GM (n)PCs..., How do you deal? Options

[kzt]

The only reason we even know the Force rating is one PC scored an insane number of hits on an Assensing test, using Edge. Otherwise I suspect that the spirit would have whatever arbitrary Force he deigned to give it.

A free spirit that powerful could be almost impossible to spot as a free spirit.

[The Jake]

A free spirit that powerful could be almost impossible to spot as a free spirit.

Free spirit accompanied us on a metaplanar quest so we saw what she/it encountered when dealing with the Dweller on the Threshold. We have some knowledge we've picked up. NFI if free spirits using Astral Gateway are even meant to see the Dweller (thought everyone skipped that bit if using Astral Gateway, but I'm AFB atm).

Anyway, point is we know she's Force 10 (fact). We know she's a Free Spirit (we know she had a hand in killing her creator, who by all accounts was an Aztlaner blood mage). Beyond that we don't know anything else as fact. Oh wait, she is a Possession spirit and has the powers Vessel Trading and Astral Gateway (at a minimum).

- J.

[Mercer]

The only GMPCs I've ever encountered or run were ones that existed to fill party roles and help the party when the party was underpowered...

That's not a GMPC as I'm using the term; it's an NPC that is allied with the party, but it's an NPC all the same. GMPC is a term coined on another generic RPG forum to describe characters a GM puts in a game that seem to exist solely to steal the spotlight from the PC's. (The term may pre-exist that discussion, but that's where I first encountered it.) An NPC can basically be a PC in the party without being a GMPC. For me, the line where a character becomes a GMPC is when it starts invalidating player choices and so the GM is setting up situations and resolving them on his own. The PC's become spectators because every important decision is being made by the GM.

My mantra as a GM is this: Every game is ultimately what the players choose to care about. If the GM has a great idea about a cabal of vampires who intend to blot out the sun and the PC's just want to steal a boat and go raiding, that game is about a bunch of pirates sailing around in the dark. You can drag PC's back to the story, lock them in cages or tie them to rails, but you can't make them care.

Ideally the players and GM (although at this point, it's more accurate to call us all players, since we're all playing the game) will meet each other half way and consciously decide to play in a game they all enjoy. But sometimes one element (or sometimes just one player) will go rogue and declare war on NATO. It's just more noticeable when it's the player who's running the game.

[Midas]

(Edited your post slightly for brevity)

1) He tells us all to make "street" level characters.
2) His Deus Ex Machina from session one is a honkingly huge powerful Force 10 spirit.
3) From the minute she (GM PC) comes in, it becomes pretty clear to us this character is an exercise in total wish fulfilment.
4) In the few months that we've played (and in particular the last session) she has
- directed PCs on certain jobs and how to "act";
- insinuates herself onto certain tasks we choose to undertake (generally stick her nose in);
- the GM uses her to point out "obvious" solutions (which really aren't);
- railroad the game into certain directions and when we try and direct the NPC to act on our behalf, she ignores us to go do what she wants to do;
- is frequently the "star" of the sessions she's involved in forcing us to play second fiddle;
- and finally towards the end of the game, indicates that the last group of people who knew anything about how to make this new drug she had murdered en masse but has indicated that there are ways the deleted information could be retrieved.

She has:
- disobeyed direct orders from the group, leaving us to clean up the mess (and risk further exposure);
- indicated that she has murdered entire groups of people who have held this information (that we are about to obtain) previously;
- knows the entire ins and outs of how we operate and where all our skeletons are buried (e.g. we recently caused the annihilation of the Vory in Denver and largely pin it on the Triads);

We realise we've made a Faustian bargain and we want out; she can't be trusted, knows too much and we have to get rid of her.

- J.

The facts of the matter (that the GM requests street level characters, then introduces them to a F10 railroading deux-ex-machina that steals the PCs limelight regularly) have "GM failure" written all over them. That the GMPC is a possession tradition succubus suggests a level of immaturity. If she were to ultimately be the arch-enemy the PCs have to kill at the campaign climax, everything except the railroading and thunder stealing might be acceptable, but you make it clear that you do not think this is the case.

One could accept a F10 Free Spirit to be extremely demanding, but such an epic-level NPC should really be on the sidelines manipulating the PCs from afar rather than becoming directly involved in the planning or execution of the runs themselves (at that power-level differential the GMPC should really not concern themselves directly in the affairs of pawns).

I suggest you try and get the other 2 players on board, do your prep for the metaplanar quest, and then when you are secure in your lodge ready to lock-and-load and head off to the metaplanes request an OOC discussion, tell the GM that the second the discussion ends your characters are going to head off into the metaplanes to kill her or die trying.

Even if it won't help, try to rationally and succinctly outline the problems you are having with the GMPC, especially the railroading and limelight stealing. Explain as you have above your characters' IC reasons for wanting her dead. And tell the GM you are prepared to walk.

I feel for you guys, I really do. Good luck, and I hope your metaplanar quest is a fittingly epic climax to your campaign.

[Irion]

@Mercer

My mantra as a GM is this: Every game is ultimately what the players choose to care about. If the GM has a great idea about a cabal of vampires who intend to blot out the sun and the PC's just want to steal a boat and go raiding, that game is about a bunch of pirates sailing around in the dark. You can drag PC's back to the story, lock them in cages or tie them to rails, but you can't make them care.

But honestly, it is not very common, nor wise, for players to fight a plot every step of the way. Because THERE IS ONLY ONE Plot prepared.
You may have random GM-Fiat for the rest of the evening. (Which can be pritty worse if you are going to be pirats and the GM read before about how ships are protected at see...)
Or you steal cars, and the GM has seen robocob 2 the day before...
Because there is nothing else the GM may do at this point. (Yes, he can make the whole world your bitch and make Lowfyr serve you drinks. But I guess most players would thing this is even worse)

Sorry, but for me it seems there is a major misscomunication going on.
If somebody says to me we are playing a streetlevel game, I would not expect to have a million cash soon.

[Jhaiisiin]

But honestly, it is not very common, nor wise, for players to fight a plot every step of the way. Because THERE IS ONLY ONE Plot prepared.

That's not been the experience in my games. Hell, my SR GM has literally dozens of runs planned out ahead of time. If we don't take one, he moves on to another. There is always a backup plan. In my own games, I do the same thing. You have to plan for the time your PC's say "Uhhh, no, I don't think we'll be doing that." to your idea. Not planning for them saying no is just as bad as not planning at all (unless you are one of the rare few that can pull stuff from nowhere on a moment's notice).

[Irion]

@Jhaiisiin
One back up run if the first gets solved to easy or goes down the river, yes.
But the second will be less prepared. And the thired will be just an idea. And the forth will be a half assed idea or nothing at all. (Or I will just recycle an Adventure I did with another group)

But except maybe for the recycling the quality will drop. NPCs will be less deep, description of surroundings will be less detailed, there will be less backup routes aside from Deus ex machina.

[toturi]

@Jhaiisiin
One back up run if the first gets solved to easy or goes down the river, yes.
But the second will be less prepared. And the thired will be just an idea. And the forth will be a half assed idea or nothing at all. (Or I will just recycle an Adventure I did with another group)

But except maybe for the recycling the quality will drop. NPCs will be less deep, description of surroundings will be less detailed, there will be less backup routes aside from Deus ex machina.

It depends on the GM really. For me, perhaps the NPCs and the description of surroundings may be less detailed, but there certainly will be no Deus Ex Machina and no need for backup routes.

For me, when in doubt as to the what to use as opposition, I use the as written Grunts in SR4A. When in doubt to the level of Grunts, I use the Grunts one Professional Rating lower.

[The Jake]

@Jhaiisiin
One back up run if the first gets solved to easy or goes down the river, yes.
But the second will be less prepared. And the thired will be just an idea. And the forth will be a half assed idea or nothing at all. (Or I will just recycle an Adventure I did with another group)

But except maybe for the recycling the quality will drop. NPCs will be less deep, description of surroundings will be less detailed, there will be less backup routes aside from Deus ex machina.

And this is the thing -

Some GM's are good at thinking on their feet and improvising. Others aren't. We all (as players) make some allowances because we know GMing is a tough gig at the best of times. Even harder if you have a shortage of GMs and you're dealing with one who isn't a great storyteller.

This guy is not the worst I've seen but by far, not the best. He often resorts to heavy, rampant railroading when the PCs have thrown him a serious curveball that threatens to turn his "challenging" encounter into a total cakewalk. We make some exceptions for it but last session it got to a point of a joke where every five minutes there was an offhanded train reference and you could see he was getting upset. Especially when one player started up with the reference to taking the bus which led away from the train. But I digress. I can illustrate this with numerous examples but it all detracts from the crux of this thread.

I know one GM who as soon as someone throws a curveball he hadn't prepared for, he pretty much calls a stop real quick so he can spend the next two weeks+ figuring out what to do next. He's a meticuluous, detail oriented guy. Another one I know is much like me and loosely plans out stuff, just enough for a broad baseline and will improv his way through... right up until the player's decide to do something he thinks is "stupid" (and not what they think is stupid necessarily) and it often comes to a bone jarring character death.

Yeah, it's a tough gig. We try and be cool but as the saying goes - sometimes there's only so many ways of polishing a turd.

Midas- thanks. Your post is pretty much how we're going to go about it.

- J.

[Aerospider]

I really, REALLY wouldn't take the ambush route. For one thing, if he doesn't want the character to die then she won't and nothing you try will work. Railroading, like all bullying, is a one-way deal: if he takes away your control he's not going to let you do the same to him. More importantly though, you'll piss him off not just as GM but as a fellow gamer too and bad blood will be certain - spend a session conspiring both IC and OOC and he'll feel more than a little backstabbed.

Given that he's picked up on the railroading insinuations and bristled at them but without addressing the problem either he thinks he knows what makes a good game and his players don't, or he thinks to change anything would be ruining his own fun. Either way, a pressgang is not going to persuade him of the errors of his ways. Most likely he'll take any form of confrontation as an ungrateful indictment of his GMing abilities, so an out-of-game discussion that's delicate but states your misgivings in no uncertain terms is by far the most likely approach to succeed IMO.

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

Ok, one more thing about how to kill this thing? I take it the metaplanar quest is kind of a given, BUT maybe you can soften the thing up a bit when it's materialized /posessing something. I'm not sure how free spirits deal with this exactly, so I may be wrong.

So it's got 20 hardenend armour and a metric ton of Bod, and possibly more worn armour. However, that's not unsurmountable. A nice AV rocket can do damage, but IMHO the best deal is catching it in a narrow corridor and letting off a few kilos of explosives. Maybe tamped. The trouble will be setting the trap without the GM metagaming the spirit not to run into it. The other poblem will be surviving the blast yourselves, i.e. not being there when it goes off. Hardenend armour is pretty binary, when you're taking a 25P blast 10-15 boxes might still come through. If it uses edge and rolls well.. hmm, it's not guaranteed, but at the least it'll have a few boxes of damage when it flees to its home plane.

[Irion]

Some GM's are good at thinking on their feet and improvising. Others aren't. We all (as players) make some allowances because we know GMing is a tough gig at the best of times. Even harder if you have a shortage of GMs and you're dealing with one who isn't a great storyteller.

Well, I do not quite agree. There are good GMs and there are bad GMs. And there are guys who work their ass of and there are guys who are lazy.

If you watch a group playing you get really fast a good idea what kind of person a GM is.
If you prepare you still have to improvise. You will just have a big advantage over the Guy who needs to do it on the fly.

A good GM coming prepared is not so easy to be caught on the wrong foot by the actions of the player.
(You may predict the behavior of your players to over 80% if you sat down and preped the shit. If you think of alternatives it is most likly that you will be right over 90% of the cases)

Preparing is always meant to write down every scene and put them in order. Thats the eaysiest form of prepartion. Still better than none but far from perfect.

This guy is not the worst I've seen but by far, not the best. He often resorts to heavy, rampant railroading when the PCs have thrown him a serious curveball that threatens to turn his "challenging" encounter into a total cakewalk.

This can happen and sometimes you are even glad about it. But the opposite is much more often the case. But this depends on how good you know the rules and on how far you (as GM) think.
A lot of player ideas are great for what is strictly ahead of them (and mostly they do not even cover that completly) but as soon as you think about reaction of the NPCs, it is often a instant group wipeout.

For example:
The players have to go into a storage facility, which is lightly guarded. The GM plans this as a sneak run, getting in and out undetected.
Well, the players think it is easyer to flood the facility with Gas (knockout or even lethal) and get in and take what they want.

First the unprepared/novice GM: He will try to explain why is guards are wearing gas masks or something like that.
Second the friedly undprepared/novice GM: Will just let the players get away.
Third the "just" prepared/experienced GM: He has really build the warehouse, build in sensors and so on. The guards won't have masks but the sensors will go off and in the worst case trigger an anti-Terrorism response, killing the team

The first and the thired response seam the same, but are (if it comes down to judging the GM) totally different. Letting the players get away with it is actually much closer to the first one.
In both cases you try to ignore the actions of the players on their surroundings. Only in the third case the actions of the players really get a reaction of the game world.

Edit
@Brainpiercing7.62mm
Your suggestions are fine example for what I have written above. To playe a bunch of explosives is a really nice way to piss the spirit off big time. Maybe he will loose a point of force. But he will live and he will come back for you!

Here again we have the same possibilities:
1. The GM blocks due to metagaming (but to be honest a force 10 free spirit has means and ways... But lets assume he doesn't in this case)
2. The GM just let you get away with it.
3. The GM plays by the rules, the spirit is disrupted and starts kill the PCs during an other run...

The last option seems like the GM beeing a dick, but it is actually what the "rules" and the "fluff" tell him to do...

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

Well, I do not quite agree. There are good GMs and there are bad GMs. And there are guys who work their ass of and there are guys who are lazy.

If you watch a group playing you get really fast a good idea what kind of person a GM is.
If you prepare you still have to improvise. You will just have a big advantage over the Guy who needs to do it on the fly.

A good GM coming prepared is not so easy to be caught on the wrong foot by the actions of the player.
(You may predict the behavior of your players to over 80% if you sat down and preped the shit. If you think of alternatives it is most likly that you will be right over 90% of the cases)

Preparing is always meant to write down every scene and put them in order. Thats the eaysiest form of prepartion. Still better than none but far from perfect.


This can happen and sometimes you are even glad about it. But the opposite is much more often the case. But this depends on how good you know the rules and on how far you (as GM) think.
A lot of player ideas are great for what is strictly ahead of them (and mostly they do not even cover that completly) but as soon as you think about reaction of the NPCs, it is often a instant group wipeout.

For example:
The players have to go into a storage facility, which is lightly guarded. The GM plans this as a sneak run, getting in and out undetected.
Well, the players think it is easyer to flood the facility with Gas (knockout or even lethal) and get in and take what they want.

First the unprepared/novice GM: He will try to explain why is guards are wearing gas masks or something like that.
Second the friedly undprepared/novice GM: Will just let the players get away.
Third the "just" prepared/experienced GM: He has really build the warehouse, build in sensors and so on. The guards won't have masks but the sensors will go off and in the worst case trigger an anti-Terrorism response, killing the team

The first and the thired response seam the same, but are (if it comes down to judging the GM) totally different. Letting the players get away with it is actually much closer to the first one.
In both cases you try to ignore the actions of the players on their surroundings. Only in the third case the actions of the players really get a reaction of the game world.

Ok, seriously, when you build a run you should NEVER plan the way the runners are going to solve it. You should NOT make scenes, you make scenarios, which aren't even linked in time unless they are the classic Pre-run meet, post-run meet, and in between. You plant hints and then go with the flow. You SHOULD have a good idea about the opposition and security measures in place, and the consequences of certain actions. anything else will just make you a railroader, even involuntarily. If you even think about making a rail, then chances are you'll use it.

[Blitz66]

Irion, your ideal scenario horrifies me. Your Number 3 is a lot closer to your Number 1 than you want to imagine - the GM is just better at rationalizing it now.

As a GM for various games, I'm known to be fairly crafty. I can design scenarios that can present a challenge when attacked from multiple angles. However, if the PCs can come up with a way to circumvent the challenges I've put in place, or that I believe would be appropriate for the situation, and come up with an easy win, then that's awesome, and they should be rewarded for their cleverness.

Back to the OP: Any sort of resolution of this in-game is doomed to fail. The GM is the one with the power to decide the outcome, and if you attack his beloved pet, I don't see it going your way. It's not like he's honored the game and its participants in a remarkably honorable way so far. Why do you expect him to start now?

Even if he did respect the stats and the dice, and you somehow managed to ace the GMPC - congratulations. You've killed an imaginary character, who was never the real problem, and whatever the point you were trying to make to the GM, you have failed to make it, because he's not going to be reading the subtext.

You need to either abandon the game, or talk to the GM. If the GM proves unwilling to own up to his mistakes, then there's no point in trying to kill off the spirit, because the game is toast. If the GM is a lot more reasonable and mature than you've made him sound so far, and he agrees to let you take a legit shot at the character, you can always handle the prep after. The absolute worst thing to do is set up for it in-character and then reveal that you've been conspiring for this out-of-character, because that's a very hostile and confrontational scenario, and it puts him in a very bad position, and he'll resent you for it.

Just open the issue for discussion before the next session starts, and see what everyone wants to do.

[snowRaven]

It was like a light went off in the GM's eyes. He pulls out his old character sheet for a Grade 4ish Mage and he then narrates the action (?) as his character walks into the Arcology after close (?), Acid Waves some starting sec guards, walks into the sec office, retrieves the highly valuable item that is apparently sitting in a briefcase on the desk of the sec office (?), Acid Waves a few more sec guards, and walks out. Then he tells us that the group won't lose face on the street (we'd had to roll on our Johnson to keep Renraku from killing us) because his character had performed the run anonymously. (?)

It took about 20 minutes for all that to happen. I was the only new player, and everyone else seemed used to it so I figured I could just never come back. The only one that seemed entertained was the toadie, who looked as though he was witness to the most exciting story ever told. So I can't say every player in the world hates it. I'm just saying I have better things to do with my time.

That is honestly the worst crap I've ever heard about (in GMing, I mean). I've heard of some similar stuff happening at the table of a group of 11-year old munchkin power gamers who used transformers and space ships for their dragonslayers in a D&D game...but yeesh! I don't blame you for backing away slowly from that one - I would've run screaming...

Ok, seriously, when you build a run you should NEVER plan the way the runners are going to solve it. You should NOT make scenes, you make scenarios, which aren't even linked in time unless they are the classic Pre-run meet, post-run meet, and in between. You plant hints and then go with the flow. You SHOULD have a good idea about the opposition and security measures in place, and the consequences of certain actions. anything else will just make you a railroader, even involuntarily. If you even think about making a rail, then chances are you'll use it.

Some types of shadowruns are more or less on rails by default, though - luckily, I'm in the train business, so I know of many ways to turn even straight sections of railway into multiple-choice potential catastrophies, derailments, and train-wrecks (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[The Jake]

I normally specify what defences and so forth exist. If my players come up with a smart move, I chalk one to them, zero to me and move on.

Of course NEXT time will be a different story.

Also, I've found that what works best for me is when it is abundantly clear to my players that no character - PC or NPC - is immune to being blown away. When a key NPC they've dealt with dies horribly, and not necessarily by their hands, they know I mean business. I also find it keeps them on their toes.

But we've also had games where PCs horribly backstab each other too, so, you know - to each their own.

- J.

[mister__joshua]

When I first read your story I must admit I thought antagonist more than GMPC. Obviously you've experienced it and may disagree, but I only have what you've said to go on. Either way, for what it's worth, this is how I'd deal with it at my table:

Talk to the GM, but not about a GMPC and your problems with it. Instead state that you and the group have been talking and list all of your IC reasons for trying to kill the character. Tell the GM you intend to try and do this and give him time to plan for it (not plot agaist it as much as be expecting it in a GM capacity). If the spirit is a plot device and not meant to die yet then that may quickly become apparent. If you fail to kill the spirit then you still achieve your goal of removing the NPC from the group as the dynamic will have changed. At worst you now have a powerful enemy from which comes new and exciting adventure possibilities!



(Note: At my table we are all long time friends so YMMV. Plus our GM is very good at adapting to changes in the game. Just last game, as a group of players, we decided to sell the main plot point of our adventure. If your GM isn't so good with change just give more notice)

[The Jake]

When I first read your story I must admit I thought antagonist more than GMPC. Obviously you've experienced it and may disagree, but I only have what you've said to go on. Either way, for what it's worth, this is how I'd deal with it at my table:

Talk to the GM, but not about a GMPC and your problems with it. Instead state that you and the group have been talking and list all of your IC reasons for trying to kill the character. Tell the GM you intend to try and do this and give him time to plan for it (not plot agaist it as much as be expecting it in a GM capacity). If the spirit is a plot device and not meant to die yet then that may quickly become apparent. If you fail to kill the spirit then you still achieve your goal of removing the NPC from the group as the dynamic will have changed. At worst you now have a powerful enemy from which comes new and exciting adventure possibilities!



(Note: At my table we are all long time friends so YMMV. Plus our GM is very good at adapting to changes in the game. Just last game, as a group of players, we decided to sell the main plot point of our adventure. If your GM isn't so good with change just give more notice)

I'm not against this approach but the problem is this spirit can squash us like a bug six ways to Sunday. Including just telling our enemies a fraction of what she knows. She doesn't even have to lift a finger against us. And that's just the start.

Ambushing the spirit (and the GM) is the only conceivable way we can possibly have to survive and even then, it's a big IF (it's a Force 10 spirit and probably 10 Edge). Even then, that's only because she doesn't expect us doing so.

Everyone at my table are long time friends (GM is a former housemate) so I'm sure we'll be fine once the bruised egos fade.

Thanks for the advice though, I will take that onboard.

- J.

[Irion]

@Blitz66

Irion, your ideal scenario horrifies me. Your Number 3 is a lot closer to your Number 1 than you want to imagine - the GM is just better at rationalizing it now.

No, it is not. It is as far from number one as humanly possible. The GM in 3 Build a situation WITHOUT taking into account any player action.
(He gives a scenario (should thinks of at least one possible way to solve it), and than hands it to the players.
This GM has made every thing up front. So actually you could have a hundred GMs and they would all have to decide the same way.
Thats the ultimate fairness.
The problem is, to make a scenario which is survivable (if you stick to the variables you set) and still a challange is very hard. (If you are good at it, you kill no players, provide a challenge and you have never to use GM fiat.)
The GM plays 100% fair!

As a GM for various games, I'm known to be fairly crafty. I can design scenarios that can present a challenge when attacked from multiple angles. However, if the PCs can come up with a way to circumvent the challenges I've put in place, or that I believe would be appropriate for the situation, and come up with an easy win, then that's awesome, and they should be rewarded for their cleverness.

So lets break it down: If your player roll bad you would also ignore the roll, because it was a good idea?
You divide into "good for the characters" and "bad for the characters" .

, if the PCs can come up with a way to circumvent the challenges I've put in place, or that I believe would be appropriate for the situation

This means most of the time you have to skip about half a minute. (Or your run is crappy build to begin with)
Honestly: How many have ever had the problem, that the players solved a one evening run in 5 min? That one player had to do one part alone? Yes, that might happen. But something like that?

So this is in no way an extream situation most of the time. This only causes a problem, when they loose certain information, that they would need or which would make the "getting behind the shit" much easier. So if you do not change the scenario, you are stuck.

Actually I hear a lot of time, that the GM should accept it if players have a good solution for a problem. But I never seen this come up as problem ingame, or talked about or anything.
The other way around: "How do I get around killing my players?" comes up much more often.

@Brainpiercing7.62mm

Ok, seriously, when you build a run you should NEVER plan the way the runners are going to solve it. You should NOT make scenes, you make scenarios, which aren't even linked in time unless they are the classic Pre-run meet, post-run meet, and in between. You plant hints and then go with the flow. You SHOULD have a good idea about the opposition and security measures in place, and the consequences of certain actions. anything else will just make you a railroader, even involuntarily. If you even think about making a rail, then chances are you'll use it.

And in this example(3) the GM did nothing else. (And of course you have to think of possible solutions the players could apply, or you end up with a dead end to begin with. "What, nobody of you can shoot lightning out of your fingertips... Well, thats bad")
The problem is, if you really do it, it does not make SR a cakewalk, more the opposite.
For every GM who changes the scenario or manipultes dice against the players, there are probably 200 who do it the other way round. I can think of one situation. And there the GM came bad prepared and did not think to get the effects he wanted within the rules of the world so he changed on the fly. Which caused a lot of problems. Having to revisit decissions twice in just a minute. Thats happening if you do not plan your scenario.
If you do plan, I can actually guarantee you, such problems won't come up. You will never have to railroad or up the oppostion to prevent players from anything. You can make due with the scenario you build up while preparing the run. (Yes, you might improvise some scence, true. If your players somehow do the impossible, but thats not happening often and is mostly a minor addition still based on the scenario)

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

@Irion: But look, I see it very simply:

A classic SR RUN is a problem. You set it up. You don't think about the solution, rather, you look at several angles and actually try to present problems from all those angles. Basically the angle you haven't thought about is the one the PCs can waltz through, the others might be circumventet.

For instance:

Problem: Get into a locked building, extract some stuff.
Setup: Maglocks, keycards necessary (held by the manager and some others), cameras, a panic button to law enforcement or corpsec, a locked safe. Astral barriers in place, MAYBE a spirit on patrol at night.

I don't need to think about a solution, because once the players have the information via legwork, they will immediately look at the various angles that could work. Each of those elements is a problem but also part of the solution. So my players say "we hack the locks, disable cameras via X, and the mage can't come in because he would alert the corp mage when pushign through the barriers". I say, "Ok, do it". But if they say: What the hell, we blast through the wall, fast in, fast out, and get away before corpsec arrives I still way "ok, do it". I do have various consequences in mind, becuase when I design the run, I design it as a guy rigging security for the building. NO security is perfect (at least none that I design), I'm sure of that, which is why I believe the runners will find an angle.

In order to make the scenario more complex, all you need is triggers and events. Say, for instance, the runners cause a disturbane, there is a trigger happy security guard in another building across the street. OR, in fact the entire thing was a setup. Or they leave evidence that can point back to them, what happens? It's impossible to cover all possible events, which means I'll make some general contingencies and improvise from there.

Another example:
In our last run my PCs had to find three drug cartel exectutives. It was meant as a fairly easy snatch-and-grab (and/or kill). However, I had contingencies in place for when, for instance, the runners were too obvious in their recon. Or they took too long. Or did whatever stupid. Which basically meant that after they had grabbed the first guy fairly easily, but then spent too much time messing around with him or doing other things, the other two now had fortified their positions. They also were on the lookout now, and had various places which the runners could use to get intel staked out in order to ambush them. Getting to the second guy in a fortified and booby-trapped building was MUCH harder now. The third guy was now in hiding, because they needed a day or two to heal after being repeatedly blown up and shot in that building. Trying to get him resulted in them being ambushed on a stuffer-shack parking lot, because their investigation into his (deserted) house was spotted. They then needed a convenient way to lure him out of hiding - again, there was a creative solution. The ambush team hadn't gotten the chance to report back, because in the end they suffered group knockout via stunball, which meant that basically they used one of the captured commlinks to call the cartel's security chief and meet him to hand over the "prisoners" for interrogation. They meet the guy and bam. So every bit of the problem inherently also contains a method for its solution. Runs aren't, IMHO, puzzles to solve exactly one way, they are problem sets with a complex, but variable solution. The more parameters you fix, the harder the problem.

[3278]

I've done childish, petulant, in-game stuff just like this in the past to protest in-game situations, and my experience is that it's not the best way to deal with the problem.

This is an interpersonal problem, not a gaming problem, and it's going to be most effectively dealt with like "adults with interpersonal problems," not like "children with a game problem." He's acting like a juvenile; you shouldn't meet him at that level. Sit down with him, irrational or not, and negotiate like human beings. If that doesn't work, get out.

[Irion]

@Brainpiercing7.62mm

A classic SR RUN is a problem. You set it up. You don't think about the solution, rather, you look at several angles and actually try to present problems from all those angles. Basically the angle you haven't thought about is the one the PCs can waltz through, the others might be circumventet.

This I do different. I do not think of possibilities to stop players, I just think of situations.

Lets take a simple example: There is a wall and you have to get to the other side. (This is not to be taken literally!)
There are several approaches to solving this problem. (As a nice GM you hide a latter somewhere in case the players have no ideas)
You anticipate the players climbing up, building stairs or whatever.
So one player has now the ability (of which you did not know) to just jump over the wall.
So he would solve the problem with very little sweat. (But actually you are not at loss, because the others have to get on the other side too)

The problem is, you did not anticipate that. Because (for whatever reasons inside your plot) there was a bottomless pit on the other side of the wall. (Your thinking: If they climb the wall they will see it and solve in in a second)

This is what happens as soon if you really thought through your situation. Players have always less information than you have. So it is very unusual for them to be able to find a better solution (unless they know the rules way better than you)

It is like a big maze, but you look down on it from a helicopter and the players have to run in it. Even if they do something you did not anticipated (like jumping one wall), the chance of really getting around it completly is very slow. The chance that there is something which will hurt them, is very high!

Runs aren't, IMHO, puzzles to solve exactly one way, they are problem sets with a complex, but variable solution. The more parameters you fix, the harder the problem.

It depends how you "fix" them. Decisions you make into play are not reversable. Meaning you can't undo them. So if you have some fixed parameters, you can't use there are less: Ok, your are dead, no you could not have known that.

The point is, if you do not think of your situations in advance you can (as GM) always cheat your way through the run. (So what the players do, does actually not change much unless they are really clueless...)

[mister__joshua]

I'm not against this approach but the problem is this spirit can squash us like a bug six ways to Sunday. Including just telling our enemies a fraction of what she knows. She doesn't even have to lift a finger against us. And that's just the start.

Ambushing the spirit (and the GM) is the only conceivable way we can possibly have to survive and even then, it's a big IF (it's a Force 10 spirit and probably 10 Edge). Even then, that's only because she doesn't expect us doing so.

Everyone at my table are long time friends (GM is a former housemate) so I'm sure we'll be fine once the bruised egos fade.

Thanks for the advice though, I will take that onboard.

- J.

I know a force 10 spirit is not to be trifled with, but you can still ambush the spirit without ambushing the GM also. If you let the GM know you intend to ambush his spirit (but there's no conceivable way that the spirit would know) then it all works out for good. The possible fallout is a meta-game saving of the spirit, and as you said the spirit could crush the PC's no problem but, well, this isn't a problem either in my eyes. If you're thinking of quitting the game then why not go out as a group in an epic end-game battle with a force 10 spirit. If you win, you carry on. If you lose, you reset, roll new chars, and start again. Maybe you even learn a lesson about letting spirits help you. It's like sesame street. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

@Irion:

Ok, so if the PCs do something stupid, the run goes south. Where is the problem? I don't build my scenarios with insta-gib situations in mind. That means that for every failure or bad decision (whether informedly bad, or just by bad luck) there is usually a sliding scale by which the run now gets harder to complete. And if they fail entirely? Who cares. A botched run now and then doesn't matter. In fact, it's a good hook. Problems only arise when you've built a situation where one of the PCs suddenly faces odds that were not anticipated, for instance, you tailored a fight for the team, but one or two runners meet it alone. So now you either change the encounter, or run with it and hope your runners don't run out of edge (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) .

I'm in no way saying you should not be prepared, but I believe if you simply create your runs as a problem set then you can't really go wrong.

There is another style of run, which is the investigation run, that requires a different approach: Here you need to link clues, and ideally you compensate in advance for failure to find each and every clue that is critical, or else a dead-end can be reached too easily. This is easily done with the Three-clues rule, or the inverted three-clues rule, or a combination thereof, and by designing your runs with nodes: For each bit of scenario (=node) or element, you have three clues pointing to it, and three clues to be found that each point to a different other node. Now it's pretty much a given that the players won't get stuck, as every discovery will lead to another discovery. Ideally, each of the three clues for an element can be found in a different manner, for instance, searching, interrogation and matrix. Sometimes they will find all the clues, sometimes one, sometimes two, but very rarely none. However, even if they found none at one node, there should be other clues from a previous node to follow up on, to make sure they can go on. This, admittedly, requires a LOT of preparation, because you have to design a lot of nodes and think about how to link them. However, it's easily the most rewarding way to run an investigation run. Probably the best way to design such a run is filling up from the bottom: You have a goal, and you branch out from there. Of course, a starting point at the top is also necessary, so you should make sure your node paths meet up at the end.

From personal experience I can now only recommend to not introduce too many stages, since each node can, ultimately, take as much time as a complete run. For instance, to get information from a guy (who represents the node) they have to extract him. Now that's a mini-run itself. From there they find the next clues, and so forth. If you link three of those nodes, then the players might get frustrated that they have to repeatedly bludgeon information out of the next guy. (Yes, that happened to me, unfortunately, because I underestimated how long following the nodes takes.)

For more conservative play style, you could have a node tree in the background, with new runs offered to the PCs depending on the results of the previous runs, without ever disclosing actively that the runs are linked.

[Tech_Rat]

One thing I will say... please don't leave us hanging, regardless of the chosen solution. I read similar issues regularly in other forums, and I want to hear the results for once.