Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Talia Invierno Nov 7 2003, 10:14 PM

Not so very long ago, Polaris mentioned that because PCs were never going to be able to affect the major NPC Players (and thus risk the FASA/Wizkids überplot), the Shadowrun universe was fundamentally nihilistic. Within an average runner’s lifespan, the major megacorporations may as well be eternal monoliths. The important background Players will always have Ultimate ratings and thus will succeed at all things, while the runner is handicapped by the precise opposite. In an environment where any real competition is viewed with suspicion, it is most likely that any PC who has developed sufficiently to pose a potential threat will also be the first to be targetted by one or more of those megacorporations or Ultimate NPCs before that threat can become immediate and real. The nail that sticks out is the first one to be hammered down.

For a campaign to thrive, it is vital, I think, for the players to feel that their PCs can in fact influence their social and political environments. At the same time, our own world rarely seems to acknowledge each and every individual action – little fish, big pond – and it would seem unrealistic to assume that the Shadowrun universe is any different in this respect.

How to resolve this apparent contradiction?

In order to be able to influence, the players should first care what becomes of their PCs. This usually implies an equal caring for what becomes of the PCs’ social environment: contacts, friends, family, even belief structure. I’ll assume here that the GM has already co-examined with the players what their PCs find important and is willing to weave it into the plot structure, and I’ll assume that the players are equally willing to allow such “hooks” into their characters. (Not all will agree with the desirability, let alone the necessity, of such hooks. To these I'd ask only one question: what's the point of the PC's existence beyond basic survival?)

While all actions do have effects, the degree and sphere of a PC’s effective influence grows with that PC’s power: a series of concentric circles. Even as a larger stone thrown with greater skill will leave far more ripples in a pond than a small stone which may well sink apparently without trace: the more powerful the PC and the greater the action, the vaster will be its visible effects on the Shadowrun universe. As the PCs grow beyond the scope of a small, local “pond”, NPCs important to the PCs can be used to draw the team into ever larger “ponds”. Perhaps an unknown NPC in an adventure can be replaced with someone familiar? or a new group contact draw the group into a wider circle? Perhaps some incidental paydata turns out to lead to something far more profoundly far-reaching than the original run which “serendipitously” acquired it? Perhaps you've destroyed the local Hellmouth (but there's another one in Cleveland)?

Some groups may choose not to venture beyond their own, familiar pond. For these groups, better to become highly influential within a tighter, familiar social environment that has immediate personal relevance than to perpetually seek the chance of influence on a wider, but less personal, scale. It’s a perfectly valid choice. The important thing is that the players are potentially able to effect visible results within the social environment they have chosen.

Where a campaign continues to grow in its sweep, however: I suggest that it is essential to grant the PCs visible results of their actions on a (slowly! but) ever-increasing scale. In this last case, if frustration of action is not to eventually cycle the group into passivity and/or violence for its own sake, I suggest that eventually the players must have the option to escape the shadow of the überplot. Without that potential, any actively growing campaign must eventually hit the glass ceiling of canon, an unyielding barrier against which all the PCs’ best efforts cannot but be thwarted, their utmost come to naught … for the canon überplot cannot be changed. And at this point, that timeline covers a considerably wider range than the lifetime of the average runner.

It’s fatalism at its finest. Within such an environment, would not a player be justified in thinking: “Why care?”

Posted by: nezumi Nov 7 2003, 11:04 PM

[hrm... this comes off as rambling.. hope you can get something useful from it : ) ]

Something to keep in mind is this was developed based on the Cyberpunk genre, and the core ideas of the cyberpunk genre were 'corporations are god' and 'it won't make a difference'. Thats the runner's great dilemna, while they are freelancers who don't have to work for the system and can make a difference, the truth is they do work for the difference and are largely disposable. When the ideas arose in stories they were exciting because they related more to peoples' fears of being totally owned by the corporations they worked for or hated. In a big way, the question does come down to 'why care', and that in itself is perhaps something to build a campaign around. Why should your character not kill himself? What can he find to keep himself going? For many players your contradiction isn't an issue because the challenges are inherently internal (ooh.. good for roleplaying!)

Obviously, this makes for a very depressing game. I would certainly say let the characters make small differences at realistic goals. It might take a year to close down that Ares plant polluting the sound, but its possible. But why do the characters even care about Harlequin jauntying around, doing his elfy stuff? It's out of their league and that's how life is. If you let the characters change the plot over the entire universe, as they grow they will eventually feel equal to those things they compete against and the game has ended. So I don't see why there shouldn't always be some things which are simply undoable and some tough goals which are certainly achievable. Where you draw the line depends a lot on your players and the mood of the game. Go ahead and let your characters reach epic levels, they do it in the Other Game. For me, after reading plenty of cyberpunk, I put that line pretty low for a long time. Thats why the game is described as gritty, because all in all, its depressing and life sucks, and for some people that's good.

Posted by: BitBasher Nov 7 2003, 11:05 PM

I think there is no contradiction.

The ability to affect their world and the ability to affect the world are entirely different things.

The players can have a profound effect on their own existance, and the NPC's around them, via their actions and motives. That has not a damn thing to do with the metaplot as a whole not altering the fundamental world itself, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

You didn't cause a series of events that caused Hussein to fall, yet that does not make the event any less significant to the world. To that end I don't understand the mentality that players need to impact anything metaplot related. There are millions of world changing events in the world right now, and it's unlikely that you are involved in any of them.

The PC's are just players in a world. What should matter are the things that matter to them, their hopes and dreams and desires. Their pain and anguish, feats and triumphs. Their lives should mean something because it means somehting to them, not because of some false comic book sense of heroics. There should be an emotional attachment to the character and their ordeals and lives instead of some artifical uberplot that solely exists to move a story forward.

I don't believe there is a "glass ceiling of canon" I think that using canon storylines as a method to propel a campain forward is a crutch for GM's that cannot create a compelling world and life story for each of the characters in their game. I don't think that canon world events need to have any place in the game except something to read in a newspaper.

I think their sucesses should be their sucesses and not the uberplots. Their failures should be their failures and not the uberplots. The only time a player should say "Why Care" is because they were placed onto a path that was already finished before they started. Predestined. By not even starting that route the PC's never end unfulfilled. The best way to avoid walking down the path of damnation is to look at the map and not go that way in the first place.

They would be apathetic because the GM chose to put them down a path they were not willing to violate, by choosing to make the party direct players in the metaplot. Instead of leading a campaign the GM has chosen to follow one, and be lead down a road which shackles them.

The preceeding has been an excerpt from:
"GMing and ZEN: Shadowrun Philosophy"
-By BitBasher.

Posted by: mybrainhurts Nov 7 2003, 11:07 PM

Just because the big uberplot cannot be changed doesn't nessicarily mean that the chartacters actions are pointless or that they have no reason to exist.
I mean, how many of us truly believe we are going to massively change the world, probably not many, but most of us keep on living anyway, going to do whatever we do with our lives. even though we may not significantly impact the world, we still make an impact in a smaller circle, which is still significant to us as to make us care, whether this impact is having a spouse and children, or whatever. Similarly, even if you decided that the metaplot couldn't be changed, the characters would still have purpose on a smaller level.

However i don't see any reason why the characters couldn't affect the metaplot, it would just be fragging hard to do, I mean, dodger, captain chaos, damien knight and so on are very, very good at what they do. If a character could grow powerful enough, get a strong enough rep and sphere of influence, and work to achieve what they have done, they could do it, it would just be incrediblyh difficult and unlikely for them to get that far.

Posted by: nezumi Nov 7 2003, 11:08 PM

Um.. yeah, I like what BitBasher said better. Pretend I said that.

Posted by: Siege Nov 7 2003, 11:52 PM

I'm sorry Tal -- I really enjoy your posts, but when you start quoting Polaris...well...

The uber-plots are interesting to read and a GM will determine how much of the uber-plot affects his/her players and vice versa.

A GM could have players on the scale of an IE or Dunkie if they really wanted to -- they could play CEOs of mega-million corps. Or they could be one of the faceless minions in the shadows when the star walks by.

Either view is completely possible. Hell, I'm a reasonably bright person and I can buy a hunting rifle with a scope. Want to lay odds I might be able to alter the course of current events?

The twit that tried to assassinate Reagan and ended up spawning the Brady Bill changed current events, although perhaps not the way in which he intended.

Is the game nihilistic? Not as much as it could be. It's certainly not as bad as Cthulhu or Cyberpunk, but nor is it the rpg equivelant of Neopets.

-Siege

Edit: fixed typo/edit

Posted by: bwdemon Nov 7 2003, 11:54 PM

This depends a lot on the players.

Some players want an arms race, with progressively bigger damage and progressively more important opponents. If they aren't facing and defeating something bigger and better than what they faced last week, they aren't happy.

Other players don't mind a mix of success and failure. They look for more of a television series feel to the game, with each season presenting new and interesting challenges without making everything bigger and better than it was yesterday.

Still other players don't like success at all. Life is grim and even when they're doing good, they want to feel like things are only getting worse.

Personally, I'm in the second group. My characters' goals are never things like "take down Ares Macrotechnology" or "kill all dragons". Neither, to me, is even remotely realistic or possible over the course of a game for a single character or even a runner team. Those things are bigger and better than any single character could hope to take on. That's an essential part of the SR feel, IMHO.

To be fair, I also feel that each person is entitled to their own opinion and gaming style. So long as the players and GM can work out a game, I'm just happy that people are playing SR. The important thing is knowing what you and others want out of the game you're all in.

Posted by: Crusher Bob Nov 8 2003, 04:09 AM

I'll have to point out that many of the 'classic' cyberpunk books, {b]do[/b] have the characters changing the world. IIRC in Neuromancer and Hardwired, major corporations fall. In Johnny Zed, the government is overthrown. The books that follow up When Gravity Fails (forget the names) have the main character becoming a rather important 'political figure'. Snowcrash has the characters saving the world (more or less). Personally, I've always found meta-plots to be pretty bad ideas, since they will almost certainly not match up with any groups playing style. I much prefer the method present in In Nomine, where several potential plot threads are thrown out in the books, but it’s left up for the GM to actually do anything with them.

Posted by: Bira Nov 8 2003, 04:34 AM

I find the notion that the metaplot cannot be changed rather curious. You don't have to be a slave to the metaplot just because you buy the books. In fact, your gaming life might improve a lot if you don't inexorably tie yourself to the designs of the Company .

There's no problem at all in running a game where the characters actually do have a chance of stopping the Horror Invasion without help from any dragon or IE, or one where they actually manage to geek Damien Knight, or to shake the pillars of heaven in a number of other amusing ways. They don't even have to be 300-karma monsters regularly chucking 40 dice for everything in order to do it.

Altering the world is very cyberpunk, or at least very punk. Your world won't stop being gritty or shadowy just because your runners did something that altered it.

Posted by: Crimsondude 2.0 Nov 8 2003, 05:01 AM

I can't believe for a second anyone can follow the metaplot exactly. That is, unless you're writing it.

I also think Talia's initial comment on uber-PCs is a bit off. I've seen great uber-PCs exist and play in challenging games, but I also think that no one would rationally want to target a freelancer of such magnitude. I think it's perfectly reasonable that different corps will try to do everything they can to keep them on their side, but if I had access to a freelance, deniable asset that I had reason to believe would be of more use to me dead than alive--which in general such a pure merc would be--then the last thing I'd want to do is kill them out of spite. Blackmail them. Use their hits against you as leverage for you. Use their service to know how to protect yourself against them and their ilk. But short of them sodomizing the board of directors, they're better off alive and under control than dead and useless. Of course, if they have an agenda then they'll have institutional enemies who would go after them regardless. Likewise with all of the other personal/professional enemies they created to get where they are.

By that rationale, why is Fastjack--or any other canon Prime Runner--still alive after all these years?

I think the metaplot's nice to have. But I prefer the fact that there's enough omissions in the metaplot to drive an earth-shattering event through with nary a hint of reference or influence on the metaplot. And if the metaplot gets in the way, well--too bad for them. It's not like the Gaming Police are going to bust down the door and stomp on your neck for having the temerity to run YOUR game.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Nov 8 2003, 05:25 AM

I preface the following statement with the warning that I am a great fan of Nietzsche, and tend to have viewpoints similar to those he professed.

Honestly, the runners can't do a thing, they can't make a bloody fragging bit of difference unless they get really lucky (they're the team in Harlequin's Back, or the one in Brainscan (less so this one), or the team in SotF or similar). They're drops in the bucket, and the bucket is floating in the ocean.
They are nothing. NOTHING. Zip. Zero. Nada.
You know what? So are you. So am I. "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair." Runners just have to face it more directly because they work day-to-day in a profession that exists only because corporations need people they don't care about, need people who can die for all they care.
The job of the player and the character is to come to terms with this, the fact that they will not make a difference in history, and in all likelihood will never even make a difference in the short term. Then, recognizing that, they live their lives knowing that their lives have no meaning that they do not bring to it, and that even that meaning is artificial. They know, and they don't care.
Shadowrun is about the Ãœbermensche, not the sheep in their cubicles and offices believing that they're doing something that matters, but the people who have realized that in the end it doesn't matter and have chosen to live anyway.

~J

Posted by: Crimsondude 2.0 Nov 8 2003, 07:14 AM

What the hell?

I'm sure idealism runs rampant in the shadows. I take that back. I know it.

All of the best runners I have seen and played are the complete opposite of your description. They have a purpose, and their existence matters because they matter to someone or something, and vice versa. Their place in the universe isn't exactly of paramount importance. To be honest, I doubt any of them really thought about it. Their world is affected by them because it is small enough to mean a damn to them, or to others. In my case, my characters have all ended up rejecting completely the premise that life is meaningless and all this nihilistic bullshit. Some began with the search in mind, others began where you describe and were dragged into rejecting that idea kicking and screaming (In one case, almost literally). Otherwise, life sucks because the meaninglessness eventually wears on them, or has, and they grow up. As far as they're concerned, they matter in their own little corner of existence. Their family, friends, teammates, hopes, dream, fears all matter to them. They can change the world because they can affect their surroundings, and more importantly, their perceptions. Just because it doesn't command millions doesn't mean that, to them, they don't matter.

From the player perspective, this is utter lunacy. Why bother playing if there's no purpose behind the creation of a character and the formation of that character's own little world. If the character's existence is meaningless then why play? I can think of better forms of mental masturbation that require less effort and time. My characters have meaning. It's impossible for me to think of creating a character in this context that doesn't involve ripping this preconception apart in the character's mind and my own. From the character perspective, it's virtually impossible to conceive within the frame of their existing sphere of influence.

This hasn't always been explicit to me, but it is in the context of memory and perspective. And I have thought about this in probably the same way as you are describing. And then I rejected it, because, frankly, it SUCKS. It left me cold and distant from everyone. It made my gaming suck, too, because what's the point of playing a character and going on X run? However, it also did help produce the best writing I've ever done as a result. I had a character whose whole life was just completely screwed. He lost everything, including the one person whose life gave any meaning to his. He existed, but only technically. And he eventually went on runs, going through the motions but not actually caring about whether he lived or died except in an instant survival instinct. But his current (once-former) teammate just gave up on him and walked out in the middle of a conversation because he wasn't going to let this guy drag him down. His teammate had no hesitation in accepting a meaning in his life. As far as he was concerned, his life had meaning--and he had others whose lives meant something to him. And he couldn't continue to deal with this zombie who used to be a friend. He effectively succumbed to this nihilistic ideal, even at the expense of someone who actually wanted to help him. He ended up killing her, and it wasn't until he was killed, being chased down like a dog, that it finally dawned on him that his life did mean something--to them, and to himself. He just didn't want to admit it. It was all a matter of perspective, and, well, a matter of faith.

I also think it's either arrogant or ignorant, or probably both, to effectively claim that it's foreclosed that an action will be meaningless. But what I do and will do definitely affects people and matters to them--and that's all that really matters to me.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Nov 8 2003, 07:19 AM

Exactly. What you do doesn't mean anything in any absolute sense; you will not create greater good for the universe.
But that's ok, because you've got your own meaning.
I happen to think that, in the words of a friend of mine, Nietzsche was a pretty upbeat guy.

~J

Posted by: Adarael Nov 8 2003, 09:13 AM

I'm with Crimsondude on this, 100%. The best runners in the best games, in my experience, are the ones who realize that what they are doing is not moving and shaking the very foundations of the earth. In the words of Rorchach, "We do not do these things because they are right. We do these things because we are compelled to." Regardless of what eventual outcomes they might have, they are trying.

They said men could not move faster than 30 miles per hour. They said we couldn't leave the earth. They said we'd never fly through the air. If it weren't for people trying, despite what they 'knew' they couldn't do, we wouldn't be able to do these things today.

But... In a mundane game sense... The metaplot is only as static as you let it be; the 'unchangeable things' are only as unchangeable as your GM makes it. The power structure is only as static as it's made to be. In my current game, these are the things we've done so far:

-Kidnapped one of Lucien Cross's personal bodyguards, thumbed our nose at CatCo multiple times, and not only lived to tell about it - but apparently fascinated the head of the Seraphim. Even though that's the sort of fascination you're better off without.
-Blackmailed Sherman Huang into not blaming us for killing Inazo Aneki (re: Brainscan) by use of some hefty material links we lifted from him, as well as informing him of this on his personal computer.
-Attacked (but not killed - fought to a stalemate and then ran away from) one of the heads of the Ordo Maximus
-Killed Blackwing. Stunbolt. Killing hands fist to the back of the neck. Two Extra Explosive Heavy Pistol rounds in the face, to make sure he stayed dead. Contemplated stealing his cyberware for resale.
-Stolen an assload of money from Lofwyr. Well, one of his banks, but when you steal several million from his bank, it's sort of personal. Then lived to tell the tale by 'packratting' a bunch of very valuable information back to him. Granted, we did have to do a job for him after the fact, but I think SK's been the employer for like the past 3 or 4 big runs we've done.
-Foiled a doublecross set-up on ourselves done by either someone on the Council of Princes or a megacorp at large. (Framing us, as Saeder Krupp operatives, to damage Lofwyr's credibility.)

These are all things that an 'average' shadowrunner wouldn't live to tell of after the fact. I think it's entirely possible to interact with the metaplot and not get swept under it, unable to change it. It's just that so much of the stuff happens on such a massive scale, any shadowrunner who's dealing with it better have a decent number of the following traits:

-Being very good at what they do - a given.
-The willingness to go the extra mile, to go beyond what others would. If this means bloodshed, so be it, but I would consider this more like 'Okay, so our options are suicide or 99% suicide. 99% suicide it is."
-Consummate paranoia.
-The willingness to drop everything and walk at a moment's notice.
-Wiles above and beyond the average shadowrunner - subtlety is key.
-Backup plans within backup plans within backup plans. For *everything*.
-While not neccessarily a 'side', someone who thinks they're useful to keep around. Catch the eye of someone important. Maybe not super-important, but important enough.
-The ability to deal absolutely ruthlessly the moment anything gets wierd - but don't have a penchant for actually doing so unless it's unavoidable.
And, lastly: The desire to fight for what you believe in, *regardless* of the pay. How many shadowrunners can honestly say they've done runs for free, because they believed in what they were doing? Very, very few.

To quote D&D, sadly enough: 'The metaplot is a tool, not a straightjacket.' Think of how many possible splinter runs are created by the shaking of that metaplot - that's the real advantage to it. Runners get to be involved in the changing of the world as they know it. Like in the Corp War suppliment. Runners can look at the shadowfiles about certain holdings disappearing/getting destroyed/being stolen and say, "Yeah, see that? That was ME."

Posted by: Squire Nov 8 2003, 11:37 AM

Talia, I completely see your point.

However, I do not feel that it is impossible for PC's to effect their environment in important ways without violating canon.

I have two points to support my view:

ONE:
While it would violate canon for the PCs to bring down Aztechnology or Ares, they can still enjoy victories over Aztechnology or Ares. They can bring down some of the major players in Aztechnology (like nailing a few of the Gestalt). Sure, Aztechnology will replace them, and the horrors will not go away no matter how many times you thwart their plans. But there are victories that are important, had the PCs in Harliquin's Back failed the world would have been destroyed. There is an endless supply of world saving battles to be fought with the horrors that wouldn't violate canon.

Players can thwart all kinds of evil plots from all kinds of players both major and minor. Players can bring down evil AA magacorps or other groups. This can have a major effect on the campaign world without butting heads with canon.

Examples:
1. A rogue mage is in league with a horror. He spends years working on it and eventually manages to summon a single horror into the 6ths world. The PCs fight an epic battle and defeat the horror, thus saving the city from a terrible fate.

2. A group of blood mages make a pact with the horrors for power in exchange for building a new bridge to replace the one destroyed in the Dragon Heart Saga. The blood mages conduct ritual blood magic sacrafices on a massive scale in order to raise background count and start a new bridge. If they succeed, the world end. Fortunately the players thwart them.

3. Evil Manufacturing Corporation has constructed a new factory in Seattle. Unfortunately E.M.C. is a AA magacorp (not on the corporate council, but still pretty damn big and still extraterritorial). E.M.C.'s new plant is producing something new that creates a massively toxic byproduct previously unknown. E.M.C. has been dumping the massively toxic waste into the Pudget Sound because it's the cheapest way to get rid of it and because no one knows about the new byproduct (no one has seen it before) so no one is checking for it. Fortunately, the PCs discover this and gather enough evidence to get the plant shut down, thus saving Seattle from becoming a toxic zone.

4. An Eco-Terrorist Toxic Group has decided that Seattle is a bastion for polluting corporations and that Seattle's destruction is the best thing for Mother Earth. To that end the Toxic's have obtained enough weapons grade plutonium to construct a nuclear bomb and have planted it in Seattle. Their plan is to detonate the bomb and destroy Seattle for the greater good of Mother Earth. Fortunately the PCs learn of their plot and thwart their plans, thus saving Seattle from destruction and the entire North-West from the fall-out and radiation.

All of those things can occur without anyone (besides the PCs) ever knowing they occurred, and without coming close to butting heads with canon.

TWO:
As several other's have said, players can effect the lives of individuals with every run. A day's work for a Shadowrunner can completely alter the course of the lives of a number of individuals (for better or worse). That may not really effect society as a whole, but it sure as hell matters to the individuals effected.

Consider the corporate mid-level manager who hires runners to free his daughter from corporate kidnappers, holding the daughter in order to force the manager to submit to an extraction. The PCs free the girl and reuinite her with daddy. The PCs haven't changed the world, but they sure as hell have changed the lives of the daughter and daddy. As far as the girl and daddy are concerned, they've saved their world.

Posted by: Nath Nov 8 2003, 12:05 PM

I think the whole purpose of Threats and Threats 2 books was to provide "überplots" to be driven as you wishes. Some of them like Lofwyr, Mr. Darke, Saito, the New Revolution and Art Dankwalther effectively fall in the 'untouchable' category because they're reused or would have too big consequences. But most of the other only made very limited appearance in the canon since. Halberstam joined MCT, the Ordo Maximus gave Fuchi Cybermantic knowledge ? No big deal for a campaign.

Of course, I've also seen people complaining that the Threats never get a follow-up...

Posted by: Munchkinslayer Nov 8 2003, 09:42 PM

Maybe I should up my zoloft dosage, but isn't cyberpunk supposed to be kinda nihilistic? Yeah, SR is a cyberpunk/fantasy mix. And fantasy is all about the little hobbit taking on the all-powerful dark lord and winning. So I'm not saying the PC should always get screwed. But getting screwed and being an ineffective little turd in the great big toilet is cyberpunk for ya. realisticly a gun-toting serial killer (which technically defines your average sammie) shouldn't be able to topple a monolithic corp. Reality is another cornerstone of the cyberpunk genre, right?

Posted by: Diesel Nov 8 2003, 09:55 PM

You've got my vote Munchkinslayer. Unless my players are extremely lucky, brillant, and so on, in addition to having the personal help and tutelage of a Great Dragon, they're not going to so much as scratch a megacorp. Annoy a few people inside, certainly, but effect the bottom line? I think not.

Posted by: Bira Nov 8 2003, 09:59 PM

Cyberpunk is about "fighting The Man", by taking his tools and turning them against him in some unexpected way. Most of the time, your mere existence is already enough of an affront to The Man, but sometimes you do something bigger (for selfish reasons, rather than for some lofty ideal).

Cyberpunk is about being rebellious and trying to shake things up. Some times, you manage it, some times you don't. Even when you do, it's not always for the best. But at least you didn't just sit on a corner and contemplate the meaninglessness of existence or some other bulldrek those intellectual types keep trying to feed you over the trid, ne?

Posted by: Diesel Nov 8 2003, 10:16 PM

Well of course you can try.

Posted by: Bira Nov 8 2003, 10:19 PM

What I don't get is why people seem to have serious issues about succeeding.

Posted by: Munchkinslayer Nov 8 2003, 10:57 PM

Posted by: nezumi Nov 8 2003, 10:58 PM

I don't think anyone has an issue specifically with succeeding.. Even the most nihilistic players will say they enjoy winning once in a while. It's just succeeding at things you shouldn't be able to (or too often). And the reason why some people don't like that is the same reason some people like watching sad or scary movies. When I want something happy and jolly, I play the other game. When I want to sweat bullets and survive by the skin of my teeth, I play shadowrun.

Posted by: Bira Nov 8 2003, 11:12 PM

But why "messing with the metaplot" automatically equates into turning the setting from "dark and gritty" to "happy and jolly"? And why altering the setting should be mutually exclusive with sweating bullets and surviving by the skin of your teeth?

Someone else has also implied that any game where the metaplot is altered is a "munchkin" game, tough I don't remember if it was on this thread or on some other. Why is that?

Posted by: El_Machinae Nov 9 2003, 01:11 AM

My favorite time to 'mess with the uberplot' is when I have a couple players who know the uberplot.

So, I'll have half my players listening to my clues, trying to figure things out. The other half smirk knowingly, thinking they know everything.

But, when I change my uberplot - the smirking players are left scrambling, not able to predict what's next.

Posted by: Glyph Nov 9 2003, 04:39 AM

Personally, I think a GM can use, or discard, however much of the uberplot is needed for the campaign. There should be some things that the players will find it difficult, or even impossible, to change. But that should be because they tried to do something out of their league, or before they were ready for it, or without enough planning. I have no problem with players biting off more than they can chew and getting swatted like bugs.

But don't have it happen because the precious uberplot got threatened and you had to break out the plot hammer! As soon as you say "This guy is too important to have stats" or "No matter what you do, you can never kill this NPC before the sequel adventure", then you've stopped playing a game and began "storytime with the GM". The PCs are cybernetic killing machines, sorcerers who bend the laws of reality to call down awesome power, deckers who can ferret out any secret. They should be able to make even the "big boys" sweat.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Nov 9 2003, 04:51 AM

There are two playstyles: those in which players are powerful, relative to the rest of the world, and are thus capable of doing important things.
The other, my preferred, is where the players are pretty ordinary, a bit less than human in most cases, and really can't do shit unless they get amazingly lucky.
These two styles will not reconcile with each other, so be aware that both exist.

~J

Posted by: Bira Nov 9 2003, 01:27 PM

Posted by: nezumi Nov 9 2003, 03:36 PM

You're right, Bira, you can have a high powered campaign without being a number masher or a munchkin (as long as relative power between each player and challenges is preserved). I'd also say that you're more than welcome to (in fact, I would encourage you to) change the uberplot as much as you like. Do what is fun.

My personal reason why I have no intention of ever even really approaching the uberplot is two fold. For one, as Kagenteshi pointed out, it's a very different gaming style when you feel like you really are on the level of any other average Joe. For my last game, I had all the characters use the BP method and only gave them 70 points to work with. It gives you a more realistic feel and makes you sweat more, I think, and I feel like that sort of game is something SR excels at. Second, I'm deathly afraid of what has happened to the Other Game where, within a few years of game time, players are slaying gods and swimming up waterfalls. A big part of any RPG is characters get better with practice, and if the characters are already making Harlequin feel physically threatened, how strong will they be in a year or two? And what will be left to make them sweat? (You could, of course, release horrors on them then...) I figure we might as well keep them a lot smaller so, no matter what, they always know there are plenty of much bigger things in the ocean.

Posted by: Glyph Nov 9 2003, 11:44 PM

Posted by: Kagetenshi Nov 9 2003, 11:54 PM

It isn't so much that they aren't more powerful than your average joe, as that they aren't an order of magnitude more powerful than your average joe like a real mover and shaker in the world would be.

~J

Posted by: Buzzed Nov 10 2003, 12:19 AM

Posted by: Siege Nov 10 2003, 12:22 AM

Relative power:

Atlanta Police Department Officer
Shirley Franklin, Mayor of Atlanta

Navy SEAL operator
Bill Gates, CEO of Microsoft

Make the relative comparisons as you will.

-Siege

Posted by: Kagetenshi Nov 10 2003, 12:46 AM

Posted by: Crimsondude 2.0 Nov 10 2003, 01:33 AM

Posted by: Kanada Ten Nov 10 2003, 01:37 AM

Posted by: Kagetenshi Nov 10 2003, 01:43 AM

Sure. If you start shooting, odds are something went wrong.

Crimsondude, much as I'd love to continue the discussion, we're getting OT. Feel free to carry on over PM if you wish.

~J

Posted by: grimshear Nov 10 2003, 04:01 PM

Posted by: nezumi Nov 10 2003, 04:39 PM

I do agree that shadowrunners are special, at least in part because of their choice in profession. My point is that my preferred method of gaming involves people who shadowrun because of something special about them, but not something which makes them superhuman. There are certainly average people who drag race or who have had to shoot another human being. My old English teacher apparently has shot people while in Vietnam. I've done work with homeless shelters overseas. Not too far from where I live suburban kids take their expensive cars out to drag race on empty interstates. Are any of us superhuman? No, we're all normal people. Could or would any of us turn to shadowrunning if the conditions were right? Maybe, some more so than others (for instance, if my wife were taken away from me and, as is the case in SR, I was invisible to the real world. I have useful skills and I am not keen on living in the slums.) Would some of us get our butts kicked? Oh yeah, but the ones who live will learn. Would I be able to break into a corporate facility IRL? Honestly, I think I could... It wouldn't be Mission Impossible style, however, and it wouldn't be Ares. Maybe after I have some practice, right?

My biggest complaint about RPGs is they have a tendancy to force characters to lose their humanity. In SR, I enjoy the characters who have a favorite color other than red or black, who brush their teeth at night and run to make ends meet. Just people, not heros or gods, but simply people.

Posted by: Bira Nov 10 2003, 08:48 PM

Posted by: Siege Nov 10 2003, 08:57 PM

Two thoughts?

Any beat cop could make Bill Gates feel threatened. Granted, the next morning that cop's gonna find his life turned upside down and inside out.

Samurai who are tweaked so hard they vibrate and react to things before they happen might be able to snap an old man in half before he can react. Of course, if they miss and that old man turns them into small puddles of glittering ooze, well...

The point? There was a point...oh yeah, relative power. Could any street punk stick a knife in the president of Ares? Sure, provided the punk could get within arms' reach of afore-mentioned president. The street punk has physical power. The CEO and president of a multi-nat corp that deals in military hardware may not be physically strong, but damned if he doesn't have his own squad of near-cyber zombies providing security.

Could a PC physically snap Harly in half? Sure - although I haven't seen his stats. Provided Harly doesn't turn him into a small puddle of glittering ooze. Relative power.

Thought two:

All of my PCs do silly stuff for no apparent reason. Donate medical services during down time, do good deeds and so on. Not necessarily because I'm a good guy, but making connections and earning favors and currying good will is just good business.

You would be amazed at how many people don't understand that particular concept.

-Siege

Posted by: easytohate Nov 10 2003, 09:22 PM

Anyone here read comics? I'm sure somepeople can identify with what I am about to say.

Comics have a history and a trend of being written into Canon. Just like gaming books. You get a story... told by one storyteller or a handfull and that becomes "the story of X" and anything that goes back and changes it gets rejected by the fans, and ultimately winds up happening in another universe/timeline... whatever. There are exceptions... like everything else in the world.

Anyone remeber the "what if stories" the one shot comics that would go back and change something in the canon drastically and explore the outcome of that change, how it would ripple through the timeline.

I loved those comics. I play my games the same way. Cause to me the entire game of roleplaying is just sitting a playing "what if..."

So what if Big D was never assasinated?
What if Shadowrun had no ties to earthdawn?
What if Horrors started pouring into earthdawn in large ammounts?
What if UCAS decided to start a nuclear war?
What if awakenings stopped?
What if they found a cure for vampires?

I can only imagine the stories that could come of these things. Ultimately hope is in the minds of the players and in the hands of the GM.

Posted by: Bira Nov 10 2003, 09:36 PM

Posted by: BitBasher Nov 10 2003, 09:43 PM

Posted by: Kagetenshi Nov 10 2003, 09:48 PM

Indeed.

Posted by: nezumi Nov 10 2003, 09:54 PM

At risk of sounding stupid, how the heck did you do that spoiler thing??

Posted by: Kagetenshi Nov 10 2003, 10:54 PM

Start it with <spoiler>, end with </spoiler>, replacing <>s with []s.

~J

Posted by: BitBasher Nov 10 2003, 11:34 PM

Posted by: Kagetenshi Nov 10 2003, 11:43 PM

Come to think of it, maybe that's where my Jolt has been disappearing to...

~J

Posted by: Bira Nov 11 2003, 12:58 AM

Posted by: Bira Nov 11 2003, 01:05 AM

Posted by: Kagetenshi Nov 11 2003, 01:09 AM

Because unless you run games featuring 400+ build point characters, no starting avail limit, expanded Resources options, no starting Rating limit, etc. etc. etc. the characters aren't going to be able to touch said characters without major GM intervention.

~J

edit: Harlequin is as mortal as the next guy. If the shot actually hit him, then yes, he might die from it. His being shot is so hideously unlikely, what with being a high double-digit initiate and all, as to be absurd.
You put your finger on a point, though: affect. The runners can't kill these people, but they can affect them. Not much, but they can do it. That's what differentiates Harlequin from a brick wall.

Posted by: toturi Nov 11 2003, 01:32 AM

The problem with the uberplot is that there usually is little or nothing we can do aboout it. Either we use it or we ignore it, or find some other way of explaining why certain things happened.

For example, if the team in H's Back had failed or somehow backed out and allowed the Enemy to cross over, then it would be difficult to explain why the world hasn't ended yet.

The broad strokes of the uber plot limit in many ways what the GM can do and yet remain within Canon. The only way certain PCs can somehow enter the metaplot is if that PC's player works for the publishers and then, what ever that PC does is now Canon.

Posted by: BitBasher Nov 11 2003, 02:28 AM

Posted by: Dim Sum Nov 11 2003, 04:27 AM

Have to agree completely with Bit. This issue is always going to come up playing any game connected to a franchise/movie/novel like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Judge Dredd (to name a few) or one that has a greatly evolved universe for which "canon" authors have written stories to develop the universe such as MechWarrior, the world of Krynn in Dragonlance, etc.. You can still run VERY fulfilling campaigns in those games without ever once having to mess around with the metaplot.

If your players can't be mature about not using OOC knowledge or go on a rampage to destroy the setting (eg. kill Luke as a baby in Star Wars), your GM will have to handle it as best he can.

Posted by: nezumi Nov 11 2003, 01:51 PM

I am a little confused as to why characters want to be able to kill EVERYTHING. If we were playing a modern version of SR, I would say that it is very difficult to stop the U.S. from sending troops to Iraq or to kill George Bush. Now if you somehow have managed to gain access to nuclear weapons, maybe its possible, just like if you parked a nuclear bomb next to Harlequin in the campaign it would have a fair chance of success. But our president, just like our IEs, survive because they have the resources to plan for contingencies. This is real life; smart people plan, and the more likely they think they are to be killed, the more they plan. This means your players have to plan more, have more resources and generally just be more tenacious to successfully kill off a serious character, which seems pretty unlikely (especially since I can't imagine why any character would WANT to dedicate all that time to kill one snotty elf...)

Posted by: Siege Nov 11 2003, 01:56 PM

For the same reason people want to record how many times they've killed Tiamat or brag about keeping Cthulhu house-broken.

It's not impossible to kill the President of the US, but not easy by any stretch of the imagination.

The fact that players want to exert that kind of power is going to complicate any kind of scenario and tends to demonstrate more about the players than any real lack of gaming potential.

-Siege

Posted by: Glyph Nov 11 2003, 07:35 PM

I think if the characters want to kill Harlequin, the GM has not done his or her job right. Why would an immortal elf bully around the PCs? But if he does, then the GM says "Nothing you can do will ever affect him", then the players should be upset. Bira had it right - if a street punk with a pistol has a miniscule chance of taking out the cybered-to-hell street sam under the right circumstances, why couldn't that street sam be the equivalent of a street punk in a fight with Harlequin? I don't think immortal elves live so long because they are invincible - they live so long because they don't gratuitously offend people, and they always remember that despite all of their quickened spells, they could always run into the wrong guy with a heavy pistol at the exact wrong time. I start a campaign relatively in canon, but I don't feel constrained by the metaplot after it gets going.

Posted by: toturi Nov 12 2003, 02:13 AM

What I meant was that it was difficult to get back into the Canon storyline or to use parts of the Canon storyline if certain metaplot-centric PCs were killed or other plot-essential elements were altered beyond reasonable explanation.

Yes, the uberplot is a problem only if you let it. But much of the fun in the SR universe is interacting with the rest of the world, you could stay in your own corner of the world never interact with the rest of the universe, but it is not so much fun as well as you would have a difficult time running the published adventures (of, that is the GM's problem).

On the question that PCs will never be able to reach/affect/kill Ultimate NPCs, I try to look at it this way: if there are several levels/types of Ultimate, Deus is going to have trouble beating Lowfyr in a fight, but Deus is going to kick dragon butt in the Matrix.

There is also this problem to consider: Given that a NPC is Superhuman with respect to PC A, given that both charactors are roleplayed equally well and are equally rewarded, then PC A will inevitably close the gap between him and the NPC. Perhaps the GM will want to keep that in mind, no matter how far ahead the NPC is, the PC/PCs will eventually close the gap, from Superhuman to Superior to almost Equal.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Nov 12 2003, 02:46 AM

Posted by: Bira Nov 13 2003, 05:59 AM

Please bear in mind that I mean no ill will towards anyone posting here. It's not my intention to offend anyone. If anything I say does come out as rude or offensive, it's the fault of my poor communication skills.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Nov 13 2003, 06:19 AM

But sometimes it doesn't make much sense to change the setting unless there's a LOT of metagaming going on. For instance, there's no way someone's going to prevent the "assassination" of Dunkelzahn unless their player went out of their way to change that without character knowledge.
Ultimate people aren't Ultimate because their plans can never be changed, but because it's too late to change them once most people actually see what they are. That's my complaint; runners won't reasonably come into play and know what's going on early enough to make a difference without metagaming.
The metaplot can be changed, sure, but by the GM. A GM running the metaplot should not encounter any instances where the players ought to be able to derail it significantly.
Brainscan spoiler ahead.

Posted by: Siege Nov 13 2003, 11:59 AM

I'd point out that the one advantage to moving slowly: you can shoot a target once he's stopped moving and probably exhausted all of his combat pool elsewhere.

As for altering the Uber plot, it can be done provided the players pick up on the clues that might be out there but the GM (being only human) may or may not provide.

It's difficult for a single person to duplicate the breadth and depth and subsequent complexity of a real, breathing world complete with red herrings and useless trivia that may or may not prove useful later.

-Siege

Posted by: Bira Nov 13 2003, 02:53 PM

Posted by: JongWK Nov 13 2003, 03:40 PM

Posted by: Kagetenshi Nov 13 2003, 04:23 PM

Posted by: nezumi Nov 13 2003, 05:44 PM

You really do have to draw the line somewhere. I mean if I were determined to stop the universe from expanding, and my GM said no, I can't do that, is that railroading? If not, then why is the idea of people in power having contingency plans railroading?

I've never actually run an uberplot campaign, but it seems to me that an elf who's been around for several thousand years most likely will have planned ahead so that he can still do whatever crazy elfy things he wants to do despite some random humans meddling about in his plans. He's certainly put a lot of time and effort into making contingencies against getting killled (you don't live to be 3,000 years old if you're still at risk of being hit by a bus every day).

It seems to be like there's a line drawn by logic which needs to be kept in mind. With the nuclear plant, no one is going to build a plant which will vaporize an entire city if a few pieces go loose. That's just really poor planning on the part of the plant designers. An immortal elf isn't going to run around willy nilly without giving a second thought to 'what happens if someone decides to kill me for fun'. It's happened to significantly less important people than him.

I won't say that someone who's trying to kill Harlequin is a munchkin, I'll say it's about as easy as walking through matter; not worth the time and effort to figure out how. I DO think that changing some parts of the uberplot is unthinkable, but the reason why is that I realize that a 3,000 year old elf will have lots and lots of contingency plans, and I, being a 24 year old human, can't conceive of half of them. So I give Harlequin the benefit of the doubt that he's thought of most any imaginable way to kill him unless the characters come up with something truly spectacular (destroying the earth may or may not do the trick, however it will heavily affect the metaplot). That said, there are some parts of the metaplot I have no problem at all at changing, and if the scenario happens to provide a space for the characters to change things, I'll run with it (if they SOMEHOW encounter Damien Knight on the can and shoot him, KE will just have to find a new CEO, life goes on).

Posted by: Talia Invierno Nov 14 2003, 01:17 AM

Goodness, this grew quickly I couldn't even get back to it until I had an Explorer- or reasonable-gen-of-Netscape-based hour. (My early gen Netscape cheats don't let me see most of the posts once the thread gets longer than a page.)

It would seem that things worth thinking about can come from any source

I don't think there could be something really off-tangent in this thread, so long as it at least touched on the question either of fatalism/determinism or why you do what you do - since that's what's at the root of whether or not a given group is going to be able to strictly follow a canon überplot. To that end, I'm going to lead off with a quote from the http://invision.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=1777 thread which in some ways almost defines the paradox:

Posted by: Eindrachen Nov 14 2003, 03:32 AM

I think it's important that the PCs accomplish something that feels like they've overcome great odds without necessarily changing the world.

It'd be great to overthrow the corps, drive out the bugs, etc. But what then? Once the PCs have done that earth-shaking stuff, what could possibly be a challenge?

I keep them lean, hungry in my campaigns. They're always looking out for the next score. I also occasionally scare the living crap out of them by having the "big boys" do something that just defies belief (i.e., I min-max and munchkin the rules for an NPC, then have them do something that seems stupendous, without letting the PCs know how they did it).

When all else fails, have real-world type stuff befall them. Natural disasters, stock market dips, fanatical cults gassing crowds, these things happen. Not for any reason, usually, than Fate is a cruel female dog.

But never let them rest easy. Always remind them that there's someone bigger and badder than them out there, and they don't like competition, either...

Posted by: Talia Invierno Nov 14 2003, 05:03 PM

Continuing:

I suspect the key point I'd been trying to make was that of a continued ability of the PC to grow, in whichever direction the group chooses. They may choose to focus on a tighter world of DocWagon missions or gang wars or the next run or scoop.

Then again, they may not. (Note that neither of these choices precludes growth of personality.)

Why should the PC care that there are IEs and dragons and corps (oh my) traipsing around, raising a merry hell of paranoid plot and counterplot? Maybe they won't ever encounter them. Maybe they'll be continually used as pawns without their knowledge. But - once the PC becomes aware of their existence and how that existence affects the PC - the PC has to make a choice: are they going to bother trying to control their own destiny, and if so, how are they going to go about it? (It's a given that it's not going to be an overnight thing.) Equally, the GM (in conjunction with the group as a whole) has to make a choice: is s/he going to allow the possibility that the PCs will ever potentially be able to affect the greater world on some fraction of the same level within their lifetime - or are the great events always going to be something the PCs can only ever read about in a newspaper?

It's not even about inflicting damage, or intentional targetting. (Although certainly many will see that as the epitome of influence ) Sometimes it just takes a single word in the right ear. It could even be an accidentally overheard word.

It's in the existence of possibility - or the complete lack of possibility in a specific direction demanded by strict canon. PCs always have the choice, it's been argued in this thread: but I'd counter if (in a strict canon game) they really do. How many PC choices can be invisibly removed before it becomes a false choice, nothing more than a façade overlying an immovable structure? To truly allow the full choice upon which growth depends, the structure should - at least potentially, within the PCs' lifetimes - be affectable. The überplot can certainly serve as guide - but the GM must have a fine awareness of when adherence to "cannot be changed" structure is becoming railroading.

Posted by: bwdemon Nov 14 2003, 05:17 PM

I stand by my comments that such an anti-success group of players exists. You may not be a part of it or have seen it before, but they tend to be drama queens and have to constantly bear their philosophical/emotional/physical/situational cross. I've dealt with them before and find them no more annoying than any other can be, but I'd probably prefer them over the success-demanding players.

For the purpose of my argument, "success" is defined as coming out ahead. This is intentionally broadly defined. Players in the anti-success group want some negative to override/overwhelm whatever positives they accomplish. This can be an apples & oranges situation.

For example: "completed the run, but unleashed an unstoppable psychopath in the process" or "exerted (insert character's particular brand of morality), but was subsequently beaten and ostracized for it" or "killed X only to learn that Y was the real perpetrator and X was innocent" or "saved the life of a teammate, but broke a personal code against killing".

In short, some bad has to happen that either negates the good or replaces the old one to an equal or greater degree.

Posted by: Bira Nov 14 2003, 06:08 PM

Posted by: Kagetenshi Nov 14 2003, 06:18 PM

Posted by: Talia Invierno Nov 14 2003, 08:10 PM

Continuing:

(And I should apologise in advance. Since I'm trying to address what I see as major points as I encounter them and they strike me, and I've only just gotten to the second page for response purposes, it's possible some of what I'm addressing had already been countered or agreed upon before I get to that point.)

Quick side-beginning based on what I've finally seen of the third page, a proposed definition of railroading:

Railroading: An action taken by some GMs, usually involving altering some part of the in-game universe (outcomes, NPCs), such as to constrain the actions possible for a PC to take, in the interests of preserving a greater plotline.

Posted by: Bira Nov 15 2003, 03:24 AM

Posted by: Bira Nov 15 2003, 03:40 AM

Posted by: Talia Invierno Nov 17 2003, 08:19 PM

That's the problem with quoting any part of a post without the whole (especially when that part is "I agree"): you can never be sure intent is accurately translated. Sorry if I misconstrued you, Bira.

Although I would suggest there's a wide, wide spectrum between "rats" and "challenging Damien Knight (or [gasp] Lofwyr!) on his own turf"

On the plus side, it seems I didn't after all kill this topic ... completely.

Posted by: Talia Invierno Nov 25 2003, 09:44 PM

And then again, maybe I was wrong.

Posted by: Siege Nov 25 2003, 09:51 PM

Posted by: Talia Invierno Jan 19 2004, 03:58 PM

Leather jacket (treated with flame-retardants)
Small silver cross (anchoring focus - slash-burn edit, linked to Detect Overwriting)
Wooden stake (the ultimate counterargument - short and pointed)

Outfitted to
Spike
Long-winded
Arguments
stYlistically



Edit: okay, so the comeback only took like, two months

Posted by: Siege Jan 20 2004, 12:05 AM

Totally
Active
Lady
In
Arguments

-Siege

Posted by: Talia Invierno Jan 23 2004, 01:05 AM

http://invision.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=2655&st=50&#entry64602