Runner's Companion, Whacha think? Options

[Cain]

If you've got a pornomancer, he can't do anything but Charisma tests correct?

No. The sample builds I've seen, and worked with, had a complete skill set. Like all characters, some things are weaker than others; they tend to suffer from low combat dice pools, among others. But that doesn't mean they're one-trick ponies, either. I think the last one I saw had 6-8 dice for pistols, which is sufficient to hold off mooks. Against more serious opponents, you can always surrender, claim you're a hostage, and talk your way free. Even worse, you could take Commanding Voice, and talk the other guys into surrendering.

[Rasumichin]

Generally, since this isn't a player problem, it can be solved by asking the player to rein it in a bit at chargen. You just tell him: "These are the rules I'm using, there are the one's I'm not using, and this is the general power level I want in the game." But if you're an anything-goes style of GM, you're voluntarily waiving that solution. How do you handle this issue?

I'm of the anything goes type of GMs and generally prefer to coordinate character creation, trying to find out the desired power level, individual minmaxing skills, stylistic preferences, setting interpretation and general strategic and tactical outlook of the players.

It does eleminate the chance of mechanically vastly superior as well as dangerously weak characters.
I'll also point out differences in power level between PCs and will, if i haven't GMed for the group before, point out to what extend i'll use the rules, how my interpretation of the setting works, that i don't fudge rolls, that i let characters die from bad rolls, restrict escape certain death use of Edge to once per character and so on.


This approach of collective character creation has other advantages as well.
It does not only lead to better character interaction, closer tie-ins of the characters into the campaign and thematically distinctive groups, but also avoids that characters are stepping on each other's toes or that no one is able to cover a specific skill.


What i really dislike is tailoring challenges to specific players.
I'll adjust the overall difficulty of course and assume that no Johnson would send a team without magical backup into a spirit-ridden nightmare of a security installation.
This means that a team who lacks vital roles will either have to hire backup or miss out on job opportunities.

But in general, i get the feeling that coming up with custom challenges results in an overall worthlesness of character competence, that it doesn't really matter how good the PCs are at what they do, as getting better just means getting tried harder and ebing mediocre would be safer.
It boils down to "don't stat out a hacker, the GM will just send more drones at us and someone will attack our comlinks!"
"Don't put that many points into climbing, the walls will just get higher!"
"Don't max out your mage like this, it will just mysteriously raise background count!"

Of course, teams that perform outstanding on a job, completely walking over what i have set up for them, will get more challenging runs in the future- but not because i feel the need to come up with a greater challenge that shows those pesky twinks that the GM always wins if he wants to (every roleplayer knows that already), but because they have earned a better reputation.
The new, more risky jobs will also pay better.
They have achieved something by being as good as they where and get rewarded for it.
If they have given me good story hooks, it might even bring them one step closer to their personal goals.


I have to add, though, that i don't enjoy playing characters into quadrupple-digit karma, so i will never be confronted with PCs who can really do everything.
I view SR as a game where characters are competent at least in their core aspects when they start game.
It is, in my opinion, not a system designed for leveling up to epic.
So i might just not understand the concerns of GMs who have 20th level initiates who whip up Force 15 spirits with a snap of their fingers at their table.

[Wesley Street]

No. The sample builds I've seen, and worked with, had a complete skill set. Like all characters, some things are weaker than others; they tend to suffer from low combat dice pools, among others. But that doesn't mean they're one-trick ponies, either. I think the last one I saw had 6-8 dice for pistols, which is sufficient to hold off mooks. Against more serious opponents, you can always surrender, claim you're a hostage, and talk your way free. Even worse, you could take Commanding Voice, and talk the other guys into surrendering.

In that case, I can't say. I haven't run into it yet.

[Sweaty Hippo]

If you want to go through that much effort to be a Special Emo Pretty Butterfly, you're probably playing the wrong game.

I don't see what's wrong with such a concept in your personal game as long as everybody's cool with it. Besides, I just like SR better than WoD (the Vampire RPG).

[psychophipps]

That's a good question and this is how I typically approach it: I expect my players to know the rules of the game even when I don't. If a player is clever enough to use the rules to create a power munchkin within a 400BP system then good for him. He's a smart cookie. However, I also raise the stakes of the game. If you have a player who's maxed out in regards to firearms and can handle a Panther assault cannon in each hand he's also turned himself into a huge, loud target. So if hypothetically a group of runners were to encounter a squad of corpsec guards and the power munchkin did his thing, I'd turn all of the guards on the munchkin and have them ignore the rest of the runners as the munchkin would logically be the most immediate threat. The other runners could scurry away, just kick back and wait to see what happens after the smoke clears, or move on to do what they're good at while the power gamer gets swarmed like ants on a dead squirrel.

Another good way to slow down the "Power Creep" is my group's, "You bring it into the game and I'm allowed to use it on you guys as a GM" rule. It's absolutely amazing how much the "mil-spec or nothing" horsehockey just plain ol' disappears when the players realize that I can't be tossing APCs, assault cannon, automatic grenade launchers, and other high-end crap at them except as obvious "Don't be messin' now..." plot line bumpers in our adventures.

[Wesley Street]

GM's discretion always seems to be the answer to half of these questions but it's true. If Player A wants to jack up his runner to be nigh unstoppable you counterbalance. Another simple way is to limit the availability of super-crazy powerful mil-spec equipment and 'ware.

Player A: Yeah, I've got some nuyen to spend so I'm going to buy a railgun.
Me as Arms Dealer: Sorry, we don't have anything in stock.
Player A: But I have a Charisma of 6 and you have a Connection of 6 and I'm paying 500% of the weapon's worth!
Me: Sorry. Can't help you. I had a bad experience with a railgun once. Never again.

Sure, according to the rules he has the capacity to buy but it doesn't say in the rules I have to provide it to him if I don't want him to have it. I'm fairly stingy with karma; if a character didn't have to try hard to accomplish a task, he isn't rewarded for it. There's also the Public Awareness rule; if a character grows to be too high-profile he can be hunted down. Chargen, anything goes so long as it's in the rules. But once your Notoriety and or Street Cred hit a certain point, time to retire or I force you to retire by hunting you down.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

It always amazes me how the most fundamental mistakes a GM can make are presented as 'solutions'.

Another good way to slow down the "Power Creep" is my group's, "You bring it into the game and I'm allowed to use it on you guys as a GM" rule.

Just they don't 'bring it into the game': Either it exists in the game - then it's usual that some other people will have it before them (and use it on them - and can use it on them if they deem worth it...). Or it doesn't.

Sure, according to the rules he has the capacity to buy but it doesn't say in the rules I have to provide it to him if I don't want him to have it.

Actually, you do - that's the whole point of those rules. If he's able to make the Test, he can get it.

[Bull]

It always amazes me how the most fundamental mistakes a GM can make are presented as 'solutions'.

Just they don't 'bring it into the game': Either it exists in the game - then it's usual that some other people will have it before them (and use it on them - and can use it on them if they deem worth it...). Or it doesn't.

Actually, you do - that's the whole point of those rules. If he's able to make the Test, he can get it.

I'm gonna have to disagree here a little bit.

If I'm playing or running a Missions game at a con, where we're sticking strictly "By the Book" and there's not a solid group dynamic, then sure, this is correct. The rules provide a baseline to work with, and if you have an "open" game, where you're going to have "strangers", or at least regular new players, you need to follow this baseline so that everyone's working from the same rules.

But for a home game, with a group of players that are, ostensibly, your friends? These are very valid "house guidelines". I rarely run any game strictly "By the book", and my players know that. The same goes for everyone else that GMs in the group. Almost every one of us has an "inner munchkin" that wants to come out and play occasionally, and we have some ground rules that help curb that annoying little dude.

For one, we have the "If you have it, the NPCs can have it" rule. This isn't necessarily meant to punish the players, or even limit them. But it helps to keep the game on a somewhat even level. When the rest of the group is playing more "Street level" characters and the heaviest thing they have is a heavy pistol, it really throws off the game balance when one player picks up HE grenades and a SNiper Rifle and starts liberally using them. I build my enemies to match my players, to provide a challenge but not so that I overwhelm them. I'm telling a story when I GM, so "realism" and even "logic" take a back seat to creative license and, more importantly, fun.

This isn;t to say I won;t pull out the big gins anyways if the PCs do something stupid. Start shooting up the local mall, murdering innocents, and not getting out of there immediately? Lone Star SWAT shows up. Make a brazen run on a major Aztechnology facility, and you're gonna have to deal with tricked out Jaguars. I don;t reward stupidity. But I do reward for going with the story and staying on track. After all, since I build the entire game around the PCs and their personal lives, it's not exactly in my own best interests to kill off characters. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Anyways, this is a bit off track. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) So... Runner's Companion! Woo! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I really do wanna make a Pixie. Might work on one this weekend. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Bull

[Rotbart van Dain...]

You know what's so great about Pixies?
No need to worry about ditching the corpses after target practice.

[Aaron]

You know what's so great about Pixies?
No need to worry about ditching the corpses after target practice.

RvD.karma++;

[Tiger Eyes]

I really do wanna make a Pixie. Might work on one this weekend. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Bull

Somehow, after meeting Bull at GenCon, the image of Bull roleplaying a Pixie just makes me chuckle. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[Jackstand]

Make a brazen run on a major Aztechnology facility, and you're gonna have to deal with tricked out Jaguars.

Like this?

[Aaron]

Make a brazen run on a major Aztechnology facility, and you're gonna have to deal with tricked out Jaguars.

Or like this?

[Bull]

Is it sad that my first thought was "Dam, Aztechnology has Transformers that turn from Cars into Voltron Lions??"

*grin*

And Tiger Eyes, it'll be even worse if John Dunn manages to kill off my Ork Sammy before next year (Assuming we can ever clear up schedules enough to play). Cause then I'm gonna have to do up a costume for that character for next years Scramble (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

(Hrmm. I hope John doesn't consider that a challenge, or a goal now... Nahhh. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) )

[psychophipps]

It always amazes me how the most fundamental mistakes a GM can make are presented as 'solutions'.

Just they don't 'bring it into the game': Either it exists in the game - then it's usual that some other people will have it before them (and use it on them - and can use it on them if they deem worth it...). Or it doesn't.

Actually, you do - that's the whole point of those rules. If he's able to make the Test, he can get it.

Bull pretty well covered my response but I will add that there isn't a rule in our group that you can't get anything in any book (agreed upon by all three GMs, of course) if you make the roll and can roleplay it (which, depending on how the PC goes about their purchase can really reduce the cost and/or raise it or remove it's availability altogether if they act like dinks). The rule is "If you bring it, I can too", to wit, your PC carries AKs on every mission and we'll boost the baddies to match. It makes the players, as well as the GM, responsible for the level of carnage in our setting and adds a real communicative feel so we can adjust the gaming world to suit the needs of the players and their characters and the various GM's stories alike.
You want SOTA bang-bang with grenades and rockets and such? Just dandy. But you need to discuss this with the other players so they aren't left in a rut when the mil-spec stuff gets rolling back their way. Want a gritty street feel with semi-auto weapons and the occasional AR (which is pretty much what we have now)? That's fine too. Our rule is there so that one player, or one GM, can't just toss everything on it's ear and up the carnage for everyone and every story to Panther w/ underbarrel grenade launchers level without everyone else going, "Ok, cool" first.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

For one, we have the "If you have it, the NPCs can have it" rule. This isn't necessarily meant to punish the players, or even limit them. But it helps to keep the game on a somewhat even level.

Squatters won't run around with laser rifles just because the PCs do so. Ares Firewatch though might, even if characters didn't even dream of them.

When the rest of the group is playing more "Street level" characters and the heaviest thing they have is a heavy pistol, it really throws off the game balance when one player picks up HE grenades and a SNiper Rifle and starts liberally using them.

That may piss off most of the gangers out there, but it's not usual for them to compete directly.

I'm telling a story when I GM, so "realism" and even "logic" take a back seat to creative license and, more importantly, fun.

Transformer Enemys are a great way to stomp fun. Mostly because the world itself goes offbalance.
That's why SR4 has 'fixed' grunt levels.

The rule is "If you bring it, I can too", to wit, your PC carries AKs on every mission and we'll boost the baddies to match.

Congratulations, you got yourself an arms race that makes no sense at all and leaves the game world in shambles.
PCs simply don't have enough impact to influence such decisions on such a scale - sure, they can go after more powerful targets no, but that's their decision.

[Tiger Eyes]

And Tiger Eyes, it'll be even worse if John Dunn manages to kill off my Ork Sammy before next year (Assuming we can ever clear up schedules enough to play). Cause then I'm gonna have to do up a costume for that character for next years Scramble (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

(Hrmm. I hope John doesn't consider that a challenge, or a goal now... Nahhh. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) )

So... if we want to see you dressed up like a Pixie, we should talk to John? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Bull]

Rotbart, I'm moving this discussion to a separate thread, since we're far outside of talking about Runner's Companion here, and more talking GM styles.

Check it out here: http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=23448

[Bull]

So... if we want to see you dressed up like a Pixie, we should talk to John? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Really, for your own sanity, you should probably avoid that (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I do not look good in fairy wings and a little pink skirt. Trust me! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ork.gif)

[the_dunner]

(Hrmm. I hope John doesn't consider that a challenge, or a goal now... Nahhh. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) )

There's another way I could interpret it?

I think this is worth a special paragraph in each Mission about what to do if Bull is a player at your table. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/devil.gif)

[BishopMcQ]

Dunner-Can we introduce TR 7?

[Cain]

GM's discretion always seems to be the answer to half of these questions but it's true. If Player A wants to jack up his runner to be nigh unstoppable you counterbalance. Another simple way is to limit the availability of super-crazy powerful mil-spec equipment and 'ware.

The problem here is that if you're running an unlimited campaign, you've just waived GM discretion.

If player A decides to create a Changeling Naga with six arms, 20+ dice pools, and powerful magic ability, and figures out a way to get all that under the rules, you say you'll let him and get even with him in-game. That means you're going to have a lot of problems with your game, especially if you've got a generalist street ganger and a pornomancer in your party. Balancing challenges is going to be nigh-impossible.

On the other hand, using GM discretion before any of this appears in-game is a much better idea. Simply saying: "This is what I want, this is what I think you should have, will you work with me?" is a highly effective thing to do. Not only does it fix problems before the start, it can bring the PC's closer together, as they'll be encouraged to work with one another on their stories and stats.

This is why I'm wary of Runner's Companion. To bring things back on topic, I'm seeing a lot of very powerful options that many GM's are staring at in shock. Before you bring anything into a game, it should be carefully vetted so that it doesn't cause power creep. For example, the introduction of Smartlink-2 in SR3 was a bad idea, because soon everyone was using them, and didn't bother with a normal smartlink. In SR4, I suddenly saw a lot of characters sprout Attention Coprocessors after the release of Augmentation. And these were all just minor options, but they pushed the power level of the games up.

Now, we have a book that's nothing but powerful options. I haven't found a copy in my home town yet, so I only know what's posted here-- but are these options really going to be useful for GM's? If a lot of things are going to be disallowed because they're ridiculous or overpowering or difficult to integrate into a game, then is this book any good?

[toturi]

If player A decides to create a Changeling Naga with six arms, 20+ dice pools, and powerful magic ability, and figures out a way to get all that under the rules, you say you'll let him and get even with him in-game. That means you're going to have a lot of problems with your game, especially if you've got a generalist street ganger and a pornomancer in your party. Balancing challenges is going to be nigh-impossible.

Then the question would be: why even balance the challenges at all? Why even have balance? This is something I never figured out. As far as I can tell, in a practical sense, there can be no such thing as game balance.

Having fun means meeting the expectations and aspirations of your players. If you think that you are not going to have fun as the GM, then don't run or change your attitude/style towards GMing and start having fun. If your players want to be able to walk all over the opposition and have no challenge, then give them what they want.

Before you bring anything into a game, it should be carefully vetted so that it doesn't cause power creep. For example, the introduction of Smartlink-2 in SR3 was a bad idea, because soon everyone was using them, and didn't bother with a normal smartlink. In SR4, I suddenly saw a lot of characters sprout Attention Coprocessors after the release of Augmentation. And these were all just minor options, but they pushed the power level of the games up.

Again I question the need to prevent power creep. Power creep, so? When there is no game balance, power creep is irrelevant.

[Synner667]

This also raises issues for what happens when characters max out other parts of the game. If a pornomancer emerged in your game, how would you handle that? We're talking a character with 30+ dice for social tests. If you raise the stakes so that every important NPC has a dice pool to match, the other characters won't stand a chance in a social test. If the pornomancer gets taken out, the NPC will have a dice pool big enough to talk the characters into taking the job for free.

I like the approach of teaching players too, so I prefer to encourage positive behaviors. I've found that simply talking to a player can prevent problems from happening. But that does mean that when I GM, I have to have clear expectations about what I want from the players. I have to be able to say: "A dice pool over 20 might unbalance the game, could you dial that back a bit?" *and* back that up in game, so they don't ever regret not having that huge dice pool. I just don't see how I can accomplish that in an anything-goes environment.

That's pretty much what HERO/Fuzion do...
...Define a campaign's power level by the stat+skill level [fuzion] or ocv/dcv [HERO], and limit characters accordingly.

Tends to work well.

Few of my Players know the rules beyond the basics, so I rarely have to "glass ceiling" them.

[Rasumichin]

Now, we have a book that's nothing but powerful options. I haven't found a copy in my home town yet, so I only know what's posted here-- but are these options really going to be useful for GM's?

To put this a little in perspective, my copy shipped on saturday morning and after reading through some of it, i must say that RC does seem to have balance issues, but not in a way that it could be called "nothing but powerful options".
And it does seem to have its uses.

The postings here referred, in good DS fashion, mostly to the powerful stuff (and even among that, a lot won't work right with 400BP or is too specific for most campaigns, not just stylewise, but because of hard mechanic drawbacks).
There's also stuff that appears downright broken, at least at first sight.
Along with this, we get even more social DP inflation (at least not as cheap and no-brainy as emotitoys) - pornomancer is either beginning to become a honorific only credited to PCs with 40+ dice in social skills, instead of the usual 30+, or maybe we should coin a new term for them altogether.
I suggest mediablitzer.

There's a whole bunch of options that are mostly there for style, though.
Many of the SURGE traits fall into that category.
People who look like cuttlefish or elephants are not going to break our games (at least not because of the qualities that make them look like such), nor will game balance be endangered by people who blow 25 points on biosonar.

Others are downright broken in the way that it has rarely been that easy to doom a concept for a 5BP bonus.
Bug Features and Liar, among others, practically scream IT'S A TRAP! in your face.


What all of these qualities, and the book as a whole, do have in common, though, is that they elaborate on a very integral feature of SR, which is character customization.
This is where RC does shine, in providing scores of new options.

And these options do not only enrich gonzo campaigns centered around furry rock stars (even though they absolutely need that book), RC also has to offer something for the black ops crowd, as well as street level, pink mohawk shoot-em-all, high magic, hooding and others.

It does not seem to be the most balanced core rulebook (and in fact, every one of these has decreased balancing a little), but it cetainly is extremely inspiring to players as well as GMs.