Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: How can i make the GM do what i want?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Dwight
Oh, this.
QUOTE (Neurosis @ Sep 19 2010, 06:29 PM) *
I like to think that I haven't done anything to discourage my players from coming out and telling me what direction they want their characters to go in, dramatically. Of course, from the fact that I don't recall any of them directly telling me "I want my character to do/be x", I also like to think that I am correctly interpreting that kind of thing through their roleplaying.

You know, until I started demanding explicit answers I didn't get people offering up the info, either. But the difference made by better matching the challenges the players are really looking has been stunning. I'm convinced the players were never really even thinking of what they wanted, they were more like your post. "Well that's the GM's job, right? Not my problem."
Neurosis
This is totally about the idiosyncrasies of my group of players (they are, by and large, a shy and insecure bunch) but I think if I were to ask (let alone demand) "Where do you want your character to go from here, dramatically?" it would make them feel very uncomfortable.

At the very least, I think they might responds with something like "I don't know man, that's your job" (kind of wrong) or "If I know in advance OOG, doesn't that take away some of the fun of FOIG (Finding Out In Game)" (grain of truth).
Dwight
QUOTE (Neurosis @ Sep 19 2010, 09:49 PM) *
This is totally about the idiosyncrasies of my group of players (they are, by and large, a shy and insecure bunch) but I think if I were to ask (let alone demand) "Where do you want your character to go from here, dramatically?" it would make them feel very uncomfortable.

At the very least, I think they might responds with something like "I don't know man, that's your job" (kind of wrong) or "If I know in advance OOG, doesn't that take away some of the fun of FOIG (Finding Out In Game)" (grain of truth).

I'm big on FOIG, huge on it really. To the point that I rant and rave if someone tries to write a background and then bring it to the table, because that gets in the way of finding out in the game.

That's why I think the question "Where are you going to try to go", while only slightly different words, is a better tack. Better yet is "What do you assert this character believes and what will they accomplish, assertions that I will directly challenge with in-game obstacles?" Then get them to write these down in 2-4 separate short statements and treat them like an Oracle statements. The meaning of the literal words can change depending on what the situation is in the fiction at this point, sort of like the statements that horoscopes and cold readers give, or like the Macbeth prophecy of "no man of woman born". If both you and they drive hard towards/against these, and you rely on the dice to choose which person has their hand on the fiction wheel at a given moment, I guarantee nobody is going to know what's going to happen by the end of the session.

Not even the GM. smile.gif
Mongoose
Extra cleavage works in our group. Sucks for me (I'm the only non-GMing male).

Odd, because the group I play in consists of 6 people, in 3 married couples.
Neurosis
QUOTE (Mongoose @ Sep 20 2010, 12:17 AM) *
Extra cleavage works in our group. Sucks for me (I'm the only non-GMing male).

Odd, because the group I play in consists of 6 people, in 3 married couples.


This post is pretty win.

If my group is reading this, that would work for me too.
Daddy's Little Ninja
QUOTE (Machiavelli @ Sep 19 2010, 01:54 AM) *
Come on, you all try that.^^ Everybody of us has a vision of what your char. should become, which goals he should reach etc. But how (except of telling the GM what you want...which would crumble the "illusion" of the GM being "neutral" a little bít) do you make your GM to act in your wanted direction? Do you use inverted psychology, some nasty tricks like blackmail or bribing or do you try it the hard way (which means roleplaying)?

I tried sleeping with the GM.
sabs
QUOTE (Daddy's Little Ninja @ Sep 21 2010, 09:42 PM) *
I tried sleeping with the GM.


A tried and true method smile.gif

How did it work out
Voran
The GM's Girlfriend always has that unfair advantage.

As for me, I guess I've always aimed for "try not to get the GM to hate me." IF they're friendly/neutral great, if they're a good buddy, even better, but its not really worth expending extra effort unless they're going to be more than a game-friend.
IKerensky
Another way is to have the GM be your player in another game/campaign, you'd be sure he will frown a lot more about killing you and will be far more generous for your character, and he better should be nyahnyah.gif
Neraph
What ever happened to equality? All of this talk about gaining leverage on your GM smacks of nearly-illegal activity. Much of it would be Ethics Violations or Blackmail if it happened with a real business instead of what happened in a gaming group.
Neurosis
QUOTE (Voran @ Sep 22 2010, 08:24 AM) *
The GM's Girlfriend always has that unfair advantage.

As for me, I guess I've always aimed for "try not to get the GM to hate me." IF they're friendly/neutral great, if they're a good buddy, even better, but its not really worth expending extra effort unless they're going to be more than a game-friend.


I have (almost) never gamed with anyone who was not a close friend in life so I definitely feel that I am missing some of the dynamic people are talking about here.

QUOTE
Another way is to have the GM be your player in another game/campaign, you'd be sure he will frown a lot more about killing you and will be far more generous for your character, and he better should be


My girlfriend of four years is also my GM in another campaign (also SR). Neither of these things stopped me from killing her character when it was dramatically necessary and the rules indicated it.

I guess I am a pretty incorruptible GM. : P
Neraph
QUOTE (Neurosis @ Sep 22 2010, 12:20 PM) *
incorruptible GM.

Does not compute. In becoming a GM you have been corrupted.
Neurosis
QUOTE
Does not compute. In becoming a GM you have been corrupted.


QUOTE (Neurosis @ Sep 20 2010, 12:25 AM) *
This post is pretty win.

If my group is reading this, that would work for me too.


Welp.

On a more serious note, this thread does make me feel vaguely dirty somehow.
Neraph
This thread is showing me how unclean people could be.

My post about being automatically corrupted since you're a GM was meant to say that you now need to think of things and do things to friends that in other cases would be considered treason, criminal, and you'd lose friends for. However, since it is in the context of a game, that apparently makes it fine.

I'm talking about putting the players in morally reprehensible situations and watching them squirm. Someone here had said that when they assault a facility, have one corpsec show up with no armor, and after the team kills him easily and they're searching for their paydata/itemsteal/ect., have them find a pregnant lady wearing the guard's armored vest.

In humanizing the human opposition you end up making the party feel awful for the decisions you are making them take. In outmatching them on purpose to drive home the feeling of helplessness, you show them who and what is really in charge of the game. In that way you are already corrupt.
Neurosis
I like that post.

That is all.
Kruger
I guess, if anything, this thread shows me how apparently some people approach RPGs competitively, and not cooperatively. Never realized there was such an "us vs him" feeling among players. As a player, I've never felt this way.

Though, like Neurosis I've never played with anybody except for friends, or friends of friends.

Neraph's last post is a very striking example to me. The GM challenging the players on a level greater than simple mechanics is perceived as being a negative, corrupt thing. Fuck, I'm a terrible GM. I made my players in Twilight 2013 realize that their successful small scale guerrilla war against an occupying army was causing violent reprisals against the civilian populace in an attempt to break the will of the native rebels, and there was little they could do to stop it. And yet, instead of hating me for it, they came back enthusiastically again and again. Two of them even began to role play a slow erosion of sanity and civility completely on their own. And I made sure that we took at least fifteen minutes or more at the end of every session to discuss what they thought about the game. Nobody ever felt like I forced them into any situation. They enjoyed the fact that the world wasn't something they could just save in bad movie fashion. The players always had the choice to abandon their war and move on to greener pastures. They chose to help the rebels and knew full well how brutal the opposition was. Just as the players in Neraph's scenario always had the choice to pack non-lethal measures to deal with security guards.

Interesting how some players perceive a GM who goes to the trouble to make the world three dimensional and sometimes morally challenging is just being a jerk.
Daddy's Little Ninja
QUOTE (sabs @ Sep 21 2010, 03:45 PM) *
A tried and true method smile.gif

How did it work out

Well we are married and have two little girls.
Kruger
By the way, in that above scenario, the characters were all private military contractors in a foreign land, with no incentive to stay. From the beginning of the game, the stated intent I gave the characters as the premise was to get the heck out of the country and either get home, or get someplace safe®. The players themselves came up with their own desired destinations, and planned how to achieve that. What I did was build them a world that challenged them on a level that presented them with choices to make, some of them difficult. I mean, I know not everyone is interested in a serious campaign, but calling that corrupt GMing is ludicrous. Hell yeah I manipulated the players, all of them long time friends of mine. And they loved me for it.
Neurosis
Kruger, I think that Neraph was using the word "corrupt" jokingly.

All GMs are supposed to do stuff like that.
Kruger
QUOTE (Neurosis @ Sep 22 2010, 11:45 AM) *
Kruger, I think that Neraph was using the word "corrupt" jokingly.
I dunno. That's possible, but from that wording and the way he has phrased stuff in the past, the impression I got wasn't that it was humor.

Sarcasm is pretty hard to convey in a written form. If that was his intent, it is far better to be blatant about it than subtle, lol. Dry with and subtle sarcasm in written form succeeds only when your audience is used to it. wink.gif
sabs
QUOTE (Daddy's Little Ninja @ Sep 22 2010, 07:03 PM) *
Well we are married and have two little girls.


But was your character OP smile.gif
cndblank
The Hero Champions system has some good points that relate.

You were a superhero.
And as such you had your radioactive spider bite super hero origin and your weaknesses, quirks, kryptonite, old enemies, and arch nemesis.

You got points for them but everyone had the same number so you were really just defining your character.
The villains had the same.

So you could set up that you had an "Aunt May", was easily taken in by a pretty face, and had an on going war with the Mob.
It was there I learned that every hero is flawed and more of a hero because of his flaws.
That making a mistake in character is hard to bring yourself to do but so rewarding to the campaign.

And what we were doing when we took these flaws for our super hero character was define exactly how we wanted the GM to screw over our character in the game. To layout our vision of the heroic journey of the PC to the GM and the rest of the players. To define type of campaign we wanted to play in as a group and what challenges we wanted our characters to experience personally.
And the disads would change as the character grew and they and the campaign changed.

The big advantage for disads was it was a way to get you (and the rest of the players) on to the same page as the GM.
You have to get that to fit in with what the rest of the players are looking for and with where the GM is looking to take the campaign.
What the disads did is let the GM set stuff up that he knew would get a rise out of the PC. That he could count on at least one PC being taken in by the beautiful villain’s daughter, that at least one PC would ride to the rescue of a damsel in distress, or at least on PC would mouth off to the Amazon warrior princess and get some smack down. A lot of it just came from having some common standards and the point values helped with that.

It took some of the heavy lifting away from the GM.
This can really help a GM keep a campaign moving and fun for everyone concentrate on having a great story line.

So if you want to get the GM to go along with you, you have to let him know what you are looking for.
That you have a vision for the PC so he should let you do X because it will be balanced by Y.
That he should cut you some slack cause you would step up some time he needs it.

Some times you can get some serious GM grace by roleplaying your character and being the Goat if the campaign needs a Goat right then and there.

A good GM and group of players do a lot of this automatically, but every bit helps.
nemafow
QUOTE (Neraph @ Sep 23 2010, 03:32 AM) *
I'm talking about putting the players in morally reprehensible situations and watching them squirm. Someone here had said that when they assault a facility, have one corpsec show up with no armor, and after the team kills him easily and they're searching for their paydata/itemsteal/ect., have them find a pregnant lady wearing the guard's armored vest.


That, is awesome. I applaud you
toturi
QUOTE (Neraph @ Sep 23 2010, 01:23 AM) *
Does not compute. In becoming a GM you have been corrupted.

Or you have been so corrupted you cannot be corrupted any further and any attempts to bribe/coerce/otherwise influence you fails because it is not corrupt enough.
Neraph
QUOTE (nemafow @ Sep 23 2010, 05:33 PM) *
That, is awesome. I applaud you

As I stated in my original post about it, I cannot take any more credit for that idea than simply being able to remember it. It was from some thread on here about how to make the opposition feel more lifelike or something, and I think I got it from there.

As to the "corruption" thing: it is a proper term for what happens to the minds of GMs, especially in Shadowrun. In order to tell a good story for a dystopic setting, we must become corrupt ourselves. You have to make the story feasible, and this means meditating (thinking) on what corrupt person is doing with which corrupt thing that warrants hiring deniable assets to illegally cause a corrupt thing to happen. The real question is: can you draw a line at which you are no longer corrupt? I think many of us have no problem with being able to separate ourselves from what we have to delve into; but still a hardening of your heart, an increased toleration of corruption is unavoidable.

I think I've moved this thread a little deeper into psychology than the OP intended. Try to think of it more as a mild warning and not an accusation.
Kruger
I don't know if it's deeper psychology or unnecessary, lol. Seems like a lot of over-thinking. A GM either creates a world his players want to play in, or he doesn't and has no players. A good GM will look for cues, or ask for feedback. The story is just a story. Contemplating dark things shouldn't put you at any risk to yourself. If you're dragging too much of yourself into it, then perhaps you're in need of therapy for issues that have nothing to do with the game. I saw that Tom Hanks movie. Shit gets serious sometimes, heh.

Or maybe I'm just already too corrupt to notice. /mindblown

Not really.
Dwight
QUOTE (Kruger @ Sep 23 2010, 10:19 PM) *
I don't know if it's deeper psychology or unnecessary, lol. Seems like a lot of over-thinking. A GM either creates a world his players want to play in, or he doesn't and has no players. A good GM will look for cues, or ask for feedback. The story is just a story. Contemplating dark things shouldn't put you at any risk to yourself.

It isn't nearly that simple and clear in play, in implementation (and just saying "well I still have players at the table, I've had people [put up with this] for years" isn't a reliable predictor of where your current actions are coming down). Players do this, too. People spending time pretending that they are jerks need to work on keeping the line to switch that off, the more a jerk the character the more noticeable the bleed-over.

Do they need therapy? When people forget that the characters don't really exist, that you can't *shrug* at the suffering of their friends, not the PCs or NPCs but their friends, and say some variation of "but that's what the character would do"? Well....
cndblank
As a GM you have to challenge the players.

You can not have heroes and adventure without bad stuff happening.

Most of the time that means villains, but it also means man made and non man made disasters of one sort or another.

Some times that means you have to challenge the players morally.

And in a dystopic setting, that can mean going pretty dark.



The thing is the GM is doing this to "bring" the PCs in to the light.

You don't want to do this all the time, but only once in a while to bring home a point.

What a PC won't do, is often more important than what a PC will do.



I ran "The Grab" from the SR Denver missions.

It bothered some of my players.

But after going through it, the PCs have decided there are some things that they are just not going to do no matter how good the cred.







QUOTE (Neraph @ Sep 23 2010, 11:13 PM) *
As I stated in my original post about it, I cannot take any more credit for that idea than simply being able to remember it. It was from some thread on here about how to make the opposition feel more lifelike or something, and I think I got it from there.

As to the "corruption" thing: it is a proper term for what happens to the minds of GMs, especially in Shadowrun. In order to tell a good story for a dystopic setting, we must become corrupt ourselves. You have to make the story feasible, and this means meditating (thinking) on what corrupt person is doing with which corrupt thing that warrants hiring deniable assets to illegally cause a corrupt thing to happen. The real question is: can you draw a line at which you are no longer corrupt? I think many of us have no problem with being able to separate ourselves from what we have to delve into; but still a hardening of your heart, an increased toleration of corruption is unavoidable.

I think I've moved this thread a little deeper into psychology than the OP intended. Try to think of it more as a mild warning and not an accusation.

Kruger
QUOTE (Dwight @ Sep 24 2010, 04:17 AM) *
(and just saying "well I still have players at the table, I've had people [put up with this] for years" isn't a reliable predictor of where your current actions are coming down).
It wasn't meant to be taken literally, lol.
Wordman
QUOTE (Machiavelli @ Sep 19 2010, 06:54 AM) *
Everybody of us has a vision of what your char. should become, which goals he should reach etc. But how (except of telling the GM what you want...which would crumble the "illusion" of the GM being "neutral" a little bít) do you make your GM to act in your wanted direction?

Play a game that actively supports that.

Example: In Spirit of the Century and other FATE 3.0 systems like Dresden Files, players choose aspects for their characters. These are key components of the system, short phrases like "Architect of Destruction" or "'Just One More Turn'" that not only define your character, but provide most of the bonuses and meat of the game. But they also do something else that is really important to how the game works. From the rules:

QUOTE (FATE SRD)
You may have noticed that we're using a lot of ink to talk about how your aspects communicate things about your character to the GM. We mean it. Out of all the things in the game, aspects are probably the clearest message you can send to the GM about what you want from the game, short of walking right up to the GM and saying so. Also, in all likelihood, the GM is going to have copies of your character sheets when you’re not around, so the aspects you’ve picked are going to represent you in absentia.


It may be possible to hack something like this into SR, probably surrounding Edge. I'll think about it.

(On the other hand, I think telling the GM directly is perfectly fine. Sorry, but I actually laughed out loud at the phrase "which would crumble the 'illusion' of the GM being 'neutral'"... as if that was somehow important. Both you and the GM are there for the same reason: to make the game fun. There's nothing 'neutral' about it.)
Dwight
QUOTE (Wordman @ Sep 25 2010, 06:15 AM) *
Play a game that actively supports that.
...
It may be possible to hack something like this into SR, probably surrounding Edge. I'll think about it.


Not sure about FATE but some years back I took a kick at hacking in Burning Wheel Beliefs, which are defined even more explicitly as player priorities. I found that it was hard to graft on because of how much leverage it needed to have on the core of the system to give the proper encouragement to be used, certainly not for players to learn (rather than players that grok and are used to the original). Edge probably isn't central and critical enough to replicate more than a shadow of the original, even if these become the sole source of refreshing Edge. It could be done but eventually I found it easier to just come from the other direction and add modern firearms and Skills to Burning Wheel.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012