Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ What's Good For the Goose...?
Posted by: Anythingforenoughnuyen Jan 14 2006, 05:49 AM
I have a question about how other groups handle player requests for their characters that are either non-cannon, or pseudo-canonical at best. By way of background as to how this particular question has arisen in our group:
In one of my games I had an total sexploitation based NPC who was an adept assassin that followed a totem (Cobra) based path. She had mastered a unique metamagic which allowed her to use the critter power Confusion when she danced, which was the basis of how she operated in combat (as I said, a total sexploitation based character). I got the idea for this power/NPC in a total muchkin moment when I was reading through the totems and got to Horse, which grants its followers the ability to learn the critter power movement as a metamagic technique.
Now I am in the situation where I have players who want to have similar rule-bending elements for their PCs. We don't have any players in our group who generally ask for things for their PCs that don't make since, the standard is for things to line up pretty well with the character concept/backstory-so I don't get a lot of the outrageous you only want this because you think it is cool even though it makes no sense for your character at all, type of requests.
Being as this sort of question, how close to cannon the PCs must remain must be something that a lot of groups have to deal with, I was wondering, how do you come down on the question?
Thanks in advance for any of you who take the time to respond.
Anythingforenoughnuyen.
Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Jan 14 2006, 06:08 AM
So, how unusual is it? On a scale from "different visible effects of the armor spell" to "complete non-magical immunity to lead" about where does this rule-bend fit?
Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Jan 14 2006, 06:11 AM
My 2 
, I'd say that if it makes sense for the character , make them work for it, but otherwise, why not? If a character can summon a spirit to use a power, why not let the character have the power? If you're worried about game balance, tweak the power a bit, or give it drain to balance it. Just make sure that it fits with the character, and it doens't get out of hand, like everyonewanting a unique metamagic poiwer. Then it becomes a superhero's game.
Posted by: nick012000 Jan 14 2006, 06:16 AM
Or, given the general tone of Shadowrun, a Supervillians game. 
Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Jan 14 2006, 06:25 AM
the villians were always cooler anyways. Really, who wanted to be a GI Joe hoser or autobot, when you could be a 'Cobra' or Deceptacon!? Bumblebee's a loser anyways. 
Posted by: nick012000 Jan 14 2006, 06:42 AM
Besides which, the overly complex plans? So Shadowrun. 
Posted by: toturi Jan 14 2006, 01:14 PM
| QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0) |
| the villians were always cooler anyways. Really, who wanted to be a GI Joe hoser or autobot, when you could be a 'Cobra' or Deceptacon!? Bumblebee's a loser anyways. |
But Grimlock kick butt!
Posted by: Mr.Platinum Jan 14 2006, 02:17 PM
In my games all my Players have to make Canon characters or get out!
Posted by: Nyxll Jan 14 2006, 02:53 PM
This is why we make house rules. There are many things in Cannon which are limited or we just do not like, so we make house rules to tailor the game to enhance our gameplay.
In my games, if there is something that will not overpower the gameplay, and really adds colour to the character I will let it stand. (I usually have some kind of flaw or drawback that goes with it for balance, although many times other players in the group have no idea about the negatives, and get a bit jealous at times till they find out more)
Posted by: toturi Jan 14 2006, 02:58 PM
| QUOTE (Mr.Platinum) |
| In my games all my Players have to make Canon characters or get out! |
In order not to have players asking for non-canon stuff, my (as a GM) NPCs are all canon too.
Posted by: Mr.Platinum Jan 14 2006, 04:00 PM
| QUOTE (toturi) | ||
In order not to have players asking for non-canon stuff, my (as a GM) NPCs are all canon too. |
Agreed, god i must be a Tyrant of a GM in my players cyber eyes.
god i'm such a shadowrun nerd.
Posted by: The Stainless Steel Rat Jan 14 2006, 04:30 PM
I am usually fairly flexible, but I have the advantage of exclusivity, meaning my players don't take their characters to some other GM's table and try to convince them to let them get away with the same shenanigans that I do.
I try not to let the rule raping run rampant, but if I think something will add to the story or flavor of the game then I'll usually let it slide.
Posted by: Dawnshadow Jan 14 2006, 04:39 PM
If you're going to add minor things to NPCs that are non-canon, then you should allow similar for PCs -- up to a point.
Half the fun of Shadowrun is that you are the little guy, compared to the opposition.
Posted by: Nyxll Jan 14 2006, 04:46 PM
| QUOTE (Dawnshadow) |
| If you're going to add minor things to NPCs that are non-canon, then you should allow similar for PCs -- up to a point. Half the fun of Shadowrun is that you are the little guy, compared to the opposition. |
Some things are done just for effect. Every GM at times fudges dice for "cinematic value" some times stats and abilities are massaged in the same manner. I do not do that to frustrate players but to add colour and memerable moments to the game.
Posted by: Aku Jan 14 2006, 08:23 PM
i think that if it's a technique available to multiple NPCs, than it should be avaialable to PCs as well, If its only one NPC however, than you can safely say that they "discovered" the technique or whatever, and not make it available to PCs, atleast, not without a price...
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 14 2006, 08:59 PM
I do not make everything I make available to my NPCs available to my PCs. This is canon—Otaku abilities before Brainscan, Insect Totems, Path of the Righ, etc. etc etc.
That said, I (with one exception) generally approve non-canon things for PCs if I want to make them allowable to anyone in the future.
~J
Posted by: eidolon Jan 14 2006, 09:42 PM
| QUOTE (Nyxll) |
| Every GM at times fudges dice for "cinematic value" some times stats and abilities are massaged in the same manner. |
I DON'T! Fudging is CHEATING!!11!!one If you fudge roll's, you're SO playing the game wrong.
Posted by: Nyxll Jan 15 2006, 12:25 AM
| QUOTE (eidolon) | ||
I DON'T! Fudging is CHEATING!!11!!one If you fudge roll's, you're SO playing the game wrong. |
It is not called cheating when you are the GM. >>>insert maniacle laughter<<<
but seriously, there are sometimes when you are trying to scale npc's to the team's level, rather than A. have them completely obliterate a team just because the GM put down some wrong stats, or B. need to offer some challenge so that the NPC's are not just walking targets.
Posted by: Pendaric Jan 15 2006, 12:46 AM
My stance is that every Ref automatic answer to "please give me question" is NO!
If the player can jump through Ref's stringent hoops of credibility and consistency, I might downgrade to Maybe.
That being said, there are grey areas that beg to be explored, all it requires is a little subtly.
And a excessively sized, crude length of deciduous forest. 
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 15 2006, 01:52 AM
| QUOTE (eidolon) | ||
I DON'T! Fudging is CHEATING!!11!!one If you fudge roll's, you're SO playing the game wrong. |
You use sarcasm, but you're entirely correct. If you don't enforce the rules as agreed by the group, you remove the ability of players to anticipate the consequences of actions.
~J
Posted by: Glyph Jan 15 2006, 06:08 AM
I agree. The dice are there to provide a fixed measurement of concepts such as skill or toughness, as well as add a truly random element to the game. I understand that sometimes GMs need to adjust things on the fly, but shy away from messing with dice rolls. If the PCs are having a rough time, then it's their own fault if their characters don't run away. If they are having too easy of a time, just let them. You can always make the opposition tougher next time. There is a fine line between "adding cinematic value" and railroading.
On allowing things equally for both PCs and NPCs, I would say that NPCs cover a wider range than the PCs do, from squatters and wage slaves up to dragons and immortal elves. So at the higher end, there are a few things, such as Path of the Righ, that are out of the reach of PCs, at least starting ones. You can also limit them from abilities that are either an exclusive discovery of one NPC, or limited to a secretive group of NPCs. However, if NPCs with special, non-canon abilities are fairly common, then it is only fair to allow PCs the same opportunity if they want something special for their character.
Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Jan 15 2006, 07:47 AM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| That said, I (with one exception) generally approve non-canon things for PCs if I want to make them allowable to anyone in the future. ~J |
out of curiosity, what's your exception?
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 15 2006, 08:32 AM
| QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0 @ Jan 15 2006, 02:47 AM) |
| out of curiosity, what's your exception? |
I once approved a Highlander-style Immortal using Bull's rules for a player who was having a hard time making and keeping a character that was both interesting to them and effective in the group. I did this despite having no intention of ever allowing another one.
~J
Posted by: RunnerPaul Jan 15 2006, 09:43 AM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| I once approved a Highlander-style Immortal using Bull's rules for a player who was having a hard time making and keeping a character that was both interesting to them and effective in the group. I did this despite having no intention of ever allowing another one. |
Well, after all, There Can Be Only One.
Posted by: toturi Jan 15 2006, 11:53 AM
| QUOTE (RunnerPaul @ Jan 15 2006, 05:43 PM) | ||
Well, after all, There Can Be Only One. |
Posted by: tisoz Jan 15 2006, 03:08 PM
| QUOTE (toturi) | ||||
|
Ditto!
Back on topic...
The biggest perk for me for GMing is being able to play the characters that are not available to players as PCs, and easy access to unavailable gear, or all the other canon stuff off limit to PCs. I see little reason to invent "super powers" or gadgets. If I did, the players should have the same leeway.
I have had players want to develop new stuff. This desire shaped the direction the game went as they carried out their plan. Since they introduced the new thing to that games universe, I let it trickle down to the rest of the inhabitants of that universe.
The described metamagic power of allowing confusion to be used by the NPC during melee seems quite powerful at first glance. After all, TN modifiers are huge in melee. But the NPC is evidently a shaman of some sort (totem) so could have a spirit with the power on standby with the command to confuse everyone the character fights. So IMO, the GM kind of got too cute in describing how the confusion power goes into effect.
Should this allow the PC to design a similar power? Maybe, as long as the outcome is as simple to duplicate as this example.
Posted by: Mr.Platinum Jan 15 2006, 03:49 PM
When players are aloud to create powers or tech it can sometimes ruins a game.
In one of my first groups, i had a fellow player have an adept abilaty that when ever a picture would be taken , it was blurry, people could never remebered him or anything , it was just a major unbalance and the GM at the time never used his abilaty as a bad thing.
It was RETARDED like the drop bear thread.
Posted by: nezumi Jan 15 2006, 05:07 PM
| QUOTE (Mr.Platinum) |
| It was RETARDED like the drop bear thread. |
[quote dictionary.com]
re·tard1 Audio pronunciation of "retarded" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-tärd)
v. re·tard·ed, re·tard·ing, re·tards v. tr.
To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede.
[/quote]
You are correct, our progress has been... less than satisfactory at times. But we make up for it with determination.
As for the topic at hand... I don't think the power itself is completely overpowering. Let the character buy it, but I would recommend setting the price and drain high, and try to give it in steps. Make the first, minor ability available (confusion power adds a modifier to everyone else, perhaps), then, if that works well enough, make the next level available.
My biggest concern as a GM is always that it'll unbalance the game. Unfortunately, it's sometimes difficult to tell how unbalancing it'll be, and taking stuff back is never fun for players or GMs. If you give it in piecemeal, it'll let you test it and limit it without too much trouble. If you've given him an underpowered ability that he paid too much for, I doubt he'll complain if you upgrade it later. The same can't be said for downgrades.
Posted by: hyzmarca Jan 16 2006, 04:36 AM
What is good for the NPC is good for the PC if and only if it doesn't disrupt the balance of the game. It is perfectly alright to give NPCs gamebreaking powers up to a point. It just forces the PCs to find a different way to fight them or a way not to fight them at all.
When you give a gamebreaking power to a PC, however, it messes everything up. The players will be less likely to plan and more likely to fall back on the same superpower over and over. Meanwhile, players who don't benefit from these powers will be plotting way to kill the Mary Sue.
When aproving any power there are two major questions that you have to ask. Does this power provide a significant advantage to the PC or is it just good for flavor? If the answer is the former then then you should seriously consider denying it. If it is the latter there is no reason not to allow it.
If this power mimics something that is already available to canon PCs is it better or less costly than the canon version? If so, you should deny it. Let them gain the ability to same way to other PCs have to. On the other hand, if it is more costly or less useful than the canon version, then you may consider allowing it.
I find that instead of letting players create PCs with unique powers it is better to let them create NPCs with unique powers. All too often players and GMs ignore PC enemies when they can really be a great source of Threat NPCs.
Consdier the Hunted flaw. Some uncreative players put down Hunted 6 : Ares and suffer instant death from orbital cow, prompting some GMs to simply ban the flaw.
On the other hand, a creative player could choose Hunted 6: Lemming Death God
and then write an intricite backstory on a homosexual academic mage from the Atlantis Foundation who became obsessed with lemmings and followed them off a cliff into the ocean and discovered an artifact which transformed him into a regenerating demigod with the ability to induce SUGE effects in others at will. The player could go on to explain how this magician turned demigod kidnapped and sexually tortured his hetrosexual character as part of a ritual to grant him ultimate power and that he still needs the PC to complete the ritual. This would give a GM a great Threat NPC as well as an excuse to throw armies of bizarros at the PCs.
And when players create their own superpowered Threats they have the same emotional investment that the NPC that they do with superpowered PCs, only that investment is directed toward the Threats downfall rather than a PC's success. (Of course, there are exceptions. Some players make characters with th intent that they die at the hands of their enemies.)
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 16 2006, 04:54 AM
| QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Jan 15 2006, 11:36 PM) |
| When aproving any power there are two major questions that you have to ask. Does this power provide a significant advantage to the PC or is it just good for flavor? If the answer is the former then then you should seriously consider denying it. If it is the latter there is no reason not to allow it. |
How about "it creates flavour that goes against the flavour I want in my game"?
| QUOTE |
| On the other hand, a creative player could choose Hunted 6: Lemming Death God and then write an intricite backstory on a homosexual academic mage from the Atlantis Foundation who became obsessed with lemmings and followed them off a cliff into the ocean and discovered an artifact which transformed him into a regenerating demigod with the ability to induce SUGE effects in others at will. The player could go on to explain how this magician turned demigod kidnapped and sexually tortured his hetrosexual character as part of a ritual to grant him ultimate power and that he still needs the PC to complete the ritual. This would give a GM a great Threat NPC as well as an excuse to throw armies of bizarros at the PCs. |
You've been reading too much Immoral Angel.
~J
Posted by: hyzmarca Jan 16 2006, 04:59 AM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) | ||
How about "it creates flavour that goes against the flavour I want in my game"? |
That goes without saying.
| QUOTE | ||
You've been reading too much Immoral Angel. |
Guilty.
Posted by: Apathy Jan 16 2006, 10:39 PM
Hmmm, confusion metamagic geas'd to sexually explicit dancing.
Plenty of ways that this wouldn't have to be overpowered.
- Erotic Dancing metamagic is an exclusive action.
- Test is an opposed Charisma vs Will
- Limit max TN modifier to (Charisma+Dance skill+Initiate Lvl)/3
- Only works on those in visual range.
- Works on both friends and foes in visual range (i.e. cant be targeted)
- Visual modifiers subtracted from resistance test TN.
- 1/2 highest armor value of performer (Impact/Ballistic) subtracted from resistance test TN.
- Tactile range adds 3 to resistance TN.
- Apply exhaustion rules as per carrying heavy load
- Resist drain each turn of (number of turns danced)L
Done this way, I wouldn't even make it that expensive...
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 16 2006, 10:52 PM
| QUOTE (Apathy) |
Plenty of ways that this wouldn't have to be overpowered.
|
Overpowered in combat. In melee, this would be a crushing effect.
| QUOTE |
|
To match the Charisma bonus of an Elf, you need to be an Albino Dwarf. To match a Dryad, you must be an Albino Gnome.
| QUOTE |
|
This could be assumed.
| QUOTE |
|
Now we're getting somewhere.
| QUOTE |
|
What about FFBA/Second Skin line?
~J
Posted by: Dawnshadow Jan 17 2006, 12:56 AM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) | ||
Overpowered in combat. In melee, this would be a crushing effect. |
I have to make the comment that in melee.. if you're taking an exclusive complex action to apply confusion, I would be laughing.
Really. The instant that happens, I'd be attacking all out. Every die possible, and some karma thrown in to boot. You can't defend, can't go full defence, can't do anything but try and soak the hits. There'll be fewer of them, proportionate to the penalty, but it's still a case of soaking only.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 17 2006, 12:59 AM
Exclusive means you can't perform any other magical action. You can defend and hammer them into the ground when they're rolling against 10s and you're looking for 4s.
~J
Posted by: Dawnshadow Jan 17 2006, 02:08 AM
...erm.. Drat. You're right.
I forgot that it's only a house rule that some exclusive actions aren't magical and that some you can't do ANYTHING but the action. Canon doesn't have the limit, so you can still do things like dodge and fight back while trying to pick a lock..
Posted by: hyzmarca Jan 17 2006, 03:10 AM
How about making the act of sustaining the dance a complex action. That way, one can't just apply the penality and then attack. If the dancer stops dancing then the TN modifiers instantly go away. The dance is still usefull for a member of a team but far less so for an individual who simply can't do anything that isn't a free action while performing it.
Posted by: Mr.Platinum Jan 17 2006, 12:29 PM
Exotic danncing or Stripping is a good way for an adept to use that nifty power of enhanced preformance in SOta 64.
Posted by: nick012000 Jan 17 2006, 01:41 PM
Or maybe she was a Leshy, and she dyed her hair.
Posted by: Critias Jan 17 2006, 03:10 PM
Or a cross-dressing Leshy/Sasquatch cross-breed ork-poser Technomancer!
Posted by: nick012000 Jan 18 2006, 01:54 AM
I was being perfectly serious when I said that.
Posted by: emo samurai Jan 18 2006, 11:04 PM
Judging from his other comments, he might have known perfectly well that it was serious.
Posted by: Grinder Jan 18 2006, 11:24 PM
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| Or a cross-dressing Leshy/Sasquatch cross-breed ork-poser Technomancer! |
You forgot albino shapeshifting vampiric. And lesbian .
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)