Alrighty folks, I've started this thread to get the ball rolling on organizing this bad boy. For those of you who are curious bastards and wanna lurk and watch this is going to be a collaborative storytelling project. Instead of having a single GM running a storyline that players follow and flavor with their own subplots, we're instead starting a game where everyone is equally the GM. In the hopes of creating a detailed and intricate web of stories and destinies, there will be much more ooc collaboration to ensure the story moves ahead smoothly. My hope is to begin creating a regular webcomic using the stories and characters generated here. (crosses fingers)

This type of project will likely be diffuclt to manage which is why participation is set as invitation only. It is important that I not only have confidence in the participants as players, but also as GM's. It is possible that we will recruit additional players into the game, but at this point the doors are closed while we get some idea of how this will work best.

The base concept is centered around a set of twins, both young (approx. 10 years), who were born from day one with awakened abilities. Though they are by all accounts identical twins, one is a boy and one is a girl (ah the wonder's of modern science). The girl, an otaku/technomancer and the boy is a magic user, tradition unknown. They are more than mere children. Their gifts, and their vision, enables them with an unusual level of wisdom, calm intelligence and deeper understanding of the chaotic world that exists. (think of the girl who explained the concept of the bending spoon to Neo )

They believe they are destined to bring about a sort of utopian balance of the three worlds (wireless matrix, astral reality and mundane existance) and are accompanied by an archtypical cast of shadowrunners who for whatever reasons near and dear to their hearts, souls or credsticks, find themselves on the same path/quest.

Currently, we have Buddha72 playing the boy mage, myself playing the girl technomancer and Grendel will be taking the counterpoint as our nemesis/advasary. (who better to play the big bad evil corp dude:)) McQuillan, Fenris and ES Sparky have all been invited to create SR players to fill out the team. At this point, these are the members that should be posting here.

To the five of you, thanks for saying yes to this crazy project! While I came up with the silly idea, it should now belong equally to all of us. I am anxious to hear any ideas on how best to organize this so that we have a smooth storyline moving forward.

Yay! happy to announce that WinterRat1 has accepted an invitation to join as well. Welcome!

Greatness!

Howdy all. Let the chaos ensue. Oh, uh, wait... We're supposed to be fixing that...

It’s an honor to be a part of this group. Thanks for the invitation and I look forward to working with you all.

Here are some initial considerations I’d like to toss out for discussion:

Structural Considerations

1. What is the scale of the story? How far reaching are the implications of our character’s actions? Is the focus going to be centered on the characters themselves (their actions, responses, lives, development, role in the story, etc) or the story (the consequences of their actions, implications, development of the world at large, etc.)?

2. What is the scope of the story? Is the focus on the singular quest to achieve the utopian balance between the three worlds, or we will be examining the implications of their quest (and the consequences of such a quest) across the board, so to speak?

3. What is the format of GMing we will be using? Are we going to implement some sort of permanent or rotating GM system, or will this truly be an effort in collaborative storytelling?

4. To what extent, if any, will dice play in the story? Are we going to use a diceless system or use standard rules (I’m assuming SR 4, since we have technomancers), and if we use rules, are there going to be any house rules and who will determine them?

5. Do we have a mechanism for maintaining internal consistency between us?

6. What is our ultimate goal? To tell a story, play a game, a combination of the two, or something else entirely? That will impact our structure and direction.

7. Do we have a system for coming to final decisions? I think it is fair to say that achieving unanimous consensus on all major decisions (let alone all decisions) will be nearly impossible. I suggest that we will need to implement some sort of structure that allows us to come to conclusions quickly and decisively when discussion has been exhausted and the time for a decision is necessary.

8. How will we juggle the fact that each person is simultaneously a GM and a player? Relying on individual maturity and discretion is necessary to an extent, but I think we need at least the basic framework of a structure within which to exercise that discretion.

9. Do we have a predetermined end point for this story, or are we allowing it to develop as we go along? If we have a set timeline for the story, then it makes sense to begin breaking down the timeline into its component parts and examining each part in more detail. Conversely, if we want the story to develop and unfold as we go, then we need to build into our structure the flexibility to allow that to happen.

10. If there is a genuine intent to attempt to develop this into a webcomic or similar media product (novel, comic, etc.) the considerations of converting this from a play-by-post game to our chosen medium should at least be cursorily examined, to ensure a smooth transition (not to mention ensure we actually can convert from one medium to another!) from one form to the other.

Mechanical Start Up Questions

1. What is the time period we are starting at? Obviously starting in 2070 when technomancers are an established phenomenon is very different from starting a few years prior, when they are just beginning to emerge.

2. What system of character creation should we use? Is there going to be an established BP limit, or should we create characters to fit the scale and scope of the story as appropriate?

3. Where would the story start? Are we going to start with the team gradually coming together and eventually interacting with the children, or will the game begin with the entire group (team plus children), and the story of how they came together will be narrated in a flashback style format? This decision is relevant to character backstory and development, in case people are wondering why I put this out for discussion so early.

Obviously I have some initial thoughts on most of these issues, if not all of them, but I would like to pause for the time being so my initial post is not too long winded and to give everyone a chance to start thinking about and discussing some of these considerations. If there’s stuff I missed (or on the flip side, if I presented some things that people think are not worth discussing) please feel free to point that out.

I hope that helps get the ball rolling for discussion, so let’s get this show on the road!

Wow, that was an excellent entrance Winter

This looks like an awesome guideline for us to begin our discussions. It is a lot to go over so I'll break it up a bit.

Structural Considerations

Part 2 (and much shorter, thankfully

Mechanical Start Up Questions

what the hell happened!? I had this beautiful HUGE post addressing all of your questions...and it all disappeared except for that one question??

Ah ha. I thought that was rather odd. Um, please tell me you saved aforementioned beautiful HUGE post somewhere else before it was lost in the digital ether? If not, perhaps the admins can help with its recovery, I know LITS has had similar problems during periods of forum trouble and we were able to recover most of our stuff.

Poking my nose in to let people know that I'm here and have accepted the invite. Once we get some of the mechanics nailed down by Blitz as to what her vision is, I'll start throwing out my own list of questions to the group assembled.

If anyone gets emailed notifications of posts, they should have the whole version. It was all there until I was stupid and edited it to bold the stupid subtitle.

I'm sorry, but it won't work. I get emailed notifications of posts, and I checked the notification link, and it only shows the most recent version of the thread. If the admins can't get it for you then I'm afraid you'll have to reenlighten us with your thoughts, because you can't backtrack through the previous notification links.

I can't recreate it while working, least not until maybe lunch time. Expect it by the end on tonight.

Good points all from WinterRat and much the same questions I would have. I think a structure just to address the issues that always seem to come up during these games is an excellent plan. The big question now is what.

As for the twins, I like the idea of having no idea of their life before and through the course of the thread drawing the team together while the "bad guys" work to stop us, maybe even with us not at all aware of their interference. I like seeing the relationships form through the story and it lets the other players really roleplay their lives before and after joining the team. That's my two cents.

1.

I envision it as a sort of snowball effect. We start as your average run of the mill local shadowrunners, but over the course of the game I anticipate the stories becoming bigger, more far-reaching and influential first locally, then eventually globally.

2.

The main point of this project is for there to be a much richer character development than you typically see in a game. Usually individual character stories, even really well written ones with detailed backhistory and a plethora of plot hooks, get lost in the plot of a game, left to the player alone to make references to it if they choose. In this collaboration, I'd like all those stories to be woven together to create a tapestry more true to how life works, with a bit of fantasy, cyberware and extra cool stuffs thrown in for fun! While the inspiration for the start point was my idea of the twins, I would hope that every character participating has an equally compelling and interesting story to tell. I really want this to be an equal participation deal.

3.

When it comes to the actual process we end up using, Im willing to let the more analytical minds on this project take point.

4.

I definately want us to be basing the system we come up with on SR4. While I am open to a diceless system if that proves to be the best option, I want to really keep in line with the new system. The reasoning for this is that if the comic goes well, I may seek to get official support from Fanpro/Wizkids and if the strip is a good "ad" for the game, I'll have better luck.

5.

Nope...got any suggestions?

6.

Yes really all of the above. The story is paramount, but I would like elements of chance and choice equally so there should definately be some game elements to it. While I would like us all to have a conscious idea of where we are heading in general, the exact path there should be something a bit more nebulous. Not only will this help us to maintain our own interest in the project, it will flow better as a story in my opinion.

7.

I'd say with this group I don't really expect any major issues, but a majority vote should work for any final decisions. However, I think it's important that all characters/players have the right to veto an action or decision that will radically change their character (such as death, permanant disability, loss of a core ability to their concept, etc). No decision should be made that alienates any other player. Again, don't expect any problems with this group in that regard, that's why I kept it invite only

8.

We'll definately need some sort of framework. Again, I have no initial ideas on this so Im wide open to suggestions.

9.

No predetermined end. I really want the game to have an organic, real life feel. The type of goal I gave the twins could theoretically span their lifetime

10.

This I don't think is as important an issue to deal with from this side of things. I wont promise that if the comic goes forward that it will be word for word or action for action from the posts here. It may end up as being only a rough guideline, or may end up being scripted straight from the forums onto sketch paper. The concept originally came from my desire to get my brain out of a funk, but the idea of having this sort of detailed storytelling collaboration is neat enough even if the comic never comes to fruition.

'ello all.

I don't have thoughts or opinions to throw down on everything, but I'll add my two cents in where it occurs to me to do so.

Structural Questions:


Mechanial Start-up questions:

NOTE: This was written before I saw Fenris's post, and so does not include any response, direct or indirect to his thoughts.

Broad Structural Considerations

Scale and Scope


An Ultimate Goal and Predetermined End Point



More thoughts to follow as I make time to write up some thoughts on a Functional Structure and Framework within which to operate.

Everyone by all means chime in with your thoughts on what has been presented so far so I can continually assess and reevaluate my own thoughts. I tried to keep it short and to the point so if there’s a need for further elaboration or clarification of my thoughts, please let me know. Thanks!

Be careful when editing your posts everyone. There seems to be some problem where random stuff gets lost if you edit a post and resubmit it. I recommend copying and pasting for a while from a saved document until the problem is fixed, especially if you write something long.

Yeah...was really careful the second time that was posted

I am very intereted in exploring the consequences of the quest we are on, but I disagree that our focus should be on the destination. I perceive the story as being the journey and not the success or failure of the mission. A big part of the reasoning behind my decision to quest for utopia is because I believe there are no utopia's only distopia's newly forming . Stories reflecting the attempts to create utopia's and the causes for their eventual collapse have always captivated me and Im eager to tell my own utopian story.

I want to explore all the social, political, economic and personal rammifications of such a quest, but I don't want that quest to be overshadowing the lives our characters are living. As an analogy, compare the story to a salad. The quest is the greens. A great base for the overall story. It's the foundation for where we start and where we're going. However, greens alone makes for a rather boring flat salad. it's the addition of the bacon, and the chicken and the cheese and the tomatoes and the cucumbers etc. that makes for a full robust and filling meal The other characters in the story are the extra toppings. (I know..lame analogy, but I didn't sleep last night )

I agree with Fenris for the most part about using the game mechanics of SR4 as our guideline, but given that I'd like all the characters to be exceptional in some special unique way, I think there needs to be room for flexibility to an extent.

I'm gonna say this about GMing duties. This is in response to Fenris' post. I don't think that sectioning off responsibilities in the is a good idea. If I'm understanding you right Fen, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're proposing a Matrix GM and a Magic GM and a Combat GM or something like that.

I think that will happen naturally, and maybe we do need to designate GMs to have the Last Say in different areas of mechanics, but I think our roles as GMs shouldn't stop there, because - now it's Blitz's turn to correct me if I'm wrong - I think the idea here is to get divergent approaches GMing the story to get a more unpredictable, organic world than we might otherwise have with one GM responsible for everything plot and story related.

That said - I think you're right that we could end up with chaos if everyone is pursuing everything. SO... I propose this:

Each player's PC will be adopted by a GM Secret Santa style. Except not Secret. For example: I adopt FenrisPC, Fenris adopts BlitzPC, Blitz adopts WinterPC, Winter adopts BuddhaPC, Buddha adopts McQPC, McQ adopts grendelPC, grendel adopts mePC.

(Blitz would make the selections, whether at random or by choice, her option - though neither she nor Buddha should adopt each other, nor either of them adopt or be adopted by grendel)

From there I think we should take turns GMing 'runs' for the group while having individual GMs advancing personal plots. Whichever GM is in the hotseat will probably be focusing on one of the PCs, but making an adventure for all.

Certainly we can lean on each other for ideas.

Where I see this collaborative GMing having problems is when the necessity of planning and integrating we will need to do as GMs starts stomping on the surprise of playing as simply player. GMs adopting players would turn the game into an intertwined series of parallel solo campaigns that becomes a group campaign because our characters are tied to one another.

It may be helpful here to clarify the distinction I am using between scale and scope.

Scale is 'how much', or a vertical examination of how large the story is we are telling. In this case, the question is, how big is the game we are playing? It appears there is general consensus so far that the story is to be told on a large (i.e. big) scale. I would suggest that we are saying the same thing Blitz, that the key part of the story is the journey, and therefore our focus for the scale is the story itself.

If we were say, doing an autobiography that was focused on a person, (think Eyes of Long Knives, where the story was focused on well, Blitz. ) that's an example of the scale of the story being focused on a person, and following wherever that person goes. No matter how much Blitz (the character) does, that's still a very small scale of a story, because the focus is on that one person. The 'how much' is always limited to Blitz herself. Expanding upon that, if we have a story that is focused only on the characters, it is still only a small scale endeavor because we are principally concerned with the characters alone.

By having a large scale vision (which a quest for utopia certainly is), I would argue that by definition we have to focus on the story, because as you stated, we are concerned with many things outside of the characters themselves. Specifically, I only say destination to mean that our focus here is on the story itself and wherever that takes us (i.e. the destination, which is really a continual sequence of destinations that form the path of the story) in whatever form that destination happens to look like. This is in contrast to focusing on the journey, which would in turn focus on the characters themselves, and thus be a small scale enterprise. Does that help clarify things?

Scope is 'how broad', or a horizontal examination of how wide the story is we are telling. In this case, to what extent (i.e. how many different ways/in how many different areas) are we examining the story? I suggested a broad scope, which would include all the things you mentioned: social, political, economic, and personal ramifications, with a special inclusion of the lives of our characters.

If we only examined the storyline itself, with a very narrow, linear focus (for example, most one shot games on DSF, with specific beginning, middle, and end points that do not deviate much from the basic story the GM has planned), that would be a narrow scope. You want a much more inclusive examination of all the things outside of the basic premise of the game itself, as you mentioned. That is a broad scope. I also agree with everything you said about what you would like to include within this broad scope and why.

Therefore, I agree with everything you said with regards to the 'how much' of a story we are telling as well as the 'how wide' of a story are we telling. I broke it up into specific aspects (scale vs. scope) because I feel that for as detailed of an undertaking as this promises to be, it's important to be on the same basic page with our terminology and concepts so we all understand exactly what it is the other is saying. These past few posts are a perfect example of how you and I said the exact same thing in two different ways. By narrowing our own unique ways of expressing ourselves to a common terminology, this will help make future communication between all of us easier.

I think this is especially important because for the most part, all communication will be written and it's generally harder to clarify the written word (and easier to misinterpret because we all have built in ways of 'reading' specific words), and without being able to do the usual back and forth clarification that happens in verbal communication, misunderstandings occur easier and with more frequency than the spoken word. Putting the time in now to ensure common definitions of specific terminology to describe certain key concepts will save us the trouble of clarifying and explaining later. Does this help clarify my position and reasoning?

BTW, aren't Caesar salads made only of greens? If I'm not mistaken, those are pretty popular salads and are offered in just about every restaurant, correct?

Winter...I see your point now, I have a feeling you are a rather left brained while I am very right brained It does seem we are on the same page and yay for that!

Oh..and ceasar salads have croutons and shredded parmesan cheese and sometimes chicken!

Traditional Caesar salads must also have anchovies in the dressing. Sometimes milk-soaked anchovies, to cut the brine.

So, give me some easy story examples here of scale and scope for our little twinks. Examples trump all forms of communication.

Technomant Twin:
Scale:
Scope:

Caster Twin:
Scale:
Scope:

In general, scale and scope are there to define the role of the people; people are not supposed to be defined by the scale and the scope.

In other words, the scale and scope of the story are determined first, and based upon that, the roles of the characters are fit into the story as appropriate. One is not typically supposed to start with the characters and then figure out how to integrate scale and scope into them.

That disclaimer aside, here is a brief, specific example per Sparky’s request:

Techno Twin (although it’d work just as well for the caster twin):

Scale (Large): The role of the techno twin in bringing about a larger utopian balance between astral, matrix, and physical worlds is the emphasis of the story. The focus is on the quest for this utopia, and the journey said quest takes the twin on. Story emphasis is on how the quest impacts the world and people the twin encounters along the way. The results of the quest are emphasized here.

Other Large Scale Examples: Any epic quest type story where actions and their consequences affect many people in a material way, such as the Star Wars Trilogy or Lord of the Rings.

Scale (Small): The techno twin’s personal journey and attempts to bring about the utopian balance are the emphasis of the story. The focus is not on the quest itself, but rather how the quest impacts, and is impacted by the twin. Story emphasis is much more personal and focuses on the individual rather than the quest; more emphasis is placed on the changes in the twin and personal development as a result of the quest rather than on the quest results themselves.

Other Small Scale Examples: Any story where the focus of the story and the consequences of people’s actions are on a small group of characters rather than the world at large, such as Firefly (the TV series, NOT the movie, which would be an example of a large scale story).

Scope (Large): The story focuses on not only the twin, but the people around the twin and perhaps even opposed to the twin. There would be solid character development of the whole team, both twins, the opposition, perhaps even other significant characters (friends and enemies) the main characters encounter along the way. The ‘main characters’ are more of a true team than a one-man show that the rest of the characters revolve around.

Other Large Scope Examples: Any story where you basically can have (or not have) any of the characters present in the show and you barely notice. Star Trek is a great example of this. On any given show, you could center it around any of the main characters, whether one or a group, and still feel that the show makes perfect sense, because they’re all well developed characters that interact with one another in a ‘balanced’ way. No particular character, not even the captain, is the centerpiece of the show. Heck, there are plenty of shows where Bad Thing X happens to the captain and the whole show is about how the rest of the crew has to save/rescue/help/get the captain back.

Scope (Small): The story focuses and follows the twin. Other characters are ancillary and are more of a ‘supporting cast’ than true main characters. The action, pace, plot development, etc. revolve around the one (or a few) main characters with the other characters in the story only defined by their relation to the main characters.

Other Small Scope Examples: Equilibrium, wherein the entire story centers on Preston and his actions. None of the other characters are really developed at all except in relation to him: Preston’s love interest, Preston’s superior, Preston’s partner he’s forced to kill, Preston’s new treacherous partner/wannabe rival, etc. Everything is defined in relation to the main character, and the story moves along entirely with the main character.

Note that on a micro level, it is perfectly possible to change combinations of scale/scope throughout the course of a story.

Firefly is the best example of this. Most of the episodes are small scale, where we are typically only shown the actions of the crew and the consequences of their actions focus primarily on them. However, Serenity (the movie) is definitely large scale as their actions and the consequences of their actions reverberate throughout the galaxy and affect pretty much everyone living in that galaxy.

They are generally large in scope in that all of the crew is well developed and all the episodes tend to involve and address each one to a significant degree. However at times the shows shift to a smaller scope wherein each one has at least one episode and/or moment(s) that focus on them as individuals and their particular life and involve the others to a much smaller extent.

So I would say that on a macro level Firefly is a small scale/large scope story, as it does shift into different combinations from time to time, but the primary focus is on the adventures of the crew and how their actions affect them (small scale) and on the lives of each of the crew members and their reasons and responses for/to being on the ship (large scope).

To be specific to our game, my vision (and as I understand it, Blitz’s as well) is a generally large-scale game wherein the quest for utopian balance takes us across the world and impacts many people, such as ourselves, friends, enemies, people we encounter along the way, and the world at large.

The scope of the game is large as well, because we want significant character development of all the characters, their personal lives (which obviously includes their friends and enemies) as well as development of the opposition force(s) and other people we encounter along the way.

Sure there will be times the story might focus on one character or the other more than the rest, which would be a shift to a small scope and possibly small scale if the story involves actions and consequences that are primarily limited to one character or just the team. And obviously the twins are the central characters to the story (much as Mal is the central character in Firefly) but you could have a story with just the rest of the team and it would make perfect sense, which is generally a key indicator of a large scope story.

Similarly, even if for a short time the story may center on just the team or a specific individual, by and large the story of our whole team and their quest for this utopia is the basic theme of the game and end goal toward which all the characters are striving.

Does that help clarify things for everyone? I tried my best to give other examples to draw upon to explain myself. Blitz, did I represent your position accurately?

And as I do not eat Caesar salads, I have nothing more that I can contribute to that particular discussion.

Mmm...salad...

You did a perfect job. At least to me it was clear as a bell (and kudos to referencing two of my favorites! Equilibrium and Firefly )

Yes. Okay... I'm refitting my GMing ideas into Winter's lingo. See if I've got you. In my take on this:

We take turns GMing the large scope and scale story bits for one another and then as individuals adopt/are adopted to handle the small scope and scale story bits.

Have I got it?

Sparky - Exactly. You nailed it perfectly.

Note 1: I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your ideas, but your ideas and my terminology now match up perfectly.

Note 2: My lack of agreement or disagreement is based on not having fully formulated my own ideas in this area yet, so it has nothing to do with my response to your thoughts as of yet.

Understood. I just wanted to make sure I got what you were saying and the best way to do that was to put it in my words around my ideas.

Sparky - Question. With respects to your idea, when a GM is GMing the large scale/scope part of the story, is his/her PC essentially going to be relegated to NPC status then?

Ok..in the interest of keeping this whole show moving forward Im going to make some executive decisions. It was suggested by Grendel to me last night that while committee's can be valuable, we need to have a decision head who can assess the information presented then make a final decision. For the most part, I will be that decision maker since I'm responsible for this whole idea in the first place

However, as there will be times when my opinion is too biased (with regards to my own character), so I would like to appoint Buddha as my backup. It makes sense since he's playing the other twin and I have absolute confidence in his fairness and leavel headed approach to stuffs.

That said, I LOVE the idea of the GM Adoption as far as the individual character development goes. I definately want to incorporate that idea. I think once we have a clearer idea of who is doing what and playing what, we'll be better adept at assigning GM's to characters.

As far as the over arching story goes, this is where I really want full collaboration. While every one of us is intelligent, knowledgable, and has a grasp of potential rammifications, the sum of our knowledge is far greater than our individual parts. This is the area where maturity is the most important as there may be some OOC knowledge that our characters cannot metagame with. The main component I am referring to is the fact that i truly want the opposition to read as a character. I don't want that side of the story being lost as "hidden movement". I want Grendel to feel comfortable about including sensitive information in his posts without worrying that the information will be abused. While I want there to be lots of ideas and suggestions thrown out about world effects, I also will be relying on everyone to police each other. If we see any actions that are questionably metagaming (I'm sure it will most likely be an accidental slip), let's bring it up and decide if an alteration needs to happen.

My final issue is with the opposition vs. the team. While I don't believe that anyone would consciously "cheat", it would be good to have some impartial party to coordinate the interaction since the current game mechanics are devised to have a hidden component.

My suggestion here is to have an uninvolved GM be a bridge between the two groups. For an example, let's assume we're going to hit one of Grendel's facilities. Grendel would supply his setup information (security systems, goon statistics, contingency plans, etc.) to the GM Bridge. The team would submit any planning or preparation information as well, such as gear aquisitions, legwork and prepwork, to the GM Bridge, who will be able to give legwork, surveillance and other info gathering answers based on the submitted plans. (likewise if the team is setting up a safehouse and Grendel's forces are planning an attack)

Each action event will have a GM handling the "GM" duties, such as organizing initiative, calling for rolls etc. That GM's characters will act as NPC's for the duration of the "game mechanics" driven parts. In the above example, it would be best to have Grendel GM it since we're hititng his facilities and his characters would transition to NPC easily.

When the GM takes on the "GM hat", the GM bridge will pass off the information aquired so that the GM can effectively run that portion of action. In 90% of the situations, I don't think this information will be absolutely necessary, but it will serve to keep things fair and balanced so people are not changing tactics midstream to compensate for unexpected creativity on one side. The GM Bridge will basically serve as a "yes, he really did do that before hand" sort of tool.

While I know none of us have any interest in metagaming, sometimes it cannot be avoided. If we all know that facility X has neurostun enabled security systems ooc, but not IC, it's hard to say if your characters would remember their chem gear or not. Whereas, if that information is not discovered IC, it can be told to that third party without jeopardizing the planning stages of the team. (that way, no one accuses you of metagaming when you show up with 5 sets of hazmat suits for the entire team:))

I really want those already involved in the project to be active participants as your writing ability and creativity is the number one reason I have invited each of you. What Im looking for is suggestions on someone who is trustworthy and reliable who could be the go between. They dont have to be an active GM, or even well versed in the rules of the game, just someone interested in participating in an ancillary role.

Another point I would like to make is that I see the thread as being much larger than Grendel's evil corp dudes against our enlightened children on a quest. While there will be confrontations (requiring the system I suggested above) I want those to be few and far between. Most of the action will be smaller missions or lots of flavor text that will need either an adopted GM or no actual GM at all (other than our ooc discussions). Think of most games here, the actual GM work is not NEARLY that of a table top game. Most of the time, these systems will be unnecessary or only used to a small extent.

I have to say... I'm TOTALLY stumped for what to play.

Blitz,

I like your idea for the system, assuming we can find GM's to handle it. It sounds a little complicated in the writing, but I think the actual action will go a little smoother, since none of it has to happen with precision timing due to the nature of PbP. I agree with what you're setting up, so I'll wait for you to hand out the specifics of the mechanics (how to decide who's gm'ing when, etc.)

And to second Sparky, I'd like a more definitive list of the archtypical characters you want us playing so I can start thinking about my character concept too

Blitz, you're the boss. If you have formulated a set idea of how you want this to work by now, that's good enough for me. Just tell us how you want it done. I will add that while it seems the overall structure is starting to solidify, we still need to fill in various details that have been raised by people so far . Just something else I thought I'd toss onto your 'to do' list.

And I'll third Sparky and Fenris. Archetypes please?

Agreed, I think at this point we need a list of the characters you wanted for this run so after everyone has grabbed their slot we can start making the magic happen as they say.

Sounds good to me! Im really open as far as characters go as long as they're all very unique and memorable! Ideally, I'd like a good mix of metahumans, I think I want to make the twins elves..we have Roc as the troll and I'd rather not have more than one "big" guy

As far as archtypes, Im thinking a stealthy person, an authority figure, someone really lethal (adept would be rad)...but if any of you have a neat concept I didn't mention, throw it out there!

Who is Roc the troll, and who is playing him/her?

So right now we have:

Buddha - (Elf?) Boy Mage - Tradition undefined
Blitz - (Elf?) Girl Technomancer
Grendel - All encompassing Forces of Darkness

McQuillan -
Fenris -
Sparky -
WinterRat -

(I'm assuming one of the above 4 is playing Roc the troll, but I didn't know who. Unless Roc is an NPC or being played by someone I wasn't aware had joined us)

I'll call one of the 'human' spots right off the bat. Personally, I prefer playing a combat character because we already have a decker and mage, I'm terrible with vehicles and their rules, and uh, I just like playing muscle characters. Completely undecided whether or not to go the adept or cyber route, as well as what type of combat character (tank, sniper, generalist, speedster, etc).

A very relevant question that will affect how I build my character is: Are we starting off as part of a pre-established team (and exploring our history through flashback/reminiscences) or do we have no prior history between us, or somewhere in between?

Personally, I think it'd be cool to say all the runner team (McQ, Fenris, Sparky, and I) has history with one another (romantic, professional, personal, maybe even rivals), but isn't necessarily already a full-fledged team. Then we get the best of both worlds in my opinion; namely, a rich shared history that can be explored, developed, and examined in past, present, and future POVs as we play, but also the opportunity to gradually come together and form more lasting ties that bind as we gel as a team throughout our quest. Thoughts on this?

Suggestion: Given what we're up to here, someone might want to be very good at gathering information, maybe through a combination of matrix and social interaction?

Also, has it been decided that are we going with the standard 400BP with a TBD karma bonus after creation? And can we get an approximation of that karma bonus and a karma-to-cash rate, assuming we'll be using that?

ROFL...my poor tiny brain...Roc is in my other game ignore my stupidity

Id actually like to start just a bit higher at character creation, like around 425-450, then adding like 15-20 karma on top of that. Objections?

Two questions.

1. What is the purpose of starting with so little karma? How much can that really buy?

2. Does raising the BP limit affect any of the character generation caps? Specifically, the skill/skill group caps, resource BP allocation cap, attribute BP cap, etc.

Personally, I think it's easier to go with the RAW and then add karma and karma-for-cash to avoid the annoying implications of question 2, but that's just me.

On the other hand, it's entirely plausible to leave all the rules as is and just give us 25-50 more BP, which is fine by me. Certainly you'll get no complaints from me about that!

Your call Blitz, just let us know.

Don't forget to give some input on the shared character histories, or lack thereof everyone.

Oh, and I nominate McQuillan for the leader job no matter what archetype he is, since I seem to recall hijacking a boat quite easily (and equally important on a forum game, quickly) last time. Anyone who led the one run I've played in on DSF that actually FINISHED gets my vote for leader!

Well, the reason I wanted to have higher build points and lower initial karma bonus was because I want to have the flexibility to make more flushed out characters WITH keeping the same max limitations. In other words, I still want attributes and skills at reasonable levels, but I would like the ability to add more qualities, contacts, additional skills, little more money, that sort of things.

Im still offering a small amount of karma for bonding foci, or increasing a skill or attribute above starting limits. Does that make sense?

I like the idea of having some initially implanted connections between the members but not being an actual "team" as of yet.

Makes perfect sense. Understood Blitz, thanks for clarifying. Same character gen rules except with 425-450 BP. Do you have a final ruling on the amount yet?

I had a feeling you were offering a small bit of starting karma for the reasons you stated, but I wasn't sure.

The character concept I was tossing around for this escapade was a phys-ad who lost confidence in his magic and is on the path to burnout as he progressively gets more cyber. I had planned to build him around the ass-kicker model, but can go slightly more along an authority style if I'm going to be the group leader.

As far as the final end amounts, Id like some feedback on what people want. I don't mind taking the lead here, but remember I want this to be more of an equal collaboration so give me YOUR opinions too

If the range you're offering is between 425 and 450, I'd say go 450. The 25 points aren't going to make a huge difference, since they can't be sunk into attributes or qualities, and if you're going to increase it, might as well increase it significantly. Otherwise why bother?

450 BP and 20 karma. I would say that we are treated as only having 400 BP for attribute expenditure (which is no more than half the total BPs) that way we are still limited by the normal rules, but can have additional skills or contacts beyond the norm.

Where would we like to be based out of? I know Seattle is the most common setting for most of us, but I've been doing a lot of work with Denver recently.

I agree with both suggestions above from McQuillan and Fenris. When we talked about this over IM you had mentioned wanting to make the characters special by giving them a maxed stat for free and possibly allowing them a "wiggy" thing like the old Lynk games. Are you still wanting to do that?

The character concept I've been working on is a former corporate expediter (always did like that name). Kind of thinking of those investigator types who started off being responsible for policing the corporate employees (the corp internal affairs) but gradually gained more responsibility until he was increasingly entrusted with not only passing along information to his superiors, but expediting (like I said, always did like this word) the 'solutions' his superiors wanted as well.

I was planning on making him a physad just because my other main character is a cyberguy, and he would probably have a mix of assassin-type skills and social/investigative skills. Not exactly a wuss in a fight but not really designed for a straight-up slugfest either. I guess it'd be hard to characterize him as a particular archetype but that's the basic idea I have so far.

Works for me! Lets go with 450 BP, Max 200 attributes, no availability restrictions (I trust you guys to get what works for the character and not buy suborbitals ) You can take any one attribute from 5 to 6 for free (you still have to buy it up to 5).