Playing Methods, When does it change? Options

[Sphynx]

As most of you know (those that read my numberous posts), I play in a very non-realistic style game. If it's advantageous for the player, it's most likely accepted (as long as it has Canon backing).

The thought behind this post is wondering when playing-styles change. I've played in games where people do the pure monty-haul how high can numbers go (ignoring Canon profusely) to miniature games of low numbers and anything 'powerful' that is done is usually detremental. Example...

Game 1: Player wants Detect Enemies and Detect Life at Force 6, so that he can Quicken them. GM recommends (at char-gen) that he increase the drain and get Extended-Range on those to be more useful. Once Quickened, they provide invaluable insight with a simple perception check to notice people/enemies.

Game 2: Player wants Detect Enemies and Detect Life at Force 6, so that he can Quicken them. GM after listening to a great background story decides that the player should limit himself to Force 4, 5 at most, because despite the great story, his chances of having learned a Force 6 are remote due to his Sorcery skill of 5 (the cap allowed by the GM, limited to 1 skill, all others 4 or less), and if it's requested for Extended-Range is told 'only if he learns them that way, in-game'. Later, despite recommendations by the GM not to be an 'Astral Beacon', the player completes his Quest and Quickens the spells at 10 karma each (got them at Force 5 after promising to walk the GM's dog before and after each game). For the rest of his short career, the GM overflows him with information, adding a +6 to all TN's due to the distracting inflow of data coming in as the life forms are everywhere and all your friends are Enemies from time to time as they are annoyed at the character for being the central nexus for spirits coming in from every angle regularly, ruining most Runs.

Now, as you probably are aware, Game-1 is more my style, but Game-2 seems to be a more popular way of playing... what happened? Where is the fun (and I swear if one person says 'its in the story' without realizing that games with numbers can have stories, I'm gonna.....)? What changes people so much that they go from a full game of minmax AND storytelling to storytelling and screw the players if they do any minmaxxing?

FYI: This is more of a Rant than an actual quest for knowledge. Regardless of answers, I'm going to enjoy Game-1 alot more, both as a player and GM. ;)

Sphynx

[Digital Heroin]

I'll answer in the terms I see it.

What's the fun in bothering, when you have to square off against Dr. Doom to even be challenged? If you can off a generic goon like you'd swat a fly, then you're in for a boring life, because generic goons comprise 90% of what's out there for opposition. Sure, it may seem cool to have to carry around a bag of dice just to roll your Pistols skill, or to be able to score enough sucesses to deal deadlyt damage with a paper clip, but it wears off fast. Sure, you could just bounce up the power level of every Joe Schlub security guy on the planet to epic levels, but in my reckoning you might as well just go an slap each and every person who worked on creating the system, because you've just done a disservice to their vision. If you want to be an uber-powered munchkin, go play a superhero game.

That's just me though... I've been wrong before...... once....

[TinkerGnome]

I don't think I'd enjoy either game very much, but certainly I'd like Game 1 better than 2. What you'll find is that there is a more common third type of game:

Game 3: The GM allows the spells at force 6, but doesn't allow any non-canon variants (those have to be researched in-game). When the PC manages to quicken the spells, he finds himself occasionally limited by them at about the same frequency as someone with a load of cyberware (a meet at a coffin club, for instance, or a run where his active spells tip off an astral observer, etc.).

[edit]Sometimes, the "enemies" spell doesn't work exactly the way the mage might want, as well, leading to odd situations.[/edit]

[Ol' Scratch]

You left out another style completely. The one that doesn't have lean towards one extreme or the other. In fact, there are some GMs who are very character-centric and don't view the game as a competition between themselves and the players (usually using the self-delusion that they're just "challenging" them so it doesn't shatter their fragile reality) NOR do they few it as a need to feel godlike to compensate for a lacking manhood.

To use your two examples, try the game where the player spends the points (30 total; 12 for the two spells, 18 to initiate to get Quickening) and quickens the two spells. No extended range, no limited ratings. However, the GM does try to talk to him about that decision, asking him why he would want to constantly (and with no ability to turn it off) know when people are around or have ill thoughts directed towards him. It would be a devestating annoyance and distraction most of the time, likely causing TN penalties most of the time that are nearly equal to sustaining the spell anyway (distraction causes a +2 TN penalty). But if the character had some reason for wanting to do it, he's free to do so. He spent the points, he can do as he likes. He'll just have to deal with the consequences of his decisions.

[Austere Emancipa...]

And I guess "something in between", which is where I'm sure most Dumpshockers are at, is not covered in this thread at all?

For example, if one of my players wanted to do get Detect Life and Detect Enemies 6 to quicken at chargen, I'd be fine with that, as long as he paid the karma to go with it (learning the spells + initiating + quickening). However, since our starting chars have rather low karma totals (this game started at 350 with BeCKS v1), that isn't very likely to happen. If the character in question had a background that would allow him/her to have designed her own spells, I might even suggest the extended range.

As a GM, I simply do not like the idea of starting characters being near-invulnerable. I like chars to work their way there. And I don't screw over the players either, since they won't run into anyone having abilities they couldn't have. Unless they screw something up themselves, like spontaneously declaring war on UCAS or leveling lots of downtown property owned by organized crime organizations or megacorps. Oh, wait, they already did that...

I think it's quite boring if starting characters can go "matrix" and walk into a crowd of 50 people with handguns and know they can handle it if they want to. I know some people like more superhero-type games, and that's just fine too. The world of RPGs is large enough for all of us.

And I doubt you'll find anyone, anywhere, who'd enjoy game type 2 more. Your post would be far more interesting if the game type 1 example was in fact the opposite of 2. Something like: "Player wants Detect Enemies and Detect Life at Force 6, so that he can Quicken them. The GM thinks this isn't enough, and gives the player Quickened Astral Armor 6, Increase Reaction 6, Increase Reflexes +3 6 and Levitate 6 with 12 successes and effective force 12 each free of charge. Because these are mainly defensive abilities, and the char might still be in trouble when facing a horde of great form elementals, the GM also grants the char Manaball, Powerball, Stunball and Spiritblast at force 12 that have -4 Drain Power and -2 Drain Level because they only work against Bad People. Additionally, the GM gives the char a dikoted ally spirit AVS. The character promptly goes and pwnz0rz the Arco and wins Shadowrun!"

Or, you could just have made the 2nd example something like: "Player wants Detect Enemies and Detect Life at Force 6, so that he can Quicken them. The GM doesn't allow Initiation or Quickening at chargen, so the player has to wait for a few games to Initiate and Quicken these spells."

I know you'd still play with the 1st example, and so would a great many others. But it would've made the original msg a bit more fair towards those who don't.

[Shockwave_IIc]

I prefer to play in and run (I hope) games somewhere between the two. If your wanting detect enemies and life, go for it. But while most of the time you will be enjoying the benefits of such a combo, occasionally i will slap you with assicaited problems. generally when it's most apprioate.

But from what i know about your games Sphynx, i would not want to play in them, not that im saying it's a bad game just not my style of game i would enjoy i think.

Using your examples as bench marks, game one 1 (being "if the rules back you, go with it") a 10 say. where as game 2 (being "Don't even think about it, let alone try it") being say a 1 on the this imginary scale. I would prefer games around the 6-7 mark.

[BitBasher]

[Disclaimer: horribly long.]

Well you asked about when it changes, and the example I can give is that of myself as a GM.

I have been running Shadowrun for as long as 2nd edition has been around, and playing through some of first as a player.

In the beginning I think most people start out games in the overkill monty hall fashion. In your teens, or at least in my teens what interested me and my players was just different than what interests me now. I liked brainless action movies and shallow characters. Those things were okay, and good, and therefore those were the types of characters I saw made for games. The action was more important than the roleplaying, because it was about how much you can kill and the stories you can tell of toppling corporations, killing organized crime families and pulling off impossible feats. We were the comic book superheroes. Shallow, yet victorious, because power and victory was what mattered.

These are the people bragging that they have great dragon horns as hood ornaments, thousands of karma, cyberzombies, vampires ect...

As the game progressed, and as we got older our outlook on life changed. What became important to us was quality over quantity. This happened in the timeframe a year or two before 3rd edition came out. After several short term games lasting at most a few months, we found our stride in a game where all the players loved and developed emotional attachments to their characters, and the story was long and farsighted. The players all had amnesia, someone had the information, and they know they were present on the night of Dunkezahn's assanitaion. That's all they knew. Characters grew and developed, relationships with PC's and NPC's was forged, and the story took on a life of its own. They never did find out even remotely enough to figure anything concrete enough about their past to answer any real big questions. It was great.

Now the real catalyst that changed things, besides us getting older, was in my opinion the dice rolls. We went from the GM hiding the dice behind a screen and telling you what happened, to the GM never hiding a dice roll, and never, ever altering them in any way. Period.

This started as an experiment and had a few unintentional side effects. If the GM can hide the dice rolls then the NPC's really don't have to follow the same rules as the PC's and the PC's know that. Conversely, if all the rolls are open and concrete, the GM cannot save them, their choices are final. Their consequences are absolute. This leads to players knowing that their characters mortality is real, and not able to be saved by GM fiat. They choose their fights carefully, they treat each victory as a victory. They feel their accomplishemnts are now things they accomplished, not just something handed to them on a platter because the GM said so and allowed the rolls to fall in their favor.

I cannot stress enough how much this canges the way the game feels. When someone knows that a bad roll can kill them, they take measures to make sure they don't have to make any unnecessary rolls. They protect themselves. They stop doing action movie maneuvers. They start treating their chacacters like real people, because like real people they are now mortal without some fate or luck protecting them. They know when to cut their losses and run. They turn down runs that seem too good to be true.

As a GM this made my life somewhat more difficult until I became a good judge of what screwed the PC's and what didn't. I still used NPC's bu they had to be more real, because I couldn't save them, they had to save themselves. The main NPC's stopped using direct confrontation. They knew they could die. If the PC's whacked a major player then so be it. The consequences fell where they may and the world went on. The game had to be much more freeform. There were no 5 year plans and events than needed to happen. Now there were NPC's with goals and motives, and PC's with actions and consequences, all this came together and the world unfolded in real time, more like a living breathing world full of real people and less like a plot waiting to happen. There were no more story signposts, thinking of cool events. No more undefeatable bad guys or good guys.

After playing this way for a few years we had a GM come and run a game for us, a good GM, but he fudged his dice rolls for story. It was a good story, and it was the kind of story we used to play, but we couldn't do that anymore. It all seemed forced. We knew the villain cheated to survive, so our eventual victory was shallow and forced, as we know that was also handed to us and not earned. Story for the sake of story IMHO is no better than dice rolls for the sake of dice rolls.

I don't run a story anymore I run a world. There is no "Metaplot" really. The story of any individual game centers around what the players want in their lives and how they can achieve those goals. What matters to them is what matters. It's far more personal that coming up with a campaign they you are going to send the characters through. You let the chacracters play through their lives and let the world unfold where it may before them.

I digress, and I apologize... I'm somewhat rambling here...

I guess the bottom line is that it's an evolution. You may never find the next step. I do not know what the next step is for me. If you are legitimately happy where you are then that's great. If not, then the only way to see if you like something else is to try something new.

If anyone passes Through Las Vegas I'll let you in a game to see how we do things. :D

[Kagetenshi]

Thanks, that provides a perfect thing to do if anyone ever puts up a Force 6 Extended Range Detect Life spell. Especially in a city. Though your TNs were quite generous, I'd say; I'd've given at least a +12 on all actions, probably +20 or +24 in Seattle.

As for why: it's in the story.

~J

Postscript: the second part is sarcastic. The bit about Detect Life I'm completely serious about.

[Shockwave_IIc]

@ BitBasher
*Takes off hat and bows*

[TinkerGnome]

[Sphynx]

Despite what people think, I have 'evolved' to the state of making sure the rules and story are of equal importance. In '91 I was playing RPGs with the attitude that it was all about 'style', in '93 I believed we didn't need dice nor character sheets. Wasn't til '01 that I realized that I'd left half the game in the past, and it was the half that all the kids who play the game seem to enjoy the most. I don't want to 'devolve' back into any stage other than enjoying the ENTIRE aspect of the game.

As for people explaining the Detect spells, I just want to comment that 'maybe' it would increase TN's if you treated it as such, but it's just as likely that the 'new sense' would actually be as natural as vision, and siggesting that a person who gains sight suffers +12 when in a city because of all the sights to see, while valid if you've never seen things before, ruins the idea of gaining sight and even then, sight is a much greater 'marvel' for someone who's never seen than the Detection of Life and Enemies would be. And assuming there isn't no great 'marvel' to the new sense, it would be as distracting as normal vision.

Sphynx

[Vanguard]

[BitBasher]

I want to add that I haven't had a PC death in over 2 years doing dice that way... My PC's are good at their jobs now, and the dice have shown them luck at a few crucial moments. They have however spent a LOT of time in emergency rooms and in extended care. :D

The best way to win a fight where the odds are against you, is not to start it.

[Adarael]

[bwdemon]

The problem here begins with the use of the phrase "screw the players if they do any minmaxing". The GM isn't out to screw the players any more or less in a low-power game than he is in a high-power game. Playing a low-power character isn't being screwed. Being awarded reasonable or even low amounts of karma isn't being screwed. Having to wonder if you character can afford a medium lifestyle next month isn't being screwed. Not having ready access to initiation is not being screwed. All of those just comprise elements of one type of game, a low-power game. Screwing the players involves never letting them succeed or putting them in horrible situations that they never deserved or had a chance to avoid.

A GM is the main source for PC/NPC interaction. NPCs can run from hostile to friendly and from feeble to godlike, with an incredibly broad range in between those extremes. The GM has to establish the NPCs and play them appropriately. The players have to establish and play their characters appropriately (yes, the players actually have a job in the game, too). Both have to do so within the bounds of the campaign, however limited or open those bounds may be. If both stay within the bounds, then nobody is getting screwed.

That said, the change from high-power to low-power happened when I matured. My early teens were loaded with high-power and power-based games, which became more and more boring by my mid-to-late teens. I left RPGs for online gaming for several years because of this until I stumbled upon a gaming group that showed me how a good game worked. Power level didn't matter, so long as the story was good and both the players and GM were interested in it. Around the same time, I realized that much more could be done at low power levels than at high power levels.

With a high-power game, the threats you can face off against are limited. Kasparov can only play an interesting game of chess against a very limited group of people (and computers) worldwide, because anything else is beneath him. If he finds he can consistently beat some of the people in that group, he pares off a few names and only cares to play against this smaller group. This continues ad nauseum until he doesn't play at all except to face the "Next Big Thing!".

With a low-power game, you can face off against threats at all levels, though you'll need to work to face off against the big threats. I barely consider myself passable at chess, but that's okay, because I can find a fun challenge in almost any opponent. I'd have to work really hard, get some extremely talented help, and/or get extremely lucky to have any sort of chance at beating Kasparov. However, this doesn't mean his mere existence as a great chess master has to be a personal affront to me.

I don't have to beat Kasparov to enjoy chess. I don't have to play the best runner in the shadows to enjoy SR.

[bwdemon]

I forgot to add my take on the spell problem...

As a GM, if I felt a spell or piece of equipment or whatever was too powerful or unbalancing for the campaign, I'd tell the player exactly that and explain why. The players in my current circles are mature enough that they'd forego the goody in the interest of game balance. I wouldn't treat the player like a child to be scolded for attempting to trick me. I wouldn't cave to the player's whims out of hand.

If the player made a well-reasoned argument for having the goody or agreed to limit it to certain applications, then I would weigh the player's argument or the effect of the limitation and make my decision on that. Either way, I'd explain why.

If a player wouldn't listen to reason and demanded the goody at full power - or, worse, a new munchkinized power level - then I'd tell them to walk. Life's too short to have to deal with unreasonable people during your own personal recreation time.

Finally, I hold myself to the same standard. If a GM tells me that something I want would unbalance the game, then I'll pass on the goody. That's just common courtesy due someone who takes their time to plan and run a game for my enjoyment.

[Digital Heroin]

[Talia Invierno]

I'm glad the bias of the initial post was caught by some who have posted before me. Hint: where one half of the comparison requires two and three times the number of words of the other half, odds are the comparison is biased against the part which is wordier, because what's considered "normal" is also to a large extent considered self-evident, and thus doesn't need as much description. (Usage of loaded terms such as "screwed" has already been covered.)

I'll go with most of what BitBasher and bwdemon said (and that's from someone who has crossed chess-swords with Boris Spasky, and given him somewhat of a game). Interestingly, we also dropped the use of the screen years ago. I can't say that it was as clear a cause-and-effect as BitBasher identifies, but I will say that threat certainly was a significant factor in teaching me to be more careful of my character. Then again, experience of what not to do might have played a role too.

That being said: I'm a great believer in consequences of actions: acts taken within a society, and that society's reaction to them. Within canon, it's possible to have a reasonably wide spectrum of acceptability of magic and 'ware and other quasi-legal items and actions, simply because no city, no country, is homogeneous. In environments where these things are common, many things might be seen but will habitually be overlooked or not even noticed. In environments where they are not, they will be noticed, and they might be acted upon.

I'd suggest that what the GM suggests for PC creation - whatever that choice - should ideally reflect the anticipated environment of play, so as to give an appropriate level of challenge to the PCs, and should additionally be acceptable to all members of the group.

Beyond that: what does it matter which choice is made, so long as all members of the group are having fun?

[Dim Sum]

Got rid of the ALMIGHTY GM SCREEN???!!! Sacrilege! Blasphemy!! Heresy!!! :D

On a more serious note, I think it's sad when a group can't have a GM screen up because they think the NPCs are catching a break and the GM is doing sneaky unaccountable things behind his "shield" - no offence meant, but that would be pathetic.

There are many reasons to have a GM screen in place - personally, I use one a lot but from time to time, I don't bother. I use the screen to hide how many dice I roll for example, so the players don't have any OOC indicators to go by. I see it as more of a service to my players (helps them stay on their toes) than distrusting their ability to avoid the use of OOC knowledge. An example is when an NPC fires at them: the players have to declare how much Combat Pool they're going to use without knowing how many dice the attacker used or how many successes were achieved.

If players can't trust a GM to run a fair game behind his screen, then it's a rather sorry group of gamers.

[tisoz]

I don't really understand the need to keep how many dice you're rolling secret. Wouldn't the character have an idea of the guys body attribute by looking at him? How does the player know how many dice are skill/attribute and how many are pool dice anyway? When in combat, wouldn't you have some idea of a persons skill by seeing them?

If you want to hide the dice, fine, but you should then compensate for it with a darn good description. Maybe make comparisons to others the character would be familiar with. He shoots/is built like/moves like so and so

[BitBasher]

Dim Sum poses a double standard there. By that standard players should be able to hide their dice rolls so the GM doesn't know how many dice a player threw at a test, dice pool distribution and so on. If he lets his players hide their dice and trusts them, then it's all good and nevermind. :D

[Kagetenshi]

That's not actually true, as the GM is by definition omniscient within the world. On the other hand, the GM should roll all of the players' rolls so that the other players cannot see how many dice they roll.

As for being able to tell how skillful/strong/etc someone is, not really. You can tell if someone is closer to Strength 10 or Strength 1, but Strength 1 and Strength 2 is harder. Strength 10 and Strength 15 would probably be impossible to tell without detailed examination. Skills are even worse; a person with Pistols 1 having a good day could seem like someone with Pistols 3, and someone with Pistols 3 who is putting everything they've got into their shots (combat pool) is indistinguishable from the person just letting their raw skill carry the day with Skill 6 (no pool).

~J

[John Campbell]

I ran an IRC game some years ago, before I wrote the dicebot we use now, where I just had the players roll real dice offline or use the Unix shell diceroller I'd written and tell me how many successes or whatever they got. Didn't have any problems with it. I try to avoid playing with people that I can't trust.

[tisoz]

[Kagetenshi]

I'm not questioning that you can get a general estimate, but I think it's absurd to claim that you can look at someone and reasonably expect to know how many dice they'd roll.
However, from your latest post that seems to not be what you were saying. Carry on.

~J