Dumpshock Forums > Why the hostility?

Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun

Pages: 1, 2

Luddite

Apr 2 2007, 04:25 AM

I've been lurking here at Dumpshock for a while, and posting a bit, and I've started to wonder why there seems to be so much hostility from GMs towards their players. Every time I browse a topic there are at least one or two GMs who chime in about how they plan to take whatever idea/item/NPC/whatever is being discussed and shove it up their player's asses. Sideways. Without lube. Now, a certain amount of metaphorical playerfucking is built into Shadowrun. It is, after all, a dystopian near-future Cyberpunk game, so the players should definitely feel that they live in a hard, unforgiving world. That being said, the hostility that GMs express towards their players almost seems personal at times.

One particularly odd expression of this hostility is the "okay, you can have the ______, but prepare to die for possessing it." Be it a powerful Ally spirit, a high-grade piece of cyberware, the best deck on the market, or the dreaded Panther Assault Cannon, GMs seem very, very opposed to their players even thinking about procuring top-notch gear. Now, if your players are either hard-core powergamers or utter idiots I can really see how any of these articles could lead to serious issues with your game. However, all of the aforementioned products are perfectly understandable purchases for characters in the appropriate professions. Further, they are very difficult to get a hold of, and in my opinion once a character has acquired the requisite contact network, done their legwork, and cobbled together the

, they should get the goods. (I understand how contact inquiries, especially into restricted goods, can cause trouble for a character, and that is as it should be.) If they go on to use these goods intelligently, where is the problem? In my opinion access to top-notch weapons, 'ware, decks, spells, and spirits is part and parcel with being prime runners, which is what most PCs aspire too. Of course, even more important is knowing when not to use your impressive toys.

Personally, I've been running SR for years and only had trouble with such things early on, when my friends and I were adjusting ourselves to the differences between, say D&D and SR. Back in the day my players simply thought of a PAC as the equivalent of a gun +5, and yes I was a bit heavy-handed in disabusing them of this notion. Is that what a lot of the more angry GMs are going through? If that is the case I can definitely understand the hostility.

Demerzel

Apr 2 2007, 04:29 AM

I firmly believe it is entirely due to the existance of this smiley:

The Entropic Wizard

Apr 2 2007, 04:39 AM

QUOTE

Back in the day my players simply thought of a PAC as the equivalent of a gun +5, and yes I was a bit heavy-handed in disabusing them of this notion. Is that what a lot of the more angry GMs are going through? If that is the case I can definitely understand the hostility.

I think that's usually the case. The most problems I've had in past sessions is that the players will invariably want the big bang-bang as soon as possible, and damn the repercussions. So, after a couple sessions and some damn good rolls, they eventually manage to aquire the good gear. So, lacking in experience, they get dumb. They drag their PAC with them on EVERY run, they summon their ally spirits given half a chance ("Damn, I lost the remote..."), so on and so forth. As a GM who is trying to run a fairly realistic campaign, I find this extremel frustrating.

I try not to take the path of the evil GM and just gank it from them whenever they take said hi-lev gear from them, and take another path. Like so:

PC: I take my Panther and shoot the guard.
GM: You don't want to do that.
PC: Why not?
GM: It's quiet outside. You're standing in an Ares controlled sector. You're not wearing much armor. You're going to die.
PC: Maybe I won't, then.

See how easy that is? I think the best way for GMs to deal with the high-ordinance munchkins is to show them that they cannot just do whatever they want with it.
With great power comes great responsibility. Yay for Spiderman!

Another thing: When the PCs have high powered gear, that means that you, as a GM, have to spend more time creating challenges for that particular character/team. And that can get really frustrating, especially when that player completely overbalances the team. So... that's when you either take it away, or take them out.

Wraithshadow

Apr 2 2007, 04:58 AM

I'd be hesitant to say that it's due to any one thing. There's a broad variety of possibilities. I'll offer a few:

The Competitor
This sort of GM looks at the game not so much as a cooperative storytelling as a competition between himself and the players. Can he come up with a situation they can't beat? Can he get enough rocks and hard places involved that the players are simply overwhelmed? It's worth noting that this isn't so much an attempt by the GM to win, as it is the belief that a GM's reputation rests upon how much he can challenge his players. A GM who's able to present major challenges is good at what he does- after all, he's outwitted the group allied against him, right? The Competitor avoids simply striking down the PCs; sure he could just declare them dead, but that's not a challenge, that's twinky. He may, however, throw things at them that in his mind could be beaten if they do things just right.

The Counterweight
Every player spends countless hours pouring over the latest supplement, trying to find new tricks that will give them an edge. There's no way the GM can put as much effort into this as the players, so the best way to make sure they don't get out of hand is to balance anything nasty with something equally so. The problem is, if you don't know what's nasty, you have to guess. And the more blatant something is, the more likely the GM is going to come down on it. These GMs are struggling to maintain game balance in the face of overwhelming odds. They expect they're outnumbered, outgunned, and outmaneuvered before the dice ever hit the table, so they're working to rein in the players. The problem is that their expectations of doom and gloom might be overestimating things- much like the way the USAF vastly overestimating Soviet nuclear weapon stockpiles.

The Gritty Dark Futurist
The book makes mention of PCs getting screwed over repeatedly- Mr. Johnson probably isn't telling them the whole story. That gun's probably not as good quality as it should be. Your cybersurgeon might take a bribe to do a little extra while you're under the knife. Life never cuts you a break, and neither does the GM. The Gritty Dark Futurist looks at Shadowrun as being Film Noir crossed with a country song crossed with a 'Nam war film: you're going to end up losing everything by the end of it, through no fault of your own. If you manage to make it out as well as you came in, you're doing great. The problem is that most players want rewards- not losing what they've got might not be enough to keep them happy, and they might want to push towards goals as well. This sort of GM probably also makes use of 'realistic' tactics, borrowing methods that the players can't counter but are used in the real world for just that reason.

The Light In Dark Places
Rare, but not unheard of, this sort of GM believes that people- and PCs- are at their best when things are at their worst. The more hopeless the situation, the more the players will shine, and the better the roleplay will be. The Light In Dark Places truly does want the PCs to succeed, and may be rooting for them the whole time, but much like the saying about sparing the rod and spoiling the child, they're making things harsh For Their Own Good. This sort of GM is positive that when it's all done with and the PCs have survived, it'll be one for the ages, and everyone will be happy with what happened. The problem, much like with the Counterweight, is when the GM overestimates the PCs' ability to rise to the occasion. This can be especially difficult when the GM puts severe consequences (such as death) with what should be an easy hurdle. What might seem quite easy to the GM may be anything but for the PCs.

Cakeman

Apr 2 2007, 05:45 AM

Ohh, new totems!

cetiah

Apr 2 2007, 05:53 AM

The Light In Dark Places. Wow, that descriptions sounded a little like me...

Nice list. Did you get this from somewhere or did you make it? If you made it, could you make more? I really appeciate it.

cetiah

Apr 2 2007, 05:54 AM

QUOTE (Cakeman)

Ohh, new totems!

You are so evil.

fistandantilus4.0

Apr 2 2007, 06:09 AM

Garrowolf

Apr 2 2007, 07:10 AM

I think that light in dark places describes me as well.

Now please describe all the major types of players and cross reference the GM type list with this in order to show why certain players and GMs will have problems. This will be 30% of your grade.

Rotbart van Dainig

Apr 2 2007, 09:25 AM

QUOTE (Luddite)

I've been lurking here at Dumpshock for a while, and posting a bit, and I've started to wonder why there seems to be so much hostility from GMs towards their players.

Self esteem problems?

Konsaki

Apr 2 2007, 09:37 AM

I'd like to think of myself as a "Dim Flickering Light in a Dark Gritty Place" sorta person.

hyzmarca

Apr 2 2007, 09:55 AM

I find that light in the darkness works best if one of the PCs is Rodimus Prime.

It is about the challenge, of course. A game that is easy really isn't worth playing.

nezumi

Apr 2 2007, 01:27 PM

I think you forgot a type...

Bored GM

The GM pours over his plot, his facility and NPCs all week for the PCs to run through it in a course of hours, all without so much as a word of thanks. As the months wear on, the GM realizes that ultimately, planning out complex runs is time consuming and boring, and without many rewards, however now and again things get hot and he gets to watch the players sweat.

The bored GM doesn't really want the PCs to all die, or at least won't admit it, but the game is its most enjoyable when there's the real possibility of him having to roll on the 'lost a limb' table. There's no real challenge in it, but it breaks the tedium.

deek

Apr 2 2007, 01:44 PM

I don't see myself in any of these categories. I do spend a decent amount of time planning scenarios and/or incorporating pre-mades into our campaign, but I often get as much fun reacting to the unexpected decisions as the players get while gaming...

I've played with a GM who was a competitor, and it kinda sucked after a while. We had to talk to him about us not having fun and after that, we made new characters and switched campaigns and all was good.

I think as a GM, you have to allow players to do what they want, but in return, you have to keep the reality of the setting in their face and meet the players with the consequences for their actions.

I mean, in my current campaign, due to the jobs the players have completed, in a relatively short amount of time, their contacts are kinda holding back giving them jobs, as they are getting way too hot to run the shadows. A couple players have had mafia "visit" them and their homes, the Star has profiles and while they don't have enough evidence to arrest them, they are certainly building cases. They have crossed a couple higher power antagonists, one two many times, so that is another thing they occaisionally have to deal with. And finally, one of the group, ex-military, has been "found" and has a couple assassins in the area looking to take him and his group out...

So, in a way, I find myself regulating their desires to find a panther cannon or the lates deltaware by keeping them busy in multiple storylines and giving them a reason to keep a low profile and stay in the shadows. This group is getting ready to relocate from Denver to Seattle, so they will somewhat be starting fresh again, as I am thinking of forcing them to leave all gear behind and start building again in the new location, with new contacts and so forth.

So, I put the onus back ont the GM if you are allowing players to get all sorts of high-end equipment. I mean, the power you give the players, they are going to use, and if they have always gotten away with not worrying about corps or really any reall opposition, they are not likely to back down from much of anything.

With there being real threats out there that they have to deal with, they will be much less likely to incite more attention and focus more on surviving!

Wraithshadow

Apr 2 2007, 02:04 PM

QUOTE (cetiah)

Nice list. Did you get this from somewhere or did you make it? If you made it, could you make more? I really appeciate it.

To be honest it's my own creation, but it was inspired from a post I read three years ago on the City of Heroes official forums about different sorts of players. No material was borrowed, but I think I used a similar format.

I could do more- but I'm thinking that if I'm doing this for the sake of doing it, rather than answering the topic question, I should probably do it in another part of the forums. Not saying that I won't, mind you, but I won't be adding it on here.

QUOTE

I think you forgot a type...

I'm sure I did. As I said at the start, this was a few possibilities, not all of them. There's a lot more GM types out there, but not all of them answer the question, and not all of the ones that answer the question are listed above. The Bored GM is certainly one of them- although to be very picky I've tried to avoid using GM in any of the titles. No real reason for it other than it sounded good at the time.

QUOTE

Now please describe all the major types of players and cross reference the GM type list with this in order to show why certain players and GMs will have problems. This will be 30% of your grade.

Pfft. I'm a grad student. I have two research papers, a final project, and final exams this month, first one due tomorrow. Your threats of 30% of my grade mean nothing to me.

deek

Apr 2 2007, 04:34 PM

The Bored GM, I think, is something that every GM ends up getting a turn in. At some point in every campaign, the GM either gets stuck writing a storyline or has found s/he has rehashed the same thing too many times...

Normally, this is either close to the end of a campaign, or the time where a change, maybe a player takes the GM reigns for a bit, or a short break happen, then the GM comes back with a renewed vigor.

I don't think its really a type of GM, like the other examples, as someone that is all the time a bored GM, usually doesn't last too long.

cetiah

Apr 2 2007, 05:21 PM

QUOTE ("deek")

The Bored GM, I think, is something that every GM ends up getting a turn in.

QUOTE

I don't think its really a type of GM,

I think this is true for everything on the list of "types". All GMs embody all of the concepts to some degree or another. It's just that some of us are, either through intensity or frequency, more self-conscious of being a brighter light in a darker place than others...

QUOTE ("Wraithshadow")

Pfft. I'm a grad student. I have two research papers, a final project, and final exams this month, first one due tomorrow. Your threats of 30% of my grade mean nothing to me.

I can't help but think this should be another category of GM..

Good luck on your final exam.

Lagomorph

Apr 2 2007, 06:40 PM

I think another thing that can happen is that sets the GM off balance is that Runners tend to "think out side the box" or generally plan an attack that is tangental to every thing a GM has planned for. Entrances and plans for roof and front door attacks, runners will drive a truck through the wall. A GM can't plan for everything, and it seems that a lot of runners take advantage of that and do something that the GM obviously didn't plan for. When the GM is off balance, the run can either go too easy, or too hard on the players.

deek

Apr 2 2007, 07:29 PM

QUOTE (Lagomorph)

Good call on that...

I for one can speak to both sides of that balance...many years ago, when I used to run games, I wasn't very good at planning for the "out of the box", not that one can really plan for it, but moreso, ready to handle things I didn't plan out.

And normally, the players would try something out of the box and I would make things difficult for them, mainly to the point that I was waiting for the "right" answer and they would keep spinning their wheels...I would get frustrated, and the players would get frustrated with not knowing what to do next...we would kinda have a standstill and no one was having fun...

Over time, I realized that just playing the game and having fun was the whole point...I mean, we all pretty much "know" this, but sometimes its hard to remember in the heat of a moment. So, when I am presented with an "out of the box" solution, I just try my best to react to it as I think the setting would, and not do more than needed to block the players' plan.

And a lot of the time that comes out to the run being too easy, but that is no fault of the players, but my own. And I shouldn't take that personally and get upset, because after all, the players are still having fun.

And I've just gotten a lot better over the past few years and presenting them with enough to still keep a good idea a challenge and not a cakewalk...so it all seems to work out and I can't remember a time where the players came around talking about how they beat the GM in the last session...so, its all good!

Kyoto Kid

Apr 2 2007, 07:55 PM

QUOTE (Lagomorph)

...this pretty much describes what I have dealt with. I don't mind tangents on occasion, but when you set up something that you think is pretty cool & the runners constantly become "bulls in the china shop" it does get a bit frustrating. This topic was discussed a while back in the ROLLplaying vs. Roleplaying thread.

This leads to what I call The Desperate GM

Lagomorph

Apr 2 2007, 08:07 PM

QUOTE (Kyoto Kid)

QUOTE (Lagomorph)

Whats worse is that some times the ideas are great and should be rewarded, other times they are really bad and should be punished. How can you make sure they keep making the good ideas and stop making the bad ones?

I realize that rewarded/punished isn't really the best term, but if they come up with an idea to make the run super simple, is it fair to make it extra difficult just because? Honestly, I have no clue, but then I'm a pretty new GM andlong time player.

deek

Apr 2 2007, 08:16 PM

Honestly, I would say that if the players come up with something to make the run really simple, you reward them by keeping it simple and then try and learn from that, as a GM, for the next scenario. Over time, you will get more in tune with your players and the ebb and flow will take care of itself. Just on the flip side, a relatively easy run, the players may make decisions that make it a lot more difficult than it needs to be, so there is your balance.

As a veteran GM (not just SR, but in general), I get the most enjoyment out of truly having to react to my players and its that unexpected outcome that really gears me up to run the next session. It allows me, as a GM, to act like a player and venture into the unknown.

The best advice I can give is to do everything in your power to set up the sceanrios, but allow yourself to not be close-minded when the players come up with an unforeseen solution. Allow them to really take control of a sceanrio and make it their own and just enjoy being along for the ride. The more you focus on setting up the scenario and really feel like you can react how it would "actually happen" the better. Leave the outcome to the players and allow the details to unfold as they may. That leaves you, as the GM, with a lot less stress and everyone seems to have more fun accomplishing the goals, even if you weren't specifically ready for their reactions!

bigdrewp

Apr 2 2007, 08:18 PM

From a player point of view I would punish anyone for coming up with a creative idea, unless they are doing it just to spite you. Look at it from a more realistic stand point. A corp is going to try to plan for every type of security breach, but they can't plan for everything, that is why runners have to think outside the box. You want to stay alive long enough to spend your hard earned money and going through the front door, so to speak, isn't the best way to ensure that.

Ravor

Apr 2 2007, 08:20 PM

Well in my opinion the answer is it depends, if the players find a resonable hole in the corp's security and exploit it to pull off a perfect run then yeah, give them their cookies with bonus icing.

However, if the hole is big enough for a troll to drive a truck through and was "created" simply because the DM had a brain fart that your average village idiot would have noticed then I'd figure something out to even the odds if at all possible without breaking the 4th wall.

Of course, after word got out that security design X had a fatal flaw then the corps would all upgrade to X+ as soon as possible so the runners had better enjoy their cookies while they can.

deek

Apr 2 2007, 08:23 PM

QUOTE (bigdrewp)

Hehe...yeah. And from my experience, for every out of the box "good" idea players come up with, they fall into your expected outcomes 3 or 4 times that amount, so it all works out. Sometimes you plan or even expect them to be predictable and when they do that, you just give them the full scenario and pit them against your plan.

Smart players/groups, will realize when they are outmatched and realize that when their characters mortality is on the line, that they will back down and approach things from a different angle...in my opinion, those are my favorite groups to run for.

The ones that decide they are in over their head but say the heck with it and forge on anyways...well, I have a hard time saving the players from themselves on too many occaisions. Once or twice, yeah, but if it becomes a habit, just let them get what they brought onto themselves...

azrael_ven

Apr 2 2007, 08:43 PM

The problem I have been running into is some of my players have been reading and getting a better feel for the world. While others just play on the given day, it creates a slight imbalance. Most of the experience of the group is from the game that might cause cancer. So they are used to only having to plan a little bit and then have an all out brawl. All out brawls don't work well when anybody can die when edge is used against them. I was running 'On The Run' and the very worst happened. One of the players talked to the media, so everybody new the rumor was true. I had not planned on that happening. The run sort of ended short and failed of course. But it did allow me to use the NPC's for other uses since the players never came across some of them to spin a fallout story. For the end battle in 'On The Run', the NPC's were way to powerful for a beginning group. I mean come on, a level 3 grade init. that happens to be a vamp. Oh well, I'm sort of glad it didn't get that far. The group would've have been royally pissed to get that far and loose the disk.

Rotbart van Dainig

Apr 2 2007, 09:22 PM

OtR is broken by design, anyway.

ornot

Apr 2 2007, 10:23 PM

My main problem with OtR is that a professional team has no reason not to just take the disk straight to Mr. Johnson. However, if as a GM, you can foster enough curiousity and make Mr. Johnson unavaliable they might be inclined to poke around and you can actually use the second half of the adventure.

I think the NPCs are a touch on the grotesque side, but it also suggests that they will blast away at each other as well as the PCs.

I do feel for you though, azrael ven. Trying to run inexperienced players through something that can rapidly spiral into complexity like OtR.

If I may, I'd like to suggest having a look at some of the SR Missions. The first one for SR4 (set in Denver unfortunately, as I presume you're settled in Seattle) is actually quite nice and straightforward. Almost a milkrun, which is good if your players are inexperienced. The SR3 SR Missions might make quite a good start too (at least the first one or two), although you'll have to update or fudge the NPC stats. As you lack any techy types you can overlook the fact that the SR3 material doesn't incorporate any SR4 Matrix stuff.

Lagomorph

Apr 2 2007, 10:46 PM

QUOTE (ornot)

My main problem with OtR is that a professional team has no reason not to just take the disk straight to Mr. Johnson.

Thats exactly what happened in my running of OtR, I gave them all extra karma for each path they didn't take to help encourage doing the job and to discourage kick in the next door and see what attacks.

Rotbart van Dainig

Apr 2 2007, 11:00 PM

QUOTE (ornot @ Apr 3 2007, 12:23 AM)

My main problem with OtR is that a professional team has no reason not to just take the disk straight to Mr. Johnson.

That aside, my problem is the deus-ex-machina used to make the second part happen at all.

Cheops

Apr 3 2007, 05:19 PM

Here's what I did to OtR to introduce my group of noobs (plus 1 experienced):

Instead of looking for the disk they were hired by Nabo the day before the concert. Turns out that a rival punk band (called Amadeus von Tukwila--think Falco but more punkish and really big on the Baroque feel) has been trash talking him on the boards and blogs and claiming Nabo isn't really street, just some poor kid from Redmond.

Nabo hires the runners to go to AvT's studio (F*U Studios in Tukwila) and trash the place. He provides the matrix access code for the studio as well as one of his business cards to be left at the studio to "send the message." Runners have to do it while Nabo is on stage since that will give him and his gang some deniability.

Group successfully trashes the place during Nabo's performance. Next day Nabo's manager meets with them to give them the money and offers them another job. Someone has stolen Nabo's commlink with his latest lyrics and music on it and he needs it back. They have a picture of the guy who did it but that is it, they need the runners to track them down further. (it was the group's street sam--Ninja type guy who dresses exactly like Cobra Commander).

Can't get into further details about what happens next since at least one of my players cruises this forum. Obviously Cobra Commander's group is the one that is On the Run while my group is attacking it from a different angle.

I was thinking of using this as my submission for the Commando program but I'm too lazy to do that just now so I'll probably use the next run for that.

cREbralFIX

Apr 10 2007, 02:32 AM

I think people forget that the GM is a player too. All too often, I see players going through the game like it was a sporting event and they're hogging the ball. They get antagonistic with the GM. They want their "fantasy" and the GM and some players are standing in the way.

The World of Darkness games cultivate a totally different mentality. The system focuses on the story, not stats. There's nothing worse than a D&D player babbling about his +X sword, combined with the Gauntlet of Super-Dooper Strength with an Amulet of Space Doom, all melted down to forge the Mega-Spiffy Brooch of Butt Casting +15. Sheesh...never heard a dwarf start talking about his +2 battleax. It was always, "Grandfather Mighty wielded this blade against the goblin hordes in 417. Look, it chops through rock! Whack! Oh, @#$%^ I chipped the blade!"

Blade

Apr 10 2007, 03:32 AM

You never heard a WoD player babbling about his 3rd generation Brujah with his level 10 something and his level 10 something else and 10 points of ... who singlehandedly... ?
I think that's the kind of character I heard the most muchkin talk about.

eidolon

Apr 10 2007, 01:29 PM

Ditto Blade. "I totally got my storyteller to agree to me being 2nd gen, which of course means blah blah blah blah."

There are munchy players in every system.

Spike

Apr 10 2007, 06:06 PM

I don't know if this is 'Evil GM Idea #421' or just bad/lazy crap...

If the run turns out to be super simple and easy, that's when the Johnson turns on them (or other plot twist of choice) that makes for a fun and exciting second half of the game.

If the run turns out to be super hard, the Johnson was on the level and congratulates them for pulling it off.

Do it right and it lookslike you planned for the easy/hard thing that went down. Of course, if everyone dies in the super hard run, then it was a really bad set up, and their next characters will hear all about how Corporation X screwed over a team of runners just last week...

Cheops

Apr 10 2007, 09:06 PM

QUOTE (cREbralFIX)

I've kicked players out of my game for pulling stunts like that before. They start stepping on the story and on other player's stories and complaining. The GM has to find ways to deal with that in the story as well as in real life. When I was just starting my response would have been to try and kill that character but with the style of player it usually meant TPK, which punishes the other players. Then of course the player starts acting the same way again.

I've found that it is all about finding the right group.

Kyoto Kid

Apr 10 2007, 10:05 PM

QUOTE (Cheops)

I've kicked players out of my game for pulling stunts like that before. They start stepping on the story and on other player's stories and complaining.

...went through a similar situation as a GM recently. Basically did the same. Now I have a new group (which includes a few of the former members) and everything appears to be working out much better.

Luddite

Apr 10 2007, 11:04 PM

QUOTE

If the run turns out to be super simple and easy, that's when the Johnson turns on them (or other plot twist of choice) that makes for a fun and exciting second half of the game.

If the run turns out to be super hard, the Johnson was on the level and congratulates them for pulling it off.

I think every SR GM has done this at one point or another, but you have to remember to not punish the PCs for good planning and execution. If they start to notice that every time they plan for every contingency, yak it up with every contact, and acquire the perfect suite of gear for a given run, resulting in a picture-perfect heist the shit hits the fan they're going to start dogging it on the legwork. After all, why bother planning to the nines if it just means you'll happen to walk into that team of visiting Red Samurai (or whatever).

ornot

Apr 10 2007, 11:31 PM

I had a run where the Johnson double crossed the PCs. Frankly I thought it was pretty obvious that he wasn't on the level from his behaviour at the original meet. I also left plenty of opportunities for the runners to recoup far more than their losses along the way. They didn't get paid, but they scored so much paydata they made a very tidy profit. And they got to slaughter the obnoxious Johnson!

I was very worried that they wouldn't survive the 'ambush', but I did have a backup plan to pull their fat out of the fire in case they did fall over (the organised crime fixer in whose establishment the meet was going down was mightily pissed that the Johnson was impugning his rep and his security). Worked out all right in the end though, except for the Street Sam deciding that this fight was a good opportunity to play with the called shot rules. Consequently he kept missing and getting beaten with a tomahawk.

Denicalis

Apr 11 2007, 03:13 AM

This is why, generally speaking, I only play with friends. I know it isn't always an option, but I like to know a little about the people i'm getting into a run with. I tend to stick with really RP-centric games, where the combat is secondary, so I don't really have time for the munchkin players. Granted, if you play online--which it's beginning to look like I'll have to these days--there's not too much you can do about it, hm? All you can really do is "accidently" double tap the guy in the back of the head during a firefight. No one looks too closely at what bullet is in who, y'know?

Garrowolf

Apr 11 2007, 05:14 AM

I like to run my games fairly difficult but every once in a while I give them a moderately hard run and have no surprises. They do a good job and out class the defenses. They come off feeling great about and they appreciate the harder ones even more.

I think that it is important to make them feel like bad asses every once in a while on purpose. They want that. If they are fighting for it all the time then you will feel like they are trying to mess up your game. If you give them a great success (and NOT lots of money!) then they will be more likely to go with the harder ones.

The Entropic Wizard

Apr 11 2007, 09:00 AM

Garrowolf:

QUOTE

If you give them a great success (and NOT lots of money!) then they will be more likely to go with the harder ones.

I've made a mistake along those lines before. I had a group in the Australian outback, being guides and runners for those who wanted them to go in and get something/one, sabotage a research lab, so on, so forth. Due to a lot of pre-game wrangling, they ended up talking me into letting them purchase, as a group, an older model VTOL for x amount of BP, split amongst all players. That worked out well, but eventually I started to get bored with it, so I wanted to move the group to Hong Kong (hooray for Runner Havens). The VTOL would be a problem, so I let them sell it and a lot of the equipment on it for some ungodly amount of nuyen.

Oh gods. What a mistake.

So I end up with a group of Australian outback runners in Hong Kong with somewheres around 150k nuyen to blow. And they were smart about it. Have you any idea how hard it is to get a group of shadowrunners to do anything without the lure of needed cash? It's not much fun at all.

Well, end of story, I trashed the campagin. Only so much one can do.

Kyoto Kid

Apr 11 2007, 02:57 PM

...older model VTOL, that is the key. I would have given it a level or two of gremlins based on it's age. Somewheres along the line something would break & they would have to fix it. Getting parts in the Outback would be hard (and costly) so they maybe would have just abandoned it or sold it to some other poor slot "as is" (which would be far less than the actual book value) before heading to HK. Now everyone has maybe 15, - 20 k instead of 150k & HK costs would soon eat that up since they were new there & had to rebuild their contacts base.

[edit addendum]

Now it wasn't clear, was that 150k for the entire team or 150k per runner? If it was the entire team (say 5 members) that would come to 30k ea, not totally unmanageable.

deek

Apr 11 2007, 03:50 PM

I don't know...a runner team with 150K in nuyen does not seem that crazy to start. I could understand them taking some time off from running, so you have a session of downtime or something, buy some gear, a place to live and the like and that money is sucked up in a few weeks time...

And if the players aren't there to play and are fine sitting on their duffs...well, I just question why you would need to cancel it, as it sounds like they would just stop showing up:)

Kyoto Kid

Apr 11 2007, 04:11 PM

...actually, after one segment of Survival of the Fittest, we all came into a hefty chunk of change. My character Tomoe really didn't have much more to buy since she did not use firearms, (throwing skill), and was pretty much at her Essence Index limit for implants. Not being awakened she had no big ticket items like foci to purchase and bond. Basically she should have retired, but there were still several segments of the campaign to go and I continued to run her more through obligation to finishing the campaign rather than for the character's needs.

Luddite

Apr 11 2007, 04:12 PM

Yeah, I have to second the idea that

150,000 isn't all that much cash for a team of runners in a new city. It's barely enough to upgrade someone's wires, much less retire on...

Konsaki

Apr 11 2007, 04:24 PM

You also need alot of cash to grease palms with in a new town/country/continent.
Some no name foreiner wants to make connections, show me the money, bioch!

ElFenrir

Apr 11 2007, 07:30 PM

QUOTE

Now please describe all the major types of players and cross reference the GM type list with this in order to show why certain players and GMs will have problems. This will be 30% of your grade.

Hmm...well, i might take a crack at this. And bravo to the GM descriptions. They were very cool.

As for players, this is what ive found...

The Plain Ol Munchkin

This player is your classic munchkin. But why? Some might be new, and think that they have to 'win the game', and to do that, be as powerful as possible. Some think they, as opposed to the Competitive GM, must go against the GM and try to outgun him. Some just plain like seeing lots of big numbers and rolling lots and lots of dice. Some like to outdo everyone else in the party. These people exist, and luckily, they are pretty easy to spot.

How to deal with them:

Well, limit what they have, explain to them it's not a game to win, and that the others aren't having so much fun as they are running away after they blew up 20 guards with their PAC.

Next up,

The Abused Player

This player has gone underneath so many sadistic GMs, they are just plain used to HAVING to make an uberpowered character just to survive. Their backgrounds are thin, because they think 'they're just going to die anyway, whats the point?'. To them, surviving to the next session is the challenge, and so, they munch out as much as possible to try to see another day...and since they might be limited on gaming groups, they are a bit stuck.

How to deal with them:

Explain to them that you aren't like the others. It takes awhile to gain their trust however...so you will have to show them that they won't need that PAC to survive. Not every character needs Aptitude: Automatics(SMGs): loaded with EXEX ammo and heavy body armor to preform an extraction. This kind of player isn't bad at all, but they simply are used to a certain style of play.

And another,

The Optimizer

This player isn't as overblown as the Plain Old Munchkin, but whatever they play...they optimize it to the max. Their ex military specialist will have a list of carefully chosen and specialized skills(giving them lots of gun dice, natch...I mean, ex military and all), carefully adjusted stats(Agility, Body and Reaction), and carefully chosen cyberware(Muscle Toner and Reflex Boosters of some kind.) They try to explain their natural 1 Strength(purchased up to 5, of course) somehow, despite this character supposing to have ''all around fitness training.'' (which basically boils down to they needed more points to optimize their gun ability). Their gear will be completely tweaked out, best they can get...but they realize that a PAC isn't ''optimum'' for every situation, and settle on a Ares Alpha with optimum ammo and about 6000 nuyen worth of accessories. It takes them about two days to make a character.

How to deal with them

Explain it's a role-playing game and not an exercise in number crunching. A little bit of minmaxing and optimizing is fine, of course... but don't let them abuse the system too much. (I used the example above becuase the natural Agl 6 Bod 5 Str 1 samurai is a common 'optimization' used by alot of twinks.)

And one more:

The Non Combat Munckin

This character usually ends up under the radar...because the GM is usually trying to comb over character sheets looking for high Gun/Agility skills and BFG's. While their comrades are getting the nerf bat, they are quietly slipping their uber twinked Charisma-Aptitude Social Adept into the game, with social skills, aptitudes, specializations, adept powers and pheremones so high that they can incite Gandhi to random acts of violence and vegans to begin eating puppies. The GM looks on their sheet and sees a piddly 2 pistols , 2 agility and 3 Body and lets them right in. This kind of munchkin can break the game more than a PAC sometimes, but are much less obvious. And the players know it.

How to deal with them

Don't just look at gun skills. There are things more dangerous than guns.

The Learned Munchkin

A younger sibling, friend, or even an older sibling or friend, that was introduced into the world of roleplaying by of one of the munckins above. their only character development lessons came from these people. They think it's right to completely go overboard to try to 'win the game'.

How to deal with them

Easy. Just show them that there is more to the game than a twinked out HMG.

Well, it's not perfect, but i took a crack. There are plenty of other munchkins, but these are a few i could think of.

Myself, i have run the gamut of characters, from military trained people who had heavy weapon access, to non combatant folks. Theres a place for everyone. Just because a player wants their character to have an HMG, it doesn't mean they want to wreak havoc with it. GMs, sometimes, should give their players the benefit of the doubt and let them some freedom in characters, at the same time, players should not abuse this trust.

Demerzel

Apr 11 2007, 08:46 PM

The excellent part about that, ElFenrir, is that every player type is a munchkin of one variety or another.

Kyoto Kid

Apr 11 2007, 08:49 PM

...for quite a while I felt I fell under #2, though not so much due to flying lead as to flying mana. Almost every character had to have a maxed out Willpower, Body, Quickness, and Intelligence or they were pretty much toast since the mages we went up against all had 3 - 4d6 initiative. Then came dealing with Dragons & Great Dragons. As I mentioned before, I basically ended up founding my own "retirement home for PCs" because of this. Finally (and one of the worst) there was an issue with contacts and acquaintances, all of whom seemed to become more a curse than a friend or help to the character. I began to question why even do a backstory, for everyone the character ever knew, even the best of friends, was going to ultimately screw her over in the end. It got to the point I felt I needed to make all my characters hermits with the Hung Out to Dry flaw

I also have a bit of #4, in that I tend to favour characters that have more roleplay as opposed to rollplay potential. The difference here was that many of these characters were not totally min-maxed out (most of them had no more than 2d6/2IP initiative). Unfortunately, they were overshadowed by the munched characters in the group who often duplicated the primary skills they had. These characters also had a bit of #3 in that again, they still needed to survive in a setting that, because of the munched characters, was often over their heads.

It wasn't so much to "win", but more just to stay alive long enough to see some type of character development.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.