What happens when your specialization is useless? Options

[Paul]

what happens when your specialist can't do his or her specialized skill? Do you as a GM make sure characters who are specialized in one area face nontraditional challenges? In example the guy who can only fire a pistol, do you every so often through him into a game where shooting people is just not an option? As a player what do you do? How do you feel about the afore mentioned scenario? is it a fun challenge? or is it just the GM being a dick?

I see a lot of people on this site worrying immensely about dice pools. But what happens when you don't get to roll those dice every single time?

[Ol' Scratch]

I always expect it to happen at least a few times. It's part of the GM's job to make sure things are challenging/interesting, and that's one of the many tools they have in their toolbox. Getting arrested or otherwise captured is the most classic example of this situation coming about. It only becomes "dickish" when they do it on a regular basis, and doubly so when they do it out of spite or vengeance because they didn't have the balls to say no when you were creating the character. Sadly, I've see that suggestion a lot on these forums, though not so much any more.

As a player, I pride myself in being able to think outside the box when I need to. Sometimes that means relying on other skills and abilities. Sometimes that means using my 'massive' dice pool in a new and exciting way. Sometimes it means running like a bat out of Hell until I can come up with an appropriate plan or find some other means of dealing with the situation.

[KarmaInferno]

It is fortunate that in the current rules set, it is possible to create a character that is heavily specialized in one area, pretty darn good in a second area, and decent in two or three others.



-k

[kzt]

Yup. It's easy to have some useful skills in something other than shooting people in the face or only hacking. You pretty much actively have to choose to not have useful skills.

People who only have skill in shooting people in the face (etc) will find a lot of time that they are going to be bored. Life is hard, tell the players up front that they need to have useful non-combat skills and point it out when they give you a character. Then crush them like a bug if they try to screw up the game because they are bored and decide to start random fights or similar stuff.

[Bull]

I try and write/run games to appeal to the entire group... Which means catering scenes to various characters skills and the players personal tastes...

However, I'm also telling a story. And sometimes, that story doesn't include a chance to shoot the bad guy in the face, or the chance to pornomance your way through the game, or whatever.

The fact is, if you make a character that only does *ONE* thing in Shadowrun, no matter how well he does it? You have to know what you're getting into, and you have to know that there will be times you and a d20 will have the same amount of usefulness in the game. Otherewise, frankly, you're an idiot, or you're VERY new and your GM is an idiot for not helping you make a more well-rounded character.

Now, to be fair... My Season 3 Missions Character, Rush, was a brick of a Street Sammy. Totally cliche'd. Uncouth, dual pistols, trenchcoat, monowhip. All he was good for was combat. That is it. ANd he was built that way on purpose... Mainly because at the time I was tired of playing the Planner or the mage or the utility character. Sometimes it's fun to be the dumb fighter. But I also knew going in that I was not going to be stealthy, was not going to be of any use during negotiations, etc. When it came time to roll initiative, I was a GOD. The rest of the time, i hung back and let the others do the heavy lifting. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

SO, umm... Short answer: Don't screw them all the time, but give them reasons to invest their karma into branching out, because one trick ponies are very limited.

Bull

[Midas]

I like to take my players out of their comfort zone sometimes, but I also give them their time in the sun. The sammie with maxed out Automatics but only a few dice for pistols will have chances to let the lead fly, but will also sometimes find himself in situations where carrying his big gun would get him arrested or worse. He may also occasionally find himself in a situation where the only gun available to him is a sports rifle, and curse himself for not taking the Firearms group rather than just Automatics and Pistols.

I tend to mix and match the sorts of runs the players get thrown into, variety being the spice of life and all that. One week they'll be infiltrating a corp facility to steal a genetically modified gorilla, the next they'll be hunting down someone's daughter who has gone off the reservation out in the boonies. In the former case, a player who has taken the Animal Handling skill might get a chance to shine; in the latter Outdoors skills may prove a boon. And the fact I often give an extra point of karma when the chance to use an obscure/minor skill saves the day encourages my players to round their characters out.

[Daylen]

There is always a way to pornomance the way to the pay!

One trick ponies don't deserve sympathy. If a PC has the singular ability of shooting a pistol and there are times when that is not a viable option, then either the PC must turn it into a viable option or twiddle his thumbs. On the other hand, ensuring that talking is the only useful skill on a run, where the party only has some talkers is just shitty.

[Daylen]

I like to take my players out of their comfort zone sometimes, but I also give them their time in the sun. The sammie with maxed out Automatics but only a few dice for pistols will have chances to let the lead fly, but will also sometimes find himself in situations where carrying his big gun would get him arrested or worse. He may also occasionally find himself in a situation where the only gun available to him is a sports rifle, and curse himself for not taking the Firearms group rather than just Automatics and Pistols.
...

Really?
So your players don't realize it doesn't matter what they take you will always at times highlight their weaknesses?

[Glyph]

One trick ponies should be a problem that solves itself. They see they are missing out on parts of the run because they can't contribute, so they round out their skills when they get some karma.

A potential problem with hyperspecialists, though, is the "when all you have is a hammer..." problem, thus a lot of the horror stories about the killing machine getting bored and starting a fight during negotiations.

[Paul]

My own answer mirrors some of your own:

I tell a story. Now obviously Mr. Johnson, or in our case the Fixer, isn't going to hire a team to perform a job they can't accomplish. The bottom line in that is failure. But a long shot? A gamble? A calculated bet? Yeah they get those sorts of jobs. They also get the desperate ones. I like to have a challenge for all of the players-and if the story calls for it spots where there is no straight forward choices.

[Ascalaphus]

How about when you play a 'Sam, but the rest of the team keeps finding ways to accomplish the entire run without any violence?

[Daylen]

How about when you play a 'Sam, but the rest of the team keeps finding ways to accomplish the entire run without any violence?

Then its up to you to interject some...

[Alpha Blue]

I think it's more fun to have the face in a fire fight while the slugger does the spy romance stuff and the anemic hacker tries to survive in the desert! Usually being out of your element brings out more of the character.

[Daylen]

I think it's more fun to have the face in a fire fight while the slugger does the spy romance stuff and the anemic hacker tries to survive in the desert! Usually being out of your element brings out more of the character.

If that happened more than once, I'd put a bullet in my fixer's head. It might be fun once as an example of when a run goes completely wrong, but if buying a high skill in something is simply a guarantee that I'll only face challenges where it can't be used, something is very wrong.

[Alpha Blue]

No one said only...

[last_of_the_grea...]

I must say that I am not big on GMs who "tell a story." In my experience, and I speak for nobody here but me, GMs that have done this generally do a lot of railroading and have so blatantly walled the group in when they try to deviate from the "script."

One GM like this I knew once said, after I told him about a time when I was GMing and the players decided not to take the offered job from Mr. Johnson and instead made their own plan to steal cargo boxes of stuff off a boat in the harbour, "And you let them just walk away from the job?" I will point out the not just one character was specialized, all the team except for one was specialized in combat and the one hold out wasn't very good at anything. They made a plan and used their contacts and defaulted on attributes a lot but managed to make a go of it and get a few cargo boxes. of course they found out later that not only was they listed cargo in them, so were some unlisted items that the shippers wanted back..!

[Alpha Blue]

Isn't that more of a general communications problem though?

[last_of_the_grea...]

Ya know what? I just realized that I rambled off the topic. Let's rephrase to say that a team that is hyper specialized can still try and make a go of it outside their specialties. So can a single specialized character. They just have to set their sights a little lower.

[Daylen]

Ya know what? I just realized that I rambled off the topic. Let's rephrase to say that a team that is hyper specialized can still try and make a go of it outside their specialties. So can a single specialized character. They just have to set their sights a little lower.

Or choose a different challenge more suiting their strengths as it seems your players did.

[Paul]

I must say that I am not big on GMs who "tell a story." In my experience, and I speak for nobody here but me, GMs that have done this generally do a lot of railroading and have so blatantly walled the group in when they try to deviate from the "script."

It can be a fine line to walk. I'd like to think that telling a story doesn't have to end that way-I mean everyone is telling a story at the table. We all just tell it in different ways!

[Jhaiisiin]

If you take the time to know the players and the character's motivations, then telling a story that they'll follow along with without issue isn't difficult. There's no need to railroad when you know the players will follow the path on their own.

[Ol' Scratch]

Improvisation doesn't come easily to a lot of people. Sadly, a lot of people who think they're good at it really aren't, but they don't have the capacity to see it for themselves. And in such cases, "railroading" becomes the only way they know how to deal with situations outside of the limited possibilities they considered when designing a mission/adventure/encounter.

There isn't really much you can do about it, either, other than try to talk to them about it in an attempt to get them to understand the problem. And that's assuming the problem is actually on their end. Players have exactly the same capacity to not realize that they're not the most clever person alive either.

It's a problem with being human, really. I think its why it's so hard for people to find good groups to play with, whether it's in the real world, online, or in a video game like an MMO or something.

Edit: Hmm, I seem to have lost where I was going with this post. Aww crap, I may be one of the people I'm talking about.

[CanRay]

And then there's some improvisors who make the phrase, "Hold muh beer, an watch this!" a thing to truly be terrified of!

[kzt]

http://avstop.com/news/wtvj.html

[Daylen]

http://avstop.com/news/wtvj.html

Big mistake he forgot to ask someone to hold his beer.