Strictness? I didnt have any problem with people mentioning the Marvel stuff in context, but the last like 4-5 posts were simply insiders-talk about marvel, obviously off-topic. I much more think that you lack a basic understanding of how forum threads are supposed to work. (I hope you understand this as the criticism it is, and not as an offense, thanks).
Ok, let's start here. The misunderstanding is on your side. You can post whatever you want, you can ask whatever you want, and you can hope for useful replies. You can't tell others what they can post,
or how they must respond to you. You don't get to decide that. Unless you are being trolled or your thread is being hijacked in such a way as to ruin it, then you have to accept that other's posts are their own. You can respond or ignore them as you wish.
Thanks for sharing the story of your life. You are not the only one with a certain degree of experience here, so please be understanding towards my position: I cared ever since about good rules, and the more I think about it, the more certain I am, that I should care about rules.
Why would I be understanding towards your position when you just dismissed mine? You can care about the rules, you can care about how much you care about the rules. It's still your opinion, just like anybody else's. Caring about the rules is subjective, period.
And please stop making the argument, that mediocre rules support a story or character play. It's a fallacy as I pointed out multiple times. Feel free to attack my reasoning, if you can come up with something else than subjective anecdotal evidence. (Again, no offense, but reading and examining the context, what you do seems to be appealing to anecdotal evidence.)
Again, you misunderstand. I am not saying that mediocre rules support the story or character play. I am saying that some people care more about things other than the rules, and as such the holes don't bother them. People like that probably are more concerned with the story or the interplay between characters.
Thats not even half true. People actually ASKED about those glaring holes. I thought everyone was already aware of many of those.
Many of the holes are well known about, many have no clarifications to this day. Some will be new, and yours may well be. That wasn't the point. The point was that new or old, some people will care more about the holes and some will not. You seem to be operating on the idea that caring about the rules clarity should be a universal quality for enjoyment of the game, and I'm saying it doesn't have to be.
Yea, that's why I started this thread: I wanted to find out, how DIFFERENT people care about the holes in the rules. Yet you and your buddys try to shut the discussion down with arguments like "rules dont care anyways". You totally neglect, that there are indeed people, who commented, that the lack of rules are actually a problem for them. So all your "Happy World-EverythingIsTotally-Nice"-Attitude is just a fake, because you simply ignore people who explicitly tell, that it isnt.
Of course there will be people who feel both ways. I think in this thread my side is more heavily represented than yours, but that doesn't really matter. You seem incapable of accepting "it doesn't" as an answer to your question, so people pushed back on your responses. You've been less than personable in some of your responses, and that doesn't breed grace or cooperation among those who tried to help you. I'm speaking both about this thread and the others you've created. When people have said "there is no clear answer, but this is how it's often handled" you chastised them for adding the latter part. That's not acceptable. You created the thread, but you aren't in charge of the other participants. If they are following the forum rules then you have to accept you will get responses you don't like or care for.
Yea, but for those it wouldnt be too much of a problem, to change to a universal system, if they would care about rules as well. Just saying.
Yes, people do this, and it's not discouraged, but it's also not required. I like the SR5 system in general, enough so that I wouldn't switch to an alternate rules system just because it has some flaws. If you chose to do so, nobody would tell you that you shouldn't. There have been threads about it here before, and they were met with advice, not rebuttals.
Like Chess, you mean? Fallacy!
Sigh... Chess is not a complicated
system, though it does allow for complex strategies. Shadowrun, is a complex system, compared to the other systems out there (D&D, Pathfinder, etc.). Each piece in chess has limited options, and AFAIK you can't install cyberware on a rook while still trying to maintain some essence to cast spells. Chess might as well be checkers when compared to any RPG system, let alone Shadowrun.
Na, it already matters in the preparation of your character, but you probably wouldn't understand, as someone who does not play to the rules in the same way, as other people do.
I do understand why it matters to you, it used to matter to me. If the GM and the player are willing to discuss something and come to an agreement, a gap in the rules isn't an actual problem. If you need the rules to be strict so you never have to discuss or negotiate with the GM then of course it matters. I'm the GM in my group and I'm always willing to work with a player to let them do what they want as long as it's not game-breaking.
In my opinion, this is wrong. First of all, I would ask, how you can judge "good" and "bad" groups so easily. What makes the good ones good and the bad ones bad? Is competing intrinsically bad? Is obeying to the GM intrinsically good?
There is this japanese rule system, which forces the GM to interpret all ambiguities in the rules in favor of the Players. I think this is way more a cooperative approach, than "listen to the GM's judgement, because the GM has superior taste".
And in my opinion it is right, we can disagree without forcing each other to accept our viewpoint. A good group is one who wants to play a game and have fun. A bad group is one where they are willing to disrupt the game or fight the GM to get their way, even if the GM shows why their way would hurt the game. Mind you, I'm not saying that disagreeing with the GM is wrong, disagreements will happen. But a player who cares more about getting their way than having an enjoyable game is a problem.
Dont get me wrong, I do not deny, that you can have fun playing SR the way you describe it. But I feel like you want to tell other people who dont have the same kind of preferences, that they play it "wrong". I dont think you intend to make this sound cocky, but to me it totally does.
And i feel like you are doing the same thing to those who don't care as much about having perfect rules. I don't deny that you can have fun while caring about the rules, but rules lawyering can lead to contention and disruption and those are counter-productive to fun.
It answers the question, how you deal with it, yea. Thanks. Yet, you tried to answer the question "in general", and from my point of view, you fail to do so, and that is to be expected, in a question, that is trying to elaborate on the point of view of different people.
Honestly I don't really know what you are trying to say here. Some people care about strict and perfect rules, some don't. Their experiences with SR5 will differ because of that. That's all I'm saying.
For me and many players I met, consistent rules have a certain kind of quality all by themselves: It makes me feel to be in a more dynamic and stable world, as opposed the situation when I know about holes in rules.
That's fine, but that's not required for everybody. If you trust your GM to be fair and provide a fun session then rules perfection doesn't matter as much. There is no reason you can't care about this, but this system doesn't have perfect rules, so you have to find a way to live with that, or use a different rules system in place of it.
Depends on playstyle and attitude. Add a "for me" and I can say: Yea, I can see how this works for you. But I can see, that for others it doesnt.
And if you add a "for me" to your statement it works the same way. I'm glad to see that you accept that it works differently for others.
I could go at it again and again. Here's a really basic attempt: Can you imagine, that someone would have fun playing according to a stable set of rules? Can you imagine people having fun solving logics puzzles? Studying math? Programming simulations?
Yes, all of those are different from roleplaying. But all of them give you that vibe of "things falling wonderfully into place, yet giving birth to an enigmatic beauty by sheer emergence". This is how great roleplay sometimes feels for me. I would love to get more of that kind of stuff.
Yes, I can imagine that. I enjoy many of those things. But for me, it's more important that a GM integrates my backstory into the campaign than that we have the same understanding of how every rule works. If we have a misunderstanding we will address it together and move on. I understand that is an issue for you, and that's fine, but you started this thread looking for information from others, and we are giving you our opinions on it.
This again, seems to be an educated guess at best. I could as well claim, that many do not, and drop the system in favor of something more consistent. How would you make your point more valid than mind?
I would base it on the time I've spent reading these forums and the Shadowrun Reddit. I've read threads going back many years since 5th came out. There is some discussion of alternate rule systems and discussion of gaps or contradictions of the rules, but the result often ends with suggested methods for a GM to handle it, which you haven't been interested to hear in any of your threads. It's nearly overwhelming, when a rule can't be clarified, people work together to try and come up with a solution a GM can use. Only rarely does somebody suggest using an alternate rules system.
