The longer a game exists, the more the players of the game believe their house rules should be actual game rules. And get ticked off when they aren't.

Hmm, karma is too much, IMHO. I would really stick with a point of edge refreshed, or perhaps a few bonus dice. That being said, the value depends on how edge is refreshed. In a very fast refreshing campaign karma might be a better motivator.

Karma for good roleplaying seems fairly normal how is this any different? Beliefs and Instincts just seems like a way to flesh out your characters personality, having never seen the burning wheel system I can't really say. But it basically sounds like personality hooks that make it easier to come up with your character. It is not much different than asking for the 20 questions or a paragraph about your character and then rewarding people for roleplaying their character, usually I'd say it should come into play when role playing your character is detrimental to you some how. There wont be many places where I give mr hard bitten professional bonus karma for being professional since that usually just means he did what made the game easier for him.

Karma for good roleplaying is a horrible, horrible rule, and a shame for a game this new. Who says what good roleplaying is? Do I have to suck up to the GM so that he sees my roleplaying in a better light? Do I have to sit on the edge of my seat and shout out my excellent roleplaying over the other players, so that I get noticed? Does the GM's girlfriend get more karma every time because she can give him the cold shoulder if he disagrees? That's ridiculous. There is no such thing as "good" roleplaying, it's all a matter of taste and acting talent.

From a perspective of good roleplaying rules, SR is pretty bad in general, and favours the completely outdated "GM is god" philosophy, which, clearly, just makes bad gaming. The whole point about introducing the BITs or other character mechanics is precisely to get rid of this.

Arguably, getting more karma for following your characters BITs is a much better mechanic that rewarding good roleplaying.

*yellow flag goes down* Penalty, offensive team.

Wrong. Well, sort of, because I get that when you say "roleplaying rules" you're saying, "rules that emphasize and encourage getting into character". I get that, and I can agree with you that it doesn't do that too well. But what I have to call foul on is how you continue on with your sentence: "...favors a completely outdated GM is god philosophy, which is clearly, just makes bad gaming."

Bad gaming for who? Your group, maybe. Other groups, like more traditional groups? I don't ever seem to hear traditional groups complaining about the way the game is set up.

You're using a term here that rpg.net likes to refer to as "badwrongfun gaming": other people have different styles of gaming than you, and you can't understand why they're having their fun when you're having so much fun with how you game. It's not bad, it's just subjective and kind of brings down the general tone of discussion when you start throwing around sentences like that.

I get that you're a narrativist. It's cool that there are different styles out there of gaming. But you're trying to force a square peg into a round hole; Shadowrun was not built up to worry about the ramifications of being a shadowrunner - it's about shadowrunning, ie, "shooting people in the face for money". Can you add more narrativist elements? Yes. The game is an open enough book to do as such, as you and Shinobi are hashing out.

But you're complaining that Shadowrun isn't a delicious five piece meal when it's an absolutely serviceable dinner out at a diner with friends. You dig? Most people are just sitting around eating, while you're in the kitchen complaining to the cook because he isn't using gourmet cheese and how dare he won't listen to your suggestions.

No offense dude, just pointing this out.

I haven't used the BITS system, so I can't comment on it directly. A set of guidelines for role playing surely can't hurt.

The idea of votes coming from the players and GM being better than just from the GM confuses me somewhat. I don't see how that system would not suffer from the same problems pointed out earlier, except for the fact that multiple voters might smooth over the rough edges of personality clashes.

I played in the RPGA for many years, and the experiences I had with their voting mechanics included many of the detractions mentioned above. There were players who overrode others in order to stand out. There were players who plunged deeply into acting out the most trivial of character traits, at the expense of 'goal oriented' action, and made those who actually wanted to play successful adventurers feel bad about it. There were cliques who voted for each other no matter what.

Nevertheless, there were moments of sublime fun, as well. [aside] I will never forget the three rounder at Gencon in which the six PCs were gypsies, all related to each other in multiple ways. Relating to someone who is your neice and your half-sister is... interesting.[/aside]

Any system is open to abuse. A set of guidelines to help a person figure out his character's motivations is all to the good. A group of players who all want to play real persons in a dark world is an amazing happenstance. Good for you if you can find it.

A problem with "Karma for RP" is that it's a lot harder to get that karma if you're not (playing) an extravert.

Well... call me damaged by bad GMs. I will admit that any day. I do maintain that there is a certain amount of progress to be found in the roleplaying community, which often results in different, innovative rulesets, many of which considerably change the player/GM relationship - in a good way, IMHO. The classic age-old rpgs like D&D, Vampire+spin-offs, Shadowrun usually stick to their established mechanisms because they work for their purpose, and because they often originated from dungeon-crawls. Even shadowrun had these elements. However, there is too much setting there, IMHO to just be stuck in that. I'm trying my hands on character driven D&D and shadowrun, because I like all the stuff that has been developed for these systems. I'd love to see them move forward and incorporate more innovative rules.



The point is that a good ruleset will attempt to minimise GM fiat. Because GM fiat is something that is unpredictable and encourages GMs to sit on their god role. Which they are not. They are a player, who admittedly has to do a bit more work pre-session. Which is why they should be supported, and encouraged, and praised, if they do a good job. And walked out on if they do a bad job.



I'm not sure I'm a narrativist, in fact I'm not even sure what that is. I want to get more cooperative storytelling, rather than following the story hashed out by the GM. I won't say that every story hashed out by a GM is bad, it's just not MY story, or, speaking for a group, not OUR story. People have to bend to fit in, which sometimes stretches their characters to the point where they are close to splitting in half - the performance oriented numbers going one way, and the rest going the other, or rather, being left behind.

To reiterate my above point: Of course you CAN have good roleplaying without any rules. I do play heavy-roleplaying games with rulesets that in fact don't support this, D&D for example. But I would still like to see some more mechanics that actually encourage this. I want to have a crunch heavy game that also offers some mechanics for roleplaying.

Agreed. I have a player who is what D&D4e terms a "Watcher." She doesn't like role-playing in depth, she doesn't come up with ideas, she is mostly there to observe and hang out. We started to run into a problem over the course of a 3 year long Earthdawn game I was running (on hiatus while we play SR for a while) where she started to lag behind the other veterans by about 100K-200K legend points. Purely because she wasn't picking up all the extra RP, Smarts, Bravery, and Humor awards. It was a striking difference.

So for SR, and ED going forward, I have adopted the WHFRP 3ed rules for bonus awards -- everyone gets them. The idea being that everyone was involved in the fun and story and everyone played a part, active or not. It is meant to encourage people to come out of their shell instead of pressuring them to do so. When she wants to role-play, she will, but she shouldn't be punished in the meantime.

@Sengir: page reference for that sidebar you mentioned up thread please? I searched both the SR4 and SR4A BBB and all I could find were some nebulous "Gotcha!" rules for GMs in the Matrix Security section of the Running the Shadows chapter. It amounted to about 3 sentences with passing mention of wired systems, a gateway access, and timed or temporary wireless connections. No rules or examples. Very 80's/90's D&D module building in terms of style. Almost like they didn't intend for it to be played like that but tacked it on later. Maybe after a couple of playtests showed there was no way to actually keep a hacker out of a system?

I personally consider it to be a bit of a crutch to rely on rules to encourage roleplaying.

That's the job of the GM and other players.

I want a rules system that is clean and handles conflict resolution well, and then stays out of the way of the roleplay.

But that's an opinion. Like yours. Doesn't mean my play style is inherently "better" than yours or vice versa.




-k

The BITs system from Burning Wheel is just one way among many to, as Brainpiercing has pointed out, put the "Karma for RP" rule on a firmer footing; less dependent on the whims and tastes of a particular GM. If the shy, quiet player is nevertheless doing the things that his/her Beliefs outline, they get awarded the bonus Karma. You can do the same thing with 20 Questions or any number of other systems.

The point is that in a game that puts detailed systems to combat, magic and hacking should also develop some rules to support role-playing and social dynamics. For social dynamics in particular, Burning Wheel goes even further by implementing a social resolution system called "Duel of Wits" that is every bit as detailed as the Combat system. My players ended up flatly rejecting that system because they couldn't wrap their heads around it and it 'felt wrong.' I don't disagree. After all, most of us are very used to entire social encounters being resolved by exactly one Opposed Test. Still, it was a little weird that players that are perfectly content to let a complicated set of rules and many random dice rolls determine their fate in a combat encounter were totally unwilling to have the same kind of system determine the outcome of a social encounter. I wouldn't want to use a 'Duel of Wits' type system for every social encounter, but I'd love to have the option of pulling it out to make a social encounter the climax of a particular mission instead of a combat.

Wow, sorry. I'm really off-topic now.

Clearly, not everyone agrees with this.

Some folks reject this idea outright.




-k

I mean, there's a +1 Karma in the suggested Awards already, right? Also for humor, etc. That's plenty, to me.

I'm using the Beliefs and Instincts system in place of the existing role-playing Karma awards, not in addition to. It may be useful to note that I'm running a game for a bunch of people in their late-30s, all with some combination of children and demanding careers. We only play for five or six hours once every two weeks and an individual run usually takes us 2-3 sessions. If I don't inflate the Karma awards a little bit there would be a very unsatisfying level of character advancement over the course of a year of real-time.

But you don't "need" the system you're using to award more Karma.

You're the GM. You can simply award more karma ad hoc for whatever reason.




-k

You're right, I was making things muddier than they needed to be with my anecdote. To hasten progression I'm awarding the Karma for everything except for mission goals on a 'per session' basis instead of a 'per run' basis.

KarmaInferno, I think the idea is to avoid that kind of arbitrariness. Even with the best intentions, it is difficult to be fully fair.

You want the Underground RPG, for that.

At character creation, the players decide what their goal is. It can be as mercenary as "get enough money to retire", as local as "Get the gangs out of our neighbourhood" or as world encompassing as "Eliminate AIDS globally."

Then the mechanics include rules for spending EXP on improving not just the character, but the game world, whether it be local or global.

***

As for anyone who claims superiority due to playing a game which has roleplaying-rewarding mechanics, the obvious retort is "wow, your players are so poor at role-playing that they won't do it unless you bribe them?"

See, and here we already see a fundamental breakdown of what works for some people - and doesn't work for you.

Traditional games don't work for you, because you see the GM / Player dynamic as one that is opposed to one another. You're allowing your (admitted) color your preception this way. However, this is not the relationship in at least 75% of the roleplaying community - most GMs are not out there to have fun at the cost of your's; he's there to make sure everyone has fun. Reading down further, you agree with me on this fact, but you feel that a GM has to be "a player with some admittedly more work to do" whereas I think, "I'm a GM, and I have the responsibility to my players to have as much fun as all of us can."


First off, and no offense here, but I'm not a fan of "everyone has to walk out feeling good". I'm not the kind of guy that bakes cookies for my group and asks everyone how they "feel" after the game. How do I know everyone's had a good time? There's no complaining. There's backslapping. There's jokes, and there's stories. Not touchy feelie...eh, whatever it is you've just described.

My opinion, obviously, and it's the impression I get after reading what you wrote. Again, I mean it with no offense: simply, that is my reaction to what you've written.

However, again, the bolded part plays to your bias. No offense (again; can we just assume from here on in that any offense I do give you, is clearly an oopsie and not me trying to scream your head off?), but you must have had some truly terrible GMs back in your formative roleplayer days. Because I've never once considered anyone I've played under to be sitting on some marble and gold inlaid throne, ready to make decisions on high; rather, they're my friend W, or my sister, or my Uncle, who are here to provide entertainment for the evening.

You have obviously had a very adversarial GM or two in your day, and I can see where your opinions are coming from. But what you're also doing is trying to push your style of gaming on other people - and not everyone (hell, the majority of everyone) had had this experience. They've had friendly, happy, excited and passionate GMs telling stories, and not enforcing rules from on high.


You're unfamiliar with the Forge threefold model? You should look into it; you seem like you're very into the indie side of roleplaying, and the discussion there might be to your tastes.

But to continue, once again you're making assumptions about playstyles. Your style (the "narrativist" model) is one of co-operative storytelling, which works for some people. But others aren't willing to make that kind of commitment, or they're less comfortable playing like that, or to them, it just feels "weird". I come from a very conservative roleplaying background myself, and playing like you're suggesting? It's as alien to me as asking me what it's like to be a dog. I don't get it; I don't want to get it (considering I'm very happy in the traditional games I'm in now, and have little to no complaints) and honestly, the thought of having to roleplay your way is as weird for me as me making you play my way.


And there are plenty out there - Nobilis, Fate, Wushu, Exalted, many, many indie and Forge games...but again, you're pushing square peg into a round hole. Fan rules to make it more comfortable for you? Completely cool. But to entirely change the point, and the focus of the game? Bad call, and you'd lose a lot of players, I think, then you'd gain.


Yeah, I can definitely see that. But I bet that if you played under me, or a number of the GMs I've talked to and hung out with, you might come away with a different feeling about traditional gaming.

In the long-running Vampire and Mage campaigns I played in and ran, people got XP for playing true-to-character, but those systems have tags to describe character personality, so it isn't as arbitrary. Currently I hand out collective XP (2-3 per session and 1-3 per story finale), but there's a standing 1XP reward for writing in-character journals of game sessions. I've found that keeping an IC journal (of whatever style suits the character, it doesn't have to be an actual journal) helps me further develop the character and come up with new plans and directions.





Hear, hear.





Burning Wheel sounds interesting. I do like the idea of having criteria to judge RP by. For me they'd be used to determine if someone was playing True To Character, which would merit XP.



I'm not so sure of that. First off, I'd like to make a distinction between social dynamics and role-playing. Roleplaying isn't restricted to talking to NPCs; it's also the choice of what weapons to use, whether to use lethal force in combat, who to attack first, when to surrender and so on. It's about making the choices your character would, rather than the player. If all your characters are always using the same guns, you should wonder if you're really making the choices through your characters, of if you're still looking at combat and equipment through "player googles",

I don't think there should be rules that tell you how to play your character, but it can be worthwhile to have a sort of language with which to describe character "character". Particularly if you want to give karma rewards for staying in-character.



I'm far more used to playing out social situations, rather than resolving them with dice. Of course, that runs into problems as soon as a player is better or worse at social skills than his character. The same applies to mental tasks like planning or analyzing; a character might be smarter on paper than the player, but it's hard to leverage that into results. How often do you hear a player tell the GM "I'll roll Logic to make a plan now", or "I'll roll Logic to solve the riddle"? It's just as strange for me to hear a player say "I'll use my Leadership to get the police to leave."

We expect players to resolve physical challenges through dice, because we're playing tabletop. But social and mental tasks can be done while remaining seated, so they blur the line between challenging the player and the character, and that's tricky.

Well, I can only say I envy people who have always had good GMing. My experience?

Well, first off, I like the GM to enable the player's concept for a character, rather than hinder it. This is often a crunch thing - in order to fulfill a concept you might have to build to a certain degree of mechanical performance, which some GMs don't like. My GMing style is "enable, and then challenge", in that respect. I always tend to think: Will allowing this request increase my player's fun significantly? Can it infringe on other people's fun? And if I find that the first is yes, and the second is hopefully no, then I allow, even if it bends a few rules, or interprets them in a rather... cheesy way. On the other hand, I've played with several GMs who immediately come out with their gut-responsive NO. The first answer to every request is NO. That pisses me off. An aspect of this problem is fluff vs mechanics. The classic "Fighter" issue. The "Fighter" is the pinnacle of melee power, he stands in the front line to slug it out with the strongest of foes. So much for the fluff. In the game he can't manage to hit and basically acts as a hitpoint spunge. So bascially GMs that can't see where mechanics don't fit the fluff piss me off, too.

Secondly, there's the whole railroading issue. I've played with some bad railroaders. Here especially it would be nice to come up with a way to avoid that. Tied in with this is the unpredictability of the world - if I don't feel that a certain thing I have in mind will actually work, then I often don't even try doing it.

Third, there's un-satisfying social mechanics. I'm not sure I like all the complexity of the DOW, that Burning Wheel has. I like the seemless escalation mechanic of Dogs in the Vineyard. A lot of games don't escalate well, or at least not seamlessly - you either start out with a social encounter, in which case it may be done with a few rolls, or talking never even enters the stage, and you go all out with bullets flying. What's missing is the uncertainty - is this guy even hostile? When you see a monster in D&D, you immediately tend to do: I roll initive and start blowing it away. Whereas a good number of encounters you might want to examine the critter's behaviour, first. I've noticed that especially when you start playing monsters that this becomes apparent - you don't want to be attacked at first sight. The problem with social mechanics is often, what happens to the PCs? If they LOSE the social encounter, will they have to do what the bad guy says?

A lot of groups I played in never even made the social rolls. It then went like this: Player talks a bit, GM talks a bit, and then the GM adjudicates - via pure fiat - that the PC either gets his way or doesn't. There was often a heavy tendency to "doesn't".

As an aside:
If I were to play a Face in SR4, what kinds of satisfying encounters do I get? I get to talk for the character, that much is good. Then I can make a roll. And that's it, if the roll goes badly, all the talk was for nothing. If the roll goes well, I've won. Where is the excitement, the drama? Sure I can try to adjust the modifiers in my favour with a good strategy, but that is all quite vague, and in the end, it's still the one roll that counts. A system that goes backwards and forwards should add a bit to that. Exalted used Social combat, which at the time I thought was a good start. Dogs has the special dice mechanics of See and Raise, which are not very detailed, but serve the purpose quite well, because they're fast and simple and streamlined for all kinds of conflicts. I think the DOW is the most detailed there is, but it's also very gamey and complicated.

In my current SR group there is the problem of player involvement in the story. Everybody agrees that we want it, however, noone knows how to really do it without mechanics. Unfortunately no groups I play in are particularly house-rule inclined. So if I were to come along with the BITs, they would probably just vote me down.

And finally, what i haven't touched on so far, is house-rules - and their respective (in)transparency. GMs that suddenly make up stuff on the fly annoy me to no end. You'll have established mechanics, and then suddenly the GM will say "No, sorry, you can't do that now, because I've just made up some strange thing to gimp you." Oh, sometimes they would also enable you to do things that weren't in the rules, but that was very much a sympathy thing. Some players got away with the most outrageous escapades, and others had the "NO" hammer thrown at them repeatedly. And get this, this wasn't teenage roleplaying, this was all at university! My teenage roleplaying was usually only troubled by blatant cheaters . (YES, I rolled all those 18s. I swear.)

I'm really not saying one type of gaming is better than another. Whatever suits people. If SR5 introduces complicated social mechanics, chances are 50% of the players won't use them. But is that a problem? The fear of alienating your player base is a real one, but all I really want to do is ADD, not subtract anything at all. The change to the established things should be miniscule, unlike a certain other game that botched their entire 4th edition by turning it into a computer game.

So the problem is really, I see a lot of single mechanics I like in other games, but then I actually want to play Shadowrun or D&D, but can't help being frustrated at their shortcomings.

And man have I derailed this topic! SORRY to the OP.

I'd like to add that I find Dogs in the Vineyard fascinating, but I still haven't played it yet. That's the closest I've seen towards a social conflict system that I like, as well as a combat system that might add a lot of variety to combat.

Pffft, haven't played it, either. Love the mechanics and the focus on moral conflict, but I can't wrap my head around basically being a goddamn inquisitor.

I was seriously considering writing a Superhero crossover for the mechanics.

7th Sea had the drama dice system, which was a tangible "reward" for good RP in the game, or whatever. There was also a PDF done by a fan, entitled the Noblesse Oblige' or something like that, which made a "social combat" system of sorts, for the courtiers and nobles in the play.

The Underground RPG sounds awesome, with the concept of spending XP to affect the world.

Brainpiercing, you sound more like a Gamist than a Narrativist. Or at least your table does. You want interesting and tactical decisions in all aspects of your game instead of just combat. So Social Combat is also a mini-game (not necessarily a separate one as SR tends to do) where you have resource management and risk/reward decisions to make. Narrativists would be those GMs who just make crap up on the fly -- "the Matrix works like this now because that's what we need for the story!" -- which you said pisses you off.

Brother, I'd rather this conversation than that one.

And before we truly get into this? I want to say that if you and I end up at Gencon next year, we should talk. Hang out. Play a game together. Because it sounds like you got saddled with some really terrible GMs, and you need some good experiences with traditional gaming. Believe me, I'll set you in a group with my girlfriend - one of the most creative roleplayers I know - and we'll go to town. I'll pick the game, and we'll go at it.

(Shadowrun: bringing people together thanks to shooting people in the face for money)

Anyway.

You and I want the same goal out of gaming: you want an entertaining, enriching experience with friends. What differs is that you and I approach it from different angles: I like to have some hand in control to keep my players reined in when they get wet and wild, and you feel that a consensus will eventually be achieved with everyone getting to contribute. Same goals, different approach.

I'm a "Yes" GM. If you search my posts here on Dumpshock (which I recently did; god, I'm a chipper little bugger when I want to be) you'll see that I'm pretty fluid when it comes to concept, character, and conceit. I love all sorts of things that most other GMs would probably turn their nose up at - and I like to have a group having fun. This comes with unfortunately needed concessions, however; in order to do this, you have to get very, very familiar with the bunch of people that you're playing with. Some aren't comfortable with heavy in character roleplaying. Some get bored during combat. Some want to kind of "observe" (as someone else was saying earlier) and interact only when it's absolutely necessary.

So you need to know where the lines have to be drawn, and what best to do in order to get everyone at the table on the same page. Y'know?

Here's the thing, and it sucks to have to say it: you need to be an advocate for what you want. You say that you're frustrated with how current traditional games are played? Then you need to speak up and say as much. Do you have a group currently? What are you guys playing? Do you have any input? It sounds like you do, but it sounds like they're deeply entrenched traditional gamers, and you're a single, frustrated guy trying to get something he enjoys out of the experience.

This is where so many indie ideas and concepts come out. Frustration is often the root of creativity.

Try this: see if you can't get your group to let you GM at some point, and pick a game that you would like to play - I'd suggest a traditional game, like Exalted, which has a traditional base but introduces things like stunt mechanics, drama dice, and social combat.

Don't force them into using these rules. Play like you usually would. But slowly, introduce those mechanics to them - put them into a situation where they have to use social combat, but in an easy format - like trying to convert farmers to their cause or something. Not something that's going to have a huge amount of challenge to their characters, but enough to give the players a taste. Slowly introduce stunting by saying things like, "okay, so you want to swing your sword. In your head, how does it look?" and give out the relevant bennies. If you give them the proper encouragement, they'll feel more at ease at using these aspects of the system, and they'll hopefully catch on and keep going with it.

Once they're comfortable with Exalted, get them to try something a little less traditional and a little more in your vein. I'm not huge on the indie games so I can't give really great examples, but you should know something you've wanted to try. Do it with them again - say things like, "okay, remember how stunting could give you motes of essence back, or willpower? Well, in this game, you do similar with..."

This is also a key towards getting another thing you want: it'll make introducing elements like that into Shadowrun and D&D easier for you. Even something as simple as saying, "provide me a character sheet with a history and answering the 20 Questions and I'll give you an extra couple BP for whatever," can encourage players to get more "into" their characters. And when they start providing descriptions for what their characters are doing? Give them some situation modifiers. If they stay really well in character? Karma. If they're doing a great job roleplaying a social encounter with a Johnson or whomever? Forget the roll.

And if your players don't bite? You need to walk away, even if they're friends. You're not getting what you want out of their games, and there are other ways to socialize with them. As the saying goes: no gaming is better than unfulfilling gaming, and right now? You're feeling unfulfilled.

Let me give you a quick example:

Recently, I was helping a friend out with Encounters at a local store. He had a table that was too stuffed with people for one GM, so I offered to split some of them off. It was a table full of young teenagers that had almost never before raised a dice and rolled them. Perfect! Blank slate, right?

I did things slowly. I broke the ice by using my favorite joke (rocks fall. Everyone dies. Including, *point at one player* YOU) and we got down to brass tacks. I was lucky to have my girlfriend there, and helped out the players I couldn't devote attention to.

But the reason I tell you this is twofold: we were playing D&D 4e, which is like, the most traditional game out there, right? Even still, with just a little description on my part, and a little encouragment from the rest of the table, the players got wacky. They started standing out of their chairs, telling florid descriptions of how they cut brigands down and what they were going to do afterward. I didn't do anything like give them experience or drama points or anything like that - just by saying, "man, that's really cool! What else do you do?" helped them out so much.

The other is that it's very, very important to give newbies a good headstart. You're a shining example of this, man! You're the result of a GM on a powertrip screwing up your formative years. Do you want new players to have the same kind of experience you do? Hell no, right?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: we need to be the advocates out there. We need to go to these conventions, fill out tables, and teach people to play the games that we love - or no one else is ever going to love them. And even if we don't reach every new player sitting at our table, we can still at least give them a good time for a few hours, right?

I totally agree with you on things man, and I'm glad for this opportunity to once again address concerns that I have about this hobby. The only way we'll ever get a better, more friendly environment is by going out there and being the teachers and advocates we wanted when we were younger.

I'll reply to this, but since I've got wall-of-text syndrome again (as in, I can't write short replies) it'll take more time than I have right now.

I wish we could, unfortunately I'm in Germany, and I don't even normally go to roleplaying conventions, here. But thanks a LOT for the offer, it's great to get this kind of sympathy on the internet .



Well... I don't feel a consensus WILL be achieved, I wish a consensus were achieved. I think players need to be given responsibility.



Well, that's sometimes directly a consequence of the game and the character you're playing. In my last D&D campaign as a player I put a lot of effort into the numbers, because it was slated as a combat heavy campaign, but I wrote a nice little background, too, got a motivation, and everthing. However, I still had to sit back when social stuff was going on, because - in D&D - you generally also want the social encounters and puzzles to succeed, and my character would have ruined everything by blundering through them. What made it harder was that it was basically a nonsense world - it was impossible to take the world seriously, hence all possibly INTERESTING decisions - moral or otherwise - were usually made on a, well... computer game level.
On the other hand, in my currently dorman Epic D&D campaign I can and (have to) do everything, because I took specific care to build a jack of all trades.

But what kills it for me is just bad table atmosphere. When everyone is only joking around or talking about a lot of different things, then I just can't get into the roleplaying. Which is why I would like some numbers, or at least some simple mechanics for that, too. People can't ignore it if it's in the damn book.


This is really one of the hardest things - finding like-minded people. It's not that I can't compromise, I do every day, but at some point I would just love to have a few people who are just on the same track as I am.


Heh, I DO advocate. I'm in fact confrontative as hell (which is sometimes less than productive, but...). I've quarrelled and argued with people for ages about my ideas. But it doesn't help if you can't persuade them. I'm a very bad salesperson, that's for sure .

It doesn't help that I'm probably a bad GM. At least, I can't seem to manage to hold a group's interest at the table for too long, even though I always put a lot of effort into things. I started GMing a sandbox D&D E6 campaign and ended up mucking it up because my players didn't want what I wanted - and that was to combine mechanical effectiveness with interesting characters and concepts, and essentially a gameworld generated at random. And I even told them up front, I expect people to hold their own in combat, because they were supposed to be elite successors to their respective hierarchies. I expect people to write nice backgrounds. And I allowed EVERYTHING. But then - completely atypically - they only wrote backgrounds and otherwise made completely inept characters. Even those that usually powergamed to no end. And at that point I tend to not give in. If the entire game calls for the the characters to be specially powerful, and they are not, then what can I do? I bogged things down with lengthy combat, and when the first guy left, they all did. The guy's argument at the time was "I don't like E6", when in fact it was probably, "I'm too lazy to build a character that is both interesting to me, and also effective within the game." This same guy is actually quite the optimiser in other games. And he didn't WANT my help.

If I have the time I'm going to try repeating this as a PbP, some day.

I tried GMing Exalted a few years ago, too. Loved the concept of the game. It started out really nicely, and I did it as a traditional game, too. None of us had a complete grasp of the rules, but that was ok, we could adlib things. But then - and this was actually first - that same guy suddenly said "I just don't like the focus of the game." See a pattern? And he's a nice guy, that's the trouble, they all are. To the point that they won't tell you what is really wrong with my games, instead they invent excuses.


Well... as I said, they didn't like exalted, except one other guy. I couldn't make them stick to it. I couldn't make them play my sandbox, either.

The only really good table campaign I had was a simpled down SR3 fun campaign. No magic, no megacons. The group were pirates for hire in South East Asia (yes, I basically copied Black Lagoon into Shadowrun). It worked really well, and people were having a lot of fun. It was also very open, with outside events mostly happening upon request. Unfortunately one guy moved away, and we then decided to quit, because only two players were left. Well, now SR4, we'll see. When the campaign started, I didn't have a good enough understanding of the rules, so I didn't want to GM. The others didn't wnat to play SR3, again. As of now, they only thing really bugging me is the stupid table atmosphere. The GM isn't exactly good at creating a mood, either...


Here, well, giving bonus BP or starting karma for a background is good. I disagree about forgetting the roll, because if you do that, then you're giving an unfair advantage to the "actors". Sure it's often very fun doing that, or just watching people do it, but in a mechanical game things should be based on mechanics.



I'm not sure. I'm not a scene gamer. I don't go to stores, I don't go to conventions, I only go to LARPs occasionally. I only game with my colleages and friends. From my experience, it won't be easier finding new players than quarrelling with the old lot. Well... right now I don't have time for more, anyway. I just want my fix at least once every two weeks .



I recently tried to convince my colleages to try some gaming. We tried Microlite20, a miniscule system almost without rules. The trouble was: One guy was too timid, another girl wanted more action, and my girlfriend was the only one who wanted to go on with it. People had trouble seeing their characters because almost every sheet looked numerically the same. But they were also not willing to start reading more complicated rules. It's very hard convincing people to do that if it doesn't click with them almost instantly.
Even my girlfriend, she's fine while we're playing, but it's totally alien to her to think about roleplaying unless I suggest it.



When I was younger I didn't know how things could go differently. A lot of times I sucked it up because I liked the character and the campaign was still fun, in spite of the shoddy GMing. I'm here trying to improve my narrow circles, and whoever I can reach over the internet. If I had more time I would run more PbPs, but I can only manage one right now.

So... yeah. Now I can't think of a good final point to make . I'll just leave it at that, then.

Ha, that is a giant wall of text. And with the late hour and the stuff on my mind, I don't have the frame of mind to reply to this tonight.

But! We have things to talk about. So I shall, tomorrow, when I have more time, haha.

Sucks you're in Germany, but if you ever do make it out to Gencon / Origins / whatever, we'll talk and hang out

Wrong to the nth freaking power (the bold text I mean).

Of course you can ignore everything. But if it were a core mechanism of the game... Ah, you'll be saying it IS a core mechanism, because it's a roleplaying game, but that's really not it. The books just call for a mindfuck now and then. Most of the roleplaying advice is just an alibi for the rest of the number-gasm shadowrun has always been made of. The problem is that the game is dishonest about this.

For example, common physics: The game does a horrible job of approximating the real world, but they don't go ahead and regulate everything, either, to at least get a functioning game world. In D&D it's simple, people simply can't do stuff that's not in the rules. Shadowrun let's you pretend that you can do everything by GM fudge, which is ok, but not from my perspective. "When the rules get in the way of the story, ignore the rules and tell the story." That's just plain wrong. A story can't be believable if it doesn't follow the rules of the game world. That's the same as the "cutscene" problem in computer games, where, for example, after taking a gazillion hits from bullets and worse, an enemy or compatriot is suddenly struck down by a single shot. In their roleplaying attitude it's the same. Sometimes there's substance there to go by, but too often there's not. Shadowrun is centered a lot on "winning" the scenario. And that's the problem, because, like in D&D, it relegates other things to the sidelines.

I really like the Dogs mechanic in this respect: The dice don't lie. If you raise with two 10s and say you're raining fire from the sky or shooting lightning out of your eyes, then that's bloody well what's happening. Nothing else needs to be defined. People will take a hit and take fallout. If you're raising a 4 and a 1, and say the same thing, then... well it ain't happening. You might be seeing it, but noone else will. Granted, Dogs probably doesn't do stupid tasks like, just jumping from rooftop to rooftop or other menial success tests very well. I would imagine it's tedious to do things like "the Danger is you'll fall down, the Danger get's xd8" and doing an entire resolution mechanic from there, for every crappy stunt you might want to do. But the conflict resolution is really priceless. Does it explicitly facilitate roleplaying? Not per se, but if you think enough about your character and apply the right traits to a situation, then that's roleplaying, too. (And if you, for example, simply can't do dialogue, you might just stare everyone down, with the right rolls, and make a workable character.) And roleplaying happens because there is no way to "win" the scenario. You have to make your own truth, just as you can make your own subjective reality within the conflict resolution mechanic. Shadowrun starts out like this, in that there is no objective right and wrong. But it doesn't go all the way, and constantly put you in the position to actually make choices concerning that. Basically the perfect shadowrunner is the pragmatist who doesn't care, either way. He just does what it takes, and that's that. Plenty of characters are like that, in my experience. I've chosen my latest character to not be like that, and it almost created a stink, when I said that I refuse to do wetwork without knowing the target, or that I won't fuck over a civil rights activist, no matter how good the money is. So then another character went out and bought my character a pink little bunny to play with. That was ok, also a form of roleplaying.

But for the game master, a character with principles is pure horror. Because he might prepare an entire scenario only to have the PCs walk out on it, and then we can basically can the session, because other than that, he'll have nothing.

Another angle: An honest reaction is the best roleplaying there is, because there is real feeling behind it. If your character's been beat up by a game mechanic a few times, chances are you'll be pissed for it, and your character will be, too. Then you'll start thinking about it, and come to terms with it, and so will your character. And the roleplaying is right there - you're getting into your character's head. At least if you care. Like the glitches: I personally HATE glitches. I hate it with a passion when it happens in games, because I'm clumsy in real life. Stuff is always falling down, etc. etc., I don't want it to happen in games. Well... it's actually a fairly good roleplaying mechanic. If it happens to a character often chances are he'll get sour. If it only happens rarely, chances are he'll put it off with a laugh. That's roleplaying. People don't do stuff without a reason, there's always a reason. Games that facilitate detailed roleplaying will give you lots of reasons for doing something, or acting in a certain manner. Of course you might say you don't need all that, you can get into your character's head just fine without it. Some people can't. Or they can't within the time and atmospheric constraints of the gaming table. I can write perfectly detailed in character prose without any rules. I can't do the same thing at the table, simple as that.

Change of topic:

Last session, yesterday, of the SR4 campaign was pretty good, after I blew up a bit in our No.1 trashtalker and attention hogger's face. He sulked for a bit, but then he got over it, and the playing was much better.
And at the end of the session, after finishing the scenario, we had the problem again, that when it comes to taking creative action in shadowrun, we're all clueless. What does a criminal DO of his own accord? We can't see the game world because the GM isn't good enough at describing it, and we can't take for granted what's in the books, because, well, he tends to put his own spin on things whenever they get detailed. Without a game world, and without a way to shape reality to our liking, what do we do? Last scenario was a heist on a politician's mansion, a politician we had worked against before, and hence had intel about. I thought it would be a good way to rake in some cash. What we got was a sort of private fortress filled with inept security, and a lot less cash than I had imagined. If these things don't work like I think they should, how do I make decisions?

Damn wall of text again. On a single fricking line comment!!! ARG.

I disagree about the principled character. Principled characters are a good source of drama and conflict. The GM can use a conflict of principles as an interesting problem in the middle of the adventure; will the PCs take the easy way or the principled way? Their principles might become the motivating force in a story. What's bad is if the GM doesn't know about those principles. A GM should know such important things about the PCs.

i agree with the disagree. I've got a goody-two shoes in my group, and it rains down hell in regards to what can and can't be done. It's great. It makes the players think, instead of delving into another bout of stealing shit and shooting guards for the nuyens and chuckles. It's also making things interesting because the character's total pacifism is really getting tested. Which is fun for me, I enjoy a challenge to my GMing abilities. And the players have fun, but I think that's because I'm capable of running different scenes. They also are pretty good about "sharing" in regards to doing their seperate scenes, too. I know, I know, it's been expressed that groups are different, and so on.

Brainpiercing, I've seen you waffle between extreme simulationist, gamist, and narrativist viewpoints during this discussion. It is fascinating.



Well, a GM isn't designing adventures in a vacuum. He can take the principles of the PCs into account when designing an adventure. And also, everyone enjoys roleplaying so much (at least at my tables) that a bull session might be fun.



Keep...practicing?

Just think:

Shadowrun Missions authors really DO write adventures in a vacuum. They have no idea what characters will be playing.

So they have to account for multiple methods of success in writing most SRM scenarios.

As such, I tip my hat to them.




-k

Gamist, Narrativist maybe, but I'm not a simulationist - if I correctly interpret the term. I want game world to function as the rules say, not any other way. If the rules are stupid, ok, change them, but if they work, for example, torches in D&D, stupid rule, but it works. Don't think about it anymore. Some rules make suspension of disbelief hard. Those you have to tread carefully with, but I wouldn't care too much about real physics or chemistry in a game. (Like the commoner railgun - simply make it not work.)

The thing is: It's got to be consistent. So many movies and TV shows totally bungle this, because they think about scenes in terms of t real world rules (or a strange movie realism) and then forget that they've changed them previously. Take season 1 of Heroes. HORRIBLE. Great buildup, lots of interesting characters, and then they force them into that CRAPPY CRAPPY script for the last few eps, completely disregarding the powers and abilities they had written onto the characters before. The story doesn't rule the world, the rules rule the world and then the story can develop within those rules.

Or IS that simulationism? If so... count me in. Then I have to be everything. I'm not saying they combine: Say, Dogs, doesn't have - as far as I can tell - many rules about the physical game world at all. So that's fine. Improvise. Let the dice decide, and subjective reality. (And that's taken - paraphrased from memory - directly from a post by the author of the game.) An action adventure like D&D has to come up with quick resolutions for all kinds of physical things. You need to decide what you like, there and then, and be done with it. Shadowrun falls mostly into the second category, too. However, it's too close to reality to overlook those glaringly weird rules they've sometimes come up with. I could deal with motorcycles driving through concrete walls in SR3, but what were those ramming rules again in SR4? When rules are bad, you have to change them to something you like better.


That, yes, is important. I guess knowing the characters helps, and being able to improvise helps. Some people...



Ya, maybe I should take acting classes.

@Brainpiercing, Neurosis: Guys, just as a side note, could you attribute your quotes? It makes it easier to see who's responding to who. It's not very hard to to, just use [ quote name='....' ] instead of [ quote ] in the opening tag. Actually using the QuotePost or MultiQuote buttons also pasts a precise link to the post you're quoting into the title, in case we want to look at the whole context of a quote



I do believe Fluff and Crunch should be consistent, but I disagree with your position that if it isn't in the crunch, that it's worthless. To me, crunch and fluff are both rules that describe the game world, but the crunchy parts for some reason require stricter quantification. But even if no numbers are used, doesn't make fluff less true.

For example, in the other thread about the UCAS army you argued that if the fluff of a drug says it makes you paranoid, but there's no numbers, then that would be bullshit. I disagree; the fluff says so, so for the game world, that's true. But paranoia is hard to capture in rules, and players are better off taking some inspiration about how to play drug-induced paranoia from say, Scarface. In the fluff, the paranoia is real, and therefore of course NPCs will treat it as real.

So how about players playing that paranoia? Well, they should, perhaps with a bit of GM encouragement. Paranoia's easy as a GM, just describe everything a little bit more threatening than normal. Add imaginary ominous details to events. That should certainly help the player get there.

Do you need rules to force the player? I'd rather not. It's hard to make rules refined enough to really do personality. The best I've seen so far is to use something like that Burning Wheel you mentioned, or White Wolf's Concept-Nature-Demeanor system, that gives you a measuring stick to see if the player played the character like that character ought to be played. It gives you a handhold for discussion, for example if you wish to give a point of karma for playing the character consistently.

EDIT: Tthe non-numbered effects of for example drugs are facts in the game world just like the existence of the AAA corps are facts. Those don't need numbered rules to be true.

Sorry. Lazy. Will try to change. However, when portioning a single quote, I think I only need to add the name once, for example now: I'm only replying to you.




The trouble starts when you use fluff as a method of balance. Because ultimately, flavour is mutable. A flavour restriction can be removed or replaced. To provide a distinction: Fluff is part of the setting, not part of the rules. The rules are just the mechanics you can distill from the entire game.


Well... yes and no. Making rules for personality is hard, and shouldn't be necessary as long as the player has this fully under control. But when the fluff requires a player to change his roleplaying, then you need rules for that. Strictly speaking, if I were to roleplay the paranoid guy, you might never actually SEE the paranoia, and you would still have no valid reason to accuse me of not roleplaying properly. As I said before, I could be excessively brash to cover things up, or I could just be privately paranoid. You don't have to see it until a game effect happens that is definable.
For instance:
Paranoid condition: The PC reacts to most or even all stimuli as threats. Require him to roll perception tests regularly, or even roll initiative at odd moments and to varying cues, for example, a loud noise, a car driving past slowly, or just a crowded street, and present innocents as hostiles, or at least threatening. Whenever a remark is made towards him, he has to make a composure test or react in a hostile fashion. In a discussion, any disagreement must be seen as a sign of hostility. Encourage a "with me, or against me" style of play. Maybe even make him roll memory tests to remember false information, to encourage a feeling of conspiracy against him. (Ideally the remembered information should not have been previously discussed openly at the table.)

Those would be non-numeric rules (for the GM, and a very unrefined rough example). Upon being confronted with them, the player still has all the choices, but he has some guidelines. Also, the player has it easy, because he just doesn't know whether the guy you have just told him might be shadowing him is really shadowing him or not. So he reacts realistically under the circumstances.


Actually, as I said earlier, the AAA corps are fluff. They aren't needed to play the game. You could play with all of the rules without a single AAA corp, and the game itself wouldn't suffer. The setting would suffer, and a setting is not a rule.

It's really just the same as, say, playing D&D in Eberron or in Faerun. It's the same game, just the setting is different.

You can generalize this to any published adventure for any game system. The Missions writers' job is made *even* harder because convention games are even more unpredictable than your bog-standard tabletop game among friends. At least the typical tabletop game probably has a decent mix of specialties, fairly equivalent power levels among the characters, and a GM that knows the team's strengths and weaknesses before the game session starts. A convention game has the potential for wildly imbalanced team composition and power level and the GM has no clue about any of it before the session.

So my hat off especially to the convention GMs.

Multiquote (literally nothing happens when I click it) is hardcore broken for me, whereas quote post is merely inconvenient...as is typing the person's name. Sorry.




Agree.

In point of fact, the game I'm about to start GMing for is using SR3's rules, in the SR2 setting, to get what I want out of the deal.

I miss pink mullets too.

Well, I can only repeat myself: Game world ruled by rules, described by fluff. Everything together makes the setting. Both are important, but flavour is mutable, and I haven't met a GM who doesn't interpret and adapt at least slightly, and I most certainly do the same myself.

I just saw the movie adaptation of R.E.D. and I have to say it was a great characterization of the Pink Mohawks versus Professionals debate. The Pink Mohawks were still highly skilled and professional at what they do but the attitude was completely different. I sure as hell wouldn't try that stunt of shooting the rpg in SR4. And something like "Ohh how fun, I'll go get my pig" seems completely out of flavor in SR4.

I think a lot of the old feeling is due to the imagery of 1st / 2nd editions.

The quartet Laubenstein-Nelson-Aulisio-Bradstreet was on fire back then and it showed - all over the place you had a strong, exotic and pretty cohesive imagery, from the more subtle visual elements (amerindian and japanese gimmicks) to the more explicit ones (punkish/chaotic attitude ), that combined into a very unique depiction of the game-world - it wasnt just another cyber+fantasy mix, it was its own thing.

As time passed by (and as the original artists were gone), Shadowrun felt more and more like a generic cyber-fantasy world.

Yet I remember rants on whatever ancient Shadowrun message board I was on in the mid-to-late-90s about how Laubenstein's work was way too cartoony and "ruined" the feel of cyberpunk and how Larry MacDougall's work was absolute crap, and so on...

People are going to complain about the present and be nostalgic about the past. That doesn't necessarily mean that the older stuff isn't better because sometimes it is. Nevertheless, I think there is a definite tendency to add value to the past purely because it's the past.

I say this having been a big fan of the quartet of artists you mentioned. I'm just trying to point out that things are almost never as clear cut as you'd like them to be and things that are now viewed through the golden glow of nostalgia only have that glow because they were once immersed in the flames of nerdrage.

I didnt paticipate in such discussions nor nerdrage wars. But I agree thats a valid point. That "old feeling" is just there for people that got introduced to SR back in the 1st/2nd editions. A person whose first contact with the setting was 3rd/4th ed obviously dont feel that way, and maybe even find the old imagery bad.

On the other hand, cartoony or not, I think one can argue that the old art is (even now) more unique and distinct on its own than the new editions art in relation to sci-fi aesthetics in general. ( obviously thats my feeling on the matter, as its very difficult - if not impossible - to objectively measure something like that ).

Diverting from my diversion: Being a string SR3 convert, is there any place I could see the old artwork? Some links, maybe?

While nostalgia will taint a persons views, I suspect there are more people who think newer equals better.

Bradstreet was full of awesome. I love to flip through the Harlequin module just to check out his work. His World of Darkness stuff kicked ass and them some, too.

I still have the pages from my SR2 core book of the metatypes. The whole book had fallen apart from use, but I made damn sure to save those pages.

I really enjoyed Prescott, who did alot for 3rd ed., too. He also did WoD, notably the comic fluff bits for the Werewolf line. Highly energetic and full of motion.

The 4th ed? Aside from the recycled images of editions past, and a few others here and there, is less than impressive. The metavariants and infected from Runner's Companion? The Corebook drawings of the metahumans, are looking forward, with their arms crossed? Oh, except the ork, who has 2 assault rifles that were copy/paste/rotated into place? Gag. If it wasn't for the fact that I've not been as committed to my drawing in recent years as I should be, I'd make the claim of being able to do better*.

And as far as the art is concerned, I don't think I'd say it's nostalgia. I bought the 3rd ed. D&D books just to look at from the local used bookstore, and never ran it until this summer. But looking at older D&D books? Hmm, definitely newer is better.

*-It should probably be noted that I've apparently continued to practice my curmudgeonly tendency of pulling the stereotypical "Back in my day...". So there's that at least.