Full Version: Risk Adverse Gaming
what's a creepwood=?
| QUOTE (Stahlseele) |
| what's a creepwood=? |
There comes a time in every man's life when he must set out on a quest of danger into the unknown in order to discover his personal qualities and find his calling. Joseph Campbell explained that the mythical quest for the father seen in many cultures around the world is in fact an allegory for how a young person must experience tribulation and danger alone to find his mature place in society in the world.
Go ahead and use the Search function to search for "Creepwood" and "Creepwoodrun". The posts are at least several years old now. This is YOUR father seeking quest.
Not to call a brother out or anything, but this jumps out at me from one of the original Creepwoodrun posts about people behaving realistically in combat:
| QUOTE (Critias Posted: Jun 17 2005 @ 08:54 AM) |
| Once the initial surprise round phase is over (and half the party is dead from the security guard's suppressive fire), the remaining half should trip while frantically diving for full cover (as the fear of getting shot compels them to do nothing offensive, on the grounds they might shoot themselves, and as their own realistic inept combat ability sends them comically sprawling instead, anyways). Round Two begins with half the party dead, half the guards passed out from boo-scary-fright, and everyone's movement penalized by difficult terrain, due to all the puddles of urine from everyone failing the Willpower (24) rolls to keep from wizzing themselves 'cause there's a fight. But that's okay, 'cause no one wants to do any moving anyways (since they can't see what's going on). Roll init! Isn't this fun?! |
To the first response in this topic:
| QUOTE (Critias Posted: Oct 23 2007 @ 02:25 PM ) |
| To be honest, this very trend is what's had me pretty burned out on Shadowrun for the last year or two... I became, by necessity of survival, a horrible, horrible, power gamer. And...I just got tired of it. And it just leeched most of the fun right out of the game, when I realized I was doing it. |
Now, both posts are heavily edited, but its not my attempt to change their meaning at all. (If I've misrepresented your views Critias, I apologize and would welcome any clarification you wanted to give.)
For me, combat as a purely tactical exercise-- that is to say, ignoring the emotional consequences, the roleplaying-- quickly gets boring. I enjoy tactics, but to me they have to be part of a larger story. (I have a friend of mine who plays a lot of wargames and he's tried to get me interested in them numerous times, but wargames bore the crap out of me. Nothing against wargames, they're just not my cup of tea.) Its the difference between looking at a situation through my character's eyes rather than at it like a player. And combat is the part of the game that makes that distinction the most glaring, because its the part of the game when the player and the character are the most removed from one another.
what Critias described in that first post, and what Creepwood wanted to force everyone to do, is simply not realistic for the majority of characters. it might be somewhat realistic for some characters who have never gotten in a fight before, especially if they're basically innocent bystanders and don't have a direct personal investment in the conflict. but for most characters, it's not realistic.
If you'd like, I can post links -- dozens, perhaps even hundreds -- to the on-line postings of the sort of combats I've gotten into (complete with the appropriate OOC pages, to also share the die rolls). You can let me know if I've ever genuinely ignored the emotional consequences, the roleplaying, of my characters in any of them.
What issues I'd run into after about thirteen years of Shadowrun gaming weren't IC, but OOC. They didn't disrupt the games I was in, or show in terms of poor roleplaying or boring characters. The reactions I describe for an experienced Shadowrunner (be it a former Metahuman People's Army terrorist from San Francisco or a former Tir Ghost from Portland, and everything in between) are perfectly in character for each of them, once the lead starts flying.
What CREEPWOODRUN was based on had nothing to do with experienced professional Shadowrunners (as my satire of it in your quoted post is meant to make clear). You don't hear much in the news about Blackwater staff shitting themselves instead of pulling the trigger, or USMC Force Recon guys locking up, do you? What Creepwood suggested was perfectly fine, for completely untrained (or sloppily trained) combatants who'd never seen a firefight before.
When I've played that sort of character (and I have), I haven't needed the rules of the game to tell me how to act, by forcing me to take CREEPWOODRUN Will checks or whatever else he was suggesting. I've role played appropriately, and done so in line with my low (or nonexistant) combat skills, etc.
Frankly, I just don't see what the two topics/posts have to do with one another, except that I made them both.
What issues I'd run into after about thirteen years of Shadowrun gaming weren't IC, but OOC. They didn't disrupt the games I was in, or show in terms of poor roleplaying or boring characters. The reactions I describe for an experienced Shadowrunner (be it a former Metahuman People's Army terrorist from San Francisco or a former Tir Ghost from Portland, and everything in between) are perfectly in character for each of them, once the lead starts flying.
What CREEPWOODRUN was based on had nothing to do with experienced professional Shadowrunners (as my satire of it in your quoted post is meant to make clear). You don't hear much in the news about Blackwater staff shitting themselves instead of pulling the trigger, or USMC Force Recon guys locking up, do you? What Creepwood suggested was perfectly fine, for completely untrained (or sloppily trained) combatants who'd never seen a firefight before.
When I've played that sort of character (and I have), I haven't needed the rules of the game to tell me how to act, by forcing me to take CREEPWOODRUN Will checks or whatever else he was suggesting. I've role played appropriately, and done so in line with my low (or nonexistant) combat skills, etc.
Frankly, I just don't see what the two topics/posts have to do with one another, except that I made them both.
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| Frankly, I just don't see what the two topics/posts have to do with one another, except that I made them both. |
Well, you are an institution.
Critias: The Appropriate Documentation notes that newbie soldiers are likely to shit themselves in their first taste of combat, even -after- basic training and stuff.
Are they untrained?
Are they untrained?
| QUOTE (Penta) |
| Critias: The Appropriate Documentation notes that newbie soldiers are likely to shit themselves in their first taste of combat, even -after- basic training and stuff. Are they untrained? |
Are they Shadowrunners?
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| Frankly, I just don't see what the two topics/posts have to do with one another, except that I made them both. |
The quoted sections weren't meant to imply a lack of roleplaying at either end. Creepwood was introduced as a sort of a straw man; I haven't said that considering the emotional consequences of combat (or you know, roleplaying) means playing characters as incompetant, fearful or foolish. In fact, I've gone out of my way to say that's not the point. (The argument could be made that characters acting out of instinct, passion and reflex are more tactically capable than those that aren't, but that's not the meeting we're having right now.)
But I wasn't familiar with the Creepwood posts, so I did a search, clicked on the first one that looked promising, clicked the first link that said "Creepwood" read a bit and came to the conclusion that roleplaying characters (as combat-trained or combat-wussies, steely-eyed pros or nail-biting amateurs) was not the same thing as automatically assuming everybody automatically wet themselves in combat.
But what jumped out at me was that in this topic you mentioned that over-thinking in combat had in the past year or two burned you out on SR, and in one of these long dormant topics from two years ago you were taking the piss out of (over) emotional combat.
Glancing at the Creepwood posts, it seems to me that its a fairly common overreaction to players that treat combat too academically. If every once in awhile a player plays a character so cool-headed that they say things like, "Hmm, a grenade is bouncing t'wards me. I shall pick it up and fling it back thusly" then its an odd change of pace. But if the default setting of every player is to approach combat with all the emotion of applying for a small-business loan, then some wiseacre comes along and decides that they'll force people to roleplay be imposing stiff mechanical penalties.
The problem with that line of thinking (as I see it) is enforcing mechanical penalties to make people roleplay is like giving replacing your car's engine and thinking that will change the color of the car. Ones mechanical, one's fluff. A Willpower (24 or even 4) to act in combat doesn't make people play their characters like they're nervous, it just pisses the players off.
My point (at least the point I'm currently making, sort of) is that combat is the most rigidly defined part of the system, and players tend to approach it in a very rational manner, and so the characters tend to approach it in a very rational manner instead of out of instinct, passion or reflex. Having the characters act of instinct in combat doesn't mean forcing the players to make snap decisions (although I prefer if people declare their actions in a timely manner), any more than having a character act out of anger means the player should get mad, or having a character dance means the player should get up and boogie (although lord knows I've seen both). It just means that the character's mindset is given the same sort of consideration as the tactics.
What makes this difficult-- or at least, easy to forget about-- is that most systems actively discourage this. The structure of combat tends to highlight the tactical nature of combat, and ignore the instinctual. My solution (if you can call it that, and I really can't) is not to write a combat system that gives equal weight to both (although you guys can if you want), its to remember that the instinctual is the responsibility of the player. When I'm playing, I need to remember that its not just a tactical exercise, and that the tactics my character will use are a direct result of his mental state. I think its an easy thing to forget, particularly in the (dry) heat of combat, so it seemed like a good subject for a post.
Part of the problem with any attempt to enforce (even by rewarding it, which can be seen as punishment to those who don't live up to standards) role playing in combat (when "role playing" = "less tactically sound actions") is twofold.
Firstly, the professionalism ratings apply to NPCs, not PCs, and that's one of the few edges your average player character has. In the timespan of any given campaign -- Hell, in the timespan of any given firefight, more times than not -- a player character will be on the receiving end of far more attacks than any single NPC will ever dream of. NPCs are (varying by professionalism rating) the ones that are supposed to cut and run when they get gut shot or outnumbered, are the ones not always supposed to think on their feet quite as quickly as PCs, and are (generally) the measuring stick against which the PCs are supposed to hold themselves and walk away feeling smug. It's true that a PC being that clinical and academic about a grenade bouncing his way might be silly -- but isn't it cooler than the far more realistic response of screaming like a girl, dropping your gun, and leaping away? PCs, by and large, want to be cooler than NPCs. Let them.
And second -- remember that a big part of the game's flavor is supposed to be metahumanity, well, dehumanizing itself. A big part of how my own personal switch got flipped "on" when it came to reflexive number crunching was a single character -- a street sam that hit just about 250 karma, tromping around with Initiative rolls in the mid thirties considered average, double digits in more than one physical attribute, and a combat pool (thanks to a tactical computer and Small Unit Tactics) that was normally somewhere in the high teens for any given combat. Toss in all the senseware he had, on top of all that?
For a guy like that, the most tactically perfect action every phase is his instinctual response.
For characters in Shadowrun, combat ability almost always far, far, exceeds, the level of thinking we're capable of reaching today. Not only are these guys combat trained professionally, not only are they veterans of life or death situations (almost daily, for some!), and not only are they on par with the most battle-hardened individuals the real world can produce today... but they've got either chrome or magic to make them even more cool under pressure. If you're an Adept with a ton of Combat Sense, how likely are you to loose your cool? If you're a street sammy with wired reflexes and the best chipped skills money can buy, shouldn't you be a pretty efficient fighting machine?
Make no mistake, my own personal issues with this sort of combat are mine, not my characters. I never had a problem with a given character being a horribly efficient combatant -- after a while, it was just assumed by the guys playing with me that I'd very nearly handle physical combat with or without much help -- my problem was that I found myself making it work with every single character.
For any given character, completely tactical thinking and brutal combat efficiency isn't only a good survival trait and a very good thing, it's fine role playing, too.
My problem was that after a while I got so used to it, OOC, that I was making that "any given character" every time I sat down to, as those zany kids these days say, roll up a new toon.
Firstly, the professionalism ratings apply to NPCs, not PCs, and that's one of the few edges your average player character has. In the timespan of any given campaign -- Hell, in the timespan of any given firefight, more times than not -- a player character will be on the receiving end of far more attacks than any single NPC will ever dream of. NPCs are (varying by professionalism rating) the ones that are supposed to cut and run when they get gut shot or outnumbered, are the ones not always supposed to think on their feet quite as quickly as PCs, and are (generally) the measuring stick against which the PCs are supposed to hold themselves and walk away feeling smug. It's true that a PC being that clinical and academic about a grenade bouncing his way might be silly -- but isn't it cooler than the far more realistic response of screaming like a girl, dropping your gun, and leaping away? PCs, by and large, want to be cooler than NPCs. Let them.
And second -- remember that a big part of the game's flavor is supposed to be metahumanity, well, dehumanizing itself. A big part of how my own personal switch got flipped "on" when it came to reflexive number crunching was a single character -- a street sam that hit just about 250 karma, tromping around with Initiative rolls in the mid thirties considered average, double digits in more than one physical attribute, and a combat pool (thanks to a tactical computer and Small Unit Tactics) that was normally somewhere in the high teens for any given combat. Toss in all the senseware he had, on top of all that?
For a guy like that, the most tactically perfect action every phase is his instinctual response.
For characters in Shadowrun, combat ability almost always far, far, exceeds, the level of thinking we're capable of reaching today. Not only are these guys combat trained professionally, not only are they veterans of life or death situations (almost daily, for some!), and not only are they on par with the most battle-hardened individuals the real world can produce today... but they've got either chrome or magic to make them even more cool under pressure. If you're an Adept with a ton of Combat Sense, how likely are you to loose your cool? If you're a street sammy with wired reflexes and the best chipped skills money can buy, shouldn't you be a pretty efficient fighting machine?
Make no mistake, my own personal issues with this sort of combat are mine, not my characters. I never had a problem with a given character being a horribly efficient combatant -- after a while, it was just assumed by the guys playing with me that I'd very nearly handle physical combat with or without much help -- my problem was that I found myself making it work with every single character.
For any given character, completely tactical thinking and brutal combat efficiency isn't only a good survival trait and a very good thing, it's fine role playing, too.
My problem was that after a while I got so used to it, OOC, that I was making that "any given character" every time I sat down to, as those zany kids these days say, roll up a new toon.
| QUOTE |
| a player character will be on the receiving end of far more attacks than any single NPC will ever dream of |
of course that's mainly because an NPC can't even hope to live through any number of attacks between 1 and 5 *g*
| QUOTE |
| For any given character, completely tactical thinking and brutal combat efficiency isn't only a good survival trait and a very good thing, it's fine role playing, too. |
my main argument for me not being a power-gamer munchkin min/maxer . . in the shadows you're either the best you can be at what you do . . or you won't be good at anything at all aside from being dead pretty soon . .
| QUOTE |
| For a guy like that, the most tactically perfect action every phase is his instinctual response. |
I don't disagree, but my point is if the player doesn't make the leap of imagination that their character is acting out of instinct and just considers the tactical side of the equation then it doesn't matter how good or bad those tactical decisions are, its still a failure of roleplaying.
But let's look at it from another perspective for a moment. As a GM, if a player is roleplaying a character as someone who is not the saint of killers, and is therefore making suboptimal but in-character decisions, do you cut that player or character a break? Is a character that isn't thinking completely tactically and brutally combat efficient punished by the system for being roleplayed that way?
| QUOTE (Mercer) |
| But let's look at it from another perspective for a moment. As a GM, if a player is roleplaying a character as someone who is not the saint of killers, and is therefore making suboptimal but in-character decisions, do you cut that player or character a break? Is a character that isn't thinking completely tactically and brutally combat efficient punished by the system for being roleplayed that way? |
Not necessarily, because the bulk of the opposition should also not be Gods of Combatâ„¢.
| QUOTE (Mercer @ Oct 26 2007, 09:04 PM) |
| I don't disagree, but my point is if the player doesn't make the leap of imagination that their character is acting out of instinct and just considers the tactical side of the equation then it doesn't matter how good or bad those tactical decisions are, its still a failure of roleplaying. |
Only if you've answered the Chinese Room problem.
| QUOTE |
| As a GM, if a player is roleplaying a character as someone who is not the saint of killers, and is therefore making suboptimal but in-character decisions, do you cut that player or character a break? |
Personally, absolutely not. I try to create a world and allow the players, through their characters, to interact with it. Thus, if my ideal were achieved it would be entirely up to the players (again through their characters) to determine what they probably can or can not handle before getting into it. Some consideration is given when I fail in my ideals, or in my ability to convey the nature and details of the world to the players.
~J
I make a point of not cutting breaks, when I run. Period. But I guess that's just a playstyle thing.
I'll put up a warning well in advance, and people know full well what they're getting into when they sign up for one of my games -- but once you're in, you're in. If I run a game where I specifically say it's going to be (for instance) real-world combat oriented, and a decker type is only likely to be of much use if he's also capable outside of the Matrix (because the job itself doesn't involve your normal data snatch)...well, if someone shows up with the most pencil-necked geek Bill Gates knock off in the world, and insists they still want to play, then fine. He can still play...
But they're not getting cut any slack, I'm not dropping two guards from every group of bad guys patroling the compound, the NPCs aren't all suddenly toting gel rounds, and the bad guys don't all lose a die of combat pool to make up for it.
*shrugs* If you've got a GM that cuts people breaks, I really don't know what I can say because I've pretty much got no idea what a game like that is like. While I guess some people might like that sort of game, where the GM sometimes cuts people slack or fudges die rolls or whatever, to me, where I'm coming from, it sounds like trouble waiting to happen. Too much room for favoritism or hurt feelings ("Why did their called shot work on me but not Jim," or "Why has THIS guard got APDS ammo when the one that shot Billy is using flechettes?") or for complacence to set in and people to start to rely on GM fiat to keep them alive instead of their own wits and their character's own combat abilities ("Hey, who cares if this is my last karma pool, the GM won't let me die!").
But, well, your mileage may vary. I guess if that's what works for you, that's what works for you -- but it seems to me you'd just be exchanging one set of potential fun-sucking problems for another.
I'll put up a warning well in advance, and people know full well what they're getting into when they sign up for one of my games -- but once you're in, you're in. If I run a game where I specifically say it's going to be (for instance) real-world combat oriented, and a decker type is only likely to be of much use if he's also capable outside of the Matrix (because the job itself doesn't involve your normal data snatch)...well, if someone shows up with the most pencil-necked geek Bill Gates knock off in the world, and insists they still want to play, then fine. He can still play...
But they're not getting cut any slack, I'm not dropping two guards from every group of bad guys patroling the compound, the NPCs aren't all suddenly toting gel rounds, and the bad guys don't all lose a die of combat pool to make up for it.
*shrugs* If you've got a GM that cuts people breaks, I really don't know what I can say because I've pretty much got no idea what a game like that is like. While I guess some people might like that sort of game, where the GM sometimes cuts people slack or fudges die rolls or whatever, to me, where I'm coming from, it sounds like trouble waiting to happen. Too much room for favoritism or hurt feelings ("Why did their called shot work on me but not Jim," or "Why has THIS guard got APDS ammo when the one that shot Billy is using flechettes?") or for complacence to set in and people to start to rely on GM fiat to keep them alive instead of their own wits and their character's own combat abilities ("Hey, who cares if this is my last karma pool, the GM won't let me die!").
But, well, your mileage may vary. I guess if that's what works for you, that's what works for you -- but it seems to me you'd just be exchanging one set of potential fun-sucking problems for another.
| QUOTE (Mercer) |
| But let's look at it from another perspective for a moment. As a GM, if a player is roleplaying a character as someone who is not the saint of killers, and is therefore making suboptimal but in-character decisions, do you cut that player or character a break? Is a character that isn't thinking completely tactically and brutally combat efficient punished by the system for being roleplayed that way? |
It depends on the particular action in question. If the character jumps into the middle of the room and throws all of his combat pool into offense, he'll get mowed down like a dog. If the character is playing too defensively; hiding behind cover, taking only pot shots, but not being particularly effective, yes, the NPCs won't target him as much as they'll target the guy who is happily making headshots every turn.
In general my guards focus on two types of characters:
- The one that is most threatening (mage, rigger, troll with minigun, everyone but the decker, decker, in approximately that order). A character who is ineffective in combat and doesn't look like he's about to become more effective isn't as much of a concern as one who is very effective.
- The characters of players who never bother posting in my online game, because I hate them.
Since I suck at running the matrix, my deckers seem to have tremendously long lifespans and acquire tons of karma.
Now I DO cut a clear break for people who are new to Shadowrun, compared to those who know what they're doing. But they only benefit from that for the first few games.
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| I make a point of not cutting breaks, when I run. Period. But I guess that's just a playstyle thing. |
See, I don't cut breaks either. I don't consider myself a "Killer GM" in that I'm not out to plant pc's, but I run the games straight and I run encounters the way I design them. Even though in my old group we all ran SR that way (no quarter, none asked, none given) I still had the reputation of being the most lethal.
Fortune makes an excellent point, that npc's will rarely be of the caliber to make perfect tactical decisions. That's an important thing to remember, although I suppose for the purposes of this discussion, "characters" could mean player or non-. There's nothing I've been saying about characters acting out of instinct that wouldn't apply to npc's; npc's tend to suffer from too little GM consideration (particularly in games with a lot of moving parts) rather than too much, but its the same sort of thing.
But the thing about not cutting players breaks makes me wonder: lIf a player's roleplaying of his character causes that character to die, doesn't that mean that the player is just less likely to roleplay in combat with his next character?
Not necessarily—the player could also make a character whose roleplayed combat would be more survivable (either in terms of being more tactically sound, or in terms of being more risk-averse).
~J
~J
| QUOTE (Mercer) |
| But the thing about not cutting players breaks makes me wonder: lIf a player's roleplaying of his character causes that character to die, doesn't that mean that the player is just less likely to roleplay in combat with his next character? |
Roleplaying a character that is not tactically savvy well will give the character more RP karma - good for the long run but in the shory, you have to survive.
Vice versa, no RP karma is not good for the long run, but in the short term, it's all good.
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| While I guess some people might like that sort of game, where the GM sometimes cuts people slack or fudges die rolls or whatever, to me, where I'm coming from, it sounds like trouble waiting to happen. Too much room for favoritism or hurt feelings ("Why did their called shot work on me but not Jim," or "Why has THIS guard got APDS ammo when the one that shot Billy is using flechettes?") or for complacence to set in and people to start to rely on GM fiat to keep them alive instead of their own wits and their character's own combat abilities ("Hey, who cares if this is my last karma pool, the GM won't let me die!"). But, well, your mileage may vary. I guess if that's what works for you, that's what works for you -- but it seems to me you'd just be exchanging one set of potential fun-sucking problems for another. |
As a GM, I do, in fact, cut the players breaks (edited for punctuation). Partially this is because the groups I play with are not very experienced, and partially this is because we tend to put a lot of thought into our PCs and grow attached to them, and it's not as fun for the players and, you'll find, not as fun for the GM, if the PCs are dropping like flies. I make them burn a point of edge every so often, but my mages that can overcast giant Stunballs do pull their spells for no good reason, and my elite security forces don't always fire wide bursts twice a round. The GM will always have more resources than the PCs, and especially with a lethal game like Shadowrun, spending two hours drawing up characters and then getting geeked in the first combat basically sucks.
That said, I don't like that sort of game. I would much rather be in the kind of game you describe (except a little less lethal). I don't pull my punches because I have this compulsive urge to baby my PCs, I do it because the game isn't fun for anyone if everyone dies all the time. But I basically agree with everything that I quoted above from Critias, and given the choice I would much rather play in the game where the GM doesn't constantly have to keep track of peoples' damage boxes so he knows if the mage can cast the high force Manaball without killing anybody.
The trouble is, I can't run that kind of game while making it as much fun as the game in which I do pull my punches, and neither can anyone else I know. And making the game fun is the important part, here. So, as I remind myself what the thread topic actually is, if a PC wants to do something crazy that makes the game more fun and would probably result in him getting killed, it would be absurd of me to say, "Okay, good job, you do that, and now you're dead. Suck it up." In the game I'm running tomorrow I think I'm going to try something like temporary edge - if someone does something particularly cool, RP-wise, they get a point of temporary edge, to be spent sometime in the next combat round, or the next minute, hour, day, session, whatever. But, as Critias points out, I acknowledge that I've traded one can of bugs for another. For my group, this is the lesser of two weevils.
| QUOTE (Gelare @ Oct 27 2007, 10:30 PM) |
| As a GM, I do, in fact, cut the player's breaks. |
What, so they only get five minutes instead of ten? That seems unnecessarily harsh.
~J
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) | ||
What, so they only get five minutes instead of ten? That seems unnecessarily harsh. ~J |
Cut the players breaks. Misplaced apostrophe, so sue me.
Maybe the saying is cut them slack instead of cut them breaks. Although shouldn't it be give them slack? Ugh. Idioms. You get the point.
| QUOTE (Mercer @ Oct 24 2007, 08:30 AM) |
| Karma or Edge is your "Bad Ass" Score. |
I wish I had read this before I had made my 8 Edge character with the Guts quality and the genetech that makes you roll will+logic to keep from doing risky things. As it turns out, an adrenaline junkie with lots of Edge only goes down to attrition, and I now end up spending Edge to avoid doing stupid things to avoid stealing the spotlight more often than I spend Edge to avoid taking risks because I'm worried about actually getting killed. Labeling Edge as "Bad Assery" in the core book would have saved me a lot of trouble.
After I posted last night I drove to work, and I kept thinking about the myriad of ways "cutting breaks" could be interpreted. One gamer could say "cutting breaks" to mean bending the rules to keep characters alive, another could use it to mean not screwing them hard for every thing they do; cutting the pc's a break can mean anything from making it impossible for them to fail to not making it impossible for them to succeed.
The game breaks down at either extreme, for most players. (I think there may be slightly more players who will play in a game where they can't lose than can't win, and some that prefer it, but I think most players come down in the middle.)
For the record, I meant that I don't cut the players breaks in that I don't cheat. I do cut them breaks in that they are not doomed in everything they do (although come to think of it, some of my players from the old days may disagree). I do try to run my games as consistent to the internal logic of the game world as I can, and really, what kind of breaks the pc's can get depends on what kind of breaks they can sell me on.
Them's the breaks, I guess.
In a larger sense, it seems like a game where everybody plays all their characters pretty much the same would quickly get boring, but at the same time a game that punishes all but the "best" course of action seems designed to get everyone playing the same way.
Another factor at work here is its been a long time sine I ran SR, so I'm long on theory these days.
The game breaks down at either extreme, for most players. (I think there may be slightly more players who will play in a game where they can't lose than can't win, and some that prefer it, but I think most players come down in the middle.)
For the record, I meant that I don't cut the players breaks in that I don't cheat. I do cut them breaks in that they are not doomed in everything they do (although come to think of it, some of my players from the old days may disagree). I do try to run my games as consistent to the internal logic of the game world as I can, and really, what kind of breaks the pc's can get depends on what kind of breaks they can sell me on.
Them's the breaks, I guess.
In a larger sense, it seems like a game where everybody plays all their characters pretty much the same would quickly get boring, but at the same time a game that punishes all but the "best" course of action seems designed to get everyone playing the same way.
Another factor at work here is its been a long time sine I ran SR, so I'm long on theory these days.
Note that the existence of a market for Paranoia and Call of Cthulhu indicates that there is, in fact, some set of players who are interested in playing in games where they can't win.
~J
~J
Fair enough. I've also noticed that players that will have a great time having their brains scooped out in Call of Cthulhu will cry bloody murder if they feel they're being overmatched by monster CR's in D&D. I guess a lot of it is managing expectations.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Note that the existence of a market for Paranoia and Call of Cthulhu indicates that there is, in fact, some set of players who are interested in playing in games where they can't win. ~J |
You are not cleared for that information, Citizen Kagetenshi. Please report to the nearest termination booth. Failure to comply will result in termination.
Kagetensh-I-BOS-4 hereby demotes Citizen Bibli-O-PHI-20 to Red clearance pending investigation for subversion, treason, and communist sympathy, per order 0x4724BA83 of The Computer.
All good citizens are hereby ordered to disperse. All others shall report immediately to the nearest termination center.
~Kagetensh-I-BOS-4
All good citizens are hereby ordered to disperse. All others shall report immediately to the nearest termination center.
~Kagetensh-I-BOS-4
I wouldn't say characters in Shadowrun (or CP:2020, or even a nasty WoD game or whatever) "can't win." I'd say that playing in a particularly gritty setting under a particularly harsh/impartial GM just means changing your idea of what counts as a "win."
As a player, I have to define a win as a session where I have a good time. A session in which my character hoses a run, get's gutshot by a ganger and crashes his car into Puget Sound is-- if I'm having a good time-- a better session than one where things go right but I'm not as invested, entertained or having as much fun. Most of the time player and character goals are pretty closely in line, but all things being equal the only real measure of a game is if it's fun.
However, I think a GM can make a game "can't win", in the sense that a GM who abuses his authority can-- without breaking the rules-- make the game no fun.
However, I think a GM can make a game "can't win", in the sense that a GM who abuses his authority can-- without breaking the rules-- make the game no fun.
| QUOTE (Mercer) |
| In a larger sense, it seems like a game where everybody plays all their characters pretty much the same would quickly get boring, but at the same time a game that punishes all but the "best" course of action seems designed to get everyone playing the same way. |
That's my opinion about why you'd be nuts to try to set up a game where PCs played a SWAT team. Because there are very explicit tactics and rules that everyone HAS to follow. Because they really do work and that's what the lawyers can defend and what the bosses expect.
I think you can make characters who are less optimal, and make less flawlessly tactical decisions in combat, and still get by without the GM cutting you any breaks. You just need to take jobs that your character is qualified for.
If you are less professional, you won't be making the same runs against Tir ghosts or Aztec leopard guards that the chromed-out heavy hitters and foci-toting ubermages are doing. Shadowrunning can encompass a very wide variety of jobs, from carjacking, to kidnapping, to finding missing people, to sabatage, to bodyguarding, and so on. Not every job has to be breaking into Ares top-secret headquarters.
If you are less professional, you won't be making the same runs against Tir ghosts or Aztec leopard guards that the chromed-out heavy hitters and foci-toting ubermages are doing. Shadowrunning can encompass a very wide variety of jobs, from carjacking, to kidnapping, to finding missing people, to sabatage, to bodyguarding, and so on. Not every job has to be breaking into Ares top-secret headquarters.
Just started up our SR 3 game again, and this thread brings a tear to my eye.
Some GMs run Call of Cthulhu as winnable. As in, half the party might die or go insane, but at the end of the story arc, Cthulhu's bid for World Domination has been foiled. In which case, half of the party get to remain alive and sane, rather than join the entire world in becoming Cthulhu Snacks.
As for Creepwoodrun... sure, the US Army laundry budget has to account for soldiers wetting themselves in their first firefight... but some percentage of soldiers wet themselves while at the same time following the drill, taking the gun off safe, taking aim and firing. Or whatever the effective response is. I'll defer to the vets on what that is, and what the percentages are, but my armchair knowlege of history goes against "ALL of the nonveterans freeze up".
In my own experience - never military trained, only got to Yellow Belt which didn't go past min-contact slo-mo sparring, generally your joe-shmoe non-badass - the one time I've come across a street situation, I did just fine, and had the shakes *afterwards*. In downtown San Francisco at night, I saw a guy holding down a woman and hitting her; I got a bystander to commit to calling 911, told the guy to stop, and when he didn't stop, I grabbed him and put him in an immobilizing hold. It worked. So far as I can tell, he had randomly flipped out and attacked her without provocation, and she fell down, and he didn't stop hitting her until I stopped him.
So if I can do that well, stumbling across trouble while on my way to fraggin' *church*, then I'd like to play a rough, tough Urban Brawler PC who can do as well or better. If he gets the shakes afterwards, then fine, I'll accept the -3 DP on any card-castle-building tasks in the following hour.
As for Creepwoodrun... sure, the US Army laundry budget has to account for soldiers wetting themselves in their first firefight... but some percentage of soldiers wet themselves while at the same time following the drill, taking the gun off safe, taking aim and firing. Or whatever the effective response is. I'll defer to the vets on what that is, and what the percentages are, but my armchair knowlege of history goes against "ALL of the nonveterans freeze up".
In my own experience - never military trained, only got to Yellow Belt which didn't go past min-contact slo-mo sparring, generally your joe-shmoe non-badass - the one time I've come across a street situation, I did just fine, and had the shakes *afterwards*. In downtown San Francisco at night, I saw a guy holding down a woman and hitting her; I got a bystander to commit to calling 911, told the guy to stop, and when he didn't stop, I grabbed him and put him in an immobilizing hold. It worked. So far as I can tell, he had randomly flipped out and attacked her without provocation, and she fell down, and he didn't stop hitting her until I stopped him.
So if I can do that well, stumbling across trouble while on my way to fraggin' *church*, then I'd like to play a rough, tough Urban Brawler PC who can do as well or better. If he gets the shakes afterwards, then fine, I'll accept the -3 DP on any card-castle-building tasks in the following hour.
| QUOTE (Riley37) |
| Some GMs run Call of Cthulhu as winnable. As in, half the party might die or go insane, but at the end of the story arc, Cthulhu's bid for World Domination has been foiled. In which case, half of the party get to remain alive and sane, rather than join the entire world in becoming Cthulhu Snacks. As for Creepwoodrun... sure, the US Army laundry budget has to account for soldiers wetting themselves in their first firefight... but some percentage of soldiers wet themselves while at the same time following the drill, taking the gun off safe, taking aim and firing. Or whatever the effective response is. I'll defer to the vets on what that is, and what the percentages are, but my armchair knowlege of history goes against "ALL of the nonveterans freeze up". In my own experience - never military trained, only got to Yellow Belt which didn't go past min-contact slo-mo sparring, generally your joe-shmoe non-badass - the one time I've come across a street situation, I did just fine, and had the shakes *afterwards*. In downtown San Francisco at night, I saw a guy holding down a woman and hitting her; I got a bystander to commit to calling 911, told the guy to stop, and when he didn't stop, I grabbed him and put him in an immobilizing hold. It worked. So far as I can tell, he had randomly flipped out and attacked her without provocation, and she fell down, and he didn't stop hitting her until I stopped him. So if I can do that well, stumbling across trouble while on my way to fraggin' *church*, then I'd like to play a rough, tough Urban Brawler PC who can do as well or better. If he gets the shakes afterwards, then fine, I'll accept the -3 DP on any card-castle-building tasks in the following hour. |
The point of training regimens is to build muscle memory so that even if the mind is somewhere else the body can still be doing something useful. In fact, while I can't speak for firefights, in the context of combative sports overintellectualizing is a common flaw that beginners who aren't used to fighting tend to make especially if they're college students who mostly go around thinking things through and then writing about it. It is too slow to try and dissect a situation in, say, the boxing ring using full sentences and gradual reasoning, and instead success depends on having trained the right reactions and forms into muscle memory and letting the mind relax enough to let the muscle memory kick in.
Sounds like Sensi. "Stop thinking, just do the kata."
Zen-Boxing *g*
I agree. I don't think players factoring in that their characters are acting out of instinct, passion or reflex is anything like CREEPWOODRUN. As I said before:
| QUOTE (Mercer) |
| [A]cting out of instinct doesn't mean making poor tactical decisions, and it doesn't mean rushing the players to make those decisions. It just means that as a player, you have to take into account that your character is acting out of instinct. |
And:
| QUOTE (Mercer) |
| (The argument could be made that characters acting out of instinct, passion and reflex are more tactically capable than those that aren't, but that's not the meeting we're having right now.) |
As the OP, I don't mind this topic morphing into a referendum on CREEPWOODRUN, since topics always go off in unexpected directions and unplanned trips are dancing lessons from the universe. But I just wanted to pop in and mention that CWR wasn't what I was getting at originally.
This is where system REALLY matters. There are sets of rules that manage to perfectly balance this, either through incredibly simple basic rules that make powergaming fairly pointless (tri-stat), or by having the rules serve a narrative purpose rather than a simulation purpose. (dogs in the Vineyard)
I'm gonna talk a little about the latter.
Shadowrun and other task based systems ask a single question: do you succeed? All the rules exist to determine that basic question. Because it's entirely possible that you can fail, and because in the end we want our characters to survive and succeed, the system itself demands that you "game" it. It requires you to powergame and the only way out is to choose to take sub-optimal choices on purpose for RP reasons. This puts RP against gaming, creating a conflict. There are other games that ask different questions. The question in Dogs in the Vineyard isn't "do you succeed" but "how far will you go TO succeed?" It presupposes you'll win in the end, what the dice determine is how much it will cost you. If your goal is to survive, you'll surive, but it may cost you limbs, friendships, fortunes or morals. If your goal is to defeat evil you'll defeat it, but you may die in the process. The rules are built around this premise, and it gies you good reasons, game reasons, to make poor decisions, take risks, and even fail spectacularly. There's no conflict between good RP and good gaming.
I really can't suggest playing a game of Dogs in the Vineyard hard enough. If you can get over the slightly weird premise (you are mormon preachers/gunslingers in a supernatural old west), it's seriously a much different take on gaming and is the perfect cure for the malaise described in this thread.
Now I like it both ways. I'm one hell of a powergamer, but I learned my skills because I like to take what might appear to be suboptimal choices and make them work. Which reminds me, I have a dwarven Bard I want to play in a DnD game....
Anyway, because this is a Shadowrun Forum and not a general gaming Forum: What Do I think can be done to get the rules of the game more in line with generating story rather than pushing success?
First, change what's at stake. Every combat currently decides whether the character's live or die. This means that if the characters fail, they DIE, and it's end of story and new character time. That sucks. But if the stakes were instead "Do we get to the door in time" or "who makes it out of the warehouse with the mcguffin", then the players can potentially lose the conflict and still have the story go on. The players don't make the door in time, but maybe they can still take the guards, or now they have to find another way out, or they are captured and it's time to escape. And you as GM have to be willing and able to NOT CARE which outcome the players get. Maybe they make it out the warehouse with the Mcguffin. Now there is a car chase for them to get away scott free. Maybe the other team go the Mcguffin. Now it's time for a car chase, but the PCs are doing the chasing. If they catch, then it's another conflict over the box. if the other guys get away, new conflict "do we track their hideout down?"
This is mostly a change to narrative structure, and many of the better GMs will already being doing this. What we need for the rules to support this is to ask the player "what is your intended goal in this action" when they make the rolls. They are shooting the guard, ask why. If the answer is to kill, proceed as normal. If, perhaps, the PC answers "to distract him", then instead of proceeding to a damage roll, give the margin of success as a penalty to the guards perception check as the ninja character sneaks by. Sneaky character is going to backstab the guard, apply his margin of success to the roll to stab the guard. Wait, the guard got more hits? He gets the bonus on his dodge roll. In other words, success aids a follow up check with the same goal in mind, failure provides a penalty, but doesn't prevent the attempt.
OH, and forget the rules regarding damage overflow and death. Character's don't die unless the Player chooses to risk their character's life. Instead, a character who is put past their damage threshold is out of the conflict unconcious, stunned, or otherwise unable to contribute meaningfully anymore. If the player isn't willing to stay out, let them Burn a point of edge to keep doing things (with the appropriate wound modifiers), with the express knowledge that NOW the damage overflow rules apply, and their characters can die.
I might even change the damage system entirely. You have a damage track. figure damage as normal. When the track fills up, the character has a choice: bow out or sacrifice something to keep in the conflict. Maybe they lose their favorite gun, shot out of their hand. Maybe they lose an arm, or an eye, maybe a peice of cyberware malfunctions. Maybe they lose a point of magic from the wound. Maybe their mentor spirit pulls them back, but demands a service. Figure it out, it should be good. If they choose this route, erase all previous damage from the track and start over. Each time they take a "dramatic wound", they have to make this choice. Each sacrifice must be greater than the last. The first wound should be something fairly unimportant (like the gun), the third or fourth wound should be the major one. It's important to realize that the choice is EITHER leave the conflict, or sacrifice something to stay in. if you can't bear Under this damage system wound penalties would be equal to the number of dramatic wounds you've taken.
I can see it needs working out (what do damage compensators do in this scenario?), but it's a framework.
I'm gonna talk a little about the latter.
Shadowrun and other task based systems ask a single question: do you succeed? All the rules exist to determine that basic question. Because it's entirely possible that you can fail, and because in the end we want our characters to survive and succeed, the system itself demands that you "game" it. It requires you to powergame and the only way out is to choose to take sub-optimal choices on purpose for RP reasons. This puts RP against gaming, creating a conflict. There are other games that ask different questions. The question in Dogs in the Vineyard isn't "do you succeed" but "how far will you go TO succeed?" It presupposes you'll win in the end, what the dice determine is how much it will cost you. If your goal is to survive, you'll surive, but it may cost you limbs, friendships, fortunes or morals. If your goal is to defeat evil you'll defeat it, but you may die in the process. The rules are built around this premise, and it gies you good reasons, game reasons, to make poor decisions, take risks, and even fail spectacularly. There's no conflict between good RP and good gaming.
I really can't suggest playing a game of Dogs in the Vineyard hard enough. If you can get over the slightly weird premise (you are mormon preachers/gunslingers in a supernatural old west), it's seriously a much different take on gaming and is the perfect cure for the malaise described in this thread.
Now I like it both ways. I'm one hell of a powergamer, but I learned my skills because I like to take what might appear to be suboptimal choices and make them work. Which reminds me, I have a dwarven Bard I want to play in a DnD game....
Anyway, because this is a Shadowrun Forum and not a general gaming Forum: What Do I think can be done to get the rules of the game more in line with generating story rather than pushing success?
First, change what's at stake. Every combat currently decides whether the character's live or die. This means that if the characters fail, they DIE, and it's end of story and new character time. That sucks. But if the stakes were instead "Do we get to the door in time" or "who makes it out of the warehouse with the mcguffin", then the players can potentially lose the conflict and still have the story go on. The players don't make the door in time, but maybe they can still take the guards, or now they have to find another way out, or they are captured and it's time to escape. And you as GM have to be willing and able to NOT CARE which outcome the players get. Maybe they make it out the warehouse with the Mcguffin. Now there is a car chase for them to get away scott free. Maybe the other team go the Mcguffin. Now it's time for a car chase, but the PCs are doing the chasing. If they catch, then it's another conflict over the box. if the other guys get away, new conflict "do we track their hideout down?"
This is mostly a change to narrative structure, and many of the better GMs will already being doing this. What we need for the rules to support this is to ask the player "what is your intended goal in this action" when they make the rolls. They are shooting the guard, ask why. If the answer is to kill, proceed as normal. If, perhaps, the PC answers "to distract him", then instead of proceeding to a damage roll, give the margin of success as a penalty to the guards perception check as the ninja character sneaks by. Sneaky character is going to backstab the guard, apply his margin of success to the roll to stab the guard. Wait, the guard got more hits? He gets the bonus on his dodge roll. In other words, success aids a follow up check with the same goal in mind, failure provides a penalty, but doesn't prevent the attempt.
OH, and forget the rules regarding damage overflow and death. Character's don't die unless the Player chooses to risk their character's life. Instead, a character who is put past their damage threshold is out of the conflict unconcious, stunned, or otherwise unable to contribute meaningfully anymore. If the player isn't willing to stay out, let them Burn a point of edge to keep doing things (with the appropriate wound modifiers), with the express knowledge that NOW the damage overflow rules apply, and their characters can die.
I might even change the damage system entirely. You have a damage track. figure damage as normal. When the track fills up, the character has a choice: bow out or sacrifice something to keep in the conflict. Maybe they lose their favorite gun, shot out of their hand. Maybe they lose an arm, or an eye, maybe a peice of cyberware malfunctions. Maybe they lose a point of magic from the wound. Maybe their mentor spirit pulls them back, but demands a service. Figure it out, it should be good. If they choose this route, erase all previous damage from the track and start over. Each time they take a "dramatic wound", they have to make this choice. Each sacrifice must be greater than the last. The first wound should be something fairly unimportant (like the gun), the third or fourth wound should be the major one. It's important to realize that the choice is EITHER leave the conflict, or sacrifice something to stay in. if you can't bear Under this damage system wound penalties would be equal to the number of dramatic wounds you've taken.
I can see it needs working out (what do damage compensators do in this scenario?), but it's a framework.
Normally this would be the time when I would say "Get thee behind me, Satan!", but I already did that once this thread 
~J
~J
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.