Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: A Rant at GMs
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Kremlin KOA
Okay I am seeing a lot of GMs making threads here that basically complain that their players are out of control

Why?

Unlimited power not all it is cracked up to be?

Remember GMs you are god!

I need to emphasize this, You are GOD! You can use your godly power to affect your world with almost no limitations

The only limit is you can't go so far that the players leave.

People here whine that their players try and get ahead of the game, or are more powerful, or are too skilled. So?

To put it simply, players want to advance, they don't want anything to be static. You can use this to make the game the way you want it.

Let me give a few examples just using only ONE of your godly powers. Your control of Karma

There are two ways to advance in SR, Karma and Loot.

Your players loot too much? 2 karma bonus at the end of a run where that player did not loot excessively, an additional 2 each if nobody loots excessively.

tired of PCs killing everyone, +1 karma for any run completed without any death... +2 if no shots are fired

want less skills at 6. skill at 6 costs double

the possibilities are endless


UndeadPoet
QUOTE
Your players loot too much? 2 karma bonus at the end of a run where that player did not loot excessively, an additional 2 each if nobody loots excessively.

What about mouse shamans? My sister is playing one of those, and not because of this aspect. After I told her that the "looting everything"-part of the totem would be pretty essential, she started to take literary everything from her opponents she maybe could some time make use of, just as the totem says.
Nothing wrong with it. In my group we don't get individual karma, but she certainly would get roleplaying karma if we did.
I like to play my ape shaman in a similiar way, because he has very few equipment. Just "looted" two hold-outs and an AK-97 last run, starting to grow familiar with them(he also stole some Armanté clothing and hair shampoo!).
Oracle
And what about Swordfish Mustardball?

The mouse totem isn't overpowered. Where is the problem?
Kremlin KOA
Poet, I used that one because some Gms whine about loot
UndeadPoet
Ah, I see. Sorry, then. The players of those GMs do not even know of totems and such, possibly. spin.gif
Voran
Mecha-Shiva!
UndeadPoet
That's something neither my ape- nor my sister's mouse-shaman would loot.
nezumi
It's important to remember that the line you shouldn't cross isn't making your players leave, it's making the game not fun for your players. That is much more difficult, ESPECIALLY when your players have different views of fun. I remember distinctly, when I was running the Other Game, I had two die-hard munchkins, two die-hard roleplayers, and two 'lead me by the nose' players.

The munchkins weren't having fun if they weren't getting uber. They spent waaayyy too much time thinking about that too. Which meant I could penalize them (which takes away their fun), reward everyone else (which makes it feel like favoritism), or just live with the headaches of having an unbalanced party. The roleplayers got frustrated because the party was unbalanced, but didn't want to do the work to catch up. The 'lead me by the nose' players I NEVER knew if they were having fun. I assume they were, they came back every week, but nothing I could do would elicit obvious pleasure (however forcing them to roleplay did elicit obvious frustration).

I DID come up with an ingenious solution. Namely, I let the munchkins have high powered, high-risk things (like a wand that had about a 20-30% chance of seriously harming the user). And the munchkins enjoyed roleplaying too, so I pushed more of that. But looking back on it, there is little more I could have done to marry such different goals. It's like asking a group of people where they want to go to dinner.
Azralon
QUOTE (nezumi)
But looking back on it, there is little more I could have done to marry such different goals. It's like asking a group of people where they want to go to dinner.

The analogy I've been using is that the GM is the guy responsible for ordering the pizza.

He asks everyone what they want, receives potentially incompatible answers and/or indecision, and then he orders the pie based off the best compromise he can come up with. From week to week, he might vary the toppings a bit to keep as many people happy as possible, but for the most part the typical configuration is established.

If someone decides the compromises aren't good enough for them, they leave, and the potential topping combinations change. If a new person shows up, the dynamic changes yet again.

In any case, the odds are good that no one is going to be offered exactly the pizza that they want at any given time. The point is the social gathering, though, so everyone should either learn to compromise or go eat elsewhere.
Backgammon
That's an over simplification, Kremlin. As was pointed out, the GM has the power to simply say "you can't do that", or penalize an action so much that it's not worth doing it.

We all know that.

People come to the forums to ask others ways to smoothly solve problems, preferably using existing rules or SR-consistent logic. It is far more bearable for a player to be told "you can't carry a PAC around cause Lone Star is gonna get you" then "You can't carry that around, munchie, cause you're gonna kill my NPCs too easily"

QUOTE
You can use this to make the game the way you want it.

I thought it was about making it how everyone wants it.
Azralon
QUOTE (Backgammon)
QUOTE
You can use this to make the game the way you want it.

I thought it was about making it how everyone wants it.

Actually, it's about both. The trick is that the two goals are usually incompatible.
Backgammon
QUOTE (Azralon)
QUOTE (Backgammon @ Apr 19 2006, 01:06 PM)
QUOTE
You can use this to make the game the way you want it.

I thought it was about making it how everyone wants it.

Actually, it's about both. The trick is that the two goals are usually incompatible.

I didn't say "everyone else". 'Everyone' includes the GM. But, agreed on what you're saying.
mdynna
I think every player of an RPG should have a turn at GM'ing. It's a tough job, no bones about it. It's his/her job to make sure everyone has fun and that can be very difficult. Especially when there can be incredibly conflicting goals. Some players want to be challenged, while others just want their characters to march through blasting everything. It is a rare and special thing when you can get a group of players together that all have the same play style.
Teulisch
the first step where a GM needs to step in, is in character creation. when you review characters, look for potential problems, and point those out to the player. work with them to make a better character. If they really want to play something broken, then its improper to go out of your way to hit em with that- once a game is enough usualy, a reminder that they have this issue they have to deal with.

now, part of the problem may be that what a player feels is 'skilled professional, able to do this job', a GM sees as 'munckin, rules-abuse'. The latter happens when you get a bunch of stats, with no personality and no moral code. some people want a brutal killer, or a ninja-like assasin, even when told that such a character wont fit in the setting. People who want to play wolverine can break a game, because they do stupid things 'for fun', get themselves and the rest of the team killed, and then make a carbon copy without caring. the problem is not the character, its the attitude of the player.

but if all that is happening, is that a couple runners are very efficient at what they do? give them more dangerous jobs. add in more plot twists, or side plots, that complicate a run.
SL James
QUOTE (Teulisch @ Apr 19 2006, 01:35 PM)
People who want to play wolverine can break a game, because they do stupid things 'for fun', get themselves and the rest of the team killed, and then make a carbon copy without caring. the problem is not the character, its the attitude of the player.

Plus they don't seem to know jack about the character they're ripping o... "emulating."
James McMurray
Yes, a GM is GOD in his game world, but the game runs smoother, funner, and better if he doesn't have to rely on using his godlike powers, which only happens whent he players and GMs can all come to an agreement about the power level they want to have in the campaign.

For your two examples, there are better ways to go about it IMO.

Loot: looting takes time. If "too much" looting is going on, do something to push the action forward. Sirens in the distance can do that much faster and realistically than altering karma awards.

Killing: murderers get hunted much harder than thieves. If you break into a compound and steal stuff the corp and/or the Star may come looking. If you kill every gaurd in sight you also add in the coworkers, friends, and spouses to the possible pool of vengeance seekers.
Dragonscript
As a GM i tend to change the way i run the game by how the payers acts. If they start looting too much? Just make the situation change so either they can't loot, it is pretty hard to look during a gang-bike gun battle while being chased by the cops, or make it so they have to use all that loot more often, i throw more low powered NPCs at them to soak up all the bullets and since they have crappy guns the PCs don't tend to loot them.

GrinderTheTroll
QUOTE (James McMurray)
Yes, a GM is GOD in his game world, but the game runs smoother, funner, and better if he doesn't have to rely on using his godlike powers, which only happens whent he players and GMs can all come to an agreement about the power level they want to have in the campaign.

For your two examples, there are better ways to go about it IMO.

Loot: looting takes time. If "too much" looting is going on, do something to push the action forward. Sirens in the distance can do that much faster and realistically than altering karma awards.

Killing: murderers get hunted much harder than thieves. If you break into a compound and steal stuff the corp and/or the Star may come looking. If you kill every gaurd in sight you also add in the coworkers, friends, and spouses to the possible pool of vengeance seekers.

Words to live by.
ronin3338
It seems like so much of what we discuss here, can be remedied by playing the game, rather than the rules.

I work with my players at chargen, and we come up with a background and the skills/cyber/resources all fit with that background.

In game, they know that I won't pull a GM fiat "just because" (I've lost some "level bosses" that way frown.gif )and I know that they'll listen to my reasoning when I override a RAW or interpret something differently than them.

GMs don't have ultimate power, because a god without any faithful has no power. It's a cooperative effort.
And like mdynna says, let them GM a while. Even gods need a break wink.gif
Kremlin KOA
QUOTE (James McMurray)
Yes, a GM is GOD in his game world, but the game runs smoother, funner, and better if he doesn't have to rely on using his godlike powers, which only happens whent he players and GMs can all come to an agreement about the power level they want to have in the campaign.

For your two examples, there are better ways to go about it IMO.

Loot: looting takes time. If "too much" looting is going on, do something to push the action forward. Sirens in the distance can do that much faster and realistically than altering karma awards.

Killing: murderers get hunted much harder than thieves. If you break into a compound and steal stuff the corp and/or the Star may come looking. If you kill every gaurd in sight you also add in the coworkers, friends, and spouses to the possible pool of vengeance seekers.

That would be an example of the 'stick approach'.
Why do you feel the 'stick' approach superior to the 'carrot' approach
nezumi
QUOTE (Teulisch)
People who want to play wolverine can break a game, because they do stupid things 'for fun', get themselves and the rest of the team killed, and then make a carbon copy without caring

Odd. I break the game doing stupid things for fun not because I'm a munchkin, but because I'm a looney. I tend to play characters who are happy-go-lucky and like to ride by the seat of their pants.

That said, that certainly doesn't invalidate the point, it's still the player's fault, and it still tends to get people killed, but it isn't because I want to be a super-ninja. I just enjoy playing too much nyahnyah.gif
James McMurray
QUOTE (Kremlin KOA)
That would be an example of the 'stick approach'.
Why do you feel the 'stick' approach superior to the 'carrot' approach

It's not a matter of stick vs. carrot. It's a matter of in character vs. in rules. I'd rather handle a problem using the game world than the game system whenever possible.

There are plenty of ingame carrots available to stop killing. Some employers pay more for deathless runs, your reputation as a professional is higher, and you're more likely to get the hard jobs (i.e. those that require more than body count and therefor pay more).
Shrike30
Hey, if you're not ruining anyone's fun, who cares if the characters die?
James McMurray
True, but it's a rare occassion to have a character death not detract from the player's fun. Possible, but pretty uncommon and almost impossible to cause as a GM.
Azralon
QUOTE (James McMurray @ Apr 19 2006, 04:42 PM)
It's not a matter of stick vs. carrot. It's a matter of in character vs. in rules. I'd rather handle a problem using the game world than the game system whenever possible.

In my experience, the use of both sticks and carrots increases the value of each. Sort of a good-cop/bad-cop thing.
James McMurray
Yep, they each have their (non-mutually exclusive) places, but in either case are best done using the campaign instead of the rules.
GrinderTheTroll
QUOTE (Kremlin KOA)
QUOTE (James McMurray @ Apr 20 2006, 03:54 AM)
Yes, a GM is GOD in his game world, but the game runs smoother, funner, and better if he doesn't have to rely on using his godlike powers, which only happens whent he players and GMs can all come to an agreement about the power level they want to have in the campaign.

For your two examples, there are better ways to go about it IMO.

Loot: looting takes time. If "too much" looting is going on, do something to push the action forward. Sirens in the distance can do that much faster and realistically than altering karma awards.

Killing: murderers get hunted much harder than thieves. If you break into a compound and steal stuff the corp and/or the Star may come looking. If you kill every gaurd in sight you also add in the coworkers, friends, and spouses to the possible pool of vengeance seekers.

That would be an example of the 'stick approach'.
Why do you feel the 'stick' approach superior to the 'carrot' approach

My group reacts better to sticks than carrots, lol.
Egon
A campaign ether works or it doesn't. They can seldom be fix. Tuned yes fixed no. If the PCs can't come together into some kind of group, even a rag tag one, in 4 or 5 sessions I never try to force it.

For the most part great campions just happen they aren't truly made. A good GM, setting, and plot go a long way to having it happen, but there are no sure things. If its not happening do your self a favor and let it go. Its easier for every one to try again then to try to force it.

If you want a sure thing write a book don't GM. GMing is like herding cats. Ether the cats follow you and every thing grand, or they scatter, hide, and or claw you up.
Shrike30
QUOTE (James McMurray @ Apr 19 2006, 12:54 PM)
True, but it's a rare occassion to have a character death not detract from the player's fun. Possible, but pretty uncommon and almost impossible to cause as a GM.

Really depends on the game and the group. If you're basically running a splatterpunk game, having 1-2 characters die a session wouldn't be that out there, and the players know what they're getting into...
James McMurray
Splatterpunk games are one of those rare occassions. smile.gif
blakkie
QUOTE (Shrike30 @ Apr 19 2006, 05:05 PM)
QUOTE (James McMurray @ Apr 19 2006, 12:54 PM)
True, but it's a rare occassion to have a character death not detract from the player's fun. Possible, but pretty uncommon and almost impossible to cause as a GM.

Really depends on the game and the group. If you're basically running a splatterpunk game, having 1-2 characters die a session wouldn't be that out there, and the players know what they're getting into...

I've had the death of my character become the most memorable part of a campaign. Well not the death, but the subsiquent Reincarnation (3e campaign).

You see my PC was this Dwarf that was deluded in thinking he was actually an Elf that had been raised by Dwarves. He was a mage. He carried a sword and used a longbow whenever it possible even though he had skill in neither. He also wore prosthetic pointy ears in a way that it was most painfully obvious they were fakes. He went on and on about his elven birthright and such.

Then he died. Then the party Druid Reincarnated him. If you don't know the spell it has this little chart of 15 different possibilities based off a d100 roll. The Druid player rolls it and BAM! Elf. He had always been an Elf on the inside afterall. rotfl.gif Thus that character's death and rebirth entered the hallowed halls of our group's collective mythology and took his place among the ranks of the campaign definers.

Unfortunately he also became a she and that pretty much broke their brain. frown.gif Campaign wrapped up shortly after that and I never played him/her again.


I've seen even deaths be great and a lot of fun for all involved if the PC doesn't go before his time or quietly or meekly into that dark night, but with flair and valour and righteous coolness. Preferable with pyrotechnics. smile.gif

blakkie's rule of thumb: Don't play any PC you don't think you can stand to see die. When a PC reaches that point retire him.
eidolon
QUOTE (mdynna)
I think every player of an RPG should have a turn at GM'ing.


I disagree if you're talking about having them all run the same game you run. IME, letting everyone in our group GM a session created a false impression in their minds that they understood the game and the game system. From that point on, I couldn't run a session without someone bitching about something I wasn't doing "right", when all that was going on was me interpreting things as I saw them and adjudicating thusly. We couldn't do one argument-free session, because they all thought they knew the system and/or the setting well enough to argue it.

(Edit: Before anyone tries the "did you talk to them about it" approach, the answer is "constantly and it did no good.")

If you're saying "let them GM something to see how tough it is", then I agree wholeheartedly. I would simply advise that you have them pick a different system that the one you typically run.
blakkie
One session behind the screen isn't likely to inflict enough pain on them for a desirable effect. smile.gif From mdynna's wording i don't think a single session was the intent. More about building the experience of how tough things are from the other side, and to gain a better understanding of why somethings are done the way they are. It also can really help drive an understanding of the rules you are using, so intentionally having them GM a different system or even campaign is going to rob your potential benefits.

That aside I see as a good thing feedback and fresh looks from players to the GM about what they see as short comings in the game. You know, they might just be 'right' about the odd thing. wink.gif It is their game too.

During the gaming session is an extremely poor place to air those though. See if you can get them to try hold off till later, maybe making a quick note about taking issue with something, and then sort it out latter so you don't break the flow. Then hold up your end of the deal and make time for it and honestly and deeply consider their comments. That gives them a safety valve to blow off steam. If it sounds like a bitch session try to steer it to a more constructive vein by asking for positive suggestions. Then move on to buy-in and agreement.

If that is what you ment about a "did you talk about it" and they are continuing to rehash old "agreed" topics or are interupting the session there something is breaking down in the "agreement" step. Either you are steamrolling them into "agreement", they are pulling a passive-aggresive, or a little of both.
Cain
QUOTE
now, part of the problem may be that what a player feels is 'skilled professional, able to do this job', a GM sees as 'munckin, rules-abuse'. The latter happens when you get a bunch of stats, with no personality and no moral code. some people want a brutal killer, or a ninja-like assasin, even when told that such a character wont fit in the setting. People who want to play wolverine can break a game, because they do stupid things 'for fun', get themselves and the rest of the team killed, and then make a carbon copy without caring. the problem is not the character, its the attitude of the player.

The big problem here is, min/maxing experts and good roleplayers are not mutually exclusive. I've seen game-breaking players who'd destroy entire campaigns even if you handed them the most restricted character possible. And I've seen lots of excellent gamers who simply happen to like high-powered tactics. I am seriously reluctant to hammer on a good player who's found a break in the rules-- if he brings more fun into the game, then it's a problem with the ruleset, not the player.
eidolon
QUOTE (blakkie @ Apr 19 2006, 09:48 PM)
<snip>

I can see that we have different approaches to GMing. I come from a world of "Player's Guide" and "GM's Guide", where it's expected that the GM knows the system better than the players. Not only is it expected, but in my experience, it makes for a better game, because rather than bitching that you aren't giving them their negative one to TN for having freckles on a Tuesday, they're rolling dice and playing their character.

In short, all of them have GM'd other systems before. They should know the pain, and be able to keep it in mind as players. All but one have now GM'd at least one session (if not more) of SR. It is now impossible to run a SR game for them. I could type out a long-winded example of recent game experience to further illustrate what I'm referencing, but doing so would get away from the "universal approach" method that most of these discussions expect, and into the "this specifically happened in / works for my group and probably won't work for your group" realm.

There are two main points that keep that from really being worth the effort atm:

1. DS discussions tend to be "sterile". They tend to discount the human game group element, and turn into philisophical debates that solve problems in a "perfect world" scenario, but don't actually work when applied to an average game group.

2. On DS, the attitude seems to be fairly heavily slanted toward "the player is right / the GM is just another player" attitude. I disagree with this view to my very bones, but most posters stating anything of the kind are just browbeaten with such non sequiturs as "you're just not a good GM".
Kremlin KOA
I see people miss the point entirel

You refer to in game changes vs game rule ones
you refer to good GMing being about everyone getting what they want

You miss the point!

The point is simple. GMs job is to make sure it is fun

GM has amazing power to do so. first GM should look at these things.WHat do (almost) all players want.

Players, nearly universally, want these things

1: They want to have fun
2: they want to see their character achieve/advance
3: They want to feel in control of their actions

This means these things

1: Make it interesting for them
2: Give them OPPORTUNITIES for advancement.
3: Let them choose what their characters try to do.


You want to head the game in ways that follow the interesting story and keep you having fun as well

Tis means you should use the opportunities for advancements as signs for the way the PCs should go.

You basically use Pavlovian training to influence behaviour.

Behaviour you like gets more karma
Behaviour you dislike gets less

If you are awarding extra karma for combat, people will fight more often
If you offer it for Character interaction and stealth, the game will focus on those things.
If you offer a point of Karma for everyturn dropped on a corp's desks Then by the end of the run, EVERY desk will stink.

Karma is a POWERFUL tool to influence

Just remember these things
GM = God
Good = Behaviour that God approves of
Karma = Reward for Good
therefore, whatever you award karma for, is the definition of 'Good' in your game.
Backgammon
No, we're not missing the point.

You're saying the best way to get players to act like you want is to give more or less karma.

Everyone else is saying there are other ways.

Karma is, yes, a good way. It's just not the only way. This thread started off with you ranting about how people who post here are dumb cause all they need to do is mess with karma awards. Which we have all completely disagreed with, since that won't always work.
Kremlin KOA
no, I am merely giving a single advantage

I am not calling everyone idiots

I am merely showing that more than half the 'player problems' are both caused, and solvable, by the GM

not just with Karma

the trick is to find what the players want, and make your gameworld such that for them to get it, they do the things ya want them to do.

karma was merely the EXAMPLE I used
DireRadiant
I have had many players who are not motivated by Karma|XP in any way. This makes them very hard to manipulate with karma awards.
blakkie
QUOTE (eidolon @ Apr 20 2006, 01:37 AM)
QUOTE (blakkie @ Apr 19 2006, 09:48 PM)
<snip>

I can see that we have different approaches to GMing. I come from a world of "Player's Guide" and "GM's Guide", where it's expected that the GM knows the system better than the players. <snip>

I guess by "did you talk about it"-"constantly and it did no good" you ment something closer to "I told them to STFU and they won't". rotfl.gif rotfl.gif rotfl.gif You are reaping what you sow. Autocratic arrogance leading to rebellion. Discounting the human game group element indeed. wobble.gif Flat out discounting the humans.

Well good luck.

EDIT: BTW I've been in the world of "Player's Guide" and "GM's Guide" too, and found it bankrupt. Because there is 1 brain on one side of the screen, and 3 or more brains on the other side. I should call it something past arrogance to expect that you will always know more about the rules and recall it each time better than all of the all players put together. Unless you are playing with real drooling morons incapable of memory retention and recall, which would beg the question why do that? All this much more so in a game system where there is no such divide of books, or inane "players are forbidden to read these rules" malarky. cyber.gif
NightHaunter
My belief is that the "game world" environment is a much better motivational tool than some rules, getting less karma they may not notice, but an angry mob burning their characters condo down that will get their attention.

But tell me more of these mythic sticks and magic carrots of which you speak.
blakkie
QUOTE (Kremlin KOA @ Apr 20 2006, 06:30 AM)
the trick is to find what the players want, and make your gameworld such that for them to get it, they do the things ya want them to do.

One good way to do that is to see where they spend their karma and the "trimmings" bought at character creation. See an odd Knowledge Skill? A curious Negative/Positive Quality? A Skill that seems oddball for the character? Ask the player why that is there? Not as an inquisition hunt for the inproperly built character, but as a way understand the strengths, goals, and outlook of the character that the player intended. Then build obstacles to really challenge them on that.

Players don't need to write down a background, it's encoded right there on the character sheet already. Contacts are a goldmine for this kind of stuff. They are built in hooks. Which is why I encourage to give 'free' contact points as per the sole house rule in my character generator (see my sig). Hooks baby. A real Trojan gift those contact points are. smile.gif

If they aren't use to questions like that, and maybe they built their character just as a collection of unrelated numbers then encourage the player to figure out what kind of character they really built . Give them some time and then ask them again.

Another excellent way is to ask them questions along the line of "so what kind of game are you looking for?" and "what is your character interested in?". Even better is listening to the incharacter requests of what they are looking for.

Are you always going to be able to provide exactly what they are looking for? I highly doubt it. It is a matter of integrating it all in, and stuff needs to get mushed around for that.
blakkie
QUOTE (NightHaunter @ Apr 20 2006, 07:35 AM)
My belief is that the "game world" environment is a much better motivational tool than some rules, getting less karma they may not notice, but an angry mob burning their characters condo down that will get their attention.

Hear! Hear! notworthy.gif

Epecially for encouraging "roleplaying". Karma for roleplaying is my pet peve. Reward player roleplaying with character crunchie numbers? A pretty flower that smellls baaaad. wobble.gif
nezumi
QUOTE (Kremlin KOA)
GM has amazing power to do so. first GM should look at these things.WHat do (almost) all players want.

Players, nearly universally, want these things

1: They want to have fun
2: they want to see their character achieve/advance
3: They want to feel in control of their actions

The problem begins with your premise being so broad that it's useless. Yes, the players want to have fun, but what if one player has fun by randoming killing other PCs? Well then we have a conflict, and no matter what, ONE player is not having as much fun as he could.

Players want to see their characters advance/achieve. I'm not sure about this. I know that karma/XP alone isn't the motivation for half the players I encounter. I regularly have to remind my wife to spend her XP so she doesn't die in combat due to power imbalances. She simply doesn't really care. Why would giving her more XP encourage her to do anything at all if she doesn't spend what she already has? She plays for the story, so all rewards need to be story rewards. This is complex when the advancement one player seeks is in direct contradiction to what another player seeks, for instance one is interested in being an uber sword fighter everyone is trying to kill because he burns down villages, and the other is trying to get elected president. Even though I can reward both characters, rewarding one is generally at the cost to another.

Players want control of their actions - this too is not always true. Many players don't care a whit about what their character does in combat or in a social situation or whatever, they just want to survive it so they can get back into whats interesting. I have had players (and I myself have been tempted) who just handed their characters over to GM control and said 'do whatever you think is best, I'm going to go read a book.'


So for a group of people who are all interested in karma, your ideas work. For a group of people who all want karma and enjoy combat, it works better. For a group of people who, some like combat and spend karma, some like social interactions and need to be reminded to spend karma, and some just like to goof around and bend their karma into balloon animals, your suggestions are, unfortunately, of limited use without being broadened in their applicability.
Backgammon
QUOTE (Kremlin KOA)
no, I am merely giving a single advantage

I am not calling everyone idiots

I am merely showing that more than half the 'player problems' are both caused, and solvable, by the GM

not just with Karma

the trick is to find what the players want, and make your gameworld such that for them to get it, they do the things ya want them to do.

karma was merely the EXAMPLE I used

Ok, I misread some of your statements.

Although, re-reading it all, I do wonder what exactly the point of this thread is. The way I understood it, and maybe it's just me here, was that you're saying "player problems are easy to fix, so no need to discuss it". And, as we pointed out and I think you seem to agree, using in-game logic to curtail bad behaviour is preferable, and that's not always easy to think of, hence the need to ask people what they think.

So.. what are we talking about here?
Kremlin KOA
okay if they want certain kinds of social interactions, use those as the 'carrots'

I obviously erred by using karma as the example

the key I was trying to get at was , 'Know thy players.'

oh and the player who seems to get off on killingPCs, have a chat and find out why

then see what they get out of it, and realign the game so they get that through the things you want to see

Example on that: we had a player in a game at a club I play at. He used to Pk a lot. Turns out he just wanted attention. Sowe ignored him when he did the PK bit, and payed him more attention when he came up with plans and helped out in party goals


EDIT: what we talking about is the recent flux of threads that seem to be GMs not asking for advice so much as complaining about how 'bad' their players are
blakkie
QUOTE (Kremlin KOA @ Apr 20 2006, 08:52 AM)
EDIT: what we talking about is the recent flux of threads that seem to be GMs not asking for advice so much as complaining about how 'bad' their players are

I never really noticed that, but now that you mention maybe there is a new surge of it in the SR4 forum. I guess I'm just so use to seeing it on the main SR forum that it just blew right past me.
Kremlin KOA
the upswing of it in the SR4 forum coincided with about 3 local GMs whining about it IRL
blakkie
Ah. That makes it clearer.
NightHaunter
QUOTE (blakkie)
QUOTE (Kremlin KOA @ Apr 20 2006, 08:52 AM)
EDIT: what we talking about is the recent flux of threads that seem to be GMs not asking for advice so much as complaining about how 'bad' their players are

I never really noticed that, but now that you mention maybe that is a new thing to the SR4 forum. I guess I'm just so use to seeing in on the main SR forum that it just blew right past me.

My players aren't bad just new to the game and world.
Like all good gamers they picked up the mechanics well but the world beyond them is somewhat of a mystery for them at the moment.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012