Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Deep thoughts on RPG experience-advancement
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Wounded Ronin
The first Shadowrun GM I ever had was a brutal killer GM. I was rolling up new characters nearly every session. Nevertheless, playing with him was one of the most memorable RPG experiences I ever had. Recently, I remembered one of the comments he made about SR: "One flaw with Shadowrun is that you can take Resources A in character generation and use it to buy a permanent high lifestyle and win the game without playing."

Of course, my immediate thought was that the point of sitting down to do SR was to play SR, so I said something to the effect of, "What if I have a perfectionist samurai type character who risks his life for the abstract goal of making his art of shadowrunning as refined and perfect as is humanly possible?"

Looking back on this conversation I realize today that it exemplifies one of the strangest aspects of many RPGs which center around combat and which allow for character advancement, including SR but also including such classics as any edition of D&D. A big idea in these game systems is that by participating in countless conflicts and racking up superhuman kill counts in the thousands over the course of a long career a character will become tough, experienced, and resolute, and will get a huge karma pool or become level 36 and in so doing experience an overall elevation far beyond what most human beings experience in their lifetime. I remember how in the old D&D rules cyclopedia that if you wanted to hire a marshall to train your castle garrison he was supposed to be a retired 5th level fighter whereas if you owned a castle your adventurer was at least level 9 and somehow managed to be better in every way than any experienced soldier you could hire under the game's employment engine.

In real life, though, I don't think that that paradigm really works. Every time you enter a lethal combat situation there's a certain chance you'll either be killed or injured so badly that you won't be able to fight again either ever or for a long time; being strategic hardcore SR players we can abstract this as a certain % chance each time we fight if we like. So it dosen't seem like it would really make sense if what you seek is robust health, catlike reflexes, and superior aim, to keep entering combat situations in order to practice these things. As long as your survive I could accept the idea of your physical body improving, but the moment you get shot and injured that's going to be a huge setback in all these categories. It would make more sense to play a sport than to get into a lot of firefights, if you think about it that way.

Next, there's the mental and psychological issue. I think something like 1/4 of combat vets get diagnosed with PTSD? So, even if your character is lucky and is never actually injured in combat, there's at least a 25% chance that he's eventually going to get mentally wounded. Just another thing that waits by the roadside to waylay your journey down the road to ubermenschitude.

Empirically, you always hear about a few people who have been in countless battles are are really formidable people. On DSF I've read, more than once, about the fat 40 year old guys who can do everything better than you. But the question is, how much better are they really than me? If we were to quantify their reaction time, how much better would it be than mine, for example. No doubt it is better, but does it really get dramatic as, say, the difference between a level 0 fighter (me) and a level 36 fighter (them) in D&D? Would it equal the difference between me having 1 karma dice and Pistols 2 versus their 20 karma dice and Pistols 7?

This is relevant not only to reality nitpicking, but also to character development and role playing. Besides for the Miyamoto Musashi archetype who is obsessed with becoming the most refined killing machine on the face of the planet, how many characters really really would continue in their careers as shadowrunners a moment longer than they need to? Any reasonably intelligent runner, even a competent one, would surely recognize the risks (even if the risks, statistically, do not exist behind the scenes of the game, since this would be a matter of role playing in a believable manner) and would drop the profession like a lumberjack's penis as soon as he or she were able to buy a permanent Middle lifestlye? Surely, it's a little bit meta gaming for a character to have a long career in the shadows after the character has enough money for the permanent lifestlye, since the character is now acting not in his or her best interest but rather in the interest of what you the player know in terms of issues that exist outside the game?
Pendaric
For a realism point of view it is rather the difficulty of leaving a life style that has coursed s o many agencies and enemies to wish harm to said ex runner. Leaving the shadows and stop playing the game does not mean all those enemies do.
Then there is actually getting the cash and a SIN good enough that your life doesn't fall to pieces on one good security check.
Finally the change of pace from running to peaceful life is a massive strain in and of itself. What do they do that compares? As you stated they are combat vets how do they adjust to normal life.
Mushashi for example was using the warriors path to become enlightened, fully developing as a human being. A tall order that requires discipline but all so much more.
By applying the level of realism you have already shown to the reverse of the problem, I hope you agree there are realistic argument to continue.

As to the stats well there the best abstract repesentation of experience and professionalism.
Kagetenshi
Shadowrun does not give karma in return for combat. FastJack, if we are to believe his persona, has very possibly never entered personal combat in his life.

Basically, I reject your premise.

As for the permanent-middle-lifestyle idea, the problem with that is that for every well-designed standard-power-level character, there must be a reason why they cannot or will not live in normal society. I have yet to see a well-designed character that could not make a Middle lifestyle minimum out of the Shadows, and most of the not-quite-so-well-designed ones could make a Low easily. If we are to turn this into a sensible world, there must be something—criminal record, thrill-seeking, disproportionate greed, unwillingness, any of a thousand reasons—driving the Shadowrunner to keep Shadowrunning. Therefore, it's hardly strange that no Runner worth the name gives up after they could buy a permanent Middle lifestyle.

~J
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Shadowrun does not give karma in return for combat. FastJack, if we are to believe his persona, has very possibly never entered personal combat in his life.

Basically, I reject your premise.

But, surely FastJack went and kicked a lot of BlackIC and Black-Hammer-wielding deckers in their digital testicles, yes? I mean, that's still "combat" under the SR engine.

QUOTE


As for the permanent-middle-lifestyle idea, the problem with that is that for every well-designed standard-power-level character, there must be a reason why they cannot or will not live in normal society. I have yet to see a well-designed character that could not make a Middle lifestyle minimum out of the Shadows, and most of the not-quite-so-well-designed ones could make a Low easily. If we are to turn this into a sensible world, there must be something—criminal record, thrill-seeking, disproportionate greed, unwillingness, any of a thousand reasons—driving the Shadowrunner to keep Shadowrunning. Therefore, it's hardly strange that no Runner worth the name gives up after they could buy a permanent Middle lifestyle.

~J



So, it seems to me what you're really saying is that in order to be believable each character needs to have some backstory reason why he or she couldn't possibly just retire and integrate into "normal" society, which in essence just means having shelter, food, and water without needing to enter combat repeatedly.
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (Pendaric)
For a realism point of view it is rather the difficulty of leaving a life style that has coursed s o many agencies and enemies to wish harm to said ex runner. Leaving the shadows and stop playing the game does not mean all those enemies do.
Then there is actually getting the cash and a SIN good enough that your life doesn't fall to pieces on one good security check.

That's certainly a valid point. The question, then, is how much money *would* be required to set up an excellent false identity and hide from most enemies?

QUOTE


Finally the change of pace from running to peaceful life is a massive strain in and of itself. What do they do that compares? As you stated they are combat vets how do they adjust to normal life.
Mushashi for example was using the warriors path to become enlightened, fully developing as a human being. A tall order that requires discipline but all so much more.
By applying the level of realism you have already shown to the reverse of the problem, I hope you agree there are realistic argument to continue.

As to the stats well there the best abstract repesentation of experience and professionalism.


Actually, the PTSD point is interesting, isn't it? The question is, if someone cannot re-integrate back into civilian life, does that mean that they go back to being a combatant?

I remember reading a Green Beret's Vietnam memoir called "Gone Native," where after he goes back to the US he has a hard time getting along with people in small town USA, end up getting arrested, and works out a deal where he goes back to 'Nam, which is kind of what he wanted to do anyway. So, I suppose that there would be some people who couldn't stop being a combatant.

But is that the only thing which can happen? Couldn't someone just retire and be "safe" while being disconsolate while never quite working up the psychological momentum to get back into the business?

Did you ever see the most excellent film "Taxi Driver"? Although it's never explicitly stated that the main character is a Vietnam vet, I think he's supposed to be a Vietnam vet with re-integration problems. He tries to be a taxi driver but in the end ends up going on a nihilistic assault against a pimp in order to rescue one underage prostitute. Actually, that would be a pretty badass death or story end for an experienced runner who tried to retire but couldn't while at the same time not wanting to take up the business anymore.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)
But, surely FastJack went and kicked a lot of BlackIC and Black-Hammer-wielding deckers in their digital testicles, yes?

No, actually, at least not during most of his career. Fastjack's portrayed as having done his thing practically forever, having been born in the late '90s. Black IC doesn't exist until '29 minimum, and Black Hammer doesn't hit the Lone Star decks until '54—and, IIRC, it's strongly implied that FastJack wrote the first implementation before that. While he certainly did a lot after it became life-threatening, he clearly rose to his current stature largely in an environment where lethal countermeasures were rare if not unheard-of.

QUOTE
So, it seems to me what you're really saying is that in order to be believable each character needs to have some backstory reason why he or she couldn't possibly just retire and integrate into "normal" society, which in essence just means having shelter, food, and water without needing to enter combat repeatedly.

Can't or doesn't want to, yes. Otherwise the decker could work for a corp or the 'Star, the mage could work for a corp, the 'Star, or a university, the Rigger could work for a corp, the 'Star, or the military, so on and soforth. Basically every skill that makes an effective Shadowrunner is varying degrees of highly in demand in the 2050s outside of the Shadows. There has to be a reason for a character to still run.

~J
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Sep 21 2006, 06:37 PM)
But, surely FastJack went and kicked a lot of BlackIC and Black-Hammer-wielding deckers in their digital testicles, yes?

No, actually, at least not during most of his career. Fastjack's portrayed as having done his thing practically forever, having been born in the late '90s. Black IC doesn't exist until '29 minimum, and Black Hammer doesn't hit the Lone Star decks until '54—and, IIRC, it's strongly implied that FastJack wrote the first implementation before that. While he certainly did a lot after it became life-threatening, he clearly rose to his current stature largely in an environment where lethal countermeasures were rare if not unheard-of.

See, in that case, his stature dosen't make a lot of sense to me. I could see many people respecting him as being a pioneer and innovator but that wouldn't make him a cyber-badass by "today's standard".

It's kind of like if there were a champion boxer from 1915. Yes, he would deserve a lot of respect and admiration for his accomplishments and innovation in the area of boxing back in 1915. But if he were magically transported into the boxing ring today in his prime he would probably be outdated as a fighter against a champion of today and I would bet against him even while I held respect for him.

Or, let's say we resurrected Louis Pasteur, the father of modern immunization. While Pasteur was no doubt a brilliant man and an innovator, when it comes down to treating diseses today his medical techniques and knowledge would be out of date. I'd rather be treated by an ordinary modern day doctor than by a brilliant doctor who is outdated.
Kagetenshi
I said "rose to". If there were a champion boxer in 1985, who continued fighting at champion-level through 2005 and was still winning the vast majority of his fights, would you bet against him in 2006?

~J
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
I said "rose to". If there were a champion boxer in 1985, who continued fighting at champion-level through 2005 and was still winning the vast majority of his fights, would you bet against him in 2006?

~J

But, in that case, wouldn't FJ be getting exp/Karma for defeating security and other deckers, and thus essentially following the fight->level paradigm? Even if it wasn't lethal, I suppose that most GMs would still give a player karma for defeating security and accomplishing some sort of objective. IIRC a Rust Monster in D&D only trashed your equipment but didn't kill you in 1st ed. Nevertheless, you still got EXP for killing the Rust Monster.
Kagetenshi
I think we're getting mired here, so I'll put this another way:

I have never encountered a player who has declared, whether or not in so many words, "I want a higher [stat/skill/whatever], I'm going to walk into the Barrens with a shotgun", nor have I played under a GM who would, in the absence of some additional action or "hook", award any meaningful quantity of karma for that. As such, I reject the assertion of Shadowrun possessing a fight -> level paradigm, and furthermore reject the claim that challenge -> level is equivalent to fight -> level.

~J
Lagomorph
Thanks WR for the insightful thread.

I think that the thrill factor is a big portion of why a shadowrunner keeps going. Kind of a thrill of the hunt, and humans as the most dangerous prey, thing.

Either that or it's the rock star phenomenon, get bunch of cash, spend cash foolishly on toys, women, drugs and booze, wake up (hung over) and find out you're flat broke again, and go on tour (or a shadowrun).

I think they keep going on shadowruns because they don't have the skills that would allow them to work a job, and who'd hire a sinless anyway?

And a retired shadowrunner is never really retired, just taking an extended vacation, there's always something that'll cause them to pick up the sword again, even if it's just self defense.
hyzmarca
There is also more than a little hero-worship in these circles. Consider that real crackers who haven't touched a keyboard in 20 years due to the conditions of their parole still command an aura of baddass among people who follow such things.

It doesn't matter what Fastjack has done recently because his accomplishments in the past are enough to support a very large baddass aura, especially when combined with his current efforts in the community and his general mysteriousness. Even if he hasn't done any major runs lately he still puts its icon out there for people to see. He stays fresh on everyone's minds. He is as much a brand as a person. And good branding trumps actual ability every time.


Of course, this really matters not in the advancement paradigm. RPG experience systems are foolish. All of them are, without exception. When the goody-two-shoes high-school valedictorian has to garrote deadbeat debtors to death for the local organized crime outfit so that she can learn how to integrate multi-variable functions in time for the AP calculus final there are some problems. There are even larger realism problems if you want to be a 15th level English Major in CoC D20.

This is because most RPGs are action/adventure oriented. You get rewards for doing things that are violent and/or adventurous. Combine this with an abstract system and it is necessary for the players to seriously suspend disbelief. Why should stabbing kobolds make me less likely to die when shot? Obviously, it shouldn't, but this is as accurate as you are going to get.
SR is slightly better since it allows karma rewards for noncombat accomplishments, focusing on rewarding entire 'adventures.' Still a system that prevents people who don't regularly dedicate a lot of their time to adventure from writing a kickass research paper and allowing people who do adventure to do so even when the adventure was in no way related to the research paper is certainly odd.

Perhaps someone should create an academic focused RPG in which people are able to lift more weight because they solved an exceptionally difficult math problem.



As for retirement, I suspect that most PCs would happily retire. However, many would not. Many choose to be Shadowrunners because they want that life, just like many choose to be career military. Likewise, some Shadowrunners simply shouldn't know how to begin to retire. It is one thing to have that dream. It is quite an other to change the routine that has sustained you for years.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
When the goody-two-shoes high-school valedictorian has to garrote deadbeat debtors to death for the local organized crime outfit so that she can learn how to integrate multi-variable functions in time for the AP calculus final there are some problems. There are even larger realism problems if you want to be a 15th level English Major in CoC D20.

New RPG idea: all of the characters are just entering either High School or College, have entered into a bunch of honors courses and whatever, are all shooting for valedictorian… and have discovered that the only way to improve their academic skills is by killing things for experience.

~J
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Sep 21 2006, 08:17 PM)
When the goody-two-shoes high-school valedictorian has to garrote deadbeat debtors to death for the local organized crime outfit so that she can learn how to integrate multi-variable functions in time for the AP calculus final there are some problems. There are even larger realism problems if you want to be a 15th level English Major in CoC D20.

New RPG idea: all of the characters are just entering either High School or College, have entered into a bunch of honors courses and whatever, are all shooting for valedictorian… and have discovered that the only way to improve their academic skills is by killing things for experience.

~J

That could be either very funny or very disturbing and will probably both at the same time. D20 Modern meets Battle Royale and they have a three-way with Parker Lewis Can't Lose.
Dog
I agree that what constitutes "advancement," "improvement," and "success," is only limited by the players' perspective. If a player wanted to play a hardcore Taoist, (Is there such a thing?) and avoid confrontation and complication, I suppose that he should get karma for spending the day watching leaves in the wind. Just wouldn't be terribly interesting to me....

Likewise, whatever that guy spent karma on would probably seem like a waste compared to a more standard character, but there are still zillions of possibilities.

I like the karma system a lot because it's so arbitrary.
ShadowDragon
I'd be more inclined to award karma for avoiding fights than winning them. I try to make every conflict possible to talk your way out of and/or evade - and I'm more impressed when my players do this than when they plow through with an Ares Alpha.

I think your idea applies more to DnD than Shadowrun.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (SR4 p.263; because it was convienent)
In Shadowrun, Karma measures the experience characters gain as they go out on an adventure. They don�t get Karma for doing laundry (unless the laundromat is in the middle of toxic spirit�s domain, perhaps).


Emphasis mine. Similar statements (probably the same statement) appear in other editions.

Shadowrun characters may complete their adventures without combat but they still must mave adventures in they want karma. These adventures, which may or may not be Shadowruns, will put the characters in jepordy for life and limb. Even before Black IC Fastjack risked arrest and imprisonment if he had made a mistake and been traced. This has been the fate of man crackers.

The average college student in Shadowrun must do something truely dangerous if he wants to actually learn something. This may be commiting a crime, climbing Mount Everest, going sewer spelunking, seducing Lord Torgo's girlfriend, or fighting in no holds barred death matches, among other things. Whatever it is there is a decent chance that the student will be imprisoned or killed.
Dog
I'm going to argue spirit of the law versus letter of the law here. What constitutes an adventure? I'd say that it depends on what the the GM and players have agreed would be fun.

I also think that the paragraph cited refers specifically to shadowrunners. If you're not a shadowrunner, it would be easy to say you may obtain karma by helping sick people to survive, passing a big test, setting up a small business and things like that.

My point being that the rules were only designed to cover the scope of Shadowrun-ish scenarios. Why feel the necessity to apply them to everybody?

But I don't want to argue, I just don't get where you're going with this, Hyz. Are you trying to point out the limitations of the game? (I agree with you.) Are you critiquing the game based on those limitations? (Fair enough, you're not wrong.) Are you saying that GMs should not allow advancement for accomplishments that game designers were anticipating? In that case I have to wonder: If all players, including the GM, enjoyed the gaming session, and the player characters met a reasonble challenge and succeeded against it, is it not an adventure?

Or to be more direct, I disagree with your interpretation of what is an adventure. I also think that your comment about what "must" be done is limited. I also think that your examples of what counts as dangerous are more limited. Is putting your career at stake to go for the big promotion not dangerous? Is moving to a new city to get over a divorce not something of an adventure? Is investing your life savings in an education program with a 60% drop out rate not a risk? Where does it say you have to risk death or imprisonment?

Having said all that, for the purposes of running a decent Shadowrun game, I agree with you, I probably wouldn't award a player any karma for those things. I just think that if I want to, I can.
nezumi
I am under the impression that in Shadowrun karma is not awarded solely for killing things or going on adventures. Karma is awarded for facing and overcoming challenges. The world-reknown neurosurgeon with 10 in every related skill didn't get that way by killing ghouls out in the barrens (although that would explain why Dr. McNinja is just so cool). He got those skills by studying, overcoming challenges (exams and dissertations, operations, etc.) and constantly pushing himself.

As such, I have no problem with awarding a character karma for taking a college course (although presumably the karma gained from taking that course would have to be applied to increasing the related skill so he can pass those finals. This is one of the flaws of karma, karma is earned in the doing more than in the done, so in studying a course we'd have to ask if he gets the karma upon finishing the course work, but before the final, after the final, or in discrete increments over the course of the semester).

So that's my take on the situation. Karma doesn't require combat. Fastjack is awesome because he continues to test his skills, and not necessarily in matrix combat. A character can earn karma through non-adventure challenges. The only flaws with the system is sometimes when karma is awarded can be difficult to define, and karma earned through one method can be applied universally to unrelated skills and abilities.

As for the original question... I can't imagine why anyone would make a shadowrun character who would have no motive to get into the initial shadowrun. Past that, I'm just waiting for the day when my fixer can say "You know why people like you can't leave this business? Because you make too much money for people like me." Even though a runner is technically a free agent, he depends on people and people depend on him, and there will be buttons pressed to get the runner to do 'just one more job'. Running ain't the sorta biz you get outta easy, chummer. Unless you're counting in a body bag.
emo samurai
I award karma based more on good planning, adaptation, and funny. I think the BBB is vague enough that you could award karma for just about anything.
James McMurray
You're saying "rational human behavior" and "realism" in the same breath. That seems to be rarely the case. Some people (probably most of them) do what they do because it's what they want, they think they don't have a choice, or they think they can't do better. Rational thought only enters into it when someone from the outside presents a strong case for change, or events put the person in a position where they have no choice but to change.

As for tying experience to combat, that's not Shadowrun. Heck, it doesn't even have to be D&D if your DM can step outside of that mold and start presenting challenges instead of just critters to kill. Combat for advancement is definitely the easiest type of campaign to run, and most runs probably involve at least one fight, but you're not getting the karma because of the battle, but because of the overall experience.
emo samurai
Hell, I'd give you a lot more karma if you avoid fighting altogether.
Dog
QUOTE (emo samurai)
Hell, I'd give you a lot more karma if you avoid fighting altogether.

Including on this forum?
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Dog)


But I don't want to argue, I just don't get where you're going with this, Hyz. Are you trying to point out the limitations of the game? (I agree with you.) Are you critiquing the game based on those limitations? (Fair enough, you're not wrong.) Are you saying that GMs should not allow advancement for accomplishments that game designers were anticipating? In that case I have to wonder: If all players, including the GM, enjoyed the gaming session, and the player characters met a reasonble challenge and succeeded against it, is it not an adventure?

I'm attacking the assertion that canon would allow a Taoist character to gain karma by watching the wind blow. Doing laundry in a toxic spirit's domain is pretty much the minimum allowable by canon.

There is nothing wrong with house ruling it a little bit, the system has always been a little vague. There is also nothing wrong with having elementry school students go on devil rat hunting expeditions so they can learn that Montevideo is that capital of Uruguay because there is something fun and surreal about that.
Of course, the cash for karma rules may help but I don't see most public school kids to be able to afford it.

On the issue of realism, I often prefer to take the rules of the game world as real physical laws that the characters within the world are aware of and accept just as readily as we accept Newton's laws of motion. Consistant surrealism is more realistic than inconsistancy.
Kagetenshi
Taxes. Everyone pays for public school karma.

~J
PlainWhiteSocks
To the original post.
Even in the era of ultrachrunch montehaul munchkinism there were other concepts floating around. Stalking the Night Fantastic which came out in I think 1983 had a nifty approach to this. They built a combat system that most people didn’t want to deal with in the hopes that players would avoid it in favor of non-violent solutions.

Even Phoenix Command had this concept in mind. The thought being if you made combat deadly enough people wouldn’t want to get into combat, and instead roleplay different solutions.

In SR it would seem that karma is awarded for lots of more meta-game sorts of things. Like good roleplaying, and extreme in character humor. It might point to karma being awarded to players instead of characters.
Dog
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
I'm attacking...

I see....
ronin3338
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Sep 21 2006, 08:28 PM)
New RPG idea: all of the characters are just entering either High School or College, have entered into a bunch of honors courses and whatever, are all shooting for valedictorian… and have discovered that the only way to improve their academic skills is by killing things for experience.

~J

Now that's funny... biggrin.gif
Fygg Nuuton
I award karma for life decisions.

If the character shooses to sneak around instead of kill all the guards, because thats what his character would do and they succeed, they get karma. If the same character decided to kill them all for no reason and it is out of character, i would not award karma.

If the very same character decided to kill them because there was no way out, but roleplayed it well, I would have to award karma.

If there was some sort of major life changing decision being made whilst doing the laundry, I would probably award karma. But so far, there has been none.

That being said, i also award for metagame type things, and maybe 1-2 points for finishing the run in one piece.
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (Fygg Nuuton)
I award karma for life decisions.

If the character shooses to sneak around instead of kill all the guards, because thats what his character would do and they succeed, they get karma. If the same character decided to kill them all for no reason and it is out of character, i would not award karma.

If the very same character decided to kill them because there was no way out, but roleplayed it well, I would have to award karma.

If there was some sort of major life changing decision being made whilst doing the laundry, I would probably award karma. But so far, there has been none.

That being said, i also award for metagame type things, and maybe 1-2 points for finishing the run in one piece.

So Fygg, does that mean that potentially give absolutely zero karma reward if the player character played very well and managed to slay all 20 guards all by himself just because he could have chosen not to be a whirlwind of sociopathic death?
Feyd-47
Hmm, after having a good read up on this thread (if it's old, nevermind, it caught my eye so i'm resurrecting it smile.gif ) i think the major bone of contention is that many people have different ideas as to what Karma should be awarded for. This, naturally, leads to certain clashes of ideas as to how Karma should be awarded.

I think to successfully look at the issue objectively we need to first look at the assumptions Shadowrun makes about itself. it's base criteria for Karma and finally how all this gels together with the myriad of possible character ideas that Shadowrun can generate.

Firstly, i think we can all say that Shadowrun assumes that there is going to be a combat orientated element to any plot somewhere along the line of playing. This could be in one or more of three major areas: Physical Combat, Magical Combat and Cyber Combat. This is what is mostly considered the Shadowrunners bread and butter of any run. However, Shadowrun never makes the decision on how the characters deal with these three areas of combat. Shadowrun also does not consider in any great detail the aspects of Social Combat. While it could be expostulated that this is not a Combat form per se it can still prove to be a challenge in which someone's life might be held in the balance. Whether this means life or death or something more subtle is entirely dependent upon the situation in question and would take forever and a day to produce an exhaustive list of all possible details that such a situation could entail.

Karma could be handed out for many situations that arise in these moments of "combat" and as to how this is judged depends entirely on the point of view of all those involved and the situation in question. Mostly, however, Shadowrun awards Karma to "..characters that personally advance the story or the overall gaming enjoyment in some way.." and looks at what it believes to be the general areas in which this can occur. These areas are Good Roleplaying, Guts, Smarts, Motivation, Right Place/Right Time, Surprise and Humour and Drama. In no way is this list exhaustive or necessarily relevent. As many on this thread have already pointed out, many people have their own criteria for handing out Karma that maybe a variation or, indeed, completely contrary to the criteria layed out in the Shadowrun Third Edition Book.

Of course for any of this to work you must have context. There really is no "normal" or "base line" character that exists in shadowrun. Many characters are taken in context to their intended roles within the group, be it Street Samurai, Adept, Spell Slinger or Decker. But these are simply roles within a group, it does not necessarily define the character or limit them to one of those roles only, many characters tend to blend into other roles somewhat, though this certainly isn't necessarily true. What truly defines a character is their personality and needs, and what moulds that, as any person real or imagined, is their experiences and resultant point of view. At base, what any human being craves is security. In modern times, this probably means food turning up on the table regularly and somewhere sheltered and secured that they can stay where they can be moderately sure that they are free from harm/interference from the rest of the world. However, the crux of the matter at hand is the question of simply why do characters become Shadowrunners?

Take the first quote posted on this thread by Wounded Ronin who was quoting his old GM: "One flaw with Shadowrun is that you can take Resources A in character generation and use it to buy a permanent high lifestyle and win the game without playing." This is in itself an interesting view on Shadowrun as this comment certainly works nicely if the character in question's only goal is to be able to buy a permanent lifestyle and this works for some people. If you go by the letter of the Shadowrun rules however, you have a character that has a nice permanent high lifestyle but unfortunately owns no clothes, no computer beyond his trideo system, no car beyond the rental that is probably afforded by his lifestyle and no income. Whilst this maybe fine for an ascetic character that lives in a nudist colony it certainly does no good to a character that wishes to work for a wage to purchase those luxuries that are not provided by his High Lifestyle.
So, what is the "Win" condition of Shadowrun? There is no particular one and the ones that exist are usually personal to the character who sets them. The attainment of goals are the characters "Win" conditions, but the game doesn't end there necessarily, a character may realise new goals thanks to the attainment or indeed the failure to attain previous goals. So going back to the original point question of why do people Shadowrun, the number reasons that exist is as many as there are Shadowrunners. A SINless metahuman character cannot get a legitimate job that covers his bills and is forced to run the shadows for survival. A wage-mage angry at his treatment by his megacorporate bosses enters the shadows to wage a private war against said megacorporation. Some might Shadowrun simply for the thrill and challenge of putting one's life on the line. The reasons are varied and many coloured and without a doubt, a personal goal of the character is involved in that reason at somepoint. Of course one of the major attractions of Shadowrunning is that Shadowrunning is Lucrative. You won't find the money on offer for Shadowrunning matched by some low end desk jockey pumping out stock reports for his superiors. Shadowrunning is lucrative because Shadowrunners put their life on the line as deniable assets to get a job done that no law abiding citizen would involve themselves in. They risk death, maiming or imprisonment for their employers and they are paid a good deal for it, though this can be variable depending on the job and the negotions that ensue as to how much the team will be paid. You can bet that for every Shadowrunner out there that has their own specific personal agenda there are five more that do it because it pays well and affords them the lifestyle they have come to see as normal.

This is your context for Karma awards. By playing your character in the adventure/story that your GM has created, Karma helps to quantify how the character has progressed in their own life as well as how well they have performed in the adventure. No two GM are alike, no two players are alike and how that effects the game and how it causes the game and characters to grow is entirely down to the players and GM in question's personal desires. If you and your players want to receive Karma for bodycount and 'plosions, nothing is to say you can't and you award Karma in that context.

Simply there is no hard and fast rules where it comes to character development or game progression, nor the rewards and consequences of such and Shadowrun is no way limited in this fashion, quite the opposite. The GM and the players should work together to find whatever works for them and enjoy themselves whilst doing it, whatever your preference and no one person or group is unequivocally right or wrong in this regard.

I have waxed lyrical for quite some time and i'm unsure as to whether people will read all this or comment on it, but i do hope i have helped further understanding of the subject matter at hand.
Dread Polack
I think you need to keep a couple things in mind. One is that the karma system (earning points for accomplishing things, and then spending them to improve yourself in whatever way you choose) is not perfect or realistic. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Most people gain skill both through study and application. In RPGs, you don't get karma/xp for "hitting the books" or "working in the lab." Most RPGs award most of earned xp through combat, because it's a big part of the game; the fun part. People accept this.

Secondly, even in a very tactical, combat-heavy RPG like SR, we're still "storytelling" here. Sure, the ultimate motivation of most runners would be to retire with a load of nuyen, but the goals of most players is to keep playing, and it would suck to have to create a new character every time your old one makes enough money to buy a condo. So, we work with our GMs to ensure a sufficient storyline to keep our runners running; for whatever reason.

I think RPGs today are a bit more sophisticated than 1st edition D&D, where it was more like a board game, earning points for killing monsters. SR was ahead of its time, giving up the level-based system where the more monsters you kill, the better you are at appraising diamonds or speaking japanese. Still, its not perfect. It's a compromise.

Bearing that in mind, I think most good GMs award xp/karma for "completed goals" that fit your character's "motivation." It's assumed from there, that you will work with your GM to improve the skills & abilities you used to accomplish said goals, and are perfecting as part of your concept. Deckers are awarded for decking, and spend karma to improve their decking skills, mages for magic, street sams for fighting, etc.

You're right, but you have to compromise, and the games are getting better.

Dread Polack
eidolon
Both good posts. One thing though, part of what Feyd is saying, is that if it's what has been agreed upon, you can receive Karma for "hitting the books" or "working in the lab.". Actually, Dread, you're saying that as well, although not as explicitly, as shown by:
QUOTE (Dread Polack)
I think most good GMs award xp/karma for "completed goals" that fit your character's "motivation." It's assumed from there, that you will work with your GM to improve the skills & abilities you used to accomplish said goals, and are perfecting as part of your concept.


So yeah. Some good points and takes in both of those.
lorechaser
Back to the original point:

1. It's a tried and true staple of the genre that the (anti)hero gets pulled back in for "just one more X." Also, most criminals have expensive tastes. It's odd that someone gets in to Shadowrunning because "I just want a 2 bedroom house with 2.5 kids, man!" Everyone *should* have a motivating reason for starting to run the shadows. That doesn't mean that a good character concept can't be "Forced on the streets, Bob struggled to survive until he learned he was good a Y, which keeps him in nuyen now." But most want fast cars, fast (wo)men, and big scores. And often, they owe more money to people than they can pay back.

2. Every single runner should be required to have "Addiction" wink.gif That'll keep 'em running.



Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (Dread Polack)


Secondly, even in a very tactical, combat-heavy RPG like SR, we're still "storytelling" here. Sure, the ultimate motivation of most runners would be to retire with a load of nuyen, but the goals of most players is to keep playing, and it would suck to have to create a new character every time your old one makes enough money to buy a condo. So, we work with our GMs to ensure a sufficient storyline to keep our runners running; for whatever reason.

I don't necessarily think that's the only way to go about it. Personally, I could see myself measuring my success as a gamer in terms of volume of characters successfully retired. I could make a new character each time my old one dies or retires and get a sense of satisfaction that I had "successfully retired" 7 out of 10 characters, for example. As it is I don't usually like sticking to the same character indefinitely. I usually get bored after a while and roll up a new one anyway.





Feyd: I enjoyed your post. Actually read the whole thing.

One thought: if shadowrunning is one of the few ways a SIN-less can earn a living that might suggest a large volume of crappy shadowrunners. Imagine a guy with no education who doesn't think too much about the future. He's got a .357 magnum tucked in his belt and he figures that if he can get paid to go shoot a particular person that would be a great idea. Even if he's doomed to fail considering the volume of poor people you'd still get a large volume of people like him.
Dog
Of all the resurrected threads, this is one that truly deserves it. Great comments by all. I don't have much to add at this point, other than that this last round of stuff is really insightful and I'm glad you guys said it.
hobgoblin
this sound to me like serious forge territory...

anyways, i think even D&D says that killing the monster isnt the only way to gain XP. problem is that the biggest part of the book talks about combat.

same with SR. you have everything revolving around the combat chapter and its timing system. detailed rules for weapon, hacking, magic all having defined actions that are free, simple or complex.

this gives a perception of combat overload in the mind of the reader.

still, SR karma is better then D&D exp. in that the former can be given for anything, including suviving the day, while the latter is based on the challenge rating of the group of monsters, trap(s) or whatever.

still, in both systems skills like fast talk and similar are given what, a small table of outcomes based on the comparison of two rolls? while on the other side combat have a seperate chapter. ie, people would feel cheated if all they did was roll the dice, get a better result then the npc and presto, problem over, here are your xp/karma/whatever. it becomes a bit like playing clickquest (that "computer game")...

this brings me back to the forge, that think tank with their grand theorys and everything like that. there seems to be one interesting game for us rules junkies that may have come out of that place, burning wheel. from what i understand it have a detailed, combat-like, system for playing out things like discussions.

sorry if anything of this have come up allready, i just skimmed the thread...
Kyoto Kid
QUOTE (Dog)
Of all the resurrected threads, this is one that truly deserves it.  Great comments by all.  I don't have much to add at this point, other than that this last round of stuff is really insightful and I'm glad you guys said it.

...I agree 100%.

I tend to be rather fluid with Karma awards. Often I base them on grounds like how well the character was played in concept, what contribution they made to the success of the mission (not necessarily combat-wise), how resourcesful were they, what clues did they piece together, and so on.

Of course negative actions also adjust the karma award as well. For example, if the team is told to keep things quiet, but instead go in with guns blazing and spells popping. Yes they may still achieve the objective, but the final Karma award is adjusted because they basically failed by drawing attention to themselves and making a big scene.
Dranem
Even in D&D there are descriptions dealing with defeating an enemy - not only through conflict. Talkind down and enemy or disarming an enemy and capturing them will net a party just as much experience as if the creature was lying dead at their feet.

The one thing I like the most about Shadowrun is that, unlike other RPGs, it's not an encounter award system. You don't have to encounter a creature or a challenge in order to gain a reward. The award system is based on accomplishment, and often offer more reward for avoiding conflict rather than starting it. Outside of runs where the goal was assault, I've always considered the task/job/mission a failure if it disolved into a firefight. Mainly cause I believe the primary goal of the shadowrunner is corporate espionage. To be an efficient spy you need to be in and out without anyone being the wiser, not every mission need end 'James Bond Style' After all, the longer it takes for the opposition to clue in that something is amiss, the longer your J has the upper hand in whatever task he'd assigned you to do.
Granted this model doesn't always work:
In extraction/recovery missions, unless you use a decoy, the opposition will realize that your target is missing sooner or later.. (better later than sooner thought)
In assault or demolition runs, the target will realize that something is up - unless you expertly craft the mission to look like an accident or natural disaster.

That said, I've had missions where I've gained bonus rewards from good RP, from successful contacts, or just really footwork. I could easily see rewarding a student for fantastic grades, or successful accomplishments. Or awarding an NPC for various tasks if said NPC needs to be interactive at some point in time during a mission. (I know, as a GM, you can arbitrarily set these numbers, but having NPCs level up in the backgroup adds some realism to the campaign... just cause they're not players, doesn't mean they don't have a life.)

I did have something else to add.. but lost my train of thought.. so I'll probalby include it later. smile.gif
eidolon
Dranem hit on this somewhat, but I'd like to add if I can.

In D&D, even the 3.x versions, there are several suggestions and examples for awarding experience in different ways, all of which can be used, disregarded, added, etc. to come up with "what works" for your group.

Ad hoc, story experience suggestions, and other stuff allow for the same kind of adjustments to the rewared system as Karma gives Shadowrun, you just have to use it, abuse it, and figure out what works for you.

Sure, it's easy to fall back to "CR3 is worth X", but it's just as easy in SR to fall back to "one K for surviving, one K for playing, one K for ...". And of course, neither of these is a "wrong" way to play. But the flexibility is there if you want it.
lorechaser
Combat is flashy, and combat is rules intensive. Thus, it tends to occupy a large part of books, and of games.

It's very easy to write 4 chapters on combat options and rewards.

It's a lot harder to write 4 chapters on negotiation and rewards. We all know how to talk to people. For someone to write a book with a chapter describing how to be polite would just be silly....
hobgoblin
it realy depends. if there was one thing i found interesting about burning wheel, it was its "combat" system (alltho owod in theory uses something similar i dont think many play it that way).

at the start of the combat you write down the things you want to do the next couple of rounds.

your comitted to these action unless you trow away a action for a round to rewrite a later round.

the same thing can be done in verbal interactions.

or maybe something like in castle falkenstein where you have a general duel system that can be used for both verbal and physical duels.

thing is to make the talk more then just a single dice roll. maybe have something like either side have to win 2-3 times in a row. if the other side wins a round they get a counter argument in and can start to try and win.

then maybe have modifiers for physical apperance, evidence to back ones arguments up and so on.
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