What happened to the team? Options

[DireRadiant]

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=32645

BTW, I do read these threads.

You use a lot of big words, but I fear the direction of your arguments gets lost when you do that.

Which way are you going here, and what do you think is missing?

If we start at the mechanics, there is a global teamwork mechanic where any character can assist any other character. This can be used at any time. There are some restrictions in that the characters need the same skills. There are also specific instances of special team work mechanics, Counterspelling for example. These rules exist. What is a missing a specific forced mechanic where player X contributes dice, player Y contributes dice, and the teamwork rolls requires the combination of dice in a single step. The SR3 Team Karma pool is an example of this mechanic. Is it this element of missing the sharing of dice that makes the game missing teamwork? In SR3 it was an option and required a team vote to use the team karma pool. It was not unusual for a player to be denied use of the team karma pool. Is this teamwork? The mechanic existed, yet it still did not force cooperative play between players.

If we go the other direction, and start with game (role) play, and then head to mechanics we can see the same patterns. If a group of players are being cooperative, then that is accomplished regardless of the existing mechanics. They can cooperate by coordinating strategy and tactics, moving separately towards the same goal. If the players don't then the mechanics won;t help them cooperate. Remember in games of this type there is always the core decision of whether or not a dice mechanic is used to begin with.

Players and mechanics work together to make the game. There is a huge variety in play style that can happen with any group.

You want team play, it's there.
You want individual play, it's there.

All up to the players at that table.

Or ultimately are you trying to force me to play your game by your rules even when I am not in your game and didn't agree to it?

[Dwight]

Are you really crying about people putting words in your mouth?

All questions and guesses presented as such. A lot of shotgunned stuff there trying to get a bearing on what was going on. Threw a lot of things out there, see if it triggers anything in your memory.

Why? Because I am honestly interested, I'm working right now on a "Heat+Ocean's 11 spiced with Neuromancer" Con scenario for OwlCon in January, as a follow up to a Reservoir Dogs redux from Feb this year. Any data on any people having a poor time playing in any BW game helps avoid that in the future. "What went wrong" is important because that means I can adjust for it. It is entirely possible that nothing on that list was applicable to you, my apologies that that wasn't clear to you. Let me make that clear right here. I'm not saying for any certainty what happened is listed anywhere, in any item or the whole, in that post (or the other post, the one where I posit that Luke had been drinking). It is actually the most helpful if it is something I haven't seen before, or a twist on it, occurred because that's what helps with the polishing.

So you aren't particularly interested in analyzing what went on, or your memory is so foggy that it's pretty much a lost cause at this point (given follow-up comments, the latter?). So beit.

1. Characters can have in-game teamwork, but it's irrelevant

.....for the most part when it's the same player running all the characters. When they are run by different players the characters differentiation is the skin for the fiction, which important to the fiction you create. When you think back and remember the story, when the story is unfolding as things are happening.

2. Rules to reinforce teamwork, while not absolutely necessary, are the only worthwhile source of game teamwork mechanics.

You've distilled and pulled out "The rules that help with teamwork are the rules that help with teamwork." That doesn't seem particularly controversial. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Dwight]

Or ultimately are you trying to force me to play your game by your rules even when I am not in your game and didn't agree to it?

WAZZAT? No.

How much of the thread have you read? I'm not trying to be ignorant here, I'm just wondering if you understand this started out as a "where did this teamwork rule go?" and moved on into a discussion about rules (vaguely staying on the topic of Shadowrun, hopefully enough to fit in the forum) that actively support players/characters thinking and acting in a teamwork way [with ultimately the goal of enhancing a teamwork feel for the players].

[DireRadiant]

WAZZAT? No.

How much of the thread have you read? I'm not trying to be ignorant here, I'm just wondering if you understand this started out as a "where did this teamwork rule go?" and moved on into a discussion about rules (vaguely staying on the topic of Shadowrun, hopefully enough to fit in the forum) that actively support players/characters thinking and acting in a teamwork way [with ultimately the goal of enhancing a teamwork feel for the players].

Yes, I follow the thread. I'm wondering why your arguments drift all over the place and are so inconsistent. What point are you trying to make? Are you looking for suggestions for mechanics to assist teamwork? Then make some, or ask for them, don't argue with everyone.

My main argument is that if you are looking to foster teamwork, the existing Teamwork rules work fine, it's a matter of using them, and encouraging using them.

Player A "I do X."
Player B "I want to help Player A!"
GM "Ok, what are you doing to help?"
Player B, "I Dunno, something.... I don't have the skill for X but I want to help."
GM "Tell me something cool (Story telling Gm will figure out an appropriate roll) or look at your sheet and tell me (Mechanical, players picks a skill and GM gets creative with explaining how it fits)"

What else do you need to encourage teamwork?

More rules written in a book?

[Mooncrow]

So you aren't particularly interested in analyzing what went on, or your memory is so foggy that it's pretty much a lost cause at this point (given follow-up comments, the latter?). So beit.


You've distilled and pulled out "The rules that help with teamwork are the rules that help with teamwork." That doesn't seem particularly controversial. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Heh, and here I thought I was pretty clear on the analysis of what I didn't like about the game. I don't really feel it's worth talking about further, because you've made it clear that much of what I dislike, is what you like. (Artificial methods to force players to behave certain ways, mechanics for every last detail, structured adventures, etc) I mean, if you really want to, we can - the adventure I played was The Gift, by the way, but it's clear you feel passionate about your system, so I don't see that it would be productive. The wording of your replies certainly implies insults to come with further discussion.


I pride myself on accuracy of my statements, so it's a bit of egg on my face that I have to re-word:

What you've said is, "Rules that are in place to artificially reinforce teamwork, while not absolutely necessary, are the only worthwhile source of game teamwork mechanics."

And the distinction I am making here is between artificial and realistic. Realistic teamwork works as DR and others are describing - the rewards are from working together to win, because by yourself, you would fail. In other words, smart teamplay is its own rewards. Artificial teamwork rules go beyond that in order to prop up the concept of team, team karma would be an example of this, so would the "decide actions by committee" scripting of Mouse Guard.

[Dwight]

<double post>

[Dwight]

Yes, I follow the thread. I'm wondering why your arguments drift all over the place

Because the hijack got derailed with, roughly speaking, "for what purpose?"

...and are so inconsistent.

Same as sabs, example with specific quote? Please don't do what he did.

What point are you trying to make?

Depends on the part of the thread, now. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Ummm, at parts there is the derth of rules actively supporting teamwork in Shadowrun.

Then make some, or ask for them, don't argue with everyone.

See derail above.

My main argument is that if you are looking to foster teamwork, the existing Teamwork rules work fine

I've found the SR4 Teamwork Test on the flaccid side. The good news is that it is better than a shiv between vertebra 4 and 5. But it tends to end up as a pile-on thing, lacking downside tension. (Glitch tends to be too rare, particularly on 'optional' rolls like this, to be a credible downside) Also it is not really permeated through out the system.

To be honest I have not actually tried to permeate Teamwork Test into combat, I moved on from the SR4 mechanics (due to other missing pieces, and some middling success for too much effort to bring those pieces in) before I got to that point. That might work but I suspect instead it would be quite awkward in play due to timing issues.

[Dwight]

(Artificial methods to force players to behave certain ways, mechanics for every last detail, structured adventures, etc)

LOL. Those are called 'rules'. Every game published has them. Risus for example is a little light on them, but they are still there. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

the adventure I played was The Gift, by the way,

This is actually important. It is a scenario that was created for the original version of Burning Wheel (usually referred to as BWC, for "Classic"), not Burning Wheel Revised (publish in 2005). BWC was a different game, which I've never played. It was missing things like Circles and a bunch of other things. Luke and friends hadn't wrapped their head around Beliefs to the extend they had by the time BWR was published, and even the later is behind the understanding now (in the Adventure Burner). So the Gift comes with a bunch of extra scene structuring rules that aren't part of Burning Wheel because it needed them for PC vs PC. The Gift is sort of like BW meets LARP.

but it's clear you feel passionate about your system, so I don't see that it would be productive.

I have a different opinion. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) How many rolls. What were the rolls about? Did you think they were important conflicts, did you care deeply about whether you succeeded the roll or not? Where they single rolls? What was the time length? Which character did you play? What was the outcome of the scenario, what was the story it told?

The wording of your replies certainly implies insults to come with further discussion.

Yeah, I come across LOUD in my text. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) You should meet me in person, yet somehow apparently I'm far more bearable and I've gotten "You are THAT guy?" and the next week without me talking about a specific thread or the topic of it "Ok, I went back and read your post and I guess you were saying reasonable things." I'm not particularly easy to read. *shrug*

I pride myself on accuracy of my statements, so it's a bit of egg on my face that I have to re-word:

As do I (which is why, for example, I went right at sabs mis-paraphrasing), and it happens. *shrug* No biggie...

]What you've said is, "Rules that are in place to artificially reinforce teamwork, while not absolutely necessary, are the only worthwhile source of game teamwork mechanics."

I have a HUGE bone of contention with "artificially". It's all artificial. These aren't real worlds, we aren't using real physics, they are a dim shadow of reality.

And the distinction I am making here is between artificial and realistic. Realistic teamwork works as DR and others are describing - the rewards are from working together to win, because by yourself, you would fail. In other words, smart teamplay is its own rewards. Artificial teamwork rules go beyond that in order to prop up the concept of team, team karma would be an example of this, so would the "decide actions by committee" scripting of Mouse Guard.

... and BOOM there it is. "Realistic" is the death of a million RPG discussions. Because what it really means, in any rational sense, is "the thin slice of reality that I subjectively see and want to focus on in this game". Teamwork centric rules need not be any more or less "realistic" than other rules, unless you personally choose to categorize them that way. Then it becomes "Teamwork centric rules are artificial because teamwork rules are artificial."

[Mooncrow]

... and BOOM there it is. "Realistic" is the death of a million RPG discussions. Because what it really means, in any rational sense, is "the thin slice of reality that I subjectively see and want to focus on in this game". Teamwork centric rules need not be any more or less "realistic" than other rules, unless you personally choose to categorize them that way. Then it becomes "Teamwork centric rules are artificial because teamwork rules are artificial."

Except I specifically defined the terms I was using, in a very narrow scope. I called it realistic because I feel it better captures the freedom of real life, but within this context that's not the main thrust of the argument.

In reading through, I've identified three styles of positively dealing with teamwork: (feel free to add more)

1. Teamwork as it's own reward
2. "Here's a cookie for playing nice" style - like karma pool
3. Strictures on character action in terms of team play - like Mouse Guard

I draw a sharp line between 1 and 2&3. So do you, by your comments.

(there are of course games that actually punish players for acting as a team, but they are out of the scope of my argument)

[tete]

Would you include things like "aid another" in #2?

[Mooncrow]

Would you include things like "aid another" in #2?

Technically, yes. Though I admit, it's not a very intrusive one.

[Dwight]

I called it realistic because I feel it better captures the freedom of real life,

Freedom is a funny thing because....

1. Teamwork as it's own reward
2. "Here's a cookie for playing nice" style - like karma pool
3. Strictures on character action in terms of team play - like Mouse Guard

I draw a sharp line between 1 and 2&3. So do you, by your comments.

I don't even agree with what you have on the list. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) It's an apples and oranges wording, bias loaded for bear. Why isn't number one "strictures that the characters must function as single units, mechanically"?

See, I've fought a one-on-one battle with Mouse Guard. ((EDIT:For me)) the most memorable scene out of my [relatively limited] MG play [primarily with a playtester edition]. I was pushing the character really hard, seeing how far I could push a character and what would happen when I did. I (IC, and OOC explicitly) asked the other players to screw off with their PCs and let me scene hog guarding some pumpworks at a quarry while their PCs went to do the diplomacy/sleep thing.

So it's team when you fight together. And if you aren't fighting (or whatever the conflict is) together, like in the paragraph above, then things should get split into different "teams" (with a team of one possible). That's more flexibility to emulate reality than not having the rules to support multiple member teams functioning as a single unit, right? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

P.S. Now what MG DOESN'T really support [without tangles of bailing wire used in ways I haven't even contemplated] is team switching mid-conflict, or three-sided fights (Burning Empires actually has an extra rule to support three-sided DoWs, because that's the kind of game it is, that drops right into BW if it ever came up....which I have never seen in practice). MG also short-cuts via hardwiring things that tie the characters together, that provide the reasons for them to be together. It assumes far less inter-team conflict than BW. That's why 1 Belief and 1 Goal works....for the purpose that the game is intended. I would never consider using it for the previously mentioned Reservoir Dogs redux because I robbed Quentin Tarantino blind, and not just on the lethality end of things. In the entirety of the session only one little scuff was inflicted by an NPC on a PC but at the end there was PC blood, guts, and bodies everywhere (brief play report from one of the players, text search for "scruffy", I hope he makes it back in Jan).

[Dwight]

Technically, yes. Though I admit, it's not a very intrusive one.

....and the line begins to blur. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[Mooncrow]

Freedom is a funny thing because....

I don't even agree with what you have on the list. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) It's an apples and oranges wording, bias loaded for bear. Why isn't number one "strictures that the characters must function as single units, mechanically"?

You mean, aside from that being a different concept from what I said? You are projecting your value judgments on to what I'm saying. Nah, you're not even doing that, you're just backing away from what you've said.

In your example, you acted alone - after you got permission for the others to do so. That's a stricture. It may be a flexible stricture, it may even be a pleasant stricture to play with. That still doesn't change what it is.

On the other hand, there's nothing at all preventing Shadowrun players from deciding everything as a team; free actions + tac net and you're good to go. And if one player decides to say "hey, I'm going silent and will be doing my own thing over here", there's nothing to stop him from doing that either.

And that's the freedom of that system. I know, I know; freedom for players to "[not] play their actual character". I get that you don't like that. But you are saying that the second method is "less good" in some objective sense. And I find that assertion to be unsupported.

[jakephillips]

I allow team members who can assist or shout encouragment to pool together individual edge on a two for one basis to allow a team member who is out of edge to use a point of edge.
My own addition to the team edge rule.

An on a side note why do half of the threads on Dump Shock devolve into I'm smart you are dumb?
I just like to share ideas not complain that I am smarter than everyone..

[tete]

I allow team members who can assist or shout encouragment to pool together individual edge on a two for one basis to allow a team member who is out of edge to use a point of edge.
My own addition to the team edge rule.

An on a side note why do half of the threads on Dump Shock devolve into I'm smart you are dumb?
I just like to share ideas not complain that I am smarter than everyone..

Thanks, thats not a bad idea (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) as for the other question dumpshock has been a venting ground for a long long time, well before the crash when we all got our member numbers screwed up. They took away our general talk thread even (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif) but for whatever reason the opinionated (myself included) have found a home on dumpshock for many years. I want to say I started arguing with Cain back in 97'... however that may be a lie as I don't recall when I found dumpshock.

[Dwight]

You mean, aside from that being a different concept from what I said? You are projecting your value judgments on to what I'm saying. Nah, you're not even doing that, you're just backing away from what you've said.

Oh I wouldn't write the list that way starting out from scratch. I'm turning your value judgement standard back on the list and applying it more uniformly. And the results suck, right?

In your example, you acted alone - after you got permission for the others to do so. That's a stricture.

That was me being nice, having social graces. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) That's society's strictures at work. Fucking society..... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)

It may be a flexible stricture, it may even be a pleasant stricture to play with. That still doesn't change what it is.

A rule mechanic, just like so many other rule mechanics, working to bring to the people at the table some aspect of a imagined world.

On the other hand, there's nothing at all preventing Shadowrun players from deciding everything as a team; free actions + tac net and you're good to go. And if one player decides to say "hey, I'm going silent and will be doing my own thing over here", there's nothing to stop him from doing that either.

Except the dice don't actually work together, the 'team' decisions are relatively featureless...and yet they have to decide to do that. More strictures. The damn things are EVERYWHERE.

And that's the freedom of that system. I know, I know; freedom for players to "[not] play their actual character". I get that you don't like that. But you are saying that the second method is "less good" in some objective sense. And I find that assertion to be unsupported.

First, this line " That's more flexibility to emulate reality than not having the rules to support multiple member teams functioning as a single unit, right? " was in jest. Demonstration of the silliness of talking about matching reality comparing it like that.

I'm also not going debate whether Shadowrun has more degrees of freedom for use than Mouse Guard. Because I think SR does. But that's for different, albeit related, reasons. Mouse Guard was constructed for a relatively narrow use (and built for 10-year-olds to learn, play, and maybe even run). Now Burning Wheel? Which has stronger support for the concept of "team". Oh boy, SR is positively bolted down compared to that....which is entirely natural because SR isn't built specifically as a general use system. Burning Wheel was.

[Mooncrow]

Ok, then I'm just going to admit I have no clue what you're trying to say then.

[Dwight]

I allow team members who can assist or shout encouragment to pool together individual edge on a two for one basis to allow a team member who is out of edge to use a point of edge.
My own addition to the team edge rule.

That's interesting!

How often would you say you see it used, roughly speaking? Is it used fairly evenly around the table or are there designated Edge battery characters, or players that are just way more likely to spend (or consume) using this rule? EDIT: Also how long have you used this for? What prompted its creation?


EDIT2: And thanks for the help in salvaging the thread with a contribution. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

For serious, Mooncrow. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[DireRadiant]

Dwight. Spamming the thread with quoted posts with line by line commentary without a positive contribution is against the ToS.

Everyone else please chill. You might all consider looking for the thread with house rule proposals for teamwork if you are interested in this topic.

[CanRay]

OK, what happened to the team...

Well, the Hacker got beat up by an Orc gang.

The Street Samurai is pulling a Nickle.

The Mage doesn't own his own body any more.

The Mercenary said "Frag this for a game of soldiers!" and went to Africa, "Where it's safer."

The Smuggler is trying to get out of hock with the Yaks.

And the Troll Muscle is off in his own little BTL World.