| From: | shadowrn@*********.com (Marc Renouf) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Jumping the Gun |
| Date: | Thu Feb 14 15:35:01 2002 |
> All very well said Marc, but I never argued that Perception checks were
> needed. I argued that the checks should not be more than a simple action
> unless you planned on analyzing their sock color in Freudian context.
Okay, it has become apparent to me that we're talking about two
*very* different things here. I agree with you that a Perception test
should take no more than a simple action (which is exactly the case in
the published rules).
But that has nothing to do with the "Jumping the Gun" rule. Yes,
that rule *also* involves a Perception check, but it is an inherently
different mechanic. It's not a "turn." There are no "actions" that
the
player gets to use. It's a reflex response based on the character's
situation, training, level of stress and level of augmentation. It exists
completely apart from the normal "turn" sequence (much like surprise in
this regard). The Perception test doesn't take any "time" within a
"turn," it's just a freebie to determine whether the character can discern
enough detail about his surroundings before the reflexes kick in.
Seriously, look in Cybertechnology (SR2) or Man & Machine (SR3)
and actually look at the rule and how it is used. I think that will clear
up a lot of confusion. I think we're talking about two topics (reflex and
Perception tests taken during the course of regular combat) that are quite
separate, yet they somehow got mashed together.
Moving on...
> > > Good roleplayers don't need more rules, they need less.
>
> >Roleplaying has nothing to do with rules.
>
> Have you ever played Amber?
I knew someone was going to bring it up. Yes, I have.
> Very few mechanics.
Too few.
> But the game works.
No, it doesn't. It just fools people into *thinking* that it
works. It's very devious that way. Maybe it's momma didn't love it
enough.
> It has all the verisimilitude you can ask for.
You have *got* to be kidding me.
> Game mechanics exist to simulate a physical framework to build a game
> on.
[SNIP]
> I need dice and mechanics to simulate the framework for understanding
> that I lack.
I disagree. Rather than simulating an understanding that I lack,
I think that rules are there to enforce verisimilitude within the
framework. They preserve fairness and ensure statistically consistent
results under consistent conditions. They provide some relative metric
for success or failure.
By your example, since I am versed in the martial arts, I would be
more likely to eschew dice when running melee combat. But I don't. If
anything, I'm very careful to enforce the rules and dice rolls *more* in
melee combat, because I understand how intricate, complicated, and
difficult it can be.
This is the intrinsic problem I have with Amber. The rules
mechanics are far too simplistic to be meaningful. If I have a higher
Warfare than you, and you and I get in a swordfight, you lose. Period.
If you don't lose, it's because the GM didn't want you to lose (i.e. you
got a "fluke"). I call that "arbitrary," and in my mind,
"arbitrary" is
synonymous with "bad." At some fundamental level, it reduces the players
to nothing more than dialog generators within the GM's "Plot (tm)." Group
storytelling is cool and all, but without consistent (i.e. not arbitrary)
metrics by which to resolve conflict, it changes the nature of the
activity. Personally, I love it when a one-in-a-million die roll on the
part of my players totally slays the "level boss" or "bad nasty" or
whatever. Similarly, I love the occasional botch. But more than that, I
love the thought, the strategy, the risk-taking and the care that players
put into their characters' actions that arises out of a) knowing how the
system works, and b) knowing that both failure *and* success have
consequences. I love the random event or consequence that crops up and
how both I and the players deal with it. I love the fact that they are as
much in control of "The Plot (tm)" as I am.
This last bit is more a question of GM style than anything, but
some rules systems make it much easier to run a game free of
arbitrariness. I think Shadowrun is one of those rules systems. I think
D&D3E is not. I think Amber quite possibly the worst. This is a personal
opinion, but if you're curious, interested, or just plain bored I'd be
happy to elucidate my reasoning and rationale, as well as hear yours.
Marc
