The Point, Cause it seems it is missing... Options

[NightmareX]

I lurk more than post here on Dumpshock, but I've noticed in the past year or so a trend that I see in my gaming group too. Perhaps it's the influx of new people (no offense guys). But in any case, it seems alot of folk think the only solution to dealing with a "rules object" (ie a spell or bit of 'ware or adept power or whatever) is to counter it with a different rules object - I blame this on WotC in a way. Likewise, it seems that the general trend is to meet force with force - PCs having a tendency to use the kick-the-door guns blazing method of problem solving, or GMs solving the "problem" of well stated PCs by throwing piles of NPCs at them.

While this is fine and dandy, it leads to an arms race mentality which, IMO, is not the point of SR.

Shadowrun is, IMO, all about balance of power. A PC has Move-by-Wire III, has a maxed out commlink and programs, or can cast a Force 10 Fireball without breaking a sweat? Big deal. There's plenty of folks in the world that can equal or surpass them, and organizations (corps, governments, etc) can always, always out gun, out man, and out spend them and hunt them down like dogs if necessary. That applies to the corps, mobs, and governments too - they may have the power to seriously make their opposition's day a living hell, but the opposition can do the same to them. Balance is achieved.

In such a situation, it is not how big your gun or fireball is, how l33t your skills are, how hot your 'ware is, or how high your attributes are that means difference behind success and failure. It is how well, how smartly you use the advantages you have.

It is thus my opinion that the point - other than having fun - of Shadowrun is to be a devious, evil bastard...and be very, very cool doing it :smokin: This is what I miss, I realize, about old school running from previous editions, and why I miss the sage advice of Blackjack 8)

Thoughts?

[deek]

Well, I think the main response I want to make to this is, the "point" of SR is different for every gaming table. I've played in groups where everyone was about their stats and gear and trying to have the highest dice pools to throw...and the GM was there just to present challenges that we had to really work hard to overcome...not my favorite kind of group, but it can be fun with the right people.

Other tables focus on the challenges the GM puts up and the stories s/he brings to the table. Taking a look at many of those char gens would make most min/maxers laugh, because they are pretty weak by comparison, but if the whole group is balanced, then its all relative and therefore the GM doesn't have to throw piles of NPCs at them, because the power level is toned down and just a couple well-built NPCs could present a tough challenge.

I guess I have never felt that SR is about being a devious, evil bastard...to me it has always been about running the shadows in an abysmal, high-tech, high-magic world, where daily life sucks, but out in the shadows, you feel alive, make some good nuyen and don't have to worry about where next month's rent is coming from. And because all the megacorps are corrupt, getting paid by their losses is doing the world a good deed!

[Prime Mover]

I think its all in style and skill of the GM, I'm always trying to outwit and outscrew my players and they now it, its the nature of there job as shadowrunners. And they've come to expect no less then a good challenge not just good firefight. It always helps to really keep a backstory alive to, deadbeat relatives, exwives, kids etc.... I think this keeps there lives in perspective and can help ya set your tone away from "Me kill now" attitude.

But don't get me wrong some days its just damn fun to kick in the door guns blazeing and pull a neo.....but they better damn well not think there just gonna walk out back door/sewer/parachute off roof and not ever have to worry about retaliation or roundabout payback. "For every action in the shadows theres an equal or greater then reaction."


Players lives in begining should be hard,gritty and a challenge, as there "game" improves so should there chances but not because of firepower...because of smarts earned from a hard knocks life in the shadows.

[Fuchs]

We started with the "us against the GM" style, all professional, all maxed out, always trying to be a step ahead of the GM. Over the years, I burned out, as player and as GM, of trying to match wits every week.

These days, our campaign is more about a couple of less-than-perfect runners trying to survive the troubles and whacky situations they end up in. For planning, I use an NPC leader, and the players know they won't be punished for screwing up a plan or run.

As long as all have fun you're doing it right.

[Whipstitch]

[Caine Hazen]

[Moon-Hawk]

[PlatonicPimp]

Fun? FUN? Running isn't 'sposed to be fun! You're commiting highly illegal acts for dirty cahs because you're desperate, all kinds of nasty people are trying to kill you in new and creative ways, and and if your lucky you get out with the goods and your hide intact, with only one or two good friends left for dead, and after getting double crossed by your Johnson, still managing to grab enough money for repairs, reloads and a can af beans before your fixer calls with another suicidal job offer. Does that sound like fun to you?!

[Fuchs]

Playing Shadowrun is supposed to be fun. If it is not fun, then one needs to change how one plays, or stop playing.

[PlatonicPimp]

Bah. Fun is for hippie commies. You're not a hippie-commie, are you?

[Fortune]

[Ol' Scratch]

I think the original poster is just confusing discussions about various rules, gear and powergaming with how people actually play the game. There's a huge difference between the two.

I'll be one of the first people to jump into a discussion about what is better than what and why, conversations about obscure and weird rules and what pages you can reference them on, potential problem areas in the rules and how they can be abused, and all that sort of thing. But when it comes down to it, I almost always play a down and dirty character with crappy stats and even crappier gear because I find it far more entertaining to play in that fashion than being a "perfect' character with no chance of real competition (well, without the GM and me going through some kind of dick-waving exercise). Even though I could create such a character, I'd be bored to death playing him.

Conversely, knowing all those little loopholes and quirks in the system means I have a better chance of finding away around such things when they do crop up, both as a player and a GM. That's probably the biggest advantage of those discussions.

[Kyoto Kid]

[toturi]

[Talia Invierno]

There are as many ways to play Shadowrun as there are groups.

That being said: every single response to the original post thus far seems to assume that once a given group establishes a style of play, that style remains for the most part static. It is seen as possible to learn more of "proper" play, to grow to take one's understanding of playing within the SR world beyond two-dimensional newbie innocence: but entering a slippery slope hasn't once been considered.

What NightmareX is saying has nothing whatsoever to do with game balance, or one group's style of play as opposed to another's. Rather, it is that the tone in NightmareX's group has changed, and that the direction of the change seems to be similar to an observed change in the way the most vocal Dumpshockers approach challenges.

I've noticed the same thing.

Unfortunately, once an arms race is established (or once the preferred reaction starts to become force in all situations), we never yet have had a resolution that didn't involve something giving way.

[Fuchs]

We solved that in talking, and starting a new campaign. Same players, different characters and setting.

[imperialus]

[PlatonicPimp]

No, friend citizen, you have it wrong. Fun is mandatory. You WILL have fun. you don't seem to be having fun. please report immediately to the happy fun time correction center and pharmacy.

[l33tpenguin]

Player style can also be a reflection on how the GM runs the game. I've experianced games where the min maxer was the one who shined, even though the GM could barely stand the player/character. However, ever time we went up against a challenge, it was the min/maxer with the uber powerful character that was the hero. This was a fault of the GM. Any time other players tried to use methods besides brute force to accomplish tasks, we were met with min/maxed npcs that were impossible to defeat with out a min/maxed application of brute force. Try to bluff our way in? Test numbers too high, we fail, bad guys are onto us. Try to use stealth? Not enough successes to sneak past the bad guys, we fail, combat results. Indimidation? Nope, that doesn't work either. Each time we said we gave up on other methods, but we kept trying them anyway, only to have them thrown back in our faces because we couldn't get enough successes. Then the GM just put us up against harder and harder opponents in an attempt to beat our min/maxer 'by the books' which left the rest of us in the dust, acting as background noise while he guy won the day over and over. Since the GM ALSO wouldn't do anything like... oh, kill someone off. So, not only would we be unable to use anything but brute force to stop the NPCs, if left to the rules, these same NPCs would have killed us each time if the GM didn't fudge some rolls.
I remember getting hit once and the GM told me the damage. I just looked at him and was like "I'm dead" he says "What?" and I show him, "I can take X damage, MAX, you did X^2" he says "oh, well, you are just unconcious."

yeah... so.. that whole run on sentence/paragraph is really a rant... but still should be considered.

[Glyph]

Like the Doc said, there's a big difference between how posters discuss rules issues and how they actually play the game. But even in those threads, the "arms race" posters are only a vocal minority. There are also posters who advocate discussing game balance issues OOC with the players, those who advocate focusing the game onto other areas if one character is dominating one single area, and those who advocate tactics over power-bludgeoning from the GM.


I agree that brains and tactics can make more of a difference than raw power, but you're making the same mistake the "roleplaying vs. min-maxing" people make. You're assuming that two unrelated things are incompatible. The truth is, you can be a dull hack-and-slasher whose min-maxing is botched, and you can also be a devious tactician with a brutally-tweaked character.

And tactics may be more effective, but Shadowrun is also a game where it comes down to the cold, unforgiving dice, and if you have more of them to throw down, you succeed more. Tactics can find you an exploitable hole in an installation's defenses, but you will still need to roll stealth, con, electronics, or some other skill at some point.

[NightmareX]

[toturi]

[Ravor]

Of course some people have come to the conclusion that just because char-gen allows you to literally make characters that are the best-of-the-best-world-class it doesn't mean that it's realistic to create a team of such Runners in anything but a world-class Prime Runner cmapaign.

[Kyoto Kid]

[l33tpenguin]