I think Grinder's point is that his NPCs have the stats that would be logical for that particular NPC. The missions can be tailored to the players, but a mall security guard shouldn't have pistols: 6 because the group is tough, nor should the Ares Firewatch team have pistols: 3 because the group isn't very combat-oriented. That's not to say you can't have the occasional ringer, but I like the idea of a game world that operates by its own internal consistency, rather than adjusting itself to the PCs. Like I said, that part can be done by what kinds of missions they get offered.

While the archetypes are far from optimal, they are (with a few exceptions, such as the bounty hunter) at least functional. Within a limited pool of BP, every character has advantages and disadvantages. The pornomancer, even if you adjust it to make it a more useful face (rather than a seducer), has disadvantages - few contacts, very memorable. Maybe the pornomancer can always get the Johnson to pay the maximum amount that he is authorized to, and can fast-talk the group past some situations. But a more traditional face, an inobtrusive social chameleon with a virtual Rolodex full of useful contacts, might wind up being far more effective, even throwing half or less of the dice.

This.

And yeah, home games. I don't attend conventions and never played in any Missions-game.

And what if your players asked that you rather did? I get not wanting to use them and keep everything open. I'm always open to that at my tables, but if the players want something and its rather trivial to me, then they are going to get what they want.

There's a part of me that thinks if you are just going to set your encounters in motion and not deviate at all, not take advantage of the ebb and flow of the encounter and tweak it for maximum fun, then you are limiting your game slightly.

Well, clearly. I don't think anyone is saying that mallcops should have their stats incoherently boosted. That's kind of irrelevant, unless we haven't already agreed that crazy manipulation is bad GMing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

But should the cook have unarmed combat 5, and pistols 6, and dodge 5 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Only if that cook is Steven Seagal

He's a Prime Runner with Day Job, it's fine.

Yeah, I can see why someone might call that "blatant cheating".

I tend to think of "acceptable" GM meta-gaming as just adjusting for loopholes that the GM didn't anticipate, but really shouldn't logically be there.

Like, there's no good reason a security guard wouldn't have a radio to call for backup. So if I've forgotten to write it down in the guard's inventory, I don't feel it's a "bad" thing to just assume he actually has one.



-karma

Exactly. It would be *wrong* to play the guard without his radio, unless the PCs have pickpocketed it or something. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Wait you actually write down your npc's inventory?

I don't really, but it's just an example. Earlier, we had the example of a high-security facility 'forgetting' to plan for tunneling attacks. Given that the facility *would* have done so, it's not metagaming for the GM to go, 'whoops!' and respond to the PCs' plan.

Adding a few feet of reinforced concrete is one thing. Adding a bunch of tunneling drones, sensors, and underground spirits is another, especially if it's designed to force the PC's to shoot their way in through the front door. One's realistic, the other is cheating.

Right. Again, no one's suggesting that. (I believe the phrase was 'instantly neutralizing'?)

Depending on the level of paranoia and how valuable the facility is, I'm not sure. Those are the situations where I as GM might roll a dies (1 bad for the PC's and 6 is very good). I'm not a security design specialist, but I can assume the guy in charge of/designing security is.

That's true. If it's a super-max prison or something, then yeah. The point is that any measures should be appropriate; that is, the PCs should reasonably be able to expect what they're up against (unless their being surprised is a plot point, in which case it's reasonable in *retrospect*). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I'm willing to suggest it.

The problem is, the whole scenario is vague. Now I don't know what the official write up is for the underground defenses of the MDC building in Manhattan. (Missions). However, if there isn't one and all the GM puts in front of me is "a few feet of reinforced concrete", I'm going to be looking at the GM and saying "WTF? That's it? That's the only thing keeping us from pwning the MDC?"

The prep work a GM does is on the things the PCs can be expected to do.
If the PCs insist on doing the unexpected, they will encounter things outside the prepared work.
Demanding that the unexpected be weaker than the prep work means that the players can metagame by simply doing the unexpected, and thereby bypassing all prepped defenses.
Calling the GM a cheater and insisting that doing the unexpected means the party gets a free ride can also be considered metagaming. It's deliberately trying to avoid prepared material for an easier run.

On the MDC example, I'd think that entire city has pretty good seismic detectors by then, and digging is gonna set something off along those lines. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

At that though, all we're doing is arguing degrees of the same thing. To what degree you take that will depend on your table and level of challenge you want to give them.

To a point. As was said, if you're trying to 'proactively neutralize' to direct them into what opposition you want to array against them (fight through the front gate rather than tunnel under, float over, cut the fence at the back, talk your way in, etc.) then we've hit that 'metagaming' wall. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Meh, I'm much more likely to secretly shift my building interior plan (on the rare occasion that I have one) 90 degrees to the side (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) It's no difference in principle than making them go in the front, but it maintains the illusion of choice =)

Not really. The line is pretty simple to see. If you're more interested in preserving your adventure than you are about providing a good game, you've crossed the line. Challenge level doesn't even enter into it.

As for the MDC building, expecting dirt and discovering reinforced concrete alone could be a caper-breaker. Suoq, I take it you're not familiar with construction work? I've got some going out just outside my window. It takes a week to penetrate a few inches of asphalt.

Edit: I don't believe in the illusion of choice, I believe in actual choice. The player's actions actually mean something, that way/.

Shrug - going in the side or going in the front is not a meaningful choice to me. Unless they've spent time tracking down blueprints to look for optimal ways in, etc, then it becomes meaningful. As I mentioned, I rarely pre-plan details; I have a general idea of encounters, that they may then make meaningful choices on how to handle. My GMing has nothing to do with preserving the adventure except as it pertains to having a good game. I save my creative juices for when things really go off rails, and say the party decides to kill the Johnson and take the swag (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

I'm not saying that it's always best to ignore the players actions, but you should only make significant changes when you have to, in response to real decisions. But you should never let the players know that. THe more experience you have as a GM, the better you can pull this off. It took me probably 10 years before I switched to my freestyle method. I suspect that if you sat down to play at my table, you might even enjoy it, since I pretty much let the players do whatever they want, and then I mold whatever scraps of a plan I have to that^^ I am curious though, what style of play does your GM have that has you so worked up about this?

I don't know (or at leased I cant recall) Cain's problem GM specifically but I do know a couple GMs just like what hes describing and I do know from first hand experience Cain tends to know the rules pretty well and tends to build amazingly competent characters. He just thinks about the numbers and can see the patterns more than I can. I've seen a half dozen guys over the years be really good at this. To the extreme example where a guy built a -25 pt GUPRS character that was more powerful than our 200 pt character in EVERY way (The 200pt character was build from concept rather than to min/max). Cain is one of these guys who can just do that without even really thinking about it, then enter in some of the crappy GMs I have seen over the years and you have the recipe for what he describes where Cain making an effective character is a personal attack on the GM (well at leased in the GMs mind) so hes going to screw the party! Its stupid but it happens and I have been in two groups where the GM did that and I left, never to game with that GM again cus its not fun for anyone, even us non min/maxers (though I have min/maxed from time to time)

[edit] for myself I have to say every GM I have gamed under except one I have felt penalized if I didn't min/max because they were soo stingy with their XP I couldn't catch up to the min/maxers.

Wow, they must be pretty lazy... I have seen entire roads demolished in a single day... it all depends upon what the end result is going to be... If they are re-using the pulled up asphalt to re-cover the road, it will take much longer than ripping it up and just removing it. After all, A breaching charge is simplicity itself to construct.

To add to what Tete has to say, I've played with dozens of GM's over the years. I started gaming about thirty years ago or so, so I've seen them all. Just recently, I'm playing with a guy who likes to have his god-GMPC's show up and railroad us throughout the adventure. In a Rifts game with Wing Commander elements, he had a kilrathi soldier receive a direct order from the emperor to force him to come along. I know a different GM who was kicked out of three different gaming groups because of his rules-lawyering and specific thought that the PC's should never be smarter or more motivated than the NPC's. And neither of them are as bad as the worst GM I know, who was me about twenty years ago, before I discovered Shadowrun. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)