Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: What are the odds... gm factor vs reality (long)
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3
The White Dwarf
(note: yea this is all sorta relative to just our games, but like Im pretty sure our games are similar to yours on a lot of levels, so try to keep that in mind)

Quote:
It's not a big deal at all unless your GM is trying to screw with you

I saw that in another thread. And its something I myself have said over and over again. And for something like 90% of anything people say is a problem regarding rules and character power, there is no problem unless... the gm is trying to screw you. This results in there being 4 kinds of entities in SR, and the fact that no matter what I think up I cant break this mold really takes some of the fun away, because the game becomes predictable.

1) Pedestrian people. Wage mages, cops, gangers, whatever. This is the low level stuff your hardened runner scoffs at. Even if you walk towards several of them without cover youre likley to soak everything fine and then lay waste to them with your SL-2 firearm, or Force 5 Manaball, or whatever. Really, unless the GM is trying to screw with you, theres no way theyre really a threat.

2) Secrity people. This is the stuff like camers, guards, whatever that is typically the obstacle of a run. Like take a camera, its not a threat as it cant kill you, it just might blow your run. So you sit down and come up with a plan to get around it, and problem solved, run completed, the pencil numbers on your character sheet get erased and raised. Yawn.

3) Dangerous people. This is stuff like the Tir Ghost hit squad, or a well-reputed opposing runner team. Theyre dangerous, youll want cover and surprise to really get some kinda edge on them. And they probably can and will wound you before its over. Its not the kind of thing you can charge, but it is the sort of thing you can beat with some good playing. Plus, they might have something better than an Ares Predator to loot. Score, loot!

4) Power players. Dragons, immortal elves, megacorporation HQs, missile silos, etc. Really, if it was designed like it would be in RL, it would be next to impossible for Joe Runner to make a successful crack at these things. Seriously. Theres just no way you could work your way past all that security without another power player giving you some info. Sure, if Dunkie says "hey guys, slip into Lof's lair, I scored you the schematics so just follow the yellow line" you can do it... but really if some Johnson said "I need to hire you to break into Lof's lair, youre on your own to do it" the runners would fail, assuming you were playing it realistic. Enter the meta-plot.

So whats the point of all this? Well, really, the point is that if the game is played realistically (which we always try to do) it really *does* turn into a game of one-ups-man-ship between the runners and security just like the one that drives RL markets. Runner buys scanner, security buys encryption, runner buys decryption, etc etc... until in the end either you succed, or you dont, because the GM decides on the opposition's stuff.

Like example: ganger vs runner
Ganger, pistols 4, heavy pistol 9M, armor jacket 5/3, body 4
Runner, pistols 6, SL-2 heavy pistol 9M, armor jacket and form fitting 7/3, body 8

Ganger shoots at tn 4, gets 2 successes. Runner resists against tn 2, soaks. Runner shoots at tn 2, gets 5 succeses. Ganger resists against tn 4, gets 2 successes, takes a serious. Rinse, repeat.

The point of the above example is that average (well built) runner is invincible against average ganger. Unless, of course, the GM trys to screw you by making the ganger pistols 6, or giving him AV rounds, or whatever. And as many people would argue, yea it could happen, but really, odds are *way* in your favor that it wont. So its predictable. Gangers are a non-threat.

So whats the *REAL* point of all this? That if you follow the canon rules, and try to adhere to a realistic game, there becomes a sort of breakpoint of runner > stuff or stuff > runner. Runner > Ganger, but Dragon > Runner. Theres no need to even really play because many of the encounters are forgone conclusions, like some sorta twisted paper rock siccors game.

So please, thoughts? Help? Is there anything I can do to break the cycle? The game isnt really dangerous or a challenge anymore, unless the players intentionally gimp their characters, or the GM intentionally makes everything dangerous. And please, dont use specific examples as it will just become a counter-example thread and thats not the point-- Im trying to find some kinda new outlook on the game that may help break the monotony. Theories, ideas, that sorta thing. Thanks.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (The White Dwarf)
if you follow the canon rules, and try to adhere to a realistic game

These two contradict. The canon rules are not realistic.

Introduce some random factors into your game. Forget what's canon, and concentrate more on that realism. Things in real life don't always happen like you plan them. Shit happens. That's not the GM screwing people over, it's just shit that happens.

The runners in my games, tough though not extremely powerful, have repeatedly gotten seriously wounded and damn near killed by run-of-the-mill secguards. They plan and plan for hours on end, and I introduce purely random factors into the game very rarely, but things still go wrong.

If your problem is mostly with firefights always ending in some way, with the runners either being certain winners or certain losers, then tune the rules. That sort of thing never happens in my games, the runners are always rightly scared that they'll get killed, even if the opposition is "only" gangers with skills ~4 and "light" weaponry such as assault rifles.

QUOTE
And please, dont use specific examples as it will just become a counter-example thread and thats not the point

I would've shown you why the example you used of the Ganger vs Runner situation has just about nothing to do with actual survivability, but I guess I better not if you don't want any specifics. I will say that firefights shouldn't be about two guys standing at opposite ends of an alleyway and shooting at each other. Blam, miss. Blam hit. Blam miss. Blam kill. Of course that's monotonous. Don't play fights like that.
The White Dwarf
Quote:
:if you follow the canon rules, and try to adhere to a realistic game :
These two contradict. The canon rules are not realistic.

Ok, this is a really good point. Thats something to think about for me at least, as to why things are the way they are.

As to random factors vs GM screwing you over, guess it all depends. Like in the past 5 years I can think of twice my car hasnt started. The odds of it landing on something like "as the runners make a getaway" when 2 out of the what, 5000 times I probably started my car over 5 years, are really slim. Random yea, but if its random at the critical moment it can really seem like the GM. Especially when youd probably do something like check your stuff out before hand. But given, it all depends on the situation at the time etc.

As to the example, yea I know how you feel, its not a good example. But like to further it, if you simply swap out the heavy pistol for a gas-vent 4 franchi spas, it gets a lot more dangerous. Then it would be runner > pistol, auto-fire shotgun > runner. The idea I was trying to get across is that rarely is there anything external really involved here, it really boils down at the core to the base numbers youre dealing with, and because of that youre either > or < the opposition. Only on the equal fights (category 3) do external factors come into play, but thats the exact same category that the GM has a lotta leeway with. Perhaps the examples really mean we should shift our games to areas where the GM realistically has leeway... I mean you just wont see skill 8 gangers running around, theyd be picked up for shadow-work or the mobs or something.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (The White Dwarf)
Like in the past 5 years I can think of twice my car hasnt started. The odds of it landing on something like "as the runners make a getaway" when 2 out of the what, 5000 times I probably started my car over 5 years, are really slim.

Then don't do that to the players. Do stuff that's more general in nature. If the runners do extensive scouting and planning this becomes more difficult, but it's still quite possible that a sudden rain storm hits the area. Or better yet, a snow storm if the temperature is right. Environmental stuff. And always remember that every enemy is an actual person and may act in very irrational ways -- or even rational ways that are still almost impossible to take into account in the planning phase.

QUOTE
The idea I was trying to get across is that rarely is there anything external really involved here, it really boils down at the core to the base numbers youre dealing with, and because of that youre either > or < the opposition. Only on the equal fights (category 3) do external factors come into play, but thats the exact same category that the GM has a lotta leeway with.

I'm not absolutely sure what you mean by this, but I think there's quite a lot of factors not mentioned here involved in all firefights. Tactics make one hell of a difference, and some guys are just better at that than the others. In the middle of a stand-off firefight with two sides covering behind walls and firing a few shots every now and then, a group of NPCs might just freak out and charge straight on. That sort of thing.

And you should encourage your players to act in less calculated ways in firefights. In my games this is mostly achieved by me withholding info from the players. They don't know TNs for everything, they often have a poor picture of their surroundings (charging right into a building the interiors of which they've never seen, for example), and they certainly don't know what the enemies are doing most of the time.
durthang
Something else to take into account is your description of a “well built runner”. In my current game I am playing a B&E specialist who I consider to be well built. She can get by most mundane, non-matrix security with a little intel and some planning. On the other hand, with a body of 5 and never wearing armour heavier than 4 suddenly makes that skill 4, heavy pistol carrying ganger look a lot more threatening.

Assuming (dangerous, I know) that you are having the same problem with your deckers, riggers, and non-combat situations, I have to wonder what your average run looks like. In the games I’ve played, the biggest threat is the unknown. Even after all of our leg-work is done, we still don’t know what’s waiting around every corner. It only takes one surprise to make a run go from “smooth sailing” to “screwed”. This way it is more than just a game of Yatzee.

Please excuse the example, but I think that it does a good job in demonstrating my point. In the last run we completed, our team was sent out on a typical “steal the prototype” run. The run itself went surprisingly easy. We got it, got the goods, and got out with minimal trouble.

We contacted the J and set up the meet. The J sent us to an abandoned hanger. While we were waiting inside, we heard a car pull up and then another. Before any of us could check outside, we heard shouting and gunfire. After an intense firefight (a large group of gangers and a few, well equipped Yaks) we were left with the prototype, some dead or KOed thugs, and our J in serious (read: deadly damage) condition.

Sure, we won all the number rolling without too much trouble, but we’re still screwed. Not only do we not get paid if the J dies, but we also risk his employer (in this case, Ares) blaming us for his death if we don’t do some quick thinking.

QUOTE
even if the opposition is "only" gangers with skills ~4 and "light" weaponry such as assault rifles.


I don't think I want to know what "average" weaponry is if assualt rifles are considered light. wink.gif


toturi
QUOTE (durthang)
Something else to take into account is your description of a “well built runner”. In my current game I am playing a B&E specialist who I consider to be well built. She can get by most mundane, non-matrix security with a little intel and some planning. On the other hand, with a body of 5 and never wearing armour heavier than 4 suddenly makes that skill 4, heavy pistol carrying ganger look a lot more threatening.

Assuming (dangerous, I know) that you are having the same problem with your deckers, riggers, and non-combat situations, I have to wonder what your average run looks like. In the games I’ve played, the biggest threat is the unknown. Even after all of our leg-work is done, we still don’t know what’s waiting around every corner. It only takes one surprise to make a run go from “smooth sailing” to “screwed”. This way it is more than just a game of Yatzee.

Please excuse the example, but I think that it does a good job in demonstrating my point. In the last run we completed, our team was sent out on a typical “steal the prototype” run. The run itself went surprisingly easy. We got it, got the goods, and got out with minimal trouble.

We contacted the J and set up the meet. The J sent us to an abandoned hanger. While we were waiting inside, we heard a car pull up and then another. Before any of us could check outside, we heard shouting and gunfire. After an intense firefight (a large group of gangers and a few, well equipped Yaks) we were left with the prototype, some dead or KOed thugs, and our J in serious (read: deadly damage) condition.

Sure, we won all the number rolling without too much trouble, but we’re still screwed. Not only do we not get paid if the J dies, but we also risk his employer (in this case, Ares) blaming us for his death if we don’t do some quick thinking.

QUOTE
even if the opposition is "only" gangers with skills ~4 and "light" weaponry such as assault rifles.


I don't think I want to know what "average" weaponry is if assualt rifles are considered light. wink.gif

So to use White Dwarf's generalistic analogy, your B&E artist against a security system would be either B&E > security or security > B&E.

So in effect, to paraphrase, there would be:

1) Non-challenges. Rating 2 maglocks, light pistols, skill 2.

2) Do-able challenges, some effort needed. Rating 3 locks, sec cams, some special requirement - no traceable evidence, etc.

3) Evenly matched challenges. Even the small stuff can tip stuff against you.

4) ARE-YOU-INSANE challenges. Don't bother.

Is this what you are trying to say, WD?
Sphynx
Ever play 7 Seas? Great RPG of Swashbuckling and high-adventure. Taught me alot about roleplaying, despite the fact that the game actually sucked from a games-mechanic point of view, and from a variety-like point of view.

The only threat you had in the game was the ones ID'd as a threat. If you were being attacked by a 'mob' of guards, etc, every success you rolled dispatched one of the mob. People could look like Zorro in the game and take out 4 to 8 guards at a time, they weren't the source of the story. Once he got to the Governor (or any other major NPC) suddenly those attacks were doing 1 point of damage per success instead of dispatching (dispatching wasn't killing, just taking out of the picture).

Now, I'm NOT recommending you make the guards panzies in your game, but there is a lesson to be learned here. Too often a GM comes with an awesome story in-mind and it gets to the point that that story just never happens because he lets so much get in the way. Cop stopping you on the street shouldn't become the adventure of the night, even if the player does act stupid, shoot the cop, etc. The story is already planned and the cop is just a small bump that can be passed with a social challenge. Player shoots the cop, cop falls dead, then the GM can later (once this storyline os over) create a storyline where the player is hunted by a LoneStar special Force, his contacts dry up, his lifestyles are compromised, etc. But not that night.

Unless the GM is actually planning on making a storyline from a cop-stop (a good way to start a new story) then any major stoppage of the player due to his 'sustained spells' is GM trying to use RP to convince a player to play the GM's way. GM's shouldn't do that IMHO, the GM should be encouraging the player to have fun, and if his definition of fun is twinking out on Quickened spells, so be it. So, by definition, the GM is trying to screw the player (by my definition of screw) because he's not playing his character the way the GM would play his character.

Sorry, I pass maybe 3 cops a day when I'm hanging outside, I see them more than 3 times, but it's usually the same patrol just working his beat. I bet I see 1 non-beat cop a week, and that totals 4 different cops a week, 55 cops a year, etc, etc. The 1 in 100 (going VERY low on the magic active ratio here) might happen once a year. maybe.... and I'm not of the opinion that the magic ones are the beat cops walking the beat. Those that are on the street are in too much of a hurry to a HTR, or are busily investigating (looking for an Aura match astrally) to stop you or have you stopped for sustaining a possibly legal set of spells.

Anyhows, sorry for rambling.
Sphynx
Austere Emancipator
If that is indeed what WD is saying, then I don't see a problem. Most challenges would be in the Do-able - Evenly matched sector, as long as the GM does his job well.

QUOTE (durthang)
I don't think I want to know what "average" weaponry is if assualt rifles are considered light.

It's as easy to get an AK97 by canon as it is to get an Ares Predator, it just takes 12 hours longer. The canon price of an AK97 is just 700. The canon Street Index is pretty fucked up, considering how easy it is to get AKs IRL and how much they cost on the streets, and in a cyberpunk setting heavier weaponry should be far more common than IRL. Thus I consider cheap assault rifles to be the lowest level of serious armament. Gangers will have lots of these, along with pistols and shotguns and SMGs.

And actually I referred to "light" as a comparison to the kinds of weaponry that personnel could potentially carry. Moderate armament includes a variety of hand grenades, GLs, machine guns, maybe LAWs. Heavy armament includes ATGMs, mortars, HMGs, etc. What's average is another matter.
toturi
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
If that is indeed what WD is saying, then I don't see a problem. Most challenges would be in the Do-able - Evenly matched sector, as long as the GM does his job well.

I think Do-able are things that just need that extra RPing. Not much actual dice-rolling.

Evenly matched puts too much in the hands of the GM. Say your team is scouting a target, trying to get info via contacts. Another team wants to cop some of the action (wrong party mod) and tries to get some info on your team. Some how the other evenly matched team manages not to incur wrong party mods of their own allowing you to know someone is gunning for you - GM fiat. OOPS.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (toturi)
wrong party mod

I haven't got the slightest clue what this is. I do not use any strict set of rules for working with contacts or doing legwork in general.

QUOTE
I think Do-able are things that just need that extra RPing.

Well that's perfect then, isn't it? The more RPing the better.

QUOTE (toturi)
Evenly matched puts too much in the hands of the GM.

How? As long as the GM adheres to logic and reason, I just can't see how the GM could have too much power, or how GM having power could be a bad thing, or how the GM would not have absolute power in any case.

I have never, ever felt that I've had too much power in something. As long as the GM has done his work and knows how things are before the runners do anything, all he has to do is follow the logic-train, down the track with unlimited branches, all leading to new areas of the map which read Here Be Monsters for the players.
Reaver
First off, the GM is SUPPOSED to screw with you. That's his job. The game should be potentially tough, yet fun. Granted the GM should not be making the gaming session a "them vs. me" scenario. There have been a few times my players have planned just right and gotten the job done with little fuss. It's going to happen. Then there are also going to be times where a little rain must fall.

If every run was easy and there was nothing to do but sneak in and sneak out... where would the fun be in that? Random factors shake things up and require the players to think on thier feet. Such opportunities give the players a chance for extra karma in the Smarts category. Such random elements transform the run from boring to exciting. Exciting = fun.

The 7 Seas example is a very good idea and I've used it in my game. I've thrown a gang attack in as a random element, a go-gang deciding to dish out a random act of violence. The players can easily dispatch such a random element because it isn't integral to the game. The gangers don't have to be a serious threat. They're involvement into the game is purely random and meant to provide harrasment and increase the gritty, dark feeling SR should have.

Frankly, random elements rock. The GM should be shaking it up. He just shouldn't shake too hard. wink.gif
TheOneRonin
Well, for starters I think that the dice system alone has a significant degree of randomness built into to, so not every encounter is a foregone conclusion. Secondly, adding a modicum of intelligence to the opponents in a combat encounter can make a world of difference. If you have a group of gangers carrying pistols and SMGs, chances are they've probably been shot at before, and at least know the value of taking cover. That alone makes them more difficult to dispatch. In my games, my players routinely treat ALL armed opponents as serious threats and deal with them accordingly. All it takes is a punk with a shotgun and a lucky dice roll to ruin your day.

Again, to reiterate what others have said, don't just have the opposition stand there out in the open in the middle of the day and shoot. IRL, it just plain doesn't work like that. Honestly, I can't remember the last time ANY of my players was able to take a shot with a firearm with at TN of 4, much less 2, and I'm talking about the gunbunnies here.

Shadowrun has some serious lethality built into it, as long as you take the right approach as a GM and balance things with a little logic. Your players should respect/fear armed opposition, not casually dismiss them, even if they are gangers or typical sec-goons.
Jpwoo
Sounds like you are suffering from a little burnout White Dwarf, you should take a month and not play. or find another game to play for a while. This works wonders.

something else that might also help is taking a step back and thinking about why you play the game. From what you described the world your characters live in can be (over)simplified into "See objective, defeat objective, see tougher objective, defeat tougher objective" We have videogames for that.

Take just a couple of minets to think about what kind of things you like in a game, and what they boil down to.

Most of my games fall under, "Friends sticking together against insurmountable odds." The world should feel hostile, but the players are defiant. I guess this is the punk rock part of cyberpunk coming through.

Just a few other core ideas that I have seen or run. "Trust Noone, everyone is out to get you" "Sometimes to accomplish a greater good you need to perform bad deeds" "the world of the jet set criminal is fun, sexy and dangerous" etc etc..

don't state this explicity to the players, but let some kind of philosophy run though all your games.

I will let the other people continue their fine job of dismantling the flaws of the pedestrian<thug<trained thug<shadworunner<demigod chain.
Reaver
QUOTE (Jpwoo)
"the world of the jet set criminal is fun, sexy and dangerous" etc etc..


Hallelujah! Praise the lord and pass another martini (shaken, not stirred)! wink.gif
spotlite
I agree with Jpwoo. Our theme is 'everyone's favorite action movie' but with the suffix 'and directed by a briton' so that the good guys winning is not a foregone conclusion!

But in the other campaign we're playing, its more of a 'everyone's favorite road trip crime movie' as its a smuggler campaign and has a much more liberated and high powered feel to it.

If you look at anything long enough you see patterns emerging. I still can't watch Red Dwarf series 4 because I worked out the formula the writers were using by accident and it frustrated me. Shadowrun can be broken down to 'meet johnson, get job, do legwork, do job, get paid or screwed over, get karma, buy stuff, meet johnson' if you want, but if that's what it feels like then it's up to you and your GM to break the mold.

Try switching campaigns. Stick to the SR universe, but try a police campaign, or a smuggler campaign, or especially a pirate campaign (yarrr! Oi've got nuthin' against ye, matey, Oi just heard there's gold in yer belly! Yarrr), or even just a different locale. A ganger campaign can be very in depth indeed, as you struggle to fend off other gangs, expand your turf, get work and break in to the big leagues or just enough to get your momma into a good nursing home...

Or just give it a break for a while. Play a different game. Something completely different, like AD&D, or something completely off the wall, like Ninja Burger or Paranoia. Refresh your love of gaming generally, and then come back to SR which will be waiting for you with open razorblades...
sable twilight
QUOTE (The White Dwarf)
So whats the *REAL* point of all this?  That if you follow the canon rules, and try to adhere to a realistic game, there becomes a sort of breakpoint of runner > stuff or stuff > runner.  Runner > Ganger, but Dragon > Runner.  Theres no need to even really play because many of the encounters are forgone conclusions, like some sorta twisted paper rock siccors game.

So please, thoughts?  Help?  Is there anything I can do to break the cycle?  The game isnt really dangerous or a challenge anymore, unless the players intentionally gimp their characters, or the GM intentionally makes everything dangerous.  And please, dont use specific examples as it will just become a counter-example thread and thats not the point-- Im trying to find some kinda new outlook on the game that may help break the monotony.  Theories, ideas, that sorta thing.  Thanks.

Ah, sounds like it may be time for you to graduate to Diceless Role Playing grasshopper. Check out Amber Diceless Role Playing Game by Phage Press for ideas on how Diceless Role Playing can work. Adopt it to Shadowrun (or Shadowrun to it). Or just have set aside the dice for a session and have all the players (including yourself as GM) describe how they do things. Judge if they succeed or fail based on their skill vs. the skill or difficulty of the opposition. If they are very creative, thoughtful, or cunning with their descriptions judge it more likely they will succeed. If they are lackadaisical, apathetic, or unmindful then panelize them. But if you do this make sure the players know up front this is how the session will work for the evening.

However, directly solve problem you are seeing. This will not more "dangerous" or "challenging". In reality this problem, to some degree, is in every game you play. Whether you play D&D has it (Kobold < 5th level Fighter < Adult Red Dragon) or Vampire: the Masquerade (Neonate < Ancillie < Elder). So you can either just go on with the game, putting up weaker or stronger challenges as you see fit and do a sort of a "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" sort of thing or you can shift focus. What going diceless does is sort of force you and the players into shifting that focus.

So what becomes the point at this point? The Story. Craft a story arc, a meta plot with sub plots and mini stories, and involved the characters of your players in it. The White Wolf games, especially the LARP supplemental material (The Minds Eye Theater Journals I think they are called) have some articles on crafting meta plots, story arcs, mood, and themes into games.

Shadowrun is one of those games that, from the very start even, has had the potential to be a great Role playing game. The depth of background and source material are really conducive to that. However, Fasa, and now Fanpro, has put so much emphasis on the system, the formulas, numbers, and dice rolls, that these often get in the way and turn it into a Roll playing game. This should not be surprising, considering Shadowrun was whatm their second or third major product line, the first, I think, being Battletech (anyone ever try to play the role playing add on? Mechwarrior I think it was called. Blech). Fasa did not get focused on more role then roll playing until Earthdawn.. Not that roll playing is a bad thing. Each style is good, as long as it meets what you want out of a game.

I also try to avoid random encounters. I prefer to have encounters that advance some aspect of the story in some way. Some may seem random to the players, but even that can reinforce some element of the story. The only time I really use true random encounters is when the story has stalled in some way and needs a little nudge to get back rolling.

Just my thoughts on the matter.
sable

And great post Sphynx. 7 Seas is a very good game. There is a group here that runs a Live Action version.
Reaver
QUOTE (spotlite @ Feb 11 2004, 09:38 AM)
I agree with Jpwoo. Our theme is 'everyone's favorite action movie' but with the suffix 'and directed by a briton' so that the good guys winning is not a foregone conclusion!

But in the other campaign we're playing, its more of a 'everyone's favorite road trip crime movie' as its a smuggler campaign and has a much more liberated and high powered feel to it.

If you look at anything long enough you see patterns emerging. I still can't watch Red Dwarf series 4 because I worked out the formula the writers were using by accident and it frustrated me. Shadowrun can be broken down to 'meet johnson, get job, do legwork, do job, get paid or screwed over, get karma, buy stuff, meet johnson' if you want, but if that's what it feels like then it's up to you and your GM to break the mold.

Try switching campaigns. Stick to the SR universe, but try a police campaign, or a smuggler campaign, or especially a pirate campaign (yarrr! Oi've got nuthin' against ye, matey, Oi just heard there's gold in yer belly! Yarrr), or even just a different locale. A ganger campaign can be very in depth indeed, as you struggle to fend off other gangs, expand your turf, get work and break in to the big leagues or just enough to get your momma into a good nursing home...

Or just give it a break for a while. Play a different game. Something completely different, like AD&D, or something completely off the wall, like Ninja Burger or Paranoia. Refresh your love of gaming generally, and then come back to SR which will be waiting for you with open razorblades...

That may be why my players like my GM'ing style (and why I never get to play instead of GM). I made the campaign style something more like Doc Savage. Instead of each mission being the everyday routine, I'll throw them into more epic level adventures. Every once in a while they still get a 'normal' run, but they never know when they are going to get thrust back into the thick of things. Thier characters become players in an ever running story instead of just being a bit part in boring after boring run. Life's an adventure here, but hey, that's what legends are made of. wink.gif
The White Dwarf
Guys, first off, lemme say I *REALLY* appriciate the responses. To answer a few questions and thoughts:

Everyone in our group is familiar enough with the SR system that its rare for anyone to make a character that isnt rather above par at what they do. Even the mage or decker, characters with usually lower body, arent stupid. Theyll often take things like Dermal Sheath Level One for the body, armor, and because it cancels flechette ammo, for not much cash or essence. Non-standard for some, but we do it. It means that even the non-combat folks have capable skills there, and are often over-matched against their field. Our current B&E character has skills of 6, aptitude electronics, and microscopic vision mag. With a tn mod of -1 to electronics tests, and -2 to electronics b/r tests, its not really hard to crack anything but the really tough systems. And with the Perceptive edge, and some complimentary security skills, its also pretty easy to spot what they need to disarm.

Which puts you back in the boat that you can probably cake-walk past anything normal, until the GM whips out that superfortress and says "have a day". So when I say "well built" I mean well built. Its not just that youve got > and < categories, its than theyre very broad and the edge is a clean cut one. Runner is invincible to gangers, runner dies horribly to dragons. Because of this, and the fact that most of the time the runners know, or can ID as the fight starts, what category of opposition it is, combat becomes a forgone conclusion, and thus not exciting. If you get attacked by heavy pistols, take cover, return fire, chance of death extremly low. If you get attacked by autofire shotguns, new strat, same result, etc. Again, unless the GM decides the one guard youre fighting happens to be the worlds best marksman with skill of 15 and pasts you in one shot...

As mentioned about, Im still thinking on that category with leeway the first reponse caused me to consider, Ill think on that some more. The only problem is the "evenly matched" area is a very, very narrow selection of opposition... I mean sure Tir Ghosts are an even challenge but theyre rare (and should be) making it hard to come up with a lot of runs in this area. Plus, if the Ghosts surprise you, almost one runner is sure to die, because its so dead even. This is sorta what Tortui meant when a lot is in the GMs hands... I mean when both sides are that l33t if you dont know the encounter is coming it can go to one side or the other very fast. /think on

Because I said "no examples please", I just wanted to add for some people regarding "playing it right" that we do use tactics, and so do the bad guys. Rest assured we dont just stand and shoot or something (I just wanted an uncomplicated example). But when the base numbers (runner body skill damage code etc) are superior, statistically they win out against most of the minor stuff without even trying (sometimes on the point of invunerability) which is what takes out the fun of the whole thing. You can only mow through another yak hit squad so many times before you wish it was like the first time when you didnt know what you were doing and it was all dangerous and fun. But no one wants to purposly give themselves body 2 just to make things 'exciting', hence the problem.

As for the non-combat portions of our runs, hmm. We make an effort to find out everything pertinent to the run, but no more. The reasoning is that in the paranoid and dystopian world of SR you could keep discovering new links and conspirators etc and even with all that you would probably never find out that the run was organized by Ghostwalker because he hates the taste of taco bell and the company CEO youre about to hit is in a law suit with taco bell and when he loses he is going to pay them the 10bil nuyen that will get them out of chapter 11. So we dont even really try much past the first layre or two in. We get building plans when possible, figure out where the sec guard patrols are, try to find out the buildings procedures, what sorta cameras and where, all that stuff. Then we get in, do the job, and get out with the plan that seems to be the best. And if while scouting you noticed that all the guards only carry stun batons and heavy pistols or smgs, well it means that you can really shoot your way out if you have to, because of that whole category thing. And guards in mil-spec armor with ex loaded assualt rifles is a bit hard to buy unless its a military type site... so either it fits and you know it or the gm is at work again...

So, yea maybe Im a little burned out, and we are currently doing a DnD run to break it up. Problem is when we started a small SR thing back up again, it still felt like blah. This is helping me work thru some thoughts, so please keep the replies coming.
Austere Emancipator
A few big-money gigs, retirement, start again with a lower power level game. Using BeCKS at 300-350 Karma, for example, makes basic B&E stuff and secguards challenging without going for that extremely bleak street level/ganger campaign stuff.

Or, if you wish, any of the examples of different styles of campaigns will work great.

I have not ran into the kinds of problems you mentioned (not being able to find and keep up the Evenly Matched level) yet, though, so I should probably just shut up now...
boodah
QUOTE (Reaver)
That may be why my players like my GM'ing style (and why I never get to play instead of GM).

yep. get back to makin more runs! nyahnyah.gif

Seriously though, ive never had a complaint reav (other than not having enough karma).
Synner
As someone who has just seen a group of pretty experienced and specialized characters (4) completely trounced by the Polish equivalent of a gang (6 - and no skills over 4) I can honestly say you evaluation at the beggining of this thread is skewed. It all has to do with the way you set the scene and whether or not the NPCs play their hands intelligently or not. Of course in a stand up one on one fight a ganger has no chance against a runner (as a runner has no chance against a great dragon), that's never the point. In SR, people know and acknowledge that everyday life in the Sixth World is deadly and risky. They don't get into fights for the fun of it, they make sure they stack the deck as much as possible in their favor before getting into difficult situations. This should even the odds in favor of whoever takes the initiative in picking a fight (which might in fact be the runners). Balancing the odds could be as simple as bringing in friends and striking from ambush, to something as complex as calling in favors with connected people or simply running.

Note that in the above scene no shots were fired and the players were packing standard runner gear while the "opposition" was packing little more than shotguns and old rifles (this was a militia after all) and some very powerful searchlights mounted on their truck.
Req
My players' team isn't exactly milspec but they're pretty good at what they do (somewhere in the 40-50 karma range I'd guess), and they fear EVERY GUN THEY SEE. I've yet to have a firefight where someone didn't get wounded, sometimes seriously, and while I very rarely see casualties they've come very, very close on quite a few occasions. I concur with those who've said it's all in the situation. Good tactics and planning, accurate intelligence, and communication make all the difference in the world. I'd rather go up against a team in a panzer and know about it in advance than get jumped by a gang of thugs with the element of surprise.
durthang
Another thing you may want to consider as you pick SR back up. Your team is obviously among the best on the market. This being the case you’re probably going to be offered higher end jobs against even competition, if for no other reason than your team is one of the few that has a chance of pulling it off. The rules of supply and demand should naturally keep your team running against opposition that is within that fun range.

That and they’ll pay better too wink.gif
sable twilight
You're going to run into similar problems in just about any system you play in. Eventually the players are going to be able to easily recognize the threat level of the opposition and alter their tactics in response. This is really not al that unrealistic, as the character are supposed to be professionals to some degree and should be able to judge what is needed to be done.

If you want to keep them on their toes a little bit then mix things up a little. Send them on a mission to Amazonia or Austrialia. Have them deal with awakened creatures or spirits. Even your "normal opposition" could have some changes done to them. Sure, gangers might be nothings, but what about a group of gangers in who are being "backed" by a free spirit or toxic shaman. Normal security guards a push over? Then what if some one in the corporation got the (not so bright) idea of augmenting their security force with Bug Spirits?

Even magic in general can a monkey wrench in the predictability of things. You can't know how powerful a mage is (or even is said person is a mage) until he or she starts throwing around magic. Even then, you don't know what spells at what forces or what meta magic the person has at his or her fingertips. Or even just a run where the character can't tote out their biggest guns and heaviest body armor. Maybe the Johnson wants discreet guard work for large high society gathering.

A lot of this would mean that the plots would have to be a lot deeper then characters meet Johnson, characters accept run, characters do legwork, characters do run, characters get paid, characters get karma. So what if your players start thinking "rut roh, the GM is up to something." That's a good thing. Maybe you can get them interested in the "greater plot" that way.

It also sounds like there is another issue going on as well. From the sounds of it all the players just create characters maximized for combat and survivability and that not as much individual characterization goes into them. If you do that, then yes, everything is going to be pretty dry pretty quick.

For me, the character is the key. Sure, I can play just about anything, but it is a lot more fun when the character actually has some personality.

For example, I have a Ravan Shaman. Body of 2 and Quickness of 3. She will never get cyberware. She also does not have any attribute or reaction enhancement spells. I did, however, spend a lot of my starting cash on Euro Westwind Turbo (even though she had no drive skill) and a far about of fine and tres chic armor clothing from Cannon Companion. Why? Because it was the character concept I had envisioned. Does this make her less effective on the typical run? Slightly, but she is also a lot more fun to play. It also means I am a little more creative in how I deal with problems.

With your latest reply I'm under the impression that you are not the GM. If that is the case then maybe you should talk to your GM about what is going on, and let her or him know what it is you are wanting out of the game. If you are the GM and those are some examples of what you have going on, then it is time to shake some things up. Don't be afraid of letting the players thinking that the run they are going on some how unusual or there is more to what is going on then you let on. That's what Shadowrun is supposed to be about.

You might also check out Roleplaying Tips Weekly. It has a lot of good ideas and suggestions that can be applied to any game.
Glyph
Lots of great replies on this thread. Two little things that I'll add:

1) For the lower-end "cannon fodder", remember that they often have something the runners don't: superior numbers! If a group that is spread out/using tactics outnumbers you three or so to one, then even typical gangers can suddenly become more challenging. You have to allocate dice pools more carefully, take more defensive actions, etc.

2) Remember, the cannon fodder and the tough guys don't come with fraggin' labels! Mix things up by having that cool-looking team of opposing runners fold like soggy pita bread when the fight starts - turns out they're just a bunch of corporate kid posers, who now get to find out how tough the shadows are the hard way. Or maybe the security guards are actually specialists who got called in when the company got a tip that a team of runners was headed their way. They are wearing normal security guard uniforms, but are a lot tougher. Maybe that beat cop is an adept and doesn't even know it. Maybe that fearsome bounty hunter is just a craven, mediocre thug with good PR. Keep 'em guessing!
Digital Heroin
Opposition need never be as simple as a man with a gun in your path, it is often the unseen which kicks one in the ass...
The White Dwarf
Again, great thanks for the responses, exactly the avenue I wanted to go. And again some answers:

Synner, to the whole "how you play it thing" again let me assure you, we play smart. The problem is with the normalacy of the system, and the numbers involved, making many situations statistically irrelevent and therefore unexciting. Like normal gangers being a non-threat regardless of what they do (even a called shot to the cyberskull head of the sam wont do more than anger him, using ganger level weapons and skills). Common sense aside, the canonical rules tend to land the runners with the upper hand more often than not, unless its something serious (Tir Ghosts) or unless its just the GM being obnoxious (gangers with Assualt Cannons). Thus Im trying to avoid situation/tactic/examples altogether, for us at least thats not really the issue.

As to the job difficulty level, yes and no. If you want to play a high end team, doing high end jobs, thats great. And a well planned run of this calibur is something really great. But it can become trying to only run this kind of game. In out attempt to stick with reality, planning a job on the "high end" market takes some time, often more than a single session. Sometimes as many as 3 sessions. Just to get all the info, make sure its accurate, cover the plan, the backup plan, the backup's backup plan, and make sure there are no loose ends or loop holes. And the amount of security you have to deal with on something like a Megacorp HQ R&D lab, if you really try to make it as impregnable as something like a military missile silo in RL... its just insane. Awesome to pull off once in awhile to really feel like the creme de la creme, but a real pain to do day in day out every adventure, at least for us, it becomes a chore.

To Sable, quote:
From the sounds of it all the players just create characters maximized for combat and survivability and that not as much individual characterization goes into them. If you do that, then yes, everything is going to be pretty dry pretty quick.
For me, the character is the key. Sure, I can play just about anything, but it is a lot more fun when the character actually has some personality.

Thats a fair statment for us. We do tend to make characters best able to survive the backstabbing rush that is shadowrun. But we dont sacrifice personality and character to do so. Typically we all type out a few pages (2-3) of some background, contact history, etc as we get started. And it gets used. The two arent mutually exclusive, especially not in the SR character system. Things like flaws, contacts, and knowledge skills are used to their fullest most of the time, without doing things like wearing no armor or what have you. But, the thought here about character and story *is* important, its what keeps us playing even tho its sorta like "eh, were playing sr again". Without the plot there would absolutley be no point. Sometimes I GM, sometimes not; the group is all pretty similar in theory so it doesnt matter too much on the whole.

Glyph, yes, we do some of that. But when everyone has body 6+ and at least 6/2 armor (form fit + trench) it rarely even comes to dice pools against lower end stuff. Tactics and stats make up for just about anything the lower end stuff could do. The thing like calling in specialists is another thing thats cropped up a few times, but its not really a trick the GM can pull every session without looking like hes trying to screw you. One adventure may be cool, but the rest of the campaign will suffer. I appriciate the pointers, perhaps Ill think of a way to apply it to a campaign in its entirety.
MrSandman666
Well, if you don't like to do high-level runs and the low level runs aren't challenging enough I come to think that it might be time for your group to retire. Do one last Grande Finale and then retreat to the carribean league or use your contacts to become a fixer or open a bar or whatnot. Talk to the group and the GM about it. He may come up with the last big coup, which earns you enough to retire (or kills you all, if th eGM feels like it).

Then you have the opportunity to start at a low level again or maybe try something completely different. Like a DocWagon campaign, a Gang setting, a Lone Star setting, an X-Files campaign, a media campaign or whatever else you can think of.
Sometimes it's very refreshing to return to the roots. This also can give you a change of characters so you all can try something new. Let the decker play a sam, the sam a shaman and the shaman a face or whatever. Or let everyone keep the archetype but change personality. Turn the shy and sane deker into a thrill-seeking corp-kid, turn the blood-lusty combat monster into a samurai with a very stringent codex and feeling of honor. Of course no one is to be forced into something.
And I also find it a nice challenge to "cripple" my characters from time to time. I'm not talking about loading them with flaws or hacking off limbs or so. I mean just making them not-too-powerfull: Don't give your decker the dermal sheathing. Why would a fresh-out decker have any combat cyberware? Most deckers simply try to stay out of fights. Try to start low. Don't take the best equipment. Don't take the best skills and combinations of edges and flaws. For everything you take ask yourself: do I really need this or could I also live without it? Does it add to my character in an interesting kind of way?
You could also simply try to use less build-points or karma (depending on what system you use). Try to start with 90 BP instead of 125 BP.

Just a few thoughts that might or might not be something for you. I just know that these are the things that usually help me and my group(s).
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (The White Dwarf)
Common sense aside, the canonical rules tend to land the runners with the upper hand more often than not, unless its something serious (Tir Ghosts) or unless its just the GM being obnoxious (gangers with Assualt Cannons).

I'm having a hard time believing this bit. This is only possible if I have unknowingly changed every damn rule there is. And if that's it, then you should change the rules too. Make surprising people from ambush easier (or realistically easy). Make packing armor harder (or at least realistically hard). Make firearms penetrate armor better (or at least realistically well).

My runners all have Body ratings of 6 - 12, and generally have torso armor of ratings 10-16, and they have still sustained several Deadly (or higher) damages to their torsos -- mainly from secguards with ARs. Packing heavy limb armor is a very bad idea in my games, so any actual hit to the limbs with weapons like ARs is guaranteed to penetrate and hurt like hell. Yes, I use hit locations.
Reaver
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
QUOTE (The White Dwarf)
Common sense aside, the canonical rules tend to land the runners with the upper hand more often than not, unless its something serious (Tir Ghosts) or unless its just the GM being obnoxious (gangers with Assualt Cannons).

I'm having a hard time believing this bit. This is only possible if I have unknowingly changed every damn rule there is. And if that's it, then you should change the rules too. Make surprising people from ambush easier (or realistically easy). Make packing armor harder (or at least realistically hard). Make firearms penetrate armor better (or at least realistically well).

My runners all have Body ratings of 6 - 12, and generally have torso armor of ratings 10-16, and they have still sustained several Deadly (or higher) damages to their torsos -- mainly from secguards with ARs. Packing heavy limb armor is a very bad idea in my games, so any actual hit to the limbs with weapons like ARs is guaranteed to penetrate and hurt like hell. Yes, I use hit locations.

I'll often use hit locations as well, although I just use a hit location die to keep things quick.

The only way the runners will truly have the upper hand is if the GM doesn't play balance the scenario. It's a well known fact that almost all SR adventures are written with basic entry level stats in mind. If your players have higher stats, then the GM needs to adjust accordingly.
toturi
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
QUOTE (The White Dwarf)
Common sense aside, the canonical rules tend to land the runners with the upper hand more often than not, unless its something serious (Tir Ghosts) or unless its just the GM being obnoxious (gangers with Assualt Cannons).

I'm having a hard time believing this bit. This is only possible if I have unknowingly changed every damn rule there is. And if that's it, then you should change the rules too. Make surprising people from ambush easier (or realistically easy). Make packing armor harder (or at least realistically hard). Make firearms penetrate armor better (or at least realistically well).

My runners all have Body ratings of 6 - 12, and generally have torso armor of ratings 10-16, and they have still sustained several Deadly (or higher) damages to their torsos -- mainly from secguards with ARs. Packing heavy limb armor is a very bad idea in my games, so any actual hit to the limbs with weapons like ARs is guaranteed to penetrate and hurt like hell. Yes, I use hit locations.

Hit locations are non-canon.

I think that for White Dwarf's group they have something or someone for every situation and experienced enough that if something goes wrong, it really appears to be the fault of the GM srewing them.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (toturi)
Hit locations are non-canon.
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
change the rules

You think maybe I might be aware of them being non-canon? Also, there's a distinct possibility that I don't care.

QUOTE
I think that for White Dwarf's group they have something or someone for every situation and experienced enough that if something goes wrong, it really appears to be the fault of the GM srewing them.

I still don't buy this. The guys in my group are (really) good in firefights, and are certainly experienced in them. Things go wrong. I don't screw them.
Reaver
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
QUOTE

QUOTE
I think that for White Dwarf's group they have something or someone for every situation and experienced enough that if something goes wrong, it really appears to be the fault of the GM srewing them.

I still don't buy this. The guys in my group are (really) good in firefights, and are certainly experienced in them. Things go wrong. I don't screw them.

I agree with AE.

Muphy's Law of Combat #16. "No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy."

That's real life. Enforcing that rule as a GM isn't screwing your players... it's being realistic. No metter how much you plan, there's always something you can't plan for. There's always a variable that gets overlooked. And you never know what the opposition might do that will throw your well worked plan straight out the window.
toturi
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
QUOTE (toturi)
Hit locations are non-canon.
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
change the rules

You think maybe I might be aware of them being non-canon? Also, there's a distinct possibility that I don't care.

QUOTE
I think that for White Dwarf's group they have something or someone for every situation and experienced enough that if something goes wrong, it really appears to be the fault of the GM srewing them.

I still don't buy this. The guys in my group are (really) good in firefights, and are certainly experienced in them. Things go wrong. I don't screw them.

I'm not saying that you might care, but White dwarf might.

QUOTE
Muphy's Law of Combat #16. "No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy."

That's real life. Enforcing that rule as a GM isn't screwing your players... it's being realistic. No metter how much you plan, there's always something you can't plan for. There's always a variable that gets overlooked. And you never know what the opposition might do that will throw your well worked plan straight out the window.


The GM's battle plan might just get screwed as well. So it balances out. In my experience, Mr Murphy is an equal opportunity employer, unless Mr GM is a racist/elitist/control freak/etc. A good battle plan should survive contact with the enemy fairly intact, some fog of war/randomness may be present but a good runner team stacks the deck, read their opponents' hand and have an ace up their sleaves and steals their opponents' money. You mean your group doesn't do all that? What are you amateurs?
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (toturi)
What are you amateurs?

I suppose you'd call all special operations forces in the world amateurs, then?

It's not that random occurrences would always be bad for the PCs, it's just that random occurrences do force everyone to reconsider their plans, think on their feet, etc. They might shift the scales in any direction. The point is, those scales do shift every now and then.
toturi
It shifts against as well as for the PCs. Spec Ops train so hard in order to predict and minimise the randomness, it might happen that something else might crop up but at the same time, you might well be presently surprise at how the real thing is easier than training.
Austere Emancipator
But that's sort of the point. Sometimes everything go extremely well, sometimes they don't. And even for those SpecOps teams, shit happens.
Crusher Bob
I'll add the the dice don't tell the story; the players rolling their electronics skill (or whatever) is not what the game is about, since roling your electronics is not very exciting. Once the game is down to the dice rolling there is very little actual player involvement. It's the random effects that the dice are there to produce.

You are trying to sneak into somewhere, roll stealth. The players will be involved if stopped (since they will have to think up what to do next), but if they are succesful there is very little actuall involment from the player (steatlth, electronics, get gizmo, steath) I could have trained by cat to just roll the dice on command. This is one of the reasons that GMs will tend to want to 'screw' with players, since the 'just dice rolling' is boring for the GM too. Notice how boring a Jackie Chan movie would be if he just used his uber kung fu to beat down the bad guy. It's his interaction with his environment that really makes Jackie shine. This can be something very hard to pull off in the game, since the characters will often have uber kung fu. (See my much earlier thread about avoiding the 'I attack, Got 5 successes, Hit him, He takes deadly damage' combat).

The SR system is not robust enough to provide a 'tactical game' where the dice play a large role in events, (think a sort of PnP XCom). This means that relying on the dice to provide 'interesting stuff' in SR is usually a losing proposition. For example, DnD 3.X has a pretty good 'tactical' system with a lot of well defined options, so you can play a DnD as a 'tactical RPG' style game, while SR has a lot of the same options the rules are much less well defined, balanced, etc.

If you are complaining that the dice are taking away too much 'time' and not really doing anything, try running a game or two without them. For example, give the characters a shared dream and let them do most anything - jump down the dragons throat and cut your way out of it's digestive tract, stop bullets with the your aura of coolness, disarm bombs from across the street - with a gun, or whatever they can think of, if it sounds cool, let it happen. A game like this can really show you how limiting the dice are for certain things (especially in a bad system like the one SR uses).

If you are complaining about the rules themselves, that a whole different set of advice smile.gif

Diceless (and rules lite) games can be worth a look since the only thing left in the game is the 'story' smile.gif
FlakJacket
Dwarf: Any chance of you giving us a brief outline of the group/PC's and what kind of power level you play at? Might give us a better handle on the situation. In one example further up the page you mentioned a cyberskull - if one of the characters has one of those, that can change things.
The White Dwarf
This thread started to wander but found its way back on track, few fast responses:

Austere, I dont care what you do or dont in your games, because Im not in your game. I *DO* care about your experiences there as they pertain to the thoughts in this tread. So when Im trying to stick within canonical rules, and making an attempt at having play mirror real life, please respect that. You made some good points, but please dont get all up in arms over hit locations. I agree the SR system is on the verge of such a setup due to the called shot rules, and if theres ever a 4th edition SR they may very well make an appearance. But it is a house rule, and explaining situations in light of a house rule doesnt help people not using them, is all Im trying to say.

Crusher Bob has nailed part of the issue on the head I think. Its gotten to the point where any of us could play any guy and it would probably come out about the same. Weve just seen the same situation time and again. So when we act, it is sorta the dice doing the work, because we would have made the same decision for the most part in terms of carrying out a plan. Deciding on said plan is a bit tougher of course, with differing opinions, but in the execution its all dice.

Which leads me to Toturi. Again, without trying to sound arrogant, weve all read all the books, we know which items do what, and when to have each on hand. Aside from spell selection, which you cant really shore up within 48 hours for a run, its fair to assume we will have the tools we need, when we need them. So youre right there, except...

Its not that when things go wrong it appears to be the GMs fault. Its that we know enough to stack the deck in our favor enough that even *with* the random dice rolling, you practically cant lose. When you stealth in, or shoot, or whatever to *execute* the run, if you have the right dice against the right TN you statistically cannot lose; excepting a very small margin. And since you can always choose to use your karma pool on that margin, you really wont lose. The only time you will lose, is if the GM is throwing something in there that doesnt belong: be it av rounds on the gangers (not a stolen crate, im talking standard issue), or having the entire secguard staff have assualt rifle skills of 10. Its not that it appears to be the GM, it really has to be. Or youll lose against Ghostwalker cause like, hes Ghostwalker... I mean duh )

As for all the comments pertaining to talking it over with the group, and the GM, and which characters we are... for us its irrelevent. Ive GMed many sessions, others have GMed as well. Weve each played most of the archtypes multiple times. Weve come up with some crazy characters that have worked, and others that havent. Its not about retiring and starting over, or any personal issue, or even the GM intentionally acting against anyone, simply because who is the GM changes. Its just when you know the system well enough, it starts to break down, and aside from the story I was hoping there was a way to change that. A new angle. Something to change it up, and give us something new to explore that isnt as predictable.

Ive also given some though to the ideas thus far. Ive reached a conclusion of sorts. I think you guys are right, to keep the game moving we would have to search for the "category 3" level encounters. The trouble with that level is that its primarily smaller groups not the sort which typically provide jobs. Like Tir Ghosts, they will shoot at you but you wont see them often, and they wont really be highering you. Basically, any segment of opposition on par or slightly above the PCs on a one-for-one basis. The good news is that they arent tied down to any local, and odds are they wont neccessarily revolve around static places where security can be layered up like too much icing on a cake. This would ideally get around the hassel of multisession planning to deal with so much security, and would make the firefights not something to wade into. But Im having trouble thinking of plotlines, runs, story, whatever that would cause them to happen frequently enough to maintain an entier campaign.

So, if youve any ideas along that line, lets hear them.

The other point was the idea thats taken shape that yea, aside from the fact weve all got background and use it in the plots, its really the dice that execute the play. And when the dice do your job, it does get inpersonal. So, how do you keep the person in the spotlight, when its just numbers on a page that act? This may be a style issue, or it could just be an unavoidable issue of playing a dice using rpg. I dont think anyone would want to really move to diceless, because it would come off like bsing about this thing you did last week, only its fictional, and we arent that into the acting side of it. Also I dont think we really want to start houseruling everything, canon rules have a lot of advantages. Id rather try to think of ways of avoiding, or minimizing, the number of rolls needed? Or maybe, things like taking into account what you would have rolled but letting it slide a little? Like an example could be player saying "well I got etiquette 4 and stealth 5, Im gonna throw on this corps suit and just go sit in the lobby and read a paper, see if I overhear anything." And rather than screw with rolling, just let it go on that basis. Thats just an idea to sorta get the ball going in the right direction, I havent really thoought it through all the way yet.

Also, the whole "murphys law" or "be more random" ideas arent going to help. Yea, it rains, it can screw up a run. But with forecasting, and the several types of vision runners have, and with many runs being indoors, its not so bad. Yea, a car could break down. But not a car with no stress points and no skipped maintence, and if such a car did go it wouldnt be at a critical moment. Yea a ganger might have some AV rounds he looted off someone or the back of a truck, but the whole gang isnt packing them in the lastest Ares firearms. Thats the difference between random and GM screw; it shows up in our games but its fairly obvious which is at work when they occur. Your stealth roll of 20 doesnt become a 5 because the GM rules "oh gee it was raining your shoes are squeaky", penalty fine but not -15. We do make use of this sort of thing, but it wont bring you to your knees.

Thanks again so far guys. The threads helped me narrow the issue and start looking for solutions. Yay!
The White Dwarf
Oh also real fast. Pertaining to specific character stats and power levels, Id rather not say because people will start shaping comments about those specific characters rather than the gameplay issues; and keeping focused on the gameplay is whats enabled this thread to come up with some good stuff. Also, while we obviously have a set group of characters atm, its not a problem that all of a sudden appeard. It was here for the set before, and will be here for the set after unless this thread does its job! We use the build point system to make characters, as outlined in SRComp, using 123 build points. We follow all canon rules, most if not all FAQ rules, and allow the majority of the optional rules found it books. We only really use house rules to cover anything that we percieve to be a discrepincy in the rules or a grey area, and so have only but 2 or 3 which arent so much house rules as agreed upon ways to handle oddball stuff. So, nothing too special really, its mostly just knowing effective ways of using it I guess; and making sure youve got all the bases covered before you do anything =)
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (The White Dwarf)
So when Im trying to stick within canonical rules, and making an attempt at having play mirror real life, please respect that.

I do, I certainly do. At first, I made the (obviously flawed) assumption that realism was more important to you than sticking to canon, so I suggested house ruling things. My experience happens to be that it in part gets rid of the kinds of problems you seem to be having.

I had a brief flash of inspiration concerning repeated encounters with a powerful force, but I lost it again. I'll post it in ~12-16 hours if I still have it after my own game...

QUOTE
And rather than screw with rolling, just let it go on that basis.

I don't know what difference that will make in the power difference department, but it's a good idea in any case. You all probably have a very good idea of what kind of outcome you'd be expecting from the dice, so the GM can just give the "expected" outcome, only using that time that wasn't used on rolling and consulting tables and whatnot into making up nice details. And if people still want to roll the dice, the GM can just take a quick look at the results, and if the scores are really good he can rule that the character got lucky and overheard some really good stuff, etc.
The White Dwarf
Thanks =) We tend to stick to the rules over realism because after years of playing various games, it sorta became clear that, being games and not RL, it would never work exactly like RL. So weve settled at staying inside the system but trying to be as 'real' as it can be. Once you cross the house rule for realism line things could get messy, its just not a road we want to go down.

I really hope that idea comes back! Have fun at game tho.

Also good to hear at least one person is sorta on the same vibe with the dice thing. Im thinking that if players feel less inclined to cough up specific rolled numbers at the GM saying "i try to fit in, i rolled a 3, 4, 5 on etiquette what happens" they might be more inclined to stat actions based on their characters skills like "Ive got these stats so I do xyz". So instead of reading a lotta numbers and the GM describes the action, they describe the action and the GM changes the results based on his interpretation of the stats relevence to the situation.
MrSandman666
Well, ok, despite the danger of sounding repetitive and running down the wrong alley once again I will still suggest: you need some change. You've become too accustomed to the way you're running things so I'd say you need some change. Do something you haven't done before (and don't tell me you've done EVERYTHING before). If all fails, play different RPG for a few months. Or switch groups or whatever.
If powering things down doesn't work and changing characters/achretypes/personalities won't work and if changing Modus Operandi won't work then I really don't see what's left for you to do.

Going diceless or "less dicey" like Austere suggested might help. One GM I have the pleasure of playing with plays sort-off diceless. He relies more on roleplaying. This is especially noteable in social interaction. Dialogs are always played out and the outcome is based on the arguments the players give and only influenced by stats. However, whether this works for you really depends a lot on your group.

Another idea might be to try extreme situations. Has your GM ever thrown you into Bug City or the Archology? Might be worth a try.

Hoping everything goes well,
yours sincerely...
The White Dwarf
See, the trouble we have with the whole "play out the social interation with role playing" is that it uses the *players* skill not the characters. And some people are good at that, others less good. So we typically do a little role play of the line we want to go down, then throw the dice to see how well the character persued that avenue. So you might wind up saying "Well, Mr Johnson, sounds like youve got everything figured out, but these things have a way of becoming complicated. Perhaps for a few more nuyen I could be persuaded to see things your way" at which point you roll negotiate. What I was thinking is of trying to make everything more like that, half'n'half.
Jari_Kafghan
well if you are gonna turn the entired game into dice rolling your options are rather limited.

If you don't want to play out social interactions, again limited.

Suggestions - Stop looking at NPC's and PC's as collections of number. The NPC's on gaurd are probably good at this kinda thing. Or they would ahve been fired by now. Have them improvise. The reason 12 gangers with SMG's out in the barrens are so deadly isn't because of the firepower. Its because they know the turf. They know where to hide to put you in no cover situation, while haveing themselves in full cover. They know how to suprise you and get that suprise reaction bonus.

But if you want my honest opinon. Give your players some credit and direction. Make them ROLEPLAY. If they roleplay well then it will be the Character doing the social interactions, not the Player. And reward that distiction when you see it happening. Often my Players will stop what they are doing and say something to the effect of "I know what I would do, but thats not what my Character would do." Then it doesn't come down to the numbers, instead the reasons for everything become the story.
MrSandman666
Well, the "play out social interactions" part was one of those examples that you asked us not to give. I apologize. It wasn't really meant as a suggestions but more as a means of illustrating what I meant. Basicaly I was suggesting what Austere already said and what you already agreed to: make it half-half.

And, again running the danger to go on your nerves, I want to explain one of my points, as I'm not sure you picked that one up:
try to not make your characters effective. You say you know the system inside out and that your characters are just 'too good' in a way. Have you ever tried making them not as good? This can be quite a challenge and the focus will move from dice rolling to role-playing, tactics and scheming. And try to 'think' like your character. "Would my character have this idea now? Since he never had tactical training I guess he wouldn't and would instead do this or that, which is not as smart but more realistic." I suggested playing gangers since it is easier to do for the players. Gangers are very limited per se. Most of them never got any education and have bad equipment. Of course you could go any other route. Play a genetics scientist who stumbled into the Shadows due to some seriously bad luck.
I know it sounds crazy but try (intentionally and fully aware) to be 'not good' at what you're doing. I've done it and it an be lots of fun if done right. I usually try to limit the abilities of my characters intentionaly and give them seriously limiting weaknesses. Provides more of a challenge.

Also, the level of difficulty can be raised by creative GMing. This has been said before, in parts. Make the reactions of NPCs less predictable, if that is at all possible. but most of all: add consequences! More consequences! I know you're not the GM but this is a good trick (though it may not work if the players know about it). Give them so much work that they can not take care of all the loose ends so that they inevitably will piss someone off. Someone high up the ladder.

Blackjack has written a few good articles concerning the things I suggested. This is also where I got those ideas. Here they are, in the order of usefullnes in this context as I perceive it:
The Numbers Game
PC Masochism
OverloadBack to Basics
Variety

As I am a fanatic follower of the Blackjack School of GMing I advise everyone to read all his articles but those I stated up there might be of particular use for you.
Glyph
I think you are going the right way by minimizing dice rolls. You need dice for the important stuff, but for mundane tasks and everyday interactions, just roleplay it out. The way that I think you could do social skills is to use the stats as a guideline to how the NPCs react, then let good or bad roleplaying modify that. In other words, if a quiet player has a high Charisma and Etiquette skill, NPCs will tend to stop and listen to him when he pipes up and says something. On the other hand, a character with low Charisma and social skills will tend to be annoying, rather than charming, if he does a lot of talking. For social skills especially, let the roleplaying matter more than the dice rolls - if the dumb, ugly troll comes up with something that's effective and in-character, let it work! On the other hand, if the player happens to know how to schmooze well and plays the troll like that, then he should be penalized for poor roleplaying.


For challenging encounters, you can generally go two routes - an epic battle with one of those major Threats (terrorists planning to simultaneously nuke 10 cities, a major bug hive, Deus returns, etc.); or the characters could get to the point where they declare war on a major player, such as a megacorporation or criminal organization, and try to bring it down. The book Hardwired, by Walter Jon Williams, shows how something like that could play out.
RedmondLarry
The White Dwarf, you've raised some points that ring true in our team's ongoing campaign (4 years now, about 8 hours per week, going on 1600+ hours of play). If you assume the player's time is worth $10 per hour, some of them have invested $16,000 in their characters.

I'll give you some ideas that may or may not work for you. We've tried most of these, but with only moderate success at making the game new and exciting.

In some way you may be bored with the setting because everyone knows too much. Try running things in Denver, Cal Free, either Tir, London, etc.

You may be bored with predictable opposition. Try psionicists, toxic shamens, bugs, ghouls, vampires, opposition with limited ability to forsee the future, religious fanatics. unfrozen people from the late 1900s, politicians.

Assume that the better the character's reputation, the more-difficult the job they'll be hired to do. Design runs by deciding what opposition exists in the world that will be a challenge, and hire them to go there.

Intersperse some runs that are funny. The collection of normal Gnomes that think of themselves as vampires. All legwork prepares the runners to face vampires. The team prepares to face vampires. Do they geek the misguided Gnomes as directed, or call the Johnson for clarification of the job?

Make the challenge on some runs not be the opposition, but instead be emotional (like the "Divided Assets" adventure), or ethical, or moral. Design the run so there is no right answer.

If there are differences between team members (e.g. one wants to work with Mantis, another wants to kill them) have an adventure where the team has to face this decision. Don't give it a "right" answer.

If character death no longer occurs in your games, bring it back.

Crusher Bob
You can try putting the party up against a foe much bigger/more powerful than they are (megacorp, whatever) then let them 'self motivate' what they do against their enemy. This way, they should be biting off as much as they feel they can chew each time, while still maintaining the believeability of the opposition. Sure your 133t SR team could fight Aztech by knocking over Stuffer shacks (who are owned by Aztech) but this dosen't really accomplish the goal. So they are more likely to 'aim high' when it comes to fighting the enemy, thus, they keep running into bad guys that tend to be as well trained and equipped as they think they can handle.

If the big bad is an organization, they can take bites out of it without completely destorying it (at least, for a while). Let them see the declining stock prices (or whatever) if they are doing a good job.
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