Full Version: "Burn all the Edge you want...
Can't say I've had to worry about players trying such things. If anyone was stupid like that, the rest of the players would sort them out sharpish.
| QUOTE (Darkest Angel) |
| If you as a GM ever feels compelled to kill a character, then you have issues that need resolving OOC, either with the player, or with yourself. At the end of the day, SR is a game, gritty and edgy as it might be, but still a game, it's meant to be fun for everyone. What's the point in pissing off your players? |
What's the point in playing as a bunch of neigh-immortals?
I don't kill player characters because I feel "compelled" to. Hell, I don't "kill" them at all. The example with the cows earlier was a joke. Players die when the rules say they should. HoG is good for those times when we want to represent the runner pulling through despite all the odds. It is NOT there to make it impossible for them to ever die unless they specifically want to at that moment.
Of course, in the end this is one of those "In MY game..." sort of things. Everyone has their own preferences. But, I ask you: if their fun relies on NEVER dying, why are they playing the game? They can go load up God Mode on Diablo or Half-Life 2 and hack, slash, and shoot to their heart's content. But in MY games, they ARE at risk of dying, because that makes every run they come out alive a success. It means that they're surviving in a cold, uncaring world, and that's something.
Yeah, but then we get into the Hit Points debacle. Not only do you have: "Oh, I've got 12 boxes on my monitor, they can't kill me" attitude, you add in the: "I've got three points of Edge score left, they can't kill me" factor. That makes the game less gritty, less realistic, and more like a video game with X number of lives. Or, as someone else put it, a Paranoia game with 6 clones.
The possibility of instant death is required for any "realistic, gritty" game. You don't have to be out to "get the players", but there should be some fear of dying.
The possibility of instant death is required for any "realistic, gritty" game. You don't have to be out to "get the players", but there should be some fear of dying.
| QUOTE (Shev) |
| Of course, in the end this is one of those "In MY game..." sort of things. Everyone has their own preferences. But, I ask you: if their fun relies on NEVER dying, why are they playing the game? They can go load up God Mode on Diablo or Half-Life 2 and hack, slash, and shoot to their heart's content. But in MY games, they ARE at risk of dying, because that makes every run they come out alive a success. It means that they're surviving in a cold, uncaring world, and that's something. |
To torment you? Because they want an interactive GM to challenge them without the risk of "dying"? Edge means that they come out of each run alive. That's all. This is not Diablo, staying alive doesn't necessarily mean anything. A mook can stay alive.
If a character has to start burning edge too often he will fall behind. Sure he's alive but he won't be that powerful. The mage in our group has burnt edge twice now, once for a bungled binding attempt when nobody was home and another time when an npc got a lucky roll. In the last adventure he went from 1 to 0 edge got 3 karma, and spent it all on getting his edge back. If you base a characters opposition on something like missions where there is a table rating, his total karma keeps going up but he keeps spending it on surviving. eventually he'll be getting shot up so bad each adventure it'll be worth just remaking a new pc. Characters can't have infinite lives because they won't have infinite karma. It'll only be a matter of time till a couple of mooks get some lucky shots off twice in one adventure and he'll die. If a player is maintaining an edge higher than one that costs more karma and he'll be falling even farther behind. Burning edge as written works just fine.
| QUOTE (odinson) |
| If a character has to start burning edge too often he will fall behind. Sure he's alive but he won't be that powerful. |
Right, and that punishes the REST of the group, by having to support a character who can no longer quite pull their own weight. I'd much rather just have the player make a new character, with the exact same amount of karma earned.
| QUOTE (odinson) |
| It'll only be a matter of time till a couple of mooks get some lucky shots off twice in one adventure and he'll die. |
Again, that is exactly NOT how anyone wants to die: because some goon gets a lucky roll of the dice. Some players are fine with that, and that makes for stunning RP situations. Seeing someone you're known for years get half their head blown off makes for a rather traumatic experience. But most would either rather die in heroics...or not die at all. Sadly, death comes for you whether you want it to or not, and if you brought it on yourself, I as the GM play the part of the world not giving a frag.
| QUOTE (Shev) |
| What's the point in playing as a bunch of neigh-immortals? |
What's the point of spending more time in character creation than actually playing said game?
Look, there are a multitude of approaches to our hobby and most of them are completely valid, so long as no one gets hurt and those participating have fun.
It's obvious that some of the previous posters (and the OP) tastes tend to run towards a more "gamist" perspective. But not everyone approaches rpgs the same way, nor do they derive entertainment in the same way.
The gamist derives fun out of playing a rpg almost soley as a game, the character is nothing more than a game piece to move around and character death is treated as a negative repercussion for the player. Hey, cool. All the more power to you. But that's not the only way to play, and condesendingly labeling others who don't enjoy rpg's the same way as some sort of cheater is flamebait to say the least.
There are those of us who prefer a more story focused game. And random deaths of the protagonists (the PC's) would be the proverbial monkey wrench. Suddenly their story stops, all the plot threads to those stories are snipped, and now there's this sudden new protagonist plopped down in the middle of the story with little to no pre-established connections to the other protagonists.
That scenario is a ton of work for the GM, while at the same time it stretches the suspension of disbelief uncomfortably thin for other players. Do they now just accept this new guy as a boon companion and get back to the story? or do they act appropriately and shelve the previous story for one focused more on the protagonists and the relationship between the new guy and the rest of the group?
Now this is not to say there's no such thing as character death, but it should mean something when the character does go out. Did she die defending something she felt was more important than her own life? Did the character's own greed condemn him to carry more loot than he could run with? Or was the character's random death planned by the player and GM in order to explore those themes related to random death and the rp potential within?
Again, if the GM is having such problems that killing the player's character seems like the proper (or only) recourse available to him/her, there is an OOC problem that needs to be resolved. It could be that the player wishes to play in a more over-the-top action style of play and the GM wants gritty realism- both approaches are okay, but the GM purposefully killing that player's character for what he believes as stupid antics is the utterly wrong choice. Compromise oocly from both sides so that all can find their own sense of entertainment or walk away from the gaming table if your style of gaming is that important to you.
| QUOTE (Cain @ May 2 2007, 02:39 AM) |
| The possibility of instant death is required for any "realistic, gritty" game. You don't have to be out to "get the players", but there should be some fear of dying. |
Warhammer works just fine with Fate Points, thanks.
After reading through most of the posts I’ve felt compelled to raise a few pointers.
Now, I agree that it isn’t “fun” to be killed by a random mook that got a lucky roll, but that’s essentially the game. If you have spent both all edge and burned your edge pool then you truly ARE shafted three ways to Sunday if you get hit badly enough.
Personally I’ve only ever had one character death and that was in 3rd edition, but that was the same thing. No karma left and a burst to the chest after taking a few nicks earlier. The character died – sure, a bit sad but far from unrealistic.
If one only ever dies like a “hero” then perhaps one plays the wrong game – don’t get me wrong, I’m all for heroic deaths but one cannot count on it every time. Besides, a person can only be lucky so many times before the reaper come calling – and it could be in the guise of some chiphead the character just don’t view as a threat, and gets shot in the back (by being ambushed, out of edge and edge pool and taking far to much damage…)
On the subject on the GM “decides” when a character should die is rather pointless UNLESS it would be something both the GM and the player agrees would be realistic in the game world and the character is out of Edge.
In the real world people have survived fall from several kilometres of free fall, or being submerged and “drowned” in ice-cold water yet survived as the cold preserved them. Hell, we have people who have survived getting steel pipes shoved through their heads and being talkative while en route to the hospital. They were all lucky, they all burned edge.
The other side is that those without edge tends to splatter all over the landscape when hitting the ground from four kilometres up. Or those that gets crushed by a slab of concrete when a building collapses. They were out of luck, out of edge.
Now, standing at the ground zero of a thermonuclear explosion on the other hand might require something more than just edge, that would require divine intervention and that’s not hand of god, that’s a pure bloody miracle.
The above would be true - unless the character opens up the bomb, closes his eyes and burn all his edge pool on disarming the nuclear bomb by madly pulling wires in sheer panic.
In order for the burning edge the player SHOULD come up with SOME kind of explanation to WHY the character survives, or talk to his GM about it.
There is no need to give them negative attributes, negative qualities just because they used a hand of god, and if one feels that it would be reasonable one should always talk to the player first.
And finally we have the karma cost. It’s not cheap having to buy back edge all the time and if the character burns edge all the time then the player is doing something very wrong – or the GM is truly out to kill them, or perhaps he makes the game just a bit too hard.
Damn…long rant indeed…
Now, I agree that it isn’t “fun” to be killed by a random mook that got a lucky roll, but that’s essentially the game. If you have spent both all edge and burned your edge pool then you truly ARE shafted three ways to Sunday if you get hit badly enough.
Personally I’ve only ever had one character death and that was in 3rd edition, but that was the same thing. No karma left and a burst to the chest after taking a few nicks earlier. The character died – sure, a bit sad but far from unrealistic.
If one only ever dies like a “hero” then perhaps one plays the wrong game – don’t get me wrong, I’m all for heroic deaths but one cannot count on it every time. Besides, a person can only be lucky so many times before the reaper come calling – and it could be in the guise of some chiphead the character just don’t view as a threat, and gets shot in the back (by being ambushed, out of edge and edge pool and taking far to much damage…)
On the subject on the GM “decides” when a character should die is rather pointless UNLESS it would be something both the GM and the player agrees would be realistic in the game world and the character is out of Edge.
In the real world people have survived fall from several kilometres of free fall, or being submerged and “drowned” in ice-cold water yet survived as the cold preserved them. Hell, we have people who have survived getting steel pipes shoved through their heads and being talkative while en route to the hospital. They were all lucky, they all burned edge.
The other side is that those without edge tends to splatter all over the landscape when hitting the ground from four kilometres up. Or those that gets crushed by a slab of concrete when a building collapses. They were out of luck, out of edge.
Now, standing at the ground zero of a thermonuclear explosion on the other hand might require something more than just edge, that would require divine intervention and that’s not hand of god, that’s a pure bloody miracle.
The above would be true - unless the character opens up the bomb, closes his eyes and burn all his edge pool on disarming the nuclear bomb by madly pulling wires in sheer panic.
In order for the burning edge the player SHOULD come up with SOME kind of explanation to WHY the character survives, or talk to his GM about it.
There is no need to give them negative attributes, negative qualities just because they used a hand of god, and if one feels that it would be reasonable one should always talk to the player first.
And finally we have the karma cost. It’s not cheap having to buy back edge all the time and if the character burns edge all the time then the player is doing something very wrong – or the GM is truly out to kill them, or perhaps he makes the game just a bit too hard.
Damn…long rant indeed…
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) | ||
Warhammer works just fine with Fate Points, thanks. |
And warhammer is quite deadly. Maybe it's my loaded dice but when we ran the Ashes of Middenheim as written it was about halfway through the book that the first PC was killed off for good. At most you start with 3 fate points and they don't last long.
Shadowrun you can buy your edge with karma in warhammer the gm gives you your fate points.
| QUOTE |
| What's the point of spending more time in character creation than actually playing said game? |
If your players are dying off that fast, you either need to scale the NPCs back or give your players some better tips on how to survive. You didn't answer my question, either.
| QUOTE |
| Look, there are a multitude of approaches to our hobby and most of them are completely valid, so long as no one gets hurt and those participating have fun. |
Goes without saying, but we're all here to discuss our method of play and why we prefer them.
| QUOTE |
| It's obvious that some of the previous posters (and the OP) tastes tend to run towards a more "gamist" perspective. But not everyone approaches rpgs the same way, nor do they derive entertainment in the same way. The gamist derives fun out of playing a rpg almost soley as a game, the character is nothing more than a game piece to move around and character death is treated as a negative repercussion for the player. Hey, cool. All the more power to you. But that's not the only way to play, and condesendingly labeling others who don't enjoy rpg's the same way as some sort of cheater is flamebait to say the least. |
Gamist? I assume you're talking about rollplaying, something I abhor. In an RPG, I require RP out of my players. If someone just wants an intelligent dice-roller so they can beat up NPCs, I tell them to go play a video game. Interestingly enough, these are usually the same players who want their characters to never die, despite their insanely stupid actions.
And I never meant to insinuate that anyone who runs a less deadly game than I do is "cheating", but I DO think they're missing the point of Shadowrun. You might as well put in resurrection spells and hit points while you're at it. The system is designed to be deadly for a reason: people die in this world, and often. PCs are a cut above most, and if they're canny enough they can dig themselves out of most scrapes. But I'm not going to let a single stat determine the flow of my game. I have no idea what the developers were smoking when they made HoG this edition. It used to be that you could only ever use HoG ONCE, and it burned ALL your karma.
| QUOTE |
| There are those of us who prefer a more story focused game. And random deaths of the protagonists (the PC's) would be the proverbial monkey wrench. Suddenly their story stops, all the plot threads to those stories are snipped, and now there's this sudden new protagonist plopped down in the middle of the story with little to no pre-established connections to the other protagonists. |
If death means an automatic stop to a plot line, you need to rethink how death works in your games. The story doesn't stop, because LIFE doesn't stop when a teammate dies. If your characters aren't prepared to deal with the death of those around them, how did they get this far in the first place?
Some plotlines will end with their death, yes, but many new ones will arise (old friends coming to pay respects, inheritances, etc.). Death allows for some interesting situations. And the team has to hire a runner to replace the fallen one, so how hard is it to find a reason to have a new PC?
| QUOTE |
| That scenario is a ton of work for the GM, while at the same time it stretches the suspension of disbelief uncomfortably thin for other players. Do they now just accept this new guy as a boon companion and get back to the story? or do they act appropriately and shelve the previous story for one focused more on the protagonists and the relationship between the new guy and the rest of the group? |
Sure it's more work for you, but if you're keeping players alive just to keep down the amount of work you have to do...well, that's your own choice. And no, in my groups the new PC is never just accepted. Old plotlines go on while the group comes to terms with the old PCs death and adapts to the new character.
| QUOTE |
| Now this is not to say there's no such thing as character death, but it should mean something when the character does go out. Did she die defending something she felt was more important than her own life? Did the character's own greed condemn him to carry more loot than he could run with? Or was the character's random death planned by the player and GM in order to explore those themes related to random death and the rp potential within? |
See, this is the thinking I don't get. That death in Shadowrun HAS to have meaning.
One of the overall arching themes of the entire game is how dangerous the world is, and how it can come at any time for you. Death is not some grand thing where a character gets to give a goodbye speech, like in the trids. It comes suddenly and unexpectedly, more often than not. Have you ever seen Firefly?
WARNING: Do NOT read if you have yet to see Serenity.
[ Spoiler ]
| QUOTE |
| Again, if the GM is having such problems that killing the player's character seems like the proper (or only) recourse available to him/her, there is an OOC problem that needs to be resolved. |
And again, people seems to think that the only way a character can die is if the GM is "out to get them."
I don't try to kill players whose actions I see as stupid. I don't have do. The game is set up to kill those players by the consequences of their own actions. The only part where I step in is where HoG is concerned, because God helps those who aren't morons. If you jump out of an airplane with only a rubber raft explosives strapped to the bottom to "cushion" your fall as a parachute, God is far too busy laughing to be bothered to save you
| QUOTE |
| It could be that the player wishes to play in a more over-the-top action style of play and the GM wants gritty realism- both approaches are okay, but the GM purposefully killing that player's character for what he believes as stupid antics is the utterly wrong choice. |
I make it clear to my players that I am closer to the "gritty realist" type of GM. Actions have consequences. Walk downtown with a loaded AK in your hands and expect to be in jail before you can say "Lone Star." That's not to say I don't drop hints or give warnings, but there's always some who just don't get it. And again, I don't kill that character. They kill themselves by putting themselves into the mess in the first place. I don't go out of my way to kill characters off.
| QUOTE |
| Compromise oocly from both sides so that all can find their own sense of entertainment or walk away from the gaming table if your style of gaming is that important to you. |
Usually, players in my games die once or twice, then realize how the game works and settle in. If they don't like it, then they don't play with us since that's the style myself and my regular players like.
In the end, let me say this: Characters should not be immortal. They don't need to die every other game, but if the players don't feel like they're fighting for their lives every gunfight they get into, some of the magic is gone, at least for me. The HoG rules is something I invoke once per character (though I HAVE broken this rule at least once) to avoid what I call "death by dice."
If I have a player (or players) who gets so attached to their character that they can't bear to see them die, I immediately stop the game and break out Paranoia. After a session of doing your damnedest to kill each other, you realize just how silly it is to get overly attached to a character that lives in constant, non-heroic peril. You come to realize that no matter how awesome a character is, either through stats or RP, the awesomeness of that character comes from you, the player.
| QUOTE (odinson) |
| Shadowrun you can buy your edge with karma in warhammer the gm gives you your fate points. |
I don't really know whether this makes Warhammer darker or nicer... the thought of having to spend hard-earned XP on Fate Points somehow reminds me of Sisyphus...
| QUOTE (The Jopp) |
| In the real world people have survived fall from several kilometres of free fall, or being submerged and “drowned” in ice-cold water yet survived as the cold preserved them. Hell, we have people who have survived getting steel pipes shoved through their heads and being talkative while en route to the hospital. They were all lucky, they all burned edge. The other side is that those without edge tends to splatter all over the landscape when hitting the ground from four kilometres up. Or those that gets crushed by a slab of concrete when a building collapses. They were out of luck, out of edge. Now, standing at the ground zero of a thermonuclear explosion on the other hand might require something more than just edge, that would require divine intervention and that’s not hand of god, that’s a pure bloody miracle. The above would be true - unless the character opens up the bomb, closes his eyes and burn all his edge pool on disarming the nuclear bomb by madly pulling wires in sheer panic. |
Miracles like the one in Chicago? Or the ones described in System Failure? The nukes did not have their expected yield?
Or simple the bomb was a dud?
| QUOTE (toturi) |
| Miracles like the one in Chicago? Or the ones described in System Failure? The nukes did not have their expected yield? Or simple the bomb was a dud? |
When it comes to nukes, take yer pick. But I’d be wary of the “less than expected yield” when standing next to a Nuke – minimum would still be severe radiation burns and need of medical expertise. The dud option would be preferable.
Still, there is a problem if the Bomb expert manages to disarm 6 nukes in a row by “just” burning edge when his skill isn’t enough.
Disarming 6 nukes with burning Edge would cost 6 Edge - and save everyone else, too.
Simply surviving 6 nukes going off costs only 1 Edge... but everone else is on their own.
And that's not a gritty choice?
Simply surviving 6 nukes going off costs only 1 Edge... but everone else is on their own.
And that's not a gritty choice?
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) |
| Disarming 6 nukes with burning Edge would cost 6 Edge - and save everyone else, too. Simply surviving 6 nukes going off costs only 1 Edge... but everone else is on their own. And that's not a gritty choice? |
*grins*
Heh, HOW lenient is your GM?
Edge to survive a Nuke
1.Survive Detonation blast (Blown away with the shockwave inside an armoured vehicle)
2.Survive crash with vehicle (making a ditch a few hundred feet long)
3.Survive the coming firestorm heading your way.
4.Survive the deadly radiation from the nuke now saturating the area and the wreck and YOU.
5.Getting unexpected help from locals, magic, whatnot.
6.Surviving all that without trauma.
Damn, I’d say 6 edge to survive that. Illogical? Might be, depends on the circumstances but I’d not be very nice if a character is sitting on a nuke when it explodes, no matter the edge, but I would actually TRY to find some way.
No, burning Edge to surive works for a whole situation, so you are fine.
Burning Edge to automatically succeed, on the other hand, only works for one task...
Burning Edge to automatically succeed, on the other hand, only works for one task...
| QUOTE (The Jopp) |
| 6.Surviving all that without trauma. |
There's nothing that says when you survive by burning edge that it's going to be all roses and sunshine when you're done.
| QUOTE (The Jopp) |
| Damn, I’d say 6 edge to survive that. Illogical? Might be, depends on the circumstances but I’d not be very nice if a character is sitting on a nuke when it explodes... |
...[Co-Pilot] ..Target in Sight! Where the hell is Major Kong...?
...[Kong] (riding bomb down)...YEEEEHAAAAAAHHH....!!
...I think he burned all his Edge getting the bomb bay doors to open and stay on the bomb as it dropped.
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) | ||
...[Co-Pilot] ..Target in Sight! Where the hell is Major Kong...? ...[Kong] (riding bomb down)...YEEEEHAAAAAAHHH....!! ...I think he burned all his Edge getting the bomb bay doors to open and stay on the bomb as it dropped. |
That’s rather…impressive managing to BURN your edge in order to commit suicide…
...but, it saved eveyrone on the bomber and resulted in mission's success (as misguided as it was). Also I would say he already used at least a point to keep the bomber flying NoE after the missile detonated.
I subscribe to the team-played fully cooperative theory of roleplaying. If there's an option built into the rules for saving a PC from certain death, and as GM you don't allow it, you're being adversarial, and probably also an ass. If you think you're making some sort of point (or scoring one), you need to go play a board game instead- roleplaying is not for you.
It doesn't matter how ridiculous the justification is. SR is a ridiculous game. Work with your player, come up with a fun and creative way for him not to die,
Having said that, I guess there's also something to be said for a player who is thoughtless is his/her roleplaying. I've never played with someone who was so careless that a few dropped hints wasn't enough to keep their character from doing something completely stupid, but I know they're out there. I tend to think of this as a problem of whether or not to play with them, or to have an out-of-character discussion about thinking things through. I still don't think there's any point in "punishing" them by killing their character.
In short, I don't think there should ever be a situation where there's no way out other than in a body bag. Remember, it's a game, not a competition, we're here to have fun, not to win.
Dread Polack
It doesn't matter how ridiculous the justification is. SR is a ridiculous game. Work with your player, come up with a fun and creative way for him not to die,
Having said that, I guess there's also something to be said for a player who is thoughtless is his/her roleplaying. I've never played with someone who was so careless that a few dropped hints wasn't enough to keep their character from doing something completely stupid, but I know they're out there. I tend to think of this as a problem of whether or not to play with them, or to have an out-of-character discussion about thinking things through. I still don't think there's any point in "punishing" them by killing their character.
In short, I don't think there should ever be a situation where there's no way out other than in a body bag. Remember, it's a game, not a competition, we're here to have fun, not to win.
Dread Polack
| QUOTE (Dread Polack) |
| In short, I don't think there should ever be a situation where there's no way out other than in a body bag. |
...or forced servitude to a GD (which usually means PC retirement).
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| ...or forced servitude to a GD (which usually means PC retirement). |
Amen. This actually happened to me in a summer campaign sponsored by my FLGS. It would have bothered me if it had gone on any longer.
In last night's game, as a matter of fact, we were just put in a position where we're up against a couple of really scary NPCs who may or may not kill us in the next couple of rounds. They're demanding an "item" from us that we have no intention of giving them (in fact, not all the PCs know what the item is, or that we even have it currently). I came up with a risky plot and took the first couple steps, but it got late, and we had to call it a night. Next Tuesday we'll find out if we'll be burning edge or not.
Dread Polack
...as I have mentioned in other threads this has occurred to a couple of my characters (one who only lasted two sessions) both in the same campaign.
The thing is permanently Burning Karma Pool (this was in SR3) was never an option given them.
[edit]
Actually had a very good PM conversation with Luddite over the whole affair. The first character went through extremely great pains to fake her death & change her identity rather than tuck her tail between her legs and run to Hestaby at Shasta like her comrades did. In the end after ten months RL time And a lot of work on my (the player's) part setting it up it was, alas all for naught as she was "made" the first moment she stepped out of the monastery in Tibet.
The GM couldn't stand having a mere PC foil his little Kobayashi Maru play. Trashed one of my coolest Character concepts (Tomoe Sasaki the Beanball throwing Baseball playing Sammy - See Squinky's art thread in the Shadowrun Forum Stickies for a pic of her)
The thing is permanently Burning Karma Pool (this was in SR3) was never an option given them.
[edit]
Actually had a very good PM conversation with Luddite over the whole affair. The first character went through extremely great pains to fake her death & change her identity rather than tuck her tail between her legs and run to Hestaby at Shasta like her comrades did. In the end after ten months RL time And a lot of work on my (the player's) part setting it up it was, alas all for naught as she was "made" the first moment she stepped out of the monastery in Tibet.
The GM couldn't stand having a mere PC foil his little Kobayashi Maru play. Trashed one of my coolest Character concepts (Tomoe Sasaki the Beanball throwing Baseball playing Sammy - See Squinky's art thread in the Shadowrun Forum Stickies for a pic of her)
It doesn't matter how hopeless it seems. Shadowrunners are not some guy on the street, they are fast, lucky, and at least mildly insane.
In other words, even if it takes the Heart of Gold grabbing them out of space, they're getting out.
Shadowrunners basically have a reality distortion field around them. If they can blow up a pack of guards by carefully considering physics, and then telling physics to go away for a second, they can be rescued through unlikely means.
In other words, even if it takes the Heart of Gold grabbing them out of space, they're getting out.
Shadowrunners basically have a reality distortion field around them. If they can blow up a pack of guards by carefully considering physics, and then telling physics to go away for a second, they can be rescued through unlikely means.
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| The first character went through extremely great pains to fake her death & change her identity rather than tuck her tail between her legs and rung to Hestaby at Shasta like her comrades did. In the end after ten months RL time And a lot of work on my (the player's) part setting it up it was, alas all for naught as she was "made" the first moment she stepped out of the monastery in Tibet. |
See, I would call that a GM being unreasonable.
Getting involved in a shooting war downtown at noon and killing several Lone Star officers, on the other hand, is going to wind up in eventual incarceration. And a SINless cop killer tends not to last very long in the hands of Lone Star.
| QUOTE |
| I subscribe to the team-played fully cooperative theory of roleplaying. If there's an option built into the rules for saving a PC from certain death, and as GM you don't allow it, you're being adversarial, and probably also an ass. |
Why? I think it's unneeded and stupid. The GM should be the one with final call over whether a character survives the rules. I'm simply house-ruling a part of the rulebook that I don't care for, and so far my players haven't complained at all. Also, deaths are still infequent. In fact, I have yet to see a character with more than a run or two of experience die. It's amazing how careful players will be when they don't think they're immortal.
In my games, the PCs are NOT superheros, or movie characters, or anything of the sort. They are like everyone else. What makes them unique are their skills and their wits. There are many others out there, more skilled and smarter than the PCs. Shadowrun is about making those people your allies (or keeping under their radar) while doing your job.
| QUOTE |
| Shadowrunners are not some guy on the street, they are fast, lucky, and at least mildly insane. |
So? There are others faster, luckier, and more insane. PCs hardly have a monopoly on those qualities. What matters is their wits, how smart they are. Dumb runners don't run for long in the shadows.
| QUOTE |
| Shadowrunners basically have a reality distortion field around them. |
I bring a Reality Distortion Field Disruptor™ to all my games. Neo need not apply.
| QUOTE |
| If they can blow up a pack of guards by carefully considering physics, and then telling physics to go away for a second, they can be rescued through unlikely means. |
I assume you're talking about magic. Magic is all well and good, but it can't bring you back from the dead, or solve all your problems. After all, if magic was some end-all be-all, how could we have a dystopia?
In fact, how can you have a dystopia if your characters are immune to it's harsher effects?
To make myself clearer: I don't have characters dying right and left in my campaigns. I don't try to make runs impossible, either. That's no fun for anyone.
| QUOTE (Shev @ May 3 2007, 02:21 AM) |
| I think it's unneeded and stupid. |
Great. If your players think the same, no problem in houseruling.
In my games, there are no Longshot tests - you always can spend Edge for more dice, but it only adds in to the total... if there would still be no dice to roll, you are out of luck.
| QUOTE (Shev) |
| Magic is all well and good, but it can't bring you back from the dead, or solve all your problems. |
Oh, Magic can.
Just Sorcery can't.
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) | ||
Great. If your players think the same, no problem in houseruling. In my games, there are no Longshot tests - you always can spend Edge for more dice, but it only adds in to the total... if there would still be no dice to roll, you are out of luck. |
Oh, my players feel the same way I do. I've actually learned this particular lesson from them, the hard way.
When I started GMing, I regularly fluffed First Aid tests for my players, fudged excellent NPC rolls, played the NPCs below the normal level of human intelligence, etc. They never even had to burn Karma. Only two players died over a period of a year RL time, and both of the players literally approached me and asked to be killed in a certain way and time as plot devices. I later tried to take the game into epic levels, and things just broke apart.
Afterwards, we stopped playing SR for a while, due to school. Recently, I asked those players what it was they liked least about my GMing, and the answer was the same across the board: they never felt threatened by NPCs, particularly when the game progressed into epic...ness. Death was something that they never felt would come for them unless they asked for it. From this, I learned two things:
1. Epic and Shadowrun are HARD to mix. I doubt I'll every try it again.
2. Player death is something that WILL happen, and if players feel immortal, they tend not to feel on the "edge," as it were.
And that Longshot rule seems pretty solid to me. I'll pitch it to my players.
| QUOTE |
| And I never meant to insinuate that anyone who runs a less deadly game than I do is "cheating", but I DO think they're missing the point of Shadowrun. You might as well put in resurrection spells and hit points while you're at it. |
Once again, it's worth mentioning that the variable damage boxes introduced in SR4 *is* a hit point system, no matter how it's disguised. It's just a HP system with a spiral of death built in.
At any event, I agree with you that the developers were smoking crack when they developed the ECD clause for SR4. I much preferred the original version. And what you do in your home games is fine and dandy. But if someone wants to stay within the RAW, so as to avoid charges of GM favoritism and random rules-shifting, then there needs to be something more. There has to be the risk of dying.
Just like the insanity of the Longshot test, you don't need players who'll abuse the rules on a regular basis for the rule to be abusive. In fact, it's the "roleplayers" who are more likely to use a rules-loophole, in order to hang onto a longrunning favorite character. They won't use it everyday, only when absolutely necessary-- which is usually the precicely wrong moment for your game.
i think SR4's Edge system can be made to work for HoG just as well as SR3's karma system worked for it. in SR3, a runner can use HoG once. they get one shot, one single get-out-of-poop-free card. so GMs have to plan accordingly. they have to keep the characters' relative fragility in mind--they can't set up ridiculously difficult situations every game.
in SR4, things are different. you can HoG more often. it still carries a cost, but not as high a cost. so GMs should adjust fire. force players to use HoG to survive more often.
in SR4, things are different. you can HoG more often. it still carries a cost, but not as high a cost. so GMs should adjust fire. force players to use HoG to survive more often.
| QUOTE (Shev) |
| Oh, my players feel the same way I do. I've actually learned this particular lesson from them, the hard way. When I started GMing, I regularly fluffed First Aid tests for my players, fudged excellent NPC rolls, played the NPCs below the normal level of human intelligence, etc. They never even had to burn Karma. Only two players died over a period of a year RL time, and both of the players literally approached me and asked to be killed in a certain way and time as plot devices. I later tried to take the game into epic levels, and things just broke apart. |
..like i said, cheating is the worst when it happens by the GM.
In my experience, when rolling open, lethality increases substantially and after a while, noone will complain about Fate Points / Escaping certain Death / etc.
| QUOTE (Shev) |
| And that Longshot rule seems pretty solid to me. I'll pitch it to my players. |
The point is that there is no Longshot rule... and that removing it still allows you to spend Edge for more dice, as that's another rule.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| In fact, it's the "roleplayers" who are more likely to use a rules-loophole, in order to hang onto a longrunning favorite character. They won't use it everyday, only when absolutely necessary-- which is usually the precicely wrong moment for your game. |
Yeah, stupid players that can't see the beauty of the plot predetermined by the GM - it's got two perfectly good rails that would be completly wasted if there's no train to ride.
Forgive me Dumpshock, for I have made one ginormous post.
| QUOTE (Shev) |
| You didn't answer my question, either. |
It was a snarky comment and not intended to be taken seriously, but the question was answered in a round about way: not everyone plays for the same reasons, nor gets the same enjoyment out of the hobby as anyone else, but the catch is each approach is just as valid as the rest (so long as everyone has fun and no one gets hurt). If some people like playing as "neigh-immortals," and find it as fun, then that's the point of playing as "neigh-immortals": they like it and are having fun. And to point, that answers my own question: if people like and enjoy making characters more than actually playing the game, all the more power to them. But perhaps I might play someplace else if we couldn't compromise.
But in direct response to your question, it is my belief that asking rhetorical questions with the attempt to shame others who do not agree with one particular approach to the hobby is not only founded on a fallacy, but elitist crap intended to both browbeat those that disagree and to divide the debate into an us versus them dichotomy that assumes that the us position is not only the correct position but the right position with the implication that anyone who disagrees with that is not only incorrect, but also wrong is intolerant and judgemental at best.
That's what set me off in this thread. Hey, I get it that you, your players, and a lot of people on this thread prefer a more random approach where the uncertainty of events (which includes the possibility of PC death) somehow heightens your perception of the inherent "realism" or "grittiness" or some other quality that you may like in your games.
That's one thing. Implying that those who feel differently are somehow inferior for liking other qualities than your own? That's completely something else.
| QUOTE |
| Goes without saying, but we're all here to discuss our method of play and why we prefer them. |
And my points are that you can't discuss at the same time assuming the consequence, that giving reasons as to why one may prefer one style of game play to another is not equivalent to implying that other styles of game play are some how bad or inferior, and that hiding veiled insults behind the propriety of discourse is inherently not conducive to perpetuating an actual discourse and in fact is a social tactic intended to limit the discourse to the acceptable topic: that PC death is the only proper way to play rpgs and anyone who does otherwise is wrong.
| QUOTE |
| Gamist? I assume you're talking about rollplaying, something I abhor. |
No, there is a difference, at least in my mind. The gamist approach the hobby is defined by approaching it as one would a board game or a console game. Their character is the player's proxy in a different settings, ones with certain rules and they derive their fun out of a tactic and goal setting approach to the game to gain (or lose) some set achievement or fufill (or fail at) some task. The important part isn't the why, or the who- it's the how and at it's core they stress the game part in the term role playing game. I have yet to meet anyone in our hobby who does not gain even a little bit of enjoyment out of this aspect, but tastes vary across a wide spectrum.
The reason why I suspected that is that you tend to conflate the player and his/her character and use them interchangably. This is a quality of those that tend not to care to keep distinct ooc/ic differences and view the character as an extention of the will of the player, rather than a seperate identity.
Rollplayers, from my perspective, seem to enjoy numbers, and they seem to like the random outcomes from a die roll. The math behind it does seem to fascinate them to the point where the actual game becomes secondary to their enjoyment of the possibilities of whether they'll hit this round or the next, or perhaps the one after that. Personally I get rather bored with the inherent statistics once I have a good handle on the mechanics behind a system, but if others can amuse themselves for hours rolling dice, all the more power too them, it's certainly cheaper than going to a bar.
| QUOTE |
| In an RPG, I require RP out of my players. If someone just wants an intelligent dice-roller so they can beat up NPCs, I tell them to go play a video game. |
So long as the rest of the people at the table derive enjoyment as well from a simular approach, that's great.
| QUOTE |
| Interestingly enough, these are usually the same players who want their characters to never die, despite their insanely stupid actions. |
You are generalizing and conflating those with different approaches to the hobby and different desires as to what in the hobby is entertaining to them. And on top of it, you're declaring them stupid for it. How can you discuss anything with them if you've already dismissed their position?
| QUOTE |
| And I never meant to insinuate that anyone who runs a less deadly game than I do is "cheating", but I DO think they're missing the point of Shadowrun. |
Let me rephrase this for you: They are missing the point of Shadowrun as it stands from your perspective. Your belief of what exactly the point of Shadowrun differs from Alice, Bob or even crazy Zack who likes making wolverine clones and saying "Shnick, shnick, bub. Bub, bub, shnick!"
One of the great things about SR is that it can support just about any "point" you want to make with the game. You want gritty, you can die fighting for that last can of Buzz cola. You want epic? You can become the next Ryan Mercury and dance amongst the immortal elves, megacorps, and great dragons. You want to loose yourself in details and optimize the "perfect" rig? Open Rigger 3, only you're gonna hafta walk me through the twelves sheets of paper that is the new Riggermobile. If you want to plan out tactical assaults on skyscrapers or black market delta clinics and use ten million miniature guards in a quasi war gaming venture, you can do that too.
Some of those definately wouldn't be fun or enjoyable for me. Most probably would find at least one that they'd really rather not play, but that's not to say those approaches are missing the true point of Shadowrun.
| QUOTE |
| You might as well put in resurrection spells and hit points while you're at it. The system is designed to be deadly for a reason: people die in this world, and often. [...] I have no idea what the developers were smoking when they made HoG this edition. |
And the RAW also have a mechanic to avoid certain death. If you apply the same reason as you did to the deadlyness of the new system to the ECD, well appearently this is a world where according to the RAW, it's a very deadly setting where people die all the time, but it's also a world where people can survive what seem to be impossible odds. If this perspective doesn't "do" it for you, that's okay. The developers just had a different perspective of SR than you do. And that's okay. Just like it's okay for others to have a different perspective of SR than you.
| QUOTE |
| But I'm not going to let a single stat determine the flow of my game. |
Much like I'm not going to let random chance wreck my own plans. I will indulge it to infulence my game, but not going to let it destroy my plans if Unlucky Louie botches spectacularly- he may loose an arm instead and be in critical condition if he has no more Edge to burn. That's not to say one approach is better than the other, or even incompatible- just different. God, I'm starting to sound like an after school special.
| QUOTE |
| If death means an automatic stop to a plot line, you need to rethink how death works in your games. The story doesn't stop, because LIFE doesn't stop when a teammate dies. If your characters aren't prepared to deal with the death of those around them, how did they get this far in the first place? |
No, you see, in my games the PCs are the stories. My group of friends have come to settle on a character driven storytelling as what we find enjoyable and fun for the most part. I as GM don't parade the players through some storyarc as passive observers, rather I set up the scenes and provide reactions and consequences (for good or for ill) of the actions and story that the players want to explore. If the players collectively want to explore the consequences of random death that's one thing, but if Bill writes up a character who's prime motivation is revenge on some mob boss for killing his father, I'm not going to outright kill Inigo Montoya before he gets to the six fingered man.
| QUOTE |
| Some plotlines will end with their death, yes, but many new ones will arise (old friends coming to pay respects, inheritances, etc.). Death allows for some interesting situations. |
Yes, death allows for some prime roleplaying possibilities. But only if the players want to pursue said opportunities. If the players want the story to be about exploring the possibilities of the astral planes, I'm not gonna end that character's story in the middle of Food Fight.
| QUOTE |
| See, this is the thinking I don't get. That death in Shadowrun HAS to have meaning. |
Okay, I'll explain it from my perspective then. I am a writer and a lover the stories told on both paper and on screen. I have studied the art of storytelling and if there is one truism, it is that everything in such a work is there for a reason. Even if the reason is trivial or if the meaningless of some action is the reason itself. Take the surrealist movement for example, it's entire reason is unreason.
Nothing is random, nothing is "just there," and when I describe a purple frog as a beast spirit that loves licking it's lips it may be because I'm reinforcing a theme of gluttony and greed, it may be because it's conjuror uses purple as a calling card, or it may be that I, as GM, find the image of a large purple frog licking it's lips to be absurd to the point of tickling my funny bone. There is still a reason for it.
Now to extend this to a PC's death, the PC itself is a large and important aspect of my campaign, the spotlight is always on him or her because he is the story. And when his or her story ends it should be for a reason as important to the campaign as the PC is.
That's my take anyways, as always YMMV.
| QUOTE |
| One of the overall arching themes of the entire game is how dangerous the world is, and how it can come at any time for you. Death is not some grand thing where a character gets to give a goodbye speech, like in the trids. It comes suddenly and unexpectedly, more often than not. |
Here's the thing: for me it's still a story. Just like those trids. And so, to me, yes, death is "some grand thing." It should be important because it is the end of the story. If Batman gets shot in the back of the head by a random guy standing off screen half an hour into the film and suddenly the credits roll, the audience would riot. And for good reason, because that's just bad storytelling.
Simularly I'm not going to kill a PC in a simular manner unless the player comes to me and wants to explore that. But, NPC's, yeah they die a lot. Just because the player's characters (the stars of the show as it were) don't die often, doesn't mean that the campaign is a happy shiny world where everyone lives. Hell, they're still (jokingly) mad at me for killing a string of hackers they had working for them. Again, that's my game, YMMV.
| QUOTE |
| Have you ever seen Firefly? |
Yeap. The writer has a tendency to do that though, and so the character's death does have a reason: The writer wanted to shock the classical hollywood cinema conventions of storytelling and lend an air that death could happen to anyone and thus attempt to ratchet up the tension of the final scenes. It's a simular thing Hitchcock did in Psycho, but for different reasons. Both deaths have meaning, perhaps not some big meaning in the context of the plot; but still meaning.
| QUOTE |
| And again, people seems to think that the only way a character can die is if the GM is "out to get them." |
I didn't say that. What I said was if the GM feels that a Player's antics are stupid enough to get him killed, what's most likely the problem is that the GM and the Player have differing ideas as to what style of game they want to play.
No where did I say the GM is "out to get" a player. Rather, I encouraged communication and cooperation to reach a compromise in playstyles all could enjoy, or if that wasn't possible, to walk away.
| QUOTE |
| I don't try to kill players whose actions I see as stupid. I don't have do. The game is set up to kill those players by the consequences of their own actions. The only part where I step in is where HoG is concerned, because God helps those who aren't morons. If you jump out of an airplane with only a rubber raft explosives strapped to the bottom to "cushion" your fall as a parachute, God is far too busy laughing to be bothered to save you |
You are enforcing a change in the rules, different from what the game is set up to do, therefore any outcome is your responsibility and not borne from any inherant quality of the RAW.
If a player wanted to play Indiana Jones, it's not the GM's place to tell him he's stupid, but rather that style of play is not the goal for this session, and perhaps the group could play Feng Shui or Adventure! in a subsequent session in order to let the player play with his raft-parachute.
Again, it's about communication because humans are notoriously bad mind readers, and so long as people are having fun and enjoying themselves it doesn't matter what style of gameplay- just because it's different than what someone else might find enjoyable, doesn't mean it's bad. Oh, and should anyone actually read all of this, thank you
You're welcome.
Well tjn, I'm not going to say you're wrong, but I think it's safe to say we have vastly different interpretations of the game and death's role in such. Rather than forcing the issue, I think I'm just going to leave it where it is, I've pretty much said all I wanted to say.
Sorry if I come across as an elitist bastard. It's because I am.
Sorry if I come across as an elitist bastard. It's because I am.
| QUOTE |
Yeah, stupid players that can't see the beauty of the plot predetermined by the GM - it's got two perfectly good rails that would be completly wasted if there's no train to ride. |
Note that I said "game", not plot. What can ruin a session is someone completely destroying the suspension of unbelief required to play a RPG. Taking out a citymaster with an AVS at a -52 dicepool, surviving multiple ground-zero tacnuke blasts, and taking a Thor shot to the chin are all examples of something that becomes so ludicrious, the entire atmosphere of the game is broken. It doesn't matter what kind of story the GM is running.
| QUOTE (Cain @ May 3 2007, 06:34 PM) |
| What can ruin a session is someone completely destroying the suspension of unbelief required to play a RPG. Taking out a citymaster with an AVS at a -52 dicepool, surviving multiple ground-zero tacnuke blasts, and taking a Thor shot to the chin are all examples of something that becomes so ludicrious, the entire atmosphere of the game is broken. It doesn't matter what kind of story the GM is running. |
In case you haven't noticed - you mixed up 'succeeding' with 'surviving'.
We are only talking about 'surviving' here, and if you are trying to cry about the Longshot rule, you are talking to the wrong person.
On the matter of survival... the reason for it is up to the GM (as are the results), so I don't really see how this can ruin the atmosphere of the game - unless the GM isn't doing his job.
well, the "nice" thing about SR4 is that every rule is subject to GM fiat. so if the GM decides that multiple tacnuke blasts can't be HoG'd, they can't be HoG'd. and it's not even a house rule!
| QUOTE (Shev) | ||
Why? I think it's unneeded and stupid. The GM should be the one with final call over whether a character survives the rules. I'm simply house-ruling a part of the rulebook that I don't care for, and so far my players haven't complained at all. Also, deaths are still infequent. In fact, I have yet to see a character with more than a run or two of experience die. It's amazing how careful players will be when they don't think they're immortal. In my games, the PCs are NOT superheros, or movie characters, or anything of the sort. They are like everyone else. What makes them unique are their skills and their wits. There are many others out there, more skilled and smarter than the PCs. Shadowrun is about making those people your allies (or keeping under their radar) while doing your job. |
Well, if it works for you, then awesome. Particularly, if people go into a game knowing that their characters might die at some point, and look forward to the interesting twist and drama that could cause in the campaign, then cool. So, I'm not arguing against you or anyone in particular.
It's been my experience that most RPers become fairly attached to their characters and don't like to see them die. This isn't always the case, but at the very least a balance needs to be struck between presenting a real risk to the lives of your PCs somewhere between simply paying lip-service to danger and railroading them into a death trap.
I don't know that "The GM should be the one with final call over whether a character survives the rules." is an accurate statement. The rules themselves state that a character is dead when his overflow surpasses his Body. Whether or not the bullet hits, or whether the bomb is triggered by his footstep is usually decided by dice rolling. You can fudge these rolls or not. What the GM has control over is where the bombs are set, and how many dice the NPCs get to throw against the PCs. The GM doesn't sign a contract with the players promising to be fair. Don't forget the GM has complete control over what happens. Nothing is stopping him from simply declaring the entire party dead. Just dead. Make new characters. Why? You don't know, your're dead. Of course, anyone playing with a GM would quit a campaign like that, but that's exactly what we're talking about here. What is the balance? Role-playing is a unique kind of game that relies on this kind of trust. It's actually one of the hardest things to explain to non-gamers.
Without getting any longer-winded, I should sum-up. I wouldn't call your style of GMing "confrontational," or you an "ass" because you've thrown out the HoG rule. My personal opinion is that the rule is great for throwing your PCs into danger and not having to "break the rules" to save their asses when something unexpected happens. I am of course assuming it was unexpected. Expecting to kill your PCs isn't a fair way to play, unless they actually like that sort of thing.
Dread Polack
| QUOTE |
| On the matter of survival... the reason for it is up to the GM (as are the results), so I don't really see how this can ruin the atmosphere of the game - unless the GM isn't doing his job. |
Success vs survival is actually irrelevant in this case. The fact is, all RPG's require suspension of disbelief in order to work-- we have to accept that what our characters are doing is plausible. This applies equally to player and GM alike. I think you'll discover that if you go through the CLUE files, the NOCLUE files, and the drop bear thread, the most insane stories are those where a player does something so whacked, no one can accept anything that happens in the game anymore.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Note that I said "game", not plot. What can ruin a session is someone completely destroying the suspension of unbelief required to play a RPG. Taking out a citymaster with an AVS at a -52 dicepool, surviving multiple ground-zero tacnuke blasts, and taking a Thor shot to the chin are all examples of something that becomes so ludicrious, the entire atmosphere of the game is broken. It doesn't matter what kind of story the GM is running. |
If I've got a character doing stupid, stupid stuff that would require him to be riding on a tac nuke, getting hit with a Thor shot, or even pointing an AVS at a citymaster, I've got problems besides the system. The fact that it's got issues once I'm in that realm doesn't bug me that much.
Besides, tac-nukes can fizzle and Thor shots can be mistargeted. Citymasters, on the other hand, should flip, turn into a giant pinwheeling fireball as your flechettes tear it apart, and then squish the character against a dumpster.
| QUOTE (odinson) | ||||
And warhammer is quite deadly. Maybe it's my loaded dice but when we ran the Ashes of Middenheim as written it was about halfway through the book that the first PC was killed off for good. At most you start with 3 fate points and they don't last long. Shadowrun you can buy your edge with karma in warhammer the gm gives you your fate points. |
Screw fate points. ou can have a gritty game in which all of the PCs are immortal far more easily than you can have a gritty game in which anyone can die at any time. Why? Because the destruction of a life is far worse than death. If a player has a character for a long time in a good game, he becomes attached to that character and that character develops real relationships with other characters, both PCs and NPCs. Relationships are fragile, PCs can betray each other, NPC firends and lovers can be killed. Even if the PC is immortal it is possible to hurt him in ways that no human being would ever wish on anyone else.
But, if a player is making a new character every session, this it is like Paranoid with 6 clones. One character is pretty much interchangeable with every other in the player's mind and deaths have no real meaning. It isn't like any GM would force a player to sit out a campaign if one PC is killed. Nope, the dead PC's identical cousin who is even better will just show up.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Success vs survival is actually irrelevant in this case. |
If in your games, the only success a PC can claim is to survive the session, then this may be true for you.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| The fact is, all RPG's require suspension of disbelief in order to work-- we have to accept that what our characters are doing is plausible. |
'Plausibility' is a funny thing... it's so easy to shift.
When playing Primetime Adventures, it perfectly plausible that characters are not supposed nor able to simply die.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| But, if a player is making a new character every session, this it is like Paranoid with 6 clones. One character is pretty much interchangeable with every other in the player's mind and deaths have no real meaning. |
It's worse.
In our Warhammer game, we lost four characters. Three were wasted by a single player.
If dying just means that you simply get to roll a new character and add in the old XP level, PC death degenerates to 'oh, I'm bored with this character - let's try something new... maybe I get to play a Mage or Elf'.
Really, what it comes down to, is fun. It all comes down to fun.
If a hard GM is playing for more story-driven, non lethal preferring players, he should adjust. The players simply won't have fun.
If a soft GM is running for hard players, who LIKE winning by the skin of their teeth often, if they even do, and death is something that they enjoy in their games, he should also adjust, for the same reason.
If it's a mix of players, the GM should try to find a happy medium. They do exist.
If people aren't having fun, then it's time to do something. I know players of all walks-that like a tough, non apologetic game and others who prefer simply getting into plot and characters and like getting out of situations. Likewise, i know some who prefer ballsy street level, and others epic.
It's about balancing your game for the most fun possible. If HoG/edge burning is lowering the fun, then weaken it up. If it's keeping the players perfectly happy, then keep it.
The biggest problem is when the GM/Players are not flexible at all...ie, the players DONT like to play soft/hard, or the GM DOESNT like to run soft/hard. In that case, it might be best for all to find other groups/GMs. It doesn't have to be personal at all, of course. Some people simple aren't good at running/playing in one or the other.
I just never understood why these kinds of rules even CAUSE problems. If you like, keep. if not, drop. Easy. Simple. The ONLY time problems arise is when you have a mix of people in the same group wanting both...then its time for compromise. One good example for a mix hard/soft group is keep the HoG, and the hard people do NOT have to use it. The softer players may. If the hard players really dont care about deadly games, they wont have problems not using it. If they think ALL the players must suffer because they do, then this should be discussed, as it takes away from the fun of the others.
As said, i like the rule. Im sort of a middle-grounder, i do admit i like chargen and game mechanics, but i also love plot and story, and like a helping of each. I dont like to see a hard made character buy it from one crappy die roll(either as a player OR GM.)
If a hard GM is playing for more story-driven, non lethal preferring players, he should adjust. The players simply won't have fun.
If a soft GM is running for hard players, who LIKE winning by the skin of their teeth often, if they even do, and death is something that they enjoy in their games, he should also adjust, for the same reason.
If it's a mix of players, the GM should try to find a happy medium. They do exist.
If people aren't having fun, then it's time to do something. I know players of all walks-that like a tough, non apologetic game and others who prefer simply getting into plot and characters and like getting out of situations. Likewise, i know some who prefer ballsy street level, and others epic.
It's about balancing your game for the most fun possible. If HoG/edge burning is lowering the fun, then weaken it up. If it's keeping the players perfectly happy, then keep it.
The biggest problem is when the GM/Players are not flexible at all...ie, the players DONT like to play soft/hard, or the GM DOESNT like to run soft/hard. In that case, it might be best for all to find other groups/GMs. It doesn't have to be personal at all, of course. Some people simple aren't good at running/playing in one or the other.
I just never understood why these kinds of rules even CAUSE problems. If you like, keep. if not, drop. Easy. Simple. The ONLY time problems arise is when you have a mix of people in the same group wanting both...then its time for compromise. One good example for a mix hard/soft group is keep the HoG, and the hard people do NOT have to use it. The softer players may. If the hard players really dont care about deadly games, they wont have problems not using it. If they think ALL the players must suffer because they do, then this should be discussed, as it takes away from the fun of the others.
As said, i like the rule. Im sort of a middle-grounder, i do admit i like chargen and game mechanics, but i also love plot and story, and like a helping of each. I dont like to see a hard made character buy it from one crappy die roll(either as a player OR GM.)
A couple of weeks ago one of our players, a troll, was 15 meters away from a 69P explosion. Yeah I know. He ended up having to ressist a 39P I think. The GM implamented a house rule called, "lose-a-limb". Basically you take maximum damage -1 and you lose a limb. I thought it was a very creative way of letting people live. I never really liked the hand of god or the edge burning rules. So to me that was good to go.
..that's a really nice rule.
Even for people that can't affoard a JarJob - there's always Stan's Previously-owned Limbs...
Even for people that can't affoard a JarJob - there's always Stan's Previously-owned Limbs...
heh, i kinda like that too.
Owch. How did an explosion that big happen?
Well, the rules for Explosives let you get up that high, but it takes an awful lot of explosives.
Could also have been the "chunky salsa" rule and an elevator he was down the hall from. Reflective damage always got a little silly in SR.
Could also have been the "chunky salsa" rule and an elevator he was down the hall from. Reflective damage always got a little silly in SR.
Well since people like the rule, I cannot take credit for it, it is Grendels house rule. As for the why's and what fors.
The team was hisred to trash a Neonet manufacturing plant. Not trash really, take out a processing center, and a cold storage room. Our plan was to infiltrate the building as janitors (I know an oldy but a goody) and then split up and each go to our asignment. On overwatch we had our rigger, and our troll.
Once we lit up our objectives alarms were going off. So we used a drone rigged van with 20kilos of C-12 to drive it into the guard shack to prevent the front gate from locking down. The rigger wanted to be in grenade launcher range so his van was parked a mere 25 meters from ground zero. The troll wanted to be all sneaky and was doing that at 15 meters.
We trashed the equipment, the alarm went off, and then the van detonated. The problem lies with this, we asked for "enough explosives to level a concrete guard shack". Really I didn't do the asking, the rigger did. So our happy fun demo girl put together 20 kilos of high grade explosives. By happy fun I mean she has way to much fun watching things explode.
So when the bomb went off the GM smilled, and I think even giggled alittle bit as he pulled out his calculator and did the math.
The troll was paste on the side walk. Though he invoked the rule and lost his right arm. It was nicely painted picture seeing him sail calmy through the air on opposite vector from his arm.
The riggers van, and Doby were trashed, split open like an egg. The rigger hiself survived, but just barely and burned a lot of karma to do it.
What was left of the guard shack was at the bottom of a 6 meter by 8 meter hole. Every window for 6 blocks shattered and every cop in 10 miles was on the way. The classic, "drop what you are doing and walk away" scenario.
The team was hisred to trash a Neonet manufacturing plant. Not trash really, take out a processing center, and a cold storage room. Our plan was to infiltrate the building as janitors (I know an oldy but a goody) and then split up and each go to our asignment. On overwatch we had our rigger, and our troll.
Once we lit up our objectives alarms were going off. So we used a drone rigged van with 20kilos of C-12 to drive it into the guard shack to prevent the front gate from locking down. The rigger wanted to be in grenade launcher range so his van was parked a mere 25 meters from ground zero. The troll wanted to be all sneaky and was doing that at 15 meters.
We trashed the equipment, the alarm went off, and then the van detonated. The problem lies with this, we asked for "enough explosives to level a concrete guard shack". Really I didn't do the asking, the rigger did. So our happy fun demo girl put together 20 kilos of high grade explosives. By happy fun I mean she has way to much fun watching things explode.
So when the bomb went off the GM smilled, and I think even giggled alittle bit as he pulled out his calculator and did the math.
The troll was paste on the side walk. Though he invoked the rule and lost his right arm. It was nicely painted picture seeing him sail calmy through the air on opposite vector from his arm.
The riggers van, and Doby were trashed, split open like an egg. The rigger hiself survived, but just barely and burned a lot of karma to do it.
What was left of the guard shack was at the bottom of a 6 meter by 8 meter hole. Every window for 6 blocks shattered and every cop in 10 miles was on the way. The classic, "drop what you are doing and walk away" scenario.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.