Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The illusion of challenges and GMing
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
toturi
So I don't want to derail the other thread any further. Sorry, Patrick. Sorry, Bull.

When I run a game, I try to present my players with challenges that they are supposed to overcome. The key here is the perception that they are being challenged, while making sure the odds of the situation actually favor the players. One exception is if the players deliberately look for situations to put their characters in over their heads. If that is the kind of game they are looking for, then I will oblige them, but for the most parts, if you really look at the game mechanics, the odds actually favor the PCs.

Most games have an element of chance. To me, that element is often more than sufficient to ensure that when the dice is rolled there is no guarantee of success. The odds may well favor one side heavily, but there is always that slim chance. The players may think that they are working, overcoming the "odds" and "earning" their successes, but I make sure that the challenges are, at worst, a fifty fifty proposition.

Now if a PC takes a turn for the worse due to dice roll, suffers some sort of mechanical loss, then I will try to allow that PC to catch up. From what I have seen, most GMs do this. They try to give the poor guy a break. Perhaps this is one reason why some players seem to prefer to suffer a setback. Consciously or not, they are expecting the GM to go easier on them.

But there are times when the player indicates that he is deliberately taking a mechanically poor or an ill-advised plan of attack, despite well intention advice to the contary. While I have not GMed for such players, I have played in games with these kind of players. It is alright if the GM is willing to run a solo/limited participation game for these players to get these guys back on track, but I feel that if you are playing as a group, do behave maturely and play as a team.

While "roleplay" reasons are solid in-game justifications, actions that disrupt the other guys enjoyment of the game are not at all fun. If everyone is onboard on the roller coaster ride, it works; otherwise, it is an accident waiting to happen. From the other thread, there seem to be some people who seem to enjoy failure, they see it as an opportunity, for roleplay perhaps. I think that this is fine in a solo game, but not in a game where the other players are expecting the other guy's PC to pull his weight on the team. As I see it, playing an RPG isn't like watching the movies, this isn't Rocky 3 where Mr Balboa comes back from defeat to beat Mr Lang and you ain't Stallone.
RHat
What you're missing, though, is that for many of us an individual failure makes things more interesting and challenging for the group. The trick, pure and simple, is to have interesting consequences in either case.
DMiller
I agree that the deck should be stacked in the character's favor, but failure should always be an option (a small, slim option, but an option).

When I GM I also make it clear that I will not kill a character, I will not allow completly random chance to do so either. If the player want's the character dead we will arrange that but most of the people that I play with hate having to create new characters all the time so not letting them die is a good thing. They will get hurt, even put in the hospital or some other action, but they will not die by chance alone.
FuelDrop
Our group once had a simple bounty to pick up. Go in, kill target, retrieve head. Easy.

Unfortunately, the target was expecting them and they ended up walking right into an ambush. We lose 2 group members due to bad luck and carelessness, while the rest are forced to withdraw.

At this point I could have just said "Ok guys, mission over. Roll up new characters if you lost them."
I didn't.
The group ended up crossing national borders, breaking into a secure POW camp to spring their friends, then hunting down their bounty and bringing him in while he was in the middle of another job.

If I'd fudged it so those characters hadn't gone down and they'd got their man right away they'd have missed out on several sessions of interesting locations and a very large payday.
toturi
I do not dispute that an individual failure makes things more interesting and challenging for the group, what you seem to be missing, though, is that for many of people an individual failure makes things less enjoyable for the group. I don't think that the consequences of failure is meant to be enjoyable.

How much would you enjoy things if the party face deliberately insults the Johnson and the group gets a bad rep for it? How much more challenging it would be to fail the Survival roll because "my character did not pack any Survival gear because I thought it would be more challenging and interesting if we lost our way in the Mojave desert"?
FuelDrop
QUOTE (toturi @ Aug 15 2013, 05:13 PM) *
I do not dispute that an individual failure makes things more interesting and challenging for the group, what you seem to be missing, though, is that for many of people an individual failure makes things less enjoyable for the group. I don't think that the consequences of failure is meant to be enjoyable.

How much would you enjoy things if the party face deliberately insults the Johnson and the group gets a bad rep for it? How much more challenging it would be to fail the Survival roll because "my character did not pack any Survival gear because I thought it would be more challenging and interesting if we lost our way in the Mojave desert"?

That's not GM challenge. That's players being too dumb to live.
Voran
Its a balance to be sure. You don't want it so easy that basically you could throw away the dice and make it 'story hour'. On the flipside you don't want it so clever rp and involvement is pointless in favor of the almighty dice roll.

Also, the play should be tailored to the group at hand. If you've got inexperienced players or forgetful ones sometimes they won't mark everything on their charsheet for a particular op, but at the same time, professionalism wise, their CHARACTER would likely never make such a mistake. If you smack down too heavily on player inexperience, especially say for crap they would have no real life experience with, that's not really fair either.

Ha! I see you didn't list mcguffingearitem#67 on your character's sniper loadout, you die! muhahahaha!
Irion
What is seen as dump form one perspective might not be as dump from another one.
The point is, there are players who really hate metagaming and make calls only on what their character knows.
So of course their action will be dump, because they do not use every bit of information they have as a player.

It is like: If you know that the guy next to you is the evil genius behind everything, why don't you shoot him in the face right now? Because your character has no idea about it.
Lobo0705
Character death should be a part of the game.

Shadowrunning is dangerous. You run up against dangerous people/organizations/critters basically all the time.

I'm not saying that characters should die every "x" number of runs, i.e. "Well, we've gone about 10 runs without one of you dying, so somebody is going tonight" - but rather there should be a legitimate chance that if players get into combat that one of them could go down.

If you don't, if the players know that no matter what they do, they will survive, I think it takes away from the suspense of the game.

It also means that when a character survives a long time, that is an accomplishment. My players, if they survive long enough, tend to retire their characters (who I then turn into NPCs for the campaign) and start fresh - and can point to this character or that character who "made it."

IMHO anyways smile.gif
BunnyColvin
I've found that if one character (note i said character) tends to screw it up for the group, they will correct it in game. The situation will determine what they do though. If its just a honest mistake, they will deal with it together. But, if its intentional stupidity (i.e. I shoot a random Lone Star cop for no reason whatsoever, which I had happen in a game a long time ago) they will take out the character themselves.

Its odd though. My group will do this in Shadowrun, but in DnD, they will stick to the PC's side no matter how stupid they are.


Shadowrun is one of those games where dealing with the challenge, no matter how hard it is, is a large part of the game. As long as the players know what they are getting into and are not totally blindsided, then the challenge should be whatever the run calls for. There's a big difference between knowing you are trying to take down Lofwyr in a run vs. Lofwyr shows up in the bathroom unexpectedly while you are taking a dump.
toturi
I am not really talking about the player not knowing what the character should know or some sort of metagaming or lack thereof. Usually I try to suggest to the player the relevant Knowledge skills that the character would or should know, so at the very least I can ask the player to make a roll so I can suggest a course of action that I think the character would have thought of.

What I am saying is that the player deliberately creates a character that is deeply flawed so that he as the player will have such "interesting and challenging" situations. Or he plays his character such that such situations are created. He has the notion that somehow his creation of such difficult situations make the game more enjoyable.

There is a difference between knowing you are running against Lowfyr's interests versus taking a job from Alamais to specifically mess with Lowfyr.

There is a difference between knowing that your character might get hurt or die in a fight and purposely go pick a fight.
BunnyColvin
I misunderstood the problem...no worries.

Sounds like he's just trying to focus the game spotlight on himself and doesn't care much about the other player's enjoyment at the table. I'm not sure anything in game would fix that. Might need to discuss with him out of game and come to a consensus on the game you are running vs. his and the other player's expectations.

(As an aside, the taking a job from Alamais to mess with Lofwyr sounds like a great long-term goal for a PC. SK's reckless pollution from their heavy metal production gave my entire family cancer...now that son of a bitch has to die! Hopefully, my grade four lung cancer will let me live long enough to make that dragon pay!)
Juca Bala
One of my players character died on her very first run. There was a mix of a few very poor rolls, a few bad decisions and more reckeless than the players want to admit. The thing is - the players were surprised, coming from D&D 4e, were you can make dumb choices and only lose a few dozen hit points. Needless to say that they began to see the threats a lot more seriously, and straightforward combat with great care...
Shortstraw
QUOTE (Juca Bala @ Aug 15 2013, 10:34 PM) *
...The thing is - the players were surprised, coming from D&D 4e, were you can make dumb choices and only lose a few dozen hit points...

Oh for the stray crossbow bolts of yore.
Voran
As with any gameplay experience, it is also very important to determine which of your players (not characters) are intending to be "Chaotic Douchebag" and deal with them accordingly. I suggest a punch to the back of the neck. smile.gif
RHat
QUOTE (toturi @ Aug 15 2013, 05:12 AM) *
I am not really talking about the player not knowing what the character should know or some sort of metagaming or lack thereof. Usually I try to suggest to the player the relevant Knowledge skills that the character would or should know, so at the very least I can ask the player to make a roll so I can suggest a course of action that I think the character would have thought of.

What I am saying is that the player deliberately creates a character that is deeply flawed so that he as the player will have such "interesting and challenging" situations. Or he plays his character such that such situations are created. He has the notion that somehow his creation of such difficult situations make the game more enjoyable.

There is a difference between knowing you are running against Lowfyr's interests versus taking a job from Alamais to specifically mess with Lowfyr.

There is a difference between knowing that your character might get hurt or die in a fight and purposely go pick a fight.


Except that that sort of activity isn't what anyone is talking about here - that's just being an asshole.
DMiller
QUOTE (Lobo0705 @ Aug 15 2013, 08:53 PM) *
Character death should be a part of the game.

Shadowrunning is dangerous. You run up against dangerous people/organizations/critters basically all the time.

I'm not saying that characters should die every "x" number of runs, i.e. "Well, we've gone about 10 runs without one of you dying, so somebody is going tonight" - but rather there should be a legitimate chance that if players get into combat that one of them could go down.

If you don't, if the players know that no matter what they do, they will survive, I think it takes away from the suspense of the game.

It also means that when a character survives a long time, that is an accomplishment. My players, if they survive long enough, tend to retire their characters (who I then turn into NPCs for the campaign) and start fresh - and can point to this character or that character who "made it."

IMHO anyways smile.gif

I agree that character death should be part of the game, however we have a very small group (3-4 players + 1 GM) and character death would mean loss of at least one player as she would not return. That would mean death of a character == death of the group. Is it worth not playing to include a little realism in a game? We live in a small community and adding (reasonably good) players is difficult.

When people become attached to their characters generally they don't want them to die, though sometimes they do. Shadowrun is just another game it is the same as D&D or GURPS or any number of other games out there, you play to have fun. If character death kills the fun, remove it. That has been my experiance for almost 30 years of playing (and GMing). I've been in a few groups that were the "let the chips fall where they may" and in those groups character death is part of the game, but most of the groups I've been in would rather have a long-term character.

If a player wants their character to die, it will be so. In FuelDrop's example he also didn't kill the characters even though they likely should have died, to me his response was completly the way it should have gone. By "not killing characters" I didn't mean that they wouldn't be captured or held or some other nasty thing, I meant that I wouldn't let random dice rolls kill them.
toturi
QUOTE (RHat @ Aug 16 2013, 04:39 AM) *
Except that that sort of activity isn't what anyone is talking about here - that's just being an asshole.

I disagree. I think that nobody likes to have disturbing similarities pointed out between their style of play and that of being an asshole or have their style of play likened to that of the asshole.

QUOTE
After all, which story is cooler and more inspirational? The one about the guy who was really talented and trained and who easily won the race? Or the guy who broke his leg during training and had to heal and overcome rehab and painkiller addiction, only to make an underdog comeback at the end, overcome the odds, and win the gold medal?

Let us examine this example, in the context of a shadowrun team. If we think of a PC group as a team, then to use the race metaphor we can liken it to a relay team. So our guy was training, he critically glitches, oops! So he has the chance to spend an Edge to mitigate the crit glitch, but the player says,"Nah, what the fun in that? It's more exciting to have to heal, overcome rehab and painkiller addiction!" So the rest of the guys on the team are glum. The PCs are sad that their championship chances are sunk. The other players are angry that the broken leg PC player is being an asshole. But that player is all "Come on, guys! This is more exciting! This is a good roleplay opportunity!" A case may be made that the team could rally up and come from behind overcome the odds and win the gold. But the principle of it is the decision wasn't made collectively, but the roleplayer drags his group down that particular path whether they like it or not.
Lobo0705
QUOTE (DMiller @ Aug 15 2013, 08:31 PM) *
I agree that character death should be part of the game, however we have a very small group (3-4 players + 1 GM) and character death would mean loss of at least one player as she would not return. That would mean death of a character == death of the group. Is it worth not playing to include a little realism in a game? We live in a small community and adding (reasonably good) players is difficult.

When people become attached to their characters generally they don't want them to die, though sometimes they do. Shadowrun is just another game it is the same as D&D or GURPS or any number of other games out there, you play to have fun. If character death kills the fun, remove it. That has been my experiance for almost 30 years of playing (and GMing). I've been in a few groups that were the "let the chips fall where they may" and in those groups character death is part of the game, but most of the groups I've been in would rather have a long-term character.

If a player wants their character to die, it will be so. In FuelDrop's example he also didn't kill the characters even though they likely should have died, to me his response was completly the way it should have gone. By "not killing characters" I didn't mean that they wouldn't be captured or held or some other nasty thing, I meant that I wouldn't let random dice rolls kill them.


I am the GM for a group of 3 players. If one of them dies, then they make a new one, are introduced as a new character, and off we go - with new roleplaying possibilities as the two "older" characters have to deal with a new face in the group (even though the player is obviously the same.)

Are you saying that if you kill one of your player's characters that player will not generate a new one and play? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you - but that's what it sounds like. Which is bizarre, in my opinion, for what its worth.

I mean, if your players cannot handle have a character killed, if such an experience is so traumatic that they will then refuse to play the game anymore, well then yeah, I guess don't kill them - but that seems a little childish.
DMiller
QUOTE (Lobo0705 @ Aug 16 2013, 11:54 AM) *
I am the GM for a group of 3 players. If one of them dies, then they make a new one, are introduced as a new character, and off we go - with new roleplaying possibilities as the two "older" characters have to deal with a new face in the group (even though the player is obviously the same.)

Are you saying that if you kill one of your player's characters that player will not generate a new one and play? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you - but that's what it sounds like. Which is bizarre, in my opinion, for what its worth.

I mean, if your players cannot handle have a character killed, if such an experience is so traumatic that they will then refuse to play the game anymore, well then yeah, I guess don't kill them - but that seems a little childish.

This player hates character creation enough in any system that she would rather stop playing than create a new character. She also doesn't want to be handed a character that she doesn't create so having someone else create one for her is out as well. The others in the group are not quite to that extreme, but none of us wants to roll a new character over a random bad dice roll either. Random chance is important in a game, but it need not be the end of a favored character.

My current character should have died multiple times in our current story ark, however due to the GM's good graces she hasn't. I could have used HOG to save her, but the GM didn't require it. But everyone in my group knows that the dice rarely favor me. My standard roll is 2 hits, no matter how large my dice pool. I have rolled 21 dice multiple times in the same session and consistantly rolled 2 hits. The GM doesn't allow that to ruin my fun by making me create a new character every few sessions.

If character death is fun in your group, roll with it, if it's not fun, remove it. Easy, and everyone wins. smile.gif
Vegas
QUOTE (toturi @ Aug 15 2013, 08:51 PM) *
Let us examine this example, in the context of a shadowrun team. If we think of a PC group as a team, then to use the race metaphor we can liken it to a relay team. So our guy was training, he critically glitches, oops! So he has the chance to spend an Edge to mitigate the crit glitch, but the player says,"Nah, what the fun in that? It's more exciting to have to heal, overcome rehab and painkiller addiction!" So the rest of the guys on the team are glum. The PCs are sad that their championship chances are sunk. The other players are angry that the broken leg PC player is being an asshole. But that player is all "Come on, guys! This is more exciting! This is a good roleplay opportunity!" A case may be made that the team could rally up and come from behind overcome the odds and win the gold. But the principle of it is the decision wasn't made collectively, but the roleplayer drags his group down that particular path whether they like it or not.

So then in this example, it seems, one needs to know the style of the game/GM and the way the members of the team want to play. Yes, if you have a single player who is into the minute details and likes to overcome obstacles to get their proverbial RP "rocks off", and the rest of the team just wants straight "We try, we eventually succeed" no chaser... then you seem to be setting yourself as the GM and your entire table up for disappointment/frustration/anger whatever.

Some people like vanilla. Some people like chocolate. Then there are those of us who like a little rainbow sherbet now and again.
RHat
QUOTE (toturi @ Aug 15 2013, 07:51 PM) *
I disagree. I think that nobody likes to have disturbing similarities pointed out between their style of play and that of being an asshole or have their style of play likened to that of the asshole.


Let us examine this example, in the context of a shadowrun team. If we think of a PC group as a team, then to use the race metaphor we can liken it to a relay team. So our guy was training, he critically glitches, oops! So he has the chance to spend an Edge to mitigate the crit glitch, but the player says,"Nah, what the fun in that? It's more exciting to have to heal, overcome rehab and painkiller addiction!" So the rest of the guys on the team are glum. The PCs are sad that their championship chances are sunk. The other players are angry that the broken leg PC player is being an asshole. But that player is all "Come on, guys! This is more exciting! This is a good roleplay opportunity!" A case may be made that the team could rally up and come from behind overcome the odds and win the gold. But the principle of it is the decision wasn't made collectively, but the roleplayer drags his group down that particular path whether they like it or not.


No, what you're not getting is that people aren't talking about intentional failure. It's when you try, and can still fail with interesting consequences - or do something awesome that also has serious consequences to it (like the shoving a bomb down the bug queen's throat thing from the other thread).
toturi
QUOTE (RHat @ Aug 16 2013, 12:05 PM) *
No, what you're not getting is that people aren't talking about intentional failure. It's when you try, and can still fail with interesting consequences - or do something awesome that also has serious consequences to it (like the shoving a bomb down the bug queen's throat thing from the other thread).

I understand that you are not talking about intentional failure. Which is why I accomodated your viewpoint and gave an example of an unintentional failure in my latest example. Mr Roleplayer did not intend to Critical Glitch, but like you, he saw it as an "opportunity". He tried, he failed and tried to turn it into something awesome. He could have tried and failed in a less "interesting" fashion by turning that Crit Glitch into a normal Glitch but did not.
RHat
QUOTE (toturi @ Aug 15 2013, 09:45 PM) *
I understand that you are not talking about intentional failure. Which is why I accomodated your viewpoint and gave an example of an unintentional failure in my latest example. Mr Roleplayer did not intend to Critical Glitch, but like you, he saw it as an "opportunity". He tried, he failed and tried to turn it into something awesome. He could have tried and failed in a less "interesting" fashion by turning that Crit Glitch into a normal Glitch but did not.


He did, however, intentionally choose not to buy it off for no reason - effectively an intentional failure, because he has chosen to fail.
toturi
QUOTE (RHat @ Aug 16 2013, 03:26 PM) *
He did, however, intentionally choose not to buy it off for no reason - effectively an intentional failure, because he has chosen to fail.

He intentionally choose not to buy it off the Critical Glitch for roleplay reasons. But he had already failed and it wasn't intentional.

Going back to Bull's example: The one about the guy who was really talented and trained and who easily won the race? Or the guy who broke his leg during training and had to heal and overcome rehab and painkiller addiction, only to make an underdog comeback at the end, overcome the odds, and win the gold medal?

If the second story is cooler and more inspirational, shouldn't you be working towards that kind of situations? Meaning that you are looking to break a leg, get addicted, get enough karma to buy off the habit, overcome the odds (which implies that the odds are against you, odds are that you won't win) and win the gold medal?

If the odds aren't in your favor, yet somehow you won, barring your dice pool coming up all/mostly sixes or successes, doesn't that suggest to you that someone is really manipulating the situation so that you get your happy ending?
RHat
QUOTE (toturi @ Aug 16 2013, 12:46 AM) *
He intentionally choose not to buy it off the Critical Glitch for roleplay reasons. But he had already failed and it wasn't intentional.

Going back to Bull's example: The one about the guy who was really talented and trained and who easily won the race? Or the guy who broke his leg during training and had to heal and overcome rehab and painkiller addiction, only to make an underdog comeback at the end, overcome the odds, and win the gold medal?

If the second story is cooler and more inspirational, shouldn't you be working towards that kind of situations? Meaning that you are looking to break a leg, get addicted, get enough karma to buy off the habit, overcome the odds (which implies that the odds are against you, odds are that you won't win) and win the gold medal?

If the odds aren't in your favor, yet somehow you won, barring your dice pool coming up all/mostly sixes or successes, doesn't that suggest to you that someone is really manipulating the situation so that you get your happy ending?


The point of the second story is that sometimes, when things don't go the way you want, it ends up making for a better story overall. Intentionally working towards those moments, as a player, actually screws the whole thing up. And part of challenge is that failure is a possibility - there needs to be interesting consequences both to failure and to success so that the story has somewhere to go either way.
toturi
QUOTE (RHat @ Aug 16 2013, 03:55 PM) *
The point of the second story is that sometimes, when things don't go the way you want, it ends up making for a better story overall. Intentionally working towards those moments, as a player, actually screws the whole thing up. And part of challenge is that failure is a possibility - there needs to be interesting consequences both to failure and to success so that the story has somewhere to go either way.

My point is that there are certain points, where once you fail big, or go down a certain route, it is very hard to come back from. For example, once your character gets an Addiction, it is quite difficult to kick the habit. It is more likely that your character ODs in a puddle of his own vomit. So more often than not, it ends up making for a worse story overall.

Your so-called interesting consequences in so far that the story has somewhere to go is the expectation that since going down any further would lead to a dead end/vicious cycle, the only way for the story to progress is for the GM to give you a way out, despite the odds.
RHat
QUOTE (toturi @ Aug 16 2013, 01:24 AM) *
My point is that there are certain points, where once you fail big, or go down a certain route, it is very hard to come back from. For example, once your character gets an Addiction, it is quite difficult to kick the habit. It is more likely that your character ODs in a puddle of his own vomit. So more often than not, it ends up making for a worse story overall.

Your so-called interesting consequences in so far that the story has somewhere to go is the expectation that since going down any further would lead to a dead end/vicious cycle, the only way for the story to progress is for the GM to give you a way out, despite the odds.


That requires quite a lot of failures - and in most games, a choice or two on the part of the player. And what you're describing is a GM painting himself into a corner, which is just never a good plan.
WorkOver
This really is a tight rope walk.

Too hard, players whine. Too easy they get lazy. I find that the players who cry the most tend to be the D20 players trying a new system.

I also find that when the game is too hard, players get reckless, they stop caring because they look at the characters as paper.

Too easy and they get bored.

I plan on games bring 50/50. S caveat is that I have hooks to make a bad choice and make it 20/80, and a clever choice to make it 80/20.

It is always understood that any one can die. I will not save players, I will not save important NPCs. You die, you die.

Some NPCs fight to the death, some will run, some are made to get spanked.

A game us never made for players to know they will not be killed.
toturi
QUOTE (RHat @ Aug 16 2013, 04:30 PM) *
That requires quite a lot of failures - and in most games, a choice or two on the part of the player. And what you're describing is a GM painting himself into a corner, which is just never a good plan.

In what way is the GM painting himself into a corner? What I think I am describing is a roleplayer painting himself into a corner.
DMiller
I'd probably enjoy a game like that. Of course I'd show up at the table with 3 to 5 characters pre-approved, since with my dice rolls the first hold-out that was shot anywhere near me would mean bringing in a new character, I still think it would be fun. I'd just have to make sure all of my characters wore a red shirt. wink.gif
RHat
QUOTE (toturi @ Aug 16 2013, 01:57 AM) *
In what way is the GM painting himself into a corner? What I think I am describing is a roleplayer painting himself into a corner.


It is the GM who presents the choices - if one choice leads down only one path that doesn't really contribute much to the story, then that choice shouldn't have been there in the first place. If a player's choices draw their character deeper down the hole with drugs, the result could instead be something like pulling them into something that's going on in the underworld, or saddling them with a debt to deal with that they incurred to help feed their habit, or forcing them to come up with a way to do so because now money's tight and their contacts aren't taking their calls... You can do a LOT with that.
toturi
QUOTE (RHat @ Aug 16 2013, 05:16 PM) *
It is the GM who presents the choices - if one choice leads down only one path that doesn't really contribute much to the story, then that choice shouldn't have been there in the first place. If a player's choices draw their character deeper down the hole with drugs, the result could instead be something like pulling them into something that's going on in the underworld, or saddling them with a debt to deal with that they incurred to help feed their habit, or forcing them to come up with a way to do so because now money's tight and their contacts aren't taking their calls... You can do a LOT with that.

My games tend to be sandboxy. So while the GM can present some choices, those choices are not the only ones available. The GM can do a lot with those other choices, but nearly all of the choices as present by you lead to a downward spiral and ultimately lead to a character death and detract from the story. If the character wants to play a doped up drug addict, he can do so, but on his own time and if the GM has time for such solo misadventures.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (RHat @ Aug 16 2013, 01:55 AM) *
The point of the second story is that sometimes, when things don't go the way you want, it ends up making for a better story overall. Intentionally working towards those moments, as a player, actually screws the whole thing up. And part of challenge is that failure is a possibility - there needs to be interesting consequences both to failure and to success so that the story has somewhere to go either way.


This. Right. Here...
You do not WORK TOWARDS such a goal, you OVERCOME such a situation. Sometimes resolving such an issue is very difficult. But you CAN overcome them, if you persevere. If you continue to backslide and take the easy way out, then yes, that character will likley never make it, and will eventually die from his choices. That too, can be an interesting outcome.
toturi
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Aug 17 2013, 01:21 AM) *
This. Right. Here...
You do not WORK TOWARDS such a goal, you OVERCOME such a situation. SOmetimes resolving such an issue is very difficult. But you CAN overcome them, if you persevere. If you continue to backslide and take the easy way out, tehn yes, that character will likley never make it, and will eventrually die from his choices. That too, can be an interesting outcome.

If you do not come to such a situation, how do you overcome it? I am not disputing that such outcomes may be interesting, but what I want to know is how is such an outcome more enjoyable for a majority of people?
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (toturi @ Aug 16 2013, 03:54 PM) *
If you do not come to such a situation, how do you overcome it? I am not disputing that such outcomes may be interesting, but what I want to know is how is such an outcome more enjoyable for a majority of people?


You get to it by failure. You do not have to seek failure out. You cannot avoid failure, because it just happens.

How is always winning enjoyable. It is hollow and meaningless if there is no failure to accompany it.

Back to your Olympic Sprinter example earlier... How can he enjoy running against a High School opponent knowing he will never lose (Hint: He does not enjoy it)? He runs against other Olympic Sprinters, and yet, of the thousands of such contestants in the search for the Gold, only three will ever receive the Medals. So, The majority of Olympic Sprinters will never, ever receive a Medal, but yet they still compete. Why?
toturi
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Aug 17 2013, 07:02 AM) *
You get to it by failure. You do not have to seek failure out. You cannot avoid failure, because it just happens.

How is always winning enjoyable. It is hollow and meaningless if there is no failure to accompany it.

Back to your Olympic Sprinter example earlier... How can he enjoy running against a High School opponent knowing he will never lose (Hint: He does not enjoy it)? He runs against other Olympic Sprinters, and yet, of the thousands of such contestants in the search for the Gold, only three will ever receive the Medals. So, The majority of Olympic Sprinters will never, ever receive a Medal, but yet they still compete. Why?

Why can't he? The character doesn't know he will never lose. The player may know that the odds of his losing are one in a million, but the character doesn't know that. The character can enjoy winning, he might enjoy it less but nonetheless he can enjoy it (hint: he does enjoy it, even if I know I can never lose, I can still enjoy winning). The majority of Olympic sprinters never receive a medal, yet they still compete because there is something in it for them. Endorsements, rankings, threat of punishment(China, North Korea) etc.

A better example in this case is if Mr Phelps or Mr Bolt or Ms Isinbaeva are so dominant, why don't they just quit? Afterall, if you are so dominant, the odds are on your side to win, yet they still compete, why? Going by your reasoning as I understand it, they shouldn't enjoy it.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (toturi @ Aug 16 2013, 05:46 PM) *
Why can't he? The character doesn't know he will never lose. The player may know that the odds of his losing are one in a million, but the character doesn't know that. The character can enjoy winning, he might enjoy it less but nonetheless he can enjoy it (hint: he does enjoy it, even if I know I can never lose, I can still enjoy winning). The majority of Olympic sprinters never receive a medal, yet they still compete because there is something in it for them. Endorsements, rankings, threat of punishment(China, North Korea) etc.

A better example in this case is if Mr Phelps or Mr Bolt or Ms Isinbaeva are so dominant, why don't they just quit? Afterall, if you are so dominant, the odds are on your side to win, yet they still compete, why? Going by your reasoning as I understand it, they shouldn't enjoy it.


I am pretty sure that an Olympic Runner will Never Lose against A High School Competitor. As for why Olympians compete, when is the last time you actually saw Ryan Lockte in anything? So much for Endorsements; and his ranking is pretty meaningless outside of his sport (how often do YOU watch his sport), and I am sure that he receives no threats if he chooses to not swim.

Mr. Phelps LOSES from time to time, even in Olympic Competition (I am sure he no longer competes at the High School or College Level), and many of his Wins are by the merest 100th of a Second. So, No, he does not know he will win. And if memory Serves, Phelps has quit... Why?

As for enjoyment, I am sure Phelps enjoys his wins, and his losses crush him. But he competed even after his losses. His Wins are by no means guaranteed, and he has lost, more than once, which pushed him even harder to be better. By your reasoning, why ever try after you have lost, it can hardly be worth it.
toturi
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Aug 17 2013, 08:01 AM) *
By your reasoning, why ever try after you have lost, it can hardly be worth it.

My reasoning is that you look to avoid losing, you do not look at a loss as an "opportunity", you hate it (and as any serious competitor will tell you, they hate losing). You hate losing, you look to avoid losing in the first place. Once you lose, you look to avoid losing again. That's why some competitors realise that they are simply getting old and can't keep up, they retire, they hate losing, so they quit. Some competitors think that they still have a chance at winning, so they roll the metaphorical dice again.

In any competitive field of endeavour, you look to win. You try to improve your odds of winning. That's why you train. You don't want to lose. You do not look at losing as a "more interesting story". You absolutely hate it.

But to some people, losing makes for a more interesting story but it seem that they like it only if it involves winning at the end. My point is that once the story takes a downturn, how do they know if the story will make that uptick? If that uptick is necessary for them to enjoy the story and make it interesting, then they might as well have started at the bottom of the story hill and climbed up to the top, instead of walking down into the valley and climbing up the top of the hill.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (toturi @ Aug 16 2013, 06:15 PM) *
But to some people, losing makes for a more interesting story but it seem that they like it only if it involves winning at the end. My point is that once the story takes a downturn, how do they know if the story will make that uptick? If that uptick is necessary for them to enjoy the story and make it interesting, then they might as well have started at the bottom of the story hill and climbed up to the top, instead of walking down into the valley and climbing up the top of the hill.


You DON'T know you will have an uptake, and that is life. You strive to improve, and you get what you get. That is Life. Tragedy, loss and discontent happen as a part of life, just as much as triumph, success and happiness are. It is the struggle that is important in life, not the ultimate destination at which you arrive. *shrug*
quentra
Tym, I'm gonna have to disagree with you. In Shadowrun, like in life, I want to win, not 'deal with the struggle' or some other mystic zen philsophical bullshit. I want to win, ie achieve my goals. Everyone dies as their ultimate destination - but if you haven't won, you haven't done shit but suffer.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (quentra @ Aug 17 2013, 12:00 PM) *
Tym, I'm gonna have to disagree with you. In Shadowrun, like in life, I want to win, not 'deal with the struggle' or some other mystic zen philsophical bullshit. I want to win, ie achieve my goals. Everyone dies as their ultimate destination - but if you haven't won, you haven't done shit but suffer.


You may WANT to win, but still lose. Why is that hard to understand? Your character will fail rolls, and will fail tasks. That is a Fact, and is Life. Wanting it to be otherwise will not change that one little bit. Failure brings two results. You can wallow in your defeat, or you can get back up and try again. Both make interesting stories. Never experiencing failure is not only boring, it is unrealistic as well. Sorry that you do not see that.
Dolanar
the simple way to look at is like this

the group wants to get from A to B A==================B

somewhere along that path an event happens preventing you from going directly after B, either through a failed dice roll or something else that changes circumstance. A=====\=====B

now the group must figure out how to get around the blockage to get back to B.
A=====|=====B
-------\\=//--------

for some groups this extra, but unexpected bridge to get to B gives more fun than the original path, & allows more RP enrichment
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
Interesting analogy Dolanar... smile.gif
RHat
QUOTE (quentra @ Aug 17 2013, 12:00 PM) *
Tym, I'm gonna have to disagree with you. In Shadowrun, like in life, I want to win, not 'deal with the struggle' or some other mystic zen philsophical bullshit. I want to win, ie achieve my goals. Everyone dies as their ultimate destination - but if you haven't won, you haven't done shit but suffer.


You want want to win, sure. But, the struggle makes the win more satisfying.
tete
When I GM Shadowrun (and Shadowrun specifically) I just do my best to make the challenge realistic for the task at hand. A run like DNA/DOA against Aztech will be extremely hard, runners will probably die but the payout will be big but i dont start there they grow into it when i feel they are ready. Maybe you start with a drug delivery, move to some smuggling, on to some low corporate espionage eventually getting to the megacorps. I dont have solutions just missions, its up to the players to try to figure it out for themselves. At the same time just because there is a min/max shaman in the group doesnt mean the stuffer shack is going to be magically warded and other BS. Some things should be easy others tougher, Johnsons are trying to hire the right guys for the job. I also tend to be very serial so that characters can die or be missing and it doesn't impact the whole plot. Campaigns just sorta come out of it with major story lines because I throw in the re occurring NPCs from time to time.
TeknoDragon
To chime in with my two nuyen, I like the idea that if my character screws up, she could be dead. Or worse.

My favorite character died in a Missions game trying to rescue someone from ghouls. The group screwed up, and as a Dead Man Switch, Glitter pulled the pin of a grenade, in her satchel. Using Hand of God on top of that would have felt... cheap.

Each character I play, each mission they take, there's always that risk of having a teammate pour out a 40 on the curb... if she's remembered at all. The grit, the grim, the dark reminder that Shadowrun isn't rainbows and puppies, unless Horizon got into your brain and your team is trying to break into the facility to rescue you.

If the mission is going greased-slide easy, I get nervous wondering where the ambush is.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (RHat @ Aug 17 2013, 06:30 PM) *
You want want to win, sure. But, the struggle makes the win more satisfying.


Yes, that is the point of the issue. smile.gif
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