Oh no, I wasn't thinking of a democracy, more along the lines of the tyranny of the majority. I think the GM in any game is the person who is the most masochistic, he has basically volunteered to be violated. RAW is the shield that protects him from gang bang ass rape.

I like GMs who use their rulebooks to hit their players over the head. It means that it is no longer there protecting his ass.

A GM who runs the show like that, well it is his fault. And it makes for very stupid games. Because you will have a discussion all the time. And if only one player likes doing it, you will be in endless discussions.

Thats why most groups handle it the way: The word of the GM is the word of GOD.

Only to be challanged later, after the session, when he has lost his GOD status.

Like Aerospider said, the GM is running the show. He gets to decide EVERYTHING outside the actions a player takes.

I think it depends...

Good GM's don't need to be god, remember a very famous set of words spoken by a god:

When you do things right, people won't think you've done anything at all.

That said, this only works if the players never challenge "God". Good players should know their position, to enjoy the world you lay out, good players will bring rules disputes up like irion said, after the game. More so I really loath players who question other players in terms of rules, nothing I can't stand more than two players fighting each other. Nothing I can't stand more as a player than having another player tell me how my character works or rules for it.

Hilarious as that is, toturi, it sounds like you're just goofing around. Normal groups voluntarily give the GM the 'power' he needs to function, and only take it away if he's awful.

That's how I cut my gaming teeth. I'm comfortable suggesting mid-session I think it works like X. If the GM says no, I'll play knowing full well the rules are incorrect, and talk to him afterwards. If I didn't respect him as an ST, I wouldn't play under him, and I assume whatever he has planned for this session uses his version of the rules. Until he tells me otherwise, that's how HIS world works.

I see it the same way.

Sure, sure, the players can always outvote the GM "with their feet". But if there are so few players in an area that the GM can't readily replace the ones who leave ... then GMs must be pretty scarece too, and those players who left? Probably don't get to play at all anymore.

And just ask CanRay how much fun that is.






GMing is a duty. Playing is a privilege.

Back in my highschool days, during lunch break I'd "run" entirely no-rules, whatever-I-could-think-up games / "dynamic stories" for my friends. I had nothing to start from except genre, really. Fantasy dungeon crawls, exploring post-apocalypse ruins, being marooned on a tropical island, etc.

I had no "RAW is the shield" to fall behind. Just. "this is the game I've presented you. Play my way, or get out of the way so the rest of us can play".






... and that Word should be spoken softly, 99 times out of 100.


Absolutely right. Too many people forget Rule 0 nowadays, I fear.

This entire post is my view. I have a few additions though. I havn't run a RAW game in 10 years, so I can't hide behind RAW either. Every campaign I run I use a new set of rules for a certain mechanic to create my world. The players get to have their fun in that world. If they don't like the way something is handled they are free to bring up their own concerns but for the most part that happens before or after the game is done. And while I havn't had many issues with argumentative players, if they don't like the rules, they don't have to play. But as I said, I havn't really ever had any issues.

A good GM is as much a leader as he is a storyteller. Knowing how and when to discourage bad behavior and encourage good, knowing how to convey his reasoning behind a ruling, and knowing when to accept that he made a mistake, are all just as important as your ability to be a rules lawyer. And Rule 0 dictates that sometimes you have to break the rules in order to keep a game enjoyable. GMs shouldn't shy away from that.

People agree on Dumpshock, the end is near...

Head over to the "Are Orks green or not" threat, to be secured in your image of us

Yeah it's a special fun-time of counter-intuitive thing.

It looks to me that the Runner's Companion may make exceptions to the rule.
for example
Positive qualities like Catlike, Natural Athlete and outdoorsman spacificlly state "Subject to the modified skill maximums..."
and other qualities like Perceptive, Linguist, College education do not make any referance to the rule

This would lead me to believe that those qualities are exceptions to the rule.

Any thoughts folks?

That's usually very shaky logic, especially in SR4. It's the whole 'absence of presence' thing. However, Perceptive is not a skill boost, it's a DP mod.

You are correct...I was Thinking that perhaps Knowledge and language skill as they are not active Skills were exempt from the modified Skill max limitation, however I noticed that Inspired modifies an active skill (all be it an unpopular one) and does not have the disclaimer either

I tend to consider a general rule to apply unless a quality specifically states that it is an exception to that rule. I still think it is sloppy writing, though - if you're going to mention the modified limit for some of the qualities, do so for all of them! Note that some of the knowledge skill qualities have additional limitations. School of Hard Knocks, for example, caps the increased knowledge skill ratings at 6. Although getting a blanket bonus to an entire category of knowledge skills is still pretty sweet.

The problem here is, that SR started with very few mods. The Core book did not have too much of them. So there was normally no way to double your dicepool with those. (More so if you consider that enhanced attribute isn't a modifier.)

This rule is the result of more and more Boni beeing added in additional books.
So of course it won't be mentioned in some aspects of the rules. And it will probably never be added...

This is a general problem if you add aspects to the corebook. (More races, more magical stuff, more enhancements etc.)