My GMing Mantra's, Handed Down by my own GM Options

[Bull]

I moved this out from the Runner's Companion thread, since it was a serious Tangent.

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.

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

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

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.

Wow, I think you're completely missing the point. That, or you have a decidedly not fun group to play with.

First off, there's no way for the world to go off balance, since *I* set the balance. I choose the enemies, I pick their stats and gear, and I choose how smart or dumb they act.

I like SR4 a lot, but that don't mean that I let the rules dictate the game to me. The rules are simply there to give me a framework to tell a story within and to provide the PC's and myself with a way to randomize the results of their actions. Nothing more. And that framework is incredibly flexible. I haven't managed to break it yet.

There's a certain amount of logic... Usually, Squattors won't have Panther Assault Cannons, and Ares Firewatch Teams won't usually show up without armor and only carrying Tiffani Defenders.

And I'm not saying the threat is automatic. JUST cause one tool shows up with a SNiper Rifle doesn't mean that automatically every enemy has one. Just that it can come up, when appropriate. I have a Houngan player who has a lost magic point that can attest to that. But I'll also point out that he not only had fun in that game session, he got to smack the munchkin who insisted on having a Sniper Rifle in the head and say "I TOLD you so". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The fact is, maybe I'm just lucky, and I have players who trust me to tell a good story and run a good game. And I'm lucky that most of my players are willing to put up with my little quirks (All of which *I* learned from my original Shadowrun GM, who was one of the best GMs I've ever played under) and can roll with me so that, together, we tell a good story, have fun, and have a great game.

My Mantras for Running a game:

1) In My World, Jet's Fly Backwards.

Aka, I'll bend the laws of physics if I have to, roll with it.

2) Put On A Good Show And Fate Will Smile At You.

I'm not here to kill the players. I want them to have fun. So if they try something incredibly daring and stupid, but are roleplaying their asses off and having a good time, who am I to stop them. They may not succeed, but I'm unlikely to severly punish them for trying.

3) A GMs Dice Are For Sound Effect Only

This goes along with number 2. I'm not about to kill my PCs over a bad roll on one of our parts. Dice are there to enchance the game, not run it. So when needed, I'll gladly flub a dice roll every now and then. I'l also, on rare occasions, flub a players roll as well. I've said "I didn't see that, roll again" on a few occasions.

4) Anything You Can Have, I Can Have Too.

The Mantra we've been discussing.

5) If I Kill Them, My Fun Is Over.

The game is about the PCs, and a story that involves those PCs. It's poor storytelling to kill the main protagonist(s) partway through the story. Besides, why kill them, when there are so very many more evil things you can do. My favorite was and is giving that PC a "real life". Friends, Family, Love. Ties that bind, and Bind so hard they Chafe. But killing? Bah. Too easy. Though that's not to say I won't kill a PC, but it takes a lot of effort on their part to actually get killed, usually involving some seriously gross stupidity. Or wanting to change out characters. Then the death becomes part of the plot.

Like I said, I do this with my player's full understanding, and in most cases, blessing. They trust me not to be a complete dick, and I trust them to help me build a good game. In the end, we both win. That was how I truly learned to GM, and how I've passed it on to others since.

And if that means Cybered Bandersnatches that only take a Light Wound from a Panther Assault Cannon, even after dumping in my entire Combat Pool and blowing Karma, well... So be it. I have a great story, fond memories, and lost my first arm on that adventure (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Bull

PS I should also note, this is just my own preferred gaming style, and I've been lucky that most of my players like this style of gaming too. But as with everything else, there's a lot of different ways to game. And I've seen and played with groups that my style wouldn't mesh with. And I wouldn't force that on them. If everybody isn't having fun, you're doing it wrong, no matter the style you're running.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Sure, most of the things come down to prefence, and we seem to agree that universal transformer enemys are a bad idea, but there are some points that are no that clear to me:

And I'm not saying the threat is automatic. JUST cause one tool shows up with a SNiper Rifle doesn't mean that automatically every enemy has one. Just that it can come up, when appropriate. I have a Houngan player who has a lost magic point that can attest to that. But I'll also point out that he not only had fun in that game session, he got to smack the munchkin who insisted on having a Sniper Rifle in the head and say "I TOLD you so".

Honestly, I don't see the points here.
First off, if it's apropriate to come up - does it matter at all if the players have it or not?
Second, why exactly is it 'munchkin' to have a sniper rifle?
And, mostly - are we talking SR4 at all?

My Mantras for Running a game:

Allow me to supplement mine. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

1) In My World, Jet's Fly Backwards.

In mine, jets mostly fly downwards if you are not careful.
Reality hits hard - it hits even harder if you are stupid.

2) Put On A Good Show And Fate Will Smile At You.

Fair enough.

3) A GMs Dice Are For Sound Effect Only

Let the dice fall how they do - there's Edge to fix it.

4) Anything You Can Have, I Can Have Too.

Anything I Can Have, You Can Have Too - if you manage to get it... and keep it.
It's a mean world out there - better keep the edge.

5) If I Kill Them, My Fun Is Over.

In SR4, it's pretty much impossible to get killed as long as you have Edge to burn.
So I think this is a non-issue. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Like I said, I do this with my player's full understanding, and in most cases, blessing. They trust me not to be a complete dick, and I trust them to help me build a good game. In the end, we both win. That was how I truly learned to GM, and how I've passed it on to others since.

Of course, trust and cooperation are a pure necessity. Otherwise, why bother?

[toturi]

My mantra's for GMing:

1) Have fun. If anyone is not having fun, it is the GM's fault and no one else's. The rules say you get to be god, so deal with it.

2) I run games as RAW as I can. If something is not RAW, then that deviation is a house rule.

I do not expect the GM to set game balance. What the players expect as fun sets the game balance, see rule 1. If that expectation deviates from RAW, then see rule 2.

[Bull]

Sure, most of the things come down to prefence, and we seem to agree that universal transformer enemys are a bad idea, but there are some points that are no that clear to me:

Honestly, I don't see the points here.
First off, if it's apropriate to come up - does it matter at all if the players have it or not?

Because I'm likely to NOT up the ante to that point without good cause. If the PCs run into an ambush by a Lone Star SWAT team, it would make sense for them to have a Sniper or two. But if the biggest thing the PCs are packing is Armor Jackets and Heavy Pistols, the ambushers likely won;t be much better armed. I like a "fair" fight, and it's easier to dodge doing mass amounts of damage to my players that way (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

But, if some of them have Heavy weapons and/or Armor (WHich I generally count a Sniper Rifle as), well, that Same SWAT team would have better equipment to match. I feel less badly about doing grievous damage to a well equipped character.

Second, why exactly is it 'munchkin' to have a sniper rifle?

By itself, it's not. But, a lot of players take things like Sniper Rifles based almost solely on the Damage Codes and the "Kewl" factor. The latter is forgivable, the former isn't (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And, mostly - are we talking SR4 at all?

My example with the Cyber-Bandersnatch was under 2nd edition. But the rest pretty much universally applies. So while I'm talking SR4 specifically, it applies to any game I run, including Star Wars and D&D. Granted, harder for a PC to get ahold of a Sniper Rifle in D&D, but... The last game I played in went in some really, really weird directions. (Melting invading cartoons with high proof alcohol from a triceretops-pulled wooden tank with a steam powered high pressure hose attached to it wasn't the strangest thing in that game, by far. But it's a good visual and gets you started (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

Bull

[Ryu]

1) In My World, Jet's Fly Forwards. There is such a thing as vector-thrust.

You know how it works, and you can break it. Decide if you want to. The few hours my group was an atomic minipower were fun (And I got to play, yeah!).

2) Put On A Good Show And Fate Will Smile At You.

That can come in surprising ways, but hell yes. If a certain someone ever finds his way here he can relay the experience of becoming a toxic mage (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

3) A GMs Dice Are Sometimes For Sound Effect Only

There, now it works for me.

4) Anything You Can Have, I Can Have Too.

In the true sense of what those words are saying, yes. We play without availability. Player-choosen balance is heavy pistols + SMGs, despite their characters possession of much more powerful weapons.

5) If I Kill Them, My Fun Is Over.

Nothing against a bit of maiming though.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Because I'm likely to NOT up the ante to that point without good cause. If the PCs run into an ambush by a Lone Star SWAT team, it would make sense for them to have a Sniper or two. But if the biggest thing the PCs are packing is Armor Jackets and Heavy Pistols, the ambushers likely won;t be much better armed. I like a "fair" fight, and it's easier to dodge doing mass amounts of damage to my players that way (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

But, if some of them have Heavy weapons and/or Armor (WHich I generally count a Sniper Rifle as), well, that Same SWAT team would have better equipment to match. I feel less badly about doing grievous damage to a well equipped character.

Sure in my games, the SWAT team might treat heavily armed people differently - if they know about it. (If those MGL-6 the characters had catches them by suprise, it can as well turn into a disaster for SWAT.)
But that still means that they'll come crushing down with extreme prejudice on people waving guns around. And if the characters want to shoot it out (instead of fleeing/surrendering) with SWAT while only packing handguns... that's pretty stupid and they are most likely royally screwed.

By itself, it's not. But, a lot of players take things like Sniper Rifles based almost solely on the Damage Codes and the "Kewl" factor. The latter is forgivable, the former isn't

Why is not acceptable that people choose a sniper rifle because of the fact that it's very precise and tears big holes into things?

My example with the Cyber-Bandersnatch was under 2nd edition. But the rest pretty much universally applies. So while I'm talking SR4 specifically, it applies to any game I run, including Star Wars and D&D.

See, but those games act differently when it comes to PC 'death'.
In SR2, you had one second chance.
In SR4, you got many... that may regenerate over time.

[Pendaric]

My style?
Benevolent Tyranny.
Aim for perfection, through perspiration and preperation.
Make it personal. Make it make sense. Make it intense.

[Cain]

There's a lot of good points here. Let me sum up my version of the rules:

Rule 0: We are here to have fun.

This applies to the GM and the players equally. If the GM isn't enjoying the game, thins will suffer.

That being said, there are certain things that I've discovered to be detrimental to having fun. Here's a few examples:

Imbalance between player characters: When one character is clearly superior to others, in multiple niches, you have a problem. In one niche, it's okay; you can get around that by presenting different kinds of challenges. But when one character dominates more than one area, or dominates one area and participates heavily in all the others, you have a problem. That one character will, intentionally or otherwise, suck up spotlight time from all the other players.

How do you solve this? Power Creep is not the solution. If you have a imbalance in, say, combat, upping the opposition to match does not work. If you're running a street-level game, and one character is unbalancing things by bringing in an assault rifle, matching that by bringing in opposition with more assault rifles doesn't work. First of all, you're basically punishing all the other players, because now only the people with automatic weaponry can compete. Second, even if you beat back the character, or kill him off, he's just going to come back and try even harder. He'll be convinced that he'll do better in the game if he pushes his combat abilities further. Eventually, this may even lead to him wanting to "win" the game, which is the attitude of a munchkin. We've all had problems with munchkins in the past, so we definitely should not try and make more.

The third problem is, of course, what happens to all the gear that gets left behind? Now everyone will be packing assault rifles, and you've just made your problem worse. You can trap yourself in an endless arms race. This can even lead to problem two:

The GM is not the enemy of the players: We've all heard the stories of killer GM's, some of us have even been that GM. But if the point of a game is to have fun, you're not going to succeed by going head-to-head against your players. Your job is to work *with* your players, to create a story together.

Now for a controversial one:
The GM is not more important than the players: Yes, the GM has more responsibility than the players. But that doesn't mean he's more important. He deserves to have just as much fun as the players, not more or less. Tossing around proclamations, and backing them up with: "Because I'm the GM, that's why!" leads to adversarial GM/Player relationships, which we agree is Not Fun. Demanding final authority on rules calls, even and especially when the rules are indistinct, is the same thing; GM's get rules wrong, too.

The goal here is to have fun with your players. It doesn't matter how much time and energy you put into preparing the game; if the players take off in a different direction, you need to go with it. In fact, oft-times you can have a lot of fun that way. Don't fret when the players destroy your carefully-crafted plotline; just run with it and relax.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

How do you solve this?

The solution is rather simple and usually part of every run:
There are multiple things that need to be done at the same time.

[toturi]

The solution is rather simple and usually part of every run:
There are multiple things that need to be done at the same time.

That is escalation. You are simply shifting the focus from dice pool to ability to do multiple things at the same time.

[Glyph]

That is escalation. You are simply shifting the focus from dice pool to ability to do multiple things at the same time.

I think he's saying that each character will be doing different things, not that a single character has to be able to do those multiple things.


My thoughts on character balance:

I don't think character imbalance should be such a huge problem. It's an open build system where you create characters for different roles (infiltration, social engineering, hacking, combat, etc.), and where being exceptionally good in one area means tradeoffs in other areas. Everyone should be able to contribute something to the game.

But I don't think the GM should have to enforce a Harrison Bergeron mentality on the game, where people who are good at building characters have to "tone it down" so that the newbies don't baww about being "overshadowed" by them. Some characters are going to be more effective. Some players are also going to have a more prominent role in the game because they are better at roleplaying, or have more of a knack for creative tactics. The GM should pay attention to everyone, and make sure that everyone gets a chance to contribute to the game. But I have never been in a game, ever, where everyone had the exact same level of effectiveness and involvement in the game. Not everyone even wants to be in the spotlight to the same degree.

As the moderators of the game, GMs should step in when someone is being an asshat, or a drama queen. And power issues can be addressed at character creation if the player ignores the group's house rules or the GM's description of what kind of campaign it will be. In other words, an Ares Alpha is normally a valid choice at character creation, but if the GM says it will be a campaign of teen gangers in the Barrens, with an Availability limit of 8, then that player needs to go back to the drawing board.

[toturi]

I think he's saying that each character will be doing different things, not that a single character has to be able to do those multiple things.

No, I'm saying that a single character could be able to do those multiple things.

[sunnyside]

Well I disagree with a fair number of them.


First off SR4 has a level of defence present in burning edge to stay alive. Or just using edge to get by. It means that you can let the dice fall where they may and the players are going to be able to deal with it.

As for power level match ups I rarely if ever try to match to power level of the adversaries to the players. Rather I try to adjust the missions to players can have to the suspected adversaries. A good fixer won't hire a team out unless they think they can do the job.

I think part of the problem is that people confuse the D&D playstyle with Shadowrun. A corporate building is not your dungeon. And the biggest difference is that when the alarms go off backup starts coming. And that backup will be increasingly potent.

Also runners shouldn't be expected to win every single fight they get into. It's called Shadowrun, not Broaddaylightshootout. Head for cover and move your hoop.

[toturi]

As for power level match ups I rarely if ever try to match to power level of the adversaries to the players. Rather I try to adjust the missions to players can have to the suspected adversaries. A good fixer won't hire a team out unless they think they can do the job.

I think part of the problem is that people confuse the D&D playstyle with Shadowrun. A corporate building is not your dungeon. And the biggest difference is that when the alarms go off backup starts coming. And that backup will be increasingly potent.

Also runners shouldn't be expected to win every single fight they get into. It's called Shadowrun, not Broaddaylightshootout. Head for cover and move your hoop.

I agree with most of this. But I have to disagree with the last. The players could expect their characters to win every single fight they get into if they built the PCs as such. It is Shadowrun, you can play it like hide-in-shadows-and-run-away or shadows-that-run-over-enemies. Either way is equally valid.

[sunnyside]

I agree with most of this. But I have to disagree with the last. The players could expect their characters to win every single fight they get into if they built the PCs as such. It is Shadowrun, you can play it like hide-in-shadows-and-run-away or shadows-that-run-over-enemies. Either way is equally valid.

For the latter I think I might question if Shadowrun is the system for you. Maybe a rifts juicer with an IQ barely into double digets.

Seriously out of the box there will be people better than your players. And even after a long time there are those that will be vastly better than the players.

But beyond that Seattle has the metroxplex guard that can come down on them. Corps, somewhere, have the best technology on the planet if not the best mages. In most situations if the runners are fighting they'll eventually have to run.

Maybe you can get away with that in the barrens if that's really how the players want to play. Rule 0 is have fun and all that. So I suppose you can twist things how you like.

But the setting is one where there are much bigger fish.

[toturi]

But the setting is one where there are much bigger fish.

True. But then since there are much bigger fish, no matter how well you run in the shadows and keep to the shadows, they will still get you in the end. You can try to kill your way out of trouble or hide from the trouble. Either way it is simply another matter of PC dice pool against NPC dice pool.

For the latter I think I might question if Shadowrun is the system for you. Maybe a rifts juicer with an IQ barely into double digets.

I don't like Juicers. I would very much prefer a True Atlantean Cosmic Knight, thank you. But I think I might also question if Shadowrun is the system for you, perhaps an obfuscate vampire with triple helping of angst.

[Cain]

But I don't think the GM should have to enforce a Harrison Bergeron mentality on the game, where people who are good at building characters have to "tone it down" so that the newbies don't baww about being "overshadowed" by them. Some characters are going to be more effective. Some players are also going to have a more prominent role in the game because they are better at roleplaying, or have more of a knack for creative tactics. The GM should pay attention to everyone, and make sure that everyone gets a chance to contribute to the game. But I have never been in a game, ever, where everyone had the exact same level of effectiveness and involvement in the game. Not everyone even wants to be in the spotlight to the same degree.

While I agree that strictly enforcing character equality isn't fun, I have to disagree that it's not a problem.

Let's say my players include two people who want to create street sams. That's fine, it's not a problem. But one guy puts out a character with combat dice pools averaging around 17; and the other guy's character has about 10-12. Player A also gave his character more IP's, a higher reaction, and better damage soaking ability. Both characters are focused on the same aspect of the game, and both were built under the same system. However, one is going to be much more effective than the other. That's going to really make the other player feel useless in comparison. When player B runs out of IP's, he's not going to be able to do anything but sit around and watch.

What about other areas? Well, there's no guarantee that Player B's character will be any better at anything. In fact, player A may have built his character in such a way that his other dice pools are comparable, if not better. There's a lot of variables here. However, the net result is that the player will feel bad, and that also breaks my Rule 0.

There's nut much you can do to fix this problem, once game has started. Before game starts, however, you can fix this by both tuning up Player B's character, and asking player A to tone it down a notch.

And gods help you if a character is capable of dominating multiple aspects of a game. A social adept will not only make another Face feel useless, he might have Commanding Voice, and continually talk enemy groups into surrendering. Now, combat types are going to feel useless as well.

I agree that not all players are equal. In some groups, certain players will always tend to dominate the game, regardless of system. However, if you allow unrestricted character building, especially in an open-build system like SR4, you run the risk of compounding the problem even further.

If you equalize characters out (generally, simply by telling players what your expectations are) then you're free to concentrate on the issue of player inequality, and not worry so much about mechanical character inequality.

[Mäx]

Let's say my players include two people who want to create street sams. That's fine, it's not a problem. But one guy puts out a character with combat dice pools averaging around 17; and the other guy's character has about 10-12. Player A also gave his character more IP's, a higher reaction, and better damage soaking ability. Both characters are focused on the same aspect of the game, and both were built under the same system. However, one is going to be much more effective than the other. That's going to really make the other player feel useless in comparison. When player B runs out of IP's, he's not going to be able to do anything but sit around and watch.

What about other areas? Well, there's no guarantee that Player B's character will be any better at anything. In fact, player A may have built his character in such a way that his other dice pools are comparable, if not better. There's a lot of variables here. However, the net result is that the player will feel bad, and that also breaks my Rule 0.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)
Can i ask what the hell did the player B do to his character, how did he build not only a worse combat character but a character that isn't better in anything, how is that even possible.
Unless he intensionally made a backup sammy/face/hacker.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

That is escalation.

No, that is how is normally is.

You are simply shifting the focus from dice pool to ability to do multiple things at the same time.

Actually, no - you still need a sufficient dice pool not to fail.

No, I'm saying that a single character could be able to do those multiple things.

It's pretty hard being at two different places at the same time.

[Stahlseele]

Can i ask what the hell did the player B do to his character, how did he build not only a worse combat character but a character that isn't better in anything, how is that even possible.
Unless he intensionally made a backup sammy/face/hacker.

or he simply has no graps of the building system and what the game world requires in a character . . which makes him AND the character a newbie in most cases and he could take the other samurai as his mentor for example . .

It's pretty hard being at two different places at the same time.

and here i thought the whole point of drones and spirits was more or less this ability O.o

[Cardul]

My GM once explained her Mantras like this:

Rule 1: Keep things interesting. Remember: Killing a PC is so....boring! Anyone can die! Not everyone can be captured, have their power focus staff taken by high level employees of Saeder-Krupp....

Rule 2: Dice Rolls are not finalized until the GM says so, and acknowledges the roll. GM is free to look away whistling at a bad player roll and say,"Please, re-roll..I didn't see that roll." The GM is also free to reach across and, on a really bad roll, hit the corner of one of the worst offending dice until it is something other then that 1.

Rule 3: PC death occurs by being stupid...In other words, the instances where a PC is going to die will almost NEVER have a roll involved, but will involve the player, thinking as their character, trying to solve something. Puzzles should be deadlier then fire-fights.

Rule 4: Firefights should be brief, and brutal, and make no room for errors on either side. Make sure to make the NPCs make some errors(Like Coming out the elevator nearest where the runners are, while there is a Street Sam who just happens to be standing by that elevator with a light machine gun loaded wit Stick-and-shock..talk about suppression fire into an elevator!)

Rule 5:While it may not be obvious, there is always a way out. ALWAYS.

Rule 6: The best villians are ones who neither the PCs not the Players expect.

[Cain]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)
Can i ask what the hell did the player B do to his character, how did he build not only a worse combat character but a character that isn't better in anything, how is that even possible.
Unless he intensionally made a backup sammy/face/hacker.

It's not hard. He might not have used some of the options available to him, resulting in a weaker character. For example, he might have forgone any Flaws, or made a bad selection of them.

Short of having to come up with actual builds, I think it should be obvious that you can nerf a character by accident.

[Glyph]

While I agree that strictly enforcing character equality isn't fun, I have to disagree that it's not a problem.

Let's say my players include two people who want to create street sams. That's fine, it's not a problem. But one guy puts out a character with combat dice pools averaging around 17; and the other guy's character has about 10-12. Player A also gave his character more IP's, a higher reaction, and better damage soaking ability. Both characters are focused on the same aspect of the game, and both were built under the same system. However, one is going to be much more effective than the other. That's going to really make the other player feel useless in comparison. When player B runs out of IP's, he's not going to be able to do anything but sit around and watch.

What about other areas? Well, there's no guarantee that Player B's character will be any better at anything. In fact, player A may have built his character in such a way that his other dice pools are comparable, if not better. There's a lot of variables here. However, the net result is that the player will feel bad, and that also breaks my Rule 0.

There's nut much you can do to fix this problem, once game has started. Before game starts, however, you can fix this by both tuning up Player B's character, and asking player A to tone it down a notch.

And gods help you if a character is capable of dominating multiple aspects of a game. A social adept will not only make another Face feel useless, he might have Commanding Voice, and continually talk enemy groups into surrendering. Now, combat types are going to feel useless as well.

I agree that not all players are equal. In some groups, certain players will always tend to dominate the game, regardless of system. However, if you allow unrestricted character building, especially in an open-build system like SR4, you run the risk of compounding the problem even further.

If you equalize characters out (generally, simply by telling players what your expectations are) then you're free to concentrate on the issue of player inequality, and not worry so much about mechanical character inequality.

Honestly, I think that a newbie should not expect to be as good, starting out, as a veteran of the game, either in character building or in tactics. I would ask someone to "tone down" their character if it broke the premise of the game (a troll combat mercenary in a game of subtle intrigue, a tweaked-out combat mage in a game where the players are supposed to be students at a magic academy, and so on). In that respect, I agree on telling players what your expectations are.

But I sure as hell wouldn't say "I'm sorry, Bob, but little Timmy wants to play a street sammie, too, so you need to make your street sammie wussier, so little Timmy doesn't cry." I'll help the newbies build their characters, and give them helpful hints and suggestions, but I'm not going to impose arbitrary restrictions on everyone else. Everyone should have something to do on a run - the guy with less dice and IPs can still plug some of the security guards. He's not "useless", he's just whining because someone is "better" than him.

SR4 character generation is open build, but it has a lot of limits and boundaries - it has a set point limit, in addition to limits on how much you can spend on Attributes, how much you can spend on qualities, what gear you can buy, how high your skills can be, and so on. And GMs add house rules on top of those. Even I might do something like remove the last sentence in the description of empathy software, because I feel it is needless dice pool inflation for social skills. So while I would check characters for bad math, attempted rules exploits, illogical stats, or a poor fit for the campaign, I would not make someone gimp their character because someone else made one that wasn't as good.

[toturi]

Actually, no - you still need a sufficient dice pool not to fail.

It's pretty hard being at two different places at the same time.

I meant the focus shifts from having an overwhelming dice pool to many sufficiently large ones. It does not have to be the PC in multiple places, there might be a proxy for the PC, say like a spirit or a drone.

[Cardul]

So while I would check characters for bad math, attempted rules exploits, illogical stats, or a poor fit for the campaign, I would not make someone gimp their character because someone else made one that wasn't as good.

Simple answer to why one Street Sam is a little weaker: The other Sam is the Master, and the new one is the Pupil. Subtly suggest the tricked out Sam maybe drop a couple points somewhere for the Instruction Skill (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) Or maybe just, as a GM, be nice, and toss the better built Sam 1 point of the Instruction Skill as a freebie (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) You know, take the inexperience of the new player, and turn it into a plot point!