Broken players, A question from a (semi) upstart GM Options

[shintsurugi]

Yo Dumpshock peoples.

I've been GMing for a while, relatively new to Shadowrun (GMing it for about six months, opposed to the two or three with other systems). After spending way too much time sifting through the forums, I seem to see a lot of posts about how this thing or that thing is broken.

Before I stir up a large hornet's nest of trouble (as I fully expect to do (I'd love to be disappointed!)), probably some background on my GM style is needed. I'm the type of GM who doesn't hate powergamers. Hell, I EMBRACE powergamers. I'm one myself when I play. The PCs min-max, so do I. They find a broken item, guess what the NPCs are using next time around?

The way I see it, the PCs are the main characters in their story. They SHOULD be stronger than their opposition. They should win (most of the time), because otherwise the game's not fun. Now, that's not to say it should be EASY for them, but they should win.

Now, on to my question:

Why do people whine so much about how this item is broken, or this is a power gamer item or what have you?

If you're worried about in-party balance, each archetype is pretty much amazing at his or her job. Shadowrun (especially the BP build system) HEAVILY encourages specialization. A character of any given type is probably going to throw upwards of 12 dice in his or her specialty.

So what if the street sam doesn't use that emotitoy? They're not meant to talk, they're meant to kill every single freaking thing in their path. (And perhaps laugh while doing it) So what if the Face doesn't put on that Form Fitting Body Armor? If the talky person (who usually hangs out in the background or isn't involved in combat at all) is being shot at, your street sam isn't doing their job. Fancy spirits and spells? Fight magical fire with magical fire (or water, might make more sense). Mages have a cavalcade of skills and spells that can handle almost any situation. Except colossal amounts of violence to the face. (Hm, that seems to solve a lot of problems...)

If you're worried about PC-NPC balance, GIVE THE NPCS THE BROKEN ITEM. Perhaps they found a cache, perhaps Ares itself decided it doesn't like the team with a passion, the story can always shift slightly to allow for this. PCs are using Ares Alphas? Give the NPCs Ares Alphas. Mod them to hell and back. Throw in APDS or Ex-Ex.

Still worred about PC-NPC balance? GIVE THE NPCS SOMETHING BETTER! There's always some item or another that will kill stuff faster, knock stuff out faster, protect something faster (er, better) or do whatever job it is faster. If one doesn't exist, make one up. Corps do R&D. They're constantly developing better and better widgets to sell to other corps and to save their own hides. You're the GM. Control your universe.

If you're worried about realism, I'll only say that a game system is just that. A game. Games are not meant to embody every nuance and detail about real life. It's not the GMs fault if one gun isn't realistic. Hell, it's not CGLs fault if one gun isn't realistic. Concessions have to be made when making a game. They can't be perfect. (Because otherwise we'd have nothing to argue about!)

... That turned out to be much more of a rant than I wanted. Oh well.

Now, I'm not saying that broken items aren't a bad thing. I'm just saying that they aren't ruining the game. There's always something that can be done. And if nothing else... Fudge a dice roll. Usually works for me.

Now excuse me while I hide behind a concrete bunker awaiting much, much death. *poof*

[Darkeus]

Don't know. I usually just play around said items or outright ban them (As is the case with emotitoys. I really think those things are a very stupid idea and not very Shadowrun-like.)

Broken items just get sifted out of the mix in my games... Then again, I am not a fan of extreme powergaming... I prefer my players pick a resonable character concept and stick with it. No pornomancers or the Lucky Shot guy...

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Power Creep is a problem, not a solution.

[Ol' Scratch]

Because powergaming is pretty damn cheesy and ruins the immersion for a lot of other players. It has little to do with balance and more to do with not being an annoying prick doing unreasonable things with unreasonable equipment simply because it gives you the most pluses. Shadowrun is a roleplaying game with a distinct style and sensibility. That style and sensibility doesn't include people (be they PCs or NPCs) running around with motorcycles more armored than tanks, using hold-out pistols spewing out more rounds than a high-velocity assault rifle, or playing high Force free spirits possessing the body of a fomori with every passive cybernetic and bioware implant imaginable.

If you enjoy that sort of game, fine and good for you. Play your niche game with its ridiculously over-the-top stupidity and have a blast doing so. Just don't expect everyone to agree with you that that's the way the game should be played, portrayed, or defaulted to. And if you start using that kind of mentality to rationalize all other kinds of stupidity, expect people to get riled up.

And yes, the player characters are a cut above the common man. That has nothing at all to do with powergaming whatsoever, and it certainly isn't an excuse to rationalize it. It's a basic function of the default rules for most RPGs; Shadowrun included. But, again, that doesn't make it an excuse to go all abusive with the rules just because you like raping the mechanics. It's just a basic fact of the protagonist character in fiction.

[Dwight]

@shintsurugi

Shadowrun is already in the neighbourhood of RIFTS in the crazy-over-the-top category. I've noticed that:
1) some of these people don't want things to go to the level of RIFTS, or even move next door to RIFTS
2) a lot of the rest of these people don't realize that Shadowrun is in the neighbourhood of RIFTS, or just wish it wasn't, and are trying to remove that from the game forcible by changing rules...which is really tough because it is all over the place

Of course I agree some of these extremely excited posts over any number of things that aren't as "broken" as claimed, because they are focused on the particular aspect in isolation. They don't see it within the context of where it matters, in play. They read the book and picture some crazy edge conditions and assume that they not only come up at all in play but also come up regularly. *shrug*

EDIT: Crap, ISP is dodgy (just waiting for my current month to expire before I switch) and cut off most of my last paragraph. I'm going to add it as a new post...

[shintsurugi]

@All

I guess I was pretty extreme in my initial post. (Yay the internet. -.-) I agree that broken mechanics do interrupt the immersion of an RPG. My main thrust is that broken items or mechanics shouldn't completely interrupt a story because they're broken. There's always a way around these things.

I suppose I am blessed with the fact that my players, while being powergamers, are still role-players. They establish a character and act in-character, being believable people. (Albeit with insane equipment...)

Hm, I think I'm getting my points mixed up again. But anyways, thanks to all that have posted for their input. Perhaps I'm just biased from being a BESM GM most of the time (where Dr. Funkenstein's absurd ideas are on the lower end of insanity o.o).

[Ol' Scratch]

My ideas? Those were all things people have posted on these forums in the past. Do a search for "Murdercycle" or whatever it was called for a more recent example.

[Triggvi]

A lot depends on your game and how you and your players want to play. Munch'ining tends to create the D&D hack and slash feel. If it moves, kill it. If it has a family, kill them too. Role-playing the characters as people is harder than the hack and slash, but in the long run more rewarding.

Honestly, I can take any rules system and bend it over and make it want to cry in the shower after I am done.

If you want interesting characters that are more of a role-playing type, you write the character story up first, then put numbers to them.

This is just my feelings on it. Do what makes you happy.

[Dwight]

Redux of a paragraph that got dropped from my previous post.

Then there is the matter of who you play with. There is one rather infamous person on these boards that comes to my mind that gets fixated on crazy edge conditions (pun intended, I believe he's actually forbidden from even mentioning Mr. Lucky) that aren't particularly applicable in play since he assumes certain conditions and GMing practices, which are actually a huge portion of the root of the issue in these cases. This same posters also plays exclusively in public run Mission sessions, so his perspective is going to be heavily influenced by that.

So he does have a point in that Missions is somewhat more demanding on the rules. Because you are playing with a collection of people that are coming in with their own character, they come vested heavily in a particular game tone embodied by that character's stats. This brings some natural rigidity to their position so it is harder to reach a consensus about what game tone that particular session should be run with. Highly tuned characters tend to drown out not so highly tuned characters. Contrast this to playing with the same, tighter group of people over a longer period from character creation onward. It is much easier to make your own little deals about what level of tuning/specialization to have on your characters. So some of the problems do get hidden, and some of the problems are really players/GMs being dicks and/or looking for something that the rest of the table isn't interested in.

[Glyph]

shintsurugi, I agree with parts of your rant, but disagree with other parts of it.

I think cheesy rules exploits should not get by the GM in the first place, whether they are genuinely viable or whether they are (like most of them) dependent on a GM accepting a liberal (and obviously unintended) interpretation of a rule. Examples of this would be - a possession mage attempting to get around the limitations of number of services owed by making the service "Be me for the day"; someone arguing that multiple sets of form-fitting body armor should stack together; someone arguing that since the rules only limit you to one 6 or two 5's in skills, but don't mention 7's (if you take Aptitude for a skill), that you can get a 7 and get a 6 or two 5's. And I don't think the GM using the same cheesy tactics to escalate things is a viable solution.

On the other hand, I do get sick and tired of the countless, innumerable threads which seem to pick out every single effective option in the game, and ask "Is this broken? Is astral hazing broken? Are direct combat spells broken? Are power foci broken?" I also get sick and tired of people overusing the terms "munchkin" or "roll-playing" to deride everything that doesn't fit their own personal notions about what the level of the game should be.

But again, the GM for an individual game should make whatever adjustments are needed to make the game fit the power level and realism level of that particular campaign. And I dislike GM escalation as a means of countering PCs, because NPCs should be at the level they are supposed to be, rather than "X" amount more or less powerful than the PCs. Just because the PCs get some mil-tech gear, doesn't mean the gangers down the corner get Ares Alphas. They might get better jobs, and thus run into more opposition with similar gear, but a mall security guard should still be a pushover.

[kjones]

This has been touched on already, but I want to state it explicitly. Fighting fire with fire, as you put it, breaks verisimilitude. The world doesn't revolve around the PCs. Why should everyone else suddenly start packing full-body SWAT armor over FFBA just because the PCs got ahold of some new guns? But it seems like that's what you're suggesting.

Of course you can send high-powered players up against high-powered threats. The problem isn't the relative power of the threats for your missions - it's the absolute power of the players in the world. The statement "Never deal with a dragon" loses a lot of its meaning if your players are at the point where they can just shoot the dragon in the face.

[Dwight]

The world doesn't revolve around the PCs.

Actually it does, which is the problem. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) The action in RPGs is all about and centered on the handful of characters run by the players around the table, that's the focus (and if it isn't then you are listening to storytime by the GM). The escalation of power necessary to challenge players with PCs that are min/maxed and exploiting dubious rules tends to create huge distortions in the overall game world.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Actually it does, which is the problem. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) The action in RPGs are about the handful of characters run by the players around the table, that's the focus (and if it isn't then you are listening to storytime by the GM). The escalation of power necessary to challenge the PCs that are min/maxed and exploiting dubious rules tends to create huge distortions in the overall game world.

I think that the point that kjones was making was that the world is not beholden to the PC's... The WORLD does not react to what the PCs do... ever... if the characters think that, then they really need to be swatted down... they are just not that important... They may have some very localized influence, but they are not Lofwyr or Damien Knight...

That being said... the STORY revolves around the characters, and they should have the highlights, no doubt... But having the gang down the street obtain equivalent armaments to the PCs so that they can give them a run for their money, is just not how it should happen... gangers are just that... gangers... they are an everyday occurrence within the unfolding world AROUND the PCs.. They are backdrop, just as most everyday occurrences are...

Even if those Gangers become intertwined with the characters in some way, this should not allow them to arm themselves with the same weapons... they are not high threat response teams... they are still gangers, they have the resources of gangers, and they should act like gangers... to do anything else breaks the verisimilitude of the world that you are trying to portray...

Keep the Faith

[Triggvi]

Actually it does, which is the problem. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) The action in RPGs is all about and centered on the handful of characters run by the players around the table, that's the focus (and if it isn't then you are listening to storytime by the GM). The escalation of power necessary to challenge players with PCs that are min/maxed and exploiting dubious rules tends to create huge distortions in the overall game world.

I completely agree the world does revolves around the characters. What decisions they make shape the world around them. It is the art of epic story telling. Theworld takes shape when the PC make choices. Until they make choices the world is just backdrop, a setting if you will.

Walking around the grocery store in mil-spec armor is going to cause problems for the characters. Hell, just walking down the street in mil-spec armor will cause them problems.

[Triggvi]

Actually it does, which is the problem. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) The action in RPGs is all about and centered on the handful of characters run by the players around the table, that's the focus (and if it isn't then you are listening to storytime by the GM). The escalation of power necessary to challenge players with PCs that are min/maxed and exploiting dubious rules tends to create huge distortions in the overall game world.

I completely agree the world does revolves around the characters. What decisions they make shapes the world around them. It is the art of epic story telling. The world takes shape when the PC make choices. Until they make choices the world is just backdrop, a setting if you will.

Walking around the grocery store in mil-spec armor is going to cause problems for the characters. Hell, just walking down the street in mil-spec armor will cause them problems.

[kjones]

Yeah, Tymeaus got the gist of it. My point is that while the game revolves around the PCs, of course, the world does not.

If you'll forgive the comparison to The Other RPG, it's like if you were playing a wizard who only knew fire spells, and suddenly all the monsters you fought had fire resistance.

My experiences with D&D have taught me that escalating power with your players only ends in sadness and misery.

[Glyph]

A lot of these distortions can be avoided if the GM and the players are clear on the style of gameplay and the general role of the PCs. If the PCs are supposed to be elite-level badasses who take on the really dangerous jobs, then it doesn't break the verisimilitude of the game if they are tough hombres.

It really comes down to the individual tables, because the rules, without any ambiguously worded rule exploits or cheesy tactics, let the players create some pretty powerful characters. Instead of yelling at the players for coming up with powerful, but completely legal characters - or tilting the entire game world on its axis to accommodate that power level - the GM should simply be more clear, before the game starts, on exactly what kind of game he is trying to run. I have been in everything from playing 40 BP SR3 characters, to playing an elite team of cyberzombies, but each time, I knew exactly what I was getting in to beforehand.

SR4 is actually a very customizable game - there are a ton of optional rules if you want to have grittier gameplay, or cinematic gameplay, or make skills count for more. But the customization of the open build system is a potential pitfall. You can create a bewildering variety of characters, but unfortunately, several players who aren't talking to each other or getting any feedback from the GM can make characters of extremely different experience and power levels.

[kjones]

I think Glyph really hit the nail on the head here. Glyph, I'm gonna guess that your team of cyberzombies wasn't running around beating up Halloweeners, right?

[Dwight]

Yeah, Tymeaus got the gist of it. My point is that while the game revolves around the PCs, of course, the world does not.

If you'll forgive the comparison to The Other RPG, it's like if you were playing a wizard who only knew fire spells, and suddenly all the monsters you fought had fire resistance.

Nothing wrong with moulding the world to challenge the PCs. The world only exists for the characters, that's it purpose. However....

My experiences with D&D have taught me that escalating power with your players only ends in sadness and misery.

That crazy spiral = bad because it doesn't get to the root of the issue, players trying via any means to avoid risk and/or sane levels of risk-reward and/or having control over in-world that is well out of proportion to the other players/GM. They are playing a different game, a sort of metagame of the game you think you are playing.

[Triggvi]

A lot of these distortions can be avoided if the GM and the players are clear on the style of gameplay and the general role of the PCs. If the PCs are supposed to be elite-level badasses who take on the really dangerous jobs, then it doesn't break the verisimilitude of the game if they are tough hombres.

It really comes down to the individual tables, because the rules, without any ambiguously worded rule exploits or cheesy tactics, let the players create some pretty powerful characters. Instead of yelling at the players for coming up with powerful, but completely legal characters - or tilting the entire game world on its axis to accommodate that power level - the GM should simply be more clear, before the game starts, on exactly what kind of game he is trying to run. I have been in everything from playing 40 BP SR3 characters, to playing an elite team of cyberzombies, but each time, I knew exactly what I was getting in to beforehand.

SR4 is actually a very customizable game - there are a ton of optional rules if you want to have grittier gameplay, or cinematic gameplay, or make skills count for more. But the customization of the open build system is a potential pitfall. You can create a bewildering variety of characters, but unfortunately, several players who aren't talking to each other or getting any feedback from the GM can make characters of extremely different experience and power levels.

Communication between players and Gm is very important. Having the characters fit in the game as well and fit with each other is critical. I agree that raising the power level of the bad guys to make them a challenge is not the greatest idea in the world. There are other ways of challenging them that upping the lethality. Mundanes if played right can have them making decisions that challenge there moral and ethical codes. Make them think instead of just shoot first and hacker comlink later. Part of the SR4 universe is making tough calls in less that perfect circumstances and tring not to get crushed between a rock and a megacorp.

[kjones]

Nothing wrong with moulding the world to challenge the PCs. The world only exists for the characters, that's it purpose. However....



That crazy spiral = bad because it doesn't get to the root of the issue, players trying via any means to avoid risk and/or sane levels of risk-reward and/or having control over in-world that is well out of proportion to the other players/GM. They are playing a different game, a sort of metagame of the game you think you are playing.

I agree with you overall, but I think that there exists a certain power level such that at that point, if you try to mold your game to fit it, things will stop making sense. Maybe one guy that you face has the right build to resist your Pornomancer, but if everyone you meet is like that...

[Dwight]

Maybe one guy that you face has the right build to resist your Pornomancer, but if everyone you meet is like that...

Right, and as a player WTF would you ever build the Pornomancer? Do you really think someone would build that, and put it into play and use that ability, not looking to avoid risking ever failing a seduction Test? Is it not more logical that they are looking to 'win', to dominate without risk, during actual play? That is what is underlying the Pornomancer, that is what needs to be addressed. Because the Pornomancer isn't easy to create, it in really, really hard to accidentally create it....and likewise it's really hard to exorcise all like builds and exploitable things from the rules, nigh impossible one could say.


Some of what Shadowrun does exasperates the problem, for sure. The way Edges and Flaws are structured creates problems, some of those even mostly honestly. But when you get to the Pornomancer the player has to know they are wheeling around a glass cannon, that they've created something that left in place either distorts the crap out of the world or leaves them free to pursue their agenda effectively at will. Especially if they start playing metagames to define all conflicts in them getting their groove on.

[Muspellsheimr]

So what if the street sam doesn't use that emotitoy? They're not meant to talk, they're meant to kill every single freaking thing in their path. (And perhaps laugh while doing it) So what if the Face doesn't put on that Form Fitting Body Armor? If the talky person (who usually hangs out in the background or isn't involved in combat at all) is being shot at, your street sam isn't doing their job. Fancy spirits and spells? Fight magical fire with magical fire (or water, might make more sense). Mages have a cavalcade of skills and spells that can handle almost any situation. Except colossal amounts of violence to the face. (Hm, that seems to solve a lot of problems...)

Here you are in the territory of 'must haves'. In more simple terms, why would you not use an Emotitoy, regardless of 'class'? Using one is cheap & never hurts, while not using one can be potentially crippling to the character - if you are under the assumption that a Samurai will only ever be in combat, you are doing it miserably wrong; go play D&D where that is ocasionally a reasonable (if still generally false) assumption.

If you're worried about PC-NPC balance, GIVE THE NPCS THE BROKEN ITEM.

I have an ability to automatically kill anyone I can see as a Free Action. This is clearly broken. So your solution is to give it to the NPC's as well?

You (& many others) seem unable to comprehend that balancing a game is not simply placing everyone on equal footing. The balance of the game is dependent on what items & abilities are available in relation to each other, as well as the system in which those abilities operate. The second part is what most people seem to fail at.

A game of nothing but horribly overpowering options is not fun. A game with nothing but horribly underpowered options is also not fun. And a game with a little of both is absurdly unbalanced, & also not fun.

A game works best when the options present the variety to play what you would like, while still being consistant with each other and the system in terms of power level. This is what many of the discussed "broken" items/abilities are addressing. There are a number of fixes to the issue, the most common seeming to be "GM dependent". This particular one is fail, not because it doesn't work, but because it doesn't work on large scales. This is a commercially published game - various GM's & groups will have different views, ideas, etc. & as such cannot be relied upon to 'fix' problems with the game. In published games such as this, mechanical balance as Written should be the priority, alongside setting & playability.

This is something that Shadowrun 4 is better at than most systems I know, but still fails miserably at. Hence the 'broken' topics.

[Saint Sithney]

Part of the SR4 universe is making tough calls in less that perfect circumstances and trying not to get crushed between a rock and a megacorp.

I feel like this is a major thing. Having the right dice pool isn't as important as making the right choices, and, generally, making the right choices is about information and due-diligence as much as anything.

[Samoth]

If you're playing a high level game where the stakes are world altering, then min maxing/powergaming makes a lot of sense because your runners would never be hired unless they were the best in their field.

On the flipside, if you play a low level street gang campaign, it doesn't make a lot of sense to see a crack team of experts running drugs for the local Don.

Broken is a relative term.