What don't you allow?, Not in my game! Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Switch to: Outline Standard Switch to: Linear+

[Paul]

There is no wrong answer here, but we all have things we don't like in our games. In my own I generally speaking don't allow the following:

• No Vampires. I had one guy run one once. Once was enough to ruin it for...well it's been 19 years now.
• I swear to the gamer gods if you name a character Venom, Nemesis, or Shadow you'll pay. Oh you'll pay.
• If you're going to play any character based on anime, furries, or a movie you'd better do it with style, or you'll find Corporate Security has no soft spots for you.
• If you ever pitch a character to me by saying "I played this guy once before in another campaign", I'm betting you'll want to make a new character real soon. In fact I'll help you!

I'm sure I have others, but what's not allowed at your "table"?

[Maelstrome]

no bitching about the "intent of the author" or "how the game should be played" or "balance".

[kzt]

Mind control spells. Mages are powerful enough.

[Tachi]

Sound suppressors that wear out after 300 rounds... fuckin recockulous. Or any other equipment behaving as though it's still 1965.
Rules-lawyering during play.
Incredible behavior without consequences.

Other than that, just about anything goes.

[Medicineman]

A) Ghouls ,especially if they want to explore their "Emo" Side
B) Shapeshifter,specially with Technical Knowledge, or no explainiable Reason why they're in the Shadows
C)Powergaming Multipurpose Chars (Mages that also hack better than the Hacker ,or Riggers that put all the Streetsams to Shame)
D) Completely unsocial Chars that can't interact with other People much less the Group (A little "Rough around the Edges" ist totally OK though)
E) generally total inept Chars ,that depend upon other Chars to save them or to purposely
put the Group in danger for the "sake of the Story"(In German called "Taschenlampenfallenlasser")
(The SR-World is dangerous enough,no need for "Fouls Play" amomng the Runner)

with 5 forbidden Dances
Medicineman

[erik]

No PCs with toxic shaman, twisted agendas, black magic, etc. And I'm a stickler for availability rules. You are gonna have to really really work for that Ares Gauss rifle.

[Bull]

It's rare I'll flat out say "no" to something. I'll allow almost everything and anything, but there are some caveats that I make sure I'm upfront about.

1) "Equal Response".

I like combat in my SHadowrun games. I told someone not long ago that I firmly believe that to most players, whether they will admit to it or not, in their head they see Shadowrun as that scene from The Matrix, where Neo & Co "sneak" into that Office Building loaded down with guns. That said, don't expect to be lugging around giant assault weapons willy nilly.

When I plan out a session, I plan for X Amount of challenge. And X is fluid. If the PCs are all packing little more than Pistols and Armored Long Coats, I balance the opposition based on that. If they have layered form fitting armor underneath armor jackets and assault rifles with APDS or EX EX rounds, I plan around that. What gets the team in trouble is when one or two players steps outside the group party balance and decides he wants to start playing rough. When 4 or 5 characters are in light armor and small arms, but one guy starts kitting out heavy arms and armor, that throws off the party balance, and means I have to plan the bad guys accordingly. Which means the other players either have to step it up or the one player needs to tone it down.

To put it simply, my rule is "If you have it and use it, they can have it and use it". When appropriate. Just cause you own a sniper rifle doesn't mean the gangers will always have snipers aiming at you. But if you're bringing assault cannons to every firefight, more often than not the enemies will have appropriate responses. I like my games cinematic, I run it that way, and like I said, I'm upfront with my players about it. So there's generally no complaints. They know that if they want to escalate the game, they can, but it's not going to make things any easier.

(THat said, there's also a certain logic applied. A small 6-man local street gangs not gonna have military hardware, for example. And just because you walk into Renraku's HQ unarmored and carrying knives doesn't mean the security guards won;t be packing and armored. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

2) "The world doesn't abide the Strange and Unusual"

Vampires and Ghouls and the like are considered monsters. Many of these creatures have a bounty on their head. I downplay SURGE a bit, so outside of a few very specific locales, if you're a freaky looking Surge mutant, you stand out. I don't usually play up the racism aspect too much for most characters, other than to set certain moods or in specific circumstances where it's plot appropriate. But in my mind, playing something weird, unusual, and that stands out in a crowd is a FLAW, and gets treated as such.

I play very "Mohawk" style, so a little weird is fine, but I generally assume that's more in the lines of personal style. I have a very 80's image of Cyebrpunk and Shadowrun. But if, even after taking that into account, you still stand out. Well, it's not a good idea to really stand out.

3) "Flaws re flaws for a reason"

You don't get free points in my game. If you take a flaw, it will effect you somehow. Color Blind characters will find themselves needing to "Cut the blue wire" or meet the "man wearing the red tuxedo". I'll play up negative social flaws if you don't. If you took the flaws for some free points, make it a point to acknowledge and play with those flaws yourself, cause if you don't, I will.

4) "Be a team player"

RPGs are a group game. They're generally a cooperative game as well. No one wins, and if anyone loses, chances are the whole group loses. So don't be that guy, and don't play that character. It's fine to have your own motives, your own goals outside the group. Just don;t mkake those goals and qualities counterproductive to the group. When you have 3 elves and a troll at the table, don't play the intolerant racist. Don't be an asshole, don't ruin the game for anyone else. Otherwise, you'll find yourself making a new character, or even looking for a new game group, real quick.

Bull

[Blade]

Most of the time, I houserule things I have a problem with (emotitoys, common overcasting...) the only thing I explicitly forbid are:

* characters who don't fit the setting/mood I've given the players
* characters who can't work in a team or don't fit in the team
* characters who don't/can't have a life outside their runs
* characters who don't make sense (have things they can't explain, can't explain why they are Shadowrunners...)

[Dakka Dakka]

No PCs with toxic shaman, twisted agendas, black magic, etc.

I get the first two and agree with you on that position, but what's wrong with Black Magic? It's just another tradition besides Hermeticism, Shamanism and all the others.

[CynthiaCM]

Technomancers and Free Spirits do not exist in "my" Shadowrun. It's my opinion that they don't mesh well with the setting, so they don't exist in games I run. Therefore, no one is allowed to make them as characters.

[CynthiaCM]

[*]If you ever pitch a character to me by saying "I played this guy once before in another campaign", I'm betting you'll want to make a new character real soon. In fact I'll help you!
[/list]

I'll second that. Frankly, this is a pet peeve of mine, especially when the character wasn't originally from the Shadowrun setting. I once had a player try to convince me to let him convert what was originally his Spelljammer character to SR (it was a mindflayer if I recall correctly). I kid you not. And when I refused, he got huffy and said that he always plays that character, regardless of the game system/setting. I recall him rattling off a dozen or so games that the character has been played in (Rifts, Space 1889, Star Trek, Dark Conspiracy and quite a few others that escape me at the moment... it was a long time ago). I still refused, so he created a new character but spent most of the time pouting about it.

[Zen Shooter01]

Emotitoys. The street samurai gets one, and now he's a face. The face gets one to keep from becoming obsolete. Now everybody has the emotitoy bonus, which is like nobody having the emotitoy bonus, but we did just spend twenty minutes screwing around about it.

Stick 'n' Shock. Dumb. Bad for game balance.

[Ustio]

• 5th IP: It's game breaking to allow them in - especially for riggers.
• Spcial forces characters in a 400pt game - or any other concept that would realistically need more than 400BP/750 Karma.
• Emotitoys: as others said its dumb/broken/not thought out - Though we do have a houserule that makes them less broken - they only add dice to Judge Intent which makes a lot more sense and fits the fluff better.

[Paul]

This has been pretty interesting! Thanks for the replies folks!

[Malachi]

1) "Equal Response".

I like combat in my SHadowrun games. I told someone not long ago that I firmly believe that to most players, whether they will admit to it or not, in their head they see Shadowrun as that scene from The Matrix, where Neo & Co "sneak" into that Office Building loaded down with guns. That said, don't expect to be lugging around giant assault weapons willy nilly.

When I plan out a session, I plan for X Amount of challenge. And X is fluid. If the PCs are all packing little more than Pistols and Armored Long Coats, I balance the opposition based on that. If they have layered form fitting armor underneath armor jackets and assault rifles with APDS or EX EX rounds, I plan around that. What gets the team in trouble is when one or two players steps outside the group party balance and decides he wants to start playing rough. When 4 or 5 characters are in light armor and small arms, but one guy starts kitting out heavy arms and armor, that throws off the party balance, and means I have to plan the bad guys accordingly. Which means the other players either have to step it up or the one player needs to tone it down.

To put it simply, my rule is "If you have it and use it, they can have it and use it". When appropriate. Just cause you own a sniper rifle doesn't mean the gangers will always have snipers aiming at you. But if you're bringing assault cannons to every firefight, more often than not the enemies will have appropriate responses. I like my games cinematic, I run it that way, and like I said, I'm upfront with my players about it. So there's generally no complaints. They know that if they want to escalate the game, they can, but it's not going to make things any easier.

(That said, there's also a certain logic applied. A small 6-man local street gangs not gonna have military hardware, for example. And just because you walk into Renraku's HQ unarmored and carrying knives doesn't mean the security guards won;t be packing and armored. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

Fabulous post Bull, you and I appear to play very similar games. I want to comment on this one that I've quoted specifically.

I've heard some people claim that they play "simulationist" games and I think it's a mistake to go down that road. It will lead to no fun. In my games I run a style I call BBB: Balance within Broad Brackets. It is essentially what you are describing here. I partition up potential opposition in the game world into broad categories of power. For example: gangers, elite gangers, syndicate members, low-level corp security, megacorp security, government/corp strike teams, hyper-elite units. I define each category in relation to the players as: inferior, roughly equivalent, superior and then I balance them according to those broad categories. This allows some variance in the balance based on the capabilities of the party, as you suggest. For example, corp security guards should be "roughly equivalent" to the players, but that allows for variance to give them Pistols and Armored Jackets if the players are packing low-power armaments, or SMGs with EX-EX and Full Security Armor if the players are bringing in the big guns.

Generally, I try to challenge my players "just enough" in their run and this means keeping my hand constantly on the challenge "knob" (so to speak) while the run is happening. The writeup from my last run "Extraction Reaction" is a good example of my style of play. I varied the opposition just enough to give the players that "we barely escaped" feel. Sure, I could've dropped half a dozen combat drones with LMG's spitting EX-EX full bursts, shredded them all, and said "boy, where you guys ever dumb" but that's not fun. I think its far more fun to play a game of "equivalent challenge/response" as you describe, Bull. Again, great post.

[Prime Mover]

Not too much I won't allow. Some things that make me cringe.
The above mentioned mind flayer character. Is possible with Surge (cringe) tentacles,beak, dietary requirement brains, slimy skin and psychic tradition from digital grimore.

As for the emoti-toys my group never gave it much thought until reading DS posts. I've since said if it bothers them that much we can treat it as a teamwork test instead of a flat bonus.

I'm good at working around problems so as long as you willing to give me a good reason/background I'm willing to bend. No cross over game pc's or non canon abilities though.

[3278]

I've heard some people claim that they play "simulationist" games and I think it's a mistake to go down that road. It will lead to no fun.

It is an error to assume all groups' ideas of "fun" are identical, or that all people are playing RPGs for "fun."

[Malachi]

It is an error to assume all groups' ideas of "fun" are identical, or that all people are playing RPGs for "fun."

Ok, I'll give you the first one, but the second? Are there people really playing an RPG to not have fun?

[3278]

Ok, I'll give you the first one, but the second? Are there people really playing an RPG to not have fun?

Yes. I know, I know, it's called a "game" and you "play" it - you can bet I've had this conversation before! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) - but there are other reasons to game than simple enjoyment. Think of a flight simulator, or chess.

[Sixgun_Sage]

AI's, they're just too foriegn for my group
The Infected, I have enough trouble getting the dwarf and troll toe get along, now you want to toss a vampire in the mix?
Free spirit characters, see AI's

[Malachi]

Yes. I know, I know, it's called a "game" and you "play" it - you can bet I've had this conversation before! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) - but there are other reasons to game than simple enjoyment. Think of a flight simulator, or chess.

Yeah, I see where you're going, but I think that is contrary to the design intention of the game. What you describe is the design intention of a tabletop war game.

[Screaming Eagle]

I don't allow:
Rules abuse - just because the rules say you can build a character who "auto-succes" soaks 6 spell casting drain doesn't mean I'm allowing it (same goes for dice pools over 24 in practially anything aside from "gun", its kinda easy to hit 24 dice in gun...). This does apply past character creation but all the best examples are in character creation.

Carte Blanche on the Supliments - if I don't know the rules for it, it requires my approval. If I don't own the rules for it, it requires my approval. If I don't like the rules for it, it requires my approval. Shorter version: all charaters get looked over by moi for a basic "I understand you character sheet" check.

Total Illogical Results - See the coloision rules RAW... seriously... weird stuff happens.

Irrelivant flaws - If you take "scorched" or simialr situational flaws I expect you to use the points on matrix skills or edges so you will actually feel the need to expose yourself to the flaw. (What the heck does the greater point value for "hacker" mean anyway? at what point do you stop being a Sami with some computer skills and become a hacker and vice/versa?)

Background free characters - seriously, I don't care how "lite" you want it but give me SOMETHING to work with people. Everyone had parents and even if you are an orphan raised by Shadowrunners to do Shadowrunning thats SOMETHING (actually a full write up on such a background would probably be quite awesome). Be something other then "this is my name and this is how I kill things".

[3278]

Yeah, I see where you're going, but I think that is contrary to the design intention of the game.

That's entirely possible. I've never let that get in my way.

My point is twofold: first, the specific, that it isn't necessarily a mistake to be simulationist, or that you can't have fun doing it; myself and my group are proof that neither is necessarily true, since being simulationist not only hasn't been a mistake, but we've also had fun [even when "fun" wasn't necessarily the point].

The second is a more esoteric point, which is that we shouldn't assume everyone is getting the same thing out of the game we are, or that they'd want to; all-too-often, on this board and others, I see people making these absolutist statements about why you should roleplay and how you should roleplay, and this rule should be changed in this way because it doesn't work for our group so therefore it won't work for anyone. I think statements like these are unnecessarily limiting of possibility and irrationally self-centered of presumption.

I don't mean to pick on you, personally - I like you, personally! - but I wanted to remind people that no two groups, no two players, are identical, and what works for one may not work for many, and what works for many may not work for one.

[Adarael]

1) FFBA, as written.
I have found that FFBA causes more problems than it solves, and that the game as I run it is plenty survivable without FFBA. Adding it tends to cause armor values to balloon outward and make damaging anyone an exercise in getting ridiculously large dicepools and withholding some for extra damage. No thank you, I would like gangers to be able to hurt each other, and not have 14-15 soak dice. So FFBA follows ordinary everyday stacking rules, just like if you wanted to wear an armor jacket over an armor vest.

2) Emotitoys, as written.
No. There's no way that a toy with Empathy Software will cost a fraction of the software itself. That is illogical and nonsensical. So instead of what they do as written, I go with the interpretation that an Emotitoy will add dice only to see if the subject is feeling whatever emotion it's keyed to. Congratulations, you now have +6 dice to see if your Johnson is feeling nervous/happy/sad, not +6 dice on all social tests. And also, your emotitoy will try to play/comfort/entertain the Johnson, cuz that's what it f'ing does.

3) Totally Ice Cold Pros, All The Time.
Sometimes in my games, shooting a guy in the face IS the best way to solve a problem or send a message. While my games tend to be more Splinter Cell than The Matrix, let us never forget the PCs live in an awful world where people will bully them, take advantage of them, or try to kill them if they believe the PCs to be weak. Sometimes you need to let the rest of the underworld know you mean business - and if the Yakuza kidnap a friend of yours to strongarm you into doing a free job, sometimes it IS best to demolish one of their brothels and kill 10 of their soldiers... and then offer your services to a different kyodai, to make a point. Because if runners could easily be strongarmed without danger, they wouldn't be working for money...

4) Rampant Destruction
...But if you do that too often, SOMEONE is gonna bomb your safehouses, because nobody lives in a vacuum. Nobody. Eventually you'll piss off the wrong people if you act like a high and mighty dick who's always waving his Predator around, and if you burn the wrong bridges, you WILL end up face down in a ditch. If not from an underworld figure, then from some Lone Star cops that've had enough. They can't prove you did those crimes? So what! They might just kill you to get you out of their hair.

I'd allow pretty much anything else, with a reasonable explanation. I run really wide-open games most of the time.

[Paul]

That's another thing I don't allow in my game: Designer's Intent. If they want to show up and try and change how I game, well I have a lot of ammo.