...OK since the original thread has been seriously derailed buy discussion on long shots, called shots & relevance of the GM, I decided to take the "better part of valor" approach and reboot the original topic:
Full Version: Game Level why must it be Street II?
| QUOTE (Stormdrake) |
| I have to ask why this trend towards street level games? Most of the players I have ever known want to play epic games, to be the hero that rises up, not some one who is trapped always on the bottom rung. The current incarnation seems bent on making every one play one style, street. Yes I know people here have posted ways to up the level, so to speak and i have come up with several on my own. Still the game itself as it is presented does not seem to lend itself to any other style of play rather than the previously mentioned street level. Hand in hand with this is the apparent removal of all meta plots. The exception to this is Emergence and that was really a hold over from 3rd edition. I really am not out to start an argument but am genuinely curious as to why this has happened. As we do have many of the free lance writers who developed the latest edition, here on Dump Shock I was hoping they mite shed a little light on this for me. |
...and please, let's try and keep the discussion civil.
I think the appeal of the street level game is the (misguided) belief that it will prevent/cut down on powergaming. That is, if we limit money (and maybe skills) enough, players won't be able to powergame, and the GM doesn't have to throw an army of Street Sams and Mages at the group just to give them a decent challenge.
Having been in street level games, I don't think it works. Meta-gaming is still a problem, so you've got Logic 2 characters coming up with plans that Batman would be envious of, people applying knowledge gleaned from game information that their characters haven't had access to, etc.
A better reason to use street-level as a jumping off point is that it makes the character growth much more dramatic. It's one thing to have a backstory where your character had to hustle on the street to buy his wiz cybergear. It's another to have spent 3 months actually playing through that. Some people want the experience of starting off at "first level", and working their way up to prominence. Then, when you go on an epic run with the world hanging in the balance, you really FEEL epic. Just starting off the game with super-badasses who run off and bring down a megacorp doesn't sound as sweet to me.
Having been in street level games, I don't think it works. Meta-gaming is still a problem, so you've got Logic 2 characters coming up with plans that Batman would be envious of, people applying knowledge gleaned from game information that their characters haven't had access to, etc.
A better reason to use street-level as a jumping off point is that it makes the character growth much more dramatic. It's one thing to have a backstory where your character had to hustle on the street to buy his wiz cybergear. It's another to have spent 3 months actually playing through that. Some people want the experience of starting off at "first level", and working their way up to prominence. Then, when you go on an epic run with the world hanging in the balance, you really FEEL epic. Just starting off the game with super-badasses who run off and bring down a megacorp doesn't sound as sweet to me.
Could it be that we LIKE playing street level? It's called cyberpunk, not cyberpowerbroker.
For the most part, it allows certain kinds of stories to be told. Crime and gang stories are more fun to me, personally. My game straddles the line between "street-level" and "epic" (in fact, we're building up something of an epic crime story, w/ turf wars and so forth).
I don't think there's that much delusion about street-level games having less powergaming. But if you start small, it gives you something to build up to.
I don't think there's that much delusion about street-level games having less powergaming. But if you start small, it gives you something to build up to.
...100% in agreement there. In some ways I have seen a just as much if not more min-maxing in low power games as players try to compensate for the smaller pool of of BPs. Likewise I have a player in my campaign (Standard 400 BP) who doesn't "optimise" much at all yet still makes useful and effective characters. As for metagaming, I had another player who constantly made use of information and details form a previous campaign he was in that his character would never have known about.
As to the allure of playing a character form more humble beginnings, I have mentioned a case in another thread about a character (from that other game) who I started out at first level with little more than ratty studded leather and a rusty short sword By the time he reached 10h (gasp! after nearly 5 years of RL time) he had his one Keep and was a respected figure in the regions. It got to where I knew this character so well I could take him into incredibly dangerous situations that would seriously challenge a character 7 - 8 levels higher than him.
As matter of fact I brought him into an open tournament at a con once and the DM was "amused I was running such a "low level" character. In the end, Father Tel (the character's name) and the party he led won, while a lot of the other "heavies" (many of which were rolled up at high level to begin with) never made it through.
In this way The Street level campaign is appealing, but yes, it must progress and the characters be allowed to grow past hold outs and knives and gang rumbles.
As to the allure of playing a character form more humble beginnings, I have mentioned a case in another thread about a character (from that other game) who I started out at first level with little more than ratty studded leather and a rusty short sword By the time he reached 10h (gasp! after nearly 5 years of RL time) he had his one Keep and was a respected figure in the regions. It got to where I knew this character so well I could take him into incredibly dangerous situations that would seriously challenge a character 7 - 8 levels higher than him.
As matter of fact I brought him into an open tournament at a con once and the DM was "amused I was running such a "low level" character. In the end, Father Tel (the character's name) and the party he led won, while a lot of the other "heavies" (many of which were rolled up at high level to begin with) never made it through.
In this way The Street level campaign is appealing, but yes, it must progress and the characters be allowed to grow past hold outs and knives and gang rumbles.
Can there be such a thing as an epic street level game? I've been in a game I'd describe thusly, but I'm not sure I'm defining the terms the same as you all.
We were a small gang (the Aces) who were hemmed in on four sides by five other gangs in the Barrens (we made them all up). By the end of the game, the four PCs (who made up the leadership of the Aces) had taken the territory of two of the other gangs and forced the remaining three to fight among themselves.
It was definitely a street-level game (hell, it was in SR3 and we had only 40 build points to start with) but I also think the scope of the game was epic, within the microcosm of the Barrens.
We were a small gang (the Aces) who were hemmed in on four sides by five other gangs in the Barrens (we made them all up). By the end of the game, the four PCs (who made up the leadership of the Aces) had taken the territory of two of the other gangs and forced the remaining three to fight among themselves.
It was definitely a street-level game (hell, it was in SR3 and we had only 40 build points to start with) but I also think the scope of the game was epic, within the microcosm of the Barrens.
While we're on the subject, aside from lowering availability at chargen, what are the most popular methods for going "street level"? I think the default rules result in about the right level of power, provided you check things over and make sure someone isn't handing you a vatjob or something.
Maybe "street level" is so much more popular in 4th ed than 3rd is because 4th edition tends to break when the DPs get too large. 
More seriously, I don't know. It seems like a cultural mood, or something. It's where I am in my gaming career right now. When I started playing I wanted characters and action to be AWESOME. Then I got over that and wanted to play much more serious, realistic games. I wanted to play the super professional. Now I want games with a little bit more AWESOME in them. Nostalgia? Retro? Passing phase?
More seriously, I don't know. It seems like a cultural mood, or something. It's where I am in my gaming career right now. When I started playing I wanted characters and action to be AWESOME. Then I got over that and wanted to play much more serious, realistic games. I wanted to play the super professional. Now I want games with a little bit more AWESOME in them. Nostalgia? Retro? Passing phase?
To be perfectly frank, it's just easier. Creating an epic game requires a great deal of time, effort and creativity, not to mention a satisfying story arc that won't leave your player with a "We just spent two months of gaming for THAT!" feeling when it turns out the run was all a dream.
Street games, at least most mediocre street games, can be made in an hour and run on the fly. In the end everything is tied up in a nice little brown bow, with a decent amount of nuyen and Karma dispersed and no character grows or in challenged in any significant way. It's an easy way to blow off steam after a 40 hour work week, but isn't nearly as satisfying as an truly epic game that makes you question your character and the world in which he lives.
That being said, it can be fun to start a game on a street level and have it grow into an epic. Sin City begins with basic, street level characters and grows into national assassination. Even Lord of the Rings begins in a backwater, hick town.
No one wants to invest the time and effort into an epic game that player may flake out on because "I've got too much real life stuff going on!" so they may run a few b.s. games to create a level of trust amongst the group, meanwhile the players are so fed up with the mediocrity of the games they create excuses to no show.
I suggest going to your local Half Priced Books(where 2nd edition Shadowrun goes to die) and pick up some old supplements(there will be plenty) and convert them as best you can to 4th edition. This allows you much of that precious free time a new, epic adventure would eat up, while letting the players know that you aren't phoning it in because the conversion required a significant investment on your part.
I like Harlequin as a beginner, and once a level of trust and constancy has been established you and your group should have free reign for fun and mayhem.
Street games, at least most mediocre street games, can be made in an hour and run on the fly. In the end everything is tied up in a nice little brown bow, with a decent amount of nuyen and Karma dispersed and no character grows or in challenged in any significant way. It's an easy way to blow off steam after a 40 hour work week, but isn't nearly as satisfying as an truly epic game that makes you question your character and the world in which he lives.
That being said, it can be fun to start a game on a street level and have it grow into an epic. Sin City begins with basic, street level characters and grows into national assassination. Even Lord of the Rings begins in a backwater, hick town.
No one wants to invest the time and effort into an epic game that player may flake out on because "I've got too much real life stuff going on!" so they may run a few b.s. games to create a level of trust amongst the group, meanwhile the players are so fed up with the mediocrity of the games they create excuses to no show.
I suggest going to your local Half Priced Books(where 2nd edition Shadowrun goes to die) and pick up some old supplements(there will be plenty) and convert them as best you can to 4th edition. This allows you much of that precious free time a new, epic adventure would eat up, while letting the players know that you aren't phoning it in because the conversion required a significant investment on your part.
I like Harlequin as a beginner, and once a level of trust and constancy has been established you and your group should have free reign for fun and mayhem.
I don't think street level is determined by dice pool or build points, though. Street level describes the type of game, the genre if you will. The build points just give a mechanic by which characters can be built within that genre. If you're playing a street level game, I don't think the rules need to be changed at all. But, as a GM, you should work with your players to create characters that make sense within the genre of a street level game.
My current game is probably street level. The characters are an ex-bartender and his bouncer, two brothers born on the wrong side of town, and a mage who's searching for a long-lost love. All built with 400 points, all fitting nicely into a street level campaign.
I ran a game last year set in Europe where the team was defending royalty, stopping international conspiracies led by the Vatican, and defending the world (okay, continental Europe at least) from a corrupt corporate regime in Portugal. This was an epic game and the characters were still built with the same core rules as the bartender and his bouncer above.
The difference: me. I knew what type of game I had planned and I knew what type of characters were going to be most effective in the style of game I intended to run and, perhaps even more important, I actively sought out players (I even interview people if I don't know them well) to try and create a cohesive group from which to generate characters.
It doesn't always work. One of my players this year really wanted to make his character a social, gunslinging adept and I'm still not sure he fits quite as well as I'd like for the game. The player's having a great time -- he posts here from time to time -- but the character doesn't feel quite right. He's a little too epic and not enough street.
But more often than not, you don't have to change any of the rules, the points, the availability, etc. You just need to sit down with your players and make sure they understand the game you're going to run and the style of character that's going to fit within that game and then begin working on characters.
My current game is probably street level. The characters are an ex-bartender and his bouncer, two brothers born on the wrong side of town, and a mage who's searching for a long-lost love. All built with 400 points, all fitting nicely into a street level campaign.
I ran a game last year set in Europe where the team was defending royalty, stopping international conspiracies led by the Vatican, and defending the world (okay, continental Europe at least) from a corrupt corporate regime in Portugal. This was an epic game and the characters were still built with the same core rules as the bartender and his bouncer above.
The difference: me. I knew what type of game I had planned and I knew what type of characters were going to be most effective in the style of game I intended to run and, perhaps even more important, I actively sought out players (I even interview people if I don't know them well) to try and create a cohesive group from which to generate characters.
It doesn't always work. One of my players this year really wanted to make his character a social, gunslinging adept and I'm still not sure he fits quite as well as I'd like for the game. The player's having a great time -- he posts here from time to time -- but the character doesn't feel quite right. He's a little too epic and not enough street.
But more often than not, you don't have to change any of the rules, the points, the availability, etc. You just need to sit down with your players and make sure they understand the game you're going to run and the style of character that's going to fit within that game and then begin working on characters.
I'll qualify all of the following with the caveat that I disagree with the original question - it need not be street and there's material a-plenty, as well as range in character creation and development to play a very non-street game.
Now to answer the question rather than question it, there are two answers. The first is simply that Shadowrun simply is Street because it's a valid and flavoursome way of playing - some times we play high-fantasy settings, sometimes we play gothic-horror, sometimes we play Street, it's just an authorial position.
But the second answer is probably more provactive and has to do with the 'must' in your question. I think some people perceive Street to be more valid as a reaction to certain high-fantasy settings. There's quite a bit of snobbery about "Cancer Causing" games in these parts, and the reaction against them gets a little too inclusive sometimes I think, throwing out any leanings toward high-power at the same time.
Now to answer the question rather than question it, there are two answers. The first is simply that Shadowrun simply is Street because it's a valid and flavoursome way of playing - some times we play high-fantasy settings, sometimes we play gothic-horror, sometimes we play Street, it's just an authorial position.
But the second answer is probably more provactive and has to do with the 'must' in your question. I think some people perceive Street to be more valid as a reaction to certain high-fantasy settings. There's quite a bit of snobbery about "Cancer Causing" games in these parts, and the reaction against them gets a little too inclusive sometimes I think, throwing out any leanings toward high-power at the same time.
I vote street level for the grounds of building a personality, and not just a character. When you start small you can easily understand your character, he's only slightly better than you yourself are. Playing through the things until he's finally ready for the epic level things, or the other side being joe average still and thrown into the epic level makes for interesting character development.
I myself haven't yet had the character that I felt really connected to. I've developed interesting concepts/backstories whatever, but in the end it was just on paper, I hadn't actually done anything. I have GM'd for a single set of characters for about 5-6 years, using a homebrewed fantasy system. The characters were something after that time, they felt pride in them, and I as the GM felt pride in them. I retired them in a final campaign, speaking briefly to each player before hand wanting to know what they wanted for their character in the end. And with those thoughts ran the final campaign.
The end result is that its 3 years after that campaign, and the players still will divert completely from what we're doing to reminense on them. Unfortunately I have yet to be part of (GM or player) another group that reached that point. Gamer nirvana!
God I'm a nerd...
I myself haven't yet had the character that I felt really connected to. I've developed interesting concepts/backstories whatever, but in the end it was just on paper, I hadn't actually done anything. I have GM'd for a single set of characters for about 5-6 years, using a homebrewed fantasy system. The characters were something after that time, they felt pride in them, and I as the GM felt pride in them. I retired them in a final campaign, speaking briefly to each player before hand wanting to know what they wanted for their character in the end. And with those thoughts ran the final campaign.
The end result is that its 3 years after that campaign, and the players still will divert completely from what we're doing to reminense on them. Unfortunately I have yet to be part of (GM or player) another group that reached that point. Gamer nirvana!
God I'm a nerd...
...I've been on both ends and in the middle.
The High powered Uber-Awesome campaign was probably my least favourite as there was little growth since attributes and skills were already at pretty mean levels. I still wrote backstories for my characters but the fact they had already "made it" kind of took something out of it for me. On the other hand the low power campaign I was in was a blast. This is where two of my coolest my concepts my street kid con artist adept Da Brat (#96) and Cajun pugilist Hurricane Hannah (#97) originally came from.
The characters were pretty basic in their attributes, skills and powers (The GM capped MA at 4), but very effective. Hannah, while not having the "into next Tuesday" punch was still someone to be rekoned with and Da Brat even managed to fast talk a deal to get her buddies rescued after they were abducted by members of a crime syndicate. We weren't fighting mage strike teams, Prime runner sammies or GDs. THe most powerful opponents were organised crime goons which included maybe an "up and coming" runner.
Not being reliant on a tonne of 'ware, big expensive toys or heavy duty magic required more resourceful play which is why these two quickly established their personalities and became a heck of a lot of fun to play, even more so in some ways than my namesake.
I have since tried take this same approach with all the characters I work up including those in the standard 400 BP range.
The High powered Uber-Awesome campaign was probably my least favourite as there was little growth since attributes and skills were already at pretty mean levels. I still wrote backstories for my characters but the fact they had already "made it" kind of took something out of it for me. On the other hand the low power campaign I was in was a blast. This is where two of my coolest my concepts my street kid con artist adept Da Brat (#96) and Cajun pugilist Hurricane Hannah (#97) originally came from.
The characters were pretty basic in their attributes, skills and powers (The GM capped MA at 4), but very effective. Hannah, while not having the "into next Tuesday" punch was still someone to be rekoned with and Da Brat even managed to fast talk a deal to get her buddies rescued after they were abducted by members of a crime syndicate. We weren't fighting mage strike teams, Prime runner sammies or GDs. THe most powerful opponents were organised crime goons which included maybe an "up and coming" runner.
Not being reliant on a tonne of 'ware, big expensive toys or heavy duty magic required more resourceful play which is why these two quickly established their personalities and became a heck of a lot of fun to play, even more so in some ways than my namesake.
I have since tried take this same approach with all the characters I work up including those in the standard 400 BP range.
"Epic" can also be defined from a matter of perspective. Epic to a group of low level gangers might be an all out turf war where half their gang gets splattered, and they barely make it out of there alive themselves, but at least they survive. Epic to the Mob could be the Mob wars, open espionage, or any number of things. Epic to an immortal elf would be finally killing that fragger Lofwyr. It's perspective, and you can adjust it as such. The key is limiting the environment a little. If you want to keep it purely street, introduce a bit here and there, but for the most part, don't let elements of the ED/SR Metaplots drift in more than just to hint at darker things, that way the runners still deal with stuff in or just outside their league.
I'd say that you can play epic or street, but street's less likely to get contradicted by canon metaplot later on. The first long-term campaign I played, we ended up doing some things to Aztechnologies that ended up destroying the corp (mostly so we could get the most bang for our buck out of FoF by going down to Aztlan and being mercs for the aftermath). All was well and good. Except that we couldn't use a lot of sourcebooks after that without at least slight modification. Not saying they can't be modified, just that it is a problem you need to be aware of with epic campaigns: the players are going to do epic things that aren't always in line with what epic things happen canonically later on.
The longest street campaign I played didn't have that problem, because the "street" aspects of the SBs don't really get into specifics so much as atmosphere.
The campaign I'm in now doesn't seem very street, just because everyone has too much money and is too powerful. I wouldn't say we do anything epic, but there's not the sense of urgency that you get in, say, Touch of Evil, where everything's happening on the same block. If something goes down on the block we're on, we kill it. I feel kind of let down, because I have an urban shaman named Streetgod that would rather talk to guidance spirits than blow things up, but that said, he is ridiculously good at combat.
The longest street campaign I played didn't have that problem, because the "street" aspects of the SBs don't really get into specifics so much as atmosphere.
The campaign I'm in now doesn't seem very street, just because everyone has too much money and is too powerful. I wouldn't say we do anything epic, but there's not the sense of urgency that you get in, say, Touch of Evil, where everything's happening on the same block. If something goes down on the block we're on, we kill it. I feel kind of let down, because I have an urban shaman named Streetgod that would rather talk to guidance spirits than blow things up, but that said, he is ridiculously good at combat.
| QUOTE (CircuitBoyBlue @ Jan 16 2008, 06:21 AM) |
| The first long-term campaign I played, we ended up doing some things to Aztechnologies that ended up destroying the corp ... |
Such as?
In my opinion, Aztechnology would be one of the harder Megacorps to topple (being so intimately tied with a pwerful nation state), if indeed a single group of shadowrunners could affect a Megacorporation to that extent.
In our last game, and as the ending to the saga of those characters, our GM allowed us to take out Lofwyr (in hindsight, we all agree we would have been bug-splat if he'd fleshed out the GD a little more), and it's caused a lot of interesting deviations in the SR timeline for us. Especially with the Tir and the Council of Princes. Interesting shakeups when you pull a player like that. Not to mention the actions from the varied dracoforms and such.
I usually sand box it, letting players do whatever they want and take various jobs or not from multiple contacts. And the result is that when characters are more powerful it is more effort to run. When you give players actual freedom of choice, a wealthy and powerful runner can seriously just say "Nuts on the road, I'm off! To Japan!" And as the gamemaster you're like "What? Seriously? You're going to Japan?" And because choice is real and not fake, you have to adapt and have the characters get some adventuring done in Tokyo.
For street level campaigns the characters can't just pack up and leave. Or if they do, there's whole adventures involved in finding a a place to live and food to eat in the new country and you have a week or two to prepare. When characters are rich enough to just stay in hotels and have the reps to simply have work offered to them in the new land, you have to think on your feet a lot more.
---
The other side is threat maintenance. As a game master you're trying to scare the pants off the PCs without actually killing any of them. And to that end it actually gets more difficult when the players are more powerful. It takes bigger hammers to frighten the PCs and bigger hammers are actually very likely to kill player characters outright on a slightly unlucky dice roll.
-Frank
For street level campaigns the characters can't just pack up and leave. Or if they do, there's whole adventures involved in finding a a place to live and food to eat in the new country and you have a week or two to prepare. When characters are rich enough to just stay in hotels and have the reps to simply have work offered to them in the new land, you have to think on your feet a lot more.
---
The other side is threat maintenance. As a game master you're trying to scare the pants off the PCs without actually killing any of them. And to that end it actually gets more difficult when the players are more powerful. It takes bigger hammers to frighten the PCs and bigger hammers are actually very likely to kill player characters outright on a slightly unlucky dice roll.
-Frank
Why are we trying to avoid killing the PCs again?
(I keed! I keed!)
(I keed! I keed!)
| QUOTE |
| As a game master you're trying to scare the pants off the PCs without actually killing any of them. |
most of the time, anyway *g*
I guess for me it's a case of ''im a jane average in real life, i don't need to play joe or jane average every night at the table''. While supers campaigns are maybe fun once in a blue moon, i don't like being nigh unstoppable, either. I like it in the middle. I like coming out of the gate with something(400-450 range), knowing things, having experience...but i like to also build up from there. Like the high end, i do like low end now and again. It can be fun to play gutterpunks or just low end folks with more capped skills and knowledges and gear or whatnot. But not all the time. Many times i have concepts that run a little more professional...but not overbearing.
Too much of anything can be too much. Switching it up rules. Variety is the spice of life and all that.
Anyhow, if i was running street level(and i guess i can see the draw of it...but i also agree with the fact ive seen more minmaxing in street level than mid or higher level), i'd actually let the people go heavier on the attributes(raw potential), but cap skills and resources a bit more, as well as contacts(i doubt that the guitar wailing guttepunk is going to have the VP of a small corp as a contact, unless the player came up with a really good reason.)
I think my aversion to street level comes with bad experiences. Some that i have mean when i hear ''street level'', i hear ''dont bother buying crap, it's going to be taken from you anyway. Also, be prepared to be yanked around on chains like the low end mutts that you are for awhile, since you ARE nobodys and are in no place to negotiate.'' Those campaigns are not fun for me.
Too much of anything can be too much. Switching it up rules. Variety is the spice of life and all that.
Anyhow, if i was running street level(and i guess i can see the draw of it...but i also agree with the fact ive seen more minmaxing in street level than mid or higher level), i'd actually let the people go heavier on the attributes(raw potential), but cap skills and resources a bit more, as well as contacts(i doubt that the guitar wailing guttepunk is going to have the VP of a small corp as a contact, unless the player came up with a really good reason.)
I think my aversion to street level comes with bad experiences. Some that i have mean when i hear ''street level'', i hear ''dont bother buying crap, it's going to be taken from you anyway. Also, be prepared to be yanked around on chains like the low end mutts that you are for awhile, since you ARE nobodys and are in no place to negotiate.'' Those campaigns are not fun for me.
...the low powered campaign I was in was not so much street as it was "newbie" runners just breaking into the biz. It was also a pretty good one. Yes we were limited in gear and skills (and to an extent attributes), but the characters were not unduly constrained. The threats were tough at times but not overwhelming and the payouts/swag was adequate without being too generous or stingy. Karma was good averaging about 5 per session (+ RP bonuses) so the characters were able to advance.
Personally, I think SR4's default level of 400 points is a decent one - I think epic games and so-called street games alike don't play to Shadowrun's true strengths. 400 points lets you play someone who is a pro at something or another, not the absolute best but definitely better than most. It's a game where the players do dangerous things, after all, and deal with ruthless people. They should need to be tough, simply to survive.
And transhumanism is one of the major themes of the game - introducing magic into the cyberpunk mix only means that there are more ways that the players can transcend mere humanity. They can master the matrix, know a lot of important people, have a small army of drones, be capable of wielding mighty magics, or be cybernetically enhanced to a superhuman degree.
That's what I think of as Shadowrun - I'm not too interested in playing some uncybered, mundane, punk with a pistol and a cheap commlink eating rat for dinner.
That's not to say that there should be no "street" in Shadowrun, far from it. I just think you don't need to spectacularly gimp characters in a low-powered game to do it. The Panther Moderns all had ruthenium sneak suits or the equivalent, but they were still a thrill gang. Someone brought up Sin City - Marv was a freaking troll, and probably about 500+ build points, but he was still "street". Street is an attitude and an atmosphere that should be ever-prevalent.
And transhumanism is one of the major themes of the game - introducing magic into the cyberpunk mix only means that there are more ways that the players can transcend mere humanity. They can master the matrix, know a lot of important people, have a small army of drones, be capable of wielding mighty magics, or be cybernetically enhanced to a superhuman degree.
That's what I think of as Shadowrun - I'm not too interested in playing some uncybered, mundane, punk with a pistol and a cheap commlink eating rat for dinner.
That's not to say that there should be no "street" in Shadowrun, far from it. I just think you don't need to spectacularly gimp characters in a low-powered game to do it. The Panther Moderns all had ruthenium sneak suits or the equivalent, but they were still a thrill gang. Someone brought up Sin City - Marv was a freaking troll, and probably about 500+ build points, but he was still "street". Street is an attitude and an atmosphere that should be ever-prevalent.
It seems like all too often people want to play the uber-bad-ass professional killer who never makes mistakes, but in my experience those all tend to become monodimensional after awhile. Might as well call them Neo.
I tend to enjoy character driven stories, which (kind of by definition) require complex characters with strengths and weaknesses and fears. Character flaws are what make a PC interesting to play, and I think character flaws are easier to understand and roleplay in a lower level game...
I tend to enjoy character driven stories, which (kind of by definition) require complex characters with strengths and weaknesses and fears. Character flaws are what make a PC interesting to play, and I think character flaws are easier to understand and roleplay in a lower level game...
Define street level. Please.
Is Ichi the Killer street level?
I ask because it highlights a very important distinction.
Ichi is a mentally ill brainwashed wuss who is manipulated by a low-ranking yakuza member who is using him to steal 300 million yen. But he's also a goddamn invincible super-assassin who cuts people in half with his foot blades and who leaves buckets upon buckets of blood and viscera in his wake.
His enemies are low-ranking yakuza outcasts. He gets no reward other than generic revenge against bullies. His boss is a low-ranking yakuza traitor. His only real contact is a preteen boy. Yet he's an invincible super-assassin.
Does being invincible super-assassin with retractable blades in his shoes who cuts people in half with ease make the game level epic? Does doing dirty jobs for low-ranking thugs and hanging out with with the bullied children of disgraced policemen turned thugs make the game street?
How about Hellblazer? Constantine is a relativly low-level street magician who ends up dealing with very powerful figures, defeating them using wit and guile rather than strength. Does tricking thee three lords of hell into curring your cancer somehow make the game epic even when you're a lowly street magician with little real power?
Is Ichi the Killer street level?
I ask because it highlights a very important distinction.
Ichi is a mentally ill brainwashed wuss who is manipulated by a low-ranking yakuza member who is using him to steal 300 million yen. But he's also a goddamn invincible super-assassin who cuts people in half with his foot blades and who leaves buckets upon buckets of blood and viscera in his wake.
His enemies are low-ranking yakuza outcasts. He gets no reward other than generic revenge against bullies. His boss is a low-ranking yakuza traitor. His only real contact is a preteen boy. Yet he's an invincible super-assassin.
Does being invincible super-assassin with retractable blades in his shoes who cuts people in half with ease make the game level epic? Does doing dirty jobs for low-ranking thugs and hanging out with with the bullied children of disgraced policemen turned thugs make the game street?
How about Hellblazer? Constantine is a relativly low-level street magician who ends up dealing with very powerful figures, defeating them using wit and guile rather than strength. Does tricking thee three lords of hell into curring your cancer somehow make the game epic even when you're a lowly street magician with little real power?
| QUOTE (Method) |
| It seems like all too often people want to play the uber-bad-ass professional killer who never makes mistakes, but in my experience those all tend to become monodimensional after awhile. Might as well call them Neo. I tend to enjoy character driven stories, which (kind of by definition) require complex characters with strengths and weaknesses and fears. Character flaws are what make a PC interesting to play, and I think character flaws are easier to understand and roleplay in a lower level game... |
*Please* don't tell me that you subscribe to the "Making gimped characters is a sign of a real roleplayer" school of thought.
Complex character interaction is a function of the player, not the character or power level. A munchkin will munchkinize out whatever he's handed. A good roleplayer will deal with whatever hje gets, and roleplay just as well. Both could have twenty-page backstories, but in game, an experienced roleplayer will shine.
So, it boils down to genre, and how well the rules support that genre. Without derailing this thread, I'll point out again that the SR4 book is supposed to portray a world on the grittier, darker, more realistic side of things; yet has massively overpowering, cinematic ,"nothing is impossible" rolls baked into the core mechanic. You can neither avoid the street nor the epic.
Although I could be wrong, if Method said what I think Method said then I agree, characters that have weaknesses and fears are more interesting then characters that don't have either, and I personally don't see how that translates to "gimping" a character, I don't think anyone is talking about making a pure Mage with no ability to resist drain or a street sam who spent all of her Essense on worthless cyber and has to default when shooting...
*Edit*
However I don't necessarily disagree with what you said either Cain, I just get a little testy when people seem to think that suggesting that having flawed characters is the same as gimping them in some kind of "elite roleplayer" fashion.
*Edit*
However I don't necessarily disagree with what you said either Cain, I just get a little testy when people seem to think that suggesting that having flawed characters is the same as gimping them in some kind of "elite roleplayer" fashion.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| *Please* don't tell me that you subscribe to the "Making gimped characters is a sign of a real roleplayer" school of thought. |
I am by no means saying that character has to be "gimped" in terms of game mechanics. I mean to use the term "character flaw" in the literary sense, as in "internal conflict". I personally just don't enjoy roleplaying characters that are so "professional" that they never make mistakes, or always know the proper course of action, or never get anxious or afraid about the prospect of failure, etc, etc. As you said, SR is supposed to portray "a world on the grittier, darker, more realistic side of things" and I think imperfect characters define "gritty".
Take Batman as an example of the quintessential antihero. Everyone can agree that Batman regularly hands people their asses to wear as hats because he's a bad mofo. But compare the Adam West version to Christian Bale version. Thematically, which would fit better in SR? Batman wouldn't be nearly so bad ass if there wasn't a dark, conflicted side to him right?
In terms of scope, Batman's exploits are pretty epic, but the driving force behind his character is the murder of his parents (plain old "street level" violence), which to me illustrates that most people can relate to a character better if his/her driving force is something they can understand on an intuitive level. I'm not saying things like "political intrigue" and "sweeping world events" don't have a place in SR. I just don't think they make good motivators for a character.
So I guess in a long winded sort of way, I'm saying exactly the opposite. I think its much harder to RP an epic character well...
I don't get why people think it's one or the other, though. Whatever happened to the good old default level? A character who isn't in a low-powered street level campaign isn't automatically "epic".
Besides, you are also combining high-powered campaigns with hard-edged professional ones. Some people do play ultra-tough characters who are also very tactically cunning. But there are also a lot of ultra-tough characters who couldn't go to McHughes for a soyburger without it turning into a bloodbath.
And most characters will be flawed - they will either be less than optimal in their specialty, or lacking in other areas. And nearly everyone seems to take at least some points in negative qualities. Given the limits of SR4 char-gen, most characters will have plenty of flaws, on the build point level.
As far as flaws in the character background, that depends more on the player than on the power level of the game. A min-maxer won't suddenly make a character with glaring weaknesses in a low-powered game, and a roleplayer will give appropriate flaws to a character even in a high-powered game.
Besides, you are also combining high-powered campaigns with hard-edged professional ones. Some people do play ultra-tough characters who are also very tactically cunning. But there are also a lot of ultra-tough characters who couldn't go to McHughes for a soyburger without it turning into a bloodbath.
And most characters will be flawed - they will either be less than optimal in their specialty, or lacking in other areas. And nearly everyone seems to take at least some points in negative qualities. Given the limits of SR4 char-gen, most characters will have plenty of flaws, on the build point level.
As far as flaws in the character background, that depends more on the player than on the power level of the game. A min-maxer won't suddenly make a character with glaring weaknesses in a low-powered game, and a roleplayer will give appropriate flaws to a character even in a high-powered game.
What is "Street"? What is "Epic"?
This is Shadowrun. It does not matter your origins, when all is said and done you are a deniable assett. You could be working for the Emperor Yasuhito in Neo-Tokyo doing things that he cannot openly dirty his hands on, or be a "prime runner" in Seattle getting all the good jobs. Either way, though, you are just one betrayal away from being sold for scrap or being chopped up by an Organ-legger for Ghoul Chow. It does not matter how big you get, there is always someone bigger. And that is the thing to always remember: The higher the climb, the harder the fall.
Basicly: no matter what the "level" of the game, you are still someone's pawn in a much larger game that even YOU d not necessarily even know is being played. Even your Johnson is a pawn. In fact, I would generally go so far as to say that even the Corp CEOs and the Corp Court are just pawns. I tend to think that the Great Dragons are teh REAL movers and shakers, and that EVERYTHING is just a pawn in their games.
This is Shadowrun. It does not matter your origins, when all is said and done you are a deniable assett. You could be working for the Emperor Yasuhito in Neo-Tokyo doing things that he cannot openly dirty his hands on, or be a "prime runner" in Seattle getting all the good jobs. Either way, though, you are just one betrayal away from being sold for scrap or being chopped up by an Organ-legger for Ghoul Chow. It does not matter how big you get, there is always someone bigger. And that is the thing to always remember: The higher the climb, the harder the fall.
Basicly: no matter what the "level" of the game, you are still someone's pawn in a much larger game that even YOU d not necessarily even know is being played. Even your Johnson is a pawn. In fact, I would generally go so far as to say that even the Corp CEOs and the Corp Court are just pawns. I tend to think that the Great Dragons are teh REAL movers and shakers, and that EVERYTHING is just a pawn in their games.
What I like is how many people expressed that they want to be in "the middle" - neither too big nor too small. Of course, on close examination I am virtually positive that one man't too big is another's too small. Everyone likes their personal preferences, and things which are bigger or smaller than their preferences are not their favorites.
Everyone's favorite games fall in the middle of what it is that they like the most. It's axiomatic and unhelpful.
-Frank
Everyone's favorite games fall in the middle of what it is that they like the most. It's axiomatic and unhelpful.
-Frank
| QUOTE |
| I am by no means saying that character has to be "gimped" in terms of game mechanics. I mean to use the term "character flaw" in the literary sense, as in "internal conflict". I personally just don't enjoy roleplaying characters that are so "professional" that they never make mistakes, or always know the proper course of action, or never get anxious or afraid about the prospect of failure, etc, etc. As you said, SR is supposed to portray "a world on the grittier, darker, more realistic side of things" and I think imperfect characters define "gritty" |
The problem is that characters don't help make a game gritty. Players do. Roleplaying is up to the player, not the collection of numbers that define a character's abilities.
This is why I object to "street level" campaigns so much; it's not a vehicle for better roleplay. What makes a game street or epic (or both) is the shared vision of the GM and character players.
| QUOTE (Method @ Jan 15 2008, 11:24 PM) |
| I'm not saying things like "political intrigue" and "sweeping world events" don't have a place in SR. I just don't think they make good motivators for a character. |
???
Glyph: At what point did I say the two were mutually exclusive?
My goal was to give one (perfectly valid) reason why some prefer "street level" campaigns- i.e. because in a lot of ways its easier to relate to your character and really explore what its like to live in the dark gritty world of SR as it is presented.
Thats really all I am saying. Really. Thats all.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| The problem is that characters don't help make a game gritty. Players do. Roleplaying is up to the player, not the collection of numbers that define a character's abilities. This is why I object to "street level" campaigns so much; it's not a vehicle for better roleplay. What makes a game street or epic (or both) is the shared vision of the GM and character players. |
I think in a lot of ways we agree, but we are coming at it from two different angles.
Nothing I am talking about can be found as a number on a sheet. Its about how the player relates to the character and explores the world they live in.
And to be perfectly clear, I have nothing against "epic" or "street" or "epic-street". I've played in, GMed and enjoyed all of the above.
And then Goldilocks played in the 200 BP campaign, in which the PCs could rarely walk a kilometer without getting threatened by cops or rival gangers or corpsec, any of which might frag them with ease, and the sammie with the AK-97 was saving up for a FN HAR, and it was Too Small. For her.
And then Goldilocks played in the 400 BP+100 Karma campaign, in which the pornomancer routinely persuaded guards to shoot themselves after handing over the passwords, and the mage routinely tossed Force 20 Stunballs, and the sammie would split dicepools while two-gunning her prototype burst-fire electrolaser pistols (with -12 to bypass full body armor) for MASSIVE BATTLE DAMAGE on multiple targets, and they kept the head of Lofwyr in the trophy case next to the Wand of Orcus... and it was Too Big. For her.
And then Goldilocks came to the Buddha, who advised her that to follow the Middle Way, and she found that ending each game session with "So, what was fun and what should we do differently next time?" might be a useful practice for fine-tuning a campaign that was Just Right. For her.
And then Goldilocks played in the 400 BP+100 Karma campaign, in which the pornomancer routinely persuaded guards to shoot themselves after handing over the passwords, and the mage routinely tossed Force 20 Stunballs, and the sammie would split dicepools while two-gunning her prototype burst-fire electrolaser pistols (with -12 to bypass full body armor) for MASSIVE BATTLE DAMAGE on multiple targets, and they kept the head of Lofwyr in the trophy case next to the Wand of Orcus... and it was Too Big. For her.
And then Goldilocks came to the Buddha, who advised her that to follow the Middle Way, and she found that ending each game session with "So, what was fun and what should we do differently next time?" might be a useful practice for fine-tuning a campaign that was Just Right. For her.
| QUOTE (Riley37) |
| And then Goldilocks played in the 400 BP+100 Karma campaign, in which the pornomancer routinely persuaded guards to shoot themselves after handing over the passwords, and the mage routinely tossed Force 20 Stunballs ... |
I would love to see an example of a 400BP + 100 Karma Mage that can come anywhere near casting a Force 20 anything ... even once, let alone routinely.
Max. natural magic is 8 (or 9 if 100 karma are a loose guidline), so "anywhere close" should be force 16 (no main book here right now, might use a power focus for the rest).
Taking drain: Willpower+Logic on an elf. Some softcap of 13 dice for drain. Add a spell category focus, the best you can get. "Safe" drain capacity of 6-7, more if drain is accepted. Force 16 has a base drain of 8, so many a spell is doable.
Yet, we are a far shot from force 20.
(@Riley37: I got the point you where trying to make, this is just to show where 400 BP+some karma can end)
Taking drain: Willpower+Logic on an elf. Some softcap of 13 dice for drain. Add a spell category focus, the best you can get. "Safe" drain capacity of 6-7, more if drain is accepted. Force 16 has a base drain of 8, so many a spell is doable.
Yet, we are a far shot from force 20.
(@Riley37: I got the point you where trying to make, this is just to show where 400 BP+some karma can end)
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| What I like is how many people expressed that they want to be in "the middle" - neither too big nor too small. Of course, on close examination I am virtually positive that one man't too big is another's too small. Everyone likes their personal preferences, and things which are bigger or smaller than their preferences are not their favorites. Everyone's favorite games fall in the middle of what it is that they like the most. It's axiomatic and unhelpful. -Frank |
Hmm...so whats middle to me...
Number-wise, 400-450 BPs. up to but under 500 isn't still too powerful...500+ is where you can basically make anything you want practically and never worry about points.350-400 is sorta ''lower class'', i guess you can say, under 350 and you start getting more to street level.
Availability wise, well..we never use it, but if we did...arg, i dont even know the ratings well enough to say. But id probably go by gear...i could see a low end ganger with a stolen, low end battered commlink and yeah, even a heavy pistol(they arent that expensive and they are plentiful enough), but anything over an SMG might be more difficult to get(save for the classic sawed off or something). Bats, knives, the like would be abound. Basically, anything that would be easy to get. But to us, availability just gets in the way of fun by adding micromanaging to worry about, so we ditch it. And our game's havn't suffered unbalance at all, making me believe it's a highly opitional rule. (
Character flaws...well, ALL characters can have them. You could easily play a 2 dimentional gutterpunk with no flaws whatsoever. And you could play a heavily 3-d superassassin with lots of backstory. Game level has NOTHING to do with this, IMO.
Basically...i guess middle ground(power level) means to me ''professional characters with experience who still have to face bigger sharks out there, but aren't being ground into the dirt every five seconds'' if that makes any sense.
Of course, one could play a high-powered but still street level campaign. Again, street can be a description, not a power level. It just seems that gimped characters come along with the street territory in alot of people's eyes in my experience.
See, high level campaigns, IMO; come with an almost similar flaw to low level. The characters, rather than being wimps dragged around...are so powerful that a LOT of people are gunning for them. You get little rest in a high-power, like you get little rest in a low power. And when you're rolling 24+ dice for stuff, and the enemies are rolling 24+ dice, people die fast, and alot, and on both sides. GMs also tend to be less forgiving in a high level campaign than a low level(this is a slight peeve i have, to be honest....its like the GM is punishing the people for wanting to play something slick and pro, and rewarding them for playing gutterpunks, and i don't believe in that because neither is good or bad behaviour Matching the power level to the PCs is natural and expected...punishing is not.).
But in high level campaigns...they ARE naturally dangerous. When you are dealing with high level enemies, no matter how good you are, there will be trouble. And im not talking GDs and IE's at every corner, im talking about people with as many, or more resources than them, lots of contacts, and the like. Sure, for high level, if you want to challenge PCs, you need to send people after them that may end up waxing them...or the other way around. PCs on the other hand can wax most of the book characters of professional rating 3 and under.
Again, there is something to balance. Now, starting as a pro but still refining skills and working up to that high level mark is alot of fun for me, but the longer im in the middle, the longer i tend to be more interested. (many times, the high level plotlines end up losing my interest after a long while.)
I dunno. maybe im just different in my tastes than alot of folks.
| QUOTE (Ryu) |
| ... might use a power focus for the rest ... |
Power Foci don't add to Force (or Magic rating) in any way. Only to the Dice Pool of tests that involve the Magic Attribute.
| QUOTE |
| Yet, we are a far shot from force 20. |
Which was my point.
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| In some ways I have seen a just as much if not more min-maxing in low power games as players try to compensate for the smaller pool of of BPs. |
I'm guilty of this. The less points you give me, the more I min-max. Unless you flat out give me a character sheet to play, I'm going to try and create the character I want to play. Unfortunately skills are expensive, I hate one trick ponies, love Awakened characters and I avoid paying bps for dice totals that don't escape the "Why did you even bother?" threshold of below 6. It's really a rather bad combo of traits for low powered games. On the other hand, give me enough points to do whatever my character's particular shtick is rather well and I start tossing around the rest of the points without bothering with things like also trying to stick in a ridiculous initiative pool.
I share those traits. Most runners should have athletics and influence, but if you are forced to start with charisma 2, about the only level of influence that will accomplish something is 4. The thing I hate most about the difference between cost systems for chargen and later improvement is that it rewards the min/maxing part of my soul. The less BP i have, the more important it gets to "earn" some points back, to sooner reach an acceptable level of skill. Once I have what I deem necessary (the second IP is not among those things), I broaden the skillset.
| QUOTE (Method) |
| So I guess in a long winded sort of way, I'm saying exactly the opposite. I think its much harder to RP an epic character well... |
...Gracie (#97) my Met2000 Merc (3rd ed) in a High Power campaign was a lot of fun to roleplay. As a combatant she was scary, able to hold her ground going full lead hose with her Alpha (Dwarf with a 12 Strength). Yeah she was min maxed like hell because the GM wanted over the top characters.
However, she also had a couple very nice character flaws. For one she was an orphan so she had a soft spot for stray and abandoned kids. She would take issue with anyone who she saw mistreating a child and then take the poor kid to somewhere safe. These were not even "point generating" flaws just a part of the character's personality.
One of her contacts (a buddy level) was a Mother Superior in charge of an orphanage. Not much in the way of legwork help but still an important facet of the character's background. Gracie would also donate a good portion of her receipts to the orphanage and other various children's related causes and check in on the kids she saved to make sure they went to good families.
She was a professional in her job (again her MET2000 background), but not a blood thirsty shoot anything that moves killing machine. She also had an uncanny wit which frequently was a source of humor for the group.
[edit]
...I'll get to epic level campaigns. political intrigue, and "sweeping world events" a little later as I have to clock in for work.
I tend to like my games to start just below what I'd consider the first real goal for my character. This go's for any system I play. I like to start off with enough power that I'm not gimped, and I like to be able to achieve that goal in a decent amount of time. This gives my character some time to become fleshed out and makes the first real goal so much sweeter when it's accomplished.
It's one thing to say, "oh, that tricked out combat drone, I spent years designing and building it", and actually playing the character when he's short a few k nuyen for the last few parts he needs for it.
But once I've got a character all built, and feel attached to him, I like to see him progress more into what people would consider "epic" game play. Now that he's all grown up and can cast force 20 fireballs (or whatever) I want him to play with the big boys. And once he's done something suitably epic it's time to start the cycle again.
| QUOTE (Whipstitch) | ||
I'm guilty of this. The less points you give me, the more I min-max. Unless you flat out give me a character sheet to play, I'm going to try and create the character I want to play. Unfortunately skills are expensive, I hate one trick ponies, love Awakened characters and I avoid paying bps for dice totals that don't escape the "Why did you even bother?" threshold of below 6. It's really a rather bad combo of traits for low powered games. On the other hand, give me enough points to do whatever my character's particular shtick is rather well and I start tossing around the rest of the points without bothering with things like also trying to stick in a ridiculous initiative pool. |
Yep....same here. Im not against some minmaxing...i think most of us have done/do it to an extent. (im not talking about minmaxing to all hell...just a little here and there to tweak up).
But if i only have 300 BPs, ill be minmaxing, yes. If it's done in the one suggested way ive read(cap resources lower...say 25,000 or 50,000, limit the gear to only stuff gangers might get, but allow 200 for Attributes), ill definately be soaking up 200 for Attributes...and try like hell to tweak the skills to get decent dicepools. No, i don't need to roll 27 dice...but even in a low level campaign, id like 6-10. Like you say, under 6 and it begins to get hairy(ive pulled some lucky successes with lesser dice, but its not often.)
And yeah, KK, reminded me i have a merc character ive played in a high power weekend shot involving undead(zombie hosing with large guns), big scary stuff, and the like. It was fun, i admit. Now and then it's great, but i couldn't play entire long campaigns like that. My character in the high power was a huge human merc from Poland who looked like a death metal singer, had a 12 augmented Strength since we allowed augmentations to go past the natural modified limits, titanium bone lacing, a level of wired reflexes and a HMG which the GM ruled, after seeing his stats, he could man-port around and go FA with no modifers. We used the Strength lowers Recoil rule in Fields of Fire. He had personality quirks, had his headphones with him to psyche himself up with his death metal before going on a bang-bang mission, and enjoyed telling bad jokes to keep the team's spirits up. Definately wasn't someone i could play all the time, but he's still around, and for those ''huge gun'' weekend one-shots we do every so often, it's a literal blast. (SR4 rules could not begin to convert this guy, however, so he lives on in SR3.) Small tangent, i apologize, but had to make a point that again, any style can be fun with the right GM.
| QUOTE (Riley37) |
| And then Goldilocks played in the 200 BP campaign, in which the PCs could rarely walk a kilometer without getting threatened by cops or rival gangers or corpsec, any of which might frag them with ease, and the sammie with the AK-97 was saving up for a FN HAR, and it was Too Small. For her. And then Goldilocks played in the 400 BP+100 Karma campaign, in which the pornomancer routinely persuaded guards to shoot themselves after handing over the passwords, and the mage routinely tossed Force 20 Stunballs, and the sammie would split dicepools while two-gunning her prototype burst-fire electrolaser pistols (with -12 to bypass full body armor) for MASSIVE BATTLE DAMAGE on multiple targets, and they kept the head of Lofwyr in the trophy case next to the Wand of Orcus... and it was Too Big. For her. And then Goldilocks came to the Buddha, who advised her that to follow the Middle Way, and she found that ending each game session with "So, what was fun and what should we do differently next time?" might be a useful practice for fine-tuning a campaign that was Just Right. For her. |
And then Goldilocks got eaten by three angry piasma.
Do not, under any circumstances, take the advise of a slitch who got herself eaten by mutant bears.
Ah thats just it though, playing with lower dicepools doesn't mean limiting Build Points, but then again I like broad characters over specialists. (Of course I also prefer playing with a small group of people over a large one, so generalists don't tend to step on each other's toes as much as they might with a larger group.)
Playing "street" doesn't necessarily mean the characters are screwed. Just because you started with 200 BP doesn't mean you can "barely walk a kilometer" without being threatened by a cop. Street, epic, or other, opposition levels should always match the PCs, be it through quality, quantity, or a reasonable combination of the two. The street campaign I was in for years had me starting without a gun. But at the same time, because I was unarmed, not many people saw the need to draw a gun on me. Even if they had a sidearm, or even an SMG or assault rifle, that didn't mean they saw the need to gun down some punk that was giving them the finger.
That cuts both ways, too, I bet. If I were playing an epic game, I'd be upset if everything I shot at died twice. Great Dragons would be a little extreme, even for an epic campaign, but if I had the jam to use a missile launcher uber-competently, the helicopters I'm shooting it at should have uber-competent riggers controlling them (assuming that they're the real meat of the session, and not just garnish for a real fight later on).
Oh, and Fortune: I'm not saying it was plausible that Aztechnologies fell in the more epic campaign I was in; we were just all in a mood to play mercenaries in the remnants of Aztlan. I triple dare anyone to come up with a better reason for anything at all to happen in SR
That cuts both ways, too, I bet. If I were playing an epic game, I'd be upset if everything I shot at died twice. Great Dragons would be a little extreme, even for an epic campaign, but if I had the jam to use a missile launcher uber-competently, the helicopters I'm shooting it at should have uber-competent riggers controlling them (assuming that they're the real meat of the session, and not just garnish for a real fight later on).
Oh, and Fortune: I'm not saying it was plausible that Aztechnologies fell in the more epic campaign I was in; we were just all in a mood to play mercenaries in the remnants of Aztlan. I triple dare anyone to come up with a better reason for anything at all to happen in SR
| QUOTE (CircuitBoyBlue) |
| I'm not saying it was plausible that Aztechnologies fell in the more epic campaign I was in; we were just all in a mood to play mercenaries in the remnants of Aztlan. |
Fair enough.
...@CBB excellent points. Particularly about the threat level. The low power campaign I was in again dealt pretty much with goons and other runner types who were just a slight cut above the PCs. As we earned more Karma the threat level increased, enough to keep us on our toes but not overwhelming. And this was not only done with increasing an individual NPC's power but also by sending a greater number of foes against us. 7 - 8 Yak goons armed with SMGs who don't all stand in a nice tight group so your team's mage can take them out with a single stunball (and who actually use tactics) can still make for a rough encounter.
...@Ravor. A lot of my 400 BP characters tend to be around the 9 - 11 DP range in their main skill areas with a primary skill pool around 13. My Matrix Specialist Violet (#98) does have 15 dice in her general Hacking skill when running in hot mode but we also use the old rule of holding out dice to suppress IC (which she tends to do a lot so as not to trigger an alert). Even the re-engineered KK (#99) is in the 11 - 13 dice range with her combat abilities. Both characters have been able hold their own in their chosen specialties pretty well.
...@Ravor. A lot of my 400 BP characters tend to be around the 9 - 11 DP range in their main skill areas with a primary skill pool around 13. My Matrix Specialist Violet (#98) does have 15 dice in her general Hacking skill when running in hot mode but we also use the old rule of holding out dice to suppress IC (which she tends to do a lot so as not to trigger an alert). Even the re-engineered KK (#99) is in the 11 - 13 dice range with her combat abilities. Both characters have been able hold their own in their chosen specialties pretty well.
| QUOTE (Method) |
| Glyph: At what point did I say the two were mutually exclusive? My goal was to give one (perfectly valid) reason why some prefer "street level" campaigns- i.e. because in a lot of ways its easier to relate to your character and really explore what its like to live in the dark gritty world of SR as it is presented. Thats really all I am saying. Really. Thats all. |
I wasn't saying that anyone was making them mutually exclusive. I was commenting on the fact that most of the posters were contrasting "street level" games with "epic" games, and I was pointing out that there are games in the middle, too. I guess it's natural to contrast something with the other extreme, but not playing "street" doesn't automatically mean you're toppling megacorporations.
I have played, and enjoyed, street level games as well. But such games are best for mature players who have already explored the normal options in the game, and want to try something different. As several posts have already indicated, forcing weakened char-gen rules on the players does not automatically result in better roleplaying.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.