[Unahim]

Actually, I would put GM's call below official ruling, and perhaps even below forum consensus: houserule goes at the top.

I agree "GM's Call" sounds spur-of-the-moment, and it can be a really bad environment to play in when you're never quite sure how your GM will handle something. Houserules are handed down by the GM, but known by all and consistent in their use.

sometimes "spur of the moment" is what is need to keep things moving forward. And as long as the GM applies that Spur of the moment call across the board (to the PCs and the NPCs) the effects of a bad GM decision are mitigated until you can get an official ruling. Just cause you call something on way, doesn't mean the GM can't take 5 min next game session and revisit the situation and the call and change it when he has had a chance to research it now closely.  ("He guys, last week I said that if you have shooting while doing a handstand, it was a -8 dice pool. found out it's supposed to be -6.... So from now on, handstand shooting will be done at -6. Sorry about that.")

That would mean the house rules didn't cover the case, in which case you of course default to a lower tier.

[Michael Chandra]

whether you should be able to overrule the GM

I never spoke about overruling the GM. Please don't put words in my mouth.

If you say "future errata will include that damaging a lynchpin destroys the preparation" and the GM says "ok let me look into that after the session and we'll see what rule we decide to go with in future sessions" is that going to piss you off?

I have been very clear on the matter before. Please read my posts again.

[Crunch]

whether you should be able to overrule the GM

I never spoke about overruling the GM. Please don't put words in my mouth.

If you say "future errata will include that damaging a lynchpin destroys the preparation" and the GM says "ok let me look into that after the session and we'll see what rule we decide to go with in future sessions" is that going to piss you off?

I have been very clear on the matter before. Please read my posts again.

I've read your posts. What I'm trying to parse out is whether you're objecting to the GMs tone, or the GM not going with your ruling.

[ZeConster]

I apologize if I misinterpreted you, but you have to admit that looking at what I actually wrote and your responses to it it wasn't an unreasonable reading.

I will do no such thing. I have made EVERY effort short of putting an explicit disclaimer in each post to make it clear that that was NOT what I was saying, and quite frankly, I am offended that you would think otherwise.

I'm sorry if I offended you Ze, it wasn't my intention.

So what is your opinion of what should happen if both the player and the GM think their reading is correct (and they have equal supporting materials at the table).

In that even, obviously you should just go with the GM call for now, then look it up afterwards.

[Crunch]

In that even, obviously you should just go with the GM call for now, then look it up afterwards.

Then we're in agreement.

[Michael Chandra]

I've read your posts. What I'm trying to parse out is whether you're objecting to the GMs tone, or the GM not going with your ruling.

If you think that little of me, please don't ever talk to me again.

[Crunch]

I've read your posts. What I'm trying to parse out is whether you're objecting to the GMs tone, or the GM not going with your ruling.

If you think that little of me, please don't ever talk to me again.

I'm seriously just trying to understand what you're saying and I'm not trying to be insulting in any way.

[ZeConster]

I've read your posts. What I'm trying to parse out is whether you're objecting to the GMs tone, or the GM not going with your ruling.

If you think that little of me, please don't ever talk to me again.

I'm seriously just trying to understand what you're saying and I'm not trying to be insulting in any way.

You may not try to be insulting, but when you say what amounts to "so do you take offense with the GM being a jerk to you, or are you simply throwing a hissy fit because you're not getting your way?" to someone who believes they made it perfectly obvious it's the first, it is completely logical that they will be insulted.

[Crunch]

So why is it logical to include the GM being a massive jerk by default into a discussion about where GM calls rank at the table. Of course the GM shouldn't be a jerk and neither should the players.

I don't see why a discussion about the GM being a jerk is relevant to the discussion and I guess that's what's confusing me.

[Reaver]

Well, hopefully you are playing with adults, and you all have the same objective (to have fun together). But, yes there will always be those dictator GMs and insolent players.

But part of the GMs job is to keep things moving forward... And sometimes that means making a call that may be unpopular or even wrong! However, as long as the call is applied to all sides, any harm is mitigated. A good GM should also use his down time to look up the actual rule and then revisit the call made with the players and discuss the differences between what he called and the actual rule.... Sometimes everyone will agree that the call "better" and thus house rule that way perminately.

Being wrong is a fact of life, we will all be wrong at some time. It's how we handle being wrong that matters.

[Patrick Goodman]

The definition of Touch trigger is the same as a touch only spell p. 281
"Some spells can only be cast on targets that you’re touching. You don’t need to see these targets, but you might need to make an unarmed attack to make contact with an unwilling target. Touching a target through clothing, armor, or a layer of paint is acceptable."

As for who, "Next Living Being" includes the mage. Once the preparation is complete and the mage lets it go of it, it's live.
ex. Mage handing the preparation to another person or if you're going to save it, put it in a box or jar.

You can also work in the direction of a Touch spell with a command trigger. ex. something to throw at a person or put on a person and then trigger with a simple action. that way you wouldn't worry about the preparation accidentally going off and still have -4 to drain

Hope this helps.

Are you a developer of freelancer?

He has some insight on the matter, considering he wrote a significant portion of that chapter.

[ZeConster]

Speaking of touch triggers, I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that health spells require you to touch the target, while healing spell preparations can only use the Command trigger. Anyone got any idea how this works?

[Crunch]

I think, and again not a dev, that that's a balance factor. The spell still requires the mage to touch the target with the preparation, but you can't make a "healing potion" that functions without the mage being there to give the command.

[Giabralter]

Speaking of touch triggers, I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that health spells require you to touch the target, while healing spell preparations can only use the Command trigger. Anyone got any idea how this works?

The requirements of the spell are not superceeded by the preparation's trigger. A spell with a range of touch still has to be touched to resolve normally regardless of the trigger. The same goes for Rituals with the Spell keyword.
So with alchemy the closest trigger allowable for health spells is a command trigger.

Bottom of p. 305 "When the spell is released from the preparation, it goes off as though it were cast by a magician."
Both Crunch's interpretation and the magician commanding the activation of the prepartion given to a target would be acceptable.

[Unahim]

At least you can give healing charms to allies who are off in a different part of the facility, then when they signal trouble through comm you can astrally project to them and give the Command that way.