Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Small runner teams
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
GlassJaw
As I search around and check out various character builds, I notice most of my characters, regardless of archetypes, tend to focus more heavily on combat.

Most of my Shadowrun experience, however, is in smaller groups of players, usually 3-4. Do most people assume a 6-runner team when designing a character or archetype?

In a smaller group, I'm used to each character having at least one combat ability that they are strong in, sometimes 2 or more. Rarely is there one character that is a combat specialist, like a street sam.

What are some guidelines for working in a smaller group?
How much emphasis on combat should each character have?
If there isn't a character completely focused on combat, what is a good way to divvy up the duties?
DocMortand
hey, when I played I was a ROLE player. I created a role and played it...didn't create the uber munchkin player or try to fit a niche...I created the player that fitted my concept.

But here again, that's just me. *shrug* I do believe 95% of RPGers play to blow things up and stick it to the weak little platinum dragons.
Large Mike

I find that players build characters with no concept that there will be a group to pick up the slack in any weak areas. My players tend to build with a) as much versatility as possible, 2) the ability to avoid their weak areas, or III) both.

Naturally, riggers will be riggers, and deckers will be deckers, but anyone who doesn't know which end of the gun to use stays the hell out of combatl, and anyone who's going to be inserting can bypass a locked door *somehow*, be it spells, electronics, or "troll maglock key" (10 Str and a boot.)
AIM-54
Generally, as long as there are experienced players, I find that most of the bases will be covered. I think it's easier to ensure flexibility if it is a small group and thus each player can be less sure that there will be someone else to pick up any combat/stealth/B&E or whatever skillset slack.

I remember one run where my group was missing one or two members, leaving the rest of us who were a little too specialized in a situation where the objective was almost impossible to achieve given the skillsets present. Had we been a smaller group to begin with, I don't think those shortcomings would have been as fatal.

Of course, there's always newbies who forget things like "stealth" and "athletics". eek.gif
toturi
Purely from a metagaming, every character should have some combat ability with at least 1 mundane combat skill at 6 (usually Pistols).

In smaller groups I've seen, the characters seem to be more balanced if they create their characters together. Someone must have computer 6, someone must have etiquette 6, someone must be Awakened and can cast spells and summon spirits, someone must drive well.
Solstice
we tend to have small groups also 2-3 no more. We build with one or two deadly combat skills and then round out the skills. For more versatility we all use chipped skills as well.
akarenti
How to balance a small group = Contacts

The players can play pretty much anything they want as long as they know people who can fill in the holes when they need it.

I recently went from a 5 man group (adept, shaman, sammie, decker, rigger) to a
3 man group (mercenary, different sammie, b & e girl). It's quite a change. The 5 man group could go through a team of guards in security armor with 3 or 5 decently powerful elementals as magic backup fairly easily. The 3 man team, obviously, has absolutely no magical anything, and fairly unimpressive attributes for Constests of Will; they can take a team of guards, but a force 6 spirit could own them fairly easily.

But they know people who can get them a magician's services should they need one, and they know people who can deck, etc. I just set them up on jobs that are appropriate to their more specialized abilities (like bodyguarding and enforcing for the mob). It's actually kind of fun, because they are so poorly rounded. They respect (fear, whatever) freaky magical stuff a lot more. When they see things they can't handle, they run like hell and try to get in touch with somebody who can take care of the problem. But they seem to be enjoying themselves immensely.

I quite enjoy it, because I don't have to go through every adventure thinking, "Okay, sec magicians and elementals for the shaman and adept, need
to get some stats for the local Host for the decker, find something for the rigger to do, or at least give guards a few AV rounds, and um...yea, some gun fighting for the sammie."

It's a lot easier to give everyone their screen time, and you get a lot of good RP opportunities because the runners are so dependant on their contacts.
Edward
The first archetype I would remove from a small party is Decker, take one as a level 2 contact and subcontract out to him. For Decker insertion runs ether NPC the Decker, wire in a cell matrix link when you get to the terminal or just have the fixer turn Decker insertion runs to another teem (this party cant do it because they donít have a Decker).

Similar conisations will be made for any lacking archetype. A fixer will not assign a teem without any astral access to a run on a facility known for its high number of spirit paroles. Or a teem with no transport to a cross country delivery. Of cause sometimes a run requires a skill the fixer didnít know would be needed so you can throw a spanner in the works, just remember, the fixer didnít know about the new force 8 bound elemental guarding the facility or that the backers local contact (Johnson) would be killed and they would want delivery to France.

Edward
FrostyNSO
I've noticed that when my group (3 to 4) is lacking in a certain area, they actively pursue jobs that play towards their strengths.

I think this is the best way for a small group to function. Rather than everybody try to cover two or more areas, the team in general is good at something, and so tries to get jobs that they'll excell at.

Like if our team is combat oriented, they'll tell their fixer, "Hey, we don't have a decker, so keep that in mind if you hear anything on the pipeline." Or something to that effect. Sure, they take a hit every once in a while in the form of being unsuited to perform a particular job, which usually cost them a chunk of change, but they're actually fine with that, so long as they get to do what they love. If a team decides it is lacking in a certain area and it becomes enough of a concern, you can rest assured that one of those players will make an effort to become proficient in that area.

Another avenue to explore is NPC's that the team can contract. This has worked pretty well for our group in the past.

It could be that I just have strange players....Who says they have to balanced anyways spin.gif
Grinder
We are a small runner team with only 3 runners. One is a sniper with decent close combat sklls and a good smg skill. The next one is a ki-mage with some good spells and a deadly bow. Last one, my face, has some good natural combat skills (but lacking any sort of ini-booster) and skill wires, so he can use a wide variety of skills. And he ahs an assload of contatcs. Worked fine so far; we played 15 runs or so and all turned out good.
torzzzzz
rotfl.gif

we are a small runner team with only 3 to 4 players max, never played an archetype, or if it has been done we tend to customize to fit with the situation we are in. you don't have to create a character by the book completely thee is plenty of scope to have a play!


torz x
Cray74
QUOTE (GlassJaw @ Feb 28 2005, 02:52 AM)
Most of my Shadowrun experience, however, is in smaller groups of players, usually 3-4.† Do most people assume a 6-runner team when designing a character or archetype?


I generally do not coordinate my character design with anyone, or have any expectation of having my PCs work in a team. I build the PC to fit their background, and generally try to have a PC that can work alone (because gaming group sizes fluctuate wildly in the games I'm in). If the PC can work alone, it can usually work with a team.

And I ignore archetypes all together. The PC may end up resembling an archetype, but that's coincidental.
Brambles
As a dm I told my group that rp wise, my boyfriend (real on) would be the one that brought them together (in game) and consequently be their leader. My boyfriend explained them his vision of how a group should be, after me and him had talked about it.
In the end, we got a sniper, a mage, a cybered electrician with a shotgun and a military type guy (the leader).

For my group, this was the best solution. I talked with them about their contacts, but appart from that, they all did it themselves, influenced by my boyfriend. They're all nice and balanced now. The areas they don't cover, that's where they use contacts, or they solve it in a different way than I had predicted.
Aku
QUOTE (Brambles)
As a dm I told my group that rp wise, my boyfriend (real on) would be the one that brought them together (in game) and consequently be their leader. My boyfriend explained them his vision of how a group should be, after me and him had talked about it.
In the end, we got a sniper, a mage, a cybered electrician with a shotgun and a military type guy (the leader).

For my group, this was the best solution. I talked with them about their contacts, but appart from that, they all did it themselves, influenced by my boyfriend. They're all nice and balanced now. The areas they don't cover, that's where they use contacts, or they solve it in a different way than I had predicted.

hmm, this is just me personally, and i'll admit i dont know how well your group knows you, but i think i might not like it so much if i knew the gm was doing something like this to our group, where it's decided by her who the "leader" would be and what sort of tactics would be used if its not a group idea...

I'd call it favoritism...
Endgame50
Not even going to comment on that...

But in general, for smaller groups, you need to coordinate a lot when making PCs.

Deckers and riggers (though a sec rigger is like gold) can be outsourced to NPCs or ignored altogether.

Everyone should have some combat ability, and someone should have some basic B&E type skills (Electronics, B/R) and someone should have face skills (Negotiation and Ettiquette). Overall, I'd suggest much more self-rounded characters in such a group (instead of the specialization you can afford in larger ones)

I'd suggest at least one magician--spells are useful, and without one (or an adept with killing hands) a spirit could ruin your day. Fill out the rest to the group's taste.
Backgammon
QUOTE (Brambles)
As a dm I told my group that rp wise, my boyfriend (real on) would be the one that brought them together (in game) and consequently be their leader. My boyfriend explained them his vision of how a group should be, after me and him had talked about it.
In the end, we got a sniper, a mage, a cybered electrician with a shotgun and a military type guy (the leader).

For my group, this was the best solution. I talked with them about their contacts, but appart from that, they all did it themselves, influenced by my boyfriend. They're all nice and balanced now. The areas they don't cover, that's where they use contacts, or they solve it in a different way than I had predicted.

Actually, I did the same thing (minus the boyfriend part, just one of the players). I have one player who is clearly superior in planning and leadership. So, he is team leader and calls all of the shots as far as team decisions go. When the characters were made, he made sure everyone knew what was needed of them. They get enough personnal freedom (in fact, they seem to have a problem with any order that involves "not killing everyone in sight", but thats another issue) but still maintain a pseudo-military team unison.

However my campaing is more military than shadowrunners, and it was clear from the start they were going to be a special ops team with prior knowledge of everyone else. I wouldn't have done this with a regualr shadowrunners-thrown-together campaign.
AIM-54
QUOTE (Backgammon)

Actually, I did the same thing (minus the boyfriend part, just one of the players). I have one player who is clearly superior in planning and leadership. So, he is team leader and calls all of the shots as far as team decisions go. When the characters were made, he made sure everyone knew what was needed of them. They get enough personnal freedom (in fact, they seem to have a problem with any order that involves "not killing everyone in sight", but thats another issue) but still maintain a pseudo-military team unison.

However my campaing is more military than shadowrunners, and it was clear from the start they were going to be a special ops team with prior knowledge of everyone else. I wouldn't have done this with a regualr shadowrunners-thrown-together campaign.

Knowing who is on, and is allowed to be on, the planning committee is vital to any successful shadowrun. With my former group we had all kinds of instances where people would show a distinct lack of foresight/planning/common sense. They would be declared off the planning committee and leave that to those of us that were good at it (too often one of us would be GMing, though!). This isn't to say that they couldn't have input, but it was our way of shooting down half-cocked plans...particularly after one severe screw-up (which led to both players having to make new characters) when I was forced to declare, "A goal is not a plan!".

That said, if a group can agree on some sort of leader prior to getting into a shoot-up, it's probably to their advantage.
Brambles
Maybe I should have explained the situation better:

First, most ppl in our group play rp games for the social part. They prefer not to be bothered with too many rules. When we still played Dnd, most people wanted to get over char generation asap. Noone had an original concept, every char was a variation of the munchkin.
Now, everyone has a char they like to play because we talked about it. I did influence their choice of general concept a bit, but not as far as to forbid certain things normally allowed by the rules.

Secondly, they're newbie players and I am a newbie dm. We only have 1 sr3, mine. It complicates matters a bit, specially because all my players are short on funds and I'm very protective of my book grinbig.gif

As for favoritisme... my boyfriend is the so-called leader, but while they're running, everyone in the group has a say. My boyfriend is only the leader rpwise: he brought the group together. I've known every person in the group nearly as long as him. They're good friends, and we talked about this before we started making chars.

I supose every group is different. In my group it turned out perfect this way.
torzzzzz
sarcastic.gif

QUOTE
hmm, this is just me personally, and i'll admit i dont know how well your group knows you, but i think i might not like it so much if i knew the gm was doing something like this to our group, where it's decided by her who the "leader" would be and what sort of tactics would be used if its not a group idea...

I'd call it favoritism...


too right i would go bat shit if someone did that in my group!!!!!
erm.......... interaction between characters i think they call it!


also,
QUOTE
most people wanted to get over char generation asap


one of the gems in shadowrun is the character generation with out it you just have boring peeps with no place to go.

don't sell yourself short i GM'ed my first game a few weeks ago and made it hard as hell, why not? i mean i got stuck on the rules but everyone helped me out without giving too much away, don't take the easy option sort it out your self!!!
tell ya boy friend to shove it........ my partner (of 6 years and shadowrunner of 15 years wouldn't dream of telling how and what to do on a run!!)

pah! said my bit now..

ooooh just thought of another thing if you are so protective over your book get it photo copyed or something we only have on book (of each ever done) but thats not the point what do you think they are going to do with it eat it?

torz x cool.gif
The Question Man
I am GM'ing a Shadowrun Campaign currently where I have asked the Players if they wanted to create a 2nd Character for the Campaign.

First it would allow them to play a different Character.

Second it allows the Fixer to tailor teams to a specific mission.

Third if one Character is hospitalized, killed, or can't be interupted then the Player has another Character ready to play immediately.

So far all, but one Player has decided to create a 2nd Character. The Players are having fun and the GM doesn't have to worry wheather the Team/Group is capable enough to accomplish the mission.

Cheers

QM
tisoz
I was in a group once that had the "team" thing with designated leader. I remember our first get together to play. The guy that was hosting the game was 'in command'. His friend was 'second in command'. I forget if they were assigning ranks or not, but I do remember I was way the heck down the chain of command, maybe the ball on the end of the chain.

They also decided you had to fork over 1/10 of your starting resources to the team. I was surprised things went as well as they did, and I had a fewer reservations when I saw the work and planning they had put into the group headquarters. Turned out they didn't just choose lowest priority resources and steal the other characters stuff. IIRC they had several shops and magic libraries, that sort of thing. Team vehicles, comm equipment. All back in early 2nd edition so there wasn't nearly as much stuff to buy. A lot of the gear was things some characters overlook, can't afford, or just plan on mooching from others.

The guy that hosted the game got evicted by the next game night, his friend was apparently his old landlord, so he quit. I think we lost about half the group of 8. But we kept their resources. wink.gif The command structure never came up again that I remember.


I've played in several small groups. Many times we play what we want without regard to what anyone else is playing. Other times we got together to decide what character types people wanted to play and tried to cover bases. It seems there is a lot of back up or second characters that get made after their first is discovered to not be as fun as they thought it might be. Or they saw a glaring hole that they actually liked the idea of filling.

I've seen the character made whose whole reason for existance was to kill another PC, too. Also characters that no one would actually hire or willingly run with. Skill-less slots whose only function was mine detector.

In a lot of these groups, it seems like the mage and the combat monster form a nucleus and the other characters tend to come and go.
Joe Outside
We usually have 4-6 players in our game, and we talk over who is going to do what, then we make our characters to fill out the Ms--Muscle, Magic, Matrix and Machine. Our M is decided, but what we build to fill that slot is entirely up to us. Designated leader changes from run to run, who whoever gets the call from the fixer or Johnson (or however they get the job) being the leader for that run.
toturi
QUOTE (Joe Outside)
We usually have 4-6 players in our game, and we talk over who is going to do what, then we make our characters to fill out the Ms--Muscle, Magic, Matrix and Machine. Our M is decided, but what we build to fill that slot is entirely up to us. Designated leader changes from run to run, who whoever gets the call from the fixer or Johnson (or however they get the job) being the leader for that run.

Where're Monster and Munchkin? eek.gif
Sharaloth
The longest running campaign I was in (and for the most part, GM'd), started out with a group of thrown-together Runners, as per normal. Several million nuyen (silly GM's, not me, using internet-published adventures) later and one of the originals retired (Troll Sammy who became impossible to kill). Another (mine) vanished to begin his metamorphosis into the Uber-NPC villain, and we were left with two team members and an influx of new players. The two 'original' characters became the de facto leaders of the various incarnations of the running team after that (very few of the new characters survived more than three runs in a row). One of the originals, in particular, was a very well done face/combat Adept, who basically ran the team, while the other was a mage/decker who, for some reason I can't remember, became the 'official' team leader. This became worse when the Adept had to retire (fell into a plot point and came out working for Saeder-Krupp), and the team was left in the care of the Mage, whose player tended to fall asleep in parts of the run that didn't directly affect him. ... Oh yeah, he annoyed the hell out of me doing that.

No one really complained about the 'originals' as the team-leaders, since everybody got a say in planning, and things usually went the way of the action movie (though there was one time when we successfully assaulted an armored transport vehicle without killing anyone, or getting injured ourselves).

Generally, with a good GM, any team can work, with any combo of characters. The all-muscle team will just get jobs that don't reqiure much in the way of decking/magic. the all-magic team will just be stuck in a magic-centric campaign. A team that covers all the bases will be doing all sorts of stuff all over the place. Of course, if the players don't like that, they can always make new characters, and/or request that the game go in a different direction. Meh, I guess it's 'to each their own'.
Weredigo
Well the general small shadowrunning team usually includes a streetsam or merc, a magic user, and a decker. But I'm having trouble finding someone who wants to play a Decker, and when I do they rarely deck, so at the moment I'm experimenting with a StreetSam, Magic User, Thief team, including an NPC decker.
Brambles
QUOTE

torzzzzz
don't sell yourself short i GM'ed my first game a few weeks ago and made it hard as hell, why not? i mean i got stuck on the rules but everyone helped me out without giving too much away, don't take the easy option sort it out your self!!!
tell ya boy friend to shove it........ my partner (of 6 years and shadowrunner of 15 years wouldn't dream of telling how and what to do on a run!!)

pah! said my bit now..

ooooh just thought of another thing if you are so protective over your book get it photo copyed or something we only have on book (of each ever done) but thats not the point what do you think they are going to do with it eat it?


Torzz, I rather not give my book to ppl in our group because they Are careless with it, and I'm still a student... RP books are expensive to me, I can't afford another one if there's beer, coke and other stuff spilled on it. Maybe I'm just picky... But thanks for the fotocopy tip, I'll prolly do that.

I told my boyfriend he could do char generation, together with the players (who allready had more or less ideas of what they wanted to play). but I make the sessions and dm them. He wouldn't dare bossing over me, just like I don't boss over him when he is the dm. Noone would know we're a couple if they saw us playing and didn't know us.

To me, there's a whole lot of difference between leading the game and 'leading' the players. Our groupleader has never laid claim on his 'title', but he is always the one who sets the other people in motion (fe at the beginning of a session, asking who has any ideas) I believe that is more important than being a 'military' kind of leader. If our leader ever tries to force something on the other players, they'd immediatly come to me and complain, or tell him to stop it in his face.
tisoz
I knew the books had a tendency to lose pages. For over 5 years, I handled mine very carefully. The first time I let someone open it, he put it on the table and before I could scream NO! pressed down on the pages to keep it open. (Not really more than you would expect for a normal book.) All the color pages immediately came loose and out and the pages he had open came about half loose from the binding.
Solstice
in actuality it would be nice if the teams did acknowledge one person as the leader. There is one person in our group that is superior in planning and tactics (me) but unfortunately everyone else in the group is delusional and believes that person to be themselves. It leads to some interesting but often times botched runs.
tisoz
QUOTE (Solstice)
There is one person in our group that is superior in planning and tactics (me) but unfortunately everyone else in the group is delusional and believes that person to be themselves.

Hmmm. wink.gif
torzzzzz
QUOTE (Solstice)
in actuality it would be nice if the teams did acknowledge one person as the leader.


NO,NO,NO every runner for them selves! yes use the other PC's to help you on the run but NEVER TRUST THEM!!! proberly just me but PC leaders is a bad thing before long you will be working for them...... belive me i know ... see the thread on doing the dirty . eek.gif


torz x
Crusher Bob
QUOTE (Brambles)


Torzz, I rather not give my book to ppl in our group because they Are careless with it, and I'm still a student... RP books are expensive to me, I can't afford another one if there's beer, coke and other stuff spilled on it. Maybe I'm just picky... But thanks for the fotocopy tip, I'll prolly do that.

...

One of the first things to do with your RPG books (yes, even the hard covers) is to coat them in clear, sticky plastic. This protects the book cover and binding against liquids and keeps then looking much better. The protected bindings hold together much better too.

You can find the rolls of plastic at either a grocery/home type store (used to lining the insides of shelves and drawers) or at a stationery store (used to cover books).

If you have a bit more cash, cut your book completely out of its binding, place each page in a 'plastic pocket thingy' and keep the whole in a three ring binder. The plastic pockets protect the pages from spilled coke, grubby hands, drop pizza bits, and so on. You can even take out whole sections of the book for reference.
Critias
QUOTE (torzzzzz)
QUOTE (Solstice @ Mar 1 2005, 08:44 PM)
in actuality it would be nice if the teams did acknowledge one person as the leader.


NO,NO,NO every runner for them selves! yes use the other PC's to help you on the run but NEVER TRUST THEM!!! proberly just me but PC leaders is a bad thing before long you will be working for them...... belive me i know ... see the thread on doing the dirty . eek.gif


torz x

Take an "every runner for himself" group and throw it against an organized "we recognize that someone has field command" team of similar karma, cash, gear, etc... and I promise you the organized one will come out on top, every time.

There's a world of difference between a group of individuals and a team.
torzzzzz
AGGGGGH CUT THE BOOK UP??????????

photo copy its for winners........ especialy if you are a student and get it for free!........ those were the days!

torz x
Endgame50
My group had a tendency to argue endlessly--no one trusted any one else's opinion, even in their area of expertise. (Like the demolitions expert trying to explain that no, the nasty grenade *can't* blast through a door). Every suggestion was shot down with a "what if..." counter, with no suggested alternate action. I think a team leader to make final decisions is a wiz idea, assuming you can find someone the group agrees on.
torzzzzz
QUOTE (Critias)

Take an "every runner for himself" group and throw it against an organized "we recognize that someone has field command" team of similar karma, cash, gear, etc... and I promise you the organized one will come out on top, every time.

There's a world of difference between a group of individuals and a team.

nah!

bin there done that in a pinch we do work well together but im not up for putting my share of the booty in a comunal pot its just begging for trouble!

Come on, if i could i would gladly take part in an organised against every runner for them selves! ( problem is most of ya all is in the U.S! )

bwhahahah


torz x cool.gif
Weredigo
QUOTE
AGGGGGH CUT THE BOOK UP??????????

photo copy its for winners........ especialy if you are a student and get it for free!........ those were the days!
Actually I didn't have a choice, my book apparantly was so old it just fell apart. So i went to Kinko's, got a 3 ring binder and a LOT of transparancy pages.
torzzzzz
Thats ok then, could not handel the thought of a book being butcherd!!

torz x
Critias
QUOTE (torzzzzz)
QUOTE (Critias @ Mar 2 2005, 04:56 AM)

Take an "every runner for himself" group and throw it against an organized "we recognize that someone has field command" team of similar karma, cash, gear, etc...  and I promise you the organized one will come out on top, every time. 

There's a world of difference between a group of individuals and a team.

nah!

bin there done that in a pinch we do work well together but im not up for putting my share of the booty in a comunal pot its just begging for trouble!

Come on, if i could i would gladly take part in an organised against every runner for them selves! ( problem is most of ya all is in the U.S! )

There's no direct link I can find between "organized runner team with a clearly defined field leader" and "communal money pot." None.

Everyone else is talking about having someone that makes decisions (tactical and otherwise) when the shit hits the fan, so that the team can respond to threats (or create them) in an organized and fight winning manner. You're talking about the happy lovey Runner gang sharing a checking account.
torzzzzz
If that was directed at me I am not talking about a 'Lovey runner gang sharing a checking account' that is the last thing on earth i would do.

I dont have a problem with someone that makes decisions when the shit hits the fan, we tend to come to the same conclusion!

torz x sarcastic.gif
Solstice
then what are you saying? not that it matters your not making your point regardless. nyahnyah.gif
torzzzzz
I think i am going to bow out of this one as there seems to be some sort of missunderstanding goning on here and i cant be arsed with being heckeld by you lot!

you can all carry on arguing with yourselvs

torz x
Paul
QUOTE
Most of my Shadowrun experience, however, is in smaller groups of players, usually 3-4. Do most people assume a 6-runner team when designing a character or archetype?



Nope. We're lucky to get 4 players in the same place these days. w eoften play with 2 players, and me as theGM.
Critias
QUOTE (torzzzzz)
I think i am going to bow out of this one as there seems to be some sort of missunderstanding goning on here and i cant be arsed with being heckeld by you lot!

you can all carry on arguing with yourselvs

Okay. Lemme break it down. And I don't mean this rudely, I just want to explain where the "misunderstanding" or whatever is coming from.

Someone said "it's a good idea for a team to have a leader."

You replied with "NO,NO,NO every runner for them selves! yes use the other PC's to help you on the run but NEVER TRUST THEM!!! proberly just me but PC leaders is a bad thing before long you will be working for them...... belive me i know ... see the thread on doing the dirty!"

I then replied with the notion that an organized team is better than an "every runner for themselves" group of individuals. A team will work together, concentrate fire, cover for one another when they move from cover or reload, etc, etc, etc. A group of individuals will probably not do so, unless it's very clearly obviously in their own best interest (and the chances for such a group to break down are vastly increased). If a Shadowrunner team has a field leader giving clear, concise commands (even without the Small Units Tactics skill), they are more likely to respond to threats in an organized and efficient manner, and as such survive. A team is better to work with than a group. That is the entirety of my point.

To which you responded with something about communal money pots getting all of everyone's money. Which isn't what anyone but you is talking about. We're talking about a team being organized and efficient in the field, you're talking about communal money pots (by yourself).

And then you said we were arguing with ourselves.
torzzzzz
biggrin.gif what can I say ...... on looking back you are Right..... Fair pont!

torz x rotfl.gif
Chibu
QUOTE (DocMortand)
hey, when I played I was a ROLE player. I created a role and played it...didn't create the uber munchkin player or try to fit a niche...I created the player that fitted my concept.

But here again, that's just me. *shrug* I do believe 95% of RPGers play to blow things up and stick it to the weak little platinum dragons.

Well, the thing is, the J isn't going to hire a bunch of guys becuase they have personality...

Yes, you SHOULD have a character who has motivations, and history. but, also, you have to make a character that will work well with a team. The J isn't going to hire 6 guys with personality who happen to be only good at combat to go in and get files off of a red host. You need to be versatile. but, ya know.

Nightshade, my Adept character, hired a team once to break into a building and steel something for him. He hired people who had the appropriate skills to do that. Not people with good storys to tell.

Again, i'm not saying that stories are bad, or even that they are in any way not necessary (i think they ARE necessary) but, the J would be hiring a team.
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