So, I just finished DMing On the Run. We all had a great time, etc, etc, etc, but now I'm wondering "Now what?" Now, I hear all of you out there saying "Make up an adventure." I understand and agree. The problem is, I play in a group where I and another guy take turns being DM. If I make an adventure, it won't be fair because I'll know all the tricks while I'm playing it. Problem is, the other DM doesn't seem the type to go for rolling his own. So I'm wondering, have any people/organizations/etc come up with any more adventures? Even a fan-made adventure would do. Thing is, I'd like to actually, you know, *play* SR4 for once, and now I seem to have hit a wall. Does anyone out there have any suggestions?
OSUMacbeth
Full Version: What to do after completing On the Run?
http://shadowrunrpg.com/missions/downloads/
You could easily alternate between running SRM adventures.
You could easily alternate between running SRM adventures.
Ugh. Switching GM duties in the same campaign (no DMs in Shadowrun BTW... this isn't DnD) is by far the stupidest idea in gaming. That is your problem, not a lack of ideas. I just don't see the appeal and would never play in such a campaign. If you run two separate campaigns, you'd be much better off.
| QUOTE (ShadowDragon) |
| Ugh. Switching GM duties in the same campaign (no DMs in Shadowrun BTW... this isn't DnD) is by far the stupidest idea in gaming. That is your problem, not a lack of ideas. I just don't see the appeal and would never play in such a campaign. If you run two separate campaigns, you'd be much better off. |
It allows someone that typically always runs the games to have a chance at playing, and allows someone that can't necessarily commit to running an entire campaign to run some things. It also allows the game to go on if the GM can't make it.
Not all of us have 4 days a week to devote to gaming. Some of us play once every couple weeks, if we're lucky, and everyone's schedule mostly works out....
It also allows for some interesting collaborations in the game play, and if done well, makes for some highly interesting campaigns.
After On the Run, why not dig out an old copy of Food Fight and actually go DOWN a notch or so of the stakes?
Plus, I find that Food Fight segues nicely to a lot of things, including simple ganger-bashing.
Plus, I find that Food Fight segues nicely to a lot of things, including simple ganger-bashing.
Dear ShadowDragon,
First, thank you for your kind reply.
I regret to inform you, however, that this style of play has never caused difficulties for our group, and given my players, I can't see how it would. I've played this altrenating system as well as running dual campaigns, and have noticed no difference in the quality of play. Perhaps it comes from having players more interested in fairness and game balance than abusing the (small) conflict of interests that switching GMs poses in Shadowrun.
I am actually rather curious to hear more from you on this subject. What is it that has caused this system to fail so spectacularly for you and yours? Another experienced DM and I actually ran Renraku Arcology Shutdown in altrenating sessions, and I've never had more fun in another adventure. Does it make a difference that both of us are experienced DMs who have little interest in in-game power for its own sake? Or that if we are exposed to plot-critical elements we are more than happy to let the rest of the group take the reins at these junctures, rather than act on our omniscient knowledge?
In any case, if you are still reading this thread, I would be interested to hear why you think this style of play is such a "stupid idea." As a group that plays only once every few weeks (if we can), it has suited our desire to actually play characters once in a while admirably.
Again, thank you for your response, and I look forward to your reply.
OSUMacbeth
First, thank you for your kind reply.
I regret to inform you, however, that this style of play has never caused difficulties for our group, and given my players, I can't see how it would. I've played this altrenating system as well as running dual campaigns, and have noticed no difference in the quality of play. Perhaps it comes from having players more interested in fairness and game balance than abusing the (small) conflict of interests that switching GMs poses in Shadowrun. I am actually rather curious to hear more from you on this subject. What is it that has caused this system to fail so spectacularly for you and yours? Another experienced DM and I actually ran Renraku Arcology Shutdown in altrenating sessions, and I've never had more fun in another adventure. Does it make a difference that both of us are experienced DMs who have little interest in in-game power for its own sake? Or that if we are exposed to plot-critical elements we are more than happy to let the rest of the group take the reins at these junctures, rather than act on our omniscient knowledge?
In any case, if you are still reading this thread, I would be interested to hear why you think this style of play is such a "stupid idea." As a group that plays only once every few weeks (if we can), it has suited our desire to actually play characters once in a while admirably.
Again, thank you for your response, and I look forward to your reply.
OSUMacbeth
Chilling. It is amazing what a sudden shift to formality in language can do for mood. Now I am interested in how this thread goes on too.
BTW, I would love to have one of my players Gm every once in a while, of course I understand that said alternate Gm would make a run following a different track than hs/her counterpart's storyline, would not hijack its favourite npcs, etc, etc.
However, all the players in my group are exceedingly happy with my job as a Gm, so I can't persuade them to take the wheel for a while. In the meantime, I have my head full of idle characters eager to see gameplay!! Oh well.
Cheers,
Max
edited for clarity
BTW, I would love to have one of my players Gm every once in a while, of course I understand that said alternate Gm would make a run following a different track than hs/her counterpart's storyline, would not hijack its favourite npcs, etc, etc.
However, all the players in my group are exceedingly happy with my job as a Gm, so I can't persuade them to take the wheel for a while. In the meantime, I have my head full of idle characters eager to see gameplay!! Oh well.
Cheers,
Max
edited for clarity
Heh, I actually didn't mean to come off as "chilling." I find that a formal and polite response where a flame is expected can get some interesting responses.
I find that a formal and polite response where a flame is expected can get some interesting responses.
Um, I spent most of my college career studying Silent Hill, exploring every image and whatnot, and I still found that kinda chilling...
Anyway, back on topic, my group rotates GM's too. Haven't had a problem yet, despite our very different styles (I plan, he freeplays). Long as he doesn't hijack my NPC's (can't see why he'd want too anyway) and we keep our relative ideas compatible, we're golden.
Anyway, back on topic, my group rotates GM's too. Haven't had a problem yet, despite our very different styles (I plan, he freeplays). Long as he doesn't hijack my NPC's (can't see why he'd want too anyway) and we keep our relative ideas compatible, we're golden.
Alright, you've tagged me. I'm a monster. Shall I apologize for my chilling tone now, or wait for ShadowDragon to read it?
Rereading my reply, I sounded a little harsh. Sorry about that. (I had just heard about Kobe Bryant being suspended for BS reasons 
)
My bias mostly comes from my experience with immature players (which I'm happy to read you don't have a problem with), and horror stories from the DnD forums. It seems like every time I visit those forums I see another thread complaining about continuity conflicts, differences in DMing styles, power scaling problems, etc. This is often coupled with it's sister potential problem: the DMPC.
Then there's the unavoidable problem, which is the one you're asking for help on. If your campaign is limited to pre-made adventures, it doesn't sound very fun to me. Not only do you know what's coming (which would ruin my suspension of disbelief), but your creativity is limited. Or if you don't read the entire module ahead of time so you don't ruin the story for yourself as a player, you're less prepared as a GM. I've used modules and the beginning parts don't always make sense without reading ahead or reading the background story that players aren't supposed to know without legwork. Sometimes the players take the story on a tangent not covered in the module. How do you handle that without railroading? I've also used On the Run, and I can't imagine GMing it without making modifications to my taste.
I can understand your desire to play as well as GM with real life time constraints. My group is in this position as well (actually currently we can't even play because of schedule conflicts). We used to play once a week, where I GM Shadowrun every other week and play in a player's DnD campaign that he DMs every other week. This works so well, I just don't see the appeal of your situation.
If you really want to switch GMing duties in the same campaign, I recommend that you at least switch every mission and not every game session. That way you can come up with your own missions and still get a chance to play.
)My bias mostly comes from my experience with immature players (which I'm happy to read you don't have a problem with), and horror stories from the DnD forums. It seems like every time I visit those forums I see another thread complaining about continuity conflicts, differences in DMing styles, power scaling problems, etc. This is often coupled with it's sister potential problem: the DMPC.
Then there's the unavoidable problem, which is the one you're asking for help on. If your campaign is limited to pre-made adventures, it doesn't sound very fun to me. Not only do you know what's coming (which would ruin my suspension of disbelief), but your creativity is limited. Or if you don't read the entire module ahead of time so you don't ruin the story for yourself as a player, you're less prepared as a GM. I've used modules and the beginning parts don't always make sense without reading ahead or reading the background story that players aren't supposed to know without legwork. Sometimes the players take the story on a tangent not covered in the module. How do you handle that without railroading? I've also used On the Run, and I can't imagine GMing it without making modifications to my taste.
I can understand your desire to play as well as GM with real life time constraints. My group is in this position as well (actually currently we can't even play because of schedule conflicts). We used to play once a week, where I GM Shadowrun every other week and play in a player's DnD campaign that he DMs every other week. This works so well, I just don't see the appeal of your situation.
If you really want to switch GMing duties in the same campaign, I recommend that you at least switch every mission and not every game session. That way you can come up with your own missions and still get a chance to play.
I have played with the alternating GM system and it worked fine for me. The games were fairly casual as you can't have long story arcs or anything. Well, perhaps you could but that wasn't what we were going for.
Anyway, I think the most important trap to avoid is having the GMs character appear in the game they are running even for a cameo appearance. If you avoid that it should run very smoothly.
-Strobe
Anyway, I think the most important trap to avoid is having the GMs character appear in the game they are running even for a cameo appearance. If you avoid that it should run very smoothly.
-Strobe
CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT
Typically the before and after adventure times are where this goes down in my games. There are lots of ways to do this.
But the basic idea is that it's a chance for characters to do something mostly on their own and develop a little beyond shooting machines.
Examples:
Secret admirer starts leaving gifts for a female in the group.
A contact challenges the rigger to go out to the empty steets at night to test their skill behind their modded westwind against the other hotroders around the city.
Girl scout comes by selling cookies. Later comes back crying because daddy is hitting mommy.
Some guys want the troll to be in their band.
Neighborhood prankster makes a bad decision
Typically the before and after adventure times are where this goes down in my games. There are lots of ways to do this.
But the basic idea is that it's a chance for characters to do something mostly on their own and develop a little beyond shooting machines.
Examples:
Secret admirer starts leaving gifts for a female in the group.
A contact challenges the rigger to go out to the empty steets at night to test their skill behind their modded westwind against the other hotroders around the city.
Girl scout comes by selling cookies. Later comes back crying because daddy is hitting mommy.
Some guys want the troll to be in their band.
Neighborhood prankster makes a bad decision
Eek, I didn't mean to imply that we trade off every session. I've been DMing the past month on On the Run, and now my counterpart will trade off for the upcoming adventure (whatever that might be.) I quite agree, by the way, that custom-made or heavily modified adventures do have an undeniable spice, but my fellow DM doesn't really go for that sort of thing. I agree that with less mature players, switching off DMs would be a nightmare (but so might playing the game!)
On a separate note, I actually ran a DMPC through an Eberron campaign in DnD once. It went quite well. However, this is really a last resort for a very under-manned group, so if you want to try it, I have a couple of guidelines.
1. Do not play a theoretical character. By this I mean playing something like a rogue or a hacker, something with a lot of non-combat options. Your omniscience is too hard to overcome with these characters.
2. If you disreagard 1 and play a theoretical character, never do *anything* outside of combat on your own initiative. Even if it makes perfect sense for your rogue to sneak up and take out a sentry, wait for another group member to suggest it to you. This way you can avoid taking advantage of your knowledge to some degree.
3. The best characters for DMPCs are primarily combat-oriented. Your DM knowledge doesn't mean jack when everything's decided by die rolls and your enemies randomly determine who they attack. Even then, it's hard not to let the fact that you're the DM influence things too greatly.
4. Do *not* make a better character than your players in any way. If anything, a DMPC should be underpowered. You're trying to help your players fill the gaps in their group, not steal the spotlight. Amusingly, this allows you to spend points (or whatever) on a bunch of non-powerful role-playey things, which can lead to more interesting games.)
5. Most importantly, only do this at all as a last resort. In the game I played a DMPC in, I had three players. They were all very powerful, well made characters, but in the end, there were still only three of them. We even tried gestalt characters (for those of you who know what those are), but just as the book says, being able to do more and having fewer weaknesses does not change the fact that you still only have one standard and one move action. I learned there that an average group of four will outlive an amazing group of three every time.
And yeah, I did try to tone down encounters as well, but I'm not perfect, and I can't catch everything. It's a little too late to put the genie back in the bottle when two of your players have just been killed by the adventure's boss.
Man, what a long post. To get back to the original point, it's definitely a last resort, but if you're desperate, it can be a valuable tool.
OSUMacbeth
On a separate note, I actually ran a DMPC through an Eberron campaign in DnD once. It went quite well. However, this is really a last resort for a very under-manned group, so if you want to try it, I have a couple of guidelines.
1. Do not play a theoretical character. By this I mean playing something like a rogue or a hacker, something with a lot of non-combat options. Your omniscience is too hard to overcome with these characters.
2. If you disreagard 1 and play a theoretical character, never do *anything* outside of combat on your own initiative. Even if it makes perfect sense for your rogue to sneak up and take out a sentry, wait for another group member to suggest it to you. This way you can avoid taking advantage of your knowledge to some degree.
3. The best characters for DMPCs are primarily combat-oriented. Your DM knowledge doesn't mean jack when everything's decided by die rolls and your enemies randomly determine who they attack. Even then, it's hard not to let the fact that you're the DM influence things too greatly.
4. Do *not* make a better character than your players in any way. If anything, a DMPC should be underpowered. You're trying to help your players fill the gaps in their group, not steal the spotlight. Amusingly, this allows you to spend points (or whatever) on a bunch of non-powerful role-playey things, which can lead to more interesting games.)
5. Most importantly, only do this at all as a last resort. In the game I played a DMPC in, I had three players. They were all very powerful, well made characters, but in the end, there were still only three of them. We even tried gestalt characters (for those of you who know what those are), but just as the book says, being able to do more and having fewer weaknesses does not change the fact that you still only have one standard and one move action. I learned there that an average group of four will outlive an amazing group of three every time.
And yeah, I did try to tone down encounters as well, but I'm not perfect, and I can't catch everything. It's a little too late to put the genie back in the bottle when two of your players have just been killed by the adventure's boss.
Man, what a long post. To get back to the original point, it's definitely a last resort, but if you're desperate, it can be a valuable tool.
OSUMacbeth
Sounds like your friend just needs a little practice creating his own material. Have you tried giving him tips? It was a little intimidating for me at first too, but I got the hang of it.
| QUOTE (ShadowDragon) |
| Sounds like your friend just needs a little practice creating his own material. Have you tried giving him tips? It was a little intimidating for me at first too, but I got the hang of it. |
This can be a learning experiance for him.
Give him a copy of Food Fight, and tell him to work from that platform into a full story arc - it might only be a week's story, but it should be an arc.
IE: what happens after Food Fight? Do the ganger's friends come back to hassle the store? Maybe the gnome manager asks you guys to handle their problem once and for all. Maybe the busty elf behind the counter somehow shows up on a Runner's doorstep, bleeding and injured. Maybe the gang comes after the Runners.
Maybe the Star comes after them, to give them some medal or something, and they find themselves in the awkward position of trying to avoid publicity, even good publicity.
Well, it's not so much a matter of tips as it is a matter of time, if you take my meaning. With my own schedule as continually crammed full as it is, it's a wonder I can occasionally come up with material myself. In fact, our entire group is so busy it's a miracle that we manage to play every week or two, most of the time. Still, we all love RPGs and we all *really* love Shadowrun, so I guess you could say that love finds a way.
OSUMacbeth
OSUMacbeth
I typically don't spend a whole lot of time preparing missions. Most of the GMing is done on the fly. The only things I'll prepare are the framework of the mission (the goal, the event locations, Johnson's talking points, payment), critical NPC stats and motivations, and maybe a few maps. My philosophy is that the players are going to think of stuff you missed anyway, so it's a waste of time to prepare anything more. I haven't spent more than a few hours on a single mission, and they usually last 2 or 3 five hour sessions. Though I don't count brainstorming in this calculation because I do that while I'm doing other things (work, driving, etc).
I am actually having a blast running a game with a friend of mine. He likes to run more episodic games but like to play in longer campaigns. I prefer long campaigns and like to know what shadowrunners are doing between runs. We set up a game where we worked out a very long term campaign with several story arcs. I run the longer story arcs with my friend running the more episodic actual shadowruns where the PCs are trying to get the money together to continue following the longer arc. My PCs are supporting characters for the actual PCs so I never have a problem. My coGm friend and I can calaberate on where a story on either side is going and use our GMPCs to help it go in that direction. We try and make sure that the regular PCs are the stars but we allow each other to shine in our own games. We will even drop our primary PCs and play other characters in each other's games if it makes sense to the story.
I don't think I could do this with just anybody but I've know my friend for about 10 years and it works great!
I don't think I could do this with just anybody but I've know my friend for about 10 years and it works great!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.