without any significant loss of fun. If they do, it's because in reality, they are not mature adults.

RAW works without group consensus, but without group consensus, the game would be a mess. But this is not RAW's problem, it works, well or not is up to you.

By the RAW, arbitrary GM decisions, group consensus, and house rules are part of the RAW.

If you take that line, then it appears logical to me that you dispense with the rest of the rules as well, since god is watching, so nothing fails. In fact doesn't that make god's work easier? Since there are no rules, there is nothing for god to stop from going wrong?

Yet also by definition, mature adults are going to feel sad when the GM has to rule on a discretionary call. Because then they would be having fun only because they are mature adults(and I can think of other fun things for mature adults to do) and not because the rules are good.

RAW tells us to change the rules if needed so we have fun.

What it comes down to is this: Any problem RAW creates it also offers a solution for in the form of rules changes by the GM/players.

By RAW, arbitary GM decisions, group consensus and house rules are implied via the Abstract Nature of the Rules, not part of RAW.

If a part of the rule delegaates a call to someone (like the GM in the called shot scene), then that's still part of RAW. Same for rules changes delegated to the group.

@Fuchs:don't try to reason toturi, he's a RAW-extremist, a CRPG would have more leeway in the rules than he does. (no offense toturi, that's your call)

The rule that delegates is RAW, not the call itself.

Actually a CRPG is as close to a perfect RAW system as far as I am concerned. Any leeway in the rules would be RAW then. (Taken in the spirit it was offered )

The RAW delegate the call, hence it's still part of the RAW. Like rolling a die.

You can argue that the act of making the call itself is RAW(but I would not agree with it being RAW per se, as the result of RAW, yes, but not RAW proper), but the effects and substance of the call is not RAW. Because there is no RAW governing how you make the call or how the call is implemented.

RAW doesn't tell you how to pick up dice, and how to throw them. That's because you do not need instructions how to roll a die. Same for deciding if there's a vulnerable spot or not, or how to change rules.

Your not needing instructions is irrelevent, there remains no rules to decide if there's a vulnerable spot or not, or how to roll a die. Same for changing rules.

"GM decides" is a sufficient rule to handle it. You may not like it, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a rule. Even laws are set up like that, leaving a judge to decide the exact amount of money someone has to pay as court fees, for example.

Even if there were rules, however, you'd still need to make the call. As I said earlier, there could be an infinite number of rules, and that would require an infinite number of GM decisions. The rules could say "the Citymaster has no vulnerable areas to called shot, but the Riotmaster does." So now it's a GM call whether you throw a Citymaster or a Riotmaster at the players. The rules could say "armor type x has no vulnerabilities but armor type y does," and the GM has to arbitrarily decide what kind of armor type the vehicle has. No matter how many rules there are, it is always up to the GM to decide which rules come into play and when. You could have a whole book volume on called shots, and it would still be absolutely, 100% under GM discretion. The only way to prevent this would be to require the GM to randomly roll everything.

The rule may be that the GM decides, but how he does so or what the new rule may be is not RAW.


Yes but the substance of the call itself is also not RAW.

10 Print "RAW doesn't tell you how to pick up dice, and how to throw them. That's because you do not need instructions how to roll a die. Same for deciding if there's a vulnerable spot or not, or how to change rules."
20 goto 10

OK, fine. Ad Hominem literally means: "Against the man", and occurs when you attack a person, instead of his/her position. Your entire last post has to do with me, and not my position. It is a clear example of the Ad Hominem fallacy, and can be rejected as a logical argument.


It's got nothng to do with trust; I GM a lot, too. The better the system, the fewer GM fiat calls I have to make. If we're discussing constructive ways to make Shadowrun better, shouldn't we try and minimize this sort of thing?


Not precicely, no. I am saying that there's a vast amount of the game that relies on GM fiat, which makes the rules very thin. Certainly not enough to justify the huge price of the base book.


The system rewards numerical superiority, but that can be said of many gaming systems. Where the problem lies is in how easy it is to get to the breaking point. It's certainly easier too twink out a character in SR4 than it is in equivalent systems (nWoD and Savage Worlds; Wushu and Caped have different approaches.) Heck, even Exalted and Rifts don't break nearly as easily, and those are incredibly high-powered games!

In that case, why have a rulebook at all? Just spend $50 on a sheet of paper that says: "ignore the rules and tell the story". Heck, if that's what you want, I'll be glad to charge you even less for it: I'll only charge you $39,99, and S/H is free.

You're not seriously demanding that I post the example again, are you?

"Hah! Bad Player! No Biscuit! I'm sending in a Citymaster to punish you!"
"Okay, I Longshot it." *rolls dice* "It's dead."
"No, it's not! You cannot defeat the citymaster, it's going to defeat you! You cannot penetrate it's armor!"
"But the rules say--"
"Screw the rules! The rules also say I can make up whatever I want, and I'm making one up now! Nyah Nyah Nyah!"

That's what probably millions of people say every year. And there's millions of accidents per year. Not correlated, but depending on divine intervention is a bad idea. Besides which, haven't you heard the phrase "God helps those who help themselves"? Do you as a GM protect and coddle your players from the consequences of their mistakes, no matter how stupid?

The more players who unfairly "lose" a game, the more likely they'll go on to other games. I know that's why my new gaming group won't play Shadowrun. I'll be running SRM games for strangers instead.

Oops, double-post .

OK, fine. Ad Hominem literally means: "Against the man", and occurs when you attack a person, instead of his/her position. Your entire last few posts has to do with me, and not my position. It is a clear example of the Ad Hominem fallacy, and can be rejected as a logical argument.


It's got nothng to do with trust; I GM a lot, too. The better the system, the fewer GM fiat calls I have to make. If we're discussing constructive ways to make Shadowrun better, shouldn't we try and minimize this sort of thing?


Not precicely, no. I am saying that there's a vast amount of the game that relies on GM fiat, which makes the rules very thin. Certainly not enough to justify the huge price of the base book.


The system rewards numerical superiority, but that can be said of many gaming systems. Where the problem lies is in how easy it is to get to the breaking point. It's certainly easier too twink out a character in SR4 than it is in equivalent systems (nWoD and Savage Worlds; Wushu and Capes have different approaches.) Heck, even Exalted and Rifts don't break nearly as easily, and those are incredibly high-powered games!

In that case, why have a rulebook at all? Just spend $50 on a sheet of paper that says: "ignore the rules and tell the story". Heck, if that's what you want, I'll be glad to charge you even less for it: I'll only charge you $39,99, and S/H is free.

You're not seriously demanding that I post the example again, are you?

"Hah! Bad Player! No Biscuit! I'm sending in a Citymaster to punish you!"
"Okay, I make a called shot." *rolls dice* "It's dead."
"No, it's not! You cannot defeat the citymaster, it's going to defeat you! You cannot penetrate it's armor!"
"But the rules say--"
"Screw the rules! The rules also say I can make up whatever I want, and I'm making one up now! Nyah Nyah Nyah!"

That's what probably millions of people say every year. And there's millions of accidents per year. Not correlated, but depending on divine intervention is a bad idea. Besides which, haven't you heard the phrase "God helps those who help themselves"? Do you as a GM protect and coddle your players from the consequences of their mistakes, no matter how stupid?

First, that's not argument by definition, that's circular logic.
The more players who unfairly "lose" a game, the more likely they'll go on to other games. I know that's why my new gaming group won't play Shadowrun. I'll be running SRM games for strangers instead.

You dasn't know much of Exalted then, das you? I mean, seriously, out of the 300 fonged charms in the entire game you literally must have one of only four to even seriously consider entering a fight (the four perfect defenses), else it's instant squish time. You know the problem with defeating lots of armor in Shadowrun (you know, where it's armor protects you/you dead no matter what with no middle ground at all?) Yeah, Exalted STARTS there. Perfects, as the name implies are 'nyah nyah, you don't hit me'.


That was a strawman the first time you posted it. For your love of pointing out logical fallacies you should know not to do this, repeatedly. The Shadowrun rule book is not a blank sheet of paper for starters. Compounding your problem is that at least ONE of your 'goto' alternatives to toss out (WUSHU)damn near IS a blank sheet of paper. Sure, its free, but you get what you pay for.




This is a common problem with your arguements. I don't have your love of 'logical fallacies', so I won't dignify it with a proper name but it boils down to this: you are assuming that the citymaster will only come out when the GM is being a dick to the player and wants to punish them. You are further assuming that the GM is only preventing the player from defeating the city master by the most absurd of methods (via knife, in your last case) because the GM doesn't like being thwarted.

This is so far removed from my expirences as to be utterly alien to me. Therefore I can only interpret this in one of three ways: You only game with infantile assholes or you game as some sort of masturbatory power fantasy and don't like other people ruining your 'fun'. The first will never be corrected by rules, sadly, the second... well, lets just say while it explains your fixation on Wushu, it doesn't explain what you are doing trying to 'patch' all these 'broken' examples you keep 'finding'.

The third conclusion is that you actually don't have huge problems with Shadowrun, but since you prefer other systems (ones with much smaller player bases) you feel your gaming is best served by convincing people to abandon Shadowrun, and preferrably pick up your favored systems. In other words, a Shill.




Putting this into context: I ran Shadowrun as badly as I could so that people would not enjoy it in a passive aggressive attempt to force them to play my favorite games. Since this has worked, I will continue to do this to random strangers.

Great. Might I suggest that you move on to forums that cater to your tastes and leave Shadowrun to people who actually, you know, LIKE the game?

For the record I'm partial to SR2, though I don't go around convincing anyone its 'objectively better' or trying to get them to switch.

Actually, you do not need to like the game system to like the game. It seems that Cain likes attacking the game system, just like I like defending the game system.

Only watched a few games, never played. But Exalted handles high-power gaming quite well, by making itself into a high-powered game, and encouraging high-powered gaming. SR4 claims to be a realistic game, but then encourages high-powered gaming. See the disconnect?

You're right, there's art as well.

That's not an argument, it's an illustration. Ultimately, it doesn't mater why the GM is making the call. He's forcedto make up a house rule on the spot, without warning his players. A good GM would say: "We're not using the called shot rules, because they're broken and I don't know how to fix them." Not wait until a called shot comes up, and spring it on an unsuspecting player.

And knasser? This is another example of an Ad Hominem, because it targets me, and not my argument. Just so you know.

Another Ad Hominem, but okay.

I GM Shadowrun more often than the local Commandos do. (And I live only 20 miles from Catalyst's main office.) My current gaming group actually is wrapping up a short SR4 campaign, which is ending due to someone else's objections about the campaign. My new gaming group (I'm moving) won't touch Shadowrun at all, of any edition, due to a few bad experiences with SR4. I always run the game to the best of my ability; it's hardly my fault that SR4 gives me 300 pages that say: "Wing it".

As for your: "Shadowrun! Love it or leave it!" comment, I get that all the time. Usually from people who shout: "How dare you mock holy Canon! Burn the heretic!" Dude, SR4 isn't the be-all and end-all of gaming. Dumpshock is not some SR4 holy shrine, where negative words cannot be spoken, and challenges to the rules can never be made.