ARGH! HELP! My players are too good., ...need help.... Options

[toturi]

If you're looking for a combat challenges there's always Tucker's Kobolds. While the write up is D&D focused (hence my statement about combat) there's some good advice hiding under there about using "weak" enemies to the fullest extent of their powers to challenge the PC's.

One of the things I always disliked about such so called "good" advice about using weak enemies is that since they are often reliant on tactics, someone needs to think it up and kobolds can't walk up to the Akodo War College and ask for advice. Another thing would be the kobolds need to be trained and disciplined enough to execute the battle plan and not to revert to instinct (Will save?) when something goes inevitably wrong.

[Sendaz]

But tactics isn't always down to book smarts either.

Look at the number of wars where generals neatly lined up troops and marched them straight into crippling enemy fire while their opponents sniped them and harassed them from the sides, rarely meeting them face to face.

Tucker's kobolds were an extreme example and I would have had one or two kobolds turn out to have had some tactical training or some one behind the scenes backing them.
But even kobolds should have been able to do some of the simpler tactics they were using just based on what would work for them, like the small side tunnels that they popped in and out of to puncture the party.

[toturi]

But tactics isn't always down to book smarts either.

Look at the number of wars where generals neatly lined up troops and marched them straight into crippling enemy fire while their opponents sniped them and harassed them from the sides, rarely meeting them face to face.

Tucker's kobolds were an extreme example and I would have had one or two kobolds turn out to have had some tactical training or some one behind the scenes backing them.
But even kobolds should have been able to do some of the simpler tactics they were using just based on what would work for them, like the small side tunnels that they popped in and out of to puncture the party.

I agree that tactics isn't about book smarts. But simply that the kobolds are usually statted without the mental capacity to come up with tactics that in effect utterly outsmart/outclass the PCs.

[Glyph]

I agree with toturi. Kobolds are smarter than your average humanoid, and they do like using traps, on top of the fact that human-sized opponents would suffer penalties in tunnels sized for creatures half human size. But they are still weak monsters, and are supposed to have a cowardly streak on top of that. I could see a good GM playing up the cramped quarters, some simple but brutal traps, and a frustrating enemy that volleys missile weapons, then squeaks and runs away when you counterattack. Tucker's kobolds, though, seemed more like a wildly metagaming killer GM with a "favorite" monster.

[ludomastro]

I agree with toturi. Kobolds are smarter than your average humanoid, and they do like using traps, on top of the fact that human-sized opponents would suffer penalties in tunnels sized for creatures half human size. But they are still weak monsters, and are supposed to have a cowardly streak on top of that. I could see a good GM playing up the cramped quarters, some simple but brutal traps, and a frustrating enemy that volleys missile weapons, then squeaks and runs away when you counterattack. Tucker's kobolds, though, seemed more like a wildly metagaming killer GM with a "favorite" monster.

Sure, it could have gone that way. However, I got the impression that folks loved telling those stories later if not exactly enjoying the experience. You could argue that as long as the adventurers don't kill ALL the kobolds - and, really, can you be sure of it? - then some of them will live to teach their children about how to attack the monsters that regularly invade their home.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[toturi]

Sure, it could have gone that way. However, I got the impression that folks loved telling those stories later if not exactly enjoying the experience. You could argue that as long as the adventurers don't kill ALL the kobolds - and, really, can you be sure of it? - then some of them will live to teach their children about how to attack the monsters that regularly invade their home.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

If you had an old timer kobold that remembers a time where the kobolds successfully routed the adventurers, then yes, it could be possible that the victors could have taught their off spring how to attack the adventurers. But if the adventurers won, it is not a win for the kobolds, the main thing that they'd have learnt is to run away and escape. So the next time some other adventurers attack, they should run.

[Warlordtheft]

As a victim of Tuckers Kobolds, it taught you one thing--the GM can make your PC'c life a living hell if they want to. It also teaches GM's and players to think about the tactics they are using!

[Fyndhal]

Some practical, tactical suggestions:

* Use fields of overlapping Suppressing Fire to apply penalties to the PCs
* Astral Security -- a Spirit/Watch with orders to report to the mage in question if it sees any active magic in it's patrol area. Invisibility Spells are glowing beacons of "I'm over here!" on the Astral.
* Choices -- Doors A and B are identical from the outside. Employees are told NEVER to use Door B. If Door B opens, the area gets flooded with Neurostun X.
* A good Spider is worth his weight in gold, even if he can't go toe to toe with the PC decker. Creating obstacles via locking doors, providing intel to the sec chief and hiding building security nodes, for instance.
* Moving Targets -- if Security can figure out what the Team is after, they can create problems by moving the Target and/or creating decoys.

Most Security isn't designed to STOP a concentrated attack. It's there to deter, to slow and to contain. The longer it takes a team to accomplish its goal and get out, the greater the chance they are fragged. All those scenes of robberies in movies where there's a guy counting down/watching the clock? It's because they know that if they are not clear in a certain amount of time, their lives are going to become very unhappy, very quickly. HTR teams can deal with most SR teams, if only via the sheer number of bodies and lead they can throw at them.

[Zednark]

I recall a point in reading Cyberpunk 2020 material (maybe Listen Up You Primitive Screwheads?) and the book actually suggested nuking characters from orbit (you know, the "It's the only way to be sure" line) and I don't think they were joking. Cyberpunk games, and Shadowrun in particular, can get hijacked by gamers who know what they're doing. Now, the opposition should always be at a realistic level, so why not give the PCs higher-level jobs? Have them meet a new fixer with lots of clout, have him or her hire them for a trial run, and if that goes smoothly, leverage them for high profile jobs. Raid Shiawase North America's regional offices. Have them work a hit on a dragon. Have them make enemies with a prominent suit (VP in an AAA, or CEO in an AA) and watch the sparks fly. Maybe run The CFD/Bug Spirit/Shedim/Zombie apocalypse. Then society can collapse around them!

Actually, that Zombie apocalypse idea isn't bad. Zombies aren't difficult to work into the setting, and the chaos they'd cause would be interesting. And here's an article for zombies in a Cyberpunk game!

http://www.verminary.com/cyberpunk/cybzombi.html

Of course, that's just for Cyberpunk 2020, but it's mostly zombie genre advice with a Cyberpunk slant, as opposed to actual rules.

But back on topic, just give the players higher level jobs. It's pretty fun doing that anyway.

[toturi]

Now, the opposition should always be at a realistic level, so why not give the PCs higher-level jobs?

But back on topic, just give the players higher level jobs. It's pretty fun doing that anyway.

The GM can try to give them "higher level" jobs. But the players should not be forced to take them.

[Zednark]

The GM can try to give them "higher level" jobs. But the players should not be forced to take them.

True, but really, how many Shadowrun characters actually refuse jobs? It might make sense in the fiction, but it's kind rude (at the very least) to the GM who put the adventure together.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

True, but really, how many Shadowrun characters actually refuse jobs? It might make sense in the fiction, but it's kind rude (at the very least) to the GM who put the adventure together.

We have had Characters refuse jobs in the past, and will probably have some in the future. Sometimes the Cost/Benefit analysis indicates that you tell the Johnson No and walk.

[Glyph]

The GM can try to give them "higher level" jobs. But the players should not be forced to take them.

Ideally, yes, but not every GM is willing (or in some cases, even able) to run a sandbox game. At some tables, the unspoken rule is to take whatever job is offered, even if it doesn't pay enough or smells like a setup, because it is the only adventure the GM has prepared for the session, and improvisation is not one of the GM's strong areas.

[toturi]

Ideally, yes, but not every GM is willing (or in some cases, even able) to run a sandbox game. At some tables, the unspoken rule is to take whatever job is offered, even if it doesn't pay enough or smells like a setup, because it is the only adventure the GM has prepared for the session, and improvisation is not one of the GM's strong areas.

Then there should be a compelling in-game reason why the characters took the job despite their misgivings, this is simply good roleplaying.

[Adhoc]

Then there should be a compelling in-game reason why the characters took the job despite their misgivings, this is simply good roleplaying.

If the players can motivate their rejection based on their character's motivations, they are welcome to do it. We've even had a character call the Johnson midrun and insist on a payraise as a dragon suddenly was involved. Johnson wasn't happy but it panned out in the end.

I write the scenarios myself; partly because I like it and partly because we're playing in a very specific setting - Copenhagen, Denmark, 2076 - where we all live IRL so we really know it really well.

And adapting commercial scenarios to the setting would require almost as much work as making them from scratch. Besides, very few of the commercial scenarios have the required quality. I can't improvise at the same level of quality as I can do when I have prepared. So the players are welcome to reject the prepared scenario, but it comes at the cost of reduced quality of content.

I wouldn't mind running a sandbox game, but then the players would have to accept that a lot of it would be improvised.

A.

[Koekepan]

And adapting commercial scenarios to the setting would require almost as much work as making them from scratch. Besides, very few of the commercial scenarios have the required quality. I can't improvise at the same level of quality as I can do when I have prepared. So the players are welcome to reject the prepared scenario, but it comes at the cost of reduced quality of content.

I wouldn't mind running a sandbox game, but then the players would have to accept that a lot of it would be improvised.

A.

I have your answer, I think.

If you look back at my early posts in this thread, where I recommended setting up a list of companies, people, and interrelationships, it becomes a lot easier to put something out on the fly, partly because you should already have some run ideas at least floating out there based on the background, but it also becomes a lot easier to create a rich environment.

Also, I think it's perfectly reasonable, if the party refuses a run, to say: "OK guys, I'll roll with that, but give me ten minutes to organise my notes." You step aside, they grab a drink, and you grab a run idea from your big backlog, make sure that all the preconditions make sense, and then step back up to the table.

Good compromise between preparation and flexibility, and it goes really well with playing the long game to torment their souls ...

Oh, and if they refuse a run, there should be negative effects to their rep, at least with the fixer who set it up. Maybe their next run will pay less? Hooding? Bringing toys to the orphans of Christiania?

[toturi]

If the players can motivate their rejection based on their character's motivations, they are welcome to do it. We've even had a character call the Johnson midrun and insist on a payraise as a dragon suddenly was involved. Johnson wasn't happy but it panned out in the end.

I write the scenarios myself; partly because I like it and partly because we're playing in a very specific setting - Copenhagen, Denmark, 2076 - where we all live IRL so we really know it really well.

And adapting commercial scenarios to the setting would require almost as much work as making them from scratch. Besides, very few of the commercial scenarios have the required quality. I can't improvise at the same level of quality as I can do when I have prepared. So the players are welcome to reject the prepared scenario, but it comes at the cost of reduced quality of content.

I wouldn't mind running a sandbox game, but then the players would have to accept that a lot of it would be improvised.

A.

I sincerely doubt most people can improvise better than when they are prepared. What I do is prepare the background as much as I can similar to Koekepan's suggestion. I also have a backup run prepared, usually suited to one or more characters' personal motivations/contacts, so that there is a smaller chance of it being refused.

[Glyph]

Oh, and if they refuse a run, there should be negative effects to their rep, at least with the fixer who set it up. Maybe their next run will pay less? Hooding? Bringing toys to the orphans of Christiania?

I think it depends on why they refused a run (scruples? wanted more money than was feasible for that kind of job? smelled like a setup?), although their actual reputation would be affected by how possibly biased outsiders would view their motivations. In other words, maybe they smell a setup, then another team takes the run, and fails because the Johnson's second choice of team was less capable than the PCs. Even though there was nothing actually wrong with the run, the team will still get a good rep as being "nobody's fools." On the other hand, if they refuse because of scruples, the rumor-mill might say that they got cold feet because they thought the job was too tough for them.

It depends on the game. In games where the GM has a run ready to go that is intended for play, refusing a run might give the characters a worse reputation (since there will be less valid reasons to refuse it). Other GMs not only expect runners to turn down runs, but will also occasionally give them a run that it is a good idea to turn down.

[Koekepan]

I think it depends on why they refused a run (scruples? wanted more money than was feasible for that kind of job? smelled like a setup?), although their actual reputation would be affected by how possibly biased outsiders would view their motivations. In other words, maybe they smell a setup, then another team takes the run, and fails because the Johnson's second choice of team was less capable than the PCs. Even though there was nothing actually wrong with the run, the team will still get a good rep as being "nobody's fools." On the other hand, if they refuse because of scruples, the rumor-mill might say that they got cold feet because they thought the job was too tough for them.

It depends on the game. In games where the GM has a run ready to go that is intended for play, refusing a run might give the characters a worse reputation (since there will be less valid reasons to refuse it). Other GMs not only expect runners to turn down runs, but will also occasionally give them a run that it is a good idea to turn down.

Excellent points, and I should have taken account of the possibilities. What I was mostly considering was the embarrassment of the fixer, because presumably the fixer told Johnson that these guys were the go-to team, who could make the problem go away.

[toturi]

It depends on the game. In games where the GM has a run ready to go that is intended for play, refusing a run might give the characters a worse reputation (since there will be less valid reasons to refuse it). Other GMs not only expect runners to turn down runs, but will also occasionally give them a run that it is a good idea to turn down.

Excellent points, and I should have taken account of the possibilities. What I was mostly considering was the embarrassment of the fixer, because presumably the fixer told Johnson that these guys were the go-to team, who could make the problem go away.

Usually I do not turn down jobs offered through the fixer. But if the fixer simply introduces the job and the runners deal with the Johnson direct, then it is not the fixer's fault that the runners turn it down. As a GM, I do give my players runs that they should turn down. Or I have their fixer tell them that so and so Johnson had tried to offer a job that did not smell right.

[JanessaVR]

Our group used the "Japanese Method" (see the section "Deniable Assets" under Neo-Tokyo in SR4 Corporate Enclaves) of working directly for a fixer back when we were running "traditional" Shadowrun games. When your work is very illegal, exactly what sense does it make to let the client know who you are by meeting them face to face? Or, from their perspective, why on Earth would they let the "hired help" for an illegal enterprise actually know who they were? The whole "traditional" method of actually meeting the Johnson makes no sense at all. When the team works for the fixer, the fixer is the go-between and sole point of contact between the two parties, and that's safer for everyone all around. Neither side can betray the identity of the other, as they don't know who they are. I really recommend reading that section of SR4 Corporate Enclaves, if you haven't already; the Japanese really do have a much better system in place here than the poor, unenlightened gaijin.

[Blade]

@JanessaVR: The different methods make sense, culturally speaking. In the US, at least in the fiction, middle-men are always "don't tell me what you want to do with that gun, I'm just a middle-man". They want deniability. In the US, fixers are often people with some legal business or social status. They can't be flagged as criminals so they keep their involvement in the business as liimted as possible.

I can't talk about Japan because I don't know much, but in China your business partners aren't just business partners (unless they're stupid westerners who don't know how to have good business relationships). Friends might not be the best word either, but it goes beyond "client-supplier" relationship. So the link between the fixer and the runner will be stronger, and the fixer will involve himself more.

[sunnyside]

I've been out of the game for a while, and I suppose I'm not even sure what ruleset you're using.

However have you considered going epic? Players often like cutting their teeth on "regular" runs that are very episodic. However at some point you can start having them mess with biggerplayers.

Doing so however runs into the complexity issue you mentioned. The "real" high ups are constantly focusing on their intricate plots and have an army of people working on security. You've got a couple hours after work and a can of red bull.

Shadowrun offers one solution of a sort, which is fundamentally changing the rules on the players. The infamous "Harlequins back" does this.

You can generally go there by throwing in Earthdawn stuff without explaining it.

On that note the players shouldn't always have the best toys. In my games I would slowly drop the contents from various rulesbooks onto the players laps, but other forces could get them first. If you've given them access to everything published, it's time to make some stuff up.

In a more general sense, I find spirits and vehicles relatively "simple" to create and throw at players. It's also more realistic those might arrive.

Also I find time pressures help immensely. Let them be the clever people they are...but do limit they time they have to do it. Time spent planning around the table "counts" as the seconds tick down.
This also tends to simplify opposition as the PCs might not "look too close".

Also consider reinforcements. Depending on what they're doing, eventually somebody could in principle call in a nations army or a tac nuke or who knows what.
Again that goes more in line with goings on at a higher level.

People have discussed turning down runs. But sometimes stuff develops through means other than a fixer. And you can also just start offering less karma for what you could start referring to as "knocking over another stuffer shack this week"

[adzling]

I'd go along with what other have said here: your lucky to have such a dedicated group!

Something does seem off about the magic use though; Force 1 Invisibility is pretty useless (unless they use reagents, which we ban at our table for just that reason) and having a bunch of force 13 spirits around seems wrong (both game-wise and balance wise).

It also seems their use of the the spell Spatial Sense and Photographic Memory is "pushing the envelope" a bit far. I mean memorizing an entire city's worth of 3D building space is just not, well, believable and certainly not anywhere close to being balanced.

I'd stop that from working in an instant.

If you want to stop them cold from using it on a specific place toss in a mana barrier, the spell can't see through them.
Don't use Mana Barriers? You should stick one on every room, building, site that needs some kind of security.
Banks, places that sell weaponry and any place client-provider discussions are private (like a doctor's or lawyer's office) will have them up and running.
Rich people and rich neighborhoods would have a veritable profusion of them.

Have you considered Background Counts?
I use them regularly on our runner team, it's important in 5e as without it you end up with no need for mundanes it then becomes 100% "magicrun".

Finally what about throwing the odd random monkey wrench at them?
What if they are stopped by a cop for a random check, can they fast talk their way out?
Do they drive around with large weaponry that might cause the cops to arrest them?
etc.

[Kuma]

But tactics isn't always down to book smarts either.

Look at the number of wars where generals neatly lined up troops and marched them straight into crippling enemy fire while their opponents sniped them and harassed them from the sides, rarely meeting them face to face.

Sorry, this always drives me nuts, and (will be) relevant to topic. Those tactics (sniping, skirmishing, and harassing fire from sharpshooters) never won a war. In the American Revolution, half the reason the US couldn't win a battle was due to the militia's inability to fight in those "neat lines". The battles fought early in the war (Concord, Lexington) were essentially a fighting retreat. The tactics of raid and counter raid used during the French and Indian wars, as well as the Boer War, were a symptom mostly of lack of logistics and lack of targets. When their was a target, the armies stood up and smashed them, because the inherent limitations of weaponry and training meant that it was the best way to delivery maximum force. More force, less front, and just like in physics, things break.

While you could argue that Cold Harbor and the Wilderness were proof that rifleman could now stop an advancing enemy force from a secured position, I can't think of a time in which a battle was won, rather than simply ceded, by a major force relying on hidden fire.

-----

Relevancy:

Shadowrunners go around the edges, because at the end of the day, you die in a hail of bullets. This depends on if you are running a episodic game or a more campaign focused, but I think the best things you can is start to change the tone a little bit. The cream rises to the top, and they start to have people notice. The fixer starts to get that high school football coach vibe (Phil, from Hercules). After all, this is world that is enamored of the mystique of shadowrunners. The best are pulp heroes. If they're flashy, maybe they get an offer to go do runs in LA for a TV show. Maybe they get groupies, or a media given team name.

Are they a blackops type? Start to pull them into the true void of the intelligence game. Congrats, they can go be James bond.

In the meantime, give them the best jobs. The real milkruns: Maybe not kitty from trees, but ops that pay better than needed for the guarantee. Jobs in cool places, flight complimentary. Give them a sense of pro athletes, rising rock stars, and legend.

Then, BAM. Throw them into a meatgrinder. Botched parachute behind enemy lines, gear broken, low on ammo, and you landed in the hellhound kennel.

Point is: don't always challenge the characters mechanically. Challenge them with the story. You can build a deathtrap. (Hell, its not that hard. Its a warded hallway with claymore mines on both sides. Mm...flaming PC mist. ) Build challenges to the mindsets of the characters, whether its pride, morality, rage (going after loved ones), lust (if you're good enough, someone is running counterintelligence on you, and the girlfriend is a spy reveal, especially if you set it up for months, is just great), greed (i can get the grail before it falls Indy!), anything will make for a better story, and it wont make you have to right up more bads guys.

Final thought: Humanize your dehumanization. Craft it well, so it hurts more, and they'll remember it longer.