Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Gamemasters' Lounge => Topic started by: Fallen on <08-12-11/1849:54>
-
Greetings all,
Out of curiosity, I was wondering if anyone here has ever had to deal with a player who seems more concerned with the application of the Rules in the game than the actual game itself.
Now, I'm not referring to a player who would point out a rule the GM may have missed or some minor misinterpretation. What I refer to is That Player Who Acts As If They're Constantly Looking Over Your Shoulder Like He's Just Waiting For An Opportunity To Point Out Something You Might've Missed.
In my experience as a Game Master, I've sometimes run into that sort of player and it usually ended up with me having a talk with them and kindly informing them I'd rather they step out of the game altogether.
I'm interested to know how you guys have dealt (or would deal) with similar situations.
-
It depends of how much it disrupts the game. I certainly am not correct in every single rules call I have made in my GM career, but on the whole I do pretty good. I am willing to listen to a brief appeal, as sometimes I do get it wrong. But overall, if you have someone who is constantly slowing down the game, always claiming that "things could not happen that way because of x", protesting everything that goes against his/her character, etc, then you need to take then aside and bluntly tell them to stop it or get out. Its a game, The Game has a referee. That referee is you. Be open to a legitimate point of order, but if someone is disruptive of other people having a good time stomp on it.
-
That's pretty much my take on it as well.
-
The group I game with tend to find these types die down pretty quickly, then again we also have a few GMs who are quite liberal with their use of Rule 0.
i.e. "Rocks fall on your head, take X damage" - GM
"But we're outside?..." - Player
"They're magic rocks." - GM
-
Haha -- That's a good way to deal with it, certainly and provided the player(s) actually accept that sort of thing and don't go on a harangue about how it's "impossible", given that the rules don't cover Randomly Falling Magical Rocks.
-
I just point to the clause (or variation thereof) that is in every RPG rule book I've ever read. Here's the version from SR4A:
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!
Above all, the rules are here to facilitate telling good stories. Don’t get bogged down in rules disputes when it’s important to keep the plot moving, just fudge it and move on. Don’t allow powergaming to run out of control, but don’t let an unexpected death or glitch derail the plot either.
If they can't follow the first rule, then they have no business dinging me on the rest of them. ;D
-
The Golden Rule, yes.
For some strange reason or another, I've come across some players who somehow don't consider that particular rule to be quite as important as the others. But, yes, ideally people should envision the rules for what they are (an accessory to facilitate gameplay and telling good stories).
Other than kicking the offending player out, I'm interested to know how similar issues have been resolved (Rule 0, as raised by BSOD, is a good example) by GMs frequenting this forum: how it went, what was done about it, etc. :)
-
if that person really knows the rules that well, either take a load off of your shoulders and have him do rule checks for you when a question comes up, or....
make him the GM :)
-
Hmm... I've never thought of doing that whenever I've come across a Rules Lawyer in the past. This looks to be one of the best ways to deal with the problem: have them do the Rules check for you.
A very interesting suggestion, wylie. Thank you for sharing it.
-
I believe that the rules should follow what the book lays down very closely. Close enough that players can rely upon their knowledge of the rules to be used in their favor, when they think of them. Any modifications or house rules need to be stated up front, and repeated when necessary, so that everyone is on the same page and the players don't feel like the GM is an arbitrary prick out to get them*.
That said, fudging and quick arbitration are key to maximizing everyone's enjoyment. It really sucks to have a PC go down to really bad luck (unless they brought it on themselves, that's a completely different story). It also sucks to have an enemy that the players are enjoying hating die a meaningless death (usually also really bad luck). A little fudge now and then keeps the enjoyment going, but be careful, and use this sparingly. Otherwise, well, see above (*).
-
I agree wholeheartedly.
However, what if the circumstances and situation are that, say, for example, you, as a GM, call for an attribute check to, say, see if a particular character remembers a specific detail about something that happened a few months ago when the player himself has no recollection of the event, nor notes detailing the matter. You, as a GM, want to give a helping hand in this process, so you call for a Logic test. The player's response is, say, that you, as a GM, have no right to "interfere" with the inner workings of his character (such as what the character can remember, in this example).
This is all rhetorical, mind you.
What then?
How, in your view, should a GM react to resolve the situation?
-
Agreed with the previous posts.....
I read the rules twice and that usually makes me retain them. Before we start, I publish a list of house rules with SR4, I disagreed with the running rules and with most all systems, I rarely default to an attribute.
If someone knows the rules better than me, I'll even default and long as it seems reasonable. Aside from the first three game sessions, there is no halting the game to look things up.
The rule of common sense over-rules everything else.
As to rules lawyers, while they're looking up something, I'm moving on to the next scene along with everyone else. After awhile, they get the point.
-
you are welcome Fallen
-
I agree wholeheartedly.
However, what if the circumstances and situation are that, say, for example, you, as a GM, call for an attribute check to, say, see if a particular character remembers a specific detail about something that happened a few months ago when the player himself has no recollection of the event, nor notes detailing the matter. You, as a GM, want to give a helping hand in this process, so you call for a Logic test. The player's response is, say, that you, as a GM, have no right to "interfere" with the inner workings of his character (such as what the character can remember, in this example).
This is all rhetorical, mind you.
What then?
How, in your view, should a GM react to resolve the situation?
They may be a Rules Lawyer, but you are The Judge!
A have one player who usually knows the rules as well as I do...and he is running our latest game. We have an understanding that we can state an objection based on a rule - but the GM is the ultimate arbiter and their decision is not up for debate during sessions.
The GM can make, change, or disregard rules as they see fit. Same goes for the dice.
The flip side its that the GM should strive to be fair consistent, and fun.
In your example, it would depend on the player. If they are just noob, I would explain so they grok it. But if it is your rules lawyer, and should know better...
...insurance doesn't cover "acts of God"...
I am rarely punitive as a GM, but I have struck characters with lightning on a clear day for bring disruptive. Rolled the dice and everything...just didn't even look at them, and said "What are the odds?"
Didn't kill them - but it got the point across.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
Good points, all, and very sound advice.
Thanks a bunch. :)
-
I agree wholeheartedly.
However, what if the circumstances and situation are that, say, for example, you, as a GM, call for an attribute check to, say, see if a particular character remembers a specific detail about something that happened a few months ago when the player himself has no recollection of the event, nor notes detailing the matter. You, as a GM, want to give a helping hand in this process, so you call for a Logic test. The player's response is, say, that you, as a GM, have no right to "interfere" with the inner workings of his character (such as what the character can remember, in this example).
This is all rhetorical, mind you.
What then?
How, in your view, should a GM react to resolve the situation?
Wow, I can't imagine a player objecting to me giving him a helping hand, but if doesn't want it, I'd just say, "Forget it then."
-
In about 30 years of GMing, I've thankfully never dealt with a hardcore rules lawyer (though I do recall the occasional player who would get a bit cocky because he knew the rules so well).
Maybe this is just because I've never had to deal with a rules lawyer much, but I just couldn't bring myself to take a rules lawyer seriously. If such a player started taking my game apart, I'd be thinking, "Is this guy actually telling me how to run my world??"
To me, arguing with the GM over the rules is like arguing with God. (Though as a god, I'm quite benevolent to my players.)
If push came to shove, I'd just invoke Rule 0 and not invite the player back.
-
To be honest, I tend to not allow rules lawyers at my tables. It has been my experience that it bogs down the flow of the game, and leads to one player attempting to debate "correct" application of rules whilst the other players eyes glaze over, they go for a snacks, start talking about the football/hockey/baseball game, or simply watch the paint dry.
WHEN my players have a concern about rules, I make a ruling on the fly, and then research the matter after the session. If it is CRITICAL rules call, I typically take 10 minutes or so to take a look at the rules.
Now honestly, most of my experience with rules lawyers has not been, the type of rules lawyers outlined in the initial post, who wish to see the game run RAW. Generally my experience has been the rules monkeys looking for an edge, trying to pull one over on the GM by partial quoting rules, or applying "liberal" interpretation of them.
IMO if a player knows the rules that well and critiques or undermines the GM because of that, they should get off their butts and run the game rather then play. Of course the number of rules lawyers that have taken me up on that challenge over the years is very very slim. :P
-
What you describe is what I now call a Mikey. (Thanks, SP). Not just a rules lawyer, but a bad player who's in it not to have fun but to win, and not just to win against you the GM but against all the other players.
I've encountered three of these as a GM. I've never found an in-game solution.
The first killed the group.
The second was persuaded out of game that by "winning" the game he was "losing" the metagame -- that by winning he would end up without this group. There were two ways in theory and as I wasn't going to allow another group to die that way, I'd just bar him from playing anymore.
The third turned out to have other issues. He wanted to end the group because while he liked some players he didn't like others, and he didn't think I'd make him leave. It got nasty, and I lost a couple of players who didn't like the upset as well as losing him.
I wish you better success, and if you come up with a good alternative (in or out of game), share.
-
What you describe is what I now call a Mikey.
Hahaha -- A Mikey!
Love it, will pilfer it off you provided you won't take offense in my so doing.
In the past, I would simply ask the offending party to leave, since it not only slowed down the game, but also annoyed me to no end. I very much dislike having people looking over my shoulder in hopes that I'll mess up somewhere.
"Is this guy actually telling me how to run my world??"
My sentiments exactly.
I kind of like wiley's suggestion:
take a load off of your shoulders and have him do rule checks for you when a question comes up
Provided I genuinely like the person outside of the game, this may well be the course I would take should such a player once more find themselves at my gaming table.
Generally my experience has been the rules monkeys looking for an edge, trying to pull one over on the GM by partial quoting rules, or applying "liberal" interpretation of them.
That kind of player, I generally have no trouble with -- simply because, typically, it's my final call which counts and not their interpretation. In my view, the one interpretation that matters in a game is the GM's own. They will/would get theirs validated whenever they should run their own game.
Good thread methinks: good food for thought and sound advice overall.
Cheers.
-
What you describe is what I now call a Mikey.
Hahaha -- A Mikey!
Love it, will pilfer it off you provided you won't take offense in my so doing.
Nope, stole it myself. (from SomethingPositive.net ) See for example the nine episodes that start here (http://somethingpositive.net/sp02082011.shtml).
-
Hahaha -- Brilliant!
-
Had one in a game once. He quoted some rule (it was from AD&D, way back when) and then told me why what this NPC was doing was impossible. I stared right at him and asked "How do you know that's what he's doing?" His response was classic.
"Because..."
I then turned to the rest of the group and just got on with it.
I find that works really well for rules lawyers.
-
Had one in a game once. He quoted some rule (it was from AD&D, way back when) and then told me why what this NPC was doing was impossible. I stared right at him and asked "How do you know that's what he's doing?" His response was classic.
"Because..."
I then turned to the rest of the group and just got on with it.
I find that works really well for rules lawyers.
I wish I could have seen that, Gun Nut.
Hey, I just got an idea. How a t-shirt for us GMs that says, "I eat rules lawyers for breakfast" or "I feed rules lawyers to my pet dragon" or something like that?
-
Dragon kibble.
Ingredients list: Rules lawyers, ... (Yep, inviting you to add your own)
-
Ketchup-Flavoring.
-
1st Edition Elves.(Even dragons need their greens, but eating elfsies would certainly be tastier. 8) )
-
"The elves eat the greens, the dragons eat the elves. Thus, the dragons get their greens." :P
-
Hmm. I do believe you're on to something with this whole ketchup-flavored dragon kibble Elf and greens t-shirt thing.
This, I simply must incorporate into my game world.
I'll give credit where it's due: the Natural Foods Division of Revaddict-Kirk-Nakano-CanRay (R.K.N.C.) Enterprises will soon market Ketchup-Flavored Dragon Kibble Elf Greens snacks, and produce t-shirts as a form of advertisement. Their slogan will be obscure: "For lawyers who know the rules... and wanna eat healthy!" Now with 200% more ketchup flavor!
... which is really just funny dragon-shaped mycoprotein-enriched ketchup-flavored soy crackers. And, yes, the soy's Elven-grown. How posh!
-
Agreed with the previous posts.....
I read the rules twice and that usually makes me retain them. Before we start, I publish a list of house rules with SR4, I disagreed with the running rules and with most all systems, I rarely default to an attribute.
If someone knows the rules better than me, I'll even default and long as it seems reasonable. Aside from the first three game sessions, there is no halting the game to look things up.
The rule of common sense over-rules everything else.
As to rules lawyers, while they're looking up something, I'm moving on to the next scene along with everyone else. After awhile, they get the point.
I know this is off topic, but why do you dislike running rules? And more specifically, are we talking about movement type rules, or some other rule I'm missing that also is known as running?
-
Hmm. I do believe you're on to something with this whole ketchup-flavored dragon kibble Elf and greens t-shirt thing.
This, I simply must incorporate into my game world.
I'll give credit where it's due: the Natural Foods Division of Revaddict-Kirk-Nakano-CanRay (R.K.N.C.) Enterprises will soon market Ketchup-Flavored Dragon Kibble Elf Greens snacks, and produce t-shirts as a form of advertisement. Their slogan will be obscure: "For lawyers who know the rules... and wanna eat healthy!" Now with 200% more ketchup flavor!
... which is really just funny dragon-shaped mycoprotein-enriched ketchup-flavored soy crackers. And, yes, the soy's Elven-grown. How posh!
I want top billing. *Stands Firm*
-
I know this is off topic, but why do you dislike running rules? And more specifically, are we talking about movement type rules, or some other rule I'm missing that also is known as running?
They have running based on strength. Most runners/joggers while healthy aren't strong like body builders but are very agile. Hence, I base it off of agility. When I was a jogger, though I was fit, I wasn't strong but fairly agile. Conversely, when I lifted weights and did other cardio, I lost my running speed but could lift more.
-
I can confirm the Agility thing. A friend of mine trained for the Triathlon and, well... The things he could do would blow ones mind!
That was years ago, however...
-
The trouble is that motion like running isn't tied to a single attribute like strength or agility. A combination or average of the two would work out better, simply because runners DO have a lot of leg strength. It's explosive strength, as they have to tense and relax muscles quickly for maximum results with minimum effort.
-
*BUMP*
It was said earlier, but to re-iterate, there's a lot more to running a game than just rules.
If a Rules Lawyer wants to be involved (either by being a Sheldon-like resource for quotes, or as Assistance GM) then all well and good. I personally appreciate someone checking that the combinations of standard actions in-game are following the mechanics, so everyone's being fair (even me). But if I know the PC's are facing a Cyborg with 4IP and 30 dice to attack, but the PC's are asking me 'How does he have all those dice?!', I can smugly shurg and advise:
You'll find out with an autopsy if you a) Live, and B) Have the time to investigate.
I also do a lot of rolls in advance for NPC actions in order to speed up gameplay. I get less questions asked if I just cross off a line in my notebook and say 'The Fixer for six successes' rather than counting out 18+ dice and rolling them. The PC's and players do not need to know how many dice enemies have. That's Metagaming.
What they DO need to know is the successes utilised, as these are the outward displays of skill that demonstrate what's actually happening in-game.
If an NPC repeatedly gets 6+ successes... the PC's (and players) will know it's a pretty impressive opponent..
But if an NPC repeatedly gets 2-3 successes, then a 6 followed by a few more 2-3's....PC's (and players) will consider that 6 a freak of luck, and play things out accordingly
A) This speeds up gameplay
B) It minimises potential for rules lawyer arguments about whether I should be rolling 12 dice, or just 11.
And in the end, if they're just dragging down the game, then it's time to hand over the reins to your new GM.... the Rules Lawyer :D
-
I want top billing. *Stands Firm*
Sure! I'll send you 20% of all profits I personally make from introducing the concept into my game!
And in shiny nuyen too! OOooAAaaa... :P
I also do a lot of rolls in advance for NPC actions in order to speed up gameplay. I get less questions asked if I just cross off a line in my notebook and say 'The Fixer for six successes' rather than counting out 18+ dice and rolling them. The PC's and players do not need to know how many dice enemies have. That's Metagaming.
I can see how that would work well to keep things moving along and avoid unnecessary interruptions in the game. Then again, I've always liked the feeling of discovering the outcome of a situation along with the players. To me, it makes it feel like events are mutable and that I can never absolutely know for certain what's going to happen next. It keeps me interested in what's going on as it's happening: like watching a movie or reading a book. So I suppose that the method may not be the best for me because (however mildly selfish a thing it can appear to be) of it. :)
As a GM, I know beforehand many of the things (if not most) that are going to take place in a game session, scenario and campaign. I've always enjoyed discovering new angles and different turns of events on the fly due not only the characters' actions themselves but how matters dependent on the results of tests evolve based on the results.
Still, I'll have a go at trying it out for the next session -- just to see how it feels, and how it affects my planning and the flow of the game. It can be fun to discover (and try out) new things, I think.
Thank you for sharing your approach, Charybdis.
-
I also do a lot of rolls in advance for NPC actions in order to speed up gameplay. I get less questions asked if I just cross off a line in my notebook and say 'The Fixer for six successes' rather than counting out 18+ dice and rolling them. The PC's and players do not need to know how many dice enemies have. That's Metagaming.
I can see how that would work well to keep things moving along and avoid unnecessary interruptions in the game. Then again, I've always liked the feeling of discovering the outcome of a situation along with the players. To me, it makes it feel like events are mutable and that I can never absolutely know for certain what's going to happen next. It keeps me interested in what's going on as it's happening: like watching a movie or reading a book. So I suppose that the method may not be the best for me because (however mildly selfish a thing it can appear to be) of it. :)
As a GM, I know beforehand many of the things (if not most) that are going to take place in a game session, scenario and campaign. I've always enjoyed discovering new angles and different turns of events on the fly due not only the characters' actions themselves but how matters dependent on the results of tests evolve based on the results.
No worries ;)
As a side note though, while I enjoy being surprised as much as the next person, I find that the players give me more surprises than the NPC's :o
Using GM Fiat, I can decide what happens with NPCs if and when (rarely) required, however PC's throw me for enough loops as it is. Having some stability in knowng what the NPC's will do (and how well) gives me enough free headspace to keep the game flowing when the PC's throw me a curveball....
Also, due to variables like wound penalties, vision, cover etc, I can't do this for a majority of situations. It's normally legwork and the opening round of combat....
In the end, what worked best for me is a table list of 5 dice, 10 dice, 15 and 20, listed in columns with about 20 rolls in each.
If I need to roll 17 dice, I cross off the successes from an entry in the 15 column, roll 2 additional dice and add in any further successes.
This keeps the PC's guessing, and still allows for a little random variation at the time. Also as we're gaming remotely, having the extra speed to not roll so many dice all the time (even with online tools like FantasyGrounds or Invisible Castle) has made NPC actions much snappier....
-
In my earliest forays into GM-ing for a Shadowrun game, I remember thinking something along the lines of:
"Hahaha. They are so screwed (the players), man this NPC's so going to do this really badass thing coming right up..."
(I should note that, back then, I used to view NPC's as my personal representatives in the gaming world and, as such, I would sometimes root for them -- That was twenty years ago, mind you)
-- I'd roll the dice and, woah, blink? No success? But... "This was supposed to be a really badass scene and the Players Needed To Be Taught Not To Mess With Shadowy Corporation X's Shady Corporate Exec MK-II..."
I guess facing the possibility of things going in a completely different direction just because of a toss of the dice not only gave me a much-needed lesson in humility, but actually had me looking forward to this sort of unexpected turn. :)
But, yes, as you pointed out, the players' actions offer much more surprise than anything else -- which is why gaming is so much fun!
-
Hmm. I do believe you're on to something with this whole ketchup-flavored dragon kibble Elf and greens t-shirt thing.
This, I simply must incorporate into my game world.
I'll give credit where it's due: the Natural Foods Division of Revaddict-Kirk-Nakano-CanRay (R.K.N.C.) Enterprises will soon market Ketchup-Flavored Dragon Kibble Elf Greens snacks, and produce t-shirts as a form of advertisement. Their slogan will be obscure: "For lawyers who know the rules... and wanna eat healthy!" Now with 200% more ketchup flavor!
... which is really just funny dragon-shaped mycoprotein-enriched ketchup-flavored soy crackers. And, yes, the soy's Elven-grown. How posh!
If I had a modicum of artistic talent, I'd design a graphic for the shirt. Maybe CanRay would let ME keep top billing then. :-)
-
So.... Only reading the first post for what this is about...
Even though I am a noob GM(an old hand at SR2 though...) I started up a group to play SR2. One guy has only played 2nd ed D&D, three others have never played tabletop before.
The guy who's played D&D before is okay, only bringing things up if I've missed them, or if he's just wondering. (Note, most of them only have a simple grasp of the rules.)
Another guy, sort of a jock that we're friends with but didn't want to play with, since he's kinda dumb... But he's actually really good with this, he's okay.
Another guy who gets things okay.
And the last guy... In almost every game we've played, he argues rules. That's okay for most games. But in tabletop rpgs... The GMs final word is law. Why? Because you sat there for an hour making a character, maybe a backstory. The GM sat there for days coming up with the story you are going on. The GM protects you if they want you to live. They adapt to your random plans they did not account for.
This guy argues rules with real life logic.
Example. Our heavy weapons guy wants to bust down a door our mages weak elemental failed to bust, so he decides to unload his 40 round clip into the door. I try and persuade him that a 7 round burst would be doable without recoil mods and weaken the door. The guy not involved in this area argues that the recoil mods shouldn't be there, because a door is bigger than a person. Yes it is. But you still get mods to hit a Panzer assault tank with the same machine gun.
After some arguing, the heavy weapons guy fired the burst and damaged the door enough to let the elemental take it down.
And this was the same guy I mention in another thread who took a quick sewer poop bath and tried to become invisible to ghouls.
Also... He got attacked, and took a Serious wound. The boss that hurt him got taken out by our friend with the MMG the very next turn. But before the other guy could go, after we had rolled and damage calculated, he remembered a piece of armor he had failed to apply. Which was about five or so minutes after it had happened. Said armor would have allowed him to take no damage. I'm like "Bro... This is going to be over in ten seconds anyway, and this gaming session will be over, and we can go home. Just take the damage." My logic is if you forget to calculate something that could have helped you, that's your bad. But even though he was the only one of us working the next day, he argued it for a decent amount of time. I said drek to that and let him be unscathed.
On the bright side, he no longer wants to play SR.
-
This guy argues rules with real life logic.
While I'm all for using real-life logic and applying it to a game, there's always going to be a situation wherein real-life logic becomes incompatible with the published rules or general mindset presented by a gaming system and its setting. The limits of real-life logic, to me, is that it must be worked into the existing bounds of the body of rules governing a given system's overall game-play.
So yes, maybe something should happen or result in this instead of that in real life, but there's always going to be the necessity to cut through all that and fall back to the rules to see through events, their circumstance and their outcome. Otherwise, well, every GM out there will eventually have to get a PHD on everything just to make sure he/she can apply the rules as suiting real-world logic.
he remembered a piece of armor he had failed to apply. Which was about five or so minutes after it had happened. Said armor would have allowed him to take no damage. I'm like "Bro... This is going to be over in ten seconds anyway, and this gaming session will be over, and we can go home. Just take the damage.
Either way of dealing with it is fine, I think. Ideally, things that would slow down play or require something to be retconned should wait to be resolved after the gaming session. Ideally. That's not always going to be the case and a GM has to make a judgement call in how he/she chooses to handle the matter. What's important, and as many people mentioned earlier in this thread, is that there needn't be any sense of "competition" against the GM (nor him/her against the players) and how a situation is resolved. It's all (ideally) meant to settle a matter expediently and allow all participants to get to the most important part of the session -- having fun! -- without too much in the way of undue delay.
I recommend you take the time to read up one some of the things that were mentioned earlier in this thread: a lot of people contributed excellent ideas and methods to help resolve the kind of situation you brought up.
-
This guy argues rules with real life logic.
...
...
...
In a world that has magic and people who hack computer systems with the power of their brains alone? Logic has left the building long and ever ago.
-
With him, it seemed not about having fun, but having things his way. I toned down things to make it so they'd get scratched, but NOT DIE. Sorta glad he doesn't want to play anymore.
And I shall read through this thread.
And yes. Applying logic to SR is...... kinda stupid.
Makes me think of a Firefly quote.
(Not quoted exactly) "She's psychic? That sounds a little science fiction."
"You live on a spaceship, dear."
-
(Not quoted exactly) "She's psychic? That sounds a little science fiction."
"You live on a spaceship, dear."
"So?"
-
And this was the same guy I mention in another thread who took a quick sewer poop bath and tried to become invisible to ghouls.
I was reading through this and thought of something I'd seen used a few times, but hadn't been mentioned in the thread.
The Rule of Cool - When the GM and Players enter an argument over the outcome of an action, ask yourselves, how cool will it make my character.
For example ; The big bad is about to finish of the last member of your team, so in last ditch attempt you aim you auto-cannon at the ceiling and let rip, in an attempt bring a section of down on the opponents head. Now I have no idea whether physics in general would allow this to happen, or how you would calculate damage if you succeeded. I do know that it would be badass. Therefore should the player sufficiently damage the ceiling, using an arbitrary structure and armour ratings, he will manage to knock the opponent unconscious.
Rolling in faeces is never, have never, and will never be in any way, shape, or form, cool.
-
I was reading that, and was wondering if you thought the poop swim fell into that catagory. Glad to see what you thought.
As a new GM, but long time player, I followed the rule of cool. Even when I did something so badass that even though there was a lot of stupid stuff involved, I still got out.
Example. My very first SR1 character. Looking through shadowtech, I saw the hydraulic jack for cyber legs. But I did not notice that it was for cyber legs only... So I got some in my meat legs. We started, and after a few hours of playing, my GM noticed what I did. His response was "Um... Okay, those are for cyber legs.... But eff it, I'll figure it out."
So... that resulted in me being able to bound over walls, and take damage from such. And it augmented my kicking ability. Mainly kicking a cybered gangers head off, but me taking a Serious wound from that.
So... It didn't follow the rules, except for the Rule Of Cool.
-
Rule Of Cool.
Or the Rule of Chow Yun Fat Badassery....
"But I saw him do it in The Killer!"
-
If it was done in a movie, I can do it too!
-
Yeah, my group's Elven Bio-Ninja tried something like that, "I saw it in a movie once" and it ended. Badly.
He admitted it was fair game, however. I let him roll for it. He succeeded in everything but the landing.
-
Yeah... Stuff like that only works sometimes. If a problem comes up, you throw karma at it and hope it goes away.
-
The Rule of Cool - When the GM and Players enter an argument over the outcome of an action, ask yourselves, how cool will it make my character.
Hahaha, awesome.
It really is an important rule, imo. It needn't just apply to making the characters cool, mind you. Sometimes, a GM needs to make cool stuff just happen as well.
And how cool is rolling around in feces? Well!
...
It really isn't.
Note to self: replace Seattle Sewers with Pudding Factory peopled by persons of the scantily-clad persuasion.
They needn't be just human and Elves: Orgotha, the trollette, might just be the sort to frequent the Pudding Factory.
Crazy, crazy world, Shadowrun is.
-
The Rule of Cool - When the GM and Players enter an argument over the outcome of an action, ask yourselves, how cool will it make my character.
Hahaha, awesome.
It really is an important rule, imo. It needn't just apply to making the characters cool, mind you. Sometimes, a GM needs to make cool stuff just happen as well.
And how cool is rolling around in feces? Well!
...
It really isn't.
I've tripped in a cow pen.
It really isn't.
-
Hey, that reminds me of my friend. I bet it's as fun as what he did.
So he heard about 'cow tipping' heh. So he tries to do it DURING THE DAY TIME, and the cow isn't even sleeping it's just sitting there eating grass. So he prepares himself and then full sprints at the cow. (heh doesn't end well let me tell you.)
So he slams into the cow, it's like hitting a break wall at full sprint. Can you image that feeling? oh but that's not all folks! Next the cow looks back at him and kicks him square in the chest sending him flying backwards, and he lands in cow feces.... <.< now I don't know about you but hitting a brick wall and then getting slammed by a kick from a cow would stun me. All my "stun boxes" would fill up probably. XD Anyways, he struggled to breath and after about thirty seconds or so he was able to get out of the cow dodo. <.< Teach him to mess with cows.... especially awakened ones. (lol j/k he would have died if it was awakened irl)
After he told me that story I couldn't stop laughing for well over a minute. Just the image of him cow tipping in the day time was halarious. xD
-
The Rule of Cool - When the GM and Players enter an argument over the outcome of an action, ask yourselves, how cool will it make my character.
Hahaha, awesome.
It really is an important rule, imo. It needn't just apply to making the characters cool, mind you. Sometimes, a GM needs to make cool stuff just happen as well.
And how cool is rolling around in feces? Well!
...
It really isn't.
I've tripped in a cow pen.
It really isn't.
It is, however, almost always funny.
To everyone else.
Like nut shots.
-
Hey, that reminds me of my friend. I bet it's as fun as what he did.
So he slams into the cow, it's like hitting a break wall at full sprint. Can you image that feeling? oh but that's not all folks! Next the cow looks back at him and kicks him square in the chest sending him flying backwards, and he lands in cow feces.... <.< now I don't know about you but hitting a brick wall and then getting slammed by a kick from a cow would stun me. All my "stun boxes" would fill up probably. XD Anyways, he struggled to breath and after about thirty seconds or so he was able to get out of the cow dodo. <.< Teach him to mess with cows.... especially awakened ones. (lol j/k he would have died if it was awakened irl)
Don't mess with cows.
Edit: linkage fail (and subsequently dropped)
-
Only when it is deserved.... otherwise... ow. That is NOT a good feeling. XD
I'm going to guess the cows with guns song.
-
I'm going to guess the cows with guns song.
Nah, just a funny vid (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/47766/) I have now successfully linked! ;D