Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 29 2010, 03:44 PM

Forgive me while I ramble a little bit.

Shadowrun at it's core has always been a game about three worlds for me. There is the physical, the matrix, and the magical. When all three worlds are not given their opportunity to shine and are not meshed properly over the course of the scenario I don't think the setting is done justice. The unfortunate truth is Missions haven't always lived up to that ideal. By the very structure their theoretically beatable with any table that shows up to play them, including and especially the pregens. I don't much care of this as it doesn't make sense for the opposition to stop using maglocks because you don't have a hacker, they don't stop using watcher spirits because you don't have a mage. Since the upcoming campaign deals with the move back to Seattle where the shadow community is about as populous and well connected as they can get I think the option exists to both make missions more complex and make certain that no table is completely without capability regardless of makeup.

What I propose is missions introduces a cast of NPC that could be the outsource for a variet of roles. THey could either use LT or Goon templates from the corebook, or the pregen archietypes. Ideally though what I propose, and would be willing to work on is building 350 point specialist for this purpose. These NPC's could be hired at reasonable rates, say 1000 X TR to perform specific tasks for one scene or mission. Ideally the write ups would also contain personality and background to allow the GM to play them. Favors from NPC's could also be used to waive the fee on their services.

Along similar lines I'd really like to see, and would be willing to submit. Some standard NPC templating above and beyond what's represented in the core book. Things like a Johnson's security detail (including mage with counterspelling). Basically squads that module writers and GM's could just plug and play as needed rather then having to improvise or re-invent the wheel everytime. KE tactical response forces and Docwagon HTRT are another example. Module writers would have the option of using or not using these templates as the story dictates and GM's would have a quick grab response for when players run things off the rails

Thoughts?

Posted by: Wasabi Jul 29 2010, 04:06 PM

If a large enough library of NPC's could be written then we might see more characters with contacts when Seattle rolls out which would be cool. With the temporary nature of a con game contacts dont seem to be more than either handwavium or maybe a surrogate dicepool for a Data Search, etc, where they could be so much more.

Posted by: TranKirsaKali Jul 29 2010, 04:22 PM

I really like this idea. It would greatly help new GM's out there that are trying to run. It would help low experienced Commando's that are running at conventions. And yes, it would help the players. Especially in the contacts area.

Posted by: DireRadiant Jul 29 2010, 04:53 PM

Mary Sue

Posted by: Wasabi Jul 29 2010, 04:54 PM

Is Mary Sue a relation to Claudia Tyger?

Posted by: SaintHax Jul 29 2010, 05:07 PM

Mary Sue is an author's pet character-- see Belle/Edward in Twillight for reference. Assuming that's what was meant, if so... then yes to the Tyger

I like this idea, and hope that SRM produces contact/hirling templates and allows GM's to award contacts based on this. Currently the "if they aren't in the adventure appendix, you don't get them as contacts" really sucks. In addition, it has the Char 1 ork with almost as many contacts as the Face at veteran status.

Posted by: DireRadiant Jul 29 2010, 05:52 PM

Hmm...

How about Favors? Use well known handles, make sure it's statless, and make them consumables. Use a similar format to the contacts that are handed out, nice picture, a little blurb, and "Fastjack owes you one favor" valid for one mission.

It;s really a variation on the nerps cards that were handed out the past couple years, but could be built more into the base missions.

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 29 2010, 06:33 PM

I'm honestly missing the context to what your saying.

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 29 2010, 06:37 PM

Addendum
Personally I despise statless hand waves, especially the uber powerful. Fastjack/Hatchetman/Ryan Mercury fixes it sort. We could use a simplified mechanic rather then a full on NPC stat block but I honestly think that actually having the characters capabilities listed will be best. Further at 350 build points the runners won't be getting out done.

Posted by: CollateralDynamo Jul 29 2010, 09:39 PM

The idea has merit. But lets say you are an average group running an average table rating, say 3. So you pay your 3 grand to your NPC hacker contact (no small chunk of change really). Then lets say that the contact that has been written up is incapable of hacking the system you want him to hack, even with TR bonus dice to do his job he tries to hack in, fails, starts the alarm and makes everything worse. Now the players are out cash and have had their situation made worse through something that is entirely no fault of their own. The PCs just got royally hosed.

If you are going to hire an NPC to get a critical part of the job done, you can't let the dice fall where they may with that NPC. If the players are forced to have many of their chips riding on their NPC arcane back-up and he botches a roll that gets actual PCs killed...well that doesn't seem very fun. In short I kind of think NPCs would be better as "this one type of test succeeds" aka "handwaivum" as opposed to a "here, pay this money, take this huge risk, and maybe things will be ok" aka "cold hard stats".

I suppose a compromise could be made, "you can pay x to get this newbie hacker, he isn't great, but he's cheap. Or you could pay 2x for this guy who is pretty good...he'll probably handle your issues. Or i mean...we could cash in a favor and call Dodger for 5x...." Where the first two guys are statted out and the last one is "you payed a bunch of money and used a limited resource, you get to pass that test" sort of situation.

Posted by: SaintHax Jul 29 2010, 11:22 PM

I'll add I hate the idea of PC's even being able to contact Dodger or someone of his caliber. I do like this general idea as another way to make Street Cred pay off too.

As for the above quote, an NPC dice roll is akin to you buying a new piece of hardware. It's a tool, and if your sniper botches a roll, it's "not fault of his". SR is designed to be a game of chance, and I don't see why this ought to not be. In addition, we are talking about something that only should happen if the PC's don't have someone to fill this roll. They should not be able to drag a Green hacker along to a TR5+ run and pay Dodger to get them through the parts they lack.

In addition-- any pay data a hirling finds, ought to be his and not the parties. If nothing else, it simplifies things.

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 30 2010, 01:17 PM

The fault of their own is not being capable of fighting or hacking themselves, we're getting very fixated on the hacking portion here but it is quite possible that you'd want to subcontract other duties, street doc/first aid, specialized science or chemistry skills, magical defense etc. The point is every test in the game is dependant on the "dice falling as they may" why would when an NPC performs the action would this function any different?

Further there is the pay issue. Just to throw out what I think should be the standard: Lets say the standard pay for an SR mission is TR x 2,000 per person. A NPC performing a role at TR x 1,000 is a bargain. I think that sits about right.



Actually i think all this is exactly reasonable within the context of the game world and game system. Ideally the players at least will be aware of the NPC's capabilities so they can make a judgement call on whether to involve them or find another path. Personally I don't believe a team lacking in Hacking or Combat support should be doing TR 4+ anyway so there's not too much sympathy there.



Errr even Dodger and Fastjack fail hacks or run into trouble on occasion, I don't understand why you believe they would be mechanically beyond failure. On the combat side of the house would you propose folks should be able to hire Picador and her mercenary company to deal with all combat related checks auto-magically?

Posted by: noonesshowmonkey Jul 30 2010, 04:24 PM

I think that Missions could seriously benefit from persistent NPCs.

I have been setting up a Sand Box SR4, similar to what is going on with the http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=32218 thread in Welcome to the Shadows. One of the first things that I did was create a list of thirty or so NPCs that come from all walks of life that would be a persistent, common contact pool. Players are encouraged to pick 30-70% of their contacts from this list. New NPCs on a character sheet are written up and added to the list.

These contacts are included with expanded Factions rules and a few new mechanics that penalize and reward various levels of Notoriety, Street Cred etc.

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 30 2010, 04:47 PM

I use a similar system in my own game, this is actually something that might be worth exploring further but will require signifigant buy in by bull.

Posted by: DireRadiant Jul 30 2010, 04:48 PM

One of my favorite and most useful resources for a long time champions game I ran was the a book with about 30 NPC of all types to provide a consistent set of "normal" characters with history and background to interact with the superhero teams whenever I needed.

Posted by: Bull Jul 30 2010, 05:23 PM

1) There's nothing preventing you from hiring an NPC in your games. You just have to work it out and negotiate it with the GM.

2) If you notice the teaser for Season 4, we list several characters in it. These will be major NPCs and COntacts, and I'm planning to have a tiughter roster of contacts and NPCs this year.

3) Having hard "rules" for hiring NPCs would be nice, but I want to avoid making too many special case rules for Missions. That's something better left up to the GM, IMO. Maybe offer up a suggestion or two when I revise the FAQ, but... <shrug> Simpler is better.

4) you should never need to hire an NPC unless you're running really short on players, in which case you have more problems than just teh lack of a support role. Missions are written so that there's a path to find solutions for any character type... There should never be a Mission that requires a hacker or a mage to bypass a scene.

Bull

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 30 2010, 05:49 PM

Is there any particular reason for this rule other then it's the way it's always been? I mean it's not like the system I'm proposing changes things and further I can think of a lot of missions where if you don't have the right combat answer at the table your pretty much SOL, why is there a seperate allowance for technical or magical support never being required. Why must we dumb the setting down to combat simulation. WHy are we going by this guideline.

Posted by: Bull Jul 30 2010, 07:27 PM

Dumbing down has nothing to do with it. Covering the bases so that any group that shows up to the table can handle the adventure. The adventure has to be playable by 6 CyberBrick Trolls with Uncouth if necessary. The game has to be playable and has to be fun for whatever random mix of characters you have sit down at the table. Period.

If I showed up to a D&D game with my Fighter, and 5 other players showed up with ROgues and Fighters. And we run into a magic shield that the only way past is a mage, and we can't do anything else except fail the adventure because of that... I would get up and walk away, and probably demand my money back.

I would expect no less from a Shadowrun player who showed up and couldn't complete the adventure because we forced a matrix scene in there. Or a magic scene.

The players must have fun. Any player. That should be our #1 rule.

Posted by: Chance359 Jul 30 2010, 08:03 PM

Any missions should be playable with whatever group shows up at low TR. Once you get to 5 or 6, you'd better hope you've got a decent mix of abilities or you're probably gonna get your ass handed to you. But then at TR 6 you outta know what you're getting into.

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 30 2010, 08:28 PM

What your saying and what's happening are two vastly different things, and honestly they are very different from my read on the setting. What your statement is saying to me is the missions need to be built for any player to have fun, so long as they are playing some flavor of physical combat monkey. You are saying that the only make or break tests that will ever be involved in SRM are going to involve combat. With due respect and difference that isn't being fair to the setting and isn't giving the players enough credit.




Bull I would think you of all people wouldn't need to hear this but lets not compare SR to DnD one way or another. It's an apples to oranges comparison at best and an disservice to both games at worst. So your saying because no one at your table is magically powered in say Greyhawk that there stops being mages or things that can't be killed by swords? That's literally your requirement for everyone to have fun?

I'll give you a further example. If you have an all mage/adept/techno team show up for Humanitarian Aide they are dead. TPK! Because they didn't bring enough combat potential to the table. I'd like to say this is an aberration but it's really not. I'm not saying that there arn't some things that only violence will solve but to say that those kind of situations are just fine but a locked room behind a security system is taboo is just odd and is dumbing things down from one perspective. Even if we do include magical and technical opposition in most cases a hacker or mage isn't your only option, but it is your cleanest option.



Based on past performance that rule is "Any player playing a combat character".

Posted by: Bull Jul 30 2010, 08:52 PM

I didn't say that combat should be the only option. I said that it should always be one of several options.

Pure and simple, combat is SHadowruns default setting, like it or not. ALmost every character in SR can handle combat to some degree.

My point, however, was that every game should have a solution that follows several paths: Magic, Matrix, and Physical. There should never be a point in the game that hinges on having any one archtype. If the only way to get a piece of information is by hacking a system, the adventure has to give you an option if there's no hacker, or it's completely unplayable by Missions standards. THis can be as simple as giving the players a One Time Use, Only Works On That System can opener program, but it has to be there. The same goes for something magical... If you have to have a mage to banish a spirit or counterspell a ritual and there's no way else to handle the situation, it's broken.

Conversely, if the entire outcome of your adventure requires combat, you have to give the players a way to handle the situation without combat. You've read CMP-02 Copycat Killer, which I wrote. This is, I feel, a good example of things.

Is every option going to be obvious? No. We want the players to have fun, but we're not necessarily holding their hands.

Is every option going to be the best way to handle things? Again, no. If you can stealth your way past something, it's safer and easier. If you can shut down surveillance, there's less chance the cops get involved. Combat means danger, and means death, and could easily mean noterity hits. But, combat is also usually the most direct way to solve a problem. And almost every character carries a gun.

<shrug>

Bull

Posted by: Chance359 Jul 30 2010, 09:34 PM

This that in mind, I'd suggest that future missions be written with 4 paths in mind, Combat, Magic, Matrix, and Social. I've mention in a mission specific thread about what happened in with my players in "Ready Set, Gogh", where combat, magical, and matrix sections for the museum were all laid out, but there was nothing about some administrator you could bribe or intimidate into helping you.

Posted by: Bull Jul 30 2010, 11:27 PM

Chance: Sometimes, you need a GM that thinks outside the box. We try and cover all situations, but yeah... Not everything's always going to be included. Especially not for every scene. But it is definitely something writers should be thinking about...

Posted by: Caine Hazen Jul 30 2010, 11:29 PM

That's odd... considering we had no combat whatsoever when we played this mission. Zilch... Our face slept with one of the heads of security (the mage) which eliminated that problem, and in the end we rigged up their own drones and stun gassed the guards right as we were leaving. Hell if the final stealth rolls ahd been better we wouldn't have had to do that. Good team, most of the run was social in nature.

Lurker.. you on the other hand are all butthurt about no one listening to you in the Missions group proper... nice way to go out on a limb here and start you own little bit on DS to rile people up. Be glad I'm not in charge of missions, your ass would have been pruned off the list as of today. Your constant whining, wheedling, and wrangling attitude have done nothing to improve Missions at all; instead it highlights your inablility to be creative as a GM and writer. The problem I see is you crack open a mission about 10 minutes before you're supposed to run it, and instead of doing a full read, looking over the NPCs, assigning motives you might think are missing, and laying out at least 3 ways out of every conflict (2 of which are usually written for you); you just want to dive right and and do it.

It boils down to this... never in my time playing or running Missions have I ever met someone who needed an adventure to hold his hand as much as you. My suggestion is to take some time and consider if you're fit to GM; or wether you need to take some more time to play and learn how to overcome these little problems.

Posted by: Chance359 Jul 30 2010, 11:53 PM

And this is when a semi constructive thread gets locked.

Posted by: Chance359 Jul 31 2010, 01:41 AM

Since I've actually sat at Lurker's tables, I can say that he does know the mods well enough to keep his players having fun and get us through the story. Almost sounds like you've got something personal to get off your chest, care to share with the class?

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 31 2010, 03:54 AM

Ok so obviously I take some issue with CH's personal attacks and assertions. In tthe in the spirit of keeping things both on topic and civil I'll ask folks table that a moment. I'll also start a seperate thread for discussion about fudamental ways missions are structured. Let's shift back to a discussion of a contact roster either in the interests of sweetening Bull's opinion on the matter or a fun community project to have some contacts in common.

Posted by: Bull Jul 31 2010, 03:31 PM

*sigh*

Posted by: Redjack Aug 1 2010, 12:05 PM

When my teams are short of talent, they either improvise or subcontract. There have been hackers on retainer, gangers paid off for a physical diversion and even contacts slept with to sleaze into information or access.

New contacts are obviously broken in Missions, especially when you go to the book and read Loyalty 1:
Hell, the guy you buy your coffee from every morning is a loyalty 1; His connection rating of 1 may not make him worth the effort to you. My point is 1/1 contacts abound. (Which brings me to another peeve: a 1/1 contact being treated as a 4/4 contact simply because its on the sheet.)

My point is: I agree with the initial assertion, sometimes you need a subcontractor and Missions needs a definite overhaul in the handling and management of contacts.

Posted by: KnightRunner Aug 1 2010, 10:22 PM

I wonder about a more formalized system that gives contacts a dice pool and a list of skills/actions that they can perform for the PC.

Let me elaborate as an example. I am making a Character and want a contact. I consult the campaigns list of skills/services that can be assigned to a contact. Each skill/service (let's call the category for sake of this example.)has a list of actions related to that skill that can be performed by that contact. So I pick two of those skills. (Because that is what these theoretical rules allow) and assign them to my contact. I know pay for a connection rating. The connection rating determines the Contacts dicepool for performing tasks and the loyalty rating determines the fee.


So I wind up with a contact, let's call him Bob. For Bob I chose the First Aid category which allows him to be used for the following actions.
- Use the First Aid skill
- Supply the PC with Medication, and related equipment, as well as provide knowledge of both.
Bob also has the Dealer category. (Its a "supplemental" income!) So he has a few other uses.
- Supply illegal drugs
- Knowledge of the local drug trafficking scene
Now Bob has quite the following So I pay for a Connection Rating 3 which gives him a decent dicepool, but I pay for a Loyalty 1. After all, I barely know him.


So there it is, thrown against the wall, anything sticking?

Posted by: Wasabi Aug 1 2010, 11:19 PM

I dont think I've ever had a SRM GM not willing to let a Street Doc contact do street doc sorts of things for me. I dont think codifying it by action is really needed. It might be nice if a Street Doc contact had a blurb like:

"Street Doc contacts are generally familiar with things related to medical organizations, people in the medical community, drugs, current events in medicine, and can usually patch up both characters and critters."

As well as this blurb in an overview of the SRM contacts system:

"When a character contacts a contact roll a d6. If the D6 is above the connection rating they are either unavailable, lack the ability to perform the task or due to some circumstance are unable to help the character. The time and cost to help the character is modified by Loyalty."

Then have a chart for Loyalty. A Loyalty 6 contact would do stuff for free while a loyalty 1 contact would charge full price but do it quickly. Inbetween would need to be fleshed out.

Posted by: Bull Aug 1 2010, 11:58 PM

Like I said above, theres no real need for any of these to be done up as rules, beyond whats already in SR4A. Half of it's common sense. The other half is a GM doing his job.

Bull

Posted by: Wasabi Aug 2 2010, 12:01 AM

I myself like the idea of expanded blurbs on them though... it gives new players an expectation and puts it in friendly GM-discretionary terms.

Posted by: Bull Aug 2 2010, 02:21 AM

I don't plan to chance the contacts as they currently are handled, as I like the system. I'd like to see fewer overall contacts, and to see these contacts more involved in the stories this year, so that's tentatively the plan.

That said, I would like to see a little more detail on the areas of expertise for the contact, but... Again, at the end of the day, it's a GMs call. Just because MacCallister the Fixer is a Contact you were earned in Missions, and Mr. Greene the fixer is a contact you bought with BP as your own personal fixer, there's no reason the Missions COntact would be more (or less) limited than the one you paid BP for. They're both still Fixers.

But for some of the more esoteric contacts... Like, what exactly can Joe Martin, NewsNet Reporter do for you? And what areas can the lizardish changeling Lin Yao Chuang, Lung's eyes and ears in Seattle, get for you? These are things that need to be defined a lot of times.

Bull

Posted by: suoq Aug 2 2010, 05:16 PM

I'm sorry, I can't reconcile these two statements. The intelligence gathering characters frequently can't handle combat. That's not their job. For them combat is NOT the default setting for Shadowrun. Their setting is avoiding combat through stealth, con, back doors, and being smarter than their opposition.

Now, either these characters are not suitable for missions because missions requires combat (i.e. the first quote isn't true) or they are suitable for missions and therefore combat isn't the default setting, combat is simply another option.

There are faces not built for combat (Heck, neither the face nor the Occult Investigator in the sample characters should ever get close to combat). There are riggers who serve as getaway drivers and focus on Stormclouds and flyspys. There are hackers who do the recon and edit the appointment schedule to get people in and avoid ICE as much as possible. These are the people who work in the shadows. They're the ones who specialize in not getting caught, not leaving a trail, and not making headlines because Mr. Johnson doesn't want to attract attention.

I understand that combat is a setting for Shadowrun, but if it's the default setting for missions then missions is being written for certain character types, not any character types.

Posted by: Bull Aug 2 2010, 06:08 PM

Lets not over-analyze everything I say.

First off, I said "Almost every character". ALmost is an important qualifier, because it means that there are some character that this doesn't apply to.

But overall, combat skills are easy to obtain, guns are dirt cheap. YOu can make a face with zero combat skills, but it's rare. I would be confident of laying money on a bet that 99% of Shadowrun characters out there have at least a mediocre combat capability.

But, as I said, most adventures, tehre are ways around everything. I'm just pointing out that combat is always an option, and always has to be an option. Key word here is "option".

And every now and then, combat is mandatory. But one of the tactics in combat is "Run away and hide". I will never have a scenario in a Missions game where the runners are forced into a stand up, straight out fight to the death as the only viable path.

Posted by: Bull Aug 2 2010, 06:18 PM

Hedre we go, lets tweak this to talk about something else. Same principles, different example.

Most people (at least in the US) are assumed to have a drivers license and a car. Larger cities are designed assuming that most people have cars, will drive them, and will use the roads they gave you. That's the default.

But, knowing that while most people have a car, there are those that do not, or cannot legally drive. So there are alternate routes made available. Subways, Bus lines, sideways, bike paths, etc.

Tweaking your quotes a bit gives us this...

They're not irreconcilable, they're just talking about two different aspects of the same thing.

Bull

Posted by: Noah Bennett Aug 2 2010, 07:32 PM

Oh, how I miss living in cities with a superb public transportation system...

Posted by: suoq Aug 4 2010, 01:03 PM

One thing that worries me with Rent a Goon and Missions would be the issue of the goon being trustworthy.

Renting one in missions seems like you're getting a trustworthy goon, mainly because I wouldn't expect the module to take that ability into account when it's being written.

Renting one at a home game is a completely different thing because it gives the GM even more opportunity to complicate things.

Heck, all the runners have sold out (see Affiliations), why should the Goon be loyal. Shouldn't he be calling his affiliation(s)?

Posted by: TranKirsaKali Aug 6 2010, 04:18 PM

Ok I am not able to quote everyone I wanted to so I just won't quote anyone.

I want to address the you must be able to do combat thing that so many people have been saying. For the most part, in every mission I have run in, combat has been minimal if not non existent. I have played in groups of extreme skill and groups so green that it almost hurt. In every scenario we have tried to go and do the job as quietly and stealthily as possible. Someone mentioned Ready Set Gough. In that one if shots were fired it wasn't until the third scene. I am actually having a hard time remembering any real gun/spell slinging combat in the missions. There are always multiple paths through the missions.

Now as to the NPC library. Bull I like this idea for several reasons. One it helps speed things along for the GM's and players at conventions. We only have four hours to run the mission. And I know I like to get it done a little early so we can buy stuff with a GM present. Also, for people that are new to running a table, it would make it easier for them to facilitate things. It would help encourage people like me to try and run a game or three. I can probably be creative with the mission it's self but having a stock of NPC's for me to help the players with would be nice. And it would be nice for the player to be able to say to the next GM " I have interacted with XYZ and she liked us, can we get help from them again?"

I would even be willing to create some of these NPC's to help out. I think there may be others here that would as well. I was thinking of this as more of a cheat sheet than a bail out. Heck RobertB and I ran Take out Service just the 2 of us. I am a wolf shaman and he is a rigger. And we did the mission with out hiring extra help. It was an interesting run. So yes, there are more than one path to doing a mission.

And that I think ends my rambling for now