Let's try again, shall we?, Maybe I'm crazy, maybe I'm insane.... Options

[Penta]

Yeah.

You'd think Blood in the Water seemingly dying out of the blue (I'd be happy yo reume it, but 3 out of 12 people responded!) would have taught me not to try GMing again...

But dammit, I've got the itch to tell stories and explore in that way only GMing an RPG can let me do.

I'm not sure what story, yet....The way I see it, I've got 3 possibilities.

1. A standard SR campaign. No idea where I'd set it, yet; there are several possibilities floating in my head.

2. A merc campaign: This would be a campaign requiring possibly a larger party than normal. Beyond knowing that, my idea on this would be to recruit an AGM from among the players.

3. Cyberpirates/Cyberprivateers - Basically, trying the idea behind Blood in the Water one more time. I can use a lot of ideas from that campaign (which barely got started) all over again, with modifications, but I have no favor or disfavor towards this one. If the players want to try it, okay. If it is tried, there'd need to be a quick going-over of expectations so far as player involvement, which I think was unclearly laid out last time.
---

That said, group size:

Track 1 (a standard SR campaign): Probably 6 players. 4 minimum, 8 as a really hard maximum.

Track 2 (Mercs): This can...wow, this can go huge. My guy says 10-12, and I'd need to recruit an AGM from among the players. 8 would be a functional minimum, I think; 12 a maximum.

Track 3 (Cyberpirates): 12 players maximum. An AGM, like the mercs campaign, is almost requireed. 8 minimum, 12 maximum.

---
Penta's rules for a happy game:

Activity: GM should at least post weekly in the OOC thread, even if events move slower than that on the IC thread. Preferably more often. Players, same rules apply. PC's may be written out (according to GM's discretion, and permanence at GM's discretion) for extended inactivity with no explanatoon. Game going below set minimum group size is either on hold or dead.

Chargen: Done in coordination with the GM. Specific details depend on the campaign. Backgrounds required. Automated character generation (DamienKnight's Excel spreadsheet is popular) is virtually required.
---

The AGM:

Where I use an AGM, I have specific ideas about how the whole idea works.

I know my strengths as a GM (Story, worldbuilding) and my weaknesses (Crunch and rules). I primarily use an AGM to help me with the latter. However, it's not all rules stuff. I'll borrow the AGM's brain sometimes for story ideas, IM or email comms with an AGM is very helpful. I like to get to know the person I'm creating stories with.

In large combats, I'll often describe a general plan and work on the descriptions of responses to actions, letting the AGM apply the rules. I can handle the rules, to an extent, but it's not my strong point. I tend to run combat cinematically to compensate.
---
Theme and stuff:

It really depends on the campaign. Generally, my campaigns are neither good nor evil as a default - I let the players decide that, but I generally start players out sort of in the light. On the "pink mohawk to ice cold pro" spectrum, I lean more towards pro. I'll let you get away with cool stuff (and even give karma for it!), but it takes a lot to impress me. Organizations and entities of multiple people get run realistically by me, generally - rarely either good or evil, mostly amoral.

As a GM, I'm a big fan of character development. I come from MUSHing and MOOs as a background, as well as PBEMs. Hence, I like seeing characters grow and develop and become more fleshed out. The best characters, to me, are ones that could easily step out of your computer and come alive. Few characters reach that point, but some do.
---
Timeline:

No idea when I'd set the campaign.

So far as setting things up:

April is going to be a kinda busy month for me with the end of semester and all (actually, it all ends by May 7th, but I hope to have everything done before then...Hahaha, I know, unlikely.)

May will, I hope, be much more amenable to IC play. But April, if people want to play with me, will mostly be devoted to setup and such.

So, hoping I haven't used up all my credibility as a GM here with the way Blood in the Water turned out....Who's up for a game?

[remmus]

at least got a clue what rules ya gonna use? I´m eager for a game and have a character for 3rd edition ready to kick cyborg ass and chew elven brand bubblegum.

[Chance359]

I'm interested.

[Penta]

at least got a clue what rules ya gonna use? I´m eager for a game and have a character for 3rd edition ready to kick cyborg ass and chew elven brand bubblegum.

Doh, I shoulda mentioned. I typically run SR4A, as errata'd. Advanced books depend on the campaign.

[BlackHat]

Always interested in new games.

I think I would be most interested in idea #1 (standard game), and would encourage you to consider starting smaller rather than larger, since you seemed worried about a previous game that died. Trying to coordinate a large cast of players and a possible alternate GM sound like enough of a logistical nightmare to kill a game before it even gets off the ground (although I know some games like that have worked on DS in the past). Just a suggestion, though.

[Dumori]

If you do a merc game I'll AGM I ran a merc game on here it died due to a comination of my sutpidity and my life hitting me hard a few times. Other than that I'm in for all three ideas. though AGMing woudl likey exclud me from playign in 3

[Belvidere]

I'm very interested in both 1 and 2, though the character I've had in mind for a very long time could work in 3 as well. I'll probably end up PMing you with the details on the character concept and whatnot. Guessing play by post? I haven't read through Blood in the Water, but I probably will, just see the style.

[toturi]

I would like to play too. I do not mind if the GM is not as hardcore on the RAW as I am but I would like the GM (or AGM) to be at least competent on the rules. I get my RAW fix on the other side of the forums, I come here to enjoy the stories. As long the rules don't change midway, I think it will be fine.

Activity: I live on the forums. I get withdrawal symptoms if I can't log in. Any further questions?

[Penta]

Toturi: I pick my AGMs for rules competence.. If story is what you look for, story is what I can provide.

[Belvidere]

I'm unsure as to how you are going to decide on which of the three will the one run. But if you're taking votes, my vote goes for option 1. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Digital Heroin]

I've got a few suitable concepts for a Merc game, including a merc technomancer that's seen creation, but not play. Of course he'd have to be toned down just a wee bit, unless the power level is above standard.

[Penta]

I was going to take votes, yes. I'm willing to run any of the 3 - Option 3 I have the most prep-work done for (well, any prep work done for, to be honest), but I can do any of the 3.

[Belvidere]

I was going to take votes, yes. I'm willing to run any of the 3 - Option 3 I have the most prep-work done for (well, any prep work done for, to be honest), but I can do any of the 3.

If 3 works best for you, then I've got real issue with it. My vote still stands, but I'd still be plenty interested in a game no matter the setting really. Unless maybe it was in Chicago, but that's only because I have a terrifying fear of bug spirits. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dead.gif) And still I'd be game. Nothing like a challenge, right?

[Digital Heroin]

I can do cyperpirates as well, got concepts lying around to suit just about any brand of play.

[Penta]

Just because I have the prep-work done doesn't mean you guys don't have the authority to be like Vatican II and reject my schemata and replace them with your own.

You totally do.

A few more thoughts:

The Blood in the Water concept had numerous bumps in the road, but it's biggest flaw was activity issues. My activity, player activity.

Option 1 is a standard SR campaign in every regard.

Option 2 - would be kinda odd. I'm not sure how I'd structure a merc campaign.

Option 3 - This was never fully, properly explained by me in setting up the campaign, I think. At some point, you will be on your own. Picking your own targets, within limits, raiding/capturing them, extracting, fencing your captures, and onwards. Shore leave would be when you'd spend karma, as it's the closest there'd be to "between runs".

[JDragon]

Please count me in as interested.

Any of the 3 options works for me as I've not played that much SR really, so it doesn't have to be anything special to keep me interested.

As for activity, what you have outlined will not be a problem and more would be easy if I had a reason to be here. Just haven't had much reason of late after the last game I was in had to be stopped.



JD

[Digital Heroin]

Regarding the structure of a merc campaign, as you've stated you'd have a larger number of people, it stands that things could be run similar to a standard SR game mission-wise, save that the intel would be more straightforward (initially), the targets either more hardened, or requiring a slightly more tactical approach, and the toys bigger... that's just how I see it.

For a pirate game, a freer hand for the crew makes sense, though a narrative can always be overlaid onto it. Events controlled by you would dictate what targets would be likely, and what the consequences would be for going for tougher ones.

I'm just spitballing, as my brain is a little soft right now. I should sleep. Need to be up bloody early tomorrow. Sailing for the day. Showing off the boat. Yay.

[toturi]

I am alright with any of the 3 campaigns.

[remmus]

I´m open for anyone too, pirate sounds fun (then again that's because I been watching the Black Lagoon anime with symbolicly follows the story of a bunch of modern day "pirates")

as for character I always wanted to try a adept, don´t know what kind but most likely gunslinger adept or spec ops adept with melee focus.

[Dumori]

I'd rather one or two. Yes I'm not to hot on a pirate game something must be wrong with me I love pirates.

[Penta]

For option 3: I'm unsure here, but I think it'll wind up more as cyberprivateers - IOW, cyberpirates, but you have a patron.

Reasons:

1. The cheapest ocean-going vessel in Arsenal is in the six-figures. Equipped properly in BitW, it easily filled-out a 500,000 nuyen "loan" I gave for common gear and stuff. There was still a good bit spent on normal gear, but the boat with trimmings was a huge proportion. It struck me then and strikes me now that no group of folks could really afford such a craft on their own.
2. While I envision the majority of the campaign being independent commerce raiding, the privateers format enables me to occasionally provide you guys with missions when you're at loose ends.
3. Because I can't be the only one whose eyes land upon the "marque and reprisal" clause in the US Constitution and goes "Oooh, shadowrunny!":)

If there are constructive objections (Not just "No", but "No, and here's how to solve reason 1 and reason 2 differently"), I'm willing to listen. Or they can just be no, if you'd actually prefer a different campaign track altogether.(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[remmus]

For option 3: I'm unsure here, but I think it'll wind up more as cyberprivateers - IOW, cyberpirates, but you have a patron.

Reasons:

1. The cheapest ocean-going vessel in Arsenal is in the six-figures. Equipped properly in BitW, it easily filled-out a 500,000 nuyen "loan" I gave for common gear and stuff. There was still a good bit spent on normal gear, but the boat with trimmings was a huge proportion. It struck me then and strikes me now that no group of folks could really afford such a craft on their own.
2. While I envision the majority of the campaign being independent commerce raiding, the privateers format enables me to occasionally provide you guys with missions when you're at loose ends.
3. Because I can't be the only one whose eyes land upon the "marque and reprisal" clause in the US Constitution and goes "Oooh, shadowrunny!":)

If there are constructive objections (Not just "No", but "No, and here's how to solve reason 1 and reason 2 differently"), I'm willing to listen. Or they can just be no, if you'd actually prefer a different campaign track altogether.(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

1 & 2 can be "solved" in one stroke, simple have a mister Johnson make a deal with the team where he offers to at least sponsor with a boat for the team to use and in return until the value of the boat is payed back the team is on the Johnson´s "leash" to be called whenever a job needs to be done (obviously the Johnson would find means of keeping the team hard on cash so he has the leverage as long as he/she can)

[Penta]

If you check out Blood in the Water (just the IC thread), that's basically what I did - the employer gave the team a 500k loan and crash training.

I'm still not sure whether it worked or not - when the time came for independent duties (read: Having the team work self-sufficiently) is when the campaign fell over. Which, well, induced a high feeling of "WTF?" on my end.
---

I've fleshed out the options a bit more.

Option 1 - there really isn't too much I can say, because a lot will depend on what city you guys want to start out in.
Option 2 - The way I see it, this option will look different depending on where the "home base" is decided to be, but as a general commonality will involve a lot in terms of NPC support and similar. I'm figuring the players will at least start out as a squad-level unit (so 10-12 people) but with player cooperation in fleshing out NPCs and generally accepting that things will be run more abstractly than a common campaign (even one I run, which tends to be fairly abstract so far as combat goes), can go up to a company-sized unit (Size of I-forget-how-big in US Army terms), though I will admit my fear of trying to craft a campaign with anything above a platoon. Obviously, though, actually fighting beyond the squad level will require some form of mass combat rules, given that it's really not what Shadowrun is meant to handle (who knows, maybe War! will feature a solution to the dilemma).
Option 3 - I admit my stubbornness that this is still on the table and not an option I left out. This would actually be my third go-around trying to run it. The first time died because the GM (me) had RL bite me in the ass (we'll just leave it at that) and I lost all enthusiasm for, er, anything unexpectedly. The second time I'm still not sure why it fell over. If we go with this option, hopefully the third time will be the charm. Anyway. So far as Option 3 goes, I'm still pondering the port for things to begin in, but my instinct is to have things definitely focus on the Atlantic Ocean and surrounding environs.

Issues with each option not explored previously:

All options: So you guys know, your GM is legally blind IRL - I read a computer screen and print books without adaptation, I use glasses otherwise, but my field of vision is shit, and among other things that means I don't drive, and my sense of distances and things can really, really suck. Similarly, I have some hand-eye coordination issues that mean that while I love maps, I need maps, I pray for maps...I can't create them, nor a lot of other helpful illustrations. On the other hand, I work hard at putting forth even minor NPCs in detail, and I try hard to describe things with words. Toturi, if you're looking for Missions-quality GMing, I'll admit to not being your person. I am not that. I am a newbie GM.

Option 1 issues:

A. Maps. Maps. Maps. This option depends the most (Option 3 is a runner-up or tie) on somehow getting and using maps well. By maps I especially mean floorplans.
B. Power level and expectations will need to be discussed thoroughly. True of any campaign, but especially with a "standard" SR campaign, everybody comes to the table thinking something different.
C, I run organizations realistically. Your GM has a degree in political science that I actually don't get to use much - the lessons learned are often applicable to all sorts of organizations. This can shock and confuse players used to more standard interpretations of the setting.
D. "How the hell do you know each other?" is a classic problem with any SR campaign. Options 2 and 3 there are ways around it, option 1 leaves us staring it in the face.
E. Player absences are easiest to handle in this campaign.
F. Chargen is the least restricted here.

Option 2 issues:

A. Maps are possibly the least important in this campaign; though they still matter, I can describe things in open-field combat a bit simpler without a floorplan. On the rare cases combat moves indoors, you'll find that there's a shocking degree of standardization. Please just accept it.(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
B. Power level here will be as much an issue as in any other campaign - possibly getting worse because it'll likely tend higher, and the ordnance is heavier.
C. My bias is towards finding a PC unit leader - who does not need to be the AGM, but should equally be available, because I'll often use the unit leader to drop story hints through.
D. There are easy ways to bring new characters in. Practically impossible to account for temporary hiatuses or manners of leaving that don't involve character-death, though, at least while on missions.
E. Chargen is somewhat restricted here. I can't see technomancers doing well outside of cities, for example.

Option 3 issues:

A. Maps, floorplans - for ships they are generally unavailable, most especially for freighters. They are, however, vital.
B. The issue which killed the second go-around, I think: Players need to keep up. Keep up and contribute. Pacing will likely be pretty uneven - it'll slow to a near-stop, then suddenly there'll be hordes of posts, with little warning.
C. Same as Issue D for Option 2, but more acute: Points at which new characters can join are, as a practical matter, limited to times when the group is in dock somewhere. Plausibly accounting for player disappearances without killing off the character is difficult at best. Even pre-planned disappearances are hard.
D. Scale: Travel/transit times are longer than in the other campaigns. There's no way around it, really - the ocean is big. There's a degree to which one can fast-forward, but that loses out on the richness of RP that being cooped up in the same damn ship presents.
E. Chargen here is the most restricted - it's hard to justify why a dwarf or troll (neither of which really fit on a ship in pure physical terms) would be picked by the employer, and some archetypes (technomancers come to mind quickest) are frankly out of place.

[remmus]

don´t see how technomancers can´t work, it a world more heavily technological then today there is countless stuff both hackers and there supernatural cousins, the technomancer can do well both as mercs and as crew on a privateer ship.

as for races on option 3 I don´t see the issue either, dwarfs if anything work well for there small size to move about the crews ship as well as any ship there board, trolls could be troublesome but for the muscle they bring even a ships crew can´t deny a trolls usefulness.

I personally can work with any option and in my opinion any of those works, it´s all about being careful not over thinking things and be ready to stretch what makes "sense" if it allows the players to have fun and get a good story.

[Penta]

Trolls aboard ship have the problem of not really fitting, in a raw physical sense. Ships are generally cramped even for normal-sized humans. It gets worse when you're 9 feet tall and weigh 500 to 1000 pounds.

Dwarves fit fine, but everything - all of the controls, everything - would be placed for humans/elves/orks. They'd what, be jumping up constantly to hit buttons?

Edit: Re technomancers - I could have misread the fic, but don't they tend to freak out when away from the constant matrix signal of the mesh? Being away from said signal would be basically the default in options 2 or 3.