Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Team Building
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Dog
(Edited for my near-anal concern with grammar, and likely to be edited again.)

Lucky me, I get to duck out of GMing for a little while longer. My buddy is putting together a game and has specified that we play a team. I've been putting together some thoughts on what makes a good team that I'd like to share.

First though, a disclaimer: I'm talking about what makes a good team drama-wise, min-maxers may not have much interest in this stuff.
So here goes:

1) A team should have a common thread: This can be a shared history, a common ethnic (or in SR, racial) background, a common profession or professional network, a familial relationship, a common ideology. Obviously what the shared thread is will affect the relationships in the team. A bunch of Humanis goons with a shared ideology of hate will probably agree on goals, but might have a hard time determining method. A team that grew up together as kids may socialize well with one another, but have a difficult time focusing on the job if one of them is hurt.

2) A team should, in some way, care about one another: I need your skills to get the job done. These are my sworn brothers. I've made an oath. I respect what they stand for. My sister will kill me if I let something happen to her husband. These are choices for each individual player to make.

3) A team should have tension: A shared dark secret, basic differences in values, a rivalry, a romance-that-can-never-be. Be careful with this one. Don't focus on it too much or make the tension stronger than the bonds, or your team will fall apart. This is just a technique to provide drama.

4) A team should have variety: A variety of skills, a variety of perspectives on life, a variety of contacts, a variety of personality traits. There's no need to cover all the bases, but diversity will allow the team to try different approaches to problems.

5) A team should complement one another: I don't mean they should say nice things. The team should learn how to use their variety of skills together. If you have a stealth expert and a gun bunny on the job, and the gun bunny starts tossing grenades to clear Stealthy's path, you've probably got a problem. If gun-bunny takes a sniper perch, or provides a distraction elsewhere, then you're playing to each character's strengths and still working together.

6) A team should have foils: Remember high-school English class? Here and there, characters should have directly opposite traits. As with my comments about tension, don't overdo it. I would recommend that on whatever issue you have two characters sharing opposing traits, you should try to keep the other characters neutral. Your team has a shaman that shuns technology, and a mage that's a technophile? The other characters could be tech-savvy but prepared to use the holistic route, too, so no one is excluded from the team.

7) A team should have a leader: This is a little tricky for an RPG, because you don't want one player telling the others what to do. I suggest that the different team members take the lead as the situation calls for it. The detective can make the final decision when it comes to legwork. The samurai can call the shots when the drek hits the fan. The rigger can make the decision when it comes to transportation. Leadership, in my opinion, is one of the trickiest things to deal with in an RPG. However, it's often necessary just to have a decision made, and sometimes, it's the ability of the leader that makes the team. Come to think of it, this'll probably need its own thread, so I'll come back to it in a while....

8. (Damn emoticons...) A team should have its own personality. Make a list of traits that the team embodies. Does everyone on the team need to share the trait? Probably not, but probably most of them should. Here's another technique, take a person who the team can emulate (which could be easy depending on what brings the team together) and list that person's most obvious traits. Then pick a character to encompass each trait.

I'd like to hear what everyone else has to add....
ronin3338
These are right on the money (for "role"players)

I like that you mentioned foils, and you're spot on about the leadership role as well. When I put my current player's through chargen, these are exactly the things I tried to stress. I'm a firm believer in the GM having a campaign idea and a solid reason why the characters are working together, before anyone starts chargen.

On a seemingy contradictory note, I also try to steer my players a bit more toward the 2 dimensional side of things. It helps keep them focused on what their character is good at, and helps diminish having too much overlap in skill sets and gives more room for growth. It's a fine line to walk, because a character that is too narrow in focus becomes a one-trick pony, but we've managed pretty well so far.
eidolon
An interesting post, thanks.

Personally, I sometimes like the more "organic" mix you get when you rely more on in-game team building. Sure it can lead to some bad matches and stuff, but it usually ends up being extremely interesting to watch/play out. Although a certain bit of planning certainly helps during char-gen (mostly just to avoid specific overlap and to avoid having characters that just flat wouldn't work together.
Dog
Organic is good. In fact I'd usually prefer it. Problem for me is the flipside of that. Some groups that are put together randomly fall apart by organic process too, and the GM wants us to be an established team, so we have to be more contrived. Hence the challenge that led me to this thread. I've tried to force teams together by different methods after the characters have been created, and that hasn't gone over well, so now I'm trying to think of how teams can be created by the players just as characters are (without all the numbers and junk smile.gif ).

(Edited for clarity.)
Kyoto Kid
QUOTE (Dog)
8. (Damn emoticons...) 

...I know, I h8 that one too.

Back on the topic...

These are very good points and something I would like to see applied more often.

I can see the anarchy style working for the street level setting, but when a group of runners is supposed to be of a more "professional" calibre (particularly in a long running campaign) they either need to start as, or gel into a team within the first couple sessions

For those who will be participating in the next run of my Rhapsody campaign, the ability to function as a team will be very critical.
wargear
Our most successful team was built somewhat organically, then fine tuned a couple of sessions later when we finally decided on a team concept.

All the characters were able to fit nicely together except one. We wound up killing that character a dozen or so sessions later after a lot of excellent roleplay, and the player made a new character that did fit into the group concept.

Organic is good, but don't be afraid to retune the team and/or bring in new talent.

And a NPC team member or two can round out both a team skill package and fill the role of foil/whatever. Having our team Decker be a NPC meant that our GM didn't have to ignore the rest of the group for an hour while the decker did his part of the run.

Eh. Whatever.
RainOfSteel
QUOTE (Dog)
8. (Damn emoticons...)

There is a check-box below the text-entry box on the posting page, right next to the text, "Enable emoticons?"

Uncheck the box next to this text if you don't want emoticons to be processed.
Tiger Eyes
In our current campaign, our GM gave us the 'concept' of our team but kept everyone's characters completely secret. We developed them over email with him and he told us there would be a limit on certain types - ie, 1 magic user, 1 adept, 1 hacker, 1 gunbunny, etc. First come first served (I grabbed the hacker. I'm always the hacker). We knew who would be hiring us ahead of time and were told to tailor our characters to that knowledge. We also knew that our employer would be hiring us to make a 'team'. (We all agreed ahead of time that we wanted to work for the Draco foundation and actually have a mission, instead of being the random criminals we've played in the past). Part of the key to building this team was that we all sat down and discussed what we were going to be doing, rather that what kinds of characters we wanted to make. We basically voted on our current campaign focus - the Draco foundation - and went from there.

So far, this group of characters has meshed better than any other set we've ever played. Although we have some overlap of skills, and some glaring gaps (horrible contact base, started rather short on combat skills), it feels very natural. We were all strangers hired to be part of a team. Everyone made it through the probationary period (the first 5 jobs) and our characters actually all like each other.

The probationary period is part of what made it work so well. We knew that if any character just didn't work, we had 5 runs to figure it out.

As far as a team goes, we're pretty happy with each other. Developing our characters in secret and then getting thrown together was pretty fun. So what if we've got more people with advanced degrees in archeology than with useable pistols skills? It is a very fun group. And we've learned how to shoot things by now, thank you very much! cool.gif
Samaels Ghost
QUOTE
our characters actually all like each other


Wow, that would be nice. Our group of characters was created the organic way. There wasn't too much of a good reason for them to be hired. One had never run before and was contacted to do a job. He never questioned how the hell that happened. The organic way, for us, has netted us a paranoid group of sociopaths that don't trust each other and are more suited for wetwork than anything else. We kill people a lot, so combat permeates every session and most often dominates those sessions. We don't like each other, we don't trust each other, and we threaten to kill each other everytime someone screws up. I've seriously considered killling our gunbunny several times. Even though he is an awesome build, BP-wise.

I think that if we had had some of the above in mind while creating our characters, we wouldn't have this problem. I think it is very important to communicate during character creation. If you go off in your own world weaving some story no one will ever hear about or care than your characters are going to be distant from each other.

I think next time we make new characters, I'm going to print this topic for my players. Thanks Dog biggrin.gif
will_rj
QUOTE (Samaels Ghost)

I think next time we make new characters, I'm going to print this topic for my players. Thanks Dog biggrin.gif

Thatīs exactly what i thought when i first read this topic. There isnīt much to add, but thereīs much that my players should consider before starting a new game.

Wounded Ronin
I think a team needs a guy with a SAW, a grenadier, an advanced rifleman, a couple of mages, some air support, and some cybered guys with guns. smile.gif
Pendaric
Well covered, a nod to utility I think is the only stress I would add to the above points.
We favour a middle ground between organic and pre-planned to allow for in play drama to decide things. Roleplay is after all the aim. Worked pretty well so far bar purely out of character problems.
eidolon
QUOTE (Kyoto Kid)
I can see the anarchy style working for the street level setting, but when a group of runners is supposed to be of a more "professional" calibre (particularly in a long running campaign) they either need to start as, or gel into a team within the first couple sessions


Keep in mind that "professional shadowrunners" and "anarchist street-thugz" are hardly the two choices available. I know that sounds like stating the obvious, but too much on these forums I see people trying to discuss things as though there were only a few pat ways to run SR.

Also, why is there a "need" for a team to completely gel anyway? Can it not be an interesting game if two of the "team" that gets thrown together really hate one another? Forced together by circumstance, but at each other's throats constantly?

I don't know. I guess I just find it odd that so many people seem to think that to be running "Shadowrun" you have to have a happy group of criminal campers, that work as a great team all the time, and that aren't human with human issues and problems.

Sorry if the shoe doesn't fit. Just ignore this. If it does, though, I recommend broadening your horizons.

("You" is, of course, generic in this post.)
wargear
Another concept that emerged in our campaign was that of a maxi-team. Effectively, two or three established teams of shadowrunners, band together to share resources and fill mission specific team complements.

Result? They were able to supply a wider range of clients and missions, and were able to maintain a shadow-presence even after sustaining a few casualties.

How this could work for a campaign is to have each player create a couple of characters, and assign teams from the available personnel.

It worked quite well for us.
Samaels Ghost
QUOTE
Also, why is there a "need" for a team to completely gel anyway? Can it not be an interesting game if two of the "team" that gets thrown together really hate one another? Forced together by circumstance, but at each other's throats constantly?


At each other's throats constantly doesn't sound like any team I want to be a part of. In fact, it doesn't sound like a team at all. I little tension works, but "at each other's throats constantly"?
eidolon
That's exactly what I'm talking about. You immediately assume that there's no fun to be had in roleplaying that situation. Why?

Does your SR have to be happy smelling roses? Real life: not all "teams" are teams. It doesn't make for the best team, and it might not fit the "sporting" definition of the word "team", but it could still happen, and it would still be quite realistic.

Like I said, seems to be a prevalent thing that a lot of people have played pretty narrow defined games of SR. If it's what you enjoy, that's totally cool. It's just not the only thing you can do with the system.
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (wargear)
Another concept that emerged in our campaign was that of a maxi-team. Effectively, two or three established teams of shadowrunners, band together to share resources and fill mission specific team complements.

Result? They were able to supply a wider range of clients and missions, and were able to maintain a shadow-presence even after sustaining a few casualties.

How this could work for a campaign is to have each player create a couple of characters, and assign teams from the available personnel.

It worked quite well for us.

"Maxi team"? That sounds kind of unfortunate...like maxi pad, or something; the team is extra big so it absorbs more blood.
Frag-o Delux
QUOTE (wargear)
Another concept that emerged in our campaign was that of a maxi-team. Effectively, two or three established teams of shadowrunners, band together to share resources and fill mission specific team complements.

Result? They were able to supply a wider range of clients and missions, and were able to maintain a shadow-presence even after sustaining a few casualties.

How this could work for a campaign is to have each player create a couple of characters, and assign teams from the available personnel.

It worked quite well for us.

That is how I pictured fixers working since the begining.

A fixer is going to have a stable of talent that he can draw from. Sometimes the people he has like each other enough they form a team to do extra side jobs or use another guys fixer for jobs. But generally the fixer will get a job and call the guys hes knows that are availible (the players characters). The players that opt to have a different fixer (yeah we let players choose to not be part of the original fixers stable, its also determined by their back story) can be hired by the other players if they know each other.

We can play 6 degrees with our characters most times, the center being a handful of well connecting fixers and characters.

Some times the team is a total cluster fuck and thats always fun, sometimes the team is a well oiled machine that can take on the world, but most times its a group of solid prefessionals that can do the job but wind up just tolerating each other for sake of the job and money.

We have only ever once made a team as a group to play as a team. That was because after a session we decided to play a team of special forces guys. It was fun, we still sometimes talk about playing them more, but the "random" encounter character matches have always been funner.
Samaels Ghost
QUOTE (eidolon)
That's exactly what I'm talking about. You immediately assume that there's no fun to be had in roleplaying that situation. Why?

Does your SR have to be happy smelling roses? Real life: not all "teams" are teams. It doesn't make for the best team, and it might not fit the "sporting" definition of the word "team", but it could still happen, and it would still be quite realistic.

Like I said, seems to be a prevalent thing that a lot of people have played pretty narrow defined games of SR. If it's what you enjoy, that's totally cool. It's just not the only thing you can do with the system.

I'm playing it right now. At each other's throats. Not that much fun, I'm not just speculating, thank you.
Firewall
Our team kind of sits outside normal classification. There is a mage, a face, a weapon-specialist and a smuggler. The last two are right out of the SR4 book.

Since the face has a legal SIN, he actually advertises his services openly as a security consultant. At the moment, the team is new. One (perfectly legal) job under their belts and shares in one of Ares' smaller rivals. (Yeah, sneaky DM... Paid us in nuyen.gif and the bonus in shares, to stop us double-crossing them later) It was very much a case of rolling what we wanted, rather than trying to make a team, but it works.

I cannot say I have ever ben in a 'perfect' team, with one of everything. My favourite teams are the ones with glaring problems. Well, they are glaring to the GM. The first thing you often know is when you get to the extraction point and realise nobody knows how to drive a speed-boat.
dog_xinu
a team could be family (doesnt have to be brothers/sisters but maybe cousins). I played in one game where everyone at the table (playerwise) was related to each other. I was the demented cousin that liked to blow stuff up. You know, people, cars, cargo in the riggers boat, my commlink, etc.


A team needs to have history with each other and needs to gel with each other. If one team member is any-violence (not pacifist but abhores violence) and you have another one that like to hurt people (and kill them too). That generaly doesnt work. As a player at DragonCON last night ask me, "what D&D alignments do you like in your games?... you know if ShadowRun had them?...." Personally I dont care as long as the group gels. Now the closer you are to LG, the harder it will be to do a lot of missions. The closer to CE you get the more "non-friendly" people will be to you and probably more likely to turn you in when you do bad stuff. the closer you get to N, the better off you will be. Truly the only side you should really care about is your own (your team's). You should not care about the Johnson's, the team's side that you are running against, nor even people like Lone Star (unless you are playing a cop).


but then again this is my opinon on no sleep....
Dog
QUOTE (Tiger Eyes)
we've got more people with advanced degrees in archeology than with useable pistols skills? It is a very fun group.

That is extremely cool, in a Michael Chricton sort of way.
Sicarius
I can see advantages to either way. There can be alot of fun in roleplaying that geling of the team, as the PCs start to appreciate each other, and form bonds under fire.

I would always recommend that at least OOC the GM help players by saying "you will need to cover these skills." or be like me, and design the adventure after the characters are built, rather than the other way around.
wargear
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)
"Maxi team"?  That sounds kind of unfortunate...like maxi pad, or something; the team is extra big so it absorbs more blood.

That is a little closer to home than i'd considered. biggrin.gif
eidolon
QUOTE (Samaels Ghost)
I'm playing it right now. At each other's throats. Not that much fun, I'm not just speculating, thank you.

Apparently, it doesn't work for you.

Although I'd ask, is it player issues coming through in character, or are you playing characters that don't get along, OOC you're all hunky-dory and there are zero issues, and you aren't enjoying it?

Or are you at odds both IC and OOC, and just not enjoying yourself?

It's a huge difference.

And I'm not mocking you, so there's no reason for snarky nonsense. But you're welcome, nonetheless.
Dog
Keep in mind, I'm not proposing any debate over contrived teams versus thrown together teams. What's interesting about my situation is that a contrived team has already been specified before chargen begins, and still the chargen is entirely up to the players. It's an interesting situation to be in, and an opportunity to try a different approach to character creation.

It's easy, like in a lot of threads, to regard anyone who doesn't agree with us as having the opposite view. That leads us to make a lot of assumptions and get defensive. (Spirits know I've done my share of that.) In reality, it takes good listening to notice that someone also has a point, which doesn't necessarily discredit our own. (I bring this up because in a neat way, its relevant both to the topic we're discussing and some of the discussion itself.)

I guess this brings us back to one of the items on our list. I'll expand on it: The job is not the team. I've heard a lot of players say that the job is number one priority to the character, and these guys have often turned out to be some of the worst team players. I propose that the cohesion of the team is more important than accomplishing the job. Other jobs will come along, and are more likely to be successful because the team stuck together. When teammates develop this attitude, there'll be less "my way or the highway" mentality. Teammates will compromise when necessary. They may not be happy, polite or quiet about it, but eventually someone gives. Having said that, if it's always the same person who gives, you probably have an unhappy player at some point.

I'm thankful to have it pointed out that a team has to be functional. That is, they have to have the potential to get the job done. Just like a munchkin player or team that really isn't challenged really isn't fun, neither is a player or team that doesn't stand a chance.

Samaels Ghost
QUOTE (eidolon @ Sep 4 2006, 08:03 PM)
QUOTE (Samaels Ghost @ Sep 4 2006, 01:30 AM)
I'm playing it right now. At each other's throats. Not that much fun, I'm not just speculating, thank you.

Apparently, it doesn't work for you.

Although I'd ask, is it player issues coming through in character, or are you playing characters that don't get along, OOC you're all hunky-dory and there are zero issues, and you aren't enjoying it?

Or are you at odds both IC and OOC, and just not enjoying yourself?

It's a huge difference.

And I'm not mocking you, so there's no reason for snarky nonsense. But you're welcome, nonetheless.

Nah, wasn't TRYING to be snarky. If i came off that way, sorry.

Let's see. Right now, with no team dynamic and the only roleplaying we have going being the times when our characters are talking about kiling each other or making veiled threats to, I can;t see our game lasting too much longer with the same characters. That's unfortunate. We, the players, get along great. We the Characters don't like each other, but have no other options at the moment. We've screwed up and ended up back at the bottom of the food chain because we got too greedy and rose too quickly. We can work together because the players want it to work, but it feels forced. There's is no good reason to be around these people. They hate each other. But they're all really lucky.

I'm not saying that getting together and hanging out isn't fun, but our game has dregraded somewhat because of lack of a common, foreseeable goal and the characters all being geared towards kicking ass, meaning battles erupt frequently and consume most of the game time. Because they're combat monsters, they end up on top, but that's just makes things boring and predictable. To top it off, we have no focus, no goals. All money/karma spent goes to furthering combat prowess, not anything human.

So i guess that teamwork isn't our biggest problem. But Having a common goal and focus could really help us out of the rut we're in at the moment. That's why Dog's comments hit home with me.
Samaels Ghost
QUOTE (Dog)
Just like a munchkin player or team that really isn't challenged really isn't fun, neither is a player or team that doesn't stand a chance.

kind of our problem. I'm considering new characters.
Kyoto Kid
...it doesn't mean that everyone on the team has to be all "buddy-buddy" with each other, just that when it comes down to the crunch, everyone is on the same page as to knowing what they need to do. I think character interaction (both positive and negative) is great, heck, in Sports you hear about it all the time (look at T.O. for example, yeah he may be poison in the locker room but out on the field he knows what his job is and does it).
Dog
Hell, even the Smurfs had intra-group conflict....
Ryu
What do you do if the team does not work? The general situation is "retreat in face of superior enemies", but two team members decide to make it a firefight anyway. The samurai is already sitting in the geataway-vehicle you are driving. His "back off"-orders were ignored. A general "we stay together" or "Iīm out of here"?

This is kind of related to the problems the ghost of Samael reports - the hack&slash mentality is sometimes rooted so deep that combat seems to be the only goal. Right now none of our combative types plan on participating in an arms race, but that is a first.

@Samaels Ghost: If you want to salvage the team, one posibility may be a common enemy. Make a power-player in organised crime tarnish their rep as cover-up for something ugly... a reputation canīt be rebuild with uncontrolled violence. Tell them they need the support of their local community to survive the storm.
Critias
Hey, if the driver says "lets get out of here" and some other knuckleheads decide to start up a firefight instead, you give 'em (at most) an over-the-radio three count, then floor it. Screw 'em. "Let's go" means "let's go."
Arethusa
QUOTE (Ryu)
What do you do if the team does not work? The general situation is "retreat in face of superior enemies", but two team members decide to make it a firefight anyway. The samurai is already sitting in the geataway-vehicle you are driving. His "back off"-orders were ignored. A general "we stay together" or "Iīm out of here"?

Look, there's loyalty and there's stupidity. If your comrades have a deathwish, you can spill some for your dead homies later. You know, when you're still alive somewhere else.

Just for fun, I'd like to quote War Nerd:
QUOTE (War Nerd)
When some cooler heads mentioned that their ammunition trains still hadn't arrived, Villa said some crap to the effect that "our courage will be our ammunition." Here's a helpful hint: if you ever find yourself under a commander who talks like that, flee.
mfb
Arethusa, you win linking.
Firewall
Reminds me of a raid on a military base we once did. My character, a decker with a sniper rifle, had taken out three of the four tower sentries without setting off any alarms. The fourth didn't go down and (rather than hit the alarm) shot him with a slightly lower-powered rifle.

He died but my character was left slightly bloodied and not at all happy. The next cock-up (no, don't open the door marked barracks!) took him the rest of the way to a serious wound. He was, by this point, less than keen on the fight. He suggested that dead men don't get paid.

In the end, they left his reluctant and bleeding arse sitting outside the target building while they went onward. If they needed him, it was not like he would be running anywhere in a hurry...

He warned them... When the screaming stopped, he ran (well, staggered) to the RV point and got away. Never got paid but at least he survived.
eidolon
I take it there was no mage with a healing spell?
Firewall
QUOTE (eidolon)
I take it there was no mage with a healing spell?

Too much risk she might have taken drain and become less effective, or even passed out from stun damage. Not a great team for teamwork and the victim of this little snub was the only survivor in the end, so that was kind of poetic...
Dread Polack
Talking a little bit about leadership: I think if you go by how military units work, and how a lot of criminal groups work (at least from what I've seen in movies), they usually have a leader. The leader is usually the most clear-thinking, organized, and charismatic, but isn't necessarily the most competant or skilled. They usually have the most experience, and are there mostly to make calls and give direction. They default on any particular issue to whoever has the most knowledge in the group. A leader of a SR group would probably dictate orders something like this "Hacker- go hack the security system, find their weaknesses, and get us a way in, Mage: Bind us a spirit to help us get by [magical problem X], Rigger: Cover us with your drones and keep an eye out, and Combat guy: do some recon and make sure we have the right firepower. Everyone get to work"

Now, none of my RPG groups has ever had a lead player, but I played a leader once, and had to give out orders to the other PCs. Usually for me, and I'd imagine most games with leaders, the decisions were actually made and discussed both in and out of character, and when the players decided on a course of action, the player playing the leader gave out the orders in character. We all lack the skills our characters posess, including leadership. I think it works to designate a lead character, and it might be good to make that the one played by the best player for the job, but sometimes a lead role can get to a player's head, and the other players can resent that, so I think most groups, by default, have no leader, and work just fine, since decision making is done in and out of character.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

Dread Polack
eidolon
A "leader" character can work in certain games, and with certain groups. However, you also run the risk of creating player tension because some groups inevitably have players that can't understand "look, in character, Bob is in charge, but in RL, Mike (playing Bob) is not" etc.
Dog
Aye, very tricky. Not much fun if one player is deciding what everyone else is "supposed" to be doing. I like the idea of every player being involved in the leader's decision regarding others' actions, but if not handled properly, there is the risk that the same problem occurs in reverse. ie."Don't tell me what my character is going to tell you!" I'm really going to urge our group to try this for a bit.

To Ryu: By "the team doesn't work," I take it to mean that they do not function as a team. That they are not cooperative enough to move the story along. (I'd also point out that a team that is too cooperative and nicey-nicey maybe doesn't work because it is does not make for interesting role-playing.) Well, I guess the thing to do is to switch characters in and out until you have a team that does. Also, you could just work it out OOC and then try to justify characters having a change of heart, or something.

In the scenario you described, my internal optimist would say "Wow! Two team members sacrificed themselves so the others could get away! Awesome drama."
Chrome Shadow
Great Topic!!!
Zander Coyote
I've always thought that ideally the leader should emerge from the group organically. Assigning someone as a leader is iffy. My character does not work for this person, or is of a lower rank. It should be something that comes out of roleplaying. It makes complete sense to defer to the character with needed expertise. Granted, sometimes the leader is the player who knows what he wants to do.

As to working together I think it all comes down to roleplaying. I think in terms of what would my character do and what is good for the story. some people get stuck in their rut and don't want to think outside the box they have made. I remember a character that would get angry at everyone else cause we were thinking of doing something other then what the Johnson would pay us for. Then he would swear up and down that he would never run with this runners ever again. then come back next week and do it all again...
wargear
QUOTE (Zander Coyote)
I've always thought that ideally the leader should emerge from the group organically. Assigning someone as a leader is iffy. My character does not work for this person, or is of a lower rank. It should be something that comes out of roleplaying. It makes complete sense to defer to the character with needed expertise. Granted, sometimes the leader is the player who knows what he wants to do.

The downside of this is when you end up in a situation where the group has been following orders from one or two leader types for several years of gaming and suddenly find themselves without those leaders for one reason or another (for example when one takes over GM).

We ran through a milk run. Any one of the PCs could have just walked in the front door, capped the handful of low grade security guards, grabbed the man-portable objective, and walked out again. Alone.

It took the entire team three (3) six hour planning and footwork sessions and even then they only actually went on the run because the GM got frustrated and told them they were out of time.

Leaders are good, but you really need to share the load amongst the less active players.
MaxHunter
One of the groups I GM for has a sort of task based leadership. Ie: The sam leads in gunfights, the face or the hacker leads during investigations and the mage takes control when there's some mojo involved. This has happened naturally, or as it's being said here "organically" - makes me think of non fertilized crops- Basically the characters are happy to follow suggestions when dealing in areas not of their expertise, but of course, this team's formation is not the first, there has been some learning and lead-induced rotation to account for the team's improved efficiency.
Shrike30
QUOTE (wargear @ Sep 25 2006, 07:03 AM)
It took the entire team three (3) six hour planning and footwork sessions and even then they only actually went on the run because the GM got frustrated and told them they were out of time.

I use that particular tool frequently. I'll tell players "you've got 30 minutes (realtime) to plan this" after they've had a meet.
Cleremond
This is a really good topic and I appreciate the OP's initial post and ideas.

For me....not just with Shadowrun, but with any PnP RPG session I've played with a "group with goals" type premise....characters that play against one another basically grind the story to a screaching halt more often than not.

For me, PnP games are about the story and experiencing it and collectively, as a group of players, allowing it to unfold.

The concept of formulating a team is very important and all PnP players should come to the table being willing to contribute to that end so the story unfolds in a enjoyable and fullfilling way. That is the reason for plying the game to begin with.....to experience the GM's story and make their constructive contributions to it.

I've found that players that always play the uber munchkin, min-maxed, psychopathic type characters themselves tend to be annoying, disruptive, antagonistic, generally unpleasent to be around, and for the most part end up put a damper on the fun of other players every damn session.

To have a good in game team, you first need a RL group of players that get along, enjoy each other's company, and are all generally interested in seeing a good story unfold at the table. Along with a witty, knowledgable, and adaptable GM, this is pretty much a prerequisit for any good gaming session.

Personally I always enjoy playing characters that have limitations, flaws, and foibles as opposed to playing the uber gunbunny. It opens up more opportunity for RP, instead of just intiating combat and rolling dice.

I've found in my games groups that have fewer specialists and more well rounded, characters tend to result in more fun had at the table. A solid mix of skills gets represented and players don't always have to sit idle while one character does stuff. In SR4 this allows lots of opportunity for group synergy and everyone gets to feel like they are a part of the group's success. Typically, characters that have more compatible goals tend to automatically work better together. But, it doesn't mean that a character can't have ulterior motives or personal ends as long as the GM is in on it and can effectively work it into the story.

For good examples of shadowrun type teams and team dynamics, watch "Ronin", "Kelly's Heroes", "The Dirty Dozen", "Aliens", and any number of other good movies.

Personally, I don't let a single player into my group until they've seen "Ronin".

smile.gif

Once again, great topic. Wish I could contribute more, but I'm headin' home from work now.

Later
eidolon
Cleremond, you might be interested in the "Group Template" that the Fear the Boot guys are very keen on. You can hear about it (I think in episode one or two) and also check stuff out about it over at feartheboot.com.

(No, I'm not affiliated, blah blah blah)
Ranneko
QUOTE (eidolon @ Oct 6 2006, 09:07 AM)
Cleremond, you might be interested in the "Group Template" that the Fear the Boot guys are very keen on.  You can hear about it (I think in episode one or two) and also check stuff out about it over at feartheboot.com.

(No, I'm not affiliated, blah blah blah)

Heh, yeah, when reading the original post I kept thinking of that group template from FearTheBoot.
Cleremond
I checked out Feartheboot.com. These guys are the types of guys I'd like to play a PnP game with. Relatively mature, knowledgable, witty, and fun.

I was amazed they talked about alot of stuff that I mentioned above.

Very cool. Thanks for pointing them out to me.
eidolon
No problem.
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