I think Grinder's point is that his NPCs have the stats that would be logical for that particular NPC. The missions can be tailored to the players, but a mall security guard shouldn't have pistols: 6 because the group is tough, nor should the Ares Firewatch team have pistols: 3 because the group isn't very combat-oriented. That's not to say you can't have the occasional ringer, but I like the idea of a game world that operates by its own internal consistency, rather than adjusting itself to the PCs. Like I said, that part can be done by what kinds of missions they get offered.

While the archetypes are far from optimal, they are (with a few exceptions, such as the bounty hunter) at least functional. Within a limited pool of BP, every character has advantages and disadvantages. The pornomancer, even if you adjust it to make it a more useful face (rather than a seducer), has disadvantages - few contacts, very memorable. Maybe the pornomancer can always get the Johnson to pay the maximum amount that he is authorized to, and can fast-talk the group past some situations. But a more traditional face, an inobtrusive social chameleon with a virtual Rolodex full of useful contacts, might wind up being far more effective, even throwing half or less of the dice.

This.

And yeah, home games. I don't attend conventions and never played in any Missions-game.

And what if your players asked that you rather did? I get not wanting to use them and keep everything open. I'm always open to that at my tables, but if the players want something and its rather trivial to me, then they are going to get what they want.

There's a part of me that thinks if you are just going to set your encounters in motion and not deviate at all, not take advantage of the ebb and flow of the encounter and tweak it for maximum fun, then you are limiting your game slightly.

Well, clearly. I don't think anyone is saying that mallcops should have their stats incoherently boosted. That's kind of irrelevant, unless we haven't already agreed that crazy manipulation is bad GMing.

But should the cook have unarmed combat 5, and pistols 6, and dodge 5

Only if that cook is Steven Seagal

He's a Prime Runner with Day Job, it's fine.

Yeah, I can see why someone might call that "blatant cheating".

I tend to think of "acceptable" GM meta-gaming as just adjusting for loopholes that the GM didn't anticipate, but really shouldn't logically be there.

Like, there's no good reason a security guard wouldn't have a radio to call for backup. So if I've forgotten to write it down in the guard's inventory, I don't feel it's a "bad" thing to just assume he actually has one.



-karma

Exactly. It would be *wrong* to play the guard without his radio, unless the PCs have pickpocketed it or something.

Wait you actually write down your npc's inventory?

I don't really, but it's just an example. Earlier, we had the example of a high-security facility 'forgetting' to plan for tunneling attacks. Given that the facility *would* have done so, it's not metagaming for the GM to go, 'whoops!' and respond to the PCs' plan.

Adding a few feet of reinforced concrete is one thing. Adding a bunch of tunneling drones, sensors, and underground spirits is another, especially if it's designed to force the PC's to shoot their way in through the front door. One's realistic, the other is cheating.

Right. Again, no one's suggesting that. (I believe the phrase was 'instantly neutralizing'?)

Depending on the level of paranoia and how valuable the facility is, I'm not sure. Those are the situations where I as GM might roll a dies (1 bad for the PC's and 6 is very good). I'm not a security design specialist, but I can assume the guy in charge of/designing security is.

That's true. If it's a super-max prison or something, then yeah. The point is that any measures should be appropriate; that is, the PCs should reasonably be able to expect what they're up against (unless their being surprised is a plot point, in which case it's reasonable in *retrospect*).

I'm willing to suggest it.

The problem is, the whole scenario is vague. Now I don't know what the official write up is for the underground defenses of the MDC building in Manhattan. (Missions). However, if there isn't one and all the GM puts in front of me is "a few feet of reinforced concrete", I'm going to be looking at the GM and saying "WTF? That's it? That's the only thing keeping us from pwning the MDC?"

The prep work a GM does is on the things the PCs can be expected to do.
If the PCs insist on doing the unexpected, they will encounter things outside the prepared work.
Demanding that the unexpected be weaker than the prep work means that the players can metagame by simply doing the unexpected, and thereby bypassing all prepped defenses.
Calling the GM a cheater and insisting that doing the unexpected means the party gets a free ride can also be considered metagaming. It's deliberately trying to avoid prepared material for an easier run.

On the MDC example, I'd think that entire city has pretty good seismic detectors by then, and digging is gonna set something off along those lines.

At that though, all we're doing is arguing degrees of the same thing. To what degree you take that will depend on your table and level of challenge you want to give them.

To a point. As was said, if you're trying to 'proactively neutralize' to direct them into what opposition you want to array against them (fight through the front gate rather than tunnel under, float over, cut the fence at the back, talk your way in, etc.) then we've hit that 'metagaming' wall.

Meh, I'm much more likely to secretly shift my building interior plan (on the rare occasion that I have one) 90 degrees to the side It's no difference in principle than making them go in the front, but it maintains the illusion of choice =)

Not really. The line is pretty simple to see. If you're more interested in preserving your adventure than you are about providing a good game, you've crossed the line. Challenge level doesn't even enter into it.

As for the MDC building, expecting dirt and discovering reinforced concrete alone could be a caper-breaker. Suoq, I take it you're not familiar with construction work? I've got some going out just outside my window. It takes a week to penetrate a few inches of asphalt.

Edit: I don't believe in the illusion of choice, I believe in actual choice. The player's actions actually mean something, that way/.

Shrug - going in the side or going in the front is not a meaningful choice to me. Unless they've spent time tracking down blueprints to look for optimal ways in, etc, then it becomes meaningful. As I mentioned, I rarely pre-plan details; I have a general idea of encounters, that they may then make meaningful choices on how to handle. My GMing has nothing to do with preserving the adventure except as it pertains to having a good game. I save my creative juices for when things really go off rails, and say the party decides to kill the Johnson and take the swag

I'm not saying that it's always best to ignore the players actions, but you should only make significant changes when you have to, in response to real decisions. But you should never let the players know that. THe more experience you have as a GM, the better you can pull this off. It took me probably 10 years before I switched to my freestyle method. I suspect that if you sat down to play at my table, you might even enjoy it, since I pretty much let the players do whatever they want, and then I mold whatever scraps of a plan I have to that^^ I am curious though, what style of play does your GM have that has you so worked up about this?

I don't know (or at leased I cant recall) Cain's problem GM specifically but I do know a couple GMs just like what hes describing and I do know from first hand experience Cain tends to know the rules pretty well and tends to build amazingly competent characters. He just thinks about the numbers and can see the patterns more than I can. I've seen a half dozen guys over the years be really good at this. To the extreme example where a guy built a -25 pt GUPRS character that was more powerful than our 200 pt character in EVERY way (The 200pt character was build from concept rather than to min/max). Cain is one of these guys who can just do that without even really thinking about it, then enter in some of the crappy GMs I have seen over the years and you have the recipe for what he describes where Cain making an effective character is a personal attack on the GM (well at leased in the GMs mind) so hes going to screw the party! Its stupid but it happens and I have been in two groups where the GM did that and I left, never to game with that GM again cus its not fun for anyone, even us non min/maxers (though I have min/maxed from time to time)

[edit] for myself I have to say every GM I have gamed under except one I have felt penalized if I didn't min/max because they were soo stingy with their XP I couldn't catch up to the min/maxers.

Wow, they must be pretty lazy... I have seen entire roads demolished in a single day... it all depends upon what the end result is going to be... If they are re-using the pulled up asphalt to re-cover the road, it will take much longer than ripping it up and just removing it. After all, A breaching charge is simplicity itself to construct.

To add to what Tete has to say, I've played with dozens of GM's over the years. I started gaming about thirty years ago or so, so I've seen them all. Just recently, I'm playing with a guy who likes to have his god-GMPC's show up and railroad us throughout the adventure. In a Rifts game with Wing Commander elements, he had a kilrathi soldier receive a direct order from the emperor to force him to come along. I know a different GM who was kicked out of three different gaming groups because of his rules-lawyering and specific thought that the PC's should never be smarter or more motivated than the NPC's. And neither of them are as bad as the worst GM I know, who was me about twenty years ago, before I discovered Shadowrun.

That's really unfortunate =/ It just seems to me that Cain thinks the ideal GM A. has everything completely statted and planned out ahead of time, and B. is ready for his players to go any direction, and since change must be meanful, completely alter whatever he was going to do. Of course, in order to still fulfill A. needs to have literally everything prepared. Of course, this is impossible, and to be clear, I don't think that's actually what Cain is advocating, so I'm trying to get a line on what he's actually saying.

I mean, if it's just "GMs shouldn't be dicks", I think we covered that a while back^^ And yes, that line is very clear. But when we get where the GM is tying to make things as fun as possible, what's considered "wrong" is a heck of a lot blurrier, and that's what I'm talking about when I say up to individual table and challenge level.

Hmm, I wonder if we should start a new thread for Horror GM stories^^ I have a few doozies, especially from when I first started playing. Seriously though, I do feel your pain; I GM because I hate that kind of thing. The former GM of one of my groups was the most heavy handed railroader I've ever heard of. The last adventure he ran for us, within 10 minutes of starting we stumbled across the Legendary Lost Armory of Somethingorother, where the necromancer found a staff that automatically summoned up a Legendary Death Knight Warrior, my elf ranger found a gourd of sentient sand* that made me invulnerable and also automatically attacked my enemies for me, the barbarian had some axe whose former owner possessed the bearer, etc.

From then on, the GM basically played our characters - the way out had been blocked by falling stone, and there was only one way forward. So, the rest of the night we got to listen as he told us how our awesome gear was slaying armies, and eventually gods, and every 5 minutes we got to roll a d20...

So, you can see why challenging my players is kind of a big thing for me^^




*why yes, he had just watched Naruto, why do you ask?

It's more than that, although certainly a good GM should be well-prepared. I think a good GM needs to be very flexible, though. If the players want to dump everything and go ghoul hunting, then you need to run with it and think about ways of building a plot later. If the players suddenly take a tactic that you weren't prepared for, then you need to roll with it instead of obstructing it. And if they do something that derails your story, you need to go with it. You can always rebuild the story later. I think a GM needs to be fast on his feet and ready to flow like water, as opposed to having everything statted out.


Challenging the players is a good thing. But if the players bypass your challenges, that's your issue, and cheating won't help you. If it's a rule, fix it openly and honestly, with player input. If it's a tactic, let it work once, then tell them that future enemies will be prepared for it.

Just this Sunday, we had a problem where my character proved to be too powerful. So, we stopped for a moment, discussed the problem, and came up with a fix for it. Easy, fair, no cheating or metagaming involved.

I keep seeing the word "need".

I think that's the sticking point here.

Most of the folks posting here seem to regard your method of GMing as ONE way of doing it, just like they think their varying methods are also ONE way of doing it.

You're the only one who's been basically asserting that your method is the ONLY valid way of GMing, and all other methods are bad or wrong in some way.

This seems ironic seeing as you keep extolling the virtues of flexibility.



-karma

Being flexible-- the one true way!

There's no need to let a tactic work even once if that's not appropriate and/or fun for the game. You're not shackled to these laws.

If it's not fun for the players, then why'd they try it in the first place?

Usually when a GM says something is no fun, they mean no fun for the GM.

It is important to note that the GM has to have fun too. In fact, it is even more important for the GM to have fun than the players. After all, he's the one doing all the work. Players are replaceable. Anybody can be a player, heh.

The GM is a Player too...

As I said, 'fun for the game'. As a whole.

Or no fun for the other players - remember, the goal is not players vs GM - and that runs both ways.

Players can certainly ruin things for other players too; it's still part of the GM's job to make sure that doesn't happen.

Tue, which is why I sad "usually". If one thing in one game is no fun for one player, I think the advice here would be: "Suck it up". If the GM is basically satisfied with a campaign except the players come up with a tactic to bypass his fiendish final challenge, then he needs to move on.

Certainly, there are a lot of GM's who are more concerned about their fun than their player's. I think we've all encountered a few.

Heh, having some friends and family in construction, there's a reason why some tasks appear to take so long.

Still the point is valid, running into something that has an underground bunker or complex you weren't expecting can be problematic. In the days of magic and magical earthquakes, and possible pissed off earth elementals, it may be more likely to run into 'earthquake proofed' buildings even in regions that aren't known for such activity. Heck, some facilities may be hardened for fear of cruise missile strikes and stuff.

Just like npcs can have a professional rating scale, so can the challenge ratings of facilities. At the upper end of the scale you can just sorta 'roll with it' and make up stuff on the fly. Lower tier stuff should also be more static and less overkill, unless its one of those twist things of you THINK its a rating 3 minor facility, oops sorry its ACTUALLY a rating 6 secret death-lab.

Agreed. The point is that you're not 'cheating' to win, you're realistically 'playing' the scenario. If you (the GM) didn't think of some realistic details ahead of time, that's no reason to hamstring yourself 'on principle' and ruin the scenario for everyone.

That's the difference in a nutshell. Suoq maintains that it's perfectly fair to pop railroad-quality barriers if the players come up with something you don't think of. I say it's only fair when you keep proportional response in mind. So, while I might add a few meters of reinforced concrete as a deterrent to digging attempts, I wouldn't throw in burrowing drones, nanite-reinforced walls, monowire, and enough seismic sensors to pick up someone sneezing.

I'm not entirely sure I'm understanding your question here. Do you mean what would I do if my players wanted me to use a GM screen? I haven't used one since 1e ADnD and most of my long time players know why and either agree with my reasoning, understand it, or just don't care one way or the other.

I plan for scenes/encounters only in so far as who or what the PCs might encounter and the relative strengths of the encounter, but I usually don't waste my time trying to anticipate how the PCs will overcome it. I do look over the character sheets and plan for ways I can incorporate specific uses for particular skills during each adventure so that I can ensure each PC has a chance to shine and to make sure no single character hogs the spotlight.

Far too often the PCs manage to surprise me with a clever plan and while I do adjust minor things to account for their plan, I would never arbitrarily increase the relative strength of the encounter because the group's plan will make things easier than I had anticipated. I also would never arbitrarily change the tactics of the opposition solely to thwart a clever plan. Both as a player and a GM I feel that seeing a clever plan well executed is its own reward. As a player, I don't mind if during the course of the adventure a situation crops up that the original plan hadn't accounted for so long as it fits the situation logically. Its often painfully obvious when a GM arbitrarily adds elements that are out of place in a situation in some sort of last minute attempt to keep the group sufficiently "challenged". I think that is a poor tactic and one I would never employ as a GM.

Just as players can learn from past failures in their planning and hopefully do a better job the next time, so too should the GM be willing to allow a particularly clever plan to play out naturally even if that means a cakewalk for the players. Then they (the GM and the NPCs) can learn from the encounter and hopefully do a better job the next time. A legitimate challenge is fun, but an artificial challenge, IMO, is not. For me it is usually quite obvious based on a situation, which one the GM is employing.

One thing I've seen mentioned (either in this thread or another I can't recall and am too lazy to search for it) is the idea that security personnel might occasionally share information in regard to common Runner tactics. I agree that this idea is quite possible and even likely, but unfortunately my players know better than to use the same tactics repeatedly. The other side of that equation is that Runners often do share info on common Security tactics and those don't often deviate a great deal from one day to the next. Over time sure, Security my learn to utilize new and better tactics, but in the short term they tend to be rather predictable which can and should make things a bit easier for the PCs who do their homework. This, of course, is dependant on the relative Professional Rating of the Security so that the Red Samurai security of Renraku will have a great deal more leeway in their deviation from standard tactics and procedures than say, the local mall rent-a-cops.

Its sad, but I've actually been in games and seen firsthand GMs use exactly those types of heavy-handed tactics. Usually after the first time it happens is when I start looking for a new game.

A good GM metagames all the time in order to provide the players with whatever is necessary to entertain them.

Yes, that might mean being flexible, or it might mean sticking rigidly to the written plot. It might mean masses of careful planning, or it might mean creating the whole story as you go along.

Since what entertains players is entirely down to their personal and group preference, pretending that there is a universal right or wrong way to GM is rather foolish.

EG: I would hate to play in a game where the GM was actively out to "get" my character but judging by Gary Gygax's former popularity as a GM many players disagree, so who am I to say he was "wrong" to treat every game as a "me vs them" challenge - as long as they were enjoying it.

So to reiterate - a GM should metagame as much as he needs to to provide the form of entertainment that the players want.

I think what we need is a definition of terms. Metagaming is always bad by my terminology, but that is because metagaming is characters knowing what the player or GM does about a situation without reason. Outside knowledge and so forth. It should never come up. Changing things, moving an important situation that they would have missed to another location or the like, is a different matter entirely.

A GM should keep in mind what NPCs know about a situation.

But you don't want proportional response. If the GM didn't write it down, you want a WEAKER response because "he didn't think of it". You want what amounts to a free pass for being random and bizarre. That's not proportional at all.

If the notes say that the 3 weakest points of security are A, B,and C. No one in their right mind is going to bother detailing option Q because it's a waste of their prep time. I don't care if you think that's their job as GM. Everyone has far better things to do than prep every possible option. There's simply too many possible options.

If the players do the recon they learn about A B and C. What they do with that knowledge is up to them, but those are the weaknesses in the security.
If they insist on not doing any recon and just come up with something random, then that's their call.
But just doing something at random DOES NOT MAKE IT ANY EASIER. I don't care if you call it railroading or not. Doing something bizarre and out of the blue is not a free pass. It's a way to get the team killed because the players don't have an actual plan based on any information.

As an example, if the choice is "hit the target inside the MDC" and "hit the target outside the MDC", No one is going to detail all of MDC security in advance. They'll detail probable other locations. If the team insist on assaulting the MDC, they are going to die. That is NOT railroading. That is proportional response. The MDC is a "don't even think about it" building.

Being bizarre and random is going to get you killed at mirroshades tables. That isn't metagaming, cheating, or railroading. Trying to force a mirrorshade table into being a pink mohawk table by insults, accusations, and insistance that everyone else plays your way isn't going to fly with me. Why it flys with anyone else is something I don't understand.

Cain: You can play your way all you want, but your insistence that anyone else's way is wrong is getting old.

Try and think of it this way.
If your character can't die.
If you know your character can't die.
Is it ever really a challenge?

For some players, losing a character is the possible outcome of taking a risk. They don't know if they're going to succeed or not. They do know that intelligence, information gathering, planning, and following the plan now have a purpose. In short, the risk of losing a character forces them to think strategically.

For wargamers, this is a good thing. It's not for everyone, but for some it's a great part of the game.

The answer is, 'yes', it is still a challenge even if you can't die. Death is not necessary to 'think strategically' (also known as 'thinking').

A response proportional to the security of the building is perfectly reasonable. I also like the idea of a 'Challenge Rating' for buildings so one has a general idea of what to put together.

If I'm penetrating a Mitsuhama Zero Zone, then I'm going to expect those railroad barriers. If it's a Yak warehouse, I'm going to cry foul if I find the same thing. It's always about proportion.

I would actually say that this is the one case where metagaming would not be appropriate. If you find a group that really does enjoy an adversarial relationship with the GM, then you really do need to have as much planned out as possible, and if they find a weakness, well, that's their win. I've only run one adventure like that, where the GM boasted that "no one had made it past room 3" of his Flying Castle of Death; the only thing that made it tolerable was that things were clearly not being changed just to defeat our tactics. So it ended up, while not being my favorite session by any stretch of the imagination, at least kind of fun as a one time thing.

I don't understand why you would think challenge level doesn't even factor into a good game.

Every GM has some sort of idea of what type of a challenge a given scenario has. Whether the GM thinks about it before-hand or not, if asked, even if the GM is totally wrong, is going to say that a certain scenario should have been hard or easy.

Now, for a GM that doesn't think about those concepts at all and players that don't correlate the level of challenge to the amount of fun they have sitting around playing a game...I don't know. If you are playing a game, I have to believe challenge factors into the game being good...