The illusion of challenges and GMing, Spin off from the other thread Options

[toturi]

So I don't want to derail the other thread any further. Sorry, Patrick. Sorry, Bull.

When I run a game, I try to present my players with challenges that they are supposed to overcome. The key here is the perception that they are being challenged, while making sure the odds of the situation actually favor the players. One exception is if the players deliberately look for situations to put their characters in over their heads. If that is the kind of game they are looking for, then I will oblige them, but for the most parts, if you really look at the game mechanics, the odds actually favor the PCs.

Most games have an element of chance. To me, that element is often more than sufficient to ensure that when the dice is rolled there is no guarantee of success. The odds may well favor one side heavily, but there is always that slim chance. The players may think that they are working, overcoming the "odds" and "earning" their successes, but I make sure that the challenges are, at worst, a fifty fifty proposition.

Now if a PC takes a turn for the worse due to dice roll, suffers some sort of mechanical loss, then I will try to allow that PC to catch up. From what I have seen, most GMs do this. They try to give the poor guy a break. Perhaps this is one reason why some players seem to prefer to suffer a setback. Consciously or not, they are expecting the GM to go easier on them.

But there are times when the player indicates that he is deliberately taking a mechanically poor or an ill-advised plan of attack, despite well intention advice to the contary. While I have not GMed for such players, I have played in games with these kind of players. It is alright if the GM is willing to run a solo/limited participation game for these players to get these guys back on track, but I feel that if you are playing as a group, do behave maturely and play as a team.

While "roleplay" reasons are solid in-game justifications, actions that disrupt the other guys enjoyment of the game are not at all fun. If everyone is onboard on the roller coaster ride, it works; otherwise, it is an accident waiting to happen. From the other thread, there seem to be some people who seem to enjoy failure, they see it as an opportunity, for roleplay perhaps. I think that this is fine in a solo game, but not in a game where the other players are expecting the other guy's PC to pull his weight on the team. As I see it, playing an RPG isn't like watching the movies, this isn't Rocky 3 where Mr Balboa comes back from defeat to beat Mr Lang and you ain't Stallone.

[RHat]

What you're missing, though, is that for many of us an individual failure makes things more interesting and challenging for the group. The trick, pure and simple, is to have interesting consequences in either case.

[DMiller]

I agree that the deck should be stacked in the character's favor, but failure should always be an option (a small, slim option, but an option).

When I GM I also make it clear that I will not kill a character, I will not allow completly random chance to do so either. If the player want's the character dead we will arrange that but most of the people that I play with hate having to create new characters all the time so not letting them die is a good thing. They will get hurt, even put in the hospital or some other action, but they will not die by chance alone.

[FuelDrop]

Our group once had a simple bounty to pick up. Go in, kill target, retrieve head. Easy.

Unfortunately, the target was expecting them and they ended up walking right into an ambush. We lose 2 group members due to bad luck and carelessness, while the rest are forced to withdraw.

At this point I could have just said "Ok guys, mission over. Roll up new characters if you lost them."
I didn't.
The group ended up crossing national borders, breaking into a secure POW camp to spring their friends, then hunting down their bounty and bringing him in while he was in the middle of another job.

If I'd fudged it so those characters hadn't gone down and they'd got their man right away they'd have missed out on several sessions of interesting locations and a very large payday.

[toturi]

I do not dispute that an individual failure makes things more interesting and challenging for the group, what you seem to be missing, though, is that for many of people an individual failure makes things less enjoyable for the group. I don't think that the consequences of failure is meant to be enjoyable.

How much would you enjoy things if the party face deliberately insults the Johnson and the group gets a bad rep for it? How much more challenging it would be to fail the Survival roll because "my character did not pack any Survival gear because I thought it would be more challenging and interesting if we lost our way in the Mojave desert"?

[FuelDrop]

I do not dispute that an individual failure makes things more interesting and challenging for the group, what you seem to be missing, though, is that for many of people an individual failure makes things less enjoyable for the group. I don't think that the consequences of failure is meant to be enjoyable.

How much would you enjoy things if the party face deliberately insults the Johnson and the group gets a bad rep for it? How much more challenging it would be to fail the Survival roll because "my character did not pack any Survival gear because I thought it would be more challenging and interesting if we lost our way in the Mojave desert"?

That's not GM challenge. That's players being too dumb to live.

[Voran]

Its a balance to be sure. You don't want it so easy that basically you could throw away the dice and make it 'story hour'. On the flipside you don't want it so clever rp and involvement is pointless in favor of the almighty dice roll.

Also, the play should be tailored to the group at hand. If you've got inexperienced players or forgetful ones sometimes they won't mark everything on their charsheet for a particular op, but at the same time, professionalism wise, their CHARACTER would likely never make such a mistake. If you smack down too heavily on player inexperience, especially say for crap they would have no real life experience with, that's not really fair either.

Ha! I see you didn't list mcguffingearitem#67 on your character's sniper loadout, you die! muhahahaha!

[Irion]

What is seen as dump form one perspective might not be as dump from another one.
The point is, there are players who really hate metagaming and make calls only on what their character knows.
So of course their action will be dump, because they do not use every bit of information they have as a player.

It is like: If you know that the guy next to you is the evil genius behind everything, why don't you shoot him in the face right now? Because your character has no idea about it.

[Lobo0705]

Character death should be a part of the game.

Shadowrunning is dangerous. You run up against dangerous people/organizations/critters basically all the time.

I'm not saying that characters should die every "x" number of runs, i.e. "Well, we've gone about 10 runs without one of you dying, so somebody is going tonight" - but rather there should be a legitimate chance that if players get into combat that one of them could go down.

If you don't, if the players know that no matter what they do, they will survive, I think it takes away from the suspense of the game.

It also means that when a character survives a long time, that is an accomplishment. My players, if they survive long enough, tend to retire their characters (who I then turn into NPCs for the campaign) and start fresh - and can point to this character or that character who "made it."

IMHO anyways (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[FuelDrop]

The spoony one on difficulty in games. AKA the 'Leaping Wizards' incident.

[BunnyColvin]

I've found that if one character (note i said character) tends to screw it up for the group, they will correct it in game. The situation will determine what they do though. If its just a honest mistake, they will deal with it together. But, if its intentional stupidity (i.e. I shoot a random Lone Star cop for no reason whatsoever, which I had happen in a game a long time ago) they will take out the character themselves.

Its odd though. My group will do this in Shadowrun, but in DnD, they will stick to the PC's side no matter how stupid they are.


Shadowrun is one of those games where dealing with the challenge, no matter how hard it is, is a large part of the game. As long as the players know what they are getting into and are not totally blindsided, then the challenge should be whatever the run calls for. There's a big difference between knowing you are trying to take down Lofwyr in a run vs. Lofwyr shows up in the bathroom unexpectedly while you are taking a dump.

[toturi]

I am not really talking about the player not knowing what the character should know or some sort of metagaming or lack thereof. Usually I try to suggest to the player the relevant Knowledge skills that the character would or should know, so at the very least I can ask the player to make a roll so I can suggest a course of action that I think the character would have thought of.

What I am saying is that the player deliberately creates a character that is deeply flawed so that he as the player will have such "interesting and challenging" situations. Or he plays his character such that such situations are created. He has the notion that somehow his creation of such difficult situations make the game more enjoyable.

There is a difference between knowing you are running against Lowfyr's interests versus taking a job from Alamais to specifically mess with Lowfyr.

There is a difference between knowing that your character might get hurt or die in a fight and purposely go pick a fight.

[BunnyColvin]

I misunderstood the problem...no worries.

Sounds like he's just trying to focus the game spotlight on himself and doesn't care much about the other player's enjoyment at the table. I'm not sure anything in game would fix that. Might need to discuss with him out of game and come to a consensus on the game you are running vs. his and the other player's expectations.

(As an aside, the taking a job from Alamais to mess with Lofwyr sounds like a great long-term goal for a PC. SK's reckless pollution from their heavy metal production gave my entire family cancer...now that son of a bitch has to die! Hopefully, my grade four lung cancer will let me live long enough to make that dragon pay!)

[Juca Bala]

One of my players character died on her very first run. There was a mix of a few very poor rolls, a few bad decisions and more reckeless than the players want to admit. The thing is - the players were surprised, coming from D&D 4e, were you can make dumb choices and only lose a few dozen hit points. Needless to say that they began to see the threats a lot more seriously, and straightforward combat with great care...

[Shortstraw]

...The thing is - the players were surprised, coming from D&D 4e, were you can make dumb choices and only lose a few dozen hit points...

Oh for the stray crossbow bolts of yore.

[Voran]

As with any gameplay experience, it is also very important to determine which of your players (not characters) are intending to be "Chaotic Douchebag" and deal with them accordingly. I suggest a punch to the back of the neck. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[RHat]

I am not really talking about the player not knowing what the character should know or some sort of metagaming or lack thereof. Usually I try to suggest to the player the relevant Knowledge skills that the character would or should know, so at the very least I can ask the player to make a roll so I can suggest a course of action that I think the character would have thought of.

What I am saying is that the player deliberately creates a character that is deeply flawed so that he as the player will have such "interesting and challenging" situations. Or he plays his character such that such situations are created. He has the notion that somehow his creation of such difficult situations make the game more enjoyable.

There is a difference between knowing you are running against Lowfyr's interests versus taking a job from Alamais to specifically mess with Lowfyr.

There is a difference between knowing that your character might get hurt or die in a fight and purposely go pick a fight.

Except that that sort of activity isn't what anyone is talking about here - that's just being an asshole.

[DMiller]

Character death should be a part of the game.

Shadowrunning is dangerous. You run up against dangerous people/organizations/critters basically all the time.

I'm not saying that characters should die every "x" number of runs, i.e. "Well, we've gone about 10 runs without one of you dying, so somebody is going tonight" - but rather there should be a legitimate chance that if players get into combat that one of them could go down.

If you don't, if the players know that no matter what they do, they will survive, I think it takes away from the suspense of the game.

It also means that when a character survives a long time, that is an accomplishment. My players, if they survive long enough, tend to retire their characters (who I then turn into NPCs for the campaign) and start fresh - and can point to this character or that character who "made it."

IMHO anyways (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I agree that character death should be part of the game, however we have a very small group (3-4 players + 1 GM) and character death would mean loss of at least one player as she would not return. That would mean death of a character == death of the group. Is it worth not playing to include a little realism in a game? We live in a small community and adding (reasonably good) players is difficult.

When people become attached to their characters generally they don't want them to die, though sometimes they do. Shadowrun is just another game it is the same as D&D or GURPS or any number of other games out there, you play to have fun. If character death kills the fun, remove it. That has been my experiance for almost 30 years of playing (and GMing). I've been in a few groups that were the "let the chips fall where they may" and in those groups character death is part of the game, but most of the groups I've been in would rather have a long-term character.

If a player wants their character to die, it will be so. In FuelDrop's example he also didn't kill the characters even though they likely should have died, to me his response was completly the way it should have gone. By "not killing characters" I didn't mean that they wouldn't be captured or held or some other nasty thing, I meant that I wouldn't let random dice rolls kill them.

[toturi]

Except that that sort of activity isn't what anyone is talking about here - that's just being an asshole.

I disagree. I think that nobody likes to have disturbing similarities pointed out between their style of play and that of being an asshole or have their style of play likened to that of the asshole.

After all, which story is cooler and more inspirational? The one about the guy who was really talented and trained and who easily won the race? Or the guy who broke his leg during training and had to heal and overcome rehab and painkiller addiction, only to make an underdog comeback at the end, overcome the odds, and win the gold medal?

Let us examine this example, in the context of a shadowrun team. If we think of a PC group as a team, then to use the race metaphor we can liken it to a relay team. So our guy was training, he critically glitches, oops! So he has the chance to spend an Edge to mitigate the crit glitch, but the player says,"Nah, what the fun in that? It's more exciting to have to heal, overcome rehab and painkiller addiction!" So the rest of the guys on the team are glum. The PCs are sad that their championship chances are sunk. The other players are angry that the broken leg PC player is being an asshole. But that player is all "Come on, guys! This is more exciting! This is a good roleplay opportunity!" A case may be made that the team could rally up and come from behind overcome the odds and win the gold. But the principle of it is the decision wasn't made collectively, but the roleplayer drags his group down that particular path whether they like it or not.

[Lobo0705]

I agree that character death should be part of the game, however we have a very small group (3-4 players + 1 GM) and character death would mean loss of at least one player as she would not return. That would mean death of a character == death of the group. Is it worth not playing to include a little realism in a game? We live in a small community and adding (reasonably good) players is difficult.

When people become attached to their characters generally they don't want them to die, though sometimes they do. Shadowrun is just another game it is the same as D&D or GURPS or any number of other games out there, you play to have fun. If character death kills the fun, remove it. That has been my experiance for almost 30 years of playing (and GMing). I've been in a few groups that were the "let the chips fall where they may" and in those groups character death is part of the game, but most of the groups I've been in would rather have a long-term character.

If a player wants their character to die, it will be so. In FuelDrop's example he also didn't kill the characters even though they likely should have died, to me his response was completly the way it should have gone. By "not killing characters" I didn't mean that they wouldn't be captured or held or some other nasty thing, I meant that I wouldn't let random dice rolls kill them.

I am the GM for a group of 3 players. If one of them dies, then they make a new one, are introduced as a new character, and off we go - with new roleplaying possibilities as the two "older" characters have to deal with a new face in the group (even though the player is obviously the same.)

Are you saying that if you kill one of your player's characters that player will not generate a new one and play? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you - but that's what it sounds like. Which is bizarre, in my opinion, for what its worth.

I mean, if your players cannot handle have a character killed, if such an experience is so traumatic that they will then refuse to play the game anymore, well then yeah, I guess don't kill them - but that seems a little childish.

[DMiller]

I am the GM for a group of 3 players. If one of them dies, then they make a new one, are introduced as a new character, and off we go - with new roleplaying possibilities as the two "older" characters have to deal with a new face in the group (even though the player is obviously the same.)

Are you saying that if you kill one of your player's characters that player will not generate a new one and play? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you - but that's what it sounds like. Which is bizarre, in my opinion, for what its worth.

I mean, if your players cannot handle have a character killed, if such an experience is so traumatic that they will then refuse to play the game anymore, well then yeah, I guess don't kill them - but that seems a little childish.

This player hates character creation enough in any system that she would rather stop playing than create a new character. She also doesn't want to be handed a character that she doesn't create so having someone else create one for her is out as well. The others in the group are not quite to that extreme, but none of us wants to roll a new character over a random bad dice roll either. Random chance is important in a game, but it need not be the end of a favored character.

My current character should have died multiple times in our current story ark, however due to the GM's good graces she hasn't. I could have used HOG to save her, but the GM didn't require it. But everyone in my group knows that the dice rarely favor me. My standard roll is 2 hits, no matter how large my dice pool. I have rolled 21 dice multiple times in the same session and consistantly rolled 2 hits. The GM doesn't allow that to ruin my fun by making me create a new character every few sessions.

If character death is fun in your group, roll with it, if it's not fun, remove it. Easy, and everyone wins. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Vegas]

Let us examine this example, in the context of a shadowrun team. If we think of a PC group as a team, then to use the race metaphor we can liken it to a relay team. So our guy was training, he critically glitches, oops! So he has the chance to spend an Edge to mitigate the crit glitch, but the player says,"Nah, what the fun in that? It's more exciting to have to heal, overcome rehab and painkiller addiction!" So the rest of the guys on the team are glum. The PCs are sad that their championship chances are sunk. The other players are angry that the broken leg PC player is being an asshole. But that player is all "Come on, guys! This is more exciting! This is a good roleplay opportunity!" A case may be made that the team could rally up and come from behind overcome the odds and win the gold. But the principle of it is the decision wasn't made collectively, but the roleplayer drags his group down that particular path whether they like it or not.

So then in this example, it seems, one needs to know the style of the game/GM and the way the members of the team want to play. Yes, if you have a single player who is into the minute details and likes to overcome obstacles to get their proverbial RP "rocks off", and the rest of the team just wants straight "We try, we eventually succeed" no chaser... then you seem to be setting yourself as the GM and your entire table up for disappointment/frustration/anger whatever.

Some people like vanilla. Some people like chocolate. Then there are those of us who like a little rainbow sherbet now and again.

[RHat]

I disagree. I think that nobody likes to have disturbing similarities pointed out between their style of play and that of being an asshole or have their style of play likened to that of the asshole.


Let us examine this example, in the context of a shadowrun team. If we think of a PC group as a team, then to use the race metaphor we can liken it to a relay team. So our guy was training, he critically glitches, oops! So he has the chance to spend an Edge to mitigate the crit glitch, but the player says,"Nah, what the fun in that? It's more exciting to have to heal, overcome rehab and painkiller addiction!" So the rest of the guys on the team are glum. The PCs are sad that their championship chances are sunk. The other players are angry that the broken leg PC player is being an asshole. But that player is all "Come on, guys! This is more exciting! This is a good roleplay opportunity!" A case may be made that the team could rally up and come from behind overcome the odds and win the gold. But the principle of it is the decision wasn't made collectively, but the roleplayer drags his group down that particular path whether they like it or not.

No, what you're not getting is that people aren't talking about intentional failure. It's when you try, and can still fail with interesting consequences - or do something awesome that also has serious consequences to it (like the shoving a bomb down the bug queen's throat thing from the other thread).

[toturi]

No, what you're not getting is that people aren't talking about intentional failure. It's when you try, and can still fail with interesting consequences - or do something awesome that also has serious consequences to it (like the shoving a bomb down the bug queen's throat thing from the other thread).

I understand that you are not talking about intentional failure. Which is why I accomodated your viewpoint and gave an example of an unintentional failure in my latest example. Mr Roleplayer did not intend to Critical Glitch, but like you, he saw it as an "opportunity". He tried, he failed and tried to turn it into something awesome. He could have tried and failed in a less "interesting" fashion by turning that Crit Glitch into a normal Glitch but did not.

[RHat]

I understand that you are not talking about intentional failure. Which is why I accomodated your viewpoint and gave an example of an unintentional failure in my latest example. Mr Roleplayer did not intend to Critical Glitch, but like you, he saw it as an "opportunity". He tried, he failed and tried to turn it into something awesome. He could have tried and failed in a less "interesting" fashion by turning that Crit Glitch into a normal Glitch but did not.

He did, however, intentionally choose not to buy it off for no reason - effectively an intentional failure, because he has chosen to fail.