Shadowrun
Off-topic => General Gaming => Topic started by: Basic on <11-23-14/1020:48>
-
I wanted to ask how much power should a GM be allowed to exert over a player before a player should just leave the game for bad GMing ?
-
Could you clarify the statement abit, as in some examples of the GM power being exerted?
If the GM is basically railroading a player at every turn so that only a very specific set of circumstances allow for success you may have to consider your role and whether you are playing out a scenario or is the GM basically playing it out through you. But again each situation is unique and you have to look at the overall game before throwing down the gauntlet.
What are you considering to be 'bad'? Again, a little more information will be useful.
A basic rule of thumb is if you are not having fun, you need a new table.
-
Its not a question of 'power'. Its comes down to having an enjoyable game experience. If it comes down to that there is no room for mutual enjoyment of a game, because no compromise can be found that works equally for both parties, then the player might want to find a new game, and the GM probably will be happy to have the player gone as well.
-
GM killing off player characters with no dice rolls or killing off characters whole backgrounds with no dice rolls and no explanation to how it could happen when there is so much in place to make sure exactly that did not happen.
-
GM killing off player characters with no dice rolls or killing off characters whole backgrounds with no dice rolls and no explanation to how it could happen when there is so much in place to make sure exactly that did not happen.
Let me guess, is the closest thing to an explanation "I'm the GM. I am god."?
-
Details. I can see situations where a PC gets killed without a dice roll: there are plenty of un-survivable situations. But those should be very rare and, and generally can be attributed to gross recklessness by the player. How was the Pc in this situation killed, and why.
And how is a background 'killed'?
-
Details. I can see situations where a PC gets killed without a dice roll: there are plenty of un-survivable situations. But those should be very rare and, and generally can be attributed to gross recklessness by the player. How was the Pc in this situation killed, and why.
And how is a background 'killed'?
You're only correct if by "very rare" and "attributed to gross recklessness" you mean "restricted to such situations as pushing a big red button with a sign that says 'Do not push. Will detonate 20 kiloton nuclear device in basement.'"
Otherwise there is no excuse for basically killing a character via fiat without giving some opportunity to use the character's abilities to extricate themselves from the situation.
-
Details. I can see situations where a PC gets killed without a dice roll: there are plenty of un-survivable situations. But those should be very rare and, and generally can be attributed to gross recklessness by the player. How was the Pc in this situation killed, and why.
And how is a background 'killed'?
You're only correct if by "very rare" and "attributed to gross recklessness" you mean "restricted to such situations as pushing a big red button with a sign that says 'Do not push. Will detonate 20 kiloton nuclear device in basement.'"
Otherwise there is no excuse for basically killing a character via fiat without giving some opportunity to use the character's abilities to extricate themselves from the situation.
Yeah the only time ive seen a runner killed with no roll was due to an arrangement with the player. He wanted to move on to a new runner and wanted his old runner to go out like a Boss. To me a GMs job is to be flexible. My mantra is "why say no when it is more fun to say yes, but there will be consequences"
-
My mantra is "why say no when it is more fun to say yes, but there will be consequences"
Many a D&D session has ended very memorably due to this idea. "Oh, you want to look into the big conspicuous book? Sure, roll me a Will Save."
-
You're only correct if by "very rare" and "attributed to gross recklessness" you mean "restricted to such situations as pushing a big red button with a sign that says 'Do not push. Will detonate 20 kiloton nuclear device in basement.'"
Otherwise there is no excuse for basically killing a character via fiat without giving some opportunity to use the character's abilities to extricate themselves from the situation.
Never underestimate the ability of some players to put themselves into situations where no dice rolling can save them, despite giant warning flags (and even 'attribute based 'saving throws' to suggest that what they were doing was unwise). Sometimes a poor choice or decision gets you killed, and dice rolling can't do anything about it.
Of course, there's always edge burning in SR, though I don't believe a GM always has to allow that either, but they better have a good reason not to. I've only done so once, and even the player agreed their character should be dead.
Still, its very unique and rare, and if it is coming up semi-regularly, then something is wrong; some gross misunderstanding, miscommunication, or it could be a bad GM. I'm reluctant to automatically attribute anything to a bad GM until I hear the specifics of what the player(s) were doing.
-
I can see a reason, but as said, due to player stupidity.
Player: 'I do a full frontal charge on the Aztec pyramid'
GM: 'you die'
I think this is perfectly acceptable as GM to have this ruling without rolling any dice.
-
I can see a reason, but as said, due to player stupidity.
Player: 'I do a full frontal charge on the Aztec pyramid'
GM: 'you die'
I think this is perfectly acceptable as GM to have this ruling without rolling any dice.
Depends on many factors there. While it isn't likely, it is certainly possible to be able to do some damage and manage to escape. Why just say "You die" when you can have a battle scene of epic proportions?
-
I can see a reason, but as said, due to player stupidity.
Player: 'I do a full frontal charge on the Aztec pyramid'
GM: 'you die'
I think this is perfectly acceptable as GM to have this ruling without rolling any dice.
Depends on many factors there. While it isn't likely, it is certainly possible to be able to do some damage and manage to escape. Why just say "You die" when you can have a battle scene of epic proportions?
Or have a very painful, once sided scenario to display in horrible, painful, detail to the player just how bad that idea was. Call it a teaching moment.
-
I wanted to ask how much power should a GM be allowed to exert over a player before a player should just leave the game for bad GMing ?
However much you are willing to put up with. The game is a social contract between the players and GM. If you're fed up with their antics, let them know you don't have to put up with their bull drek.
GM killing off player characters with no dice rolls or killing off characters whole backgrounds with no dice rolls and no explanation to how it could happen when there is so much in place to make sure exactly that did not happen.
Yeah, I would dump your GM.
The GM gets the world, you get your character. In my opinion, if the GM wants to mess with your character they need to do it fairly with the rulebook, within the setting and the tone of the game. Under no circumstances should the GM be callously or arbitrarily killing off or messing with characters.
Character death should be poignant, not trite.
-
I can see a reason, but as said, due to player stupidity.
Player: 'I do a full frontal charge on the Aztec pyramid'
GM: 'you die'
I think this is perfectly acceptable as GM to have this ruling without rolling any dice.
Depends on many factors there. While it isn't likely, it is certainly possible to be able to do some damage and manage to escape. Why just say "You die" when you can have a battle scene of epic proportions?
Or have a very painful, once sided scenario to display in horrible, painful, detail to the player just how bad that idea was. Call it a teaching moment.
Nope, no or there. What you're suggesting is the equivalent of swatting a pet with a newspaper rolled around a piece of rebar. That's not fun. The difficult battle of epic proportions with a minutely slim chance of victory and a larger (yet still kind of slim) chance of escape can be a game session remembered and discussed for decades to come.
-
I can see a reason, but as said, due to player stupidity.
Player: 'I do a full frontal charge on the Aztec pyramid'
GM: 'you die'
I think this is perfectly acceptable as GM to have this ruling without rolling any dice.
Depends on many factors there. While it isn't likely, it is certainly possible to be able to do some damage and manage to escape. Why just say "You die" when you can have a battle scene of epic proportions?
Or have a very painful, once sided scenario to display in horrible, painful, detail to the player just how bad that idea was. Call it a teaching moment.
Nope, no or there. What you're suggesting is the equivalent of swatting a pet with a newspaper rolled around a piece of rebar. That's not fun. The difficult battle of epic proportions with a minutely slim chance of victory and a larger (yet still kind of slim) chance of escape can be a game session remembered and discussed for decades to come.
If that's the game the rest of the group wants to play, sure. Otherwise, blatantly suicidal actions should just be that... if a character puts their Ruger Warhawk up to their temple, there's no need to roll for damage. Of course, with the proper planning and prep-work, a single character may just be able to take on a battalion of jaguar guards... but that just gets back to point 1: is that the game everyone wants to play?
-
Nope, no or there. What you're suggesting is the equivalent of swatting a pet with a newspaper rolled around a piece of rebar. That's not fun.
Its what the character asked for. If you pick a stupid fight with an far more powerful foe, and you do it in a blatant manner, you get slapped down. A GM can provide warnings, advice, even have NPC friends/contacts try to reason with or stop the character, but if you try to take on overwhelming opposition head on, you get what's coming. Stupid actions have consequences, and some times you have to demonstrate that.
-
Nope, no or there. What you're suggesting is the equivalent of swatting a pet with a newspaper rolled around a piece of rebar. That's not fun.
Its what the character asked for. If you pick a stupid fight with an far more powerful foe, and you do it in a blatant manner, you get slapped down. A GM can provide warnings, advice, even have NPC friends/contacts try to reason with or stop the character, but if you try to take on overwhelming opposition head on, you get what's coming. Stupid actions have consequences, and some times you have to demonstrate that.
That is where you are entirely mistaken. The GM whose desire is to "slap down" his players is a piss poor GM unworthy of his screen, IMO. The GM's job is to set the scene and arbitrate the rules. Nothing more. Once he gets the "I am god" idea into his head through the 'Rule Zero' fallacy, the game he is running is immediately doomed.
-
Nope, no or there. What you're suggesting is the equivalent of swatting a pet with a newspaper rolled around a piece of rebar. That's not fun.
Its what the character asked for. If you pick a stupid fight with an far more powerful foe, and you do it in a blatant manner, you get slapped down. A GM can provide warnings, advice, even have NPC friends/contacts try to reason with or stop the character, but if you try to take on overwhelming opposition head on, you get what's coming. Stupid actions have consequences, and some times you have to demonstrate that.
That is where you are entirely mistaken. The GM whose desire is to "slap down" his players is a piss poor GM unworthy of his screen, IMO. The GM's job is to set the scene and arbitrate the rules. Nothing more. Once he gets the "I am god" idea into his head through the 'Rule Zero' fallacy, the game he is running is immediately doomed.
Setting the scene and arbitrating the rules fairly, but to the absolutely inevitable conclusion in a lopsided battle that is soley due to immense player stupidity in challenging an overwhelming opposition in an extremely foolhardy fashion was exactly what I was talking about.
-
For me one player going on a lone suicide mission of such a dimension with no connection to the story is wasted time for the rest of the table.
Why should they sit it out and wait while someone else is truly stealing the spotlight for himself?
But it all depends on the circumstances. A planned suicide mission could be an interesting end for a team or a single runner. Although if it is centered only on one character, the GM could maybe adviced to do this 1:1 and not at a regular session with other people waiting for it to resolve.
-
For me one player going on a lone suicide mission of such a dimension with no connection to the story is wasted time for the rest of the table.
Why should they sit it out and wait while someone else is truly stealing the spotlight for himself?
But it all depends on the circumstances. A planned suicide mission could be an interesting end for a team or a single runner. Although if it is centered only on one character, the GM could maybe adviced to do this 1:1 and not at a regular session with other people waiting for it to resolve.
Why? No one has to be "just sitting there". Cut back and forth between everyone.
While one is fighting, the others can be involved in a high speed chase, either toward his location in an attempt to save him or he could be trying to hold those enemy forces off long enough for them to get to their extraction point. Could be high in drama and tension there.
-
GM style is completely different from person to person. I like my players to have some degree of background, an idea of their character's appearance, and some other specifics down pat. One of my newer players hated that, so he left the game. No skin off my nose. I like to try to bounce between players, interrupting their long diatribes of actions in order to allow everyone a chance to play. No one has ever been upset with that. I prefer the characters in my games to be more realistic, so I try not to allow combinations of things that are only viable due to loopholes or unclear aspects of the rules. And I try to stick to the "1 minute" rule, wherein if I come across something that I can't figure out in 1 minute, I'll just make something up on the fly to keep the game moving.
All that is to say that my style isn't for everyone, just as many of the GMs I've played with haven't really been for me. In fact, the whole reason I started GMing in the first place was because way back when I played D&D. My DM had me take a herring to a tree, while chanting "ni." Now, I'm as big a fan of Monty Python as the next nerd - but to me that was too much in the silly direction. I knew I wanted my games to be more... gamey, but also to stay fun. It took me years to refine my style, understanding what to look for in players before they did something I didn't like. As a result, I don't really have to "smack down" my players - I simply see what is coming and prevent it from coming up.
When I do demo games though, I let the freak flag fly. Players can be as crazy as they want to be, because it's not a campaign and the characters' actions won't have any repercussions. What I think this means is that I have a varied style of GMing, and I can adapt to several situations. Not every GM can do that. For a long time, I couldn't do that.
When I think of "smacking down" a player, I think of a GM hitting someone with something impossible to defeat, without giving the player or character any chance of warning. For instance, let's say there is a door with a lock that the characters have no chance of overcoming. The characters should still be able to kick in the door, blow it up, hit it with spells... something. If I say that this is an invincible door and they should have picked up Lockpicking when I told them to... that's childish as hell on my part. The GM should allow the players to have a chance, even if it's not always the ideal. In that example, let the characters kick in the door or whatnot, but it sounds an alarm. It makes the rest of the run harder, but it doesn't stop the game because I wanted to be right.
So to me, that's what "smacking down" a player would be. If a GM has more than 2 years of experience and is still doing that kind of thing, they're a crap GM.
-
So people interpret phrases differently, but it seems everyone is on the same boat--let players suffer the consequences of their actions, but be fair about it, and be ready to dice it out, within reason, and hopefully make a learning experience of it.
-
For me one player going on a lone suicide mission of such a dimension with no connection to the story is wasted time for the rest of the table.
Why should they sit it out and wait while someone else is truly stealing the spotlight for himself?
But it all depends on the circumstances. A planned suicide mission could be an interesting end for a team or a single runner. Although if it is centered only on one character, the GM could maybe adviced to do this 1:1 and not at a regular session with other people waiting for it to resolve.
Why? No one has to be "just sitting there". Cut back and forth between everyone.
While one is fighting, the others can be involved in a high speed chase, either toward his location in an attempt to save him or he could be trying to hold those enemy forces off long enough for them to get to their extraction point. Could be high in drama and tension there.
I don't know about you, but battles that go on for 3 or more combat turns are exceptionally long at our table. The distance you could cover in a chase during that time is negligible. And I don't think that the movie 300 can be adapted to fit a shadowrun setting, with a small force holding off a much bigger one.
So while nice in theory, I fear your options are hard to emulate.
-
Since when is running a good game easy?
One can have a game easy to run and just fiat everything with the players just sitting there for "story time", or they can have a game that is fun to run and play.
-
For me one player going on a lone suicide mission of such a dimension with no connection to the story is wasted time for the rest of the table.
Why should they sit it out and wait while someone else is truly stealing the spotlight for himself?
But it all depends on the circumstances. A planned suicide mission could be an interesting end for a team or a single runner. Although if it is centered only on one character, the GM could maybe adviced to do this 1:1 and not at a regular session with other people waiting for it to resolve.
Why? No one has to be "just sitting there". Cut back and forth between everyone.
While one is fighting, the others can be involved in a high speed chase, either toward his location in an attempt to save him or he could be trying to hold those enemy forces off long enough for them to get to their extraction point. Could be high in drama and tension there.
Depends on the situation really, if the other players want to be involved, (or if they could be involved, in case of the lone wolf player doing his suicidal action on his own.)
-
Also if a situation like that occurs, there's a good chance that the GM should be taking a serious look at his game and possibly his entire running style because there is a high probability that it is being done because the player is having far too much problem with how things are going and sees that as the only way to do anything about it.
-
Also if a situation like that occurs, there's a good chance that the GM should be taking a serious look at his game and possibly his entire running style because there is a high probability that it is being done because the player is having far too much problem with how things are going and sees that as the only way to do anything about it.
It definitely is a cause for extra communication to determine if its a communication problem, an expectation problem, or if the player just isn't taking the universe seriously, which is not always good for the enjoyment of others.
-
Or, more likely, the GM is taking the setting FAR TOO seriously and it's ruining the actual game aspect for others. Far too often people put too much focus on the RP side and think that someone who mainly enjoys the Game side is "playing wrong".
-
Or, more likely, the GM is taking the setting FAR TOO seriously and it's ruining the actual game aspect for others. Far too often people put too much focus on the RP side and think that someone who mainly enjoys the Game side is "playing wrong".
Yeah. how dare someone try to role play in a RPG. ::)
-
Or, more likely, the GM is taking the setting FAR TOO seriously and it's ruining the actual game aspect for others. Far too often people put too much focus on the RP side and think that someone who mainly enjoys the Game side is "playing wrong".
Yeah. how dare someone try to role play in a RPG. ::)
There's a difference between roleplaying the setting and being so devoid of ideas that the only way you can convey the dystopian elements of the Sixth World is by killing off a character's backstory (which, in my mind, is a graver sin than killing off a character). It's tough to say without further details, but it sounds like that's what's happening here.
Gamemasters act more as referees than they do opponents. I have no problem allowing dumb ideas to come to fruition even if that fruition means players die, but that's the result of player action, not GM fiat. I'm there to arbitrate between the players and the world, and it's a pretty bleak world, so that interaction is often very dangerous. But if I lose my players' trust as a fair arbitrator, I'd expect to quickly lose my players.
-
I'm still waiting for an explanation of how a backstory was killed off from the OP. I mean, did the GM just alter the characters established history, or kill off all of the NPC's that made up that backstory. Was there a reason for it? Was the GM going somewhere with it? Or was he just arbitrarily screwing over the character?
-
Or, more likely, the GM is taking the setting FAR TOO seriously and it's ruining the actual game aspect for others. Far too often people put too much focus on the RP side and think that someone who mainly enjoys the Game side is "playing wrong".
Yeah. how dare someone try to role play in a RPG. ::)
Notice that I specifically said TOO MUCH focus on that portion to the exclusion of the Game aspect. The Game aspect is just as important.
-
I have no problem allowing dumb ideas to come to fruition even if that fruition means players die, but that's the result of player action, not GM fiat.
I developed the Common Sense roll for that: Logic+Intuition, guaranteeing near-everyone has at least 6 dice in it. If they roll good enough they realize just how bad an idea they are suggesting.
-
I'm still waiting for an explanation of how a backstory was killed off from the OP. I mean, did the GM just alter the characters established history, or kill off all of the NPC's that made up that backstory. Was there a reason for it? Was the GM going somewhere with it? Or was he just arbitrarily screwing over the character?
yeah i would like more clarification on that as well. Right now i assume he means the following
GM looks at back-story, "Nah that wont work for MY GAME, your back story is this now. There we go much better"
-
GM power is a wildly variable thing that there's no right answer for. The situation you're describing is pretty shitty and it makes it sound like your GM is, but in the grand scheme of things, GM fiat is a wildly fluctuating thing that varies from game to game, as trust grows.
The latter half of your question, though? When is it time to find a new game? That one's easy. "When you're not having fun." It doesn't matter why. It doesn't matter if it's the GM, another player, or even the game and its rules. It matters that, when you're playing a game, you're enjoying yourself. Games are supposed to be fun. That's what they're FOR. You play games to sling dice and tell cool stories and have a good time.
If you're not having fun, why are you there?
-
Ok so here is what happened.
I"m a decker great dice pools for decking that's about it not so much of combat person. The GM sends an Air spirt of unknown level to attack me at my home which has extra secure so it has high level of security. It just shows up knocks me out takes me before it knocks me out I let my team know. They come and shoot it with assault cannons and stuff no effect (Also no dice rolls). My characters contact who is a level 7 mage knows and would send a spirit but the GM refuses to say they do even after being contacted. The GM says the spirt flys away with you takes you to a warehouse and it blows up you are dead unless you spend all your edge even then your fixer is dead and all your gear is gone.
That's about what I thought. Your entire group needs to abandon this guy right now. If he did it to one of you, then it is a matter of time before he power trips again and does it to another person.
-
Ok so here is what happened.
I"m a decker great dice pools for decking that's about it not so much of combat person. The GM sends an Air spirt of unknown level to attack me at my home which has extra secure so it has high level of security. It just shows up knocks me out takes me before it knocks me out I let my team know. They come and shoot it with assault cannons and stuff no effect (Also no dice rolls). My characters contact who is a level 7 mage knows and would send a spirit but the GM refuses to say they do even after being contacted. The GM says the spirt flys away with you takes you to a warehouse and it blows up you are dead unless you spend all your edge even then your fixer is dead and all your gear is gone.
That's about what I thought. Your entire group needs to abandon this guy right now. If he did it to one of you, then it is a matter of time before he power trips again and does it to another person.
Yeah that sounds more like a temper tantrum than GMing. That's not telling a story, that's not enhancing the fun, that's him telling you to go F yourself, and that is never cool
-
I wouldn't even dignify that guy with the title of game master.
-
I wouldn't even dignify that guy with the title of game master.
Except that the sad thing is that there are more like that guy than there are good ones.
-
Attacking you with an air spirit is fine on it's own. But there are a TON of holes in the logic of that story.
First, how did the air spirit find you? Who sent it?
Second, how did the GM justify not bother doing dice rolls for your teammates' combat?
Third, how did the spirit get you to the warehouse? Levitation is a thing, sure, but the spirit has to be manifested and drag your unconscious body through the air to the location. Which is stupid.
Fourth, what is a level 7 mage contact? If you're referring to a contact with a Connection of 7 then your GM has no idea what he's doing allowing anyone to have a contact like that. Unless this is a 200+ karma game.
Fifth, what blew up the warehouse?
Sixth, did you explain to the GM that it takes burning only one Edge to save yourself from death?
This story violates so many of the rules of Shadowrun that I'm not convinced your GM actually knows how to play the game. What did the GM say when you approached him with the problems? What precipitated all this happening?
-
If Assault Cannons do no damage period then this Spirit would have to be Force 13+ at the least. Even a Force 12 can be hit by a Panther and MAY take damage. (18/-6 versus say 12+24 = 18 versus 12+18 = 9 versus 12+18 = small chance at doing a bit of damage.) And a Force 12 Spirit is, as I described it in my houserules topic, to a PR6 Team like a Force 6 to gangers, so massive overkill.
Anyway, yeah. Tell the GM that his actions violate not only every rule in Shadowrun, but also the social contract of gaming, so you're out.
-
I wouldn't even dignify that guy with the title of game master.
Except that the sad thing is that there are more like that guy than there are good ones.
I guess I'm lucky. My circles have had only had a few who tried and didnt measure up as good GM's: thankfully, I think many knew ahead of time they wouldn't and didn't try.
-
Oh jeez. When the GM throws hissy fits, time to bail. I actually started GMing because I've had so many of them act like that. Maybe you should give it a go~
-
I always end up GMing just wanna play some times you know ?
Currently GMing 4 games
-
As both a Gamemaster/Dungeonmaster/Storyteller as well as a player, can only say balance in a gaming group is one of many priorities. Encountered too many God-complexed GMs on one hand and ego-driven 'gotta-have-the-best-character' rules lawyers on the other over the years to count. >:(