Deep thoughts on RPG experience-advancement, Real life, statistics, and risk Options

[PlainWhiteSocks]

To the original post.
Even in the era of ultrachrunch montehaul munchkinism there were other concepts floating around. Stalking the Night Fantastic which came out in I think 1983 had a nifty approach to this. They built a combat system that most people didn’t want to deal with in the hopes that players would avoid it in favor of non-violent solutions.

Even Phoenix Command had this concept in mind. The thought being if you made combat deadly enough people wouldn’t want to get into combat, and instead roleplay different solutions.

In SR it would seem that karma is awarded for lots of more meta-game sorts of things. Like good roleplaying, and extreme in character humor. It might point to karma being awarded to players instead of characters.

[Dog]

[ronin3338]

[Fygg Nuuton]

I award karma for life decisions.

If the character shooses to sneak around instead of kill all the guards, because thats what his character would do and they succeed, they get karma. If the same character decided to kill them all for no reason and it is out of character, i would not award karma.

If the very same character decided to kill them because there was no way out, but roleplayed it well, I would have to award karma.

If there was some sort of major life changing decision being made whilst doing the laundry, I would probably award karma. But so far, there has been none.

That being said, i also award for metagame type things, and maybe 1-2 points for finishing the run in one piece.

[Wounded Ronin]

[Feyd-47]

Hmm, after having a good read up on this thread (if it's old, nevermind, it caught my eye so i'm resurrecting it :) ) i think the major bone of contention is that many people have different ideas as to what Karma should be awarded for. This, naturally, leads to certain clashes of ideas as to how Karma should be awarded.

I think to successfully look at the issue objectively we need to first look at the assumptions Shadowrun makes about itself. it's base criteria for Karma and finally how all this gels together with the myriad of possible character ideas that Shadowrun can generate.

Firstly, i think we can all say that Shadowrun assumes that there is going to be a combat orientated element to any plot somewhere along the line of playing. This could be in one or more of three major areas: Physical Combat, Magical Combat and Cyber Combat. This is what is mostly considered the Shadowrunners bread and butter of any run. However, Shadowrun never makes the decision on how the characters deal with these three areas of combat. Shadowrun also does not consider in any great detail the aspects of Social Combat. While it could be expostulated that this is not a Combat form per se it can still prove to be a challenge in which someone's life might be held in the balance. Whether this means life or death or something more subtle is entirely dependent upon the situation in question and would take forever and a day to produce an exhaustive list of all possible details that such a situation could entail.

Karma could be handed out for many situations that arise in these moments of "combat" and as to how this is judged depends entirely on the point of view of all those involved and the situation in question. Mostly, however, Shadowrun awards Karma to "..characters that personally advance the story or the overall gaming enjoyment in some way.." and looks at what it believes to be the general areas in which this can occur. These areas are Good Roleplaying, Guts, Smarts, Motivation, Right Place/Right Time, Surprise and Humour and Drama. In no way is this list exhaustive or necessarily relevent. As many on this thread have already pointed out, many people have their own criteria for handing out Karma that maybe a variation or, indeed, completely contrary to the criteria layed out in the Shadowrun Third Edition Book.

Of course for any of this to work you must have context. There really is no "normal" or "base line" character that exists in shadowrun. Many characters are taken in context to their intended roles within the group, be it Street Samurai, Adept, Spell Slinger or Decker. But these are simply roles within a group, it does not necessarily define the character or limit them to one of those roles only, many characters tend to blend into other roles somewhat, though this certainly isn't necessarily true. What truly defines a character is their personality and needs, and what moulds that, as any person real or imagined, is their experiences and resultant point of view. At base, what any human being craves is security. In modern times, this probably means food turning up on the table regularly and somewhere sheltered and secured that they can stay where they can be moderately sure that they are free from harm/interference from the rest of the world. However, the crux of the matter at hand is the question of simply why do characters become Shadowrunners?

Take the first quote posted on this thread by Wounded Ronin who was quoting his old GM: "One flaw with Shadowrun is that you can take Resources A in character generation and use it to buy a permanent high lifestyle and win the game without playing." This is in itself an interesting view on Shadowrun as this comment certainly works nicely if the character in question's only goal is to be able to buy a permanent lifestyle and this works for some people. If you go by the letter of the Shadowrun rules however, you have a character that has a nice permanent high lifestyle but unfortunately owns no clothes, no computer beyond his trideo system, no car beyond the rental that is probably afforded by his lifestyle and no income. Whilst this maybe fine for an ascetic character that lives in a nudist colony it certainly does no good to a character that wishes to work for a wage to purchase those luxuries that are not provided by his High Lifestyle.
So, what is the "Win" condition of Shadowrun? There is no particular one and the ones that exist are usually personal to the character who sets them. The attainment of goals are the characters "Win" conditions, but the game doesn't end there necessarily, a character may realise new goals thanks to the attainment or indeed the failure to attain previous goals. So going back to the original point question of why do people Shadowrun, the number reasons that exist is as many as there are Shadowrunners. A SINless metahuman character cannot get a legitimate job that covers his bills and is forced to run the shadows for survival. A wage-mage angry at his treatment by his megacorporate bosses enters the shadows to wage a private war against said megacorporation. Some might Shadowrun simply for the thrill and challenge of putting one's life on the line. The reasons are varied and many coloured and without a doubt, a personal goal of the character is involved in that reason at somepoint. Of course one of the major attractions of Shadowrunning is that Shadowrunning is Lucrative. You won't find the money on offer for Shadowrunning matched by some low end desk jockey pumping out stock reports for his superiors. Shadowrunning is lucrative because Shadowrunners put their life on the line as deniable assets to get a job done that no law abiding citizen would involve themselves in. They risk death, maiming or imprisonment for their employers and they are paid a good deal for it, though this can be variable depending on the job and the negotions that ensue as to how much the team will be paid. You can bet that for every Shadowrunner out there that has their own specific personal agenda there are five more that do it because it pays well and affords them the lifestyle they have come to see as normal.

This is your context for Karma awards. By playing your character in the adventure/story that your GM has created, Karma helps to quantify how the character has progressed in their own life as well as how well they have performed in the adventure. No two GM are alike, no two players are alike and how that effects the game and how it causes the game and characters to grow is entirely down to the players and GM in question's personal desires. If you and your players want to receive Karma for bodycount and 'plosions, nothing is to say you can't and you award Karma in that context.

Simply there is no hard and fast rules where it comes to character development or game progression, nor the rewards and consequences of such and Shadowrun is no way limited in this fashion, quite the opposite. The GM and the players should work together to find whatever works for them and enjoy themselves whilst doing it, whatever your preference and no one person or group is unequivocally right or wrong in this regard.

I have waxed lyrical for quite some time and i'm unsure as to whether people will read all this or comment on it, but i do hope i have helped further understanding of the subject matter at hand.

[Dread Polack]

I think you need to keep a couple things in mind. One is that the karma system (earning points for accomplishing things, and then spending them to improve yourself in whatever way you choose) is not perfect or realistic. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Most people gain skill both through study and application. In RPGs, you don't get karma/xp for "hitting the books" or "working in the lab." Most RPGs award most of earned xp through combat, because it's a big part of the game; the fun part. People accept this.

Secondly, even in a very tactical, combat-heavy RPG like SR, we're still "storytelling" here. Sure, the ultimate motivation of most runners would be to retire with a load of nuyen, but the goals of most players is to keep playing, and it would suck to have to create a new character every time your old one makes enough money to buy a condo. So, we work with our GMs to ensure a sufficient storyline to keep our runners running; for whatever reason.

I think RPGs today are a bit more sophisticated than 1st edition D&D, where it was more like a board game, earning points for killing monsters. SR was ahead of its time, giving up the level-based system where the more monsters you kill, the better you are at appraising diamonds or speaking japanese. Still, its not perfect. It's a compromise.

Bearing that in mind, I think most good GMs award xp/karma for "completed goals" that fit your character's "motivation." It's assumed from there, that you will work with your GM to improve the skills & abilities you used to accomplish said goals, and are perfecting as part of your concept. Deckers are awarded for decking, and spend karma to improve their decking skills, mages for magic, street sams for fighting, etc.

You're right, but you have to compromise, and the games are getting better.

Dread Polack

[eidolon]

Both good posts. One thing though, part of what Feyd is saying, is that if it's what has been agreed upon, you can receive Karma for "hitting the books" or "working in the lab.". Actually, Dread, you're saying that as well, although not as explicitly, as shown by:

[lorechaser]

Back to the original point:

1. It's a tried and true staple of the genre that the (anti)hero gets pulled back in for "just one more X." Also, most criminals have expensive tastes. It's odd that someone gets in to Shadowrunning because "I just want a 2 bedroom house with 2.5 kids, man!" Everyone *should* have a motivating reason for starting to run the shadows. That doesn't mean that a good character concept can't be "Forced on the streets, Bob struggled to survive until he learned he was good a Y, which keeps him in nuyen now." But most want fast cars, fast (wo)men, and big scores. And often, they owe more money to people than they can pay back.

2. Every single runner should be required to have "Addiction" ;) That'll keep 'em running.

[Wounded Ronin]

[Dog]

Of all the resurrected threads, this is one that truly deserves it. Great comments by all. I don't have much to add at this point, other than that this last round of stuff is really insightful and I'm glad you guys said it.

[hobgoblin]

this sound to me like serious forge territory...

anyways, i think even D&D says that killing the monster isnt the only way to gain XP. problem is that the biggest part of the book talks about combat.

same with SR. you have everything revolving around the combat chapter and its timing system. detailed rules for weapon, hacking, magic all having defined actions that are free, simple or complex.

this gives a perception of combat overload in the mind of the reader.

still, SR karma is better then D&D exp. in that the former can be given for anything, including suviving the day, while the latter is based on the challenge rating of the group of monsters, trap(s) or whatever.

still, in both systems skills like fast talk and similar are given what, a small table of outcomes based on the comparison of two rolls? while on the other side combat have a seperate chapter. ie, people would feel cheated if all they did was roll the dice, get a better result then the npc and presto, problem over, here are your xp/karma/whatever. it becomes a bit like playing clickquest (that "computer game")...

this brings me back to the forge, that think tank with their grand theorys and everything like that. there seems to be one interesting game for us rules junkies that may have come out of that place, burning wheel. from what i understand it have a detailed, combat-like, system for playing out things like discussions.

sorry if anything of this have come up allready, i just skimmed the thread...

[Kyoto Kid]

[Dranem]

Even in D&D there are descriptions dealing with defeating an enemy - not only through conflict. Talkind down and enemy or disarming an enemy and capturing them will net a party just as much experience as if the creature was lying dead at their feet.

The one thing I like the most about Shadowrun is that, unlike other RPGs, it's not an encounter award system. You don't have to encounter a creature or a challenge in order to gain a reward. The award system is based on accomplishment, and often offer more reward for avoiding conflict rather than starting it. Outside of runs where the goal was assault, I've always considered the task/job/mission a failure if it disolved into a firefight. Mainly cause I believe the primary goal of the shadowrunner is corporate espionage. To be an efficient spy you need to be in and out without anyone being the wiser, not every mission need end 'James Bond Style' After all, the longer it takes for the opposition to clue in that something is amiss, the longer your J has the upper hand in whatever task he'd assigned you to do.
Granted this model doesn't always work:
In extraction/recovery missions, unless you use a decoy, the opposition will realize that your target is missing sooner or later.. (better later than sooner thought)
In assault or demolition runs, the target will realize that something is up - unless you expertly craft the mission to look like an accident or natural disaster.

That said, I've had missions where I've gained bonus rewards from good RP, from successful contacts, or just really footwork. I could easily see rewarding a student for fantastic grades, or successful accomplishments. Or awarding an NPC for various tasks if said NPC needs to be interactive at some point in time during a mission. (I know, as a GM, you can arbitrarily set these numbers, but having NPCs level up in the backgroup adds some realism to the campaign... just cause they're not players, doesn't mean they don't have a life.)

I did have something else to add.. but lost my train of thought.. so I'll probalby include it later. :)

[eidolon]

Dranem hit on this somewhat, but I'd like to add if I can.

In D&D, even the 3.x versions, there are several suggestions and examples for awarding experience in different ways, all of which can be used, disregarded, added, etc. to come up with "what works" for your group.

Ad hoc, story experience suggestions, and other stuff allow for the same kind of adjustments to the rewared system as Karma gives Shadowrun, you just have to use it, abuse it, and figure out what works for you.

Sure, it's easy to fall back to "CR3 is worth X", but it's just as easy in SR to fall back to "one K for surviving, one K for playing, one K for ...". And of course, neither of these is a "wrong" way to play. But the flexibility is there if you want it.

[lorechaser]

Combat is flashy, and combat is rules intensive. Thus, it tends to occupy a large part of books, and of games.

It's very easy to write 4 chapters on combat options and rewards.

It's a lot harder to write 4 chapters on negotiation and rewards. We all know how to talk to people. For someone to write a book with a chapter describing how to be polite would just be silly....

[hobgoblin]

it realy depends. if there was one thing i found interesting about burning wheel, it was its "combat" system (alltho owod in theory uses something similar i dont think many play it that way).

at the start of the combat you write down the things you want to do the next couple of rounds.

your comitted to these action unless you trow away a action for a round to rewrite a later round.

the same thing can be done in verbal interactions.

or maybe something like in castle falkenstein where you have a general duel system that can be used for both verbal and physical duels.

thing is to make the talk more then just a single dice roll. maybe have something like either side have to win 2-3 times in a row. if the other side wins a round they get a counter argument in and can start to try and win.

then maybe have modifiers for physical apperance, evidence to back ones arguments up and so on.