Full Version: Shadow of the überplot
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Indeed. [ Spoiler ] It's just that none of the PCs are ever going to be able to harm him except insofar as my drink is able to suddenly be outside of the cup it happens to be in without having moved there. ~J |
[ Spoiler ]
Anyway, if Harlequin is just as mortal as the next guy, he has the same chance to die when he gets shot. The same goes for everyone else. Where is the satisfaction in putting something in a game that can never be affected by your PCs in any way at all?
Because unless you run games featuring 400+ build point characters, no starting avail limit, expanded Resources options, no starting Rating limit, etc. etc. etc. the characters aren't going to be able to touch said characters without major GM intervention.
~J
edit: Harlequin is as mortal as the next guy. If the shot actually hit him, then yes, he might die from it. His being shot is so hideously unlikely, what with being a high double-digit initiate and all, as to be absurd.
You put your finger on a point, though: affect. The runners can't kill these people, but they can affect them. Not much, but they can do it. That's what differentiates Harlequin from a brick wall.
~J
edit: Harlequin is as mortal as the next guy. If the shot actually hit him, then yes, he might die from it. His being shot is so hideously unlikely, what with being a high double-digit initiate and all, as to be absurd.
You put your finger on a point, though: affect. The runners can't kill these people, but they can affect them. Not much, but they can do it. That's what differentiates Harlequin from a brick wall.
[ Spoiler ]
The problem with the uberplot is that there usually is little or nothing we can do aboout it. Either we use it or we ignore it, or find some other way of explaining why certain things happened.
For example, if the team in H's Back had failed or somehow backed out and allowed the Enemy to cross over, then it would be difficult to explain why the world hasn't ended yet.
The broad strokes of the uber plot limit in many ways what the GM can do and yet remain within Canon. The only way certain PCs can somehow enter the metaplot is if that PC's player works for the publishers and then, what ever that PC does is now Canon.
For example, if the team in H's Back had failed or somehow backed out and allowed the Enemy to cross over, then it would be difficult to explain why the world hasn't ended yet.
The broad strokes of the uber plot limit in many ways what the GM can do and yet remain within Canon. The only way certain PCs can somehow enter the metaplot is if that PC's player works for the publishers and then, what ever that PC does is now Canon.
| QUOTE |
| The problem with the uberplot is that there usually is little or nothing we can do aboout it. Either we use it or we ignore it, or find some other way of explaining why certain things happened. |
Or the third option: treat it like a real event that happened in the world, people discuss it, talk about it, debate it and it becomes a part and parcel of life. Just because something happens does not mean that you have to be a part of it or ignore it. Just let it happen. Not everything has to has a reason or an explanation. In fact, most things do not.
| QUOTE |
| For example, if the team in H's Back had failed or somehow backed out and allowed the Enemy to cross over, then it would be difficult to explain why the world hasn't ended yet. |
No it isn't. Even if the team failed the invasion may not happen for hundreds of years, thats still a thousand years or two earlier than humanity needs to put up an effective fight. It's still beyond the scope of the SR timeline.
| QUOTE |
| The broad strokes of the uber plot limit in many ways what the GM can do and yet remain within Canon. The only way certain PCs can somehow enter the metaplot is if that PC's player works for the publishers and then, what ever that PC does is now Canon. |
I propose instead the uberplot is simply the form and shape of the world that the characters live in. The PC's do not need to interact with the metaplot in any way to have a fulfilling game. They can watch these events unfold as they deal with important events in their own lives and affect things to matter to them. All without having to deal with the foibles of "canon".
In short I think there is absolutely no reason that the metaplot needs to be directly interacted with at all. That does not stop it from happening.
In conclustion:
In short I think there is absolutely no reason that the metaplot needs to be directly interacted with at all. That does not stop it from happening.
In conclustion:
| QUOTE |
| The problem with the uberplot is that there usually is little or nothing we can do aboout it. |
Only if you make that a problem.
Have to agree completely with Bit. This issue is always going to come up playing any game connected to a franchise/movie/novel like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Judge Dredd (to name a few) or one that has a greatly evolved universe for which "canon" authors have written stories to develop the universe such as MechWarrior, the world of Krynn in Dragonlance, etc.. You can still run VERY fulfilling campaigns in those games without ever once having to mess around with the metaplot.
If your players can't be mature about not using OOC knowledge or go on a rampage to destroy the setting (eg. kill Luke as a baby in Star Wars), your GM will have to handle it as best he can.
If your players can't be mature about not using OOC knowledge or go on a rampage to destroy the setting (eg. kill Luke as a baby in Star Wars), your GM will have to handle it as best he can.
I am a little confused as to why characters want to be able to kill EVERYTHING. If we were playing a modern version of SR, I would say that it is very difficult to stop the U.S. from sending troops to Iraq or to kill George Bush. Now if you somehow have managed to gain access to nuclear weapons, maybe its possible, just like if you parked a nuclear bomb next to Harlequin in the campaign it would have a fair chance of success. But our president, just like our IEs, survive because they have the resources to plan for contingencies. This is real life; smart people plan, and the more likely they think they are to be killed, the more they plan. This means your players have to plan more, have more resources and generally just be more tenacious to successfully kill off a serious character, which seems pretty unlikely (especially since I can't imagine why any character would WANT to dedicate all that time to kill one snotty elf...)
For the same reason people want to record how many times they've killed Tiamat or brag about keeping Cthulhu house-broken.
It's not impossible to kill the President of the US, but not easy by any stretch of the imagination.
The fact that players want to exert that kind of power is going to complicate any kind of scenario and tends to demonstrate more about the players than any real lack of gaming potential.
-Siege
It's not impossible to kill the President of the US, but not easy by any stretch of the imagination.
The fact that players want to exert that kind of power is going to complicate any kind of scenario and tends to demonstrate more about the players than any real lack of gaming potential.
-Siege
I think if the characters want to kill Harlequin, the GM has not done his or her job right. Why would an immortal elf bully around the PCs? But if he does, then the GM says "Nothing you can do will ever affect him", then the players should be upset. Bira had it right - if a street punk with a pistol has a miniscule chance of taking out the cybered-to-hell street sam under the right circumstances, why couldn't that street sam be the equivalent of a street punk in a fight with Harlequin? I don't think immortal elves live so long because they are invincible - they live so long because they don't gratuitously offend people, and they always remember that despite all of their quickened spells, they could always run into the wrong guy with a heavy pistol at the exact wrong time. I start a campaign relatively in canon, but I don't feel constrained by the metaplot after it gets going.
What I meant was that it was difficult to get back into the Canon storyline or to use parts of the Canon storyline if certain metaplot-centric PCs were killed or other plot-essential elements were altered beyond reasonable explanation.
Yes, the uberplot is a problem only if you let it. But much of the fun in the SR universe is interacting with the rest of the world, you could stay in your own corner of the world never interact with the rest of the universe, but it is not so much fun as well as you would have a difficult time running the published adventures (of, that is the GM's problem).
On the question that PCs will never be able to reach/affect/kill Ultimate NPCs, I try to look at it this way: if there are several levels/types of Ultimate, Deus is going to have trouble beating Lowfyr in a fight, but Deus is going to kick dragon butt in the Matrix.
There is also this problem to consider: Given that a NPC is Superhuman with respect to PC A, given that both charactors are roleplayed equally well and are equally rewarded, then PC A will inevitably close the gap between him and the NPC. Perhaps the GM will want to keep that in mind, no matter how far ahead the NPC is, the PC/PCs will eventually close the gap, from Superhuman to Superior to almost Equal.
Yes, the uberplot is a problem only if you let it. But much of the fun in the SR universe is interacting with the rest of the world, you could stay in your own corner of the world never interact with the rest of the universe, but it is not so much fun as well as you would have a difficult time running the published adventures (of, that is the GM's problem).
On the question that PCs will never be able to reach/affect/kill Ultimate NPCs, I try to look at it this way: if there are several levels/types of Ultimate, Deus is going to have trouble beating Lowfyr in a fight, but Deus is going to kick dragon butt in the Matrix.
There is also this problem to consider: Given that a NPC is Superhuman with respect to PC A, given that both charactors are roleplayed equally well and are equally rewarded, then PC A will inevitably close the gap between him and the NPC. Perhaps the GM will want to keep that in mind, no matter how far ahead the NPC is, the PC/PCs will eventually close the gap, from Superhuman to Superior to almost Equal.
| QUOTE (toturi) |
| There is also this problem to consider: Given that a NPC is Superhuman with respect to PC A, given that both charactors are roleplayed equally well and are equally rewarded, then PC A will inevitably close the gap between him and the NPC. Perhaps the GM will want to keep that in mind, no matter how far ahead the NPC is, the PC/PCs will eventually close the gap, from Superhuman to Superior to almost Equal. |
Only on an infinite timescale. Even then, they only close with Superhuman IEs, not Ultimates like GDs and AIs.
~J
Please bear in mind that I mean no ill will towards anyone posting here. It's not my intention to offend anyone. If anything I say does come out as rude or offensive, it's the fault of my poor communication skills.
| QUOTE ("toturi") |
The problem with the uberplot is that there usually is little or nothing we can do about it. |
| QUOTE ("Kagetenshi") |
Because unless you run games featuring 400+ build point characters, no starting avail limit, expanded Resources options, no starting Rating limit, etc. etc. etc. the characters aren't going to be able to touch said characters without major GM intervention. |
| QUOTE ("nezumi") |
I am a little confused as to why characters want to be able to kill EVERYTHING. |
| QUOTE ("Siege") |
The fact that players want to exert that kind of power is going to complicate any kind of scenario and tends to demonstrate more about the players than any real lack of gaming potential. |
| QUOTE ("Kagetenshi") |
Only on an infinite timescale. Even then, they only close with Superhuman IEs, not Ultimates like GDs and AIs. |
The excessive number of quotes I just pasted here is an excellent sample of the kind of thinking that confuses me. The one from Toturi is out of order, but I put it first because it seems to be the basic premise from which the others are working.
This premise is that Nothing Can Be Done About the Metaplot. "Metaplot" here means the official setting material published by FASA and Fanpro, and includes both the periodical updates to the history of the Sixth World (for example, Dunkie's assassination) and the official characters that appear from time to time in sourcebooks and novels (Captain Chaos, Tommy Talon, Harlequin and his merry elves, etc.).
What I find interesting is that people think this metaplot is something immutable, with what appears to be such conviction that the idea that someone might want to bend and warp it for a specific game of Shadowrun just cannot be conceived (read a few posts above for the Replacement IEs example I gave).
When this "heretic" idea does elicit a true response, it's usually something along the lines of "that's munchkin", as can be seen in the second and third quotes I posted. This seems to express a feeling that, if your players even think of doing something to the metaplot, they're bad players who think only about accumulating power and killing things, and that you're a bad GM for letting them run rampant like that.
The other common response is "that's impossible". Some are not so severe, and say it's hypothetically doable, but it brings too many headaches to be worthwhile (without a metaplot, the GM has to figure it all out by himself!
).The general opinion, expressed after these initial responses, is that people should be content with what they're given by the publishers, because all of it is really swell and full of gaming potential and whoever disagrees is either incompetent (according to the first response) or in for a lot of back-breaking work (according to the second one).
Tough it might not seem so from this post, I do respect the opinions of others. If you think the metaplot is nice and want to run with it as-is in your game, I've got no problem with that. But strict adherence to canon is not the only way to play. Disagreeing with it on purpose does not necessarily make a bad game, either.
In this thread, I've been told no one should be able to beat Immortal Elves and their ilk because they're totally super-powerful. Affecting them in any way they don't approve of is impossible beacuse It Should Be So, unless of course it happens on the course of an officially sanctioned official module, which makes it All Right.
I have also been told that changing the official storyline is a Bad Thing because it's too much work, and would make it difficult to integrate your campaign with further official publications. Leaving aside the fact that one may not really care about official publications, either because of differences in taste or a simple lack of money, people seem to have no trouble taking hours of their time to write pages and pages of variant combat rules and new guns. Surely, changing the metaplot isn't much harder than that.
Wanting to change the game world doesn't make someone a bad player or GM. I think the dreaded Lesbian Redhead Ninja Assassin Hot Elf Chick is a much worse problem than all those "munchkins" who want to make significant changes to the setting.
But sometimes it doesn't make much sense to change the setting unless there's a LOT of metagaming going on. For instance, there's no way someone's going to prevent the "assassination" of Dunkelzahn unless their player went out of their way to change that without character knowledge.
Ultimate people aren't Ultimate because their plans can never be changed, but because it's too late to change them once most people actually see what they are. That's my complaint; runners won't reasonably come into play and know what's going on early enough to make a difference without metagaming.
The metaplot can be changed, sure, but by the GM. A GM running the metaplot should not encounter any instances where the players ought to be able to derail it significantly.
Brainscan spoiler ahead.
And that's the easiest-to-"derail" adventure I can think of. It's just not going to happen unless the GM specifically alters the metaplot to be changeable by the PCs.
~J
Ultimate people aren't Ultimate because their plans can never be changed, but because it's too late to change them once most people actually see what they are. That's my complaint; runners won't reasonably come into play and know what's going on early enough to make a difference without metagaming.
The metaplot can be changed, sure, but by the GM. A GM running the metaplot should not encounter any instances where the players ought to be able to derail it significantly.
Brainscan spoiler ahead.
[ Spoiler ]
And that's the easiest-to-"derail" adventure I can think of. It's just not going to happen unless the GM specifically alters the metaplot to be changeable by the PCs.
~J
I'd point out that the one advantage to moving slowly: you can shoot a target once he's stopped moving and probably exhausted all of his combat pool elsewhere.
As for altering the Uber plot, it can be done provided the players pick up on the clues that might be out there but the GM (being only human) may or may not provide.
It's difficult for a single person to duplicate the breadth and depth and subsequent complexity of a real, breathing world complete with red herrings and useless trivia that may or may not prove useful later.
-Siege
As for altering the Uber plot, it can be done provided the players pick up on the clues that might be out there but the GM (being only human) may or may not provide.
It's difficult for a single person to duplicate the breadth and depth and subsequent complexity of a real, breathing world complete with red herrings and useless trivia that may or may not prove useful later.
-Siege
| QUOTE ("Kagetenshi") |
But sometimes it doesn't make much sense to change the setting unless there's a LOT of metagaming going on. |
It doesn't necessarily follow that every time a change comes from the players, it's because of metagaming. Players who don't know much about the setting and its secrets are the ones who are most likely to really toss things around.
| QUOTE ("Kagetenshi") |
A GM running the metaplot should not encounter any instances where the players ought to be able to derail it significantly. |
In many other games, railroading like this is considered one of the vilest practices a GM can engage in. Setting a chain of events that can't be deviated from usually upsets the players as soon as they try to do something different.
Something every GM should know: it's all right if things don't go the way they planned. It will happen eventually, because that's what players are like, and when it does, they'll find it's much more fun to roll with it than to desperately try to get things back on track.
I GMed a short game once, to two beginning players, where they did the same run described in the short story that opens the core book. They ended up blowing up the fusion plant, and Seattle along with it
.
| QUOTE (Bira) |
| Wanting to change the game world doesn't make someone a bad player or GM. I think the dreaded Lesbian Redhead Ninja Assassin Hot Elf Chick is a much worse problem than all those "munchkins" who want to make significant changes to the setting. |
What about a Lesbian Redhead Ninja Assassin Hot Elf Chick from Doom who wants to make significant changes to the setting?
(ducks)
| QUOTE (Bira @ Nov 13 2003, 10:53 AM) |
| In many other games, railroading like this is considered one of the vilest practices a GM can engage in. Setting a chain of events that can't be deviated from usually upsets the players as soon as they try to do something different. |
We obviously have utterly different ideas on what constitutes railroading. The characters aren't forced to do anything, anything AT ALL. They just happen to be unable to change certain things in motion that may or may not even affect them directly.
If your players consider the inability to change things far larger than the players that have been in motion for decades railroading, I will thank whatever deities are out there that I don't have your group.
~J
edit:
| QUOTE |
| I GMed a short game once, to two beginning players, where they did the same run described in the short story that opens the core book. They ended up blowing up the fusion plant, and Seattle along with it |
Right. That's just not reasonably possible. If you're going for a realistic game, that just flat-out wouldn't happen.
Enjoy your game the way you like it, but in any game intended to work much the same the world would in that situation some things are just not going to change.
You really do have to draw the line somewhere. I mean if I were determined to stop the universe from expanding, and my GM said no, I can't do that, is that railroading? If not, then why is the idea of people in power having contingency plans railroading?
I've never actually run an uberplot campaign, but it seems to me that an elf who's been around for several thousand years most likely will have planned ahead so that he can still do whatever crazy elfy things he wants to do despite some random humans meddling about in his plans. He's certainly put a lot of time and effort into making contingencies against getting killled (you don't live to be 3,000 years old if you're still at risk of being hit by a bus every day).
It seems to be like there's a line drawn by logic which needs to be kept in mind. With the nuclear plant, no one is going to build a plant which will vaporize an entire city if a few pieces go loose. That's just really poor planning on the part of the plant designers. An immortal elf isn't going to run around willy nilly without giving a second thought to 'what happens if someone decides to kill me for fun'. It's happened to significantly less important people than him.
I won't say that someone who's trying to kill Harlequin is a munchkin, I'll say it's about as easy as walking through matter; not worth the time and effort to figure out how. I DO think that changing some parts of the uberplot is unthinkable, but the reason why is that I realize that a 3,000 year old elf will have lots and lots of contingency plans, and I, being a 24 year old human, can't conceive of half of them. So I give Harlequin the benefit of the doubt that he's thought of most any imaginable way to kill him unless the characters come up with something truly spectacular (destroying the earth may or may not do the trick, however it will heavily affect the metaplot). That said, there are some parts of the metaplot I have no problem at all at changing, and if the scenario happens to provide a space for the characters to change things, I'll run with it (if they SOMEHOW encounter Damien Knight on the can and shoot him, KE will just have to find a new CEO, life goes on).
I've never actually run an uberplot campaign, but it seems to me that an elf who's been around for several thousand years most likely will have planned ahead so that he can still do whatever crazy elfy things he wants to do despite some random humans meddling about in his plans. He's certainly put a lot of time and effort into making contingencies against getting killled (you don't live to be 3,000 years old if you're still at risk of being hit by a bus every day).
It seems to be like there's a line drawn by logic which needs to be kept in mind. With the nuclear plant, no one is going to build a plant which will vaporize an entire city if a few pieces go loose. That's just really poor planning on the part of the plant designers. An immortal elf isn't going to run around willy nilly without giving a second thought to 'what happens if someone decides to kill me for fun'. It's happened to significantly less important people than him.
I won't say that someone who's trying to kill Harlequin is a munchkin, I'll say it's about as easy as walking through matter; not worth the time and effort to figure out how. I DO think that changing some parts of the uberplot is unthinkable, but the reason why is that I realize that a 3,000 year old elf will have lots and lots of contingency plans, and I, being a 24 year old human, can't conceive of half of them. So I give Harlequin the benefit of the doubt that he's thought of most any imaginable way to kill him unless the characters come up with something truly spectacular (destroying the earth may or may not do the trick, however it will heavily affect the metaplot). That said, there are some parts of the metaplot I have no problem at all at changing, and if the scenario happens to provide a space for the characters to change things, I'll run with it (if they SOMEHOW encounter Damien Knight on the can and shoot him, KE will just have to find a new CEO, life goes on).
Goodness, this grew quickly 
I couldn't even get back to it until I had an Explorer- or reasonable-gen-of-Netscape-based hour. (My early gen Netscape cheats don't let me see most of the posts once the thread gets longer than a page.)
It would seem that things worth thinking about can come from any source
I don't think there could be something really off-tangent in this thread, so long as it at least touched on the question either of fatalism/determinism or why you do what you do - since that's what's at the root of whether or not a given group is going to be able to strictly follow a canon überplot. To that end, I'm going to lead off with a quote from the How do you play SR thread which in some ways almost defines the paradox:
I couldn't even get back to it until I had an Explorer- or reasonable-gen-of-Netscape-based hour. (My early gen Netscape cheats don't let me see most of the posts once the thread gets longer than a page.)It would seem that things worth thinking about can come from any source
I don't think there could be something really off-tangent in this thread, so long as it at least touched on the question either of fatalism/determinism or why you do what you do - since that's what's at the root of whether or not a given group is going to be able to strictly follow a canon überplot. To that end, I'm going to lead off with a quote from the How do you play SR thread which in some ways almost defines the paradox:
| QUOTE |
| However, 250 karma is nowhere near Dragon or IE (There are no IE's in our world). So, no, we're nowhere near that power level. But think on this... if that is an attainable Power Level that we're not even halfway too, why are people getting stuck in 'ganger' level games when there's so much of the game mechanics to explore? Afraid to learn all the rules? PS, that last comment isn't intended as an attack. I just honestly can't imagine any other reason to consisitently play only Level 1 (if given reference to AD&D) type games, when there are so many other levels and things to do. - Sphynx |
| QUOTE |
| Perhaps the problem is not with the low-Karma games, but with your imagination. Gaming can be rewarding in many ways other than allowing you to write down bigger numbers on a piece of paper. If you can't see the attraction in playing a character who will certainly never be able to go head to head with Lofwyr, and may never even move beyond fighting for day-to-day survival in the gutter, then I honestly feel sorry for you, because you're evidently missing about 90% of what I find enjoyable in the game. - John Campbell |
In other words: why not try to become a bigger fish in a bigger pond? And one possible answer: because personal interactions and personality are seen as more important than power growth per se?
That thread and a couple of others then proceed to examine whether it must indeed be one or the other: why not both? What's to say that one must negate the other?
And yet, both options fall squarely within the focus of this thread: whether strict adherence to the überplot - no deviation, no substitutions, definitely no possibility of changes - must ultimately limit any PC in those games in which storyline reaches beyond a tight focus of one's immediate environment. (Which is definitely not to say that such tight focus does not allow for PC growth, both of personality and power!) If power is possible, why not let the ability to manipulate power at ever increasing levels be a part of the PC's growth? Why force an "artificial" restriction? Why would a strict adherence to the überplot not be an equally "artificial" restriction?
| QUOTE |
| The ability to affect their world and the ability to affect the world are entirely different things. - BitBasher |
Ah, but where lies the boundary between the immediate world of the PCs and The World? To say that something is untouchable and that something is untouchable within the PC's lifestyle has no perceivable distinction from the pov of the PCs: either way, it's not possible, and it's not going to be possible. Nothing whatsoever to do with heroics - only with whether it's even realistic for a PC's limits of successful influence to grow indefinitely. (Nothing saying that influence needs to be used in any sense anyone would consider heroic
)It's the question of limits and our reaction to them, in SR as in RL, which exposes potential or frustrates it. Up against that which cannot be changed, do we choose to set our sights a little narrower? Do we choose to read about the events that shape our world in the newspaper ... since we "obviously" can't do anything about them? Do we resign ourselves to Office Space helplessness and frustration? Do we rail against the Powers That Be, and must it ultimately be a losing battle? There's spaces for stories like that - but I'd guess most of us aren't in the RPG world in order to be frustrated again and again and again.
(More later.) Edited to fix formatting.
I think it's important that the PCs accomplish something that feels like they've overcome great odds without necessarily changing the world.
It'd be great to overthrow the corps, drive out the bugs, etc. But what then? Once the PCs have done that earth-shaking stuff, what could possibly be a challenge?
I keep them lean, hungry in my campaigns. They're always looking out for the next score. I also occasionally scare the living crap out of them by having the "big boys" do something that just defies belief (i.e., I min-max and munchkin the rules for an NPC, then have them do something that seems stupendous, without letting the PCs know how they did it).
When all else fails, have real-world type stuff befall them. Natural disasters, stock market dips, fanatical cults gassing crowds, these things happen. Not for any reason, usually, than Fate is a cruel female dog.
But never let them rest easy. Always remind them that there's someone bigger and badder than them out there, and they don't like competition, either...
It'd be great to overthrow the corps, drive out the bugs, etc. But what then? Once the PCs have done that earth-shaking stuff, what could possibly be a challenge?
I keep them lean, hungry in my campaigns. They're always looking out for the next score. I also occasionally scare the living crap out of them by having the "big boys" do something that just defies belief (i.e., I min-max and munchkin the rules for an NPC, then have them do something that seems stupendous, without letting the PCs know how they did it).
When all else fails, have real-world type stuff befall them. Natural disasters, stock market dips, fanatical cults gassing crowds, these things happen. Not for any reason, usually, than Fate is a cruel female dog.
But never let them rest easy. Always remind them that there's someone bigger and badder than them out there, and they don't like competition, either...
Continuing:
I suspect the key point I'd been trying to make was that of a continued ability of the PC to grow, in whichever direction the group chooses. They may choose to focus on a tighter world of DocWagon missions or gang wars or the next run or scoop.
Then again, they may not. (Note that neither of these choices precludes growth of personality.)
Why should the PC care that there are IEs and dragons and corps (oh my) traipsing around, raising a merry hell of paranoid plot and counterplot? Maybe they won't ever encounter them. Maybe they'll be continually used as pawns without their knowledge. But - once the PC becomes aware of their existence and how that existence affects the PC - the PC has to make a choice: are they going to bother trying to control their own destiny, and if so, how are they going to go about it? (It's a given that it's not going to be an overnight thing.) Equally, the GM (in conjunction with the group as a whole) has to make a choice: is s/he going to allow the possibility that the PCs will ever potentially be able to affect the greater world on some fraction of the same level within their lifetime - or are the great events always going to be something the PCs can only ever read about in a newspaper?
It's not even about inflicting damage, or intentional targetting. (Although certainly many will see that as the epitome of influence ) Sometimes it just takes a single word in the right ear. It could even be an accidentally overheard word.
It's in the existence of possibility - or the complete lack of possibility in a specific direction demanded by strict canon. PCs always have the choice, it's been argued in this thread: but I'd counter if (in a strict canon game) they really do. How many PC choices can be invisibly removed before it becomes a false choice, nothing more than a façade overlying an immovable structure? To truly allow the full choice upon which growth depends, the structure should - at least potentially, within the PCs' lifetimes - be affectable. The überplot can certainly serve as guide - but the GM must have a fine awareness of when adherence to "cannot be changed" structure is becoming railroading.
I suspect the key point I'd been trying to make was that of a continued ability of the PC to grow, in whichever direction the group chooses. They may choose to focus on a tighter world of DocWagon missions or gang wars or the next run or scoop.
Then again, they may not. (Note that neither of these choices precludes growth of personality.)
Why should the PC care that there are IEs and dragons and corps (oh my) traipsing around, raising a merry hell of paranoid plot and counterplot? Maybe they won't ever encounter them. Maybe they'll be continually used as pawns without their knowledge. But - once the PC becomes aware of their existence and how that existence affects the PC - the PC has to make a choice: are they going to bother trying to control their own destiny, and if so, how are they going to go about it? (It's a given that it's not going to be an overnight thing.) Equally, the GM (in conjunction with the group as a whole) has to make a choice: is s/he going to allow the possibility that the PCs will ever potentially be able to affect the greater world on some fraction of the same level within their lifetime - or are the great events always going to be something the PCs can only ever read about in a newspaper?
It's not even about inflicting damage, or intentional targetting. (Although certainly many will see that as the epitome of influence
) Sometimes it just takes a single word in the right ear. It could even be an accidentally overheard word.It's in the existence of possibility - or the complete lack of possibility in a specific direction demanded by strict canon. PCs always have the choice, it's been argued in this thread: but I'd counter if (in a strict canon game) they really do. How many PC choices can be invisibly removed before it becomes a false choice, nothing more than a façade overlying an immovable structure? To truly allow the full choice upon which growth depends, the structure should - at least potentially, within the PCs' lifetimes - be affectable. The überplot can certainly serve as guide - but the GM must have a fine awareness of when adherence to "cannot be changed" structure is becoming railroading.
| QUOTE |
| Still other players don't like success at all. Life is grim and even when they're doing good, they want to feel like things are only getting worse. Personally, I'm in the second group. My characters' goals are never things like "take down Ares Macrotechnology" or "kill all dragons". Neither, to me, is even remotely realistic or possible over the course of a game for a single character or even a runner team. Those things are bigger and better than any single character could hope to take on. That's an essential part of the SR feel, IMHO. - bwdemon |
"don't like success"? That's not been my experience, at all. I'd suggest that rather, you've redefined what is to stand as success - for example the success of this run, specifically and in isolation. I don't think very many players would stand for a game in which they would always, always lose in every respect.
Incidentally, Kagetenshi: I'd suggest that Nietzsche's übermensch exists not so much in lack of any meaning as in recognising societally-based belief-systems (within which meaning is cored) as being only what they are, and having the courage to free oneself of them - and find one's meaning for oneself (which I think you caught better in your second post, first page). That last part, I suspect, is what's crucial. You're not nothing - unless you can't see yourself as something in the absence of an artificial societal structure which tells you what you should be. It's all about making your own values, and having the courage to live by them.
Again, more later.
I stand by my comments that such an anti-success group of players exists. You may not be a part of it or have seen it before, but they tend to be drama queens and have to constantly bear their philosophical/emotional/physical/situational cross. I've dealt with them before and find them no more annoying than any other can be, but I'd probably prefer them over the success-demanding players.
For the purpose of my argument, "success" is defined as coming out ahead. This is intentionally broadly defined. Players in the anti-success group want some negative to override/overwhelm whatever positives they accomplish. This can be an apples & oranges situation.
For example: "completed the run, but unleashed an unstoppable psychopath in the process" or "exerted (insert character's particular brand of morality), but was subsequently beaten and ostracized for it" or "killed X only to learn that Y was the real perpetrator and X was innocent" or "saved the life of a teammate, but broke a personal code against killing".
In short, some bad has to happen that either negates the good or replaces the old one to an equal or greater degree.
For the purpose of my argument, "success" is defined as coming out ahead. This is intentionally broadly defined. Players in the anti-success group want some negative to override/overwhelm whatever positives they accomplish. This can be an apples & oranges situation.
For example: "completed the run, but unleashed an unstoppable psychopath in the process" or "exerted (insert character's particular brand of morality), but was subsequently beaten and ostracized for it" or "killed X only to learn that Y was the real perpetrator and X was innocent" or "saved the life of a teammate, but broke a personal code against killing".
In short, some bad has to happen that either negates the good or replaces the old one to an equal or greater degree.
| QUOTE (nezumi @ Nov 13 2003, 02:44 PM) |
| You really do have to draw the line somewhere. I mean if I were determined to stop the universe from expanding, and my GM said no, I can't do that, is that railroading? If not, then why is the idea of people in power having contingency plans railroading? |
I'd hardly rate messing around with Shadowrun's metaplot in the same level with stopping the universe from expanding. Do show some perspective here, please
.Also, you all seem to be imagining that the characters would just get up one day and say "I wanna change the world!". It doesn't happen like that. Things like that usually happen because of a pretty good reason, or at least because of a logical extension of the character's behavior. And, no matter how long these NPCs have lived, they can't have planned ahead for every little thing that may ever happen to them. You also have to draw the line on contingency plans. There's a point where they stop being reasonable thoughts by the villains and become desperate "they're-killing-my-baby" actions by the GM
. If a group of players has a good reason to want to affect the metaplot, and they have come with some reasonable means to do so, I'll let them succeed. | QUOTE ("Eindrachen") |
I think it's important that the PCs accomplish something that feels like they've overcome great odds without necessarily changing the world. |
Why is it Shadowrun Game Masters seem to fear change in the Sixth World? Isn't that what it's all about? Whenever I talk about change, people assume it's automatically random change brought about by "undue" metagame knowledge on the part of the players. I get a vibe that it will always be random and undue to them no matter how well thought out it is, and no matter how much sense it makes.
And it's not only about killing things, either. For example, what would happen if that mysterious vaccine in Dunkie's will hadn't been completely obliterated by the annoying immortal elves? What would happen if it was the player characters that brought about this change?
It doesn't always have to be about coming out ahead, either. What bugs me is, when the subject of the metaplot is approached, even the "actions have logical consequences" crowd starts saying that It Cannot Be Changed.
| QUOTE (Bira) |
| If a group of players has a good reason to want to affect the metaplot, and they have come with some reasonable means to do so, I'll let them succeed. |
(Emphasis added)
Right. We're just questioning the existance of a reasonable means to do so.
~J
Continuing:
(And I should apologise in advance. Since I'm trying to address what I see as major points as I encounter them and they strike me, and I've only just gotten to the second page for response purposes, it's possible some of what I'm addressing had already been countered or agreed upon before I get to that point.)
Quick side-beginning based on what I've finally seen of the third page, a proposed definition of railroading:
Railroading: An action taken by some GMs, usually involving altering some part of the in-game universe (outcomes, NPCs), such as to constrain the actions possible for a PC to take, in the interests of preserving a greater plotline.
(And I should apologise in advance. Since I'm trying to address what I see as major points as I encounter them and they strike me, and I've only just gotten to the second page for response purposes, it's possible some of what I'm addressing had already been countered or agreed upon before I get to that point.)
Quick side-beginning based on what I've finally seen of the third page, a proposed definition of railroading:
Railroading: An action taken by some GMs, usually involving altering some part of the in-game universe (outcomes, NPCs), such as to constrain the actions possible for a PC to take, in the interests of preserving a greater plotline.
| QUOTE |
| Players in the anti-success group want some negative to override/overwhelm whatever positives they accomplish. - bwdemon |
So you don't consider it a success unless it's an unqualified success, bwdemon: an absolutely clear coming out ahead? Because I have seen what you describe myself, only I'd not seen it as you do - more really of potential future growth for the PC and teasers into a wider world. (Maybe that makes me one of your drama queens
) Basically, I guess I'm just trying to say what nezumi said better:| QUOTE |
| I don't think anyone has an issue specifically with succeeding.. Even the most nihilistic players will say they enjoy winning once in a while. |
Only I'd add that visible success - any visible success - is absolutely necessary to anchor player awareness that the possibility of success exists. Otherwise it's just words.
| QUOTE |
| Why do they do this? Because they can. Because it is who they are. Because, by simply standing and refusing to lay down and take it, like the salariman next to them, they make themselves better then "Joe Average." - grimshear |
The Will to Power, personified. Ability to do = action = success. However, ability to do does not in itself equate with motivation to do. There's many things I can do that I might not necessarily choose to do: sometimes simply because what one person might see as lying down and taking it I might see as diffusing a potentially volatile situation (and possibly making things better for other hapless individuals who might happen to cross the other's path later that day). Why would a PC be any different? or an NPC, for that matter? Whether or not Harlequin should have the same physical chance to die as anyone, he's obviously got the smarts to have lasted as long as he has, through some fairly dangerous periods in history where magic did not rule. Could I suggest that one part of survivability is also knowing when to dodge the fight? and not always doing something simply because it can be done?
I suddenly wonder: do some GMs play Harlequin in the same way as they play critters: so that they "just die" ... but Harlequin is somehow immune?
| QUOTE |
| The best runners in the best games, in my experience, are the ones who realize that what they are doing is not moving and shaking the very foundations of the earth. In the words of Rorchach, "We do not do these things because they are right. We do these things because we are compelled to." Regardless of what eventual outcomes they might have, they are trying. They said men could not move faster than 30 miles per hour. They said we couldn't leave the earth. They said we'd never fly through the air. If it weren't for people trying, despite what they 'knew' they couldn't do, we wouldn't be able to do these things today. - Adarael |
Yet the irony is that the quote quite obvious is moving the foundations of the earth: how often have you heard it paraphrased? and at what levels of government? (I'd never realised it was a quote, so I never knew who its originator was. It was just one of those things that seemed obvious to me.) And in every one of the examples given: change was in fact possible. In strict canon adherence, it isn't.
I do absolutely agree that the überplot is only as static as any individual GM makes it. However, it's also relevant that alterations have ripple-effect consequences that can go far beyond the isolated point of change: for one example, see just below.
| QUOTE |
| I can't believe for a second anyone can follow the metaplot exactly. That is, unless you're writing it. - Crimsondude 2.0 |
I'd agree with you - but there's many who try to, believe part of the value of the SR universe is in strict adherence to what's going on in the greater universe - and resent the consequent restrictions upon their PCs.
It may also have been easier once upon a year, when the first edition of SR was released and all groups began at Day 1 of "open time". Now, the standard playable portion of the timeline spans over ten years, with different groups beginning at various points along that line: but with easy Internet access to what will happen.
Consider a very basic example: buying stock. Canon states that Fuchi is due to be disrupted at a certain point in the timeline. A PC (who just happens to be coming up to that point) decides to play the market against Fuchi - which will make them a canon-millionaire - but that PC also has backstory and whatnot which also makes such play entirely within their personality and potential scope of intuition (based on experience and knowledge skills - but not direct knowledge). Is this metagaming or is it legit? Does the GM allow this? Does the GM rule that the PC can't do this based on that ultimate of insider knowledge: what's coming in the future? Either way, the choice cannot but be undermined within a strict canon überplot, strictly followed. In Glyph's words, you've broken out the plot hammer:
| QUOTE |
| Personally, I think a GM can use, or discard, however much of the uberplot is needed for the campaign. There should be some things that the players will find it difficult, or even impossible, to change. But that should be because they tried to do something out of their league, or before they were ready for it, or without enough planning. I have no problem with players biting off more than they can chew and getting swatted like bugs. But don't have it happen because the precious uberplot got threatened and you had to break out the plot hammer! As soon as you say "This guy is too important to have stats" or "No matter what you do, you can never kill this NPC before the sequel adventure", then you've stopped playing a game and began "storytime with the GM". The PCs are cybernetic killing machines, sorcerers who bend the laws of reality to call down awesome power, deckers who can ferret out any secret. They should be able to make even the "big boys" sweat. |
The only way to restore full choice is for the GM to have the freedom to bend it a little El_Machinae or grimshear style
- maybe the PC's own actions are what changes that possible future, someone who seems to know what's happening actually ending up changing it altogether? Only ... that's a significant change, and there's other consequences that hang upon Fuchi's dissolution.Or just consider some of the revelations that came out in Dunkelzahn's will. Within a flexible (non-strict canon) überplot, it's entirely likely that the actions of some savvy PCs brought some of those out a little earlier in the timeline ... with what consequences?
| QUOTE |
| The PC's do not need to interact with the metaplot in any way to have a fulfilling game. They can watch these events unfold as they deal with important events in their own lives and affect things to matter to them. All without having to deal with the foibles of "canon". - BitBasher |
Absolutely true - if the GM and PCs actively avoid any action that is likely to interfere with the interests of the Powerful. Since they're running a shadowrunning game (and thus frequently undertake runs on behalf of those Powerful): this strikes me as somewhat unlikely. After all, even within some canon adventures, they're the movers behind some of those news headlines!
| QUOTE |
| However, I do not feel that it is impossible for PC's to effect their environment in important ways without violating canon. I have two points to support my view: ONE: While it would violate canon for the PCs to bring down Aztechnology or Ares, they can still enjoy victories over Aztechnology or Ares. - Squire |
And each individual victory is important, I agree, and certainly all kinds of plotlines are possible which carefully avoid challenging anything that's canon. I'd suggest that the victories should become gradually greater as the PCs progress - and unless the GM and PCs both carefully avoid it, it's more likely than not that they will tangle with canon structures. There was no Damien Knight once, after all. It was not so many years later that another megacorporation did end up being brought down by this Player who came out of nowhere.
By saying that either Aztechnology or Ares must be canon-untouchable in the Ultimate sense, in effect what's being said is that there can never be any PC Damien Knights.
| QUOTE |
| As several other's have said, players can effect the lives of individuals with every run. - Squire |
Shouldn't that be the case regardless? Everything anyone does affects someone! (hopefully positively, but probably more often not). I'm sorry, but I don't see this as a relevant argument to whether or not the existence of a strict überplot, in and of itself, is limiting unless the group agrees to avoid canonically-protected structures. In fact, continuing along your thinking:
| QUOTE |
| A day's work for a Shadowrunner can completely alter the course of the lives of a number of individuals (for better or worse). That may not really effect society as a whole, but it sure as hell matters to the individuals effected. |
you seem to be implying that shadowrunners are more likely to alter the course of many lives than most ... and I'd counter that this certainly can begin to affect society as a whole. As Buzzed says, "We affect everything." I'd suggest that this would make it rather more likely in turn that the ripples do in fact begin to affect the überplot - after all, the megacorps are said to have significant interests in the SINless as replentishable resource and useful experimental medium, if nothing else - unless, again, the GM and players actively avoid this consequence.
| QUOTE |
| There are two playstyles: those in which players are powerful, relative to the rest of the world, and are thus capable of doing important things. The other, my preferred, is where the players are pretty ordinary, a bit less than human in most cases, and really can't do shit unless they get amazingly lucky. These two styles will not reconcile with each other, so be aware that both exist. - Kagetenshi |
| QUOTE |
| Of course. - Bira |
Why can't they reconcile? Certainly you can choose to play exclusively in one or exclusively in the other, but why can't PCs grow from the pretty ordinary (or even less than ordinary) to the world-shaking? Why does it have to be one or the other?
Although this does stray close to the focus of those other threads ...
| QUOTE |
| But be aware that if you are running runners as "average Joes", then you are running a campaign very different from the basic rules. Under the standard character creation systems (Priority and 120 points), you would have to almost purposely gimp your character to create an "average Joe". - Glyph |
| QUOTE |
| Part of the basis of SR is that "normal" or "average" people do not run the shadows, because if they do, they quickly become quite dead. Player characters represent those who are in the biz because they have what it takes to survive life in a meatgrinder. - grimshear |
Oh, now, I really hadn't started this thread for this purpose, only wanted to have a bit of fun: but how many build points would it take to create some of the "PCs" being created in that thread (and just wait till you see mine later this week!)? Then again, "I" am something exceptional ... obviously
... or maybe I can learn to become so.Although how many others would consider us "average Joes" ...
Strict canon überplot is choice-limiting. On the other hand, true flexibility can very easily box the GM into having to create an entire alternate universe: in effect easytohate's what if's:
| QUOTE |
| Ultimately hope is in the minds of the players and in the hands of the GM. |
We have books such as Threats and Threats II to offer open-ended alternatives - and we have Dumpshockers who want the Answers to those alternatives ... and then find those Answers constricting.
| QUOTE |
| Finally, and this is the last I will ever say on this topic--I think that this nihilistic bullshit some of you are spouting is just ridiculous. It's isolating, frustrating, self-defeating, self-contradictory and horribly inconsistent. And I take great pain in seeing people spout it off like it's the holy Truth because it took away three years of what in retrospect were the best years of my life until I realized that it is a self-defeating, inherently inconsistent and contradictory ideology--which, ironically, it is--that sucked away at my very being. Nietzsche was an arrogant, isolated, angry bastard who should be forgotten in the dustbin of history. - Crimsondude 2.0 |
And ironically enough it does comes back to Nietzsche - specifically in the sense that it is up to us to create our own relevance, our own meaning, within a game as within life. I'd suggest that a strict reading of überplot - indeed of canon altogether - robs both players and GM of this chance .. but maybe some of us actually want to have less choice? want to be able to read about the happening things in newspapers as if they were somewhere "Over There" and out of our control? As Bira says:
| QUOTE |
| This premise is that Nothing Can Be Done About the Metaplot. ... What I find interesting is that people think this metaplot is something immutable ... When this "heretic" idea does elicit a true response, it's usually something along the lines of "that's munchkin"... This seems to express a feeling that, if your players even think of doing something to the metaplot, they're bad players who think only about accumulating power and killing things, and that you're a bad GM for letting them run rampant like that. The other common response is "that's impossible". Some are not so severe, and say it's hypothetically doable, but it brings too many headaches to be worthwhile (without a metaplot, the GM has to figure it all out by himself! ). The general opinion, expressed after these initial responses, is that people should be content with what they're given by the publishers, because all of it is really swell and full of gaming potential and whoever disagrees is either incompetent (according to the first response) or in for a lot of back-breaking work (according to the second one). |
And I'm really hoping you'll reconsider your choice wrt this topic, Crimsondude 2.0
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Right. We're just questioning the existance of a reasonable means to do so. ~J |
I can see that. What I question is this belief that their inexistence is some sort of immutable universal absolute.
| QUOTE ("Talia Iverno") |
Consider a very basic example: buying stock. Canon states that Fuchi is due to be disrupted at a certain point in the timeline. A PC (who just happens to be coming up to that point) decides to play the market against Fuchi - which will make them a canon-millionaire - but that PC also has backstory and whatnot which also makes such play entirely within their personality and potential scope of intuition (based on experience and knowledge skills - but not direct knowledge). Is this metagaming or is it legit? Does the GM allow this? |
There's no legitimate, in-game reason not to let the PC make his millions in this scenario. Depending on how much money he started the gamble with, getting them might be difficult enough to warrant a few more runs, in which his player will be very involved because it's his interest at stake. When he does get the money, a lot of campaign possibilities will become available which were unthinkable to your average street scum, and which don't involve escalating levels of numeric power.
If he does real well, you can then say he shares the responsibility for bringing Fuchi down. If he plays the market the other way around and does real well, you might say he shares the responsibility for keeping it up (a significant deviation).
| QUOTE ("Talia Inverno") |
Why can't they reconcile? Certainly you can choose to play exclusively in one or exclusively in the other, but why can't PCs grow from the pretty ordinary (or even less than ordinary) to the world-shaking? Why does it have to be one or the other? Although this does stray close to the focus of those other threads ... |
I never said they couldn't start as rats and grow to become world shakers. This growth is very possible and very fun, and it doesn't have to involve inflating numbers. What I rallied against was the fact that many people don't think PCs should ever be more than rats.
That's the problem with quoting any part of a post without the whole (especially when that part is "I agree"): you can never be sure intent is accurately translated. Sorry if I misconstrued you, Bira.
Although I would suggest there's a wide, wide spectrum between "rats" and "challenging Damien Knight (or [gasp] Lofwyr!) on his own turf"
On the plus side, it seems I didn't after all kill this topic ... completely.
Although I would suggest there's a wide, wide spectrum between "rats" and "challenging Damien Knight (or [gasp] Lofwyr!) on his own turf"
On the plus side, it seems I didn't after all kill this topic ... completely.
And then again, maybe I was wrong.
| QUOTE |
| Talia, the Topic Slayer! |
That has a certain ring to it...
-Siege
Leather jacket (treated with flame-retardants)
Small silver cross (anchoring focus - slash-burn edit, linked to Detect Overwriting)
Wooden stake (the ultimate counterargument - short and pointed)
Outfitted to
Spike
Long-winded
Arguments
stYlistically
Edit: okay, so the comeback only took like, two months
Small silver cross (anchoring focus - slash-burn edit, linked to Detect Overwriting)
Wooden stake (the ultimate counterargument - short and pointed)
Outfitted to
Spike
Long-winded
Arguments
stYlistically
Edit: okay, so the comeback only took like, two months
Totally
Active
Lady
In
Arguments
-Siege
Active
Lady
In
Arguments
-Siege
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.