rule book lawyers

[Kesslan]

This is about called shots, not about Vagbonds having heatbeam eyes or being able to punch and "KO" a vehical.

This thread is about a lot of things.

One of the things it is about is the question of whether lack of forbiddance equals permission.

Which is what brings us to the vagabond with laser beam eyes.

IF lack of forbiddance meant permission, THEN because the books do not specifically forbid a normal human vagabond from flying around shooting lasers out of his eyes, it would be perfectly permissable in any Rifts game.
But it's NOT perfectly permissable, therefore, lack of forbiddance does NOT mean permission.

Capiche?

SIgh.. I'd go over all this again KC but were just going to go in an endless circle. Part of the issue here is that we start off discussing specifically called shots. Nothing else. Next thing you know Monopoly gets dragged into it and you latch onto it as yet another example of why Called shots cant/shouldnt be applied to general combat etc.

Yet KOing DHTs, board games in general etc have -nothing- to do with what is ultimately being discussed.

Since you haven't been paying attention, I'll recap for you.
We started off talking about Called Shots.

Then this happened:

There's also nothing saying you cant make a called shot to eyes, groin etc.

Agreed, but lack of forbiddance is NOT permission.
(And, actually, there are rules for attacks to the groin.)

By looking at the overall system, it's pretty clear that it's not built for that degree of precision in attacks, except where the Damage Capacity of the body part in question is listed.

The monopoly analogy, the KO rules comparison, and the other stuff that seems to have you so confused are all supporting the statement of "lack of forbiddance is NOT permission."

That's how they're relevent.

Either admit that the statement is correct, or come up with some sort of coherent rebuttal that does not involve pretending that it's not relevent to the conversation at hand.

Except that there is no forbiddance or lack there of. There is a clear statement that you can make a called shot to a target. The called shot system gives you a very basic guidline for hitting assorted small targets. The general results of which are covered by the combat system etc. Where they are not, as anything else it's left up to the GM.

I mean you go on to say that the called shot system is ment only for robots and equal sized things.

No, I go on and point out the fact that the called shot system was designed for robots and other large targets.
It has been expanded since then, but still not to the point of including eye-shots at human targets.

Suffice it to say I very much disagree with you on that point. The called shot system works as well as any other game system when it comes to dealing with making very specific shots to a small target. It's simple, straightforward, and it works.

Yet plenty of -small- creatures etc have listed alternative hit locations.

Yes.
NOW.
Over a decade since the main Rifts book was written.
But it's not what the rules were designed for.

That may not have been the inital intent but that is how it has been used for ages now by many a GM without any problems.

With Rifts rules got quickly expanded with new world and dimension books, later slightly consolidated in GMG and a few years later with the release of RUE which flat out replaces RMB.

Yes, the rules have expanded over time.
This isn't always a good thing, and it's all too often a problem.
A game system is like a house.
Add too much onto the frame, and the foundation will not support the new structure.
What Palladium needs to do is what D&D did; level the entire structure including the foundation, and rebuild it all from scratch, using the best parts of the old system, but with a foundation that is designed to support everything that the new system does.

RUE is good for now, and buys some time, but eventually the rebuilding will need to be done anyway.

Speaking of RUE, it's pretty obvious that the game in question wasn't using RUE rules, since the Called Shot was made in a single attack.
So RUE doesn't really matter in this discussion.

I'm not so sure it wasn't. I'm pretty sure a Called shot has allways suposed to have been at least two attacks, though I could be mistaken. It was allways a more involved 'aimed shot'

You say the Called Shot system doesnt lend itself to X degree of precision. Yet how does it not?

Because, and I'm not sure how to put this any simpler, the rules do not cover it happening.
If something doesn't have a listed Damage Capacity, then there's no mechanism for damaging it.

Sure there is. The GM gives the location a value. It's not exactly hard to do that. It's the same way as the GM comming up with the damage code for an improvised weapon or any other ruling a GM MUST pull out of the air. No RPG system out there I have ever used, or even heard of remotely covers every last little aspect a GM can run into in the course of a game.

In every RPG in cases where the rules do not cover something hapening it's left up to the GM to make a call on what DOES happen. Much like the wish spell, or older versions of D&D when you put a bag of holding in a bag of holding or some such. Eventually they came out with actual rules to cover this. But initially it was purely up to the GM as to what happened. Just as it is up to the GM to decide what you run into, what the layout of that dungeon or building your going into is.

I mean hell. What do you think all those optional rules in the Rifters are? It's all stuff assorted people have come up with to enhance/alter/add to the game system to cover things that it doesnt. Some of the more notable ones that I've seen come up are the PPE channeling rules, expanded range combat rules and so on.

You may see these people as the devil incarnate but I dont.

It establishes somethign the size of a human head would be aproximately -4 to strike. That an insect antenae no bigger than say.. a standard ruler would be I belive it's somethign like -6 (I'd have to check Xiticix War). It's hardly a streatch of the imagination then to cut the target down in size yet again and apply an even bigger penalty to hitting something like a human eye.

It hardly stretches the imagination, but it certainly stretches the rules farther than they were meant to go.

Perhaps but it still works just as well for those of us that want that level of detail in combat.

It doesnt even 'break the system' at all. There's thousands of examples through out all of the palladium books.

Examples of what?
Called shots at targets that have no listed damage capacity?
Called shots at targets the size of a human eye or smaller?

If so, then great.
It shouldn't tax you to find ten examples out of the thousands and to post them.
I'm still waiting for even one example.

Mini missiles for one. Coke can size, as such it's only slightly larger than the area covered by the eye socket depending on the angle your shooting at it from. The antena of a Xiticix. Longer yes, but the width is actually smaller unless perhaps your dealing with a queen or some such. I dont for a moment doubt I can dig up more examples than that as well. Mind you not while I'm at work.

I mean everyone knows what happens when you loose an eye.

L-o-s-e.

So I hit o one too many times and missed it. Big deal, and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I'm allready well aware that my spelling can be lacking at times.

It's even more blatantly obvious when you loose the use of both eyes (Be it temporariliy or permenantly). And there are stated rules for handling blindness. There's very set and specific blindness penalties. There may be a few specific different variations with spells/explosives or what have you but those can be considered specific to those particular causes. Everythign else falls under the standard blindness penalties. THere's even book examples if I recall for the effects of -partial- blindness, and even, if I recall with reduced depth perception. Probably listed under cyclopses.

But there are no rules for causing somebody to lose their eyes, not for normal human-sized targets.
So that's all pretty moot.

Again I disagree. If nothing else there's a few precendents that can easily be used in place of it. And even if there were not. What the hell do you think a part of GMing involves? It's a little something called making decisions. And allways on stuff not covered by the books, because there is -allways- something not covered by the books. Unless your GM cant think up their own scenarios what so ever and needs a step by step adventure book to even run a game.

Thats a fair bit of difference in game effects from letting the KO rule from boxing apply to everything. Especially given that there's litterally no basis for handling 'knocking out' something that doesnt even have a head to begin with.

You've never punched or kicked a piece of machinery and had it cease working properly?

Actually, to be honest. No. But then I dont exactly make a habit of doing so. Metal vs Flesh tends to be a loosing proposition. And doing damage to equipment is a far cry from knocking it out as far as the system goes. A KO doesnt actually -do- any damage as far as the system is concerned. Not that it really matters. I've certainly never heard of some one say... punching a tank and having it stop dead in it's tracks. Which is what your talking about.

Since the KO rules still to this day, far as I know, dont actually state what they apply to. They assume the GM will use common sense, and in all other cases simply flat out make a call on it not applying to things like robots, DHTs etc.

I thought you were the champion of the "The GM's Call is Divine and Cannot Be Questioned, even if it conflicts with basic math" school of thought.
Yet it seems here that you're saying that a GM's decision to allow a character to KO a Death's Head transport would be... (gasp!)... a bad call.

You see, and thats where you at least partialy fail to understand what I've been getting at the whole time. I never said the GM couldn't make bad calls. All GMs do time to time. I also don't consider a GM requring one strike roll for two targets something to make a huge deal out of. Not exactly 'proper' by the system but so what? Any game system is ultimately only a conflict resolution system. Some are extremely basic, others like Palladium are reasonably complex.

I also dont consider there being anything wrong with trying to change a GM's mind about a given call. And I fully expect the GM to apply the same rules all around. But at the same time I'm not going to waste 30 minutes arguing about the GM making one strike roll for two targets the way he did in this case.

Hell half the reason I support it, as I've even explained to a degree before hand, is because even if the guy wasnt aiming directly for the eyes he is then only aiming at the head. Simultaneous strike, only one roll. Blam hits the head right in the face and almost blows the guys head clean off. To me that's ample reason alone to saddle him with some sort of penalty and rendering him visually blind seems quite fitting.

The Called Shot system is much like this. It's left open ended intentionally.

No, it's not.
As I've pointed out, the rules in Rifts are for shooting at robots.
And the various parts of the robots are therefore statted out.
For example the hands of a Glitterboy have 100 MDC each.
Why didn't they list the MDC for the GB's fingers?
Because those are part of the hand, and cannot be picked off individually with a Called Shot.
Just like they didn't list the MDC for every square inch of the surface area of the main body, they just listed the MDC for the whole thing.

RGMG, p. 39
"A Called Shot is an aimed shot that homes in on a specific part of a larger target such as the head, hand, gun, or radio on a character or the radio antenna, sensor cluster, spotlight, tires, etc. of a vehicle."
Note that all of these things are statted out.
Note that there is NO mention of shooting at a normal person's eyes.
Note the lack of stats for a person's eyes.

It's not left open at all, not beyond the stuff that is statted out in the rules.

Again I disagree it is open ended. I've even shown you where it says -any small target-. Your interpretation of that is obviously different than mine. That a given location doesn't have a pre listed damage value means nothing. A GM can easily assign a reasonable value to that location should they so chose to do so. Just as the GM can introduce new gear, weapons, vehicles etc if they so desire. Infact in many cases that sort of thing is not only encouraged but even provided with a basic system to do so. I mean look at the TW device construction rules.

More to the point, unlike allowing the KO rules as is so that an infant can KO an ancient god or some silly thing like that. The Called Shot rules, when expanded to encompass other things and used with even a slight degree of comon sense breaks nothing. Infact for many of us it simply -enhances- game play in an entirely 'realistic' manner to the point, where, if you want to you can drill a guy right though the eye socket with a sniper rifle.

Okay, go back to my last post to you and address my scenario about targeting the same spot on a suit of armor.
Common Sense says that this would be physically possible to do in the real world.
Rifts is not the real world.

So what? Doesnt mean god will smite me for making the system 'more realistic'. I mean I sure dont see KS comming in here and bashing all GMs who 'dare' apply called shots and damage values to things like eyes, fingers etc. And he's certainly been more than supportive of alternative rule systems and the like as evidenced in my opinion by the simple existance of the Rifters and the fact that they are loaded with custom rules on handling things from hacking, spell casting and combat.

Ultimately man, the only thing I'd have with you it seems is that you nitpick every last thing to an extreme extent. I mean hell I can get kinda bad that way too but you go well beyond that. Thats fine, your play style. Me? I prefer moving on with the damn story over fighting tooth and nail over a GM treating two targets as one etc.

I prefer to get the rule right, and to play by them (with consistant houserules to fill in the gaps).

But yes, I'd much rather play than just argue about the rules.
And it's a lot simpler to stick to the rules than to make up stuff on the fly.

In this case, it would have been a lot simpler for the GM to say, "The rules don't support called shots with that level of precision, although you can shoot him in the head with a paired called shot" than to make a questionable call, to argue about it for however long they argued about it, then to end up with a thread the size of this one exploring the ramifications.

You realize that the thread is only this long because of the two of us. NOT because of anything the GM chose to make a call on right?

Between the two of us we account likely for at least 50% of this thread if not more. Also what you consider best and easier isnt allways what others will consider as such. Consistancy in GM rulings is certainly a good thing, which is a large part of why HRs exist in the first place. But if your the type of GM to use HRs then your equally obviously the type to make up rules to cover things not covered by the basic rule system in the first place. Granted that may not be true 100% of the time but most HR's I've seen for RPGs are clarifications and expansions uppon the existing ruleset.

And I've certainly never been in a game where a GM didnt at least once make a call on something not directly covered by the rules. Which is what you get into when it comes to things like 'what would be the damage capacity of X?"

You can kick and scream and pull your hair out all you like that the GM is 'wrong'.

I don't kick, or scream, or pull my hair out.
I don't have any real investment in this case, since I wasn't a player.

But that doesn't make the GM in this case not wrong, and it doesn't mean that I can't point out that it was a bad call.

A slip perhaps. A call I've said before I dont 100% agree with sure. But you've certainly gone to great lengths to make a huge deal out of something relatively minor as allowing some one to make called shots to the eyes.

Hell if you want to get into it he made a number of bad calls in my opinion, starting with intentionally pitting the players against each other in the first place, even if it was an 'evil' game. But so what? I'm not playing in it. And no one seems to have slit their wrists or been permanently scared for life over the event. By the sounds of it it was a dispute that got settled and now everyone's happy on their side of things.

But unless you are the one GMing. Well then the basic and primary rule of 'what the GM says goes' applies. That may well mean he's not being 'fair' or 'cheating' or what have you. But if you dont like it. GM the game yourself. Or find a new group to play with. Because who ever is the GM is the one running the show.

End of story.

No, it's not the end of the story.
Being a Game Master is a republic, not a dictatorship.
You can only GM with the consent of the players, and if you expect them to blindly accept everything and anything you say as GM, especially if you redefine basic math and logic at your whim, then you'll run out of players.
Which is why being a good GM requires the shocking notion of listening to your players when they have an issue with one of your calls, and even sometimes (brace yourself!) recognizing and admitting if you make a mistake.

That's right: Game Masters can make mistakes!
They're not actually unrestricted tyrants of space and time, not even in the game; they can actually screw up and make bad calls and bad decisions.
In fact, it's quite common.

Every time the GM screws up, there are two viable options:
1. If it's not important, then just gloss over it and move on with the game.
2. If it's important, then the players and the GM need to explain their views, and a consensus needs to be reached.

Again I dissagree on a few points. The GM is a dictator for the most part. If the GM wasn't you'd face some of the following scenarios:

GM: As you round the bend you find a locked door blocking your path.
Player: I keep on walking.
GM: You cant there's a locked door in the way.
Player: No there isnt.
GM: Yes there is.
Player: No there isnt.
GM: But the rules say...
Player: Who cares about the rules!? I say there isnt a locked door there.

Ad infinitum. Or you have the GM suddenly retracting anything the players dont want to deal with. Ambush! Oh.. you dont like ambushes? Oh well ok then I guess your not after all. Oh! Sure you can pull all sorts of rune weapons out of your totally mundane pockets since your PCs and all....

While I certainly agree there requires a degree of consensus. You know.. any dictatorship ultimately requires that. Otherwise you wind up with a littl something often called a rebellion. GMs have faced this before, especially bad GMs when the players refuse to play anymore etc.

And since no one is GMing and forcing players to accept their rulings at gun point a measure of diplomacy is indeed required. With that I agree. In the end however, when ever there is a disagreement it's up to the GM to eventually make a decision and put their foot down about it. Especialy mid game. That's actually part of a common GM tactic when a disagreement is taking up too much time.

Put your foot down. X is what the ruling will be -for now- and discussion at length can continue -after- the game session. Unless of course it's one of those rare cases where all the players are up in arms about a given ruling or something. At which point I doubt any of them would mind having the discussion, at length, right then and there.

Most of the time however it's only one, maybe two individuals in a much larger group. Also when it comes to what is important, well. Thats entirely different from one game group to the next. Some want Role Play. Others want Roll Play. Some want story over sticking to the rules, other individuals, such as the type the title of the thread talks about. Instead care more about the exact letter of the rules. Anything not in the rules doesnt count. Unless it benifits them, for scarece is the rules lawyer who actually will complain about things that benifit them even if they arnt by the book.

This I think is part of the reason of our disagreement. Alot of what you go on about pretty much points to a classic 'Rules Lawyer'. Where as I must say, I'm more for the story. I see nothing wrong with fudging the odd rule, dice roll etc where appropriate for the sake of the story. As to what's considered appropriate I generally go by what I at least see to be -fair- and usualy in favour of the PCs assuming it even affects them.

I mean if say.. I have a group NPCs that have we'll say.. 1d4X10 MDC I'm perfectly fine with giving them 30 MDC across the board if I damn well feel like it, instead of rolling 1d4 for say.. 40 NPCs. If for no other reason, than it saves me a considerable ammount of time in the long run and allows me to concentrate on what I at least consider the important things. The actual gameplay itself.

Not a bad argument.
Still, here's what we have:
Kev refers to a Bulleye as being a difficult target to strike, incurring a -3 or -4 to strike.
A human head requires a -4 penalty to strike.

I think it's safe to assume that Kev has a different idea on the size of bulleyes than you do.

In other news, that page also mentions that Called Shots can only be made as a "single, sniper-style shot".
Which likely rules out paired weapons anyway.

Quite possibly. And that hardly supprises me. I dont know about KS. But I've certainly fired guns, quite a few different types infact and given the times I've been actually asked by gunclubs to either join as a member, or even compete in provincial games. I like to consider myself a reasonable shot.

Not an expert mind you but certainly some one who has a fair idea of what their doing etc. Working off the assumption that KS has never fired a gun (He may have. I dont have a clue) and his own aptitude if he has, with firearms. Then I could easily see how the two of us would have entirely different ideas of how hard a given shot would be, and if it would be even remotely possible at all. Afterall I've certainly met a few other shooters who are considerably better shots than I am.

It's also partially why I only sort of agree with this whole 'sniper like shot' buisiness. With a good gun and some training you can get quite accurate with even a handgun.

Now take some one like a gunslinger, which is the case here. Who has not only paired pistols. But sharpshoing for said pistols. And likely some pretty crazy bonuses. Throw in the fact that sharpshooting as an ability allows for -accurate fire- one handed with a rifle....

Well then I dont actually see it as a serious streach then, for some one who specializes so heavily in the use of handguns to actually make 'sniper like shots' with handguns.

I would certainly have made such a shot count for more than one attack. But even so. By the rule system, the shot happens on the first action far as I know. Though I tend to have any extended actions actually only take effect on the -last- action for a reason. IE so others have a chance, as in real life to take advantage of your standing still or what ever and interrupt what ever it is your doing.

[Kesslan]

This is about called shots, not about Vagbonds having heatbeam eyes or being able to punch and "KO" a vehical.

This thread is about a lot of things.

One of the things it is about is the question of whether lack of forbiddance equals permission.

Which is what brings us to the vagabond with laser beam eyes.

IF lack of forbiddance meant permission, THEN because the books do not specifically forbid a normal human vagabond from flying around shooting lasers out of his eyes, it would be perfectly permissable in any Rifts game.
But it's NOT perfectly permissable, therefore, lack of forbiddance does NOT mean permission.

Capiche?

SIgh.. I'd go over all this again KC but were just going to go in an endless circle. Part of the issue here is that we start off discussing specifically called shots. Nothing else. Next thing you know Monopoly gets dragged into it and you latch onto it as yet another example of why Called shots cant/shouldnt be applied to general combat etc.

Yet KOing DHTs, board games in general etc have -nothing- to do with what is ultimately being discussed.

Since you haven't been paying attention, I'll recap for you.
We started off talking about Called Shots.

Then this happened:

There's also nothing saying you cant make a called shot to eyes, groin etc.

Agreed, but lack of forbiddance is NOT permission.
(And, actually, there are rules for attacks to the groin.)

By looking at the overall system, it's pretty clear that it's not built for that degree of precision in attacks, except where the Damage Capacity of the body part in question is listed.

The monopoly analogy, the KO rules comparison, and the other stuff that seems to have you so confused are all supporting the statement of "lack of forbiddance is NOT permission."

That's how they're relevent.

Either admit that the statement is correct, or come up with some sort of coherent rebuttal that does not involve pretending that it's not relevent to the conversation at hand.

Except that there is no forbiddance or lack there of. There is a clear statement that you can make a called shot to a target. The called shot system gives you a very basic guidline for hitting assorted small targets. The general results of which are covered by the combat system etc. Where they are not, as anything else it's left up to the GM.

I mean you go on to say that the called shot system is ment only for robots and equal sized things.

No, I go on and point out the fact that the called shot system was designed for robots and other large targets.
It has been expanded since then, but still not to the point of including eye-shots at human targets.

Suffice it to say I very much disagree with you on that point. The called shot system works as well as any other game system when it comes to dealing with making very specific shots to a small target. It's simple, straightforward, and it works.

Yet plenty of -small- creatures etc have listed alternative hit locations.

Yes.
NOW.
Over a decade since the main Rifts book was written.
But it's not what the rules were designed for.

That may not have been the inital intent but that is how it has been used for ages now by many a GM without any problems.

With Rifts rules got quickly expanded with new world and dimension books, later slightly consolidated in GMG and a few years later with the release of RUE which flat out replaces RMB.

Yes, the rules have expanded over time.
This isn't always a good thing, and it's all too often a problem.
A game system is like a house.
Add too much onto the frame, and the foundation will not support the new structure.
What Palladium needs to do is what D&D did; level the entire structure including the foundation, and rebuild it all from scratch, using the best parts of the old system, but with a foundation that is designed to support everything that the new system does.

RUE is good for now, and buys some time, but eventually the rebuilding will need to be done anyway.

Speaking of RUE, it's pretty obvious that the game in question wasn't using RUE rules, since the Called Shot was made in a single attack.
So RUE doesn't really matter in this discussion.

I'm not so sure it wasn't. I'm pretty sure a Called shot has allways suposed to have been at least two attacks, though I could be mistaken. It was allways a more involved 'aimed shot'

You say the Called Shot system doesnt lend itself to X degree of precision. Yet how does it not?

Because, and I'm not sure how to put this any simpler, the rules do not cover it happening.
If something doesn't have a listed Damage Capacity, then there's no mechanism for damaging it.

Sure there is. The GM gives the location a value. It's not exactly hard to do that. It's the same way as the GM comming up with the damage code for an improvised weapon or any other ruling a GM MUST pull out of the air. No RPG system out there I have ever used, or even heard of remotely covers every last little aspect a GM can run into in the course of a game.

In every RPG in cases where the rules do not cover something hapening it's left up to the GM to make a call on what DOES happen. Much like the wish spell, or older versions of D&D when you put a bag of holding in a bag of holding or some such. Eventually they came out with actual rules to cover this. But initially it was purely up to the GM as to what happened. Just as it is up to the GM to decide what you run into, what the layout of that dungeon or building your going into is.

I mean hell. What do you think all those optional rules in the Rifters are? It's all stuff assorted people have come up with to enhance/alter/add to the game system to cover things that it doesnt. Some of the more notable ones that I've seen come up are the PPE channeling rules, expanded range combat rules and so on.

You may see these people as the devil incarnate but I dont.

It establishes somethign the size of a human head would be aproximately -4 to strike. That an insect antenae no bigger than say.. a standard ruler would be I belive it's somethign like -6 (I'd have to check Xiticix War). It's hardly a streatch of the imagination then to cut the target down in size yet again and apply an even bigger penalty to hitting something like a human eye.

It hardly stretches the imagination, but it certainly stretches the rules farther than they were meant to go.

Perhaps but it still works just as well for those of us that want that level of detail in combat.

It doesnt even 'break the system' at all. There's thousands of examples through out all of the palladium books.

Examples of what?
Called shots at targets that have no listed damage capacity?
Called shots at targets the size of a human eye or smaller?

If so, then great.
It shouldn't tax you to find ten examples out of the thousands and to post them.
I'm still waiting for even one example.

Mini missiles for one. Coke can size, as such it's only slightly larger than the area covered by the eye socket depending on the angle your shooting at it from. The antena of a Xiticix. Longer yes, but the width is actually smaller unless perhaps your dealing with a queen or some such. I dont for a moment doubt I can dig up more examples than that as well. Mind you not while I'm at work.

I mean everyone knows what happens when you loose an eye.

L-o-s-e.

So I hit o one too many times and missed it. Big deal, and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I'm allready well aware that my spelling can be lacking at times.

It's even more blatantly obvious when you loose the use of both eyes (Be it temporariliy or permenantly). And there are stated rules for handling blindness. There's very set and specific blindness penalties. There may be a few specific different variations with spells/explosives or what have you but those can be considered specific to those particular causes. Everythign else falls under the standard blindness penalties. THere's even book examples if I recall for the effects of -partial- blindness, and even, if I recall with reduced depth perception. Probably listed under cyclopses.

But there are no rules for causing somebody to lose their eyes, not for normal human-sized targets.
So that's all pretty moot.

Again I disagree. If nothing else there's a few precendents that can easily be used in place of it. And even if there were not. What the hell do you think a part of GMing involves? It's a little something called making decisions. And allways on stuff not covered by the books, because there is -allways- something not covered by the books. Unless your GM cant think up their own scenarios what so ever and needs a step by step adventure book to even run a game.

Thats a fair bit of difference in game effects from letting the KO rule from boxing apply to everything. Especially given that there's litterally no basis for handling 'knocking out' something that doesnt even have a head to begin with.

You've never punched or kicked a piece of machinery and had it cease working properly?

Actually, to be honest. No. But then I dont exactly make a habit of doing so. Metal vs Flesh tends to be a loosing proposition. And doing damage to equipment is a far cry from knocking it out as far as the system goes. A KO doesnt actually -do- any damage as far as the system is concerned. Not that it really matters. I've certainly never heard of some one say... punching a tank and having it stop dead in it's tracks. Which is what your talking about.

Since the KO rules still to this day, far as I know, dont actually state what they apply to. They assume the GM will use common sense, and in all other cases simply flat out make a call on it not applying to things like robots, DHTs etc.

I thought you were the champion of the "The GM's Call is Divine and Cannot Be Questioned, even if it conflicts with basic math" school of thought.
Yet it seems here that you're saying that a GM's decision to allow a character to KO a Death's Head transport would be... (gasp!)... a bad call.

You see, and thats where you at least partialy fail to understand what I've been getting at the whole time. I never said the GM couldn't make bad calls. All GMs do time to time. I also don't consider a GM requring one strike roll for two targets something to make a huge deal out of. Not exactly 'proper' by the system but so what? Any game system is ultimately only a conflict resolution system. Some are extremely basic, others like Palladium are reasonably complex.

I also dont consider there being anything wrong with trying to change a GM's mind about a given call. And I fully expect the GM to apply the same rules all around. But at the same time I'm not going to waste 30 minutes arguing about the GM making one strike roll for two targets the way he did in this case.

Hell half the reason I support it, as I've even explained to a degree before hand, is because even if the guy wasnt aiming directly for the eyes he is then only aiming at the head. Simultaneous strike, only one roll. Blam hits the head right in the face and almost blows the guys head clean off. To me that's ample reason alone to saddle him with some sort of penalty and rendering him visually blind seems quite fitting.

The Called Shot system is much like this. It's left open ended intentionally.

No, it's not.
As I've pointed out, the rules in Rifts are for shooting at robots.
And the various parts of the robots are therefore statted out.
For example the hands of a Glitterboy have 100 MDC each.
Why didn't they list the MDC for the GB's fingers?
Because those are part of the hand, and cannot be picked off individually with a Called Shot.
Just like they didn't list the MDC for every square inch of the surface area of the main body, they just listed the MDC for the whole thing.

RGMG, p. 39
"A Called Shot is an aimed shot that homes in on a specific part of a larger target such as the head, hand, gun, or radio on a character or the radio antenna, sensor cluster, spotlight, tires, etc. of a vehicle."
Note that all of these things are statted out.
Note that there is NO mention of shooting at a normal person's eyes.
Note the lack of stats for a person's eyes.

It's not left open at all, not beyond the stuff that is statted out in the rules.

Again I disagree it is open ended. I've even shown you where it says -any small target-. Your interpretation of that is obviously different than mine. That a given location doesn't have a pre listed damage value means nothing. A GM can easily assign a reasonable value to that location should they so chose to do so. Just as the GM can introduce new gear, weapons, vehicles etc if they so desire. Infact in many cases that sort of thing is not only encouraged but even provided with a basic system to do so. I mean look at the TW device construction rules.

(More next post)

[Kesslan]

More to the point, unlike allowing the KO rules as is so that an infant can KO an ancient god or some silly thing like that. The Called Shot rules, when expanded to encompass other things and used with even a slight degree of comon sense breaks nothing. Infact for many of us it simply -enhances- game play in an entirely 'realistic' manner to the point, where, if you want to you can drill a guy right though the eye socket with a sniper rifle.

Okay, go back to my last post to you and address my scenario about targeting the same spot on a suit of armor.
Common Sense says that this would be physically possible to do in the real world.
Rifts is not the real world.

So what? Doesnt mean god will smite me for making the system 'more realistic'. I mean I sure dont see KS comming in here and bashing all GMs who 'dare' apply called shots and damage values to things like eyes, fingers etc. And he's certainly been more than supportive of alternative rule systems and the like as evidenced in my opinion by the simple existance of the Rifters and the fact that they are loaded with custom rules on handling things from hacking, spell casting and combat.

Ultimately man, the only thing I'd have with you it seems is that you nitpick every last thing to an extreme extent. I mean hell I can get kinda bad that way too but you go well beyond that. Thats fine, your play style. Me? I prefer moving on with the damn story over fighting tooth and nail over a GM treating two targets as one etc.

I prefer to get the rule right, and to play by them (with consistant houserules to fill in the gaps).

But yes, I'd much rather play than just argue about the rules.
And it's a lot simpler to stick to the rules than to make up stuff on the fly.

In this case, it would have been a lot simpler for the GM to say, "The rules don't support called shots with that level of precision, although you can shoot him in the head with a paired called shot" than to make a questionable call, to argue about it for however long they argued about it, then to end up with a thread the size of this one exploring the ramifications.

You realize that the thread is only this long because of the two of us. NOT because of anything the GM chose to make a call on right?

Between the two of us we account likely for at least 50% of this thread if not more. Also what you consider best and easier isnt allways what others will consider as such. Consistancy in GM rulings is certainly a good thing, which is a large part of why HRs exist in the first place. But if your the type of GM to use HRs then your equally obviously the type to make up rules to cover things not covered by the basic rule system in the first place. Granted that may not be true 100% of the time but most HR's I've seen for RPGs are clarifications and expansions uppon the existing ruleset.

And I've certainly never been in a game where a GM didnt at least once make a call on something not directly covered by the rules. Which is what you get into when it comes to things like 'what would be the damage capacity of X?"

You can kick and scream and pull your hair out all you like that the GM is 'wrong'.

I don't kick, or scream, or pull my hair out.
I don't have any real investment in this case, since I wasn't a player.

But that doesn't make the GM in this case not wrong, and it doesn't mean that I can't point out that it was a bad call.

A slip perhaps. A call I've said before I dont 100% agree with sure. But you've certainly gone to great lengths to make a huge deal out of something relatively minor as allowing some one to make called shots to the eyes.

Hell if you want to get into it he made a number of bad calls in my opinion, starting with intentionally pitting the players against each other in the first place, even if it was an 'evil' game. But so what? I'm not playing in it. And no one seems to have slit their wrists or been permanently scared for life over the event. By the sounds of it it was a dispute that got settled and now everyone's happy on their side of things.

But unless you are the one GMing. Well then the basic and primary rule of 'what the GM says goes' applies. That may well mean he's not being 'fair' or 'cheating' or what have you. But if you dont like it. GM the game yourself. Or find a new group to play with. Because who ever is the GM is the one running the show.

End of story.

No, it's not the end of the story.
Being a Game Master is a republic, not a dictatorship.
You can only GM with the consent of the players, and if you expect them to blindly accept everything and anything you say as GM, especially if you redefine basic math and logic at your whim, then you'll run out of players.
Which is why being a good GM requires the shocking notion of listening to your players when they have an issue with one of your calls, and even sometimes (brace yourself!) recognizing and admitting if you make a mistake.

That's right: Game Masters can make mistakes!
They're not actually unrestricted tyrants of space and time, not even in the game; they can actually screw up and make bad calls and bad decisions.
In fact, it's quite common.

Every time the GM screws up, there are two viable options:
1. If it's not important, then just gloss over it and move on with the game.
2. If it's important, then the players and the GM need to explain their views, and a consensus needs to be reached.

Again I dissagree on a few points. The GM is a dictator for the most part. If the GM wasn't you'd face some of the following scenarios:

GM: As you round the bend you find a locked door blocking your path.
Player: I keep on walking.
GM: You cant there's a locked door in the way.
Player: No there isnt.
GM: Yes there is.
Player: No there isnt.
GM: But the rules say...
Player: Who cares about the rules!? I say there isnt a locked door there.

Ad infinitum. Or you have the GM suddenly retracting anything the players dont want to deal with. Ambush! Oh.. you dont like ambushes? Oh well ok then I guess your not after all. Oh! Sure you can pull all sorts of rune weapons out of your totally mundane pockets since your PCs and all....

While I certainly agree there requires a degree of consensus. You know.. any dictatorship ultimately requires that. Otherwise you wind up with a littl something often called a rebellion. GMs have faced this before, especially bad GMs when the players refuse to play anymore etc.

And since no one is GMing and forcing players to accept their rulings at gun point a measure of diplomacy is indeed required. With that I agree. In the end however, when ever there is a disagreement it's up to the GM to eventually make a decision and put their foot down about it. Especialy mid game. That's actually part of a common GM tactic when a disagreement is taking up too much time.

Put your foot down. X is what the ruling will be -for now- and discussion at length can continue -after- the game session. Unless of course it's one of those rare cases where all the players are up in arms about a given ruling or something. At which point I doubt any of them would mind having the discussion, at length, right then and there.

Most of the time however it's only one, maybe two individuals in a much larger group. Also when it comes to what is important, well. Thats entirely different from one game group to the next. Some want Role Play. Others want Roll Play. Some want story over sticking to the rules, other individuals, such as the type the title of the thread talks about. Instead care more about the exact letter of the rules. Anything not in the rules doesnt count. Unless it benifits them, for scarece is the rules lawyer who actually will complain about things that benifit them even if they arnt by the book.

This I think is part of the reason of our disagreement. Alot of what you go on about pretty much points to a classic 'Rules Lawyer'. Where as I must say, I'm more for the story. I see nothing wrong with fudging the odd rule, dice roll etc where appropriate for the sake of the story. As to what's considered appropriate I generally go by what I at least see to be -fair- and usualy in favour of the PCs assuming it even affects them.

I mean if say.. I have a group NPCs that have we'll say.. 1d4X10 MDC I'm perfectly fine with giving them 30 MDC across the board if I damn well feel like it, instead of rolling 1d4 for say.. 40 NPCs. If for no other reason, than it saves me a considerable ammount of time in the long run and allows me to concentrate on what I at least consider the important things. The actual gameplay itself.

Not a bad argument.
Still, here's what we have:
Kev refers to a Bulleye as being a difficult target to strike, incurring a -3 or -4 to strike.
A human head requires a -4 penalty to strike.

I think it's safe to assume that Kev has a different idea on the size of bulleyes than you do.

In other news, that page also mentions that Called Shots can only be made as a "single, sniper-style shot".
Which likely rules out paired weapons anyway.

Quite possibly. And that hardly supprises me. I dont know about KS. But I've certainly fired guns, quite a few different types infact and given the times I've been actually asked by gunclubs to either join as a member, or even compete in provincial games. I like to consider myself a reasonable shot.

Not an expert mind you but certainly some one who has a fair idea of what their doing etc. Working off the assumption that KS has never fired a gun (He may have. I dont have a clue) and his own aptitude if he has, with firearms. Then I could easily see how the two of us would have entirely different ideas of how hard a given shot would be, and if it would be even remotely possible at all. Afterall I've certainly met a few other shooters who are considerably better shots than I am.

It's also partially why I only sort of agree with this whole 'sniper like shot' buisiness. With a good gun and some training you can get quite accurate with even a handgun.

Now take some one like a gunslinger, which is the case here. Who has not only paired pistols. But sharpshoing for said pistols. And likely some pretty crazy bonuses. Throw in the fact that sharpshooting as an ability allows for -accurate fire- one handed with a rifle....

Well then I dont actually see it as a serious streach then, for some one who specializes so heavily in the use of handguns to actually make 'sniper like shots' with handguns.

I would certainly have made such a shot count for more than one attack. But even so. By the rule system, the shot happens on the first action far as I know. Though I tend to have any extended actions actually only take effect on the -last- action for a reason. IE so others have a chance, as in real life to take advantage of your standing still or what ever and interrupt what ever it is your doing.

[Kesslan]

Ah yes and of course To adress the comments on the problems with RUE etc on yet a third post. Since apparently this discussion is quickly choking the BBoard....

I agree. The Palladium system in general needs a serious revamp as a whole. I'm not a terribly big fan of the way MDC is handled. There's alot of things that come up in games that the base rules dont handle. I honestly dont feel ranged combat for example is as detailed as it needs to be. Unlike most games reaching the level of complexity of Palladium, most go the extra step of providing basic ranged combat tables that cover penalties from lighting, range, etc.

I'm also not the least bit keen on the percentile skill system Paladium uses. It works sure enough. But a 'professional' can have an asounding failure rate, and there's no real proper modifier table provided for the GM. So it's yet another thing the GM needs to make a call on.

[asajosh]

I agree. The Palladium system in general needs a serious revamp as a whole. I'm not a terribly big fan of the way MDC is handled. There's alot of things that come up in games that the base rules dont handle. I honestly dont feel ranged combat for example is as detailed as it needs to be. Unlike most games reaching the level of complexity of Palladium, most go the extra step of providing basic ranged combat tables that cover penalties from lighting, range, etc.

I'm also not the least bit keen on the percentile skill system Paladium uses. It works sure enough. But a 'professional' can have an asounding failure rate, and there's no real proper modifier table provided for the GM. So it's yet another thing the GM needs to make a call on.

So... the GM... can house rule things that aren't clearly defined? And if his players are cool with it and its not a TOTAL contradiction to printed rules ... it might be considdered... acceptable? Ya don't say!

I quote the RMB, page 249.
"Depending on the GM and Players, the adventures in Rifts can be incredibly different from player group to player group and playing session to playing session. Do not be afraid to take charge and shape the world and your adventures to your tastes. Mold it. Play with it. Explore all the possibilities. And most of all, have fun!"

To All: Dont be too upset when people knit pick your spelling when they debate with you, it only means that party has NOTHING else better to argue with

[Natalya]

Wow, I'm flattered that my Monopoly example has been debated so thoroughly. However, since everyone missed the spirit of my argument, I think I'd better clarify.

All this debate as to whether eyes are a legitimate called shot or not is interesting, but totally misses another huge point that I was trying to discuss.

Player vs player is fine, if all players are comfortable with it. In this case, obviously a player wasn't. I was pointing out that just like you can restrict bank robberies in Monopoly, you can restrict levels of violence in an RPG as a part of "the rules". Setting such a boundary doesn't interfere with "character mindset" or "player choice" any more than not being allowed to play Dillinger on Park Place.

If all players at the table aren't comfortable with player vs player, then it should not be allowed. It has nothing to do with maturity level or separating reality from fiction, it has to do with what a person considers fun when they get around a table with friends. And a fair number of people don't want to end up in an enemy situation when gathered around the table with friends.

[asajosh]

Player vs player is fine, if all players are comfortable with it. In this case, obviously a player wasn't. I was pointing out that just like you can restrict bank robberies in Monopoly, you can restrict levels of violence in an RPG as a part of "the rules". Setting such a boundary doesn't interfere with "character mindset" or "player choice" any more than not being allowed to play Dillinger on Park Place.

Well yer close on this one I think.
All players were informed of my simple ground rules before game play (like 3 weeks before actually).
All players stated that they liked the idea of having a mixed or all evil group (if this is true or not who can say? I only trust that when they said "yes" that they all meant "yes")

The now blind borg player in question was upset cause his plan to kill the gunslinger went so horribly horribly wrong. It was almost like buying a $90K sports car and being angry it won't go 120 in first gear.
He rolled a tank of a borg and figured "Hey I have huge main body MDC, and even though I 've seen this 'slinger pop heads at 1000 feet, Im different! I can take him EASY!" I kid you not, that was his rationale after the game session, his main body MDC was high. Go figure.

He planned badly (even after the NPC that hired him suggested how to do the job...) and rolled badly (blame the dice gods), thus he darn near ended up as spare parts. THAT was what caused his attack of RBL (Rule Book Lawyering). Not the shot to the eyes, he realized how bad his plan was and was trying to back pedal. Surely we've all tried it in some way or another at some point?

Anyway, we are all set to meet again in 2 days so its all water under the bridge. I don't kill players, I just give them the rope and point to a tree. What they do from there is up to them. I wonder which one of them will swing next?

[Killer Cyborg]

Infact for many of us it simply -enhances- game play in an entirely 'realistic' manner to the point, where, if you want to you can drill a guy right though the eye socket with a sniper rifle.

Okay, go back to my last post to you and address my scenario about targeting the same spot on a suit of armor.
Common Sense says that this would be physically possible to do in the real world.
Rifts is not the real world.

So what? Doesnt mean god will smite me for making the system 'more realistic'.

Nope.
He doesn't smite people for littering either, or other little mistakes.
Heck, most mistakes are their own punishment.
But that's kind of a side issue.

I mean I sure dont see KS comming in here and bashing all GMs who 'dare' apply called shots and damage values to things like eyes, fingers etc.

He doesn't have the time.
And it would be bad PR.
And he's not a rules lawyer (which is one of the problems with Palladium overall).

And he's certainly been more than supportive of alternative rule systems and the like as evidenced in my opinion by the simple existance of the Rifters and the fact that they are loaded with custom rules on handling things from hacking, spell casting and combat.

Of course.
But the rules have to make sense within the context of the system.

I notice that you have yet again ignored my scenario about repeatedly shooting the same spot on a suit of armor, by the way.
Care to get around to addressing it?

You realize that the thread is only this long because of the two of us. NOT because of anything the GM chose to make a call on right?

Between the two of us we account likely for at least 50% of this thread if not more.

Yeah, but it's for a good cause.
People gotta have something to watch while they eat popcorn...

Also what you consider best and easier isnt allways what others will consider as such.

Quite true.
I have found that other people are very often wrong about such things.

Consistancy in GM rulings is certainly a good thing, which is a large part of why HRs exist in the first place. But if your the type of GM to use HRs then your equally obviously the type to make up rules to cover things not covered by the basic rule system in the first place. Granted that may not be true 100% of the time but most HR's I've seen for RPGs are clarifications and expansions uppon the existing ruleset.

And I've certainly never been in a game where a GM didnt at least once make a call on something not directly covered by the rules. Which is what you get into when it comes to things like 'what would be the damage capacity of X?"

All true, but the point isn't that we don't know what the damage capacity of eyes is.
The point is that they have no listed damage capacity and are therefore not valid targets for a called shot.

But that doesn't make the GM in this case not wrong, and it doesn't mean that I can't point out that it was a bad call.

A slip perhaps. A call I've said before I dont 100% agree with sure. But you've certainly gone to great lengths to make a huge deal out of something relatively minor as allowing some one to make called shots to the eyes.

First of all, I'm not making a huge deal out of it.
I'm simply stating the GM made a bad call, then responding to the people who are making a big deal over my opinion.
If people want to just say, "Eh. KC thinks it was a bad call, but whatever..." and go on with their lives, it's not like I'm going to be knocking on their door to try to convert them to my view.
But if people want to keep arguing with me about it, I'll keep arguing back.

Second of all, I don't know how "relatively minor" this is.
Set the precedent that the gunslinger can make paired called shots to the eyes, and he'll be able to drop a lot of powerful foes extremely quickly.
Full Conversion Borgs
Dragons
Other supernatural creatures.
Human-sized bots
And so on.

This will mean more work for the GM, because he'll have to start coming up with the damage capacity for the eyes (and finger joints, or elbows, or individual ribs, or whatever else the players feel like shooting at) for every foe.
And, of course, it will make things tougher for the players too, because if PCs can try it, then NPCs can try it.

Also, if the physics of the gameworld allow eyeshots, then this should logically change how things are done in the game.
Because the rules of the game are the physics of the gameworld.
For example, Full Conversion Borgs would likely typically wear MDC sunglasses or other eye protection (as would other creatures).
If it's that easy to do (remember, ANYBODY would have a 5% chance of success), then it would be a common tactic in the world of Rifts: something that the average borg would pretty prepared for.

Ultimately, I'm not sure that there's such thing as a "minor change in the rules", because every single change has consequences that ripple throughout the game.

Hell if you want to get into it he made a number of bad calls in my opinion, starting with intentionally pitting the players against each other in the first place, even if it was an 'evil' game. But so what? I'm not playing in it. And no one seems to have slit their wrists or been permanently scared for life over the event. By the sounds of it it was a dispute that got settled and now everyone's happy on their side of things.

Everybody's happy?
Did I miss a post from the player with the blind borg?

In any case, as I mentioned earlier, I don't have a huge investment in this.
But I'll keep defending my view as long as people keep trying to argue with me about it.

The GM is a dictator for the most part. If the GM wasn't you'd face some of the following scenarios:

GM: As you round the bend you find a locked door blocking your path.
Player: I keep on walking.
GM: You cant there's a locked door in the way.
Player: No there isnt.
GM: Yes there is.
Player: No there isnt.
GM: But the rules say...
Player: Who cares about the rules!? I say there isnt a locked door there.

A Game Master has two jobs.
-Refereeing the game
-Running scenarios.

We're talking about the first part of the job here: being a referee.
Running a scenario isn't the same as being a dictator any more than a player is being a dictator when he says "I try to open the door".

Ad infinitum. Or you have the GM suddenly retracting anything the players dont want to deal with. Ambush! Oh.. you dont like ambushes? Oh well ok then I guess your not after all. Oh! Sure you can pull all sorts of rune weapons out of your totally mundane pockets since your PCs and all....

Where to start...?
Hm.

Okay.
First of all, you're apparently assuming that players are generally a pack of pricks, and that the only thing keeping them in line is the authoritarian power of the Game Master.
That may be true in some groups, but I've never played in a group where it was the case.
And I've played with a lot of people over the years.

Second, you're assuming that players would argue about what they like rather than what makes sense.
I just don't see that.
I can't remember a decent player ever whining about being ambushed or attacked in a situation where it makes sense to be ambushed or attacked.
So I'm not sure where you're getting that prediction of how things would be if GMs weren't dictators.

Third, players already can, at any time, complain or quit playing if they don't like what the GM is doing. GMs already are not dictators, yet your scenario has never (to the best of my knowledge) ever happened.

While I certainly agree there requires a degree of consensus. You know.. any dictatorship ultimately requires that. Otherwise you wind up with a littl something often called a rebellion. GMs have faced this before, especially bad GMs when the players refuse to play anymore etc.

Somehow comparing risking your life fighting a superior military force to quitting playing a game you dislike just doesn't really work.

And since no one is GMing and forcing players to accept their rulings at gun point a measure of diplomacy is indeed required. With that I agree. In the end however, when ever there is a disagreement it's up to the GM to eventually make a decision and put their foot down about it. Especialy mid game. That's actually part of a common GM tactic when a disagreement is taking up too much time.

And that is the refereeing part of the job.
But look at what you said: "when a disagreement is taking up too much time".
So right there, you're saying that players do have a right to state their case and to argue about it a bit.
Just that it shouldn't take up too much game time.
Which I agree with.

But you seem to think that the Game Master should never back down, that he should instead put his foot down and do whatever he thinks is best.
But that's not always true. Sometimes the right thing to do is to accede to the demands and opinions of the players.

Put your foot down. X is what the ruling will be -for now- and discussion at length can continue -after- the game session. Unless of course it's one of those rare cases where all the players are up in arms about a given ruling or something. At which point I doubt any of them would mind having the discussion, at length, right then and there.

The problem with the whole "x is what the ruling will be -for now-" bit is that it leads to inconsistancy and often confusion about the rules.
And to later arguments.

"Wait, I thought we ruled that we could shoot people in the eyes...?"
"That was just the temporary ruling. Later we realized that it wasn't the right call, so no, you can't shoot at that dragon's eyes."
"Okay, then can I get MY eyes back!?"
"Uh.. okay...."
"And can I also retroactively win the combat that I lost my eyes in, since I only lost because I was blinded?"
"Uh... that would invalidate the campaign...."

I'm big on getting things right the first time.
If you make a ruling as a GM, you stick with it. At least for the duration of that adventure.

Most of the time however it's only one, maybe two individuals in a much larger group. Also when it comes to what is important, well. Thats entirely different from one game group to the next. Some want Role Play. Others want Roll Play. Some want story over sticking to the rules, other individuals, such as the type the title of the thread talks about. Instead care more about the exact letter of the rules. Anything not in the rules doesnt count. Unless it benifits them, for scarece is the rules lawyer who actually will complain about things that benifit them even if they arnt by the book.

I do that when it comes up, actually.
Like any type of lawyer, there are good rules lawyers and bad ones.

This I think is part of the reason of our disagreement. Alot of what you go on about pretty much points to a classic 'Rules Lawyer'. Where as I must say, I'm more for the story. I see nothing wrong with fudging the odd rule, dice roll etc where appropriate for the sake of the story. As to what's considered appropriate I generally go by what I at least see to be -fair- and usualy in favour of the PCs assuming it even affects them.

Is Rifts a "Role-Playing Interactive Story", or a "Role-Playing Game?
It's a game.
Games have rules.
Rules are there for a reason.

But I also place a LOT of emphasis on the story.
Which is why I'm for consistancy.
If you make a rule, you stick with it, otherwise the laws of physics change out from under the characters and compromise the story.
If you make a rule change, then the gameworld needs to change with it. If people can easily make shots to the eye, then characters like Full Conversion Borgs whose eyes would become their biggest weakness would regularly wear eye protectors of some sort.
Because otherwise the story doesn't make sense.

I mean if say.. I have a group NPCs that have we'll say.. 1d4X10 MDC I'm perfectly fine with giving them 30 MDC across the board if I damn well feel like it, instead of rolling 1d4 for say.. 40 NPCs. If for no other reason, than it saves me a considerable ammount of time in the long run and allows me to concentrate on what I at least consider the important things. The actual gameplay itself.

Same here.

I think it's safe to assume that Kev has a different idea on the size of bulleyes than you do.

Quite possibly. And that hardly supprises me....
<snip>
Working off the assumption that KS has never fired a gun (He may have. I dont have a clue) and his own aptitude if he has, with firearms. Then I could easily see how the two of us would have entirely different ideas of how hard a given shot would be, and if it would be even remotely possible at all.

I'd bet that he's fired a gun before, but I'd bet even more money that he's not a competition shooter and that he's never really gone after the bullseye on a regulation target like you describe.
I've used guns all my life, but I've never shot at such a target.
Just bottles, TVs, cans, and other stuff that I can take out to the field and take shots at.

It's also partially why I only sort of agree with this whole 'sniper like shot' buisiness. With a good gun and some training you can get quite accurate with even a handgun.

I was looking through RUE and noticed that it also specifies that Aimed Shots can only be single "sniper-style" shots, but it lists pistols and revolvers as being able to make Aimed Shots.
So "sniper-style" definitely includes pistols.

But I doubt that it covers firing two weapons at once.

I would certainly have made such a shot count for more than one attack. But even so. By the rule system, the shot happens on the first action far as I know. Though I tend to have any extended actions actually only take effect on the -last- action for a reason. IE so others have a chance, as in real life to take advantage of your standing still or what ever and interrupt what ever it is your doing.

The actual shot would take place on the final action used.

Under the previous rules for Called Shots, it only took one attack, so that's what I assume they were using in this scenario.

[Killer Cyborg]

To All: Dont be too upset when people knit pick your spelling when they debate with you, it only means that party has NOTHING else better to argue with

Depends on how it's done.

When the person says something to the effect of, "You're obviously wrong about everything you say, because you obviously can't spell!!"
Then it's pretty much as you say.

But in this case, it's because people writing "loose" instead of "lose" is a pet peeve of mine, and I tend to correct anybody who does it, whether they agree with me or not.

[asajosh]

Oh one can loose an eye! LOL, usually done to someone else though, not to one self.

I find your posts insightful and well presented, Killer Cyborg, and I assure you my post about spelling certainly was not directed your way.

[Killer Cyborg]

Either admit that the statement is correct, or come up with some sort of coherent rebuttal that does not involve pretending that it's not relevent to the conversation at hand.

Except that there is no forbiddance or lack there of. There is a clear statement that you can make a called shot to a target. The called shot system gives you a very basic guidline for hitting assorted small targets. The general results of which are covered by the combat system etc. Where they are not, as anything else it's left up to the GM.

Yes, you can make a called shot to a target.
But the term "target" in this context is undefined.
You believe that it means "anything", but I believe that it refers to things that are statted out in the books.
So from my view that's not permission to shoot at eyes.

The called shot system works as well as any other game system when it comes to dealing with making very specific shots to a small target. It's simple, straightforward, and it works.

I've never seen a game system that allows for called shots with that level of precision, so I can't really agree or disagree with that statement.

Yet plenty of -small- creatures etc have listed alternative hit locations.

Yes.
NOW.
Over a decade since the main Rifts book was written.
But it's not what the rules were designed for.

That may not have been the inital intent but that is how it has been used for ages now by many a GM without any problems.

By "Ages" you mean about 6 years out of the roughly 26 years of Palladium's existence.
Within those six years, the rules for Called Shots have changed again, which doesn't imply to me that those rules were used "without any problems".
The current Called Shot rules only appear in RUE, which has only been out about two years, which isn't enough time to tell whether or not people have been using those rules "without any problems".

And even the current rules don't provide for eye-shooting people.

Speaking of RUE, it's pretty obvious that the game in question wasn't using RUE rules, since the Called Shot was made in a single attack.
So RUE doesn't really matter in this discussion.

I'm not so sure it wasn't. I'm pretty sure a Called shot has allways suposed to have been at least two attacks, though I could be mistaken. It was allways a more involved 'aimed shot'

The previous requirement was that you needed a 12 or higher (and a hit) to strike the called target. If you hit the target, but rolled less than a modified 12, then your shot hit the main body.
It was only one action up until RUE.

If you can find any pre-RUE books saying that Called Shots took two actions, I'll buy you a Coke.

You say the Called Shot system doesnt lend itself to X degree of precision. Yet how does it not?

Because, and I'm not sure how to put this any simpler, the rules do not cover it happening.
If something doesn't have a listed Damage Capacity, then there's no mechanism for damaging it.

Sure there is. The GM gives the location a value.

You don't seem to be differentiating between "The GM" and "The official rules".

I mean hell. What do you think all those optional rules in the Rifters are? It's all stuff assorted people have come up with to enhance/alter/add to the game system to cover things that it doesnt. Some of the more notable ones that I've seen come up are the PPE channeling rules, expanded range combat rules and so on.

You may see these people as the devil incarnate but I dont.

Where'd you get the idea that I have something against house rules or people who write house rules?
:help:

It hardly stretches the imagination, but it certainly stretches the rules farther than they were meant to go.

Perhaps but it still works just as well for those of us that want that level of detail in combat.

Perhaps it doesn't work well for you, but you have failed to notice.

It doesnt even 'break the system' at all. There's thousands of examples through out all of the palladium books.

Examples of what?
Called shots at targets that have no listed damage capacity?
Called shots at targets the size of a human eye or smaller?

If so, then great.
It shouldn't tax you to find ten examples out of the thousands and to post them.
I'm still waiting for even one example.

Mini missiles for one. Coke can size, as such it's only slightly larger than the area covered by the eye socket depending on the angle your shooting at it from.

A Coke can has a diameter of about 2.75 inches
A human eye socket is about 1 inch wide and 2 inches across.

A Coke can, even looking exactly dead-on, is significantly larger.

The antena of a Xiticix. Longer yes, but the width is actually smaller unless perhaps your dealing with a queen or some such. I dont for a moment doubt I can dig up more examples than that as well. Mind you not while I'm at work.

Looking through Xiticix Invasion, I disagree.
All I have to go by is the artwork, and the fact that Xiticix are 8-9' tall.

If you have a clear example that you think backs your argument, let me know.

Buy even then, just the length makes a difference.

there are no rules for causing somebody to lose their eyes, not for normal human-sized targets.
So that's all pretty moot.

Again I disagree. If nothing else there's a few precendents that can easily be used in place of it.

You disagree that there are not rules for causing a normal human-sized target to lose an eye?
Then by all means, point out the rules that describe this.

And even if there were not. What the hell do you think a part of GMing involves? It's a little something called making decisions. And allways on stuff not covered by the books, because there is -allways- something not covered by the books. Unless your GM cant think up their own scenarios what so ever and needs a step by step adventure book to even run a game.

I should just clip the sentence "GM decision is not the same as official rules" and keep it in my clipboard. That way I can just keep pasting it in my responses every time you bring this up as if it were relevent.

You've never punched or kicked a piece of machinery and had it cease working properly?

Actually, to be honest. No.

Yeah, I probably never have either.
But it could happen.

But then I dont exactly make a habit of doing so. Metal vs Flesh tends to be a losing proposition. And doing damage to equipment is a far cry from knocking it out as far as the system goes. A KO doesnt actually -do- any damage as far as the system is concerned. Not that it really matters. I've certainly never heard of some one say... punching a tank and having it stop dead in it's tracks. Which is what your talking about.

What I'm talking about is what happens when the rules are taken beyond the scope that they were meant for.
It's not pretty.

thats where you at least partialy fail to understand what I've been getting at the whole time. I never said the GM couldn't make bad calls. All GMs do time to time. I also don't consider a GM requring one strike roll for two targets something to make a huge deal out of. Not exactly 'proper' by the system but so what? Any game system is ultimately only a conflict resolution system. Some are extremely basic, others like Palladium are reasonably complex.

I also dont consider there being anything wrong with trying to change a GM's mind about a given call. And I fully expect the GM to apply the same rules all around. But at the same time I'm not going to waste 30 minutes arguing about the GM making one strike roll for two targets the way he did in this case.

Even if the call results in your character being blinded and losing the combat?
What if it results in your character's death?

Hell half the reason I support it, as I've even explained to a degree before hand, is because even if the guy wasnt aiming directly for the eyes he is then only aiming at the head. Simultaneous strike, only one roll. Blam hits the head right in the face and almost blows the guys head clean off. To me that's ample reason alone to saddle him with some sort of penalty and rendering him visually blind seems quite fitting.

At this point I don't remember the damage the pistols actually dealt, so I don't know if it counts as "almost blowing the guy's head clean off" or not.

That a given location doesn't have a pre listed damage value means nothing. A GM can easily assign a reasonable value to that location should they so chose to do so. Just as the GM can introduce new gear, weapons, vehicles etc if they so desire. Infact in many cases that sort of thing is not only encouraged but even provided with a basic system to do so.

And whenever the GM does that, he/she needs to do it responsibly, with full awareness of the consequences in the game and in the gaming group.
Because otherwise his house-ruling will go beyond what the system was meant to do and cause problems.

I mean look at the TW device construction rules.

Don't get me started...

[Killer Cyborg]

Oh one can loose an eye! LOL, usually done to someone else though, not to one self.

I find your posts insightful and well presented, Killer Cyborg, and I assure you my post about spelling certainly was not directed your way.

Thanks.

[Kesslan]

Wow, I'm flattered that my Monopoly example has been debated so thoroughly. However, since everyone missed the spirit of my argument, I think I'd better clarify.

All this debate as to whether eyes are a legitimate called shot or not is interesting, but totally misses another huge point that I was trying to discuss.

Player vs player is fine, if all players are comfortable with it. In this case, obviously a player wasn't. I was pointing out that just like you can restrict bank robberies in Monopoly, you can restrict levels of violence in an RPG as a part of "the rules". Setting such a boundary doesn't interfere with "character mindset" or "player choice" any more than not being allowed to play Dillinger on Park Place.

If all players at the table aren't comfortable with player vs player, then it should not be allowed. It has nothing to do with maturity level or separating reality from fiction, it has to do with what a person considers fun when they get around a table with friends. And a fair number of people don't want to end up in an enemy situation when gathered around the table with friends.

Ok well since I'm rather tired and honestly KC and I are pretty much running in circles for the most part on assorted things it's blatantly obvious neither of us agree on I'm just going to leave most of that alone and respond to a few other things.

On the whole PVP thing I agree. I prefer to avoid it myself, even when all the parties are consenting because few people actually handle it as well as they -think- they can. That and even when they can, without any harm or malice or arguement or what have you. You still risk a TPK scenario (Total Party Kill). I had one D&D game go thsi way once right near the start of a game.

I made the blatant mistake of course of providing loot in the glorious form of a typical +1 dagger. So the mage and theif bickered about it, thief eventually backstabs the mage, and then the paladin of all things slaughtered the rest of the party for it.

And to KC on the subject of hitting armor in the 'exact' same spot. Not remotely covered by the rules of any system sure. If the GM wants to they can make up rules for it. But even as a GM who would likely mak esome sort of call on such things, I wouldnt allow it to be terribly easy. There's a very big difference from hitting a very small target, and hitting the exact same target again in the exact same spot. And it's pretty much impossible if the target is moving.

The only way you'll generally ever get a scenario like that and body armor is if you have the armor on a pretty much imobile dummy, and the gun is held in a brace.

Now follow that up with the type of armor, what it's capable of protecting against and what is being shot at it. With energy weapons and futurisitc body armor that hardly weighs anything yet can apparently dissipate both energy attacks AND kinetic attacks amazingly well at the low weight of 9lbs for a full body suit..

Well hell I dont know. I'm hardly an expert on it so at best I can make a mildly educated guess.

Two or three shots in the same spot actually might not do so much. At some point your guaranteed to have the round penetrate. It's part of the reason I like the SDC AR system. Even on full body suits there tends to be an AR (even if it's 20 or something) and AP munitions etc.

MDC doesnt have any real AP rules. Yet at the same time offers effects of being hit by AP rounds.. which is.. kinda confusing. In the end I've loosely played around with the idea of comming up with some workable AR system for MDC. That or figguring out a reasonable way to just make it a step up from vehicular AR under the SDC system.

Part of the issue to consider is of course game balance. Speaking of which your complaint about it becomming horribly unbalancing to the game if you allow people to start hsooting other peoples eyes... to me doesnt really change much. You can allready kill a dragon by depleating the MDC of it's head.

Being able to shoot it in the eye and temporarily blind it (Considering their regenerative abilities in this instance, the eye will eventualy grow back if it survives) I dont consider horrifically unbalancing from a 'fake realism' perspective.

Afterall it wouldnt a) Be an easy shot and b) at least in my games NPCs use many of the same dirty tricks the PCs do. As such I dont tend to make a habbit of throwing things like dragons and other smiliar or higher powered critters at them.

That isnt to say I wont though. I have for example in one game, thrown a random encounter table generated Devil Unicorn at one careless PC. He actually (barely) survived the encounter. But only because he a) realized his mistake and B) started playing smart, using the terrain to his advantage, making called shots to the head etc.

[Killer Cyborg]

I mean everyone knows what happens when you loose an eye.

L-o-s-e.

I really find nitpicking a typo in the middle of an arguement petty and in poor taste.

I find it annoying when people can't spell "lose", and when I call somebody on their mispellings and it starts to take over the thread instead of the person simply noting their mistake, correcting it, and everybody moving on with our day.

But there are no rules for causing somebody to lose their eyes, not for normal human-sized targets.
So that's all pretty moot.

So, in your way of thinking, there is no way for a PC, NPC, or monster, unless it has MDC/SDC for the eye listed, to actually lose an eye during the course of a campaign? So the only way to have lost an eye is to start without it or have it immediatly replaced by a cyber/biosystem eye, simply because it's not covered in the rules otherwise?

There's no official way for it to happen in combat, no.

You've never punched or kicked a piece of machinery and had it cease working properly?

You've never seen someone that's lost an eye?

Not that I can recall, actually.
But I'm not claiming that it's impossible to lose an eye; I'm pointing out that called shots to the eyes are not within the scope of the rules.

As I've pointed out, the rules in Rifts are for shooting at robots.

Oddly enough the chinese gunmaster is somehow able to shoot a medal off someone's uniform... I guess that means he must be shooting it off the uniform of a robot.

Oddly enough, none of that crap is in the Rifts book.
Which is the book that I'm talking about.
Which is pretty obvious if you read the discussion.

such as the head, hand, gun, or radio on a character

Note the "such as". We can also replace this with "for example" or "including but not limited too" and all would have the same general meaning, unless with "such as" it means you can't shoot the sword or other melee weapon a character might be holding.

Of course.
You can shoot at anything that is statted out.

I think it's safe to assume that Kev has a different idea on the size of bulleyes than you do.

Well, we can always ask him. In fact I could ask him tomarrow while I'm helping with cleaning for the Open House.

Great!
Just be sure you ask the right question, "Kev, when you talk about Bullseyes needing a called shot with a -4 penalty, are you talking about the official rifle-range bullseyes that are about the diameter of a .22 bullet?"

Yes, you can make a called shot to a target.
But the term "target" in this context is undefined.
You believe that it means "anything", but I believe that it refers to things that are statted out in the books.

So where in the rulebooks is the term "target" defined?

Like many of the terms that Palladium uses, it's not defined.
You can ask Kevin that too.

Heck, you can also just ask him if he'd allow a gunslinger to blind a borg by making paired energy pistol called shots at the Borg's eyes.
If you want to cut to the chase.

[asajosh]

this is the thread that never ends yes it goes on and on my freinds some pepole started posting it not knowing what it was and the'll keep on going forever...

Who taught you to copy and paste Bob? They need a beating!

[Killer Cyborg]

I've never seen a game system that allows for called shots with that level of precision, so I can't really agree or disagree with that statement.

The GURPS system has simple and clearly defined rules for making a called shot at the eyes and other such small targets.

Okay, I'll trust you on that.

So:
I've only ever seen one game system that allows for called shots with that level of precision.



BTW, what are the GURPS rules for this?

[Killer Cyborg]

What are the listed penalties in GURPS for trying to shoot somebody in the eye?

Edit:
Oh, and out of curiosity, what book?

[Guest]

You might want to checkout Triax, page 37, under the description & notes for Plain Clothes armor and the Compendium of Contemporary Weapons, page 17, under The Extremities, Killer Cyborg.

[asajosh]

You might want to checkout Triax, page 37, under the description & notes for Plain Clothes armor and the Compendium of Contemporary Weapons, page 17, under The Extremities, Killer Cyborg.

Thats why your a supreme being, Supernatural look up abilities!
All jokes aside, GREAT reference Kuseru, ty for it!

[Killer Cyborg]

You might want to checkout Triax, page 37, under the description & notes for Plain Clothes armor

Okay, nice find!

I see three interesting things here:
1. It seems to be the first time in Rifts that there are rules for Called Shots against standard human targets.
2. It is confirmation of my earlier statement that Armor Rating is determined by how much of the entire body is covered, NOT just by how well protected the torso is.
3. The listed penalty for striking "a tiny unprotected area of an otherwise covered head/face (armor wtih an A.R. 20), the attacker is -8 to strike."
I'll admit, that could cover shooting at a person's eye, depending on what the armor looks like and what part of the head/face are covered by the armor.
Looking over the armor descriptions, the suits with an AR of 20 are:
Ultra-Businessman, which includes "a hat". Which would leave pretty much the whole face exposed.
Jumpsuit with hood up. Which would also leave pretty much the whole face exposed.
So it seems that even then it's talking about a target larger than just an eye.

and the Compendium of Contemporary Weapons, page 17, under The Extremities, Killer Cyborg.

Well, that one's a bit funky for a couple of reasons.
First, the Compendium isn't 100% Rifts compatable.
Second, the part you're referring to is under a list of Optional Rules.

But yes, it says:
"The head, neck, eyes, ears, hand, feet and groin are -5 to strike..."

So good find, and I have to amend my earlier statement to the effect that Palladium didn't have any rules for Called Shots against human-sized targets until around the time of the RGMG.
Triax definitely has them, and the Compendium has some.

[DocS]

What are the listed penalties in GURPS for trying to shoot somebody in the eye?

Edit:
Oh, and out of curiosity, what book?

As I said, -9, and that's out of the main book. You can find it in the combat section, and also reprinted at the back of the book with all the other helpful things that are gathered there.

Does GURPS have the critical hit? because ol Palladium does have the whole difficulty of "no matter how many minuses you accumulate, you still have that 5% chance of hitting for double damage"... a factor that is heavily abused by folks in their called shotting...

[Killer Cyborg]

Well, that one's a bit funky for a couple of reasons.
First, the Compendium isn't 100% Rifts compatable.
Second, the part you're referring to is under a list of Optional Rules.

But yes, it says:
"The head, neck, eyes, ears, hand, feet and groin are -5 to strike..."

So good find, and I have to amend my earlier statement to the effect that Palladium didn't have any rules for Called Shots against human-sized targets until around the time of the RGMG.
Triax definitely has them, and the Compendium has some.

bravo man it takes real hutzpah to say that

Eh. I admit when I'm (demonstratably) wrong.

But my overall point about the nature of the Called Shot rules stands; the rules weren't meant for that level of precision.
Although they have been adapted that way over time, I don't believe that it's a good fit.

also though as it relates to gunslingers i don't have the book in front of me but i belive its between pg. 94-98 of new west that states that gunslingers can make called shots to small targets without penalties or bonuses

I don't have New West, but I'll try to remember to flip through a copy at the Open House.

[Killer Cyborg]

hey cool im bringing my well used copy to the oh ill see you there me and asajosh should be there be 7-8 friday at the ramada what time will you be getting in?

We're getting to the Ramada sometime tomorrow afternoon, if all goes according to plan.

[The Beast]

Roll strike: natural 20. Borg attempts to parry one pistol (like bat it out of the way) and counter strike with the other hand (yer guess is as good as mine as to his motives here, maybe he thinks he's Keanu Reaves bot). Rolls a 1 for parry and a 3 to counter punch. Not wanting to screw with his 20, slinger just takes punch damage (hes a minor MD being and wears at least some armor at all times).

Uh, why would the borg's roll screw up the natural 20 the other guy rolled to strike with?

[The Beast]

If you can find any cases where some human-sized eyes on a human-sized target are statted out, let me know.
As far as I recall, it's only when the eyes are larger than normal that they become viable (although difficult) targets.

The Modern Weapons book has this IIRC. I can't look it up this year though.

[mellowmaveric]

Every game book is provided as an outline for ideas. You may keep some, modify others and compleetly throw out some. Its all your choice not theirs. If they dont like it then tough noogies. You go with what your comfortable with. Just because its written in a game book dosent mean you have to do it that way. ITS A GUIDE LINE NOT A LAW. People seem to forget this concept.

[The Beast]

Arise. ARISE! ARISE YE DEAD THREAD!!!

[Mouser13]

The GM has the books and rules available to use as guidelines, but they do not make the decisions. It is the GM's call, plain and simple.

I'm fortunate to game with other like-minded military types who are able to take what the GM says, accept it, shut up and play the game.

If your player cannot grasp the divine responsibility that the GM must shoulder, I suggest making him run a game of his own. Then you can give him a taste of his own whiney medicine, and maybe next time he will appreciate you more.

I tried this one doesn't work for me, but that could just be the person. Since he doesn't ever think he wrong even in all other players think he wrong.

[Dog_O_War]

I am a rules-lawyer.
We are seen as arguementative.
We are often given a negative image because the vocal minority do not actually know what they're talking about.
When a rule comes into question, I state the facts, for the good or ill of the group/game. It's only fair to do so.

What I find though is that we often are given this title, "rules lawyer" as a negative intonation because of on-the-spot rulings; arbitrations. These arbitrary calls are often made because the GM does not know the rules of the game himself, and cannot be bothered to look it up.
That this comes into conflict with the game is because people (such as myself) ask to be fore-warned about rules changes and/or house-rules.

I usually ask these two questions about any new games I join; "are we playing by the books?" and "are there any house-rules?" This is my point of no-return that I use to decide if I'm playing or not.

Invariably, rules discrepancies are because the GM renegs mid-play - which is often unfair and unfavorable to the group. With events like this, can you really blame a person for making a stink when things begin to be unfairly changed on them?

That said, the groups I play with have a system; when a rule is called into question, everyone stops play and looks it up (or atleast those who can recall where the ruling is within house-rules notes or the book the rule is in). It takes maybe 5 minutes at most, and the game continues without much (if any) interruption. People do not feel cheated, and if there is a problem of a rules abuse (like a character min/maxed and exploiting a loop-hole constantly) it's dealt with after the session is over.

In summary, I find that it's often (but not always) the GM that breaks the rules he supposedly had the players agree to, without telling them ahead of time. The reason a GM should not do this is because it is power-tripping; note that this does not extend to his NPCs and other creations (for the most part - having an NPC that's "invincible to everything" is a cop-out).

That is my view on the subject.

[Jesterzzn]

I am a rules-lawyer.

Ya think?

[Dog_O_War]

I am a rules-lawyer.

Ya think?

Yeah, I'm not proud of that

[Spinachcat]

I usually ask these two questions about any new games I join; "are we playing by the books?" and "are there any house-rules?" This is my point of no-return that I use to decide if I'm playing or not.

If more rules-lawyers did this, there might be less hatred for them. But after 30 years of gaming, I am no longer amazed how often the "stinky gamer", the "social misfit" and the "rules lawyer" are the same person at the table.

When players ask me about rules, I am always up front that as GM I house-rule on the fly on top of the written houserules to replace chunks of the game text. With me, its all about the creativity, cleverness and boldness of action. Being upfront about this scares away rules-lawyers so everybody wins.

When I make house rules on the fly, I usually lean toward the character's benefit because I run a tough and bloody game so any benefit is good for them. However, I let the players vote if the interpretation can be used against them. AKA, shall we agree that ALL armor piercing missiles do x2 damage and cost x3 as much?

I rarely let books be used during games. I am too concerned about the flow of the action to care what Book 12, Page 189, Paragraph 3 says. Stopping a game session for 5 minutes is never allowed unless its a chow break.

[Noon]

Probably what provokes the rules lawyer is that the game wont just go one, the GM will think he's actually right.

Sure, letting the game go ahead for fun and time reasons makes sense - but then the GM thinking he was proven right, just because you gave in to save time and stuff? It's stupid.

So as a GM, your half of the bargain is to not act like you just proved your stupid theory - because it's quite likely you are wrong, but were acting like your right so we can get on with gaming.

Perhaps it's GM's who think their position somehow makes them actually right (rather than the players treating you as if you were right, simply to keep the game going), that are the problem?

[Killer Cyborg]

There are three reasons why rules lawyers are unpopular:
1. Dishonest Rules Lawyers who only nitpick about rules for their own benefit.
2. Sloppy and lazy GMs and players who don't like getting called on their inconsistencies and mistakes.
3. People who don't understand why rules are important.


The reason why Rules Lawyers are important is because the rules are important.
The rules of a game are an agreed-upon reality, like a contract, that govern in-game interaction.
If the GM doesn't know all the rules, then the game itself gets screwed up, and the story being told gets screwed up.

[GreenGhost]

There are three reasons why rules lawyers are unpopular:
1. Dishonest Rules Lawyers who only nitpick about rules for their own benefit.
2. Sloppy and lazy GMs and players who don't like getting called on their inconsistencies and mistakes.
3. People who don't understand why rules are important.


The reason why Rules Lawyers are important is because the rules are important.
The rules of a game are an agreed-upon reality, like a contract, that govern in-game interaction.
If the GM doesn't know all the rules, then the game itself gets screwed up, and the story being told gets screwed up.

I've had a player that fit under #1 before.

[Vrykolas2k]

Rules lawyers don't bother me in the least, but munchkins do.
Rules lawyers, if they're honest like me, are mostly interested in making sure the game gets run consistently. When I gm, being a rules lawyer, I often let people know how I define ambiguous rules, or which rule I use if two or more are in disagreement for a situation.
When I play, I do occasionally ask if something is a house-rule whether a situation turns out for or against the party, if it breaks a game rule.
Players have a right to know how the game-world works. That's how I treat my players, and it's how I expect to be treatred as well.
So if I tell my players, "Make Cyberpunk 2020 characters", they can expect that we're playing Cyberpunk 2020, not something I wrote myself.
As a for instance.

[Natasha]

ok folks i feel its ok to question the gms logic from time to time but eccesive drawn out 20 minute arguments over rules to the point where the whole group is saying enough already your killing the fun any suggestions on how to stop this crap?

I know what you mean. Meta-gamers are annoying, and rules lawyers = meta-gamers.

It's a contract, in a way, isn't it? Everybody should agree to appropriate behaviour when it starts and reminders of this contract given before it gets out of hand. Some people just can't play games without being meta-gamers, so it might be so that you can't allow the player to play your games.

[Killer Cyborg]

Meta-gamers are annoying, and rules lawyers = meta-gamers.

There's nothing about being a rules lawyer that necessarily makes you a meta-gamer too.

[Natasha]

I'll assume you're correct and just consider myself unfortunate for never having met one that wasn't the other.

[Noon]

I tried this one doesn't work for me, but that could just be the person. Since he doesn't ever think he wrong even in all other players think he wrong.

That doesn't make any sense at all! Indeed I'd say it's deliberately disruptive - just because someone has a big ego doesn't mean they are wrong (unfortunately). And it doesn't mean they are right. It doesn't mean anything - acting as if he's wrong when your only evidence is 'feeling' he's wrong is just disruptive itself.

[Dog_O_War]

I know what you mean. Meta-gamers are annoying, and rules lawyers = meta-gamers.

This statement is wrong, and offensive to myself. Not in a "against the board rules" kinda way, but let me explain.

The rules lay out the guidelines on what a person can and cannot do in a game. I can't just say, "I jump to the moon!" and expect it to work; the rules disallow this because of mechanics, setting, and verisimilitude. If one player says, "I wanna run along the wall, shooting with my two pistols at this guy in the head as I pass by" and the GM allowed this to happen with a "-2 to your attack roll" then that is arbitration (assuming a skill like sense of balance were applied to running along a wall normally).

If I were then to attempt a similar, yet different manuever, such as "I want to run along the wall to avoid the pit", and the GM then made me roll a sense of balance - this is an unfair arbitration. Therefore a reminder is offered about the other situation, and that if their character can do as such, then it is only fair to assume that this character can also do the same.

Another example would be if a character were shooting at a target beyond maximum range, in the dark; most people know that this is quite literally a "shot in the dark", but people don't consider it meta-game for a guy to do so. Anyone can crunch the numbers on this roll - it requires a natural 20 to hit, and that the shooter only has a 5% chance of hitting. This is meta-game for a player to do so; and yet, it's the non-rules-lawyers that attempt this the most (a futile action). They recieve zero flak for this type of action as well, and are often lauded by the group for pulling off that miraculus natch.20.

Meanwhile, the rules-lawyer knows that no sane or clear-thinking person would ever do such a thing, and that doing so is metagaming.

To know the physics of the world isn't meta-game; it's just straight-up game. If the rules-lawyer only attempts things they're certain they'll succeed at (due to the numbers showing a good chance), it's only fair to assume that the character in-game is aware of the situation, and knows his odds are good as well (like knowing you can hit a target at 1000 feet because you've got a scope and a laser-sight).

[Natasha]

That doesn't sound like rules lawyering to me. Perhaps we have different definition of "rules lawyer".

[Killer Cyborg]

That doesn't sound like rules lawyering to me. Perhaps we have different definition of "rules lawyer".

What's your definition?

[Natasha]

I'm not sure how I did it, but I managed to only post a sentence of my post.

The rules lay out the guidelines on what a person can and cannot do in a game. I can't just say, "I jump to the moon!" and expect it to work; the rules disallow this because of mechanics, setting, and verisimilitude.

Actually a character can expect to jump to the moon.

Therefore a reminder is offered about the other situation, and that if their character can do as such, then it is only fair to assume that this character can also do the same.

That doesn't sound like rules lawyering to me. Perhaps we have different definition of "rules lawyer".

This is meta-game for a player to do so; and yet, it's the non-rules-lawyers that attempt this the most (a futile action). They recieve zero flak for this type of action as well, and are often lauded by the group for pulling off that miraculus natch.20.

Impossible to say if this player isn't rules lawyering or not. Only the player knows and it's not uncommon for generally honest people to be dishonest time from time.

He could be rules lawyering, however. Rules lawyers not only argue the rules, but also exploit the rules to their maximum benefit - don't metagamers do the same thing?

The likelihood of this being rules lawyer depends entirely on the character being played. An impulsive or terrified character is likely to shoot in the dark. If the character is likely to behave one way and doesn't, the player is suspect.

I also know it's difficult not to screen meta-knowledge when choosing your character's actions all the time.

[The Beast]

Meta-gaming = using knowledge that you're PC has no reasonable expectation of having (i.e: encountering a species that has a limited vulnerability for the first time and using only said weaknesses despite not having made a successful Lore check and/or gather information on the species). Meta-gaming tends to include stats on monsters, NPC's, weapons, mecha units, and the like ("I know War takes full damage from regular weapons!").

From the Cyberpunk Referee's Guide:

Rules-lawyer = someone who studies the rulebook to a RPG for the sole purpose of finding a "loophole" in the mechanics that he can expose and abuse. The Rules-lawyer feels completely safe in his exploitation of loopholes, because (as he will be quick to point out) "I'm only following the rules in the book." If you prevent him from using his loophole trick, he will usually attempt to gather a player "lynch mob" by constantly complaining about his thwarted efforts. The Rules-lawyer loves to debate, so be careful.

[Killer Cyborg]

Meta-gaming = using knowledge that you're PC has no reasonable expectation of having (i.e: encountering a species that has a limited vulnerability for the first time and using only said weaknesses despite not having made a successful Lore check and/or gather information on the species). Meta-gaming tends to include stats on monsters, NPC's, weapons, mecha units, and the like ("I know War takes full damage from regular weapons!").

From the Cyberpunk Referee's Guide:

Rules-lawyer = someone who studies the rulebook to a RPG for the sole purpose of finding a "loophole" in the mechanics that he can expose and abuse. The Rules-lawyer feels completely safe in his exploitation of loopholes, because (as he will be quick to point out) "I'm only following the rules in the book." If you prevent him from using his loophole trick, he will usually attempt to gather a player "lynch mob" by constantly complaining about his thwarted efforts. The Rules-lawyer loves to debate, so be careful.

I think that's a biased definition.
It's like defining "lawyer" as "Somebody who studies the law for the sole purpose of finding loopholes that he can expose and abuse."

A lawyer is somebody who knows the law and (theoretically) works with it.
A rules lawyer is somebody who knows the rules of the game, and works with them.

[Jesterzzn]

Well its not like rules lawyer was meant as a title gained by years of study and a demonstration of mastery over the rules. It was a pejorative, and the Cyberpunk definition reflects that.

True, not everyone looks at rules lawyers the same, but the overwhelming pile of lawyer jokes that get passed around should be a pretty clear indicator of the probable origin (and certainly the most common use) of the term "rules lawyer."

[Killer Cyborg]

Well its not like rules lawyer was meant as a title gained by years of study and a demonstration of mastery over the rules.

It should be.

It was a pejorative, and the Cyberpunk definition reflects that.

Which, as I said, is a biased definition.

True, not everyone looks at rules lawyers the same, but the overwhelming pile of lawyer jokes that get passed around should be a pretty clear indicator of the probable origin (and certainly the most common use) of the term "rules lawyer."

Everybody hates lawyers, but that doesn't mean that lawyers only study law for their own benefit.
One of the reasons I've seen people hate rules lawyers is because they sometimes stick to the rules (or argue about them) even when the party suffers for the accuracy.

To me, "rules lawyer" has always just meant what it says: the person is a "lawyer" about the rules.

[Jesterzzn]

Well, I don't think rules lawyer is a term I would apply to someone that stuck to the rules even when it adversely effected them. To me that's just playing the game...by the rules.

I think that the term is best used when it describes someone who uses their expansive knowlege of a games mechanics to gain for themselves or the group maximum advantage. Sometimes that means creative interpratations of the rules. They look at the rules the same way that a lawyer does the law, meaning from the "clients" perspective. You hire a lawyer to get you out of (or maybe keep you out of) trouble with the law, and they will exploit the wording of the law to its fullest to gain you the maximum advantage that they can. So too do rules lawyers, as I term them. They not only know the rules, they use the rules to attempt to gain fullest advantage, and that sometimes means throwing all mannor of questionable interpretations at a GM and seeing if they stick.

How far they are willing to go and how much they are willing to hold things up in order to "win" their case varies. Not all of them are *****, and not all of them are slime balls, and not all of them pout when things go the other way. But enough of them are to make most people/players view them in a negative context.

[The Beast]

Well, I don't think rules lawyer is a term I would apply to someone that stuck to the rules even when it adversely effected them. To me that's just playing the game...by the rules.

I think that the term is best used when it describes someone who uses their expansive knowlege of a games mechanics to gain for themselves or the group maximum advantage. Sometimes that means creative interpratations of the rules. They look at the rules the same way that a lawyer does the law, meaning from the "clients" perspective. You hire a lawyer to get you out of (or maybe keep you out of) trouble with the law, and they will exploit the wording of the law to its fullest to gain you the maximum advantage that they can. So too do rules lawyers, as I term them. They not only know the rules, they use the rules to attempt to gain fullest advantage, and that sometimes means throwing all mannor of questionable interpretations at a GM and seeing if they stick.

How far they are willing to go and how much they are willing to hold things up in order to "win" their case varies. Not all of them are *****, and not all of them are slime balls, and not all of them pout when things go the other way. But enough of them are to make most people/players view them in a negative context.

Seconded.