Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Common mistakes that less-skilled GMs make
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Iota
Ok folks,

I guess it is time to have a little reflection this time on mistakes a GM could make.

I experienced to crucial mistakes during GMing:

1. Cry for NPCs and enemies you created.
I always spend a lot of time creating the NPCs and enemies in my adventures. They have a background, a motivation, they are more than numbers. But the way my players prefer to play even the NPCs usually get killed. Sometimes I had really a hard time to let "my" characters get killed, but every afford to save them would up set my players. So the lesson I´ve learned: don`t cry. You know what your players are like, so don`t hate them for doing what they always do, just enjoy your cool NPCs and enemies and let them die.

2. If your group likes on particular style of playing (shooting a lot/ no shooting at all/riddles, etc.), give them what they like.
If you try to change them by giving them adventures which don`t fit their style, they will get frustrated and you will too. It`s a game, the only reason to play it is having fun and you`ll have the most fun if your players have fun.
Wesley Street
Mistakes I've made usually involve time wasted:

1. Spending an ungodly number of hours creating a professional-looking encounter map... that never gets used
2. Writing out the stats for every disposable NPC into some sort of form when looking at the module and using scratch paper for damage counters works just as well
3. Using dice instead of an online dice roller: http://www.otherrealm.net/sr/ (free plug for whoever did this)
4. Fleshing out PC's starting contacts to the nth degree instead of having just a general idea of who they are and what they know

and others:

5. Allowing non-gaming significant others to play as a favor to friends
6. Not getting enough sleep the night before
7. Spending too much time on flavor text and description
8. Paying too much nuyen for as adventure compensation and not issuing enough karmic rewards
masterofm
Why? Why did you do this? Why!? Didn't you see the pages and pages and pages of slog created on what a GM should or shouldn't be doing? This topic is just troll bait. Sorry if you want something productive out of it, but sadly enough it will slowly turn into something else.
Wesley Street
Trolls will attack any thread. I'm not going to duck out of interesting conversation because folk want to act like to be anonymous asshats.
masterofm
This topic has already been done though.... anyways the easiest thing is to make the game interesting.

The best results I had is when I threw in some flavor to every scene I painted. It didn't take much, but it provoked some good RP on the players side. Make things interesting I think is an easy way to make things fun. Throwing the occasional curve ball to the party never hurt either.
Malachi
Here's one:
Stonewalling reasonable player ideas simply because you hadn't prepared for it or that's not the way you "thought" the adventure would go.

This is especially frustrating if the players are in some sort of legwork/investigation type scene. The player's action seems reasonable and logical to them, even if it's off the mark a bit you (as GM) should be able to give some sort of clue/hint to steer them back on track.
deek
1) Thinking the players see the "easy solution" the the obstacle you put in front of them.

I've fallen into this trap a ton of times and the game usually comes to a halt because I feel like "my" solution is the only solution, whereas the group has actually come up with other solutions and sometimes better. In my years of experience, I have learned to check my ego at the door and let them be successful, even if it wasn't the way I had envisioned it.

2) Spending too much/too little time in prepartion

There is definitely a sweet spot here. I've never been one to spend hours upon hours statting NPCs up. I take tons of shortcuts, focus on just dice pools and maybe a handful of skills and equipment...so if they die, I haven't just flushed a ton of time down the drain. But on the flip side, not having anything statted and thinking I'll just work it on the fly...while I'm normally successful, encounters that I have done at least a little bit of forethought and planning on, runs so much smoother.

3) When running a pre-made, read it throughly one time, then a second and a third.

Pre-mades are the easiest adventures to fall into the trap of railroading your players. The solution I have successfully used it to read the hell out of it so you know it front to back and back to front. Make it your adventure and be ready for the players to find new and creative ways to interact with the pre-made. If you don't do this, you may put a stop to game time by not letting them pass an obstacle and 99% of the time, having really read and understood a pre-made, you'll be able to let the players achieve their success but still keep them on the path of the adventure you are running.
Wesley Street
To all: Consider using this thread as an opportunity for self-reflection. As a courtesy, I might suggest limiting criticism to errors that you've made as a GM and allowing others to learn from your mistakes rather than harping on other GMs you've played with. extinguish.gif

Carry on! smile.gif
Malachi
QUOTE (deek @ Dec 9 2008, 11:13 AM) *
1) Thinking the players see the "easy solution" the the obstacle you put in front of them.

I've fallen into this trap a ton of times and the game usually comes to a halt because I feel like "my" solution is the only solution, whereas the group has actually come up with other solutions and sometimes better. In my years of experience, I have learned to check my ego at the door and let them be successful, even if it wasn't the way I had envisioned it.

Thumbs up deek, this is a really important one. It has taken me quite a while as a GM to really get comfortable with just designing an obstacle/challenge then letting the players find their own solution(s). I found it's actually more work than the old way of "design a problem and the only solution" but I think it results in more fun for the players.

If there are GM's out there that find this concept puzzling and/or want to see how I do things as a GM check out my "blog" about the development (and eventually the running) of my latest Shadowrun adventure: Three-Data Monty.
Wesley Street
QUOTE (deek @ Dec 9 2008, 10:13 AM) *
Thinking the players see the "easy solution" the the obstacle you put in front of them.

Amen. I think I've had to use one of my player's Common Sense positive trait a little too often lately.
masterofm
One of our GMs gave us the free knowledge trait - Shadowrunner knowledge r4 as a logic or intuition based knowledge skill. The reasoning behind that was you don't become a 400 bp runner w/o learning some life lessons (at least for the majority of runners.)

It allowed for some GM suggestions on how we should handle the situation. *players roll dice* GM: "So you are fairly certain that if you even attempted doing that you would all get creamed horribly considering what you are trying to take on."
Fuchs
QUOTE (masterofm @ Dec 9 2008, 04:30 PM) *
One of our GMs gave us the free knowledge trait - Shadowrunner knowledge r4 as a logic or intuition based knowledge skill. The reasoning behind that was you don't become a 400 bp runner w/o learning some life lessons (at least for the majority of runners.)

It allowed for some GM suggestions on how we should handle the situation. *players roll dice* GM: "So you are fairly certain that if you even attempted doing that you would all get creamed horribly considering what you are trying to take on."


Sounds like the "Common Sense" quality.
Ryu
QUOTE (Wesley Street @ Dec 9 2008, 04:15 PM) *
To all: Consider using this thread as an opportunity for self-reflection. As a courtesy, I might suggest limiting criticism to errors that you've made as a GM and allowing others to learn from your mistakes rather than harping on other GMs you've played with. extinguish.gif

Carry on! smile.gif

I plead guilty on having too many factions in my games. If you want your players to figure out the inner workings of their environment, provide a clear focus on certain factions. Put a bit of out-of-character knowledge on the table, too. This one is related to deek´s "1) Thinking the players see the "easy solution" to the obstacle you put in front of them.". I shall strife to give them a fighting chance.
BIG BAD BEESTE
Oh yeah, ran there, datastole the T-shirt prototypes...

OK, the most important thing about making mistakes is that you should learn from them. To whit:

1: Be Fair in your decisions. If something works for one PC then it should work for another, or an NPC for that matter.

2: Always have a reason of hwy things happen. Never say "no" just because you can. Think about the situation logically and apply the knowledge based upon the perspective appropriate to PC, NPC or GM.

3: Guide your players, don't force them to go where you want them to. Manipulate them into going there and make them feel as if it had been their idea to do so all along.

4: You don't have to roll for every NPC action in a huge combat. Summarise and it'll save you hours of bored player expressions.

5: Detail your NPCs enough for their purpose. Basic stats for the generic cops or guards or gangers. More work required on individual NPC opponents or interesting characters. Flesh out the PC's contacts and identify with their personalities as these will be the most recurring ones you'll be using. Oh yeah, and always keep these for quick reference infuture games.

6: Avoid plonking a NPC God with the players. Playing second fiddle to the NPC who can shoot better than you, deck batter than your hacker, know more informtaion than the spirits and generally not really need you sucks. The players are suppossed to be the heros/stars of the show so give them the chance to shine.

7: Prepare yourself with the scenario but don't be afraid to ad lib when you get caught short. If you are familiar with the plot then you'll find that this comes a lot easier anyway, just remember to keep it logical and apply some common sense to avoid silly or unbelievable situations.

8: If the players come up with a decent plan, let them tray it. Likewise, if they persist in pursuing something stupid (after the hint "Are you sure you want to do that?" and outright look of incredulous disapproval when they reply "Yeah, why not?") don't be afraid to be efficient in showing them exactly "why not."

9: Keep personal grievances out of the game. If unable, walk away, take a break, time out, or remove the problem from your group environment.

and most importantly...

10: Talk to your players about their concerns and desires for the game. Listen to them and try to incorporate their ideas, but not necessarilly in the way that they think.
Kev
QUOTE (BIG BAD BEESTE @ Dec 9 2008, 11:27 AM) *
<cut> The players are suppossed to be the heros/stars of the show so give them the chance to shine.</cut>


I think this is important and sometimes gets lost on me when I GM. There are times when I lose sight of the fact that the players are supposed to be almost superhuman in a way - they're Shadowrunners after all! Sure, there are plenty of people WAY more powerful, smarter, and more equipped than they are, but Joe Security at the front desk isn't one of them.

But as a way of making it up to them, I love to give glorious descriptions of what the the players are doing when they DO succeed. Nothing makes a guy feel like a hero like a long, movie-esque description of just how awesome it was when they ran up that wall, grabbed the flagpole, and vaulted over to the other building's roof or whatever. biggrin.gif
Cain
Letting your ego get in the way: This one covers a multitude of sins, but the biggest one is assuming that you know what's best, better than your players. Instead of fighting your players to deliver what you think is best, work with them to discover it together.

Railroading: We've all probably done this to a degree. We get such a fixed idea of where an adventure should go, we don't accept it when things go a different direction. So, we try, subtly and not-so-subtly, to get things "back on track". This leads to friction between the GM and players, as you try and force things to go one way, while they want to go another. See above for the solution: instead of fighting, work together.

GMPC's: Even if it's not a god NPC, having a personal character with the team is never a good idea. The game is supposed to be about the PC's, having your character save the day really takes the fun out of a game.

Those are just three that popped up off the top of my head. Give me a bit, I'm sure I can come up with more.
deek
I don't know what its called, but in my mind, its the opposite of railroading. I think I did this my last adventure in our last campaign and it really opened my eyes. Basically, I outlined a job and left it completely open to the players to plan out the way they would succeed. At every step of the way, I simply gave them more options, any of which would work. All I really wanted them to do was pick a way to do it, as a team, and execute it together...

Well, it turned out that no one liked anyone else's idea, even though each player came up with one that would work. I completely let the players drive their success and it ended up ending the campaign because everyone got burnt out with, for what I could determine, complete lack of guidance by me.

So, while extreme railroading is a pretty common mistake (especially for those of us not having run games for a long time), giving the players total freedom and not attempting to guide them to a common goal generates it fair share of problems, especially if the GM is prepared to bring them all back into the game.
Shadow
1. Not being confident enough in your game.

Your the GM, your in charge, don't let the players run all over you. There is a reason why Ship's only have one Captain, and they are second only to god. Committee's don't get anything done. So know what your game is about, know the rules or know where to find them, and keep the game focused on the story.


2. Letting players act like they are in charge.

Lot's of players like to boss the GM around, or try to. Either with rules or with "pseudo-facts" about science. It's your game, your story, don't railroad them, but don't let them do whatever the hell they want, this leads to anarchy. If all else fails remember that the goal is to tell a story together so that everyone has fun. Often times the anarchist pseudo-scientist are just one person.

3. Rules Discussion during the game.

Your the GM, your in charge, don't get bogged down in an argument with a rules lawyer in the game. It kills the mood and possibly ends the session. Instead make a decision right then and there, but caveat that you are willing to discuss it after the game and reach a better long term solution.

4. Be Fair.

When you make a rule keep it consistent from week to week. Try not to make so many house rules that you need a whole other book. If you do make a house ruling keep track of it so that when the situation arises again you can apply the same solution.


5. The Rules

The players are bound by the rules. They must roll certain dice for certain things, and they cannot fudge their dice or cheat. The GM is not so constrained. If your in the first round of the fire fight and you roll ten 6's on your first shot, ending the PC mages life, fudge the roll, change the ammo to chem rounds, or stun rounds. Do whatever you need to do behind the scenes to tell a fun, exciting dramatic story. Does that mean ignore the rules for your own purposes, yes and no. Use your discretion, you have to keep the atmosphere consistant so the PC's don't feel like the universe is meaningless. So use this rule sparingly, but don't be afraid to use it.


6. Every game is different

Know your players and what they like. If they just want to shoot things up every week then craft your stories so they get to do just that. Remember though, that sort of thing gets old even to people who like it, so keep it interesting. I have never had a group that had every single one of the players like the same kind of game. So change your stories around so that each player gets to be the hero in the kind of story he or she likes.
HappyDaze
QUOTE
The players are bound by the rules. They must roll certain dice for certain things, and they cannot fudge their dice or cheat. The GM is not so constrained.

This, IMO, is the worst advice ever. As a GM, I roll everything in the open and roll with the way the dice land - just like the players. Sometimes the PCs pull off things they never expected to be able to do and sometimes they become meaningless fatalities in an uncaring world - but I feel that it fits the SR world I want to play in better than fudging (which typically results in a more 'cinematic' game by some people's accounts). I won't run or play any other way. Dice rolls behind screens are poor play.
ahammer
QUOTE (HappyDaze @ Dec 9 2008, 02:32 PM) *
This, IMO, is the worst advice ever. As a GM, I roll everything in the open and roll with the way the dice land - just like the players. Sometimes the PCs pull off things they never expected to be able to do and sometimes they become meaningless fatalities in an uncaring world - but I feel that it fits the SR world I want to play in better than fudging (which typically results in a more 'cinematic' game by some people's accounts). I won't run or play any other way. Dice rolls behind screens are poor play.



this is how I play all rpgs. I like letting the player know they made the outcome happen and that the dice could have made them fail. if you kill the dragon becuse the gm fudged the dice it just no fun or said a diffrent way "without risk this is no reward".

only thing I keep from players is roles they would not know about ie spot ck and random rolls to no let them know when they are doing spot cks.
Shadow
I didn't say fudge the players dice so they win, I said fudge your own dice.

Let me give you an example.

Player group has spent 2 gaming sessions creating their story and working on their characters. They start the run and do everything right. Inevitably it hits the fan and things go south (cause the game ain't fun if everything goes right). Player A (who has spent hours and hours working on his back story) is the unlucky guy who gets a bad roll on his surprise test and is hit in a hail of gunfire. Sure you can kill him and laugh, lord it over the other PC's and say "See, don't FRAG with me," or you can think to yourself, he will learn a lesson from this, be a better player, and the whole game won't be ruined because his PC bit it in the first exchange.

Now if your one of the GM's who says "come what may" great, but that is NOT the advice given in the BBB, just so you know. And to be honest, unless your group really like utter realism (and rolling new characters every week) not the best way to GM.
Malachi
QUOTE (Shadow @ Dec 9 2008, 04:58 PM) *
1. Not being confident enough in your game.

Your the GM, your in charge, don't let the players run all over you. There is a reason why Ship's only have one Captain, and they are second only to god. Committee's don't get anything done. So know what your game is about, know the rules or know where to find them, and keep the game focused on the story.


2. Letting players act like they are in charge.

Lot's of players like to boss the GM around, or try to. Either with rules or with "pseudo-facts" about science. It's your game, your story, don't railroad them, but don't let them do whatever the hell they want, this leads to anarchy. If all else fails remember that the goal is to tell a story together so that everyone has fun. Often times the anarchist pseudo-scientist are just one person.

I await the coming of the "collaborative GM style" crowd...

Incidentally I have had characters of mine killed due to just "bad luck" on my part and I never enjoyed it.
ahammer
QUOTE (Shadow @ Dec 9 2008, 06:36 PM) *
I didn't say fudge the players dice so they win, I said fudge your own dice.

Let me give you an example.

Player group has spent 2 gaming sessions creating their story and working on their characters. They start the run and do everything right. Inevitably it hits the fan and things go south (cause the game ain't fun if everything goes right). Player A (who has spent hours and hours working on his back story) is the unlucky guy who gets a bad roll on his surprise test and is hit in a hail of gunfire. Sure you can kill him and laugh, lord it over the other PC's and say "See, don't FRAG with me," or you can think to yourself, he will learn a lesson from this, be a better player, and the whole game won't be ruined because his PC bit it in the first exchange.

Now if your one of the GM's who says "come what may" great, but that is NOT the advice given in the BBB, just so you know. And to be honest, unless your group really like utter realism (and rolling new characters every week) not the best way to GM.


btw I was talking about the gm dice also.

real cuz it seem to me that the BBB has rules to make it so if the dice hate you for a day you still get to keep you charater.
(burning edge - see page 64 sr4)

trust me will I till you if you know that the gm would kill you if the dice fall that way(not that as a gm I try to kill them that save for hackmaster. ) and when you get out of a run gone bad you feel like a bad ass. this to me counter acts the sucking when you die and we all know it does(this is said for the gm and player in this case so no lording it over anyone).
evilgoattea
QUOTE (Shadow @ Dec 10 2008, 02:36 AM) *
I didn't say fudge the players dice so they win, I said fudge your own dice.

Let me give you an example.

Player group has spent 2 gaming sessions creating their story and working on their characters. They start the run and do everything right. Inevitably it hits the fan and things go south (cause the game ain't fun if everything goes right). Player A (who has spent hours and hours working on his back story) is the unlucky guy who gets a bad roll on his surprise test and is hit in a hail of gunfire. Sure you can kill him and laugh, lord it over the other PC's and say "See, don't FRAG with me," or you can think to yourself, he will learn a lesson from this, be a better player, and the whole game won't be ruined because his PC bit it in the first exchange.

Now if your one of the GM's who says "come what may" great, but that is NOT the advice given in the BBB, just so you know. And to be honest, unless your group really like utter realism (and rolling new characters every week) not the best way to GM.


I see what you are saying but the RAW account for something like this happening...the player can burn a point of edge and survive. On the same token if you make a intricate prime runner villian that a player crits and rolls 100 successes against burn an edge and they live to return...somehow.
Platinum Dragon
Fudging dice is fine, just don't be obvious about it, and save it for special occasions.
Shadow
It can totally be abused, no one is disagreeing with that. And in yes you can burn edge to survive, in that case I would let the player burn edge. But as a GM the dice fall bad for the player's a lot more than they do for the NPC's. So being flexible and not killing your PC's just to show them you will, is a good thing.

BTW Pg 266 BBB: "Sometimes the GM has to cheat to keep characters alive."

Look to what I said, keep it consistent and use it sparingly, but arbitrarily letting the dice decide how your story is going to end, is no better then the people who show up to the game without dice.
ahammer
QUOTE (Shadow @ Dec 9 2008, 07:15 PM) *
It can totally be abused, no one is disagreeing with that. And in yes you can burn edge to survive, in that case I would let the player burn edge. But as a GM the dice fall bad for the player's a lot more than they do for the NPC's. So being flexible and not killing your PC's just to show them you will, is a good thing.

BTW Pg 266 BBB: "Sometimes the GM has to cheat to keep characters alive."

Look to what I said, keep it consistent and use it sparingly, but arbitrarily letting the dice decide how your story is going to end, is no better then the people who show up to the game without dice.


I can see that I have seen a lot of gm that use it to much.

i did not see the part of the book that has that then agin I tend to skip non background/rule part of rpg books. ie how to roleplay/gm
the_dunner
QUOTE (Shadow @ Dec 9 2008, 04:58 PM) *
3. Rules Discussion during the game.
Your the GM, your in charge, don't get bogged down in an argument with a rules lawyer in the game. It kills the mood and possibly ends the session. Instead make a decision right then and there, but caveat that you are willing to discuss it after the game and reach a better long term solution.


QFT. IMO, if you can, it's best to never open up a book during a game session. (Players or GMs.) Have your necessary charts handy, but if something comes into question, make a ruling, and discuss it after the session is over. (Or by e-mail before the next session.)
Sir_Psycho
As a GM, you have to remember that you are expected to role-play just as well as the players. An example of this is not using GM knowledge for your NPCs. I did this recently, while one of my runners was at a bar, and an NPC approached him, knowing he was a shadowrunner, and asked for his protection, it's no biggie, as it's progressed the story in an interesting way, but I realize maybe I should have rolled a perception test for her, especially because she used his name, but I didn't roll perception so there's no real reason she should have overheard him saying it.
TheGothfather
QUOTE (deek)
I don't know what its called, but in my mind, its the opposite of railroading. I think I did this my last adventure in our last campaign and it really opened my eyes. Basically, I outlined a job and left it completely open to the players to plan out the way they would succeed. At every step of the way, I simply gave them more options, any of which would work. All I really wanted them to do was pick a way to do it, as a team, and execute it together...

Well, it turned out that no one liked anyone else's idea, even though each player came up with one that would work. I completely let the players drive their success and it ended up ending the campaign because everyone got burnt out with, for what I could determine, complete lack of guidance by me.

So, while extreme railroading is a pretty common mistake (especially for those of us not having run games for a long time), giving the players total freedom and not attempting to guide them to a common goal generates it fair share of problems, especially if the GM is prepared to bring them all back into the game.
This is a mechanical issue. This style of play works fine if you allow the use of social conflict mechanics. If you leave it to fiat, this doesn't work unless you have a really bought-in group.


Cain
QUOTE
I await the coming of the "collaborative GM style" crowd...

We're already here. But since someone else called it "The worst advice ever", I didn't feel there was anything to add.

Re: fudging. Sure, GM's fudge dice, but seldom to favor the PC's. If someone goes down in a hail of gunfire, there's no need to fudge dice for them, that's what burning Edge is for. You only need to fudge dice for survival when then player has burnt all his Edge; and if that's happened, it's probably more than a string of bad luck.
Jhaiisiin
Not always. The guy who typically runs our SR games is a notoriously bad roller. I mean, max 1-2 successes as a general rule kind of bad, and usually complete failures or glitches.. It doesn't matter the dice, or the game system. That's just how it is. Another guy in our group (typically our oWoD GM) rolls exceedingly above average number of successes as a rule (in the open, so he's not fudging his rolls). He has had to fudge his rolls to save PC's in our WoD games more often than he can count because of his rolls (Hooray, 15 successes on damage, 2 on soak... uh, you only had 2 boxes left? Err... you're unconscious!).

Sometimes it's just a person's luck with dice. Granted, my situation is likely fairly unique, but it doesn't make it impossible. It's not always player tactics that get them killed.
Cain
QUOTE (Jhaiisiin @ Dec 9 2008, 09:32 PM) *
Sometimes it's just a person's luck with dice. Granted, my situation is likely fairly unique, but it doesn't make it impossible. It's not always player tactics that get them killed.

I have an unbroken string of critical botches, every time I GM Shadowrun, going back to the late 90's. At least once a session, I will roll a critical botch, and this includes the SR3 days. You know, back when you needed to roll all 1's?

Even so, I've had a few big rolls, too. I've never come close to running a character out of Edge due to a lucky streak, nor do I think I will. If the average character has an Edge of 4, I need to utterly destroy him on a roll five time before I need to fudge. If someone's getting ganked five time a game, something is seriously wrong.
Warlordtheft
QUOTE (Cain @ Dec 10 2008, 12:40 AM) *
If someone's getting ganked five time a game, something is seriously wrong.


Isn't that why every good shadowrunner has a Platinum Doc Wagon contract? Oh wait a minute, that is 5 resucitations in a year...yeah I'd say the player or PC has issues. rotfl.gif
Jhaiisiin
Meh. Edge refreshes at GM discretion. If that discretion is "at the end of the 'story'", which spans several gaming sessions, then the PC could very easily be out of edge by the end. (Discounting a Mr. Lucky PC here)

Edge is a buffer, that's all. In some people's games, it's a bigger buffer than others. *shrug*

EDIT: Regarding DocWagon, I remember taking a Platinum contract on every single character back in my SR2 days, and even on into SR3. But towards the end of SR3 and all of my time in SR4, not a single character of mine has had even a basic contract...

Odd. I'm gonna have to figure out what prompted my change.
kzt
QUOTE (deek @ Dec 9 2008, 08:13 AM) *
1) Thinking the players see the "easy solution" the the obstacle you put in front of them.

I've fallen into this trap a ton of times and the game usually comes to a halt because I feel like "my" solution is the only solution, whereas the group has actually come up with other solutions and sometimes better. In my years of experience, I have learned to check my ego at the door and let them be successful, even if it wasn't the way I had envisioned it.

One of the most fun games (not SR, but it doesn't matter) I ever played in had, as the concluding event, a series of lethal challenges that the GM didn't have a solution to. Once we won a rather expensive victory through some unorthodox tactics he admitted that there was no magic solution, the idea was that they were smart people trying to kill us. It was fun, even though about half the group died.
TheOOB
-Never plan to far ahead. Having a general idea what is going to happen in the next few runs is a good idea, but planning them out is a bad idea, players will always through a wrench in your plans.

-If an idea is cool and imaginative, at least give it a fair chance to work(and give them a rough estimate of their success rate, a character would know if they can make that jump or not, or at least have an idea).

-Despite it's intended purpose, stick-n-shock kills, using it on PCs when you don't expect them to get captured is ill-advised.

-Look over your players character sheets before play and let them know of any glaring flaws, like a character with four cyber-limbs, a commlink with a DNI, and a firewall rating of 1.

-If possible(it's difficult I know), try to have the johnson meet sometime before your gaming session, nothing is worse then a group refusing a run you have all planned out.
deek
QUOTE (TheGothfather @ Dec 9 2008, 10:07 PM) *
This is a mechanical issue. This style of play works fine if you allow the use of social conflict mechanics. If you leave it to fiat, this doesn't work unless you have a really bought-in group.

I'm unfamiliar with that term: social conflict mechanics. Could you elaborate?
Chrysalis
here are some errors that I have noticed GMs doing:

Running their campaign or adventure in such a way as to win points on a forum

Running a campaign in such a way that if you go outside of the scripted events the GM punishes you.

The entire game time consists of character sheet development and talking system mechanics.

The GM throws you in romantic situations because "that is what you must be looking for" and then insists you have to fall in love with his proxy NPC.

The GM berrating players for playing their characters wrong.

The GM going on sidetracks about his favourite all teen girl group of players and implying they are better because they make him dinner.

The GM talks goes on a tangent about his large teen related pornographic collection (and I was the teen in the group too), political views, and his military history fetish.

I think some of the above are simply indicators of a GM who uses the GM screen as a pulpit and suffers from a serious sort of narcissistic tendencies.

Wesley Street
Bad rolls are bad rolls but I'm not going to let all of my players' PCs get gunned down in the very first encounter after I spent THREE WEEKS prepping an adventure. Screw that, I'm fudging the dice in their favor.
TheGothfather
QUOTE (deek @ Dec 10 2008, 05:57 AM) *
I'm unfamiliar with that term: social conflict mechanics. Could you elaborate?
Basically, using the game rules to resolve social conflicts just like you would any kind of physical challenge. For example, you could have one PC make an opposed Intimidation or Con test against another PC to settle the argument, rather than letting one player rely on his own personal social abilities to argue until the other player(s) gives up.

The problem is that SR (any edition) doesn't take this into account. You could try and hack it in, as I did in this old thread, but it's not a perfect solution, since the game wasn't designed to handle PC/PC interactions beyond a fiat approach.

I find it a little amusing that you're asking me to elaborate, though, when yours is the second post on that thread.
Jay
QUOTE (deek @ Dec 9 2008, 08:57 PM) *
Well, it turned out that no one liked anyone else's idea, even though each player came up with one that would work. I completely let the players drive their success and it ended up ending the campaign because everyone got burnt out with, for what I could determine, complete lack of guidance by me.



I am not so sure this would be a flaw in the GM/Ref style as perhaps an issue with teamwork within the group?

Or, I am not sure I understand the situation. If they generated a number of possible plans, what was reason for not going with plan A, B or C? Did the players find actual flaws in each other's plans? Did they figure each plan would work, but want the credit for coming up with the plan that was used?
deek
QUOTE (TheGothfather @ Dec 10 2008, 10:23 AM) *
Basically, using the game rules to resolve social conflicts just like you would any kind of physical challenge. For example, you could have one PC make an opposed Intimidation or Con test against another PC to settle the argument, rather than letting one player rely on his own personal social abilities to argue until the other player(s) gives up.

The problem is that SR (any edition) doesn't take this into account. You could try and hack it in, as I did in this old thread, but it's not a perfect solution, since the game wasn't designed to handle PC/PC interactions beyond a fiat approach.

I find it a little amusing that you're asking me to elaborate, though, when yours is the second post on that thread.

That is amusing...now it was over a year ago, so I will take a little slack:) How quickly a memory fades...

This certainly would have kept my previous game alive when I let my players have at it...granted, they wouldn't have agreed to dice dictating their characters social tendencies mid-game, but I will take this as a way for future games to be run, especially if I go down the path of leaving direction and guidance up to a group.
TheGothfather
Sorry, deek, I didn't mean to come off as snarky there. Consider the slack cut, man. smile.gif
BookWyrm
I don't expect GM's to be perfect, just as I don't expect my players (when I'm running a game) to be perfect.
Warlordtheft
QUOTE (Jhaiisiin @ Dec 10 2008, 02:05 AM) *
Odd. I'm gonna have to figure out what prompted my change.


I'd guess cost and the fact that you'd need a good SIN.They did not change the price of the platimum ( nuyen.gif 50K).
Shadow
QUOTE (Cain @ Dec 9 2008, 10:58 PM) *
We're already here. But since someone else called it "The worst advice ever", I didn't feel there was anything to add.


You've made your "no gm" style quite clear Cain, I am glad it works for you. Now work on realising there are other styles of GM'ing, specifically mentioned in the BBB, that work for people too. BTW I think the guy who called it "worst advice ever" thought I meant fudging the dice to allow PC's to succeed. I don't advocate that any more than I advocate uber powerful NPC's showing up the players. It shoudl be used sparringly, and to good effect, but you shouldn't be afraid to do it.

Your game style is not for me, mine's not for you, no need to go slinging mud.
Malachi
I also think collaborative GM'ing requires mature and skilled players, much the same way that homeschooling requires a dedicated parent with children willing to learn from their mom or dad. All the groups I've had were full of players that just wanted to show up, hang out, have fun, and play their guy. They didn't want any part in overall game narrative or campaign direction.
deek
Fudging dice is almost a necessity for GMs that don't spend inordinate amounts of time balancing each encounter. I would have to spend a whole lot more time preparing outside of the game to create encounters that have the feel that I want to present if I didn't fudge rolls from time to time. And in a game system that isn't exactly built to give a GM the tools to balance everything by RAW, you have to do something.

I suppose that is why burning edge is around, but I think that is a worse can of worms and usually don't allow that in my games. I'd rather just fudge one of my rolls here or there to get the "right feel" I'm looking for.

I was taken aback by an earlier comment that most GMs fudge dice in their favor, not the players. Is that really the common thought around here? If so, I run my games just the opposite, as over 90% of the time I fudge a roll is to save a player's ass.
deek
QUOTE (Malachi @ Dec 10 2008, 03:16 PM) *
I also think collaborative GM'ing requires mature and skilled players, much the same way that homeschooling requires a dedicated parent with children willing to learn from their mom or dad. All the groups I've had were full of players that just wanted to show up, hang out, have fun, and play their guy. They didn't want any part in overall game narrative or campaign direction.

That's been my experience, too.

And even the few times a player did want some of that part in the game, their view was either outside the GMs comfort zone or was never able to be worked on in a timely manner.

Although, based on the example we've been given recently in other threads, the only examples of collaborative gaming have been that players make up their own backgrounds and they agree to discuss in-game ruling disputes outside of the session. To me, that is not as collaborative as most of us think "they" are talking about.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012