And then take them away and say "Report to the Food Vats for mandatory recycling"?

Exactly, Im not going to waste my time putting together a good adventure (or at least reading and memorizing one) if they are just going to screw off the whole time. Thats why games like Munchkin and Paranoia are great.

And sometimes, that's exactly what you need.

Incidentally, screw the idea that GMs sacrifice sooo much for ingrate players. When I play, I put more time into my character than the GM does the game. … He's not the greatest GM ever. But still. Enough of this high horse stuff.

Hey, I sacrifice a *lot*. I could be raiding Icecrown or getting my Vulcan Tactical Officer to Rear Admiral.

Then again, my players surprised me at the beginning of this campaign with a full damned website for the campaign, including sheets, bios, bios of contacts, pictures of the vehicle and gear they're using, area maps - even karma and nuyen trackers for 100% transparancy. Now I feel bad if I'm trying to get to RA5 while we're gaming.

With Shadowrun and Eclipse Phase I can definitely see that happening.

The hardcore play EvE Online. One of my best players is a big WoW player and he was trying to explain the appeal of raiding to me, when he finished I just asked, Ok so you do the same thing over and over hoping for a different result? Um, yeah kinda. Isn't that a sign of a mental disorder?

The other conversation that came up went like, So when you die you re-spawn as a ghost and run back to your body? Yeah. If it is PvP can you take their stuff? No you can't. Well does the person who died at least lose stuff? No they don't. So whats the point again? Um...

I won't play EvE simply because it's not my cup of tea. Biggest thing for WoW for me (and STO) is that I can spare a few minutes and actually play, rather than park my ship in front of an asteroid for a year.

But that's neither here nor there. They made a website.

You continue to use terms in unpredictable or erratic ways to best suit what you want at any given moment. Otherwise known as vagaries.

See you say breaking the game means "ruining, disrupting, prematurely ending, making no fun, etc."
yet your answer to these questions
Is using more build points breaking the game?
Is using only part of the modifiers breaking the game?
Is changing the results of the dice breaking the game?
is 'no, per se'

Somehow having someone use more build points, changing the results of the dice, not using all the modifiers is fun for others, doesn't disrupt the game, wont ever prematurely end an action, or ruin the game for others.

Ha, yeah, I don't get the appeal, but some people like competition.

Nope, that's not what a vagary is; it is an erratic change, yes, but I can't 'use vagary' in my meanings. Not that it matters. I've been using the terms in fully consistent and common ways.

Using more build points, cheating on modifiers, or fudging rolls *can* break the game, but it can also *not* break the game. That's what 'no, per se', means. Maybe, maybe not, it depends. For the dozenth time.

per se

Just because you don't accept the term that everyone else does means he's being vague. Frankly, it means you're being obtuse, like some kinda...Rules lawyer.



Pretty much. Is using 402BP a game breaker? No. Is not using the elevation modifiers the one time they should be used breaking the game? No. Is calling a single four a five on an extended test so you don't have to cascade another roll breaking the game? Not really.

Yet at the same time, is a 600 BP character in a 400BP game a bad? Sure. Is using 3E rules on a roll in a 4E game (go go rule of six sans Edge!) a game-breaker? Quite probably if he's rolling 30 dice. Is cascading those 30 dice and saying they're all sixes when they clearly aren't going to cause people to get up and leave? Yeah, probably.

If you want to froth and scream and cry foul over 2 BP, go right ahead. I'll kindly ask you eject the stick and get back to the gaming. If that 2 BP are seriously going to get your panties in such a twist that you would rather not play, then more power to ya. I don't want you in my group.

You are using vagaries "an unexpected and inexplicable change in something (in a situation or a person's behavior, etc.)". Your definition of 'breaking the game' was "It means ruining, disrupting, prematurely ending, making no fun, etc." Now you say "Using more build points, cheating on modifiers, or fudging rolls *can* break the game, but it can also *not* break the game." So it either ruins the game or doesn't, disrupts the game or doesn't, prematurely ends or doesn't or makes no fun or doesn't.

Much like your 'definition' of cheating "You can't win anything, so you can't really cheat"

Your definition of 'breaking the game' is erratic when you need *unknown* qualifiers to somehow go from not breaking to breaking. It is a vagary "an erratic or outlandish notion or action; whim"

Using more build point either breaks the game or doesn't. You can't have it both ways by your own definition of breaking the game.

An excellent example of rules lawyering, Piersdrach. Just the kind of attitude I hate to see in my players.

I do realize he is being vague. Thank you.

I am wanting a clearer definition that way people can't 'shift goalposts' at whim. I also see my post count compared to others and one would think someone perhaps is not 'up to speed' and all the 'terms' that everyone else here 'takes for granted'. Sorry but my definition of 'breaking the game' sure the hell is different than yours.

At what point does going over the 400 build budget break the game? 406, 407, 413, 445?
At what point does changing the dice break the game? During combat? During social encounters?
At what point does using only part of the modifiers break the game? During the attacking phase? During defense? During social encounters? Environmental situations?

So you don't like players who don't like double-talk?.

Gotcha

He's crystal clear, as are your intentions.


If you can't understand 'breaking the game,' then perhaps you should spend less time posting and more time reading. I realize it's time consuming and difficult to both research and be a mouthpiece for the rules lawyer, so perhaps a focus on the former rather than the latter is necessary.



At what point does your GM say 'no, you can't do that'? Right about there.
At what point do your players say, 'dude, come on.' Right about there.
At what point does your GM say 'we've talked about this, it's -this-, not that.' Right about there.

The point that you are intentionally failing to grasp is that again, cheating doesn't matter. It's subjective. Oftimes it isn't even intentional. However, if you want a clearer definition, how about this:

When the GM or the group says "This sucks, I don't want to play," then the game is broken.
When the GM or the group says "That's not supposed to be that way," then you're cheating.

These rules are not laws. This system is not all powerful. It is not set in stone. It is a framework for the GM and group to tell a story. To have fun.



Now you're being pithy and smug, and I find myself annoyed. I will tell you about the qualities of players that I do not like.

I do not like players who harp on the rules as if they were the Code of Hammurabi. I do not like players that point at three words on a page and proclaim loudly and incorrectly that they are right and everyone else is wrong while they steadfastly ignore the other 1,247 words written there. I do not like players that proclaim themselves superior because they 'take the game more seriously' than I do. I do not like players that willingly ignore everyone else's world view and try to draw out niggling details in order to 'catch' them in some sort of verbal mix-up. I do not like players who orate upon the evils of being emotionally involved in past events and bringing them to the game, then turn around and do that very thing (yes, I realize I could've said 'hypocrites' and saved myself two lines).

And do you know why I do not like players like this? Because they're symptoms of a closed mind, and a closed mind I abhor. There is no use speaking with a closed mind, because they do not listen. You cannot debate, because there is only trickery and no understanding. You cannot ignore them, because they do not stop speaking.

A closed mind subscribes to a single world view, and treats anyone who does not share that subscription as the enemy.

These are the qualities of a player that I do not like, Piersdrach. A rules lawyer can have any number of these qualities, and many people do. Coincidentally, they are qualities of people I do not like. Sing the hosannahs of being purely static with the rules, and the evils of deviating from them all you wish - you have said your piece, and nothing more I can say will ever sway you from that. So be it.

I prefer my frameworks with wiggle room, and shades of gray. After all, Shadowrun is nothing but shades of gray.

Awesome Indeed...
I put a LOT of time into my characters, and teh games that I play, and I have thought of soing teh website thing, but not everyone has access, which keeps me from attempting to do so...

Oh Well...

But it is an awesome idea indeed...

I think I'll bug them to put it quasi-public.

ASFA, you're on notice.

Cool...

Totally off topic, but wouldn't it be beautiful if CCP (who makes EvE) grabed the SR and BT lines from Catalyst through their White Wolf subsidiary. Can you imagine the MMOs we would get out of that. I guess we will kinda find out with the World of Darkness mmo is supposedly in development at CCP.

CGL does not have the licence for video games.

Yeah but with CCP owning White Wolf I doubt that they would take one and not the other. And I don't mean the suggestion as a flame, CGL has made great books. Though I do wish the physical book quality had been higher. Most of the CGL books I own have binding issues.

The preview i saw for the new Mech Warrior video game looked great, wish there was anything else out about it.

Microsoft own the license for the Videogame
It's horrid, and they own it for many more years to come.

Mech Assault was good, kinda stupid that they didn't make a 3rd. The Shadowrun game sounded so bad I never bothered trying it.

I don't agree that cheating is okay for the GM, but wrong for the player. A GM who lets an NPC dodge an attack that could have hit him to "increase the dramatic tension" is cheating every bit as much as a PC who conveniently "forgets" a range modifier.

Cheating may not seem that big of a deal if you look at the little things that a player can fudge, but it is usually not the cheating in and of itself, but the kind of players who do cheat. Generally, these are players who want to "win" the game by having their character succeed in everything at the expense of the game, the GM, the other players, and everyone else's fun. Also keep in mind that when a player goes as far as actually cheating, it is usually on top of all of the point-whoring, min-maxing and rules loophole-finding that they can manage.

I'd say it's cheating when most of the group decides it's cheating. I say most because there'd likely be one "offender" on the outside with perhaps a sympathizer. When the bulk of the group is not concerned then how much does it really matter?

Do dice fudges happen? Of course, intentionally and not intentionally. The reasons are as varied as there are people who play table-tops, but they happen. Personally I feel as a GM I could do a better job if my players feel the NEED to resort to this in order to have a good play experience. And I hope to not fudge anything myself, though it has happened once or twice to avoid a TPK or two, but typically I find that I have enough leeway in NPC decision making that it's fairly unnecessary. Players getting slaughtered when you intended to slow them down? Have the NPC team leader make a bad decision. Players took out the opposition in 1 pass before NPCs returned fire? Dead Man's Trigger rule and have them radio in another group or two. I suppose to some that's cheating too, but tabletops need to have a level of flexibility when playing them.

Bingo: "When the bulk of the group is not concerned then how much does it really matter?" Not a bit.

Hasn't this been said before... I am feeling a severe case of "Deja Vu" here...

Check it out, I found the music from SEAL Team on YouTube!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rit3mLaC_I

That electronic music by the Fat Man makes me feel all sentimental and nostalgic. I cannot believe there are not more high quality Vietnam War games.

No fun to play a game where you already know you lose in the end

See, I thought the ending to Vietcong 2 was epic!

He's crystal clear? And you know my intentions? You mean you know my intentions of getting him to actually answer a question without all the wiggle room of a politician's? Good for you.


Breaking the game? I understand my interpretation of it, but when someone keeps tossing the phrase around and wont elaborate on it? And when specifically asked still evades answering the question. No I don't understand that. Why do you think wanting someone to actually define what they mean to equal the 'mouthpiece of the rules lawyer' for? See my definition of a rules lawyer is someone who tries for every benefit for his character he can get(and conveniently forgets the negatives unless it is specifically mentioned) and to make sure every negative modifier is accounted for in regards to actions towards his character(and conveniently forgets the positives unless it is specifically mentioned). Perhaps yours differs from that. I at least am giving you what I mean when I say 'rules lawyer'. I do have an addendum to that, that being he also tries to 'run' the game while being a player.



So this forum goes from RAW-Homebrew-Play However, and somehow everyone knows exactly when a post is which?
Why not give your definition of it? Doc Chase says 402 is 'okay'(why I don't know, just drop a specialization and you are fine) At what point does Doc Chase say "Okay Cody I don't think so". Seems like this may be a theme for these forums, play however you want until caught, then try a different tactic.


Yes I seem to be failing to grasp this concept. If cheating doesn't matter why the hell do you even play the goddamn game for then? It isn't subjective, cheating is cheating. Whether the group wants act on it is subjective. We play by a rules set(and homebrewed rules). Disregarding that rules set then you are no longer playing that rules set. You are only playing dice wars and may the best cheater win.(is that a big enough hyperbole for everyone?)

And when you go outside that framework by intentionally cheating?




I don't like players who wont say what they mean. Who always need to have wiggle room to escape a direct answer. Nor do I like players who's first responses are calling the other players troll. Then have the gall to get all prune-faced later on. The type that are watching youtube videos or sleeping when the conversation is going on, giving a half-assed nod to what is happening. Then get all self righteous when they feel like it, bulling their way into the game. You know the type dontcha?


You know why I don't like players like this? One's the lap dog of another, he tries and tries to be in the 'kewl' group he wont stop and think for himself. He's the one who brings a one liner 10 minutes after the joke was done. He 'needs' to defend his bud/hero/mate whether it was asked for or not.


Funny. But what world view was given? Oh that's right, none. Just some vague statements.


Wow chase, first time someone has ever called me a rules lawyer. Congratulations.

I haven't said my piece, you are not my mouth. I am still waiting for an actual answer from Yera, but he is doing a great politician's pose and not actually answering the question.

I answered it in that very post. It's hardly my fault if you ignored it. I haven't been vague, nor changed the definition, nor used a non-standard definition. I've reiterated my position at least half a dozen times in this thread, which I think is plenty; certainly it's more effort than you're worth.

No you haven't given an answer.
Bingo: "When the bulk of the group is not concerned then how much does it really matter?" Not a bit.
Is not an answer.
No per se is not an answer.

It is wiggle room to allow you not give a definitive answer.

See I'm not asking you about what the entirety of the gaming world does. I am asking YOU, Yerameyah and that is what you refuse to answer.

It's not my fault if you don't like the answer. The fault is your black-and-white mindset, and your question. You're asking, 'how hot is too hot?'

Chill folks.

It's quite obvious without reading the entire thread we are getting a bit repetitive and argumentative.

I don't believe anything new is being added to this discussion of various viewpoints.