hahaha. okay, listen: WoD has based its entire gaming line on rules snobbery. they tell their players that they're better than other gamers because they appreciate the story and ignore the rules. that's hardly an opinion shared by all game systems, or all gamers.

edit: yes, it was an example. examples illustrate points, or else they're not accomlishing their purpose. if it doesn't illustrate your point, you probably shouldn't make the example. this is another instance where planning ahead helps you.

Especially because it's wrong/stupid. "No one will notice (or care)" is fairly obviously not the case, is it? Since several of us who have nothing at all to do with your game(s) are both noticing, and caring, about how you handle this sort of thing.

How do you players not notice when you make a dead-on accurate shot fly wide and hit a convenient other NPC, instead, breaking not only the rules of the game but the laws of physics in the process? Have they just never seen the basic rulebook, or understand the rules?

I guess in a game where no one but the GM knows the rules (and the GM ignores them whenever they would inconvenience him) your playing style would work okay. I mean, you tell them what to roll, they roll it, you ignore the die roll and tell them what happened -- and they think that's just, y'know, how it works. If they don't know any better, I'm sure they still have a good time (I guess), and if it works for you game keep doing it (I guess).

Its interesting how the WoD books weren't snobbish until they started supporting my point of view.

And Critias once again ignores what I have to say, this time in the form of my post on how I normally play.

Look; the initial example was bad, and it would have been beneficial to your position to state as much and lay out an example that was a good demonstration. I believe you can not, but that is due to my position. You failed to take this route and started in on defending that example and actions therein.

I have tried to strip away what makes that example an almost straw-man for my position to attack out of fairness to you. I have tried to present the points at the root of the discussion rather than the characitured extereme.

The point is, if you are telling the story correctly and engaging the characters actions instead of moving the plot along in spite of them, you will not have to break the rules. The extension of that statement is that you should not break the rules because then you are, logically following, not telling the story correctly.

no, WoD has always been snobbish. i don't like WoD, partly because of that. you'll note that i've yet to say anything positive--or, actually, anything at all--about WoD until the last few posts.

Oh I know you didn't say anything. But the nWoD book was, up until recently, used to support everything everyone had to say against me. They said I believe "How could someone who claims to be an expeirence Vampire storyteller not have read the chapter that supports all our statements." And now that I've found a specific passage that supports my statements, its no longer valid.

Oh and Raskolnikov, that was a very sensical, rational and valid statement. And I appreciate it.

My example did help my point. My point was that no one can tell me why breaking the rules is so horrible except that it makes players angry, and not breaking the rules never makes players angry. And yet I do it, and my players don't care, they know the rules, and they don't care, they accept it, they're enjoying themselves. On the other hand, I've had horrible, tense, boring game sessions in which hours were spent rolling saves for every single piece of equipment that may or may not have been burned by fire.

Even Critias's gut reaction was merely "well, you might have let me know the Target Number" until he had a lot of time to calculate every possible variable into the situation.

And its not so implausible to imagine hitting the helicopter instead of the person if the person is in between you and the chopper, which was not specified and does not matter in the slightest. Which means its all anyone is going to talk about from now on.

Who is the "they" who's been talking about nWoD and how it relates to this scenario, and are they me, mfb, or Rask?

okay, now you're just making things up. the only spot i can find "WoD" in this thread, before you brought it up, is on page 3. and that had nothing to do with this discussion.

It is a game quality issue honestly. You and yours may have decent enough games expecting such plot devices. Hell, I like to read a pulp fiction novel from time to time. I enjoy a great work of literature a lot more than whatever Popular Author Alpha jammed out in a month so he could buy a new boat however.

You may be happy playing a game that relies upon immutable plot points such as the example, but I maintain that a game can be run to a higher degree of finesse, enjoyability, and interest. This is not to say your game is not any of those, merely that it could be better if measures are taken not to rely on that sort of GM fudging.

I have read through the old WOD rulebooks but never had a chance to play them, I am familiar with the quote Nerbert gave earlier about rules taking second place to story but I won't pass judgement on the validity of that statement since I have never seen it in action in a WOD game. What I will say here is why I personally have an objection to the idea of railroading, as in bending the rules as opposed to planning ahead.

In a roleplaying game the GM is a god. They control the actions of every single entity in the game universe apart from the handfull of characters run by the players, in the end there is very little the GM cannot do or make happen as long as it is within the bounds of the game worlds reality. This is planning ahead and it is what the GM is supposed to do.

The only weapon the players have is the rules. The sniper gets a lucky shot and takes down your main villain? Too bad. The rules say the player is allowed to do that, just as that villain is allowed to kill the player. The rules give players control, they give their actions meaning, they know they can do things in the game world and the GM cannot turn around and say "I don't like that so you can't do it."

Now if the players in a group are fine with just being a part of the GMs story, with following where he wants them to go then all of this is a moot point because no argument is ever going to come up. But if the players want to take the story in a completely different direction to the GM then a problem will arise. Once the players feel they are being forced in a particular direction, especially if it's one they don't want to go, they will fight it with their only weapon, the rules. They will want to make dice rolls for virtually every action so that there is an indisputable result and the GM cannot turn around and say "it doesn't happen like that". If the GM starts ignoring the rules then players are going to get frustrated. This is what tore up my old roleplaying group many years ago

moreover, it's possible to have a deep, story-driven game where the GM doesn't break the rules. i've done it, and it's a hundred times better than the either of the extremes described above.

You obviously run a story that will be meaningful and fun for everyone. I think I've said that at least three times.

How do you run a "deep, story driven game" when there's no guarantee that the players will ever even experience it? Why even bother? Why not just stand up a series of encounters like dominos and let them try to knock over as many as they can without dying. Thats a game. Fun for all. No need to get involved with a character, because they could get screwed over by the dice at any time. You could even give all the dominos a thread of plot so that any survivors will have a reason to go to the next one.

because, unlike you, i'm willing to work at it. as for how--well, as i said previously, i'm not going to teach you how to GM.

You're just reading a script when you run a "game" (ie, tell your story to your captive audience). The rest of us are thinking on our feet, occasionally making it up as a go, improvising when needed, and having fun with our friends (not at them).

There's a massive difference between StoryTelling (WW) and DMing/GMing (everybody else).

StoryTelling is rather more dictatorial in style. It's "ST leads, everybody else follows, cuz that's the way it is. We're building Great Works of Angst and Goth here, dammit."

GMing is more collaborative, with infinitely less power for the leader. It's more "We go where the majority of the horses go. He who doesn't follow gets choked."

Which means that those who "grew up" with Vampire and similar probably don't translate well to SR and similar RPGs.

Not that any of this has anything, really, to do with Edge anywhere.

It does if Edge is the only remaining way to influence dice rolls after the chips have been cast, and thus for those meddling players to influence a story in non-deterministic ways.

Perhaps I'm making too much of what's only a single attribute; but if a single attribute is that only remaining way, than it's disportionately important - and if that anomaly of an attribute is costed and treated like other attributes then there's a problem.

Has anyone considered that they might be going with an edge system similar to that of Mechwarrior 3rd edition?

It's an attribute that you buy at chargen, you spend it to save your ass and it never refreshes unless the GM decides to give a point back for mighty deeds, great roleplaying etc.

Food for thought.

Like I said, *I* know this, but it seems to be the logic the designers are using. At least that's the only logic I've been able to piece together upon what's been stated so far.

Here's the problem, Doc. The goal here seems to be to power down Shadowrun somewhat. OK, that's fine, I can live with that. The problem is that adding more attributes seldom gets rid of munchkins-- it usually only gives them more room to maneuver.

I just started a Big Eyes, Small Mouth game, and I managed to create a fairly powerful character when restricted to slightly-above ordinary power levels. Not bad; but then I downloaded the free Tri-Stat rules, which are an expanded version of the same system. Same basic idea, only more complex. I decided to see what I could do with the equivalent starting points; I ended up with a character with ultimate cosmic powers.

In general, adding more attributes doesn't simplify or demunchkinize a system. Generally, it's the exact opposite. Compare D&D 2nd ed to Hackmaster-- you'll see what I mean.

The point scales for BESM2 and Tri-Stat dX are not the same; characters in dX are typically built with a lot more points, and PMVs give you a lot more ways to fiddle with them.

Tri-Stat dX has more in common with Silver Age Sentinels than it does with BESM 2nd Edition, and the upcoming BESM 3 evolves further along that path, although by default it's been simplied a lot compared to dX.

However, "Attributes" in all Tri-Stat games are far different from attributes in Shadowrun; Shadowrun's Attributes are Tri-Stat's Stats. Shadowrun's Edges are a closer comparison to many of Tri-Stat's Attributes.

Allow me to rephrase, since I know you're the expert on these systems: I started with 35 points in BESM 2.0-- slightly above human average-- and created a decently-powerful character, one who's best attack can cripple a main battle tank. I started with 35 points in TriStat-- a very low-powered character-- and ended up with a character who could obliterate planets by sneezing too hard.

I've admitted to being a recovering munchkin before, but some things are just too tempting. Tri-Stat, like SR4, offers more ways to fiddle with your character; that's more-or-less what adding base attributes accomplishes. By splitting things up, you give the munchkins more toys to play with.

I am not personally familiar with BESM so I can't make a direct comment on the system, but I would have thought that adding more attributes would allow players to build broken or unworkable characters rather than overpowered ones. With fewer attributes each one has greater significance, a player gains greater power for their character for each point that they add to an attribute. With more attributes each one, presumably, has less importance in the overall game but the chargen system has to provide more points for attributes simply because there are more of them. Thus a character can be designed that is maxed out in some attributes and poor in all others, the beginning of a character that is nigh untouchable in their chosen field and dies instantly in any other situation.

So a game with six attributes 18 points that allows BOD 6, QUI 3, STR 6, CHA 1, INT 1, WIL 1 encourages less broken characters than one with eight attributes and 24 points that allows BOD 6, AGI 4, REA 4, STR 6, CHA 1, INT 1, PER 1, WIL 1 or one with only three attributes and 9 points that allows BODY 6, MIND 2, SOUL 1? Note that the average for each system in the example is 3, with a range from 1-6 before racial mods.

Poor min/maxing is a problem on the player's side, not a game's. I'd much rather have versatility and customization options than a limited number of options for the sake of laziness/simplicity on the designer's part in order to reflect my character the way I see them, rather then the way I have to see them due to a weak character creation system. Fewer attributes lean towards the latter.

It's especially nice when designing the rest of the system, too, as you can now include things like more detailed racial traits, equipment that does what it needs to with fewer exceptions or special conditions, and so on and so forth.

For me, "simplified" is found in a system that needs fewer exceptions to the rules than one that needs more. A greater number of attributes tends to lean that way in addition to increasing customization of characters. Win-win for me.

Min/maxing is a player issue, since the system doesn't advantage it.
In SR3 min/maxer were quite encouraged as it was so expensive to increase with karma your stats to high ranks, so you best had to maximise them at the creation.

So min/maxing can as well be a system issue.

Hellhound wasn't using the term broken, Doc. None of us were. In point of fact, we're just referring to the min/maxing and munchkining potential availiable to a system. He did accurately demonstrate how you can cause *more* stat-maxing under an increased attribute system than under a lower one.

At any event, I've discovered that min/maxing is both a system problem and a player one. There's a certain amount of min/maxing that is inevitable in character generation: nobody wants to play Joe Average, after all. However, the degree of min/maxing possible is entirely dependant on the system; and the more complex the system, the more munchy-crunchy it gets.

Like I said, compare D&D to Hackmaster. BESM to Tri-Stat. Everway to GURPS. The systems with the fewest attributes are the ones that are harder to break. (I *still* have trouble breaking Everway.)

As for making characters more the way you see them, that's almost entirely up to the player. I can hand two players the identical set of stats, and have them come off completely different in scope and abilities. This is true for most games, but comes across best in live-boffer LARPs: two identical fighters, for example, will hit the field carrying different weapon combinations, fighting in totally different styles. You'll have no problem distinguising them. And live-combat LARPs, due to the fact they can't rely on dice rolls or have many Social skills, have some of the most constrained chargen systems out there. For example, Amtgard offers *no* customizeable abilities whatsoever: a sixth level fighter is a sixth level fighter is a sixth level fighter, they all have identical abilities. But one of them may be a tank in heavy steel armor with a sword and shield; another may be a polearm-wielding phalanx fighter, and a third may be an unarmored double-scimitar combatant.

Because Amtgard says: "Here are your abilites. No arguing.", the system becomes much harder to break. In comparison, NERO allows for all sorts of individual powergaming. While flexibility in a system is always good to have, it always comes at the cost of increasing the possibility of abuse. They're a tradeoff.

Now, none of this would be a big issue, except that the SR4 devs are apparently out to power down Shadowrun, as well as "streamline and simplify" it. But by adding more attributes, they seem to be doing the exact opposite.

Edges and flaws add wonderful flavor to the game. And as long as you limit then (as suggested in the SRC) they do not break the game. It's when you don't make your players take ones that make sense is when they get broken. Or when they don't even out. Or if they have 10 of each.


I mean really, how many uneducated, quadriplegic, gremlin toting, combat monsters are there?

Seven

8 - your forgot *mumblewhisperMumble* *points in that direction*