The seventh session.., A lot of work for nothing. Options

[Stalag]

Attribute and skill are usually the most expensive ways to boost a dice pool.

However they are also one of the most reliable. That fancy tricked out gun with the Smartlink can be taken away / lost / damaged - even cybernetics can technically be disabled (not that I've seen a GM go that far). Attribute and skill are yours no matter what. Bioware is a bit cheaper than stats (and just as reliable) but that will only get you so far.

[Stalag]

Attribute and skill are usually the most expensive ways to boost a dice pool. That's why the NPC samples in the book are so weak: they are built to minimize the space they take in the book, and by doing so they miss the boosts that make a difference. SR almost needs a different system to track NPCs: don't give individual stats, only dice pools.

They are also built as rounded somewhat realistic characters who fulfill a role in the SR world and have lives outside of their profession - not as "he's a security guard so he should have maxed Ini and every perception boost in the game!" There should be more to your character than simply a set of stats.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

They are also built as rounded somewhat realistic characters who fulfill a role in the SR world and have lives outside of their profession - not as "he's a security guard so he should have maxed Ini and every perception boost in the game!" There should be more to your character than simply a set of stats.

Indeed... This cannot be emphasized enough.

[Stalag]

Found another "by the book" reference for you:

Above all, the rules are here to facilitate telling good stories. Don’t get bogged down in rules disputes when it’s important to keep the plot
moving, just fudge it and move on. Don’t allow powergaming to run out of control, but don’t let an unexpected death or glitch derail the plot either. If you know in advance that a certain outcome would be more dramatic or amusing than what you are likely to roll, then don’t bother to roll. When the rules get in the way of the story, ignore the rules and tell the story.

[Elfenlied]

They are also built as rounded somewhat realistic characters who fulfill a role in the SR world and have lives outside of their profession - not as "he's a security guard so he should have maxed Ini and every perception boost in the game!" There should be more to your character than simply a set of stats.

Well, I can't count the number of "Ex-Special Forces Snipers" I've seen in games who had mediocre perception, no athletic skills whatsoever and who would get their asses handed to them in a fistfight by your run-of-the-mill street thug. They all did, however, have a longarms DP of 20+

[Traul]

That fancy tricked out gun with the Smartlink can be taken away / lost / damaged - even cybernetics can technically be disabled (not that I've seen a GM go that far). Attribute and skill are yours no matter what.

And you're so happy with your big natural firearms dice pool now that you've lost you gun (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

They are also built as rounded somewhat realistic characters who fulfill a role in the SR world and have lives outside of their profession - not as "he's a security guard so he should have maxed Ini and every perception boost in the game!" There should be more to your character than simply a set of stats.

How about you tone down the aggression a bit and try to understand what is written instead?

What you call rounded and realistic is merely unfinished and unrealistic. Technology is cheap, corps know it and they are wholly dedicated to cutting costs. There are already lengths of fluff detailing how skillwires have replaced training. It's the same everywhere. If the corp needs a certain proficiency (=dice pool) in a given task, they will take an augmented chimp over a skilled worker anytime because augmentation is a one time investment whereas a skilled worker will ask for a higher pay month after month. There are only 2 places in the world where anyone cares about unaugmented proficiency: a classroom and the Olympics. I am not even sure it is still the case for the Olympics.

What's the link with the NPC descriptions in the book? Those have another completely out-of-game constraint: nobody wants to spend a whole page on a grunt, he has to fit in one column. So the authors sticked to the broader strokes, that is Attribute+Skill, and forgot about things like Specializations and enhancements. When you do that the grunt loses about a third of his dice pool. That's the reason you can see such a gap between starting PCs and Red Samurai. The NPCs in the book have perfectly realistic attributes and skills according to the provided scales, but they lack some of the extra dice that should complement them. All I was saying was that when you don't want to spend the word count on a detailed description, it is better to switch to a more abstract one that keeps the NPC functional than to trash half of his stats and randomly nerf him as it was done. I don't think it deserved you going all Hollier Than Thou.

[Stalag]

Well, I can't count the number of "Ex-Special Forces Snipers" I've seen in games who had mediocre perception, no athletic skills whatsoever and who would get their asses handed to them in a fistfight by your run-of-the-mill street thug. They all did, however, have a longarms DP of 20+

The book gives an excellent guide on what expected skill levels should be for a specific character type. "Special Forces" Firearms skill would be 5 (it even lists that as an example) so I'd expect "Special Forces Sniper" would be 5 with a specialization in sniper rifles. However, unless they've let themselves go to pot being "Ex-" (and I can tell almost none who intend to remain "active" will) then those snipers should all have had at least some of their Athletics skills at 3-4 and their "non-shooting related attributes" (with the possible exception of Cha) also at 3-4. You can't be slow or weak mentally or physically and be in the Special Forces.

Another issue is if you "can count the number" then your GM is abusing that type of NPC - in the whole world today across all the professional armies of the world only a few thousand people make it into the "Special Forces" and of those only a few hundred will have what it takes to be a special forces sniper.

The way it's laid out, having a skill of 5 means you're generally considered one of the best in your field and having a skill of 6 (or more) would make you so good that it comes with some degree of notoriety (or infamy).

In the SR world, of course, that would all be augmented with ware and gear if not some spells. The base skill, however, should still be 5 and attributes linked to the profession as a whole not just maxing dice.

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

Found another "by the book" reference for you:

Hey, I wasn't even arguing anymore.

Anyway, it's not the GMs job to tell any story, that's a crap old-school lazy railroader attitude. Just because the book says so doesn't make it right. You don't tell the story, you experience it, as a participant, with maybe a few more hands on a few more leashes and threads that the PCs. But the STORY is what the PCs do within the scenario of the game world.

Of course GMs fudge rolls, because they are lazy, and because it fits the situation. That's all fine. Or sometimes you fudge to not kill a character, or to keep a situation at least mildly engaging because your initial roll was so bad that your opposition would have just bought it in IP1. (But there's edge for that, too...)
I also fudge entire NPCs when they don't need real stats, or when the stats are commonplace. But I would never fudge a prime runner, nor even any runner or serious opposition. Maybe a monster/critter that has no weird bonuses, just fat attributes and a bit of skill, because that's easy.

So yeah, everybody does it, and as long as it doesn't get out of hand, that's ok. But to purposefully say you want to ignore the rules as the GM is just plain bad form. SR4s rulebooks are really not a good guide to learn good GMing.

[suoq]

So yeah, everybody does it, and as long as it doesn't get out of hand, that's ok. But to purposefully say you want to ignore the rules as the GM is just plain bad form. SR4s rulebooks are really not a good guide to learn good GMing.

Please do not mistake your personal preferences for "good GMing". All they are, are your personal preferences.

[Stalag]

And you're so happy with your big natural firearms dice pool now that you've lost you gun (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

Well he can probably get another gun on short notice - it just may not be as nice

How about you tone down the aggression a bit and try to understand what is written instead?

Sorry, I did not intend to seem aggressive. I'm just debating, not fighting (IMG:style_emoticons/default/twirl.gif)

What you call rounded and realistic is merely unfinished and unrealistic.

Hmm.. yes, now that I actually look at them the stats and skills do seem all screwed up compared to the description of the ratings. I always throw together my own NPC's based on what I think they would have based on the ratings descriptions simply because I'm more of a DIY-on-the-fly GM so I never really looked at them closely before. My bad (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dead.gif)

All I was saying was that when you don't want to spend the word count on a detailed description, it is better to switch to a more abstract one that keeps the NPC functional than to trash half of his stats and randomly nerf him as it was done. I don't think it deserved you going all Hollier Than Thou.

I did not intend to, I apologize. What's funny is I thought I was agreeing with you more or less... oh well (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

[Neraph]

Well, I can't count the number of "Ex-Special Forces Snipers" I've seen in games who had mediocre perception, no athletic skills whatsoever and who would get their asses handed to them in a fistfight by your run-of-the-mill street thug. They all did, however, have a longarms DP of 20+

The one in my group bought a Renraku Manservant and a Dodge Tutorsoft - he had the Manservant throw rocks at him in an alley.

[Seriously Mike]

They are also built as rounded somewhat realistic characters who fulfill a role in the SR world and have lives outside of their profession - not as "he's a security guard so he should have maxed Ini and every perception boost in the game!" There should be more to your character than simply a set of stats.

I'm guessing you're talking about me...

And you're so happy with your big natural firearms dice pool now that you've lost you gun (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

Hey, everyone's packing these days, so if you have a big natural dice pool, you're set as soon as you floor anyone carrying a gun or wait til your team does it for you. However, if you rely on your custom pimped rifle that costs more than a car, you're screwed.

As for my adept, I laid out every role in a team he can fulfill and got a whole list: melee fighter, shooter, scout, paranormalist, infiltrator (from largest meaningful dice pool to smallest: 9/7, 8/7, 8, 6, 6). "Paranormalist" means "character with paranormal skills and/or knowledge: occultism, clairvoyance, aura vision, etc." I also laid out similar role lists for my characters in NWOD and got three-four roles my character could fulfill in each case, either as a main or a backup. Sometimes it's helpful, as Crippling Overspecialization hurts often.

[Stalag]

But to purposefully say you want to ignore the rules as the GM is just plain bad form.

That's not what I was saying. I was saying it's sometimes necessary to promote a good/fun story.

If I want to beat a guy like that then I just have to use BIGGER stuff - like Dragons, for instance. OR I have to take him out of his element, and target his weaker skills, of which there will probably be many. A comparable Prime Runner with 200+karma probably won't have these weaknesses anymore.

I never find myself in the position of wanting to "beat" any of the PC's. I'm not there to compete against them; I'm just setting the scene, providing the props, and resolving cause and effect. Yes, if they kill him and it's fun then he's dead and I'll move the plot along. If they kill him and the story seems unfinished then he may slip away or be rescued in some way. More than likely I wouldn't even have them be able to face him until the story's progressed to that point.

I make them as tough as I feel is realistic, which isn't too weak, actually, but even so, they often have to use strength in numbers.

Which is what I haven been advocating as well, though even the numbers I try to keep realistic. A challenge for the players doesn't have to be related to combat to be fun.

You are falling into the basic trap of writing plot instead of scenario. A scenario always leads to another scenario, which is open. Plot often leads to a rail, because you need certain things to happen.

Having an over-arcing plot concept isn't railroading unless you let it be. Like I said, if it's fun then I go with it and I'll adjust the overall plot accordingly. Naturally the events of one scenario can influence, if not dictate, the events of the next scenario. I just don't like to throw a random scenario at them, spend the next several scenarios resolving the fallout from the first scenario and then follow all of that with throwing another random one at them. I like to give the feeling that it's all going somewhere.

[Stalag]

I'm guessing you're talking about me...

Only if you think I am (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotate.gif)

Technically I was talking about NPC's there, but the same can be said for PC's as well

[Wiseman]

Wait, if Zod is retired for the hacker, then how the hell is he on the rooftop? Oh nevermind.

I read all of this thread and had a massive response, but in hindsight, none of it will do any good.

So I offer only this

Let Zod's player GM a few sessions.

1) He's already running multiple characters
2) It might be a good way to learn about balancing challenges
3) Maybe he'll learn some responsibility for his part in "group fun"
4) Seems like he understands the mechanics/rules a little better.
5) I guarantee you he won't be pussyfooting every run.

Good luck!

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

Having an over-arcing plot concept isn't railroading unless you let it be. Like I said, if it's fun then I go with it and I'll adjust the overall plot accordingly. Naturally the events of one scenario can influence, if not dictate, the events of the next scenario. I just don't like to throw a random scenario at them, spend the next several scenarios resolving the fallout from the first scenario and then follow all of that with throwing another random one at them. I like to give the feeling that it's all going somewhere.

But you can do all those things at the same time, and still have movers and shakers in the background AND have them moving the game world in some definite direction. All with scenario/node based design.

[NumptyScrub]

Wait, if Zod is retired for the hacker, then how the hell is he on the rooftop? Oh nevermind.

I read all of this thread and had a massive response, but in hindsight, none of it will do any good.

So I offer only this

Let Zod's player GM a few sessions.

1) He's already running multiple characters
2) It might be a good way to learn about balancing challenges
3) Maybe he'll learn some responsibility for his part in "group fun"
4) Seems like he understands the mechanics/rules a little better.
5) I guarantee you he won't be pussyfooting every run.

Good luck!

Zod's player has GM'd before, but not Shadowrun. This is the first time (afaik) that any of us have played Shadowrun so we are all still learning the ropes. You would also be correct in assuming he is a killer uncompromising GM (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Some background on the group, we've known each other nearly 2 decades now, and have played several systems in that time; GURPS, DnD (1st through 4th), Mutants and Masterminds and a few others that don't immediately spring to mind. Although a couple of them might not admit it, we are all munchkin powergamers at heart and used to playing action oriented games. I suspect some of the issues we're having are related to that mindset not being a direct fit for the Shadowrun universe (as portrayed by default, anyway), and it's taking a little time to adapt to a less directly confrontational system (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Wiseman]

You would also be correct in assuming he is a killer uncompromising GM

That might be a good thing to up the challenge and get players paranoid. It's pretty important to the setting that you realize no matter how badass the character, he's a small little fish in a giant pond. Corps (including law enforcement corps) take business seriously. The player's characters are deniable assets/agents which heavily suggests they're disposable (and they should feel that they are).

Although a couple of them might not admit it, we are all munchkin powergamers at heart and used to playing action oriented games. I suspect some of the issues we're having are related to that mindset not being a direct fit for the Shadowrun universe (as portrayed by default, anyway), and it's taking a little time to adapt to a less directly confrontational system

Well, I didn't mean to suggest you guys shouldn't play shadowrun because you don't play as well as me or any of that crap. Long as you're having fun and enjoying the time spent, no one can fault you. Powergaming or building strong characters is part of what makes tabletop enjoyable (because even non powergamers don't usually build characters to fail at everything...intentionally).

But I really do feel treating SR as a static dungeon crawl where moral implications are handwaved and everyone not a player is a "bad guy" to be killed and looted sans consequence is just scratching the surface of possibility. Everyone's advice here has boiled down to, don't make it a cakewalk exercise in rolling dice.

Every group plays differently and every GM has their own emphasis and style. That's the best part of PnP RPG, it's YOUR game. I think that all the advice that can be given has been given and what your group chooses to do with it is up to you.

The OP implies he is asking "How could I have done this better", but having seen all seven of these, I'm not so sure he's asking advice at all (and definitely not applying the advice given). It's still fun to read about the games though. Hope you guys keep at it and continue to post.

[Stalag]

Well, I didn't mean to suggest you guys shouldn't play shadowrun because you don't play as well as me or any of that crap. Long as you're having fun and enjoying the time spent, no one can fault you. Powergaming or building strong characters is part of what makes tabletop enjoyable (because even non powergamers don't usually build characters to fail at everything...intentionally).

But I really do feel treating SR as a static dungeon crawl where moral implications are handwaved and everyone not a player is a "bad guy" to be killed and looted sans consequence is just scratching the surface of possibility. Everyone's advice here has boiled down to, don't make it a cakewalk exercise in rolling dice.

Every group plays differently and every GM has their own emphasis and style. That's the best part of PnP RPG, it's YOUR game. I think that all the advice that can be given has been given and what your group chooses to do with it is up to you.

The OP implies he is asking "How could I have done this better", but having seen all seven of these, I'm not so sure he's asking advice at all (and definitely not applying the advice given). It's still fun to read about the games though. Hope you guys keep at it and continue to post.

I agree with Wiseman, in the end it comes down to everyone having fun. The impression from the OP was that he wasn't enjoying the game and wanted advice so that is really all we were giving (though perhaps worded a little more strongly at times). If everyone is actually having fun then run the game however works for your table and bugger all what anyone here says. As long as everyone is having a good time there is no 'wrong' way to play the game (or any game).

If just the GM isn't having fun try identifying specifically what the GM isn't enjoying and change that or get someone else to GM. Try round-robin GM duties so everyone gets a chance to play. If nothing else it will give everyone an appreciation for what the GM has to put up with and will give everyone a better understanding of the rules

[NumptyScrub]

It's still fun to read about the games though. Hope you guys keep at it and continue to post.

Session 8 this weekend, must remember to finish off that karmagen (re)build tonight and mail it to Hyphz to see if he's ok with me broadening my characters usefulness (read: ungimping) via the application of karma by retconn... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Cheops]

I suspect some of the issues we're having are related to that mindset not being a direct fit for the Shadowrun universe (as portrayed by default, anyway), and it's taking a little time to adapt to a less directly confrontational system (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Actually I find that SR4 works best for this style of play out of any of the editions. The setting is borked to all hell when it comes to Cold Professionals but is wonderful for Pink Mohawk. And if your group enjoys playing "high-tech muderhobos who slaughter their way into the technological dungeon" then why try and force a different playstyle on them?

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

Actually I find that SR4 works best for this style of play out of any of the editions. The setting is borked to all hell when it comes to Cold Professionals but is wonderful for Pink Mohawk. And if your group enjoys playing "high-tech muderhobos who slaughter their way into the technological dungeon" then why try and force a different playstyle on them?

Well... I think the SR3 world was still better for real mohawk, because it was less modern and there were far fewer methods of tracking people down - you could play an almost by-the-book campaign as a really 'hawk affair. SR4 has too much ubiquitous surveillance.

BUT, all you need is remove a lot of the datatrail stuff via house-rules and replace a lot of gadget security with cheap security guards, and you can slug it out like mad every session.

I used to say in my group that while my characters always tried to fulfill the run without a hitch, I as the player want stuff to go wrong so I can shoot people (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) .

[Warlordtheft]

Zod's player has GM'd before, but not Shadowrun. This is the first time (afaik) that any of us have played Shadowrun so we are all still learning the ropes. You would also be correct in assuming he is a killer uncompromising GM (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Some background on the group, we've known each other nearly 2 decades now, and have played several systems in that time; GURPS, DnD (1st through 4th), Mutants and Masterminds and a few others that don't immediately spring to mind. Although a couple of them might not admit it, we are all munchkin powergamers at heart and used to playing action oriented games. I suspect some of the issues we're having are related to that mindset not being a direct fit for the Shadowrun universe (as portrayed by default, anyway), and it's taking a little time to adapt to a less directly confrontational system (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Part of it stems from the belief that many on Dump SHock (me being one of them) is that Shadowrun is very much an "I should avoid combat" thing cause 1. Combat is deadly, 2. The OPFOR (Opposition forces) has more guys with guns, 3. Bullets can kill or damage anything in SR, including the extraction target or Mcguffin, 4. The pay doesn't usually include ammo expenditures.

THough you wouldn't guess it in my LA campaign.....but yeah that's LA in a waterlogged Z-zone in a magic heavy group. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Manunancy]

Well... I think the SR3 world was still better for real mohawk, because it was less modern and there were far fewer methods of tracking people down - you could play an almost by-the-book campaign as a really 'hawk affair. SR4 has too much ubiquitous surveillance.

BUT, all you need is remove a lot of the datatrail stuff via house-rules and replace a lot of gadget security with cheap security guards, and you can slug it out like mad every session.

I used to say in my group that while my characters always tried to fulfill the run without a hitch, I as the player want stuff to go wrong so I can shoot people (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) .

Teh elvel of surveilance will vary a lot with the locations - a bunch of mercs playing tag with variosu 'liberation movements' around the mineral-rich eastern zaïre won't have to worry that much about surveillance.

[hyphz]

It's easy to wing, that's what Device Ratings are for. Boom, done.

While it's technically easy to come up with a Device Rating, it gets a bit harder when you're sat at the table across from the player, because chances are you know what his Hacking pool is. So you end up in a state where, by picking that rating, you're basically deciding by fiat if they can hack the device or not. (Ive seen this problem before in quite a few games. I tend to call it the "Neverwinter Nights problem" - because in the computer game version of that, PCs automatically took 20 on any lock pick check that wasn't made in combat. The result was that when you were designing an adventure level, because you knew exactly what the PC was going to get, you knew in advance that the PC would unquestionably open the door or would unquestionably not do so, which made the whole idea of putting the skill test in there pointless - just use an unlocked door or a wall.)

Even more problematic is the fact that because hacking is an Extended Test, it's guaranteed to succeed eventually, but might be noticed. So then you have to wing what happens if it's noticed, what attack software or IC they might have installed, if they have any ally who could spider for them, etc.. If you don't know what happens if it's noticed, there's no real consequence for failure except delay.