Getting into SR4 after being away from Shadowrun has brought me a whole new influx of suppositions about game systems. One thing I have noticed with Shadowrun in contrast to Pathfinder is the lower level of definition. Definition, as I use it here, refers to game mechanics. A game system with high definition defines game mechanics with completeness when referring to "if you want to do this, this is how it works, and this is how it resolves". A game system with lower definition will not define all of the scenario rules, and in some cases will openly state that it is not defined or it is left up to the GM/players to figure out. Shadowrun clearly has lower definition that Pathfinder, as the "left up to the GM" idea is all throughout the rule system.
At first, I chalked this up to heritage. Pathfinder, after all, is based on D&D 3.5 that goes back several decades. Shadowrun is newer and less developed through play than D&D, simply because it is played less than D&D. Does this mean that more mature games will have greater definition?
However, there is a second possible explanation: Shadowrun is less defined by design. After all, leaving things open gives each GM and each gaming group there own ability to customize things they want and spin the rules the way they want. It also gives the GM more power, since he or she can customize things to make the story flow. This is openly stated in the SR4 system several times: never let the story be entirely driven by the dice.
The second point I think is relevant is that even experienced players and GMs don't always play by the rules. I'm not talking about house rules and customizations, though certainly those are a common element in most games. What I'm referring to is forgotten or unenforced rules. In every case,when I see an experienced player matched with an experienced GM/ group, there is always within a few sessions, a rule that pops up that one side or the other either hadn't heard of or wasn't enforcing because they had forgotten about it. This week alone I saw two of those instances. The new Pathfinder player pointed out that opponents are flat-footed until they act in initiative order. I had only been enforcing that when surprise was in play. Whoops. Also, when playing Shadowrun this week, our experienced player didn't seem to know about the dropping a dice rule for each new roll in extended tests or the previous version of the roll which limited the number of rolls to the number of dice in the dice pool.
So really, is anyone playing by the rules as written in these large rule set RPGs? And if they aren't, why are we writing all these rules down? I briefly mentioned this before, that the rules form a contract between the players and the GM. If you twist the rules too far, the players feel betrayed, because the rules didn't apply, and cheated, because their character didn't get to shine during the moment they thought they should. In cases of a forgotten or unenforced rule, having the rule written down in the rule set gives it validity. From the GM perspective, if someone calls you on a rule as written, and you claim you are following the rules as written, you have an obligation to follow the rule. You also have an obligation to ALWAYS follow the rules. After all, selective enforcement of a rules is just another form of cheating. But without the well-defined rule, the GM can do what makes sense in the scenario, balancing fairness and story.
So looking now at Shadowrun and having understood some of the perspective of our more experienced player, I can see that Shadowrun is not about evening the playing field and establishing a balance between the character strengths and the obstacles in their path like Pathfinder. Instead Shadowrun is about defining lots of interesting options to build interesting characters, and then giving the GM enough room to always be able to build challenging scenarios for a great story. In these contexts, it simple makes sense that Pathfinder is more defined than Shadowrun.
At first, I chalked this up to heritage. Pathfinder, after all, is based on D&D 3.5 that goes back several decades. Shadowrun is newer and less developed through play than D&D, simply because it is played less than D&D. Does this mean that more mature games will have greater definition?
However, there is a second possible explanation: Shadowrun is less defined by design. After all, leaving things open gives each GM and each gaming group there own ability to customize things they want and spin the rules the way they want. It also gives the GM more power, since he or she can customize things to make the story flow. This is openly stated in the SR4 system several times: never let the story be entirely driven by the dice.
The second point I think is relevant is that even experienced players and GMs don't always play by the rules. I'm not talking about house rules and customizations, though certainly those are a common element in most games. What I'm referring to is forgotten or unenforced rules. In every case,when I see an experienced player matched with an experienced GM/ group, there is always within a few sessions, a rule that pops up that one side or the other either hadn't heard of or wasn't enforcing because they had forgotten about it. This week alone I saw two of those instances. The new Pathfinder player pointed out that opponents are flat-footed until they act in initiative order. I had only been enforcing that when surprise was in play. Whoops. Also, when playing Shadowrun this week, our experienced player didn't seem to know about the dropping a dice rule for each new roll in extended tests or the previous version of the roll which limited the number of rolls to the number of dice in the dice pool.
So really, is anyone playing by the rules as written in these large rule set RPGs? And if they aren't, why are we writing all these rules down? I briefly mentioned this before, that the rules form a contract between the players and the GM. If you twist the rules too far, the players feel betrayed, because the rules didn't apply, and cheated, because their character didn't get to shine during the moment they thought they should. In cases of a forgotten or unenforced rule, having the rule written down in the rule set gives it validity. From the GM perspective, if someone calls you on a rule as written, and you claim you are following the rules as written, you have an obligation to follow the rule. You also have an obligation to ALWAYS follow the rules. After all, selective enforcement of a rules is just another form of cheating. But without the well-defined rule, the GM can do what makes sense in the scenario, balancing fairness and story.
So looking now at Shadowrun and having understood some of the perspective of our more experienced player, I can see that Shadowrun is not about evening the playing field and establishing a balance between the character strengths and the obstacles in their path like Pathfinder. Instead Shadowrun is about defining lots of interesting options to build interesting characters, and then giving the GM enough room to always be able to build challenging scenarios for a great story. In these contexts, it simple makes sense that Pathfinder is more defined than Shadowrun.
Comments
Post a Comment