 SR4 in play experience, very pleased Gm and players |
  |
 Mar 31 2006, 08:05 PM
Post
#301
|
|
|
Great Dragon  Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957  |
Cain: yep, sometimes a GM has to say "this is how things work." That's true whether you have a group of gamers who are as mature as my grandma or as immature as my daughter. How does that change anything? Read my statements, not what you want them to mean.
And oh yeah: LOL @ U, tard. :D |
 |
 
|
|
Mar 31 2006, 08:06 PM
Post
#302
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Deadjester: the point is that we like spouting off with absolutely no chance of convincing the other person. I won't be convinced because I disagree with Cain and he hasn't proven otherwise. Cain won't be coninced because he's positive that he's right and I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 31 2006, 08:10 PM
Post
#303
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
I entirely agree; even a 400 BP character has value in a team of (400 BP) + (X karma) + (Y nuyen) characters. The more experienced PCs will typically have more useful options available at any given time, but the newbie is not automatically useless to the veterans, as in some other games. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 31 2006, 08:19 PM
Post
#304
|
|||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
Actually, the problem is that you can't. If you want to challenge very experienced characters, you generally need to throw someone "bigger" than them into the mix-- someone with higher stats, higher skills, more magic, and so on. Under the caps, you can't raise stats or skills; and raising magic costs so much as to stretch believeability (how much does it cost to have a Magic 10/Initiate 4 mage again? I lost track.)
Wrong. Sometimes a GM has to say: "This is what I orignally envisioned, but how do you think *we* should make it work?" You never have to hand down GM fiat if you've got "mature" players. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 31 2006, 08:32 PM
Post
#305
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
I can throw 7,000 people with 1 agility and 1 firearms at a group and they'll be challenged, and eventually killed. There's no need to make the opposition bigger, just more challenging.
Wrong: sometimes a GM has to say "ok, this is the game I want to run. If we're playing a different game, that's cool, but I don't want to run it." Just like eventually a player may end up saying "this isn't really the game I want to play." We all sit down with the goal of mutual enjoyment, but you can't please all the people all the time. A "mature" group realizes that and either picks a different game, plays for a while knowing they'll eventually play a different game later, or splits up and does it's own things for a while. At least, a "mature" group does. Nice try though. Keep 'em coming and I'll keep shootin' em down. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 31 2006, 08:34 PM
Post
#306
|
|||||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
and you, in turn, are extrapolating the ease of killing characters as a general issue about how easy it is to challenge them all. killing characters is easy, for a GM--just make the opposition outclass them. i'm talking about making players sweat when their characters have to make a tough shot, or hack a good maglock in the middle of a firefight. note, i said i want them to sweat--not that i said i want it to be impossible. in SR4, the line between easy and impossible is pretty thin.
i have to disagree that SR4 does it 'better', having seen a 30-karma character and a thousand-plus-karma character participating in the same combat. maybe SR4 can do it as well, i dunno. but better? no. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 31 2006, 08:35 PM
Post
#307
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Ah, the vaguaries of personal opinions. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 31 2006, 08:36 PM
Post
#308
|
|||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Feel free to dispute my experience, but don't do so on a non-experience, wrong premise basis. ;) SR4, featuring Edge and hard Caps facilitates situations when playing characters from different experience levels.
The conclusion is a common misconception that lead to the absurd kind of NPC ratings given by Shadowrun Companion. Challenge is about quantity and strategy. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 31 2006, 08:44 PM
Post
#309
|
|||||||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
Which, in turn, means you have to throw someone at them who has access to 7000 disposeable soldiers. Hmm, 7000 rating 1/1 contacts comes to a 14,000 point character, minimum, correct? :D
Wrong again! A mature GM might say: "This is the kind of game I'd like to run, and this is the kind of game I'd like to avoid, where can we meet in the middle?" Negotiation and discussion are key to mutual enjoyment. Also, a GM who isn't willing to stretch himself has got some issues-- if he only wants to run a single type of campaign, never deviating from formula, then he's got problems. So far, you seem to think that a good GM can hammer away at will, toss "Love it or leave it" ultimatums at players, ignore their input, and need never try and improve his skills by attempting to run a game that goes slightly beyond what he's comfortable with. Is that what you're trying to say?
Sorry, I was responding to the first part of the sentence, not the second. I was saying that the caps make it difficult to challenge very experienced players.
Someone's got to be *behind* the quantity, and making up that strategy. That means that someone has got to be bigger than the characters in both resources and brainpower, as well as ability in at least one area. Behind an army of Joe Averages, you're not going to find another Joe Average-- you'll find a general with excellent strategic skills. But what happens if the players have equal strategic skills? They end up in a stalemate, unless you start favoring the NPC-- giving him higher stats, more and better gear, and so on. Challenge has nothing to do with quantity. I've thrown thirty-plus opponents at teams, and had them mowed down. Strategy helps a lot, but the players can use strategy too, and then it just becomes an arms race to see who can come up with the best strategic trickery. Raw power, however, is always a good way to up the challenge. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Mar 31 2006, 09:04 PM
Post
#310
|
|||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Yep. Or a, um, I don't, know, corporation?
Not even close.
Easy != Good |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Mar 31 2006, 09:22 PM
Post
#311
|
|||||||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Very experienced players with very experienced characters are always hard to challenge, as there are fewer and fewer equals remaining. BTW, you did realize that caps only apply to mortals?
As you pointed out, teamwork test means that more brains equal more brainpower - quantity wins. ;)
It certainly has, as being outnumbered is the biggest problem.
Not in my experience - the ones that went down fastest or failed to succeed in anything were 'bosses'. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Mar 31 2006, 11:02 PM
Post
#312
|
|||||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Pretty much - the accidental ease. When they fail lethally, that usually means it was too much of a challenge. ;)
Which will happen if the characters are neither living legends nor losers. It is true that the thrill of gambling is reduced - if it is not enough for you, sad but not applicable to anyone.
You may disagree, but Caps and Edge make it more balanced. Whether that qualifies as 'better' is a question of preference, indeed. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Apr 1 2006, 03:52 AM
Post
#313
|
|||||||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
Really? Then why did you say: "sometimes a GM has to say "ok, this is the game I want to run. If we're playing a different game, that's cool, but I don't want to run it."" You're saying, in so many words, that if the players want something different, there's no obligation on a GM to try and find a middle ground-- it's "the game I want to run" or I won't run it at all. No deviations, no accomodations... it's "cool", but it's still a my-way-or-the-highway mentality. Or what about: "yep, sometimes a GM has to say "this is how things work." That's true whether you have a group of gamers who are as mature as my grandma or as immature as my daughter." Why do you ever *have* to say it? Instead, you can easily say: "This is how I think things should work, but could you give me a believeable and balanced explaination that'll add fun to the game? Because if you do, I'll allow it, so we all can have fun."
Yeah, but if I constantly have to throw armies of immortal elves and great dragons at a team to challenge them, there's something seriously wrong. The same thing applies if I have to throw massive armies at them. A single clever bad guy, however, makes for an excellent foil for an entire team, and can be the basis for years and years of campaigns. The trick is, he has to have greater abilities than the players do-- the ability to attract more followers, greater magic, superior skill, and so on. I've also discovered that the most exciting "bosses" are the ones who are just above the team in skill, but can go down to clever teamwork. In order for this to work, however, the opponent needs to be *better* than the individuals in the team. After a certain point, it's impossible to make them better without either handing out special NPC treatment or throwing the aforemetioned immortal elves at them.
History is loaded with examples of smaller forces routing much larger ones. In Iraq right now, the total estimate of the insurgent forces is well below the US coalition numbers-- in fact, some numbers place them at about 20,000 or so, versus over 130,000 US troops and the entire Iraqi military and police forces. And right now, the insurgents are doing a damn good job of hurting us.
I don't know about "balanced". More compressed, yes, which may be a YMMV thing. But it becomes much harder to create challenging opposition when your options are restricted to massive armies and/or immortal powers. Allowing for more powerful PC's means allowing for more powerful NPC's as well; that gives you a wider array of options for presenting a challenge. It won't turn into an Immortal-elf-of-the-week game. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Apr 1 2006, 05:06 AM
Post
#314
|
|||
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
I disagree. Saying that implies that some game designers somewhere have somehow magically created a perfect game. Since it's easy as pie to see that every game system ever made has exploitable loopholes, simple errors, miscalculations, or things that were just never thought about during the design process, you should be able to see that sometimes the only fix for a game-breaking situation is for the GM to say "no". That, in essence, is half of the reason to even have a GM for a game. If the system were perfect, the GM would be there only for the story. But that's not the case with SR, nor with any system I've ever run or played. There are going to be rules questions that need answers, loopholes that need closing, and issues that need addressed that the writers never even thought of. Without the GM stepping in and ruling on something, it has no conclusion. That's not to say that the players would have no say, as I'm sure would be the first However, the GM is there to run the game. Part of running the game is shutting down things that will destroy said game before they can. Sometimes, players aren't going to be 100% happy with what you say, but that's life. It's with disbelief that I see people saying "GM fiat" as if it were inherently a bad thing. Certainly, it can be. But if the GM rules on something, and it improves the overall game experience, how can that be a bad thing? I guess if I had to sum up my views on this it would be: Games have a GM for a reason, and that reason is not just regurgitating the rules no matter how patently silly or mistaken they may be. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 1 2006, 06:12 AM
Post
#315
|
|||||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
I used to think that; but then someone suggested a different approach. So, instead of saying: "No, you can't do that", I said: "I'd prefer it if you didn't, but if you can give me a good reason that's believeable and adds to the fun of the game, maybe we can work something out." Guess what? He did just that. Granted, this won't *always* happen, but at least you get an honest dialoge going with your players. And a lot of the time, you can hammer out something that leaves your player satisfied, without breaking your game.
Because GM's aren't perfect, either. Your ruling from on high might end up detracting from everyone's fun. I can say that ever since I started trying, I've always been able to find a middle ground with my players. They may not be 100% happy, but they're satisfied enough, and sometimes they even add something to the game I never considered. Here's an example: For a long time, I flat-out banned the Day Job flaw, simply because I couldn't control it. I couldn't figure out it it was meant as a flaw, or an edge, since it gave you money. However, after I had been given a well-needed lesson in basic GMing, [translation: been spanked hard-core ;)] I tried something different-- I explained to the players why I didn't like the flaw, and said I'd work with them to find an alternative. One player, it turned out, only wanted it so he could buy Ninjutsu. No big deal; I turned it into a low-grade enemy instead. It fit the spirit of the rules, and didn't hurt anything. The other guy wanted it to represent the fact that he worked for DocWagon. Since we rotated GM's in this campaign, he thought that it'd be a great way of taking his character out of the action when he was in the chair. Any way you slice it, that's an excellent reason-- he didn't want to deal with the GMPC issue. So, we found something else that worked: we developed a "dependants" flaw, which represented his duties to his trauma team. In order for him to gain the benefits of a DocWagon employee, we had him buy a Connected variant. Between those two, we came up with something that was not game-breaking, but did everything that the player wanted. In fact, this led to several interesting plot lines, as members of his team got into trouble and needed him to drag them out. (That's how I got him into Euphoria, BTW-- I had one of his teammates die in the line of duty, but then he discovered someone was still using his accounts.)
Nor is that reason being handing down ultimatums. In my experience, the reason for GMs is to arbitrate situations, both in and out of game. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Apr 1 2006, 06:37 AM
Post
#316
|
|||||||||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Good thing that you don't have to, as, like you stated, a professional beats a legend one out of five times. If there are more professionals NPCs, that happens more often to even the legend character. ;) As a sidenote, no, I was talking about spirits.
From my experience, that's about the most annoying type of campaign.
That's assymetric warfare for you, and relies on a steady supply of manpower for the smaller force and better knowledge of terrain. Which makes that pretty inapplicable to runs. ;)
I do.
Just in the good old spiral of doom. Thanks, bu no thanks. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Apr 1 2006, 07:15 AM
Post
#317
|
|||||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
Actually, that's *why* you have to jack up the power levels; otherwise, there's a 1 in 5 chance that Joe Average can take out the important NPC's, no matter what precautions they've taken. In order to create an opponent who can match a whole team of runners, you need to really lift the caps. Sure, you can keep throwing armies at the team; but that gets boring quickly. Watch any action movie: the climax will be a direct fight with the bad guy, who has a solid edge on the main hero. There needs to be more options for challenging a team than throwing more people at them. Throwing *better* people at them is usually a lot more fun. And I know what you meant, but even then, you've got to jack up the power level significantly. Sure, you can throw a force-20 fire elemental at the party and give them a serious challenge... but what about the mage who summoned it? He's got to be pretty damn powerful to have pulled it off. You end up creating an opponent with a higher power level than the team again. Granted, this time you can do so within the rules; but the principle remains the same.
Any single-note campaign can be annoying. But Harlequin is essentially a One Big Bad Guy campaign, and it's one of the best modules ever written. It depends on how you treat it.
I'd prefer that to the "How many guards can we hack today?" type of game, that's for sure. Again, YMMV. Personally, I think having a lot of options for presenting a challenge is nice; if your only option is to throw more people at the team, I personally would find that monotonous. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Apr 1 2006, 07:22 AM
Post
#318
|
|||
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
You've got some great points. Like everything discussed on this forum, it all boils down to individual taste and style. My parent point being "you might not like to just rule on things, but some do, and whatever works is the right way". And as I said, I do dialogue with my players. But the simple fact remains that I'm GMing, and it's my world. I don't make rulings to gloat over them, and I don't make them for a power rush or to lord over players. I make rulings that make sense in the context of my game, and the context of my game world. We're talking in generalities, and that makes discussion of this particular subject all the more difficult. We're exchanging the backing theory for how we do things, but since there aren't specific instances being interjected, we're subconsciously applying the other's theory to situations of our choosing, which doesn't actually get anyone anywhere. It would be much easier if we were discussing specific instances and why we made a ruling. That's a common thing in forums discussions. The level of exchange is patently poor compared to that achieved in real, open conversation. It would take days and pages of text to actually have a good discussion on the subject, IMO. I wish we had full on Matrix, this would be so much more interesting. Bah. It's not so much an inability to articulate oneself in the written word, it's a matter of maximum effort for frustratingly little reward. We need a TeamChat style thing for DS. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 1 2006, 08:05 PM
Post
#319
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
You're getting closer and closer every time, then you just slip away. I'll give you a hint: not every game I play has the same players: almost every day I hand down some sort of GM Fiat in two of my online arena games, whereas in my face to face game we're generally pretty good at finding a middle ground. I'm sorry I had to spell it all out for you, as I'm sure you were enjoying the challenge of wrapping yourself around the problem. Quick couple of examples: In one of my online arenas I run we recently modified the Holy Word line of spells in D&D. Basically if your alignment doesn't match and your level is high enough your opponent dies. That doesn't work in an arena, because instant death is no fun for anyone but the instant death dealer. The player insisted that it was balanced because you could just be deaf and be immune to the Words. I (and the other GM) told him firmly that we understood his concern but that the ruling had been made. It was best for the game. In my face to face game last night I had a lot of cocnern about the street sam's 17 dice for firearms, but because talking about lowering it upset the guy too much I just said I'd work with it in game. Oddly enough, there was only one combat in the entire night, and he wasn't involved in it. So far what scared me hasn't even factored in. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 1 2006, 11:17 PM
Post
#320
|
|||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
I have no idea why; according to the d20 rules, Holy Word only autokills enemies with 10 HD less than your character. Since you need to be 13th level minimum to cast it, I don't understand why you're even throwing 3rd level characters at him in an arena. You could simply start enforcing a rule that only characters of similar levels are allowed to battle, and have solved your problem just as easily. Which, IMO, sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to do anyway... I mean, you're throwing characters with ten levels difference at each other, and *then* you worry about balance? But did you ask the player why he wanted it? In this case, it looks like he wanted a way of dealing with lots of low-level opposition in his face. Well, you could have suggested Blade Barrier instead; maybe you could have even made a variant that would move with him, at a level or two higher. Maybe you could have suggested other tactics he could pull, instead of killing them-- maybe sanctuary spells, for example. I don't see any indication that you made a counteroffer to your player. You just decided: "What I say is best, and if you don't like it, leave." There was a lot of opportunities to work with the player, to see what compromises can be reached, and so on. Heck, he might have even been able to suggest another variant that might add a bunch of fun to your games. GM fiat was not needed, just better understanding and communication. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 2 2006, 03:41 AM
Post
#321
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
He was stacking lots of caster level increases so that his caster level was 10 higher than the maximum hit dice of his opposition. Try again.
Eidt: In case it matters "maximum hit dice of his opposition" = his ECL or higher, and it isn't actually necessary to kill them with it. Paralysis and unconsciousness are the exact same thing as death in a one on one combat. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 2 2006, 09:25 AM
Post
#322
|
|||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
So, are you backpedaling, or were you deliberately providing bad information? In either case, things that affect the ECL are pretty potent as well; maybe that's where you should start looking to solve your problems. Maybe you could have handled it there; maybe you could have come up with a compromise that also softened the effect of ECL bonuses. There's lots of things you could have done, if you were willing to enter a dialogue with your players and have an open mind. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 3 2006, 01:48 AM
Post
#323
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
How am I backpedaling or deliberately providing false information? Just because you assume something doesn't make it true, and I didn't exactly say anything about how he was using it against 3rd level characters. I can't be tasked with doing your thinking for you, despite how it may affect your lifestyle for the better.
How would doing anything about ECL change the fact that the Holy Words are broken in one on one duels? I can tell you don't run any online arena games. I'll give you a hint: the more complex the house rules, the fewer players you will get, especially the longer the game lives. In a way it's like tournament play. If you overload your tournaments with house rules, nobody will want to play in them because they may not plan on being arounda long time and don't want to go through the effort to learn vast amounts of rules for something they may play once. Also, "it's balanced because you can defean yourself" was the extent of his desired changes. Sure, I could have taken him by th hand, worked out a variant that would have worked exactly to his specifications, and then had to change or defend it 2 weeks from now to someone else because they have yet another, even better idea. Having run (and still running) the most successful arena game ever at rpol.net, I think I'll stick by my decisions. :) |
|
|
|
|
Apr 3 2006, 08:34 AM
Post
#324
|
|||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
Because Holy Word only affects characters of a lower level than you. Simple as that.
No. I prefer to game with friends, in long-running campaigns. I take it that you don't? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 3 2006, 08:52 AM
Post
#325
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Holy Word affects people with lower hit dice than your caster level, not your level alone. Your ECL doesn't play into it at all, and your opponent having a level adjustment just makes it easier on you. Changing the ECL rules wouldn't do a thing to change Holy Word's ability to instantly and almost unavoidably end a duel.
I do both long running campaigns and online arena games (which are also long running, just not campaigns). All my ftf gaming is done with friends, and I've met a lot of friends in the arenas too, so yeah, you could say I like to game with friends. But then, I don't know a lot of people that like to game with enemies. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 13th December 2025 - 12:20 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.