The ninth session.., .. near the end of my tether Options

[Yerameyahu]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) You gave examples of random weirdness. I didn't say anything about 'custom content' in general. I think it's a mistake to burden hyphz with Super-Sasquatch and anime mages at this juncture, that's all.

[Friendbot2000]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) You gave examples of random weirdness. I didn't say anything about 'custom content' in general. I think it's a mistake to burden hyphz with Super-Sasquatch and anime mages at this juncture, that's all.

Oh sorry, I misunderstood your statement. I was just giving examples of what was going on in my campaign, my players are eliminating the top ten criminals/wanted beasts in the city of Las Vegas right now so I have that on my mind I suppose. You are right though, those were bad examples. A better one would be to have them go up against a "prime runner" (500BP build) and a couple of 400BP build NPCs. That will give them a more realistic challenge for their experience. One reason I dislike using example mooks in the handbooks is they are so darn easy to kill. Using an NPC built after a player character standard is much more effective as a challenge. I actually recommend using Chummer, the chargen that is being developed in the Forum Project section of the Dumpshock. I use that to make my NPCs because it allows me to minmax better for some powerful challenges. It is wise to create charactersheets for standard 300BP -400BP mooks and just keep them on hand as default NPC challenges. If you want to PM me some of your NPC sheets I would be glad to help you out on how to improve them.

Also, use environmental battlefield shapers like fire, building collapse, etc. That can make your players have to come up with a strategy to win battles. Have NPCs use flash bangs, flashpacks, grenades and stuff and maybe fudge the rules a bit on where they go within reason. I would make it so the grenades don't go back on the throwers, but they can still miss their target. I recommend just using the thrown skill plus agility to see if they hit and the number of net hits determines how much damage the PCs take. Grenades are a great way to give PCs a reason to use cover or not to stay behind cover very long.

Car chases are pretty fun to because there can be a lot of shenaniganry involved in that and it is kind of exciting when you players do daring feats inside a vehicle. Losing tails was mentioned earlier, that is a pretty good idea as well.

Also, you could penalize the players because they have such a high notoriety. Some of their contacts might not want to associate with them because there is just too much heat on them. Maybe that will send a message that they need to use more discretion.

You could add more flavor to the game by having contacts ask favors in return for information the players want.

Oh and here is a golden fail-safe for when the PCs are about to wipe the floor with a complicated combat encounter that you thought would pose a challenge and last longer so listen up. Just give the NPCs more health, the players won't notice, trust me. Virtually all GMs have done that in their career and it is nothing to be ashamed of or avoid. Sometimes you just underestimate your players when planning and you need to beef up some of your NPCs to still maintain your challenge level. Generally a combat encounter isn't satisfying if it goes to fast. That is where the GM godhand comes into play. Some people might disagree with this, but I found when I first started out that it gave me some confidence in myself. And what you need my friend is confidence. Don't be so hard on yourself. As I said before you are probably doing better than you give yourself credit for.

[Stalag]

Well let's look at the players actions as a whole from a story point of view... they are following the trail of everyone involved in this run and systematically knocking them all off; seemingly because they don't "approve" of the criminal activity. So run with that - if they want to play vigilantes instead of runners gear your story line in that direction.

Don't worry about finding them another fixer, if they want to go this way (assuming they live to get out of this situation, and you've made it pretty clear they simply will) they'll need to hit the streets and get info out of people to carry on this private "war against crime". It seems it would be pretty fitting to let them paint the van black with a red stripe and have them get hired by "innocent" folks who are getting oppressed by some criminal element or another.

[hyphz]

Car chases are pretty fun to because there can be a lot of shenaniganry involved in that and it is kind of exciting when you players do daring feats inside a vehicle. Losing tails was mentioned earlier, that is a pretty good idea as well.

I've had horrible problems with these in the past. I remember running a tail / car chase in a Conspiracy X game we played several years ago. What inevitably happens is that the players immediately say "we don't go anywhere, we drive around randomly until we lose the tail" so that a) the chase is now a time stop until the PCs win, and b) the GM is pressurised to improv an entire city map. Even if there's a time limit on the journey, my experience has been that most PCs will rather let the time run out than choose to lead the tail to their destination, if only because they'd rather fail because the dice rolled badly than make a conscious decision to give up.

[Yerameyahu]

It's not the result of a chase that matters. It's *having a chase*. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Everything's boring if you go, 'okay, roll the dice to see if you win'.

[hyphz]

It's not the result of a chase that matters. It's *having a chase*. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Everything's boring if you go, 'okay, roll the dice to see if you win'.

But that's what tends to have to happen in a car chase, because the environment is speeding by so fast. The GM isn't going to be able to describe the whole city without taking away any impression of speed, which usually means they're stuck coming up with random car obstacles in sequence. I mean, it might work in FATE3 but I don't know what else.

Hmm, Shadowrun in FATE3. I'd like to see that, now I think of it.

[Stalag]

A high speed chase will obviously need more map but if you don't like to improvise just hit google maps and print out a street map of a modern Seattle then you only have to decide what other cars are on the road and what pedestrians are around and how soon before the cops join in.

Actually I discovered I was incorrect after I read through vehicle combat (we haven't done much)... according to RAW, a high speed chase doesn't require any map at all. It's's all "abstracted" down to a series of actions and/or Chase Stunts with associated rolls:

Chase combat is designed to abstract vehicular combat between multiple vehicles moving at high speed over a longer time frame and across larger distances than tactical combat. This covers everything from car and motorcycle chases to aerial dogfights to armored vehicles in mounted battle. Consequently the rules involved are intended for vehicle-only combat. Chase combat is radically different from ordinary tactical combat. Because everyone is moving around quickly, it’s nearly impossible and practically pointless to keep track of everyone’s position. Instead, chase combat is handled in abstract terms, where each driver tries to maneuver his vehicle to gain an advantage over his opponent(s).

So the map they're racing around, outside influences, etc are pretty much all ignored to get on with the game.

[HunterHerne]

The key to successful GMing isn't a mastery of the rules, it's being able come up with things on the fly to keep things going. Since that seems to be your number one complaint I'd suggest that GMing isn't really your bag. That's not a bad thing or an insult, everyone's not cut out for every role. I've known some excellent GM's that were really horrible players.

I know I tend to fall into that description. Especially in that other game, as I tend to like to come up with ubsurd ways of doing things. In SR, my characters generally are more balanced, but with a street ninja (no ware, some social skills, low tech, primarily combat skills, mundane), a hacker-mage, and an ex-military metal mage from China under my belt, I think the ubsrdity keeps coming.

[hyphz]

Well a "tail" would be working hard not to be noticed.

Sure, but I'm assuming they notice the tail here. If they don't notice the tail there will be no play of any attempt to lose them and when they arrive at their destination the PCs will just be surprised by some random people they won't expecting. Which isn't really a great way for it to turn out because, for all the _players_ know, I just dropped those random people there out of nowhere. This is the trick about many of the challenges I'm thinking through: I want them to be fair and to be seen to be fair.

If they get noticed and the players decide to just "drive around" they won't "eventually lose the tail" unless they actively try to. They can keep driving around and the other car will keep following them, if they stop for gas the tail will stop and wait. If the tail needs gas they may stop following or they may hand them off to someone else. Eventually they will figure out they've been spotted and either hand them off (from the characters point of view the tail will just stop following them) or escalate to interception.

Oh, sure, they won't automatically lose the tail just by saying that. But the point is that the moment the players have said "we won't go anywhere important while the tail is on", essentially that means that game time is going to stop at this car journey until they do lose the tail. There's no way the tail will win the conflict and find out where the PCs are going because the PCs will always insist they aren't going anywhere while the tail is there. If the tail sticks to them like glue and doesn't escalate they will just insist they are driving around for as long as it takes for their rolls to turn out lucky.

The key to successful GMing isn't a mastery of the rules, it's being able come up with things on the fly to keep things going. Since that seems to be your number one complaint I'd suggest that GMing isn't really your bag. That's not a bad thing or an insult, everyone's not cut out for every role. I've known some excellent GM's that were really horrible players.

I am a bit nervous about improv-ing in general, it's true, but I am more nervous of it when I have to at the same time try to come up with interesting challenges in a complicated rules system where even a slight slip of the tongue could create an auto-win or a no-win for the players.

[Paul]

Practice makes perfect home skillet. No one expects you to make something Heat your first time out. The goal should be to improve after each game.

[Critias]

Oh, sure, they won't automatically lose the tail just by saying that. But the point is that the moment the players have said "we won't go anywhere important while the tail is on", essentially that means that game time is going to stop at this car journey until they do lose the tail. There's no way the tail will win the conflict and find out where the PCs are going because the PCs will always insist they aren't going anywhere while the tail is there. If the tail sticks to them like glue and doesn't escalate they will just insist they are driving around for as long as it takes for their rolls to turn out lucky.

This mindset is your problem, I think, more than anything else. If you send a tail after them, your assumption is that they'll see it. Once they see it, your assumption is that they'll drive in circles until the GM gives up and they lose the tail. Why wouldn't the tail escalate and turn it into a proper chase scene? Why is there only one tail? Why isn't there a nearly-invisible drone floating around overhead, spying on them, too, with the tail just a distraction to get it into place? Why is your assumption that the PCs will get a lucky roll and lose the tail, and not that the NPCs will get a lucky roll and accomplish, well, anything?

I'm sorry that you and your buddies don't seem to be having a great time. Or, at least, I'm sorry that you're stressing about it enough to give that impression (just in case it's not quite so). It's a game, and games are supposed to be fun, not something to be stressed over. I hope you guys can smooth stuff over, kick back, and have a good time in The Sixth World...but I think you've just got a weird attitude towards conflict and challenge, and I'm not sure what can be done about that.

[hyphz]

This mindset is your problem, I think, more than anything else. If you send a tail after them, your assumption is that they'll see it.

No, no, that's not it. If I send a tail after them, my assumption is that they'll see it, because if they don't see it then it doesn't add anything to the game. There won't be a chase scene. They won't try to lose it. Their enemies will end up finding out where they are, which could cause more bad stuff to happen to them later, but from the players' point of view that will be indistinguishable from me just making bad stuff happen to them out of the blue.

Once they see it, your assumption is that they'll drive in circles until the GM gives up and they lose the tail. Why wouldn't the tail escalate and turn it into a proper chase scene? Why is there only one tail? Why isn't there a nearly-invisible drone floating around overhead, spying on them, too, with the tail just a distraction to get it into place? Why is your assumption that the PCs will get a lucky roll and lose the tail, and not that the NPCs will get a lucky roll and accomplish, well, anything?

Well, the thing about multiple tails and the drone are good ideas but again, from my point of view I'd avoid them because they don't really add anything. Take the invisible drone example. What will happen from the players' point of view is that they will make a lot of effort to lose the visible tail, get to where they're going, and then suffer the consequences of having been followed anyway. They'll probably be left with the impression that their being followed was predetermined from the beginning and the whole business of losing the tail was a waste of time. If I say, "Well, there was actually an invisible drone following you!", well, who's to say that if the mage had checked the astral the same thing wouldn't have happened except I'd be saying "well, there was actually a tracking device on your car all along!". That's the thing - I want the challenges to be fair and to be seen to be fair.

But as for "why wouldn't the tail escalate" - well, I've had to have cases where I couldn't go further with that. The usual reason is "because they want to know where they are going, not to catch them" given that actually catching them would most likely result in them all dying in front of a smoking assault rifle.

I'm sorry that you and your buddies don't seem to be having a great time. Or, at least, I'm sorry that you're stressing about it enough to give that impression (just in case it's not quite so). It's a game, and games are supposed to be fun, not something to be stressed over. I hope you guys can smooth stuff over, kick back, and have a good time in The Sixth World...but I think you've just got a weird attitude towards conflict and challenge, and I'm not sure what can be done about that.

Well, I'm stressed over the improv thing mostly, but I've calmed down a bit since then (it was also a very stressful week at work). I don't think my attitude towards conflict and challenge is odd, I just feel that it should be interesting and should not have a predetermined conclusion. Saying "you should make it harder if your PCs are good" is fine but there's a fine line between actually doing that and going in with the predetermined conclusion "the PCs suffer for X rounds but eventually win".

[Paul]

No, no, that's not it. If I send a tail after them, my assumption is that they'll see it, because if they don't see it then it doesn't add anything to the game. There won't be a chase scene. They won't try to lose it. Their enemies will end up finding out where they are, which could cause more bad stuff to happen to them later, but from the players' point of view that will be indistinguishable from me just making bad stuff happen to them out of the blue.

Well sometimes stuff does just come out of the blue. It's called surprise, Shot. That said a way to deal with missed "hints" is pretty easy. Few people operate in total secrecy, and often as not there are operational security glitches-some of them intentional. Have the word get back to them. People are following you. People are watching you. Your names are popping up. People are asking questions. The longer they ignore it the more it stacks up.

[hyphz]

Well sometimes stuff does just come out of the blue. It's called surprise, Shot.

Sure, but if I want to surprise the players, I can just have anyone randomly ambush them any time I like.

Unfair? Yes. But having the players tailed and then ambushed will appear just the same if they didn't notice the tail.

[HunterHerne]

Sure, but if I want to surprise the players, I can just have anyone randomly ambush them any time I like.

Unfair? Yes. But having the players tailed and then ambushed will appear just the same if they didn't notice the tail.

And that is your problem, how? Sometimes life is unfair. Sometimes, if you do something bad, someone will find you, it doesn't matter how they do. Besides, the tail could be grunts for someoen else, say a still living Kaz, or Grey-wolf's goons sent to spy on the team. That gives Grey-Wolf all the same information, without having to put him in danger, from a logical standpoint.

[Paul]

Sure, but if I want to surprise the players, I can just have anyone randomly ambush them any time I like.

That's not thing, and I think if you think about it I think it will be clear.

On the hand you have no clues at all, and things just happen. If you follow the approach I suggest there will be subtle clues. every good soup needs to simmer.

Unfair? Yes. But having the players tailed and then ambushed will appear just the same if they didn't notice the tail.

Not if you handle it right. Look man I get you have some sort of super sized sense of fair play that is clearly not shared by your players, but no one is saying be a dick. I'm saying piece it together, and show it to them. Subtle at first, and then gradually crank it up. Spoon feed them.

If you don't take charge of your game someone else will.

[hyphz]

And that is your problem, how?

Because the players won't feel like their actions matter if they get ambushed out of the blue whenever I need them to be?

[hyphz]

Not if you handle it right. Look man I get you have some sort of super sized sense of fair play that is clearly not shared by your players, but no one is saying be a dick. I'm saying piece it together, and show it to them. Subtle at first, and then gradually crank it up. Spoon feed them.

If you don't take charge of your game someone else will.

Well, um, isn't that OK? If the players are going to take charge of the game aren't they going to lead it in a direction they enjoy? Why would they do anything else?

[Paul]

Well, um, isn't that OK? If the players are going to take charge of the game aren't they going to lead it in a direction they enjoy? Why would they do anything else?

Then why do they need a GM? Why are you there at all? Guiding is one thing. Steam rolling you, to the point where you sound pretty miserable int he tone of your posts? That says part of the compact is broke to me. The agreement is everyone has fun.

I think you're afraid if you challenge them they'll quit. My players favorite games are the ones they aren't quite sure they'll live through. Obviously you need to find your own balance to get the most fun out of your game-but if the tone of your posts heavily imply to me you're having problems driving the bus.

[Yerameyahu]

The point is that their actions could have mattered. They could have anticipated things about he game world, and taken steps to deal with them. If they failed to do so, the world has to respond appropriately. That's what makes it fun. It's not Schrödinger's Car Bomb to play in a wide-open world.

I admit that playing against a non-stupid world is frustrating if the PCs are *stupid*. It's like playing a FPS online with experts. However, the goal is to not *be* bad at life. The goal is to cleverly (and yes, cinematically) interact with the vibrant world. And to not give up because you got sniped again. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) Instead, learn the map and crouch already.

[hyphz]

Then why do they need a GM? Why are you there at all? Guiding is one thing. Steam rolling you, to the point where you sound pretty miserable int he tone of your posts? That says part of the compact is broke to me. The agreement is everyone has fun. I think you're afraid if you challenge them they'll quit.

The players aren't steamrolling me, they're fine with facilitating things. But it's not that "if I challenge them they'll quit", it's that if I'm going to give them a challenge then the sides have to be decided in advance and fixed then, and nobody seems to be giving me that. Instead everything is expected to be fluid so presumably there's some grand agenda I'm supposed to be pursuing in secret which I just don't like the idea of.

[Paul]

The players aren't steamrolling me, they're fine with facilitating things.

Hmm. Then I am clearly misreading the tone of your posts.

But it's not that "if I challenge them they'll quit", it's that if I'm going to give them a challenge then the sides have to be decided in advance and fixed then, and nobody seems to be giving me that. Instead everything is expected to be fluid so presumably there's some grand agenda I'm supposed to be pursuing in secret which I just don't like the idea of.

Uhm I'm not sure where secret agenda came into play here, but clearly we're not communicating. You clearly are either not understanding what I and some others are saying;, refusing to listen; completely oblivious or some combination of that and something I've missed.

Being the Game master means that yes, sometimes, you do keep some secrets. The behind the curtains stuff. This isn't a malignant act.Imagine a magician not explaining his tricks step by step as he performs them? Standard operating procedure right? In some ways being a GM is the same thing.

The game is supposed to be challenging. It's supposed to be a give and take. You seem, to me, to be pretty confused about that part of it. Frankly I'm so frustrated that from here on out I'm going to cut bait-because clearly you and I just can't seem to communicate with each other in a meaningful way.

[Seriously Mike]

Instead everything is expected to be fluid so presumably there's some grand agenda I'm supposed to be pursuing in secret which I just don't like the idea of.

The grand secret agenda is "using players' stupidity against them". When they think they played the opposition to do one thing, suddenly it turns out the opposition figured out something's fishy halfway through the PC's plan. Because there was something they haven't thought of. Something they underestimated.

[Erik Baird]

Hyphz, your comment about surprising your players makes me think that either your players don't trust you or you're afraid they won't. If they botch a stealth roll and get ambushed, that's not a big deal, and it shouldn't be. Your players should trust you that there are good and valid reasons for events happening in the game. If you need to hand a player a note telling him something bad just happened, just have a better reason than "your power armor self-destruct malfunctioned." (Granted, that is an example from a bad Rifts GM.) Good players will trust that it's part of the story and roll with it.

[Critias]

They'll probably be left with the impression that their being followed was predetermined from the beginning and the whole business of losing the tail was a waste of time. If I say, "Well, there was actually an invisible drone following you!", well, who's to say that if the mage had checked the astral the same thing wouldn't have happened except I'd be saying "well, there was actually a tracking device on your car all along!".

Just FYI, I didn't say "invisible drone," I meant one of any number of drones that are nearly invisible; small enough to be difficult to see, or flying high enough to be difficult to see, or ubiquitous enough to be difficult to notice, or all three at once.

That said, however, I still think there's a fundamental disconnect between your GMing style and mine:

That's the thing - I want the challenges to be fair and to be seen to be fair.

Who cares about what's seen to be fair? You're the GM, and they're playing in one of gaming's most paranoid, dystopic, lopsided, unfair universes. If you, as GM, know that they've got a Watcher spirit on their ass, it's not your fault the players don't check for it. If you know about a tracking device plausibly planted on their car or an RFID tag in stuff they just looted, if you know about the astral signature their mage left behind or the ritual-worthy sample they dropped, if you know about the hotshot hacker the NPCs have access to or the spy drone tailing your players...that's enough. Your players might ask you after an awesome ambush scene that leaves them on the edge of their seat, or one of them might pipe up over a Mt. Dew at the end of the game, or something, and then it's up to you to tell them (or not), or maybe you have a big reveal when a low-loyalty contact turns on them, or when an appropriate party member finds a tracking device, confronts an astral spy, or whatever. They might find out IC or OOC, eventually, but until then?

Screw "seen to be fair." You need to be concerned with the verisimilitude of NPC actions, and with whether or not they add fun to the game. That's it, man. Not the appearance of fairness. They shouldn't appear to be fair, in fact, because that's not what the underdog-game-of-being-paranoid-professional-criminals-who-operate-in-society's-forgotten-cracks is all about. Half of the point of the setting is that the Powers That Be dwarf your average player character, and the player characters only survive by making themselves useful to them.

That your players approach Shadowrun with the expectation that things appear to be fair, or that you persist in that belief yourself, really continues to make me think there's something about the setting and the game that just doesn't quite jibe with you guys.