Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: GM (n)PCs...
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
The Jake
QUOTE (Neraph @ Feb 22 2012, 04:19 PM) *
A dryad mage with Negotiations, Increased (Charisma), and an Emotitoy can easily get near or above 20 dice.


That's what this character is largely:
Dryad with Cha 7+ Influence Skill Group 4 + Glamour (3) + Emotitoy 3 = 17 dice. If I throw in my Edge, it goes to 20.

- J.
Bearclaw
I started reading but gave up. You were acting like you wanted advice, but you had already made up your mind and wanted others to go along with you. I look forward to hearing how it all works out.

Seriously, it's a game. You spend a lot of time an money to do it. I only do things that suck for pay (or sex). If it's not fun, be grownups, talk about it and fix it, or blow it up and try again. If one part of the group can't be an adult, I think the answer is obvious.
Neko Asakami
Wow...Bearclaw managed to TL;DR me even better than me.
The Jake
I think you guys need to read the thread before jumping in late into the discussion and coming across sounding like arsehats.

Just sayin'.

- J.
Critias
[at best tangentially on-topic about GMNPCs, really just all about double-crosses in current adventures, especially Missions]

QUOTE (The Jake @ Feb 21 2012, 05:22 PM) *
Now we're at a point where most of the adventures are summarised and don't really delve into the details of a shadowrun anymore because they're in a 3 pt summarised format over a few pages. Not that I mind this mind you - I like this format. But brevity comes at the cost of detail obviously, and the karma rewards are up to the GM.

I've not really read too many SR Missions books - which might sway my opinion on this - but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest if you're one of those groups doing more legwork than ever then it is a sign of your group probably being much more experienced with earlier editions.


It's a trend that's certainly fading away a little bit, in part because I think we've moved to Missions so much as just about the only total package, finished, ready-to-run, adventures...and because Missions are still, first and foremost, designed to be run at conventions.

When you're writing an adventure for a group of 6-8 strangers to run with a GM they've never met before, and you (as the writer) have no idea how well the players or the GM really know Shadowrun, and you know they've got four hours to (start to finish) do the whole thing, and you know they've paid money to play (so you want them to be sure to have a good time), and you know they're playing at some crowded convention hall (so often the subtleties of character action/role-playing are difficult if not entirely impossible), and you know that there's a wildly varying ratio of decent to awesome to overpowered characters (so it's hard to gauge a difficulty level), and you know that the shit always hits the fan sometime during a con so the GM might not even have enough time to read things over first...you've got to kind of trim some fat, and you've got to worry, first and foremost, about making a simple, straightforward, adventure that it's hard to screw up.

In a way, Missions are freaking awesome because it's cool to write an adventure that you know folks will play. Your top priority can be "fuck the details, just be awesome," and some really fun stuff can happen that's cool and cinematic and over-the-top like a sweet action movie.

In a way, though, they're also really, really, tough to write because an awful lot of what makes Shadowrun Shadowrun sometimes gets left out. I'm six adventures deep in writing for Missions, and I have yet to touch the inevitable Mr. Johnson double-cross, just because I don't think there's enough time to work through a suspenseful Meet, a supposed milk run, the sinister reveal, a bitter double-cross/ambush, survival/escape/laying low, and then some sort of satisfying resolution, all in a four-hour window. What's more, I don't think there's time for all that without completely railroading the snot right out of people. So I can't speak for all Missions writers, but I know I, personally, have just made a point of not even touching the idea with a ten foot pole.

So it kind of sucks, sometimes, to be missing that classic Shadowrun "hook" in so many official adventures. As much as I miss it, and the paranoia and attention to detail that it instills, I'm not sure how to wedge it into a four-hour Missions gig and still make for a cool adventure. There's legwork info in every single adventure I've written...but every single time I've, personally, run them? No one's even made an attempt at it, in part because I'm sure they don't feel they have to (and, by and large, they're absolutely right).

I miss double-crosses.
[/tangent]
The Jake
I think in books such as the Ghost Cartels style format it was a really good compromise of the two styles. This is why I raved about it so much when it came out. It suited virtually all sorts of GMs. I think you could easily set it up if you continue story formats in that structure and do the double/triple cross setup.

The present format is great (e.g. Corporate Intrigue) however each story is self contained/isolated. This means that while the next story MIGHT be a continuation of the last, there is never any assurance that it will. So it's impossible for it to work.

My reading of Missions is similar. Some stories MAY follow previously developed material but then again, may not and it HAS to (as you pointed out) standup on its own.

I would recommend moving back to campaign style structure, such as Ghost Cartels to capture that feel. I'd love to see a Street level campaign set in Seattle focusing on building low build point runners, with tips and building their careers up to prime runners within the city. I think that environment would be well suited to educating the player base ("WTF - our Johnson BETRAYED US!?!?!?").

- J.
Brainpiercing7.62mm
QUOTE (Critias @ Feb 23 2012, 03:16 AM) *
[at best tangentially on-topic about GMNPCs, really just all about double-crosses in current adventures, especially Missions]



In a way, Missions are freaking awesome because it's cool to write an adventure that you know folks will play. Your top priority can be "fuck the details, just be awesome," and some really fun stuff can happen that's cool and cinematic and over-the-top like a sweet action movie.

In a way, though, they're also really, really, tough to write because an awful lot of what makes Shadowrun Shadowrun sometimes gets left out. I'm six adventures deep in writing for Missions, and I have yet to touch the inevitable Mr. Johnson double-cross, just because I don't think there's enough time to work through a suspenseful Meet, a supposed milk run, the sinister reveal, a bitter double-cross/ambush, survival/escape/laying low, and then some sort of satisfying resolution, all in a four-hour window. What's more, I don't think there's time for all that without completely railroading the snot right out of people. So I can't speak for all Missions writers, but I know I, personally, have just made a point of not even touching the idea with a ten foot pole.


Interesting insight. I've never looked at a missions book because I'm really not big on published adventures - for no system. I'm also 100% certain my group would NOT manage a missions run in four hours smile.gif.

I'm thinking a super-quick double-cross run would basically have to go south right at the second turn. That's tough to design.
QUOTE
So it kind of sucks, sometimes, to be missing that classic Shadowrun "hook" in so many official adventures. As much as I miss it, and the paranoia and attention to detail that it instills, I'm not sure how to wedge it into a four-hour Missions gig and still make for a cool adventure. There's legwork info in every single adventure I've written...but every single time I've, personally, run them? No one's even made an attempt at it, in part because I'm sure they don't feel they have to (and, by and large, they're absolutely right).

I miss double-crosses.
[/tangent]

Well, obviously if you do get enough info, there's no reason to go digging. Maybe cut the execution time short and just NOT provide enough info?


QUOTE (The Jake @ Feb 23 2012, 03:22 AM) *
I would recommend moving back to campaign style structure, such as Ghost Cartels to capture that feel. I'd love to see a Street level campaign set in Seattle focusing on building low build point runners, with tips and building their careers up to prime runners within the city. I think that environment would be well suited to educating the player base ("WTF - our Johnson BETRAYED US!?!?!?").

- J.

Unrelated tangent: I keep hearing this "street level" thing as being low build-point runners. I totally don't get that. Street level should be low cyber/low money/low magic runners. Being stuck with even below average attributes doesn't make things street level. Even buying 3s in all attributes with BPs costs more than you can afford on a low point-buy. Just saying.
Bearclaw
QUOTE (The Jake @ Feb 22 2012, 07:10 PM) *
I think you guys need to read the thread before jumping in late into the discussion and coming across sounding like arsehats.

Just sayin'.

- J.


After a couple of pages of people telling you the same thing and you telling them all how they were wrong, I gave up. Then I commented on the OP. I think that happens a lot on internet BB discussions.
snowRaven
QUOTE (The Jake @ Feb 23 2012, 03:22 AM) *
I think in books such as the Ghost Cartels style format it was a really good compromise of the two styles.


Agreed.

Ghost Cartels was a long time ago, though. I doubt we'll be seeing modules like that much.

Stuff like AU, CI, and JS have more bang for the buck, likely require less work from the writers and editors alike, and advance the story further in a smaller amount of book space. Good business, really. =)
The Jake
Update: looks like the GM anticipated we may want to kill this spirit at somepoint and so wasn't too plussed with this turn of events. He made a comment that this may ruin our lrospects ingame, to which another player responded "Dude you can run this game into the ground if you want to, and we'll go back to Vampire". He got the hint.

He made a weak, railroad attempt to tell us a key NPC for my character had entered into a spirit pact with her but I wasn't having a bar of it. I just said outright "We're killing this thing if you want to or not. Are you in or not?" (Loyalty 6 contact...).

Rest of the session spent on prepling for a metaplanar quest. 13 Force 6 bound Great form spirits later...

- J.
The Jake
Update:
After our last session I spoke to the GM. Long story short - I don't think I can trust him not to either run the campaign into the ground or metagame the crap out of the metaplanar quest into making the character live. He also said he spoke to the other players who couldn't understand why Lilith (the Mary Sue GM PC) had to die. I told him he must be talking to a different set of players, because everyone hates her and in game nobody can see a reason for her to live. The vote at the game table confirmed it.

I mulled on it some more after our chat and I basically emailed him after and told him I'm out. If he can't get his head around the fact all players voted (5/6) in game to kill her (with the final one abstaining for purely character reasons while still conceding our points), then he's too blind to the player wishes to continue running the game.

I spoke with three other players too who indicated the GM pulled some really uber bullshit stunts in that session (the spirit pact with my character's grandfather was the defining "jump the shark" moment for everyone basically). One player was so revolted he's basically expressed no further interest in playing Shadowrun for the foreseeable future ("It's tainted to me" were his words). Nobody thinks its fun and everyone feels he's got no reason to run what happens honestly.

Thanks again for everyone. I will say talking to the GM out of character was the right call, even if the dolt still won't admit he's screwed up by introducing this Mary Sue GM PC. I'm writing this up as the GM is too damned tired to commit time to the game and really just wants to play but won't admit it to anyone. Seriously though, this is some of the worst GMing I've ever seen in my life.

- J.
Kolinho
QUOTE (Chinane @ Feb 19 2012, 10:26 PM) *
Can you exclude your GM is just subtle about his REAL plot hook, making you guys aggravated enough to actually do something about that spirit, your real opposition?


This is my initial thought as well.

Maybe I like to give out too much credit, but unless your GM is 12 years old and playing out some weird sexual fantasy I would assume there is a reason for the Free Spirit being there. P'raps you're all supposed to off her. That said, there is the suspicion that your GM is using her to railroad a story he loves, or because he has little faith in the group and/or himself.

On a side note: I stayed up til 3am yesterday making a list of 30 NPCs and Contacts for a campaign I have kicking off tonight. Plenty scope for me to get my character fix, lots of interesting people and such. I have found in my time that some people are better GMs than others, and you can spot them because they want to be GMs. To tie this in, I think if he wanted to run this then give him the benefit of the doubt. If he was forced in (due to rota or lots or whatnot) then I guess it's probably fairer to assume he might be trying to play both sides of the screen.

edit: Oops, realised there are more pages! I'm new here, can you tell... ?

nyahnyah.gif
Kolinho
QUOTE (The Jake @ Mar 7 2012, 09:45 AM) *
Update:
After our last session I spoke to the GM. Long story short - I don't think I can trust him not to either run the campaign into the ground or metagame the crap out of the metaplanar quest into making the character live. He also said he spoke to the other players who couldn't understand why Lilith (the Mary Sue GM PC) had to die. I told him he must be talking to a different set of players, because everyone hates her and in game nobody can see a reason for her to live. The vote at the game table confirmed it.

I mulled on it some more after our chat and I basically emailed him after and told him I'm out. If he can't get his head around the fact all players voted (5/6) in game to kill her (with the final one abstaining for purely character reasons while still conceding our points), then he's too blind to the player wishes to continue running the game.

I spoke with three other players too who indicated the GM pulled some really uber bullshit stunts in that session (the spirit pact with my character's grandfather was the defining "jump the shark" moment for everyone basically). One player was so revolted he's basically expressed no further interest in playing Shadowrun for the foreseeable future ("It's tainted to me" were his words). Nobody thinks its fun and everyone feels he's got no reason to run what happens honestly.

Thanks again for everyone. I will say talking to the GM out of character was the right call, even if the dolt still won't admit he's screwed up by introducing this Mary Sue GM PC. I'm writing this up as the GM is too damned tired to commit time to the game and really just wants to play but won't admit it to anyone. Seriously though, this is some of the worst GMing I've ever seen in my life.

- J.


I feel most sorry for the tainted guy frown.gif

Shadowrun is a great game but as much as it loves a nice fluffy tie-in and great hooks, try to organise much more than bricks & mortar and npcs and their agendas and a GM'll start really detracting from what makes Shadowrun Shadowrun.
Murrdox
QUOTE (The Jake @ Mar 7 2012, 04:45 AM) *
Thanks again for everyone. I will say talking to the GM out of character was the right call, even if the dolt still won't admit he's screwed up by introducing this Mary Sue GM PC. I'm writing this up as the GM is too damned tired to commit time to the game and really just wants to play but won't admit it to anyone. Seriously though, this is some of the worst GMing I've ever seen in my life.

- J.


Thanks for the update, it sounds like you've resolved it in a way that everyone doesn't end up hating each other. Sounds like it's time to hit the "RESET" button and pass the GM baton to someone else (maybe you?) for Shadowrun, or just take a break from it like you said, and play a different game for awhile.
The Jake
Update:
After trying to negotiate a co-GMing arrangement, it seems too many people have too many issues either with a choice in game system, not wanting to rollup new characters or whatever. I get a general sense of apathy from most people that they don't have the energy to invest in gaming when it's largely a social construct just to bring us all together to hang out anyway.

Told everyone I'm taking timeout for the foreseeable future until we can agree on a co-GMing arrangement that everyone seems jazzed about. I have some pretty clear cut ideas on what I think are needed to make it work based on where I think everyone is at. Don't think everyone feels the same way. So I've told them I'm sitting this one out for now. I'm being inflexible because I've been flexible for awhile and it hasn't paid off. Too many people are afraid to speak their minds and admit what they can and can't do based on where they're at. Fact is nobody has the stamina to GM full time for the group but nobody is inspired to seriously co-GM either. Some ideas have been thrown around but I think they're too high maintenance for a group that wants something low-key and easy to play/run.

Unfortunate because I know at least two other players will stop playing as a result of my choice, but that is their choice and I can't stop that.

Thanks again for the input. Was hoping it wouldn't end but yeah, don't see any alternative for now.

- J.
Kolinho
QUOTE (The Jake @ Mar 16 2012, 01:30 AM) *
Update:
After trying to negotiate a co-GMing arrangement, it seems too many people have too many issues either with a choice in game system, not wanting to rollup new characters or whatever. I get a general sense of apathy from most people that they don't have the energy to invest in gaming when it's largely a social construct just to bring us all together to hang out anyway.

Told everyone I'm taking timeout for the foreseeable future until we can agree on a co-GMing arrangement that everyone seems jazzed about. I have some pretty clear cut ideas on what I think are needed to make it work based on where I think everyone is at. Don't think everyone feels the same way. So I've told them I'm sitting this one out for now. I'm being inflexible because I've been flexible for awhile and it hasn't paid off. Too many people are afraid to speak their minds and admit what they can and can't do based on where they're at. Fact is nobody has the stamina to GM full time for the group but nobody is inspired to seriously co-GM either. Some ideas have been thrown around but I think they're too high maintenance for a group that wants something low-key and easy to play/run.

Unfortunate because I know at least two other players will stop playing as a result of my choice, but that is their choice and I can't stop that.

Thanks again for the input. Was hoping it wouldn't end but yeah, don't see any alternative for now.

- J.


frown.gif

Bad news man.

As someone who only got back in the saddle in the last year or so after a decade long absence from TTRP I can only offer my hope that you have a shorter hiatus than I did.
The Jake
QUOTE (Kolinho @ Mar 16 2012, 01:42 AM) *
frown.gif

Bad news man.

As someone who only got back in the saddle in the last year or so after a decade long absence from TTRP I can only offer my hope that you have a shorter hiatus than I did.


Nah I'm cool. We're all good mates and see each other regularly irrespective of whether we game or not. Last time I took a break was about eight years ago and took a year off. This time I think it will be a lot less. smile.gif

- J.
Kolinho
Glad to hear it.

I was so desperate I even enjoyed playing D&D

eek.gif

j/k
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