Never fudge a roll again, ever, MILES training for PCs? Options

[brennanhawkwood]

[The Stainless St...]

[Wounded Ronin]

[The Stainless St...]

[nezumi]

[The Stainless St...]

[Glyph]

I would kind of go with a limited version of #3, myself. A player who gives his character the appropriate skills (leadership, small unit tactics, appropriate knowledge skills) should get a slightly different presentation of the information when faced with something infiltration-related. A lot of people like playing characters who are good at things like tactics, or schmoozing, that they may have little aptitude for in real life.

I would do that with all of the characters, though. For example, that same infiltration specialist walking down the street would just see graffitti-covered walls and a scattered assortment of lowlifes. The ex-ganger, though, would see graffitti from one gang recently desecrated by markings from a rival gang, a symbol indicating that the dilapitated electronics store is "protected" by the Choson Ring, see three gangers wearing colors in a rival gang's turf, notice a punk in street clothes who is probably actually a slumming suit, and notice that the joygirl taking him down the alley is probably going to roll him.

I think character knowledge is often more extensive than player knowledge, so descriptions should include things that they would know. Don't just say "He has a Colt X37 light pistol" - tell them that the Colt X37 is a clunky, unreliable pistol that looks badass, generally marketed to homeowners looking for protection.

You do need to be careful, though, not to be dropping hints and advice to the point that you are bigfooting the players' characters.

[The Stainless St...]

What is this "bigfooting"? Manipulating PC actions via the information the players have?

[Glyph]

Information is fine... it's things like hints and suggestions that can get overdone. The players can feel like they are being led around by their noses if they get told what their characters should do all of the time. Basically, nezumi's concerns with his #2 and #3. But I don't think it has to work out that way. I think some character-specific detail, or even a few hints suitable to what the character would know, can help the player without making him feel that his character is being commandeered by the GM.

[nezumi]

[The Stainless St...]

[nezumi]

I'd agree, A or D, depending on OOC considerations. But I think this entirely depends on what I've discussed with the player beforehand. I have players who like E, and anything less than E just makes them irritable and frustrated. Fair enough, combat comes and the PC becomes an NPC.

I have PCs who have entered scenes where I think they are very clearly outclassed. Assuming the PCs have experience in the game (not a TRUE newbie), I will let the guy continue on as he dictates (especially if I've explained the problem with playing someone you know nothing about and the guy is giving direct orders anyway). I will never make a PC do something when the player himself has asked to do something else. But I may express disagreement or even disbelief, depending on the situation. I will also try to check after the fact to see if I had fully expressed the danger of the encounter.

Someone who has reason not to know this I would give mild advice to, and they can ask for more (or specific questions). The answers they receive are based on their appropriate skills.

I would only use B for dramatic build up, not to protect someone from stupidity. I would only use E with permission (as I said). I would only use C for... Well, I'm sure there are reasons I might not let that happen, but I'd only do it once. Anyway, that's what karma pool is for, neh? Either way, it would feed into dramatics.

So I guess my real answer is F: Talk with the player beforehand to determine knowledge and interest in combat encounters, and custom my direct interference as a GM accordingly.

As an aside, many players do feel the threat of death without ever entering combat. In my games, generally the threat of death is less from combat than from other sources (or I should say, the threat of combat with a largely unbeatable foe hangs over many non-combat challenges).

[The Stainless St...]

Looks like we're pretty much in overall agreement, but we're going to have to agree to disagree regarding the fudging. Thanks for making me re-examine it though.

"An unexamined game is not worth playing."
- Socrates (paraphrased by the Rat)

[Cray74]

[nezumi]

That's true. I do remember one run, I don't recollect the name, where every member of the party missed on a pretty basic spot check to find an absolutely vital piece of information. Strictly speaking, I should have ended the run there, with the players struggling futilely. I didn't think that'd be a whole lot of fun, though.

[crimson ronin]

regardless of why anyone plays shadowrun(or any game) they should read what the game is about and therefore be at least familiar with it. imo people who choose to play a game like shadowrun or (rifts<example) that have a good chance of character death should be told beforehand to have at least a basic grip on how the combat works because THATS the part where you live or die. i played sr since 1st edition and many other game systems but since theres at some point there will be combat its not up to the gm/dm to ask if someone has brushed up on the rules. any navy seal<example may not in fact be good at shadowrun if he hasnt read how the combat works according to some wotc writer :) btw sr4 seems ok so far!

[Wounded Ronin]

[Aku]

[Wounded Ronin]

But if the person is really good with the rules, the problem with their character being an ineffective stooge wouldn't come up.

[Aku]

which goes back to the fictitous player being a "noob", and thus not "really good" with the rules, so a bit of leadway, i dont see a major problem with.

[Glyph]

Yeah. There's a difference between a newbie who isn't familiar with the rules yet, and a player choosing to be willfully ignorant of the rules in favor of having the GM hold his hand.

[Aku]

I'd also not that i agree with most of the posts above as to what can be done, but i'd also add C to the list of things i'd do as a GM, especially if it's more of an "oops, i made these guys too hard"

[nezumi]

I think we've jumped a little bit here. As AKu said, there's a difference between knowing the rules (this is how combat pool works, this is what a TN is) and knowing proper military tactics (this is where to put your cover fire, this is how to advance your men...) So yes, if someone wants to be a gun fighter, I expect him to know the basic rules (unless he's 'in training', in which case I am probably in the process of teaching said rules). If he is ex-military, I expect there is a *LOT* he doesn't know that isn't covered in any FanPro rulebook. I think that's an important distinction and the basic problem I was trying to discuss earlier.

That said, I DO have players who simply dislike combat. Since I run games mostly online, it isn't a big fuss. They give me a general idea of what they're doing ('shoot the guy with the sharp, pointy thingy in his hand', 'play defensively', 'protect Bob') and I divvie up the combat pool, etc. Unless the person is playing a combat oriented character (in which case I'd have to ask 'why?') I really don't mind. Some people really just don't care for combat! Honest!

As for Ronin's point, there is some disagreement as to what makes for 'sufficient' research. We aren't writing novels (at least most of us aren't). Our goal is to have fun. *I* have read hundreds of pages and dedicated a substantial amount of time to researching these issues because, in part, I enjoy it. I realize not everyone else does. Maybe our firefighter really doesn't care to know the different types of carrying holds or the names for all his trucks. That's okay! He just has to know enough that HE can play his character 90% of the time.

[Nidhogg]

I find that sometimes dice fudges, or at least some on-the-spot scaling of run a bit, can help to keep the flow, and also to keep from a TPK. My 4th Edition group, for instance, has a very large experiance gap, in that, while most of the players have been playing shadowrun for as long as I have been running my current campaign, while one of my players has been running the shadows since 1st Ed. On our first run, he called all of the shots, came up with a plan, and pulled it off using only some minor technomancing and face work (the Sammie scouted out an escape rout during the legwork, but pretty much sat out the run). Not a bullet was fired, even after my 'twist' was thrown in (another running team on an unrelated mission setting off all the alarms and then shooting it out with the 'Star from the lobby). Hell, nobody even realised that anything had happened. The very next run, our expert sat out of the planning phase in order to let the other players give things a go.

The rest of the group started out doing things right, they got the hang of Matrix security, and at the same time planted a cover story for the team's face to show up at the warehouse, while the mage scouted for astral security. And then the legwork fell apart. Nobody even thought to scout for physical security, and as such they knew niether that it was under Knight Errant protection, nor that one of the security team's members was an old Firewatch veteran who wanted a nice cushy job before retiring.

Needless to say, the team arrived unprepared. After talking thier way in, they found thier stories didn't hold up, and got attacked by the security team. Had I not handwaved away the two security mages and the rigged turrets, the team would have been cut to ribbons, my story arc would have been ruined, and there would have been a very shitty ending to the campaign's 2nd run.

After all was said and done, I told the players that they could have handled things better, and told them how. Everyone learned thier lesson, and nobody will make that mistake ever again, and it was a lot easier on everyone than killing them and making them create new characters.