Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: penllawen on <02-06-20/1049:35>
-
Am I going mad, or is this not possible in 6e? (In the same way it was possible in 5e, I mean, and IIRC all former editions before that. So choosing not to act as soon as you could, and instead acting at some later point in the round of your choosing.)
Scouring the Jan errata version CRB I found only the following text that looked relevant:
pg 40:
When you get to take a turn and describe what your character is doing, your actions are contained in a combat round. A combat round lasts for about three seconds of in-universe time. Everyone, player characters and non-player characters alike, take a single player turn within that round.
Each combat round, you gain an action allotment that you use on your player turn. Actions come in two categories: Minor and Major. The basic action allotment for each character is 1 Minor Action and 1 Major Action per combat round. Players get 1 additional Minor Action for every Initiative Die they have. Players can trade Minor and Major Actions, using a Major Action to perform a Minor Action or using 4 Minor Actions to perform a Major Action (possibly providing an extra attack in a single player turn). Each action has a note next to it indicating when it can be performed; this is either Initiative (I) or Anytime (A). Initiative Actions can only be performed on the character’s player turn during an initiative round, while Anytime Actions can be used at any time. Note, though, that in order to perform an Anytime Action, you must have an Action left. If you spent them all on your turn, you can’t use one later. So sometimes it pays to save an action for later in the round if you act early. Note that actions cannot be carried from one round to another unless that is specifically allowed in a rule.
No mention here of taking an (I) action during any part of a round other than your turn as defined by your initiative roll.
pg 42:
Intercept (A)
If an opponent comes within Close attack range, you may go out of Initiative order and make an Attack action as long as you have both a Minor and a Major Action still available in this round (because you either are after the attacking player in Initiative order or you deferred some of your actions). This counts as your Attack Major Action for the player turn. If you’re already out of Major Actions this round, you’re drek out of luck.
Note that this refers to using "deferred" actions, but only for an (A) action.
pg 36:
Teamwork Tests in Initiative
To assist another member of your team while acting in Initiative order (see p. 39), you have to declare your assistance before they act and while you still have a Major Action to use. The Assist Major Action is used to become a helper on a Teamwork test. The leader must perform their part of the test the next time they have a combat round. If they take actions without doing their part of the Teamwork test, or if they defer their actions, the extra dice from the helpers are lost. They can start the process over again if they would like on their next turn.
Assist is an (A) action, so this doesn't involve "defer" in the same sense as 5e used it.
Is this intentional, or change blindness?
-
I'm not sure I even understand your question. What is the underlying purpose you're angling at in deferring your turn?
If you want to let another player go first so you can assist them in some task, then you use the Assist anytime action. You don't HAVE to assist after they go.
If you want to let an enemy act first, but you beat them on initiative, then what do you do? is that what you're getting at?
Ok, granted there ARE plausible reasons to prefer to let an NPC take the first move. Naturally the assumption is you'd usually rather just attack first, though. To this I'd say that yes, there is currently no mechanic in place. As a table GM, I'd potentially let you just willingly subtract whatever number you wanted from your initiative result so you can go after whoever you want to go first. But hells to the no, I wouldn't let you delay in round 1 then revert back to your full score in round 2 so that you can double up actions on the NPC. That's anathema to the design goals. You roll initiative once per combat in 6we, and you keep the same score throughout. Frankly, if you won on initiative but tactics say you need to let the other side take the first move, I'd say what you should do if you won initiative is some preparatory/anticipatory action like Full Defense. Let them attack, then round 2 you attack back.
Of course, Firing Line is going to be the expanded combat rules book, so odds are decent that it'll offer some official "initiative juggling" options.
-
If you want to let an enemy act first, but you beat them on initiative, then what do you do? is that what you're getting at?
Ok, granted there ARE plausible reasons to prefer to let an NPC take the first move. Naturally the assumption is you'd usually rather just attack first, though. To this I'd say that yes, there is currently no mechanic in place.
Yes. Every other version of Shadowrun has seen fit to devote half a page or so to this exact mechanic (see eg. page 161 of 5e CRB or page 145 of 20A4a CRB), so I don't see why it's a weird or surprising thing for players to ask for all of a sudden.
-
If you want to let an enemy act first, but you beat them on initiative, then what do you do? is that what you're getting at?
Ok, granted there ARE plausible reasons to prefer to let an NPC take the first move. Naturally the assumption is you'd usually rather just attack first, though. To this I'd say that yes, there is currently no mechanic in place.
Yes. Every other version of Shadowrun has seen fit to devote half a page or so to this exact mechanic (see eg. page 161 of 5e CRB), so I don't see why it's a weird or surprising thing for players to ask for all of a sudden.
I wouldn't say it's wierd to ask about. I also wouldn't say it's a case of change blindness, either. Having the same initiative score round after round, across the entire combat is a deliberate thing for 6we.
If you want the other side to "throw the first punch" but you won initiative? Fine. You get to prep for it with a Full Defense, or by taking cover, or whatever. They attack. Then, round 2, you attack back, and you got everything you needed PLUS making that first punch probably be less effective. What I don't think you're going to see is a way to get 2 turns to the other guy's 1.
-
Also because it was a needlessly complicated mechanic ( do we need a rule that says ... if you want to concede initiative then do it), but it's still a use it or lose it when it comes to actions. You don't have to spend actions on your turn but you don't get to carry them over to the next round either.
-
If you want the other side to "throw the first punch" but you won initiative? Fine. You get to prep for it with a Full Defense, or by taking cover, or whatever. They attack. Then, round 2, you attack back, and you got everything you needed PLUS making that first punch probably be less effective. What I don't think you're going to see is a way to get 2 turns to the other guy's 1.
There are lots of other scenarios for deferred actions. Suppose two PCs will act before some NPCs, but the PC that acts second wants to set the situation the up in some way for the first. For example, PC2 wants to lob a grenade to flush NPCs from cover, then PC1 wants to shoot. Or if PC2 is a rigger and wants to manoeuvre the team’s vehicle into a position from which PC1 can fire on an enemy. Or if PC2 is a decker and wants to use a Matrix attack to move a drone out of cover to where PC1 can shoot it. A drone or a spirit doesn’t know what to do on their phase, so awaits orders from their rigger or mage. Etc etc etc.
There’s endless permutations of situations PCs can devise where they might want to defer an action to later in a turn, but feel unfairly disadvantaged at deferring their action entirely into the next turn. I see this routinely at my table - I am surprised this seems to surprise you.
-
You roll initiative once per combat in 6we, and you keep the same score throughout.
There is one way to improve your initiative score, the Edge Boost for +3 initiative for 1 Edge.
I think the presence of this Edge boost argues against a house rule that would let a person voluntarily take (I) actions later in the turn than their initiative score and then go back to their original score. But I think a house rule that let you reduce your initiative score voluntarily but stay at that score would probably work fine.
On a related note, the Full Defense action says (in the latest PDF of the rules): A character can add their Willpower to all De-
fense tests until their next combat round.
Does that really mean "until their next turn in the initiative order"? Or does it mean "until the end of the next combat round"? Or "until the start of the next round"? or something else?
One interesting thing I find with the SR 6E combat system (I can't speak to earlier versions) compared to, say, D&D 5E is the way the action economy is tied to rounds, not turns. In D&D 5E, things like your reaction last from turn to turn, as do most effects (e.g. things you need to make a saving throw for). This means that after the first round, your exact initiative score is not that important all that matters is relative position which proceeds like a loop, round and round. You hardly need to pay attention to the exact end/beginning of the round in most cases.
In SR 6E, though, all participants action supply refreshes at the start of each round. So there is a real need to track the rounds, and the exact order that people go in the round might make a big difference on later rounds of combat, not just the first round. And because of that Edge Boost the exact value of your initiative makes a difference, not just relative position. Every multiple of 3 difference in initiative is an important value. There is actually a trade off between going first in the round versus going last; if you go first you get to hit everyone and make them use up defensive actions or make hard choices every round, but if you go last you always know you can use up any actions you have left safely.
-
If you want the other side to "throw the first punch" but you won initiative? Fine. You get to prep for it with a Full Defense, or by taking cover, or whatever. They attack. Then, round 2, you attack back, and you got everything you needed PLUS making that first punch probably be less effective. What I don't think you're going to see is a way to get 2 turns to the other guy's 1.
There are lots of other scenarios for deferred actions. Suppose two PCs will act before some NPCs, but the PC that acts second wants to set the situation the up in some way for the first. For example, PC2 wants to lob a grenade to flush NPCs from cover, then PC1 wants to shoot. Or if PC2 is a rigger and wants to manoeuvre the team’s vehicle into a position from which PC1 can fire on an enemy. Or if PC2 is a decker and wants to use a Matrix attack to move a drone out of cover to where PC1 can shoot it. A drone or a spirit doesn’t know what to do on their phase, so awaits orders from their rigger or mage. Etc etc etc.
There’s endless permutations of situations PCs can devise where they might want to defer an action to later in a turn, but feel unfairly disadvantaged at deferring their action entirely into the next turn. I see this routinely at my table - I am surprised this seems to surprise you.
It's not surprising. I just fail to see the need for a mechanic. As I mentioned in my first reply, if you REALLY must delay your action, I don't see any harm in just letting you subtract some arbitrary number from your initiative score so you don't go before certain other parties. It's just that it's important to make the distinction this is EVERY round, not just one round. No way, no how should you be able/allowed to get 2 turns inside of another party's 2 turns.
EDIT:
I think this is where we're getting hung on different hooks:
where they might want to defer an action to later in a turn, but feel unfairly disadvantaged at deferring their action entirely into the next turn.
What's the big difference between going later in the same round, and first in the 2nd round?
-
where they might want to defer an action to later in a turn, but feel unfairly disadvantaged at deferring their action entirely into the next turn.
What's the big difference between going later in the same round, and first in the 2nd round?
You get a lot more shot at in the second scenario.
-
where they might want to defer an action to later in a turn, but feel unfairly disadvantaged at deferring their action entirely into the next turn.
What's the big difference between going later in the same round, and first in the 2nd round?
You get a lot more shot at in the second scenario.
The transition from round to round is arbitrary. You get shot at the same number of times across the NPCs all getting one turn no matter where your turn lies in relation to them. You go, they go, you go, they go. Or they go, you go, they go, you go. There is no capacity in the rules for they go, you go, you go, they go. Deliberately so. It's not change blindness.
-
The transition from round to round is arbitrary. You get shot at the same number of times across the NPCs all getting one turn no matter where your turn lies in relation to them. You go, they go, you go, they go. Or they go, you go, they go, you go. There is no capacity in the rules for they go, you go, you go, they go. Deliberately so. It's not change blindness.
Until they're dead/downed. Which is quite soon in Shadowrun, with one-shotting being a pretty common occurrence when fighting lower-statted enemies.
Say two fast-acting PCs are fighting three slow NPCs. PC1 wants to wait for PC2 to do something before attacking (see my previous post for some narrative reasons this might make sense.)
Under 5e, it might go
PC1 defers
PC2 does stuff, kills NPC1
PC1 acts now, kills NPC2
NPC3 attacks someone
<< new turn starts >>
PC1 kills NPC3
You're saying under 6e RAW it has to be
PC1 doesn't take combat actions but cannot defer
PC2 does stuff, kills NPC1
NPC2 attacks PC1
NPC3 attacks PC2
<< new turn starts >>
PC1 acts, kills NPC2
PC2 acts, kills NPC3
The NPCs got an extra attack in this scenario. The fact that, if the turn order is extended to infinity, it all would even out doesn't matter - because combat isn't infinitely long.
edit - added <<new turn markers>> to my example
-
The transition from round to round is arbitrary. You get shot at the same number of times across the NPCs all getting one turn no matter where your turn lies in relation to them. You go, they go, you go, they go. Or they go, you go, they go, you go. There is no they go, you go, you go, they go. Deliberately. It's not change blindness.
This isn't technically true, SSDR, unless I am completely misreading the initiative Edge Boost.
My initiative score is 21, yours is 23. On the first round, you go first, then I take my turn. Then, at the start of the next round, I spend an Edge to boost my initiative to 24, and go again. You go, I go, I go, you go. After that point it returns to the alternation, but you could do the same thing to me at a later point.
Technically, if you want to achieve a situation where you go after a friend who rolled less than you on initiative, you could do that under the current rules, but you don't take the action your friend does; they boost their initiative to beat yours. Of course, that could cost a LOT of Edge, with lots of people turning in their own Edge two for one to give it to the friend. But under the current system there is no way to choose to go after an enemy that I can see.
Also, in a lot of cases an equivalent tactical situation can be achieved when you consider that going later in the current round might be practically equivalent to going sooner in the NEXT round. But that won't always be so, and again it might cost a lot of Edge.
EDIT:
Say two fast-acting PCs are fighting three slow NPCs. PC1 wants to wait for PC2 to do something before attacking (see my previous post for some narrative reasons this might make sense.)
Sorry, I'm on a roll here, but if PC1 can totally go after PC2 if he wants to, PC2 just needs to boost their initiative. That is, PC1 and PC2 can coordinate to make that happen if they have enough Edge and the difference in their initiative scores is not too large.
-
Sorry, I'm on a roll here, but if PC1 can totally go after PC2 if he wants to, PC2 just needs to boost their initiative. That is, PC1 and PC2 can coordinate to make that happen if they have enough Edge and the difference in their initiative scores is not too large.
Sure, that's fair (although it might be a pretty big "if"!)
-
You're saying under 6e RAW it has to be
PC1 doesn't take combat actions but cannot defer
PC2 does stuff, kills NPC1
NPC2 attacks PC1
NPC3 attacks PC2
<< new turn starts >>
PC1 acts, kills NPC2
PC2 acts, kills NPC3
The NPCs got an extra attack in this scenario. The fact that, if the turn order is extended to infinity, it all would even out doesn't matter - because combat isn't infinitely long.
I'm saying I think it's reasonable that the GM allow PC1 to drop behind PC2 in initiative order, if desirable. The catch is that new turn order persists, rather than reverting, in round 2. No, it's not a rule per RAW. If that's the point you want to make, you made it. I'm saying it's simple enough it didn't need half a page to cover. As I said before, maybe Firing Line will cover such a thing.
The transition from round to round is arbitrary. You get shot at the same number of times across the NPCs all getting one turn no matter where your turn lies in relation to them. You go, they go, you go, they go. Or they go, you go, they go, you go. There is no they go, you go, you go, they go. Deliberately. It's not change blindness.
This isn't technically true, SSDR, unless I am completely misreading the initiative Edge Boost.
My initiative score is 21, yours is 23. On the first round, you go first, then I take my turn. Then, at the start of the next round, I spend an Edge to boost my initiative to 24, and go again. You go, I go, I go, you go. After that point it returns to the alternation, but you could do the same thing to me at a later point.
Technically, if you want to achieve a situation where you go after a friend who rolled less than you on initiative, you could do that under the current rules, but you don't take the action your friend does; they boost their initiative to beat yours. Of course, that could cost a LOT of Edge, with lots of people turning in their own Edge two for one to give it to the friend. But under the current system there is no way to choose to go after an enemy that I can see.
Also, in a lot of cases an equivalent tactical situation can be achieved when you consider that going later in the current round might be practically equivalent to going sooner in the NEXT round. But that won't always be so, and again it might cost a lot of Edge.
EDIT:
Say two fast-acting PCs are fighting three slow NPCs. PC1 wants to wait for PC2 to do something before attacking (see my previous post for some narrative reasons this might make sense.)
Sorry, I'm on a roll here, but if PC1 can totally go after PC2 if he wants to, PC2 just needs to boost their initiative. That is, PC1 and PC2 can coordinate to make that happen if they have enough Edge and the difference in their initiative scores is not too large.
Ok, fair. Yes there's an exception to what I said in that you can spend edge and increase your initiative score, thereby potentially getting two "you gos" in between another party's turns. You had to be behind first though, in order for that to happen, which isn't exactly what penllawen was talking about.
without spending resources? no, no doubling up on turns.
-
...is this not possible in 6e? (In the same way it was possible in 5e, I mean, and IIRC all former editions before that. So choosing not to act as soon as you could, and instead acting at some later point in the round of your choosing.)
You don't have to spend your minor and major action on your turn. You can save them and then later use them on Anytime actions depending on what others do later in the combat turn.
Such as:
Avoid Incoming
Block
Change Device Mode
Dodge
Drop Object
Hit the Dirt
Intercept
Assist
Counterspell
Full Defense
-
...is this not possible in 6e? (In the same way it was possible in 5e, I mean, and IIRC all former editions before that. So choosing not to act as soon as you could, and instead acting at some later point in the round of your choosing.)
You don't have to spend your minor and major action on your turn. You can save them and then later use them on Anytime actions depending on what others do later in the combat turn.
Such as:
Avoid Incoming
Block
Change Device Mode
Dodge
Drop Object
Hit the Dirt
Intercept
Assist
Counterspell
Full Defense
I think Penllawen's point was that in 6E there is no way to use an (I) action (e.g. Attack) at any time later in the combat round than your initiative score, while in earlier versions this was possible. It seems that SSDR agrees that this is, indeed, the case. YMMV as to whether you think this is a good, bad, or indifferent change in the way combat works from earlier editions to 6E. :D
-
I think Penllawen's point was that in 6E there is no way to use an (I) action (e.g. Attack) at any time later in the combat round than your initiative score, while in earlier versions this was possible.
Yes, indeed, exactly that. And it’s an option that is frequently used by my players and not enormously complicated to track, and hence, to my mind, a puzzling omission.
-
I think Penllawen's point was that in 6E there is no way to use an (I) action (e.g. Attack) at any time later in the combat round than your initiative score, while in earlier versions this was possible.
Yes, indeed, exactly that. And it’s an option that is frequently used by my players and not enormously complicated to track, and hence, to my mind, a puzzling omission.
As I stated earlier yo thread ... its was also a needlessly complicated mechanic. If you want to hikd you action just do it as long as your not trying to earlier than you should or carry an action into the next round you're not changing anything that matters.
-
If you want to hikd you action just do it as long as your not trying to earlier than you should or carry an action into the next round you're not changing anything that matters.
Well, that makes perfect sense to me, and I'd assumed it was the answer, but SSDR said it was an "anathema to the design goals."
Thanks.
I'd go one stage further, personally. I would allow a player with (say) two Major actions on phase 31 to take one Major at that point, then hold the other Major for later, in case they want a defensive action. Then, if we're at the end of initiative and they haven't needed that second Major for defence after all, I'd let them use it then, before the turn ends. They haven't gotten to do any more things, they've just done them in a different order.
Characters pay a steep, steep price for their actions, in nuyen/essence/power points. Seeing them wasted because they had the tactical smarts to hold some back for defence but then didn't use them - that doesn't feel very fun to me.
-
If you want to hikd you action just do it as long as your not trying to earlier than you should or carry an action into the next round you're not changing anything that matters.
Well, that makes perfect sense to me, and I'd assumed it was the answer, but SSDR said it was an "anathema to the design goals."
Thanks.
I'd go one stage further, personally. I would allow a player with (say) two Major actions on phase 31 to take one Major at that point, then hold the other Major for later, in case they want a defensive action. Then, if we're at the end of initiative and they haven't needed that second Major for defence after all, I'd let them use it then, before the turn ends. They haven't gotten to do any more things, they've just done them in a different order.
Characters pay a steep, steep price for their actions, in nuyen/essence/power points. Seeing them wasted because they had the tactical smarts to hold some back for defence but then didn't use them - that doesn't feel very fun to me.
For splitting attacks like that... I would have see how it plays out but my first thought is no. I lean towards you only get to make attacks once (whether it's one or two) ... making one attack then holding a potential second attack could potentially be an issue with how other parties interact and kind of turns it back into the multiple pass scenarios which would be against the design goals of 6E.
Could be wrong though, so depends on how it works out.
-
I'd go one stage further, personally. I would allow a player with (say) two Major actions on phase 31 to take one Major at that point, then hold the other Major for later, in case they want a defensive action. Then, if we're at the end of initiative and they haven't needed that second Major for defence after all, I'd let them use it then, before the turn ends. They haven't gotten to do any more things, they've just done them in a different order.
I'm not saying you are wrong, here, Penllawen. We are in the realm of house rules, and people like what they like in house rules.
For me, I like the current decision making, where that major action 1) can only be used for an anytime action, not an initiative action, and 2) might functionally end up wasted if you get to the end of the round and nothing happens to make use of it. It makes the decision whether to leave actions unspent when your turn comes up harder to make, you have to try to guess what your opponents might do. I find that interesting, it adds spice to the combat for me.
But again, I'm not saying you are wrong; I can see why some people might really hate that kind of decision making and find it unfun.
-
With the various interpretations, how do you rule things work in the following situation:
- during a gun-battle NPC1 just dodged behind a vending machine
- Player says "My Sammie shoots them when they break cover to shoot at me, but but if they don't pop out by the end of the round I guess I try to shoot through the vending machine."
I think what I'm hearing is "No, that doesn't work, because ..."
a) "Shooting a gun is an 'I' action, and can only be done on your initiative"
b) "You can wait for them to expose themselves and then shoot, but if they don't you can't then decide to try and shoot through the vending machine, you had to do that back on your initiative pass"
c) "No, because on their turn the NPC will use a simple to move out of cover, a major to attack, and a minor to move back into cover, and nowhere in there do you have a chance to shoot them. Don't even worry about the initiative and type of action, your whole plan doesn't work"
-
With the various interpretations, how do you rule things work in the following situation:
- during a gun-battle NPC1 just dodged behind a vending machine
- Player says "My Sammie shoots them when they break cover to shoot at me, but but if they don't pop out by the end of the round I guess I try to shoot through the vending machine."
I think what I'm hearing is "No, that doesn't work, because ..."
a) "Shooting a gun is an 'I' action, and can only be done on your initiative"
b) "You can wait for them to expose themselves and then shoot, but if they don't you can't then decide to try and shoot through the vending machine, you had to do that back on your initiative pass"
c) "No, because on their turn the NPC will use a simple to move out of cover, a major to attack, and a minor to move back into cover, and nowhere in there do you have a chance to shoot them. Don't even worry about the initiative and type of action, your whole plan doesn't work"
At my table I would allow it because you have essentially already declared your intention to shoot NPC 1 and since you're faster I would allow you take that advantage.
What I would not allow is change that declared attack to another target because NPC 1 didn't give the opportunity.
But there is no RAW that says that but it's more fun for the player so why not since it still commits that action to that particular target.
-
I totally forgot about this. It came up in my game a couple weeks ago and I forgot about it afterward. My player had drawn on an NPC and said "if he goes for his gun, I want to shoot him", and I realized there is nothing to support using an attack as an interrupt. I let him do it, of course, because that's common sense in games with guns and something you could do in SR for as long as I recall. All kinds of tactical turn based games have some kind of "overwatch" concept for attacking out of turn. How about: Overwatch - Minor (I) Enables the use of the major action: Attack (A) after declaring a specific trigger condition.
-
Basically you want some ranged variation of Intercept with proper restriction. Hm, honestly I think just Intercept but ranged is too OP. I'd at the very least require you to spend a Major Action on Enter Overwatch in advance (so it might get wasted, unlike Intercept which you can just do at any time), and maybe some more restrictions (as well as Minor Engage Overwatch when you actually use the Overwatch).
-
I totally forgot about this. It came up in my game a couple weeks ago and I forgot about it afterward. My player had drawn on an NPC and said "if he goes for his gun, I want to shoot him", and I realized there is nothing to support using an attack as an interrupt. I let him do it, of course, because that's common sense in games with guns and something you could do in SR for as long as I recall. All kinds of tactical turn based games have some kind of "overwatch" concept for attacking out of turn. How about: Overwatch - Minor (I) Enables the use of the major action: Attack (A) after declaring a specific trigger condition.
This is interesting.
I think there are two potential house rule strategies described here, both involving some kind of cost to act later in the round...
1) Reduce initiative strategy - you voluntarily act later in the round, but your initiative is set to the new value of the moment you acted.
2) Commit an action strategy - you can commit to take an action later in the round based on some triggering condition, perhaps at the cost of an extra minor action, but if the trigger does not occur the action is wasted.
Both seem workable to me, but each has their own weirdness.
With option 2 there is really no way to "overwatch" using an action against a person who moves BEFORE you in the initiative order, right? Because your actions refresh at the start of the next round. Maybe that is ok; it certainly increases the value of high initiative scores. And if you make the "overwatch" last until the start of your next TURN, that leads to the weirdness of you sort of having one extra action on your next round. For example, lets say you go on Init 23 and I go on Init 22. If I can Overwatch until the start of my next turn, I could shoot you as you come out of cover on Init 23 with the Overwatch, and then shoot you again on my own turn. That seems too easy to achieve the "double action" that SSDR is warning against.
On the other hand, option 1 can lead to some weird "race to the bottom" situations. Like, I want to move after Bob, so I hold off until Bob's turn. But Bob doesn't want me to act after him, so Bob delays as well. If we both just stare at each other til the end of the round, what happens? Do both of our initiative scores reset to our previous values compared to everyone else in the fight, or are we both now at zero initiative? On one hand, that's seems a bit "realistic" (by some definition); nobody wants to get shot! But on the other hand, it doesn't really lead to pulse-pounding action.
-
With the various interpretations, how do you rule things work in the following situation:
- during a gun-battle NPC1 just dodged behind a vending machine
- Player says "My Sammie shoots them when they break cover to shoot at me, but but if they don't pop out by the end of the round I guess I try to shoot through the vending machine."
I think what I'm hearing is "No, that doesn't work, because ..."
a) "Shooting a gun is an 'I' action, and can only be done on your initiative"
b) "You can wait for them to expose themselves and then shoot, but if they don't you can't then decide to try and shoot through the vending machine, you had to do that back on your initiative pass"
c) "No, because on their turn the NPC will use a simple to move out of cover, a major to attack, and a minor to move back into cover, and nowhere in there do you have a chance to shoot them. Don't even worry about the initiative and type of action, your whole plan doesn't work"
How *I* would adjudicate it is let the Sammie shoot now, at whatever level of cover the NPC will be using when he goes to in his upcoming turn, rather than the full cover he might happen to be in now for the Sammie's action. Just let the player do what he's trying to do rather than find a way to convolute initiative orders. Assuming, of course, I know that's what the NPC intends to do. If he's gonna cower, then sure make the Sammie just shoot now through the whole vending machine.
6we is closer to a storytelling game than a combat simulator. A turn to do something goes around the table. Round and around until combat is done. No need to get cute with swapping positions in order, imo.
-
Here's my default process for any game, unless the rules say otherwise.
1) Spend your action to create a Readied Action: You declare the thing you are prepping to do, and if the circumstances you specified come about, you can take your action. This action can interrupt another character, if that was your goal. If the system uses Reactions, it would probably cost one of these to use as well. In SR6 this would be a Minor Action, as I would rule it.
Option: You can opt to spend the required trigger action on something else defensively, but you of course sacrifice the Readied action to do so.
2) Delay Your Turn: You wait until later in the Initiative Order to act. The caveat is that your turn cannot interrupt another character's turn. You go after another character has acted (since you didn't prepare a readied Action). When you elect to act, you take your full turn, and move to that spot in the Initiative Order for the remainder of the combat encounter.
Something of this nature is often needed in order to wait for enemies to appear from behind full cover and taking a shot at them once they do. If SR6 doesn't have both types of options (or doesn't intentionally disallow one RAW), I'd houserule them in specifically, so people know they can play it out this way.
-
6we is closer to a storytelling game than a combat simulator. A turn to do something goes around the table. Round and around until combat is done. No need to get cute with swapping positions in order, imo.
If you want a storytelling game, drop initiative entirely. Works fine in The Sprawl. 6e is miles and miles away from being genuinely rules-light.
-
6we is closer to a storytelling game than a combat simulator. A turn to do something goes around the table. Round and around until combat is done. No need to get cute with swapping positions in order, imo.
If you want a storytelling game, drop initiative entirely. Works fine in The Sprawl. 6e is miles and miles away from being genuinely rules-light.
We're going in circles.
There is no rule for delaying your turn in the CRB. Lets just agree to disagree about whether or not that's a good or bad thing. Especially since the combat rules splatbook is coming.
-
Well i was starting to try and find out if this was possible and found this thread.
At several points it seemed to go back and forth and then I heard that there was no need for a mechanic and I would have to disagree. since the person i disagree with seems to be someone that occasional has the ear of people higher up the food chain I think it is important to concede adding a Mechanic, and yes we can hope that their will be one in firing squad, whenever that comes out.
The reason a mechanic is needed is because without it you are punishing players for doing well especially in Missions play where different GMs will allow or not allow tweaks to the system. The following scenario is why I think that it is important to allow a mechanic to delay an action.
Player group sets up their safe house to get alerted if NPC group tries to attack. NPC group triggers the alert GM tells everyone to roll initiative. PC group rolls well and NPC group is outside. PC groups losses first actions because they did well and played smart. NPC group gets to go first and shoot at PC group which could be deadly to this combat.
There should be a way for the PC group to get their well deserved fist attacks without having to shoot prematurely through a barrier. In this scenario which has happened in a few games i have been in the PCs would have been punished for doing good if the GM had not houseruled it. but in Missions play you can not guarantee your GM will do this, So a mechanic allows the player the option to at least point out the GM that the book allows them something.
-
Well i was starting to try and find out if this was possible and found this thread.
At several points it seemed to go back and forth and then I heard that there was no need for a mechanic and I would have to disagree. since the person i disagree with seems to be someone that occasional has the ear of people higher up the food chain I think it is important to concede adding a Mechanic, and yes we can hope that their will be one in firing squad, whenever that comes out.
The reason a mechanic is needed is because without it you are punishing players for doing well especially in Missions play where different GMs will allow or not allow tweaks to the system. The following scenario is why I think that it is important to allow a mechanic to delay an action.
Player group sets up their safe house to get alerted if NPC group tries to attack. NPC group triggers the alert GM tells everyone to roll initiative. PC group rolls well and NPC group is outside. PC groups losses first actions because they did well and played smart. NPC group gets to go first and shoot at PC group which could be deadly to this combat.
There should be a way for the PC group to get their well deserved fist attacks without having to shoot prematurely through a barrier. In this scenario which has happened in a few games i have been in the PCs would have been punished for doing good if the GM had not houseruled it. but in Missions play you can not guarantee your GM will do this, So a mechanic allows the player the option to at least point out the GM that the book allows them something.
Yeah, I had assumed I had just missed the rule in the layout of doom. And just used a fairly normal delay rules from most games.
How crazy of those players wanting to wait until after the smoke deployed to enter the room and also not lose the first turn of actions. Way to go smoke throwing dude, by rolling bad on initiative you screwed the rest of the team out of their first turn. But I guess storytelling games don't involve tactics.
-
Well, initiative in general has some real problems when it's broken down into player turns where nobody is acting except that one character. This is true not just of SR but also D&D, and hell pretty much EVERY game ever... at least that I'm familiar with.
Situations like mexican standoffs or a hostage taker holding a gun to a hostage's head are not well simulated via initiative. Another example is jousting. Or, in a more SR-worthy context, combat biking. Consider some runners and go-gangers engaging in some motorcycle-mounted melee combat. What SHOULD be happening is both bikers are approaching each other, then they both swing whilst in melee reach of each other, then (assuming neither is eliminated) they both wheel around for another go. You can't even MODEL that in "A goes, B goes" initiative rules where only one character's motorcycle is in motion during any given character turn.
So, the way SR has always dealt with this is to rely on GM "common sense" first and legislate second. 6th might rely on the GM moreso and legislate less so than prior editions, but it's the same paradigm as 5e and before.
So what do you do with the combat biking example? You might dispense with the movement and turn order, at least as the two jousters relate to each other. (gets more gnarly if these are just two combatants showing off during a larger battle) They might move simultaneously not via any RAW rule anywhere, but due to "common sense". You might or might not give the initiative winner the right to resolve that melee attack first, or maybe you make them resolve simultaneously. Maybe if the loser is using a weapon similar to a lance and has a substantial reach advantage, you let that melee attack resolve first no matter who won initiative. These are answers based on context rather than immutable rules. GM's perception of common sense is SUPPOSED to trump the RAW.
The example given a few posts upthread, where some NPCs tripped an alarm and the PCs want to turn the tables and ambush the would-be-ambushers? Sure. Again, a completely plausible scenario. But, the PCs are only screwed by the GM's lack of common sense, rather than the absence of an explicit rule for delaying actions. If the NPCs sneaking up on the safe house trigger the PC's silent alarm, the GM should be asking "what do you want to do about it" rather than saying "roll initiative". If the PCs want to rush to the windows and begin firing on the assailants, fine then go to initiative. OTOH, if the PCs want to wait and ambush the ambushers AFTER they breach the door, then the combat scene shouldn't even begin until the door is breached. NOW roll initiative, and if the PCs win, well there's the NPCs right there, all ready to be worked over.
Personally, I think judiciously determining when to "drop the time stop", to use an old MUSH term, is the key tool here. In the above case where NPCs triggered the PC's alarm, it's "wrong" to roll initiative immediately. At the point of the alarm, the PCs now have the upper hand. Combat shouldn't begin immediately unless THEY begin it immediately. If they want to wait for the NPCs to breach, then combat doesn't begin until after the NPCs breach. This seems obvious to me. In another example: holding someone at gunpoint. If A is holding B at gunpoint, warning him not to do anything stupid, etc etc etc then "that's not combat". That's a (tense) social roleplay scene. If B wants to rush A, that should be a decision made outside the meta-knowledge of who won initiative. Depending on contexts, as soon as B begins charging A shoots, and THEN you roll initiative, or perhaps if the context was such that B was close enough that it's plausible that B could reach A before A reacts, then roll init without giving A the "held shot" and let the dice determine whether A reacts in time. Again, GM's discretion is a thing so there's not necessarily any need to legislate whether holding someone at gunpoint allows you to shoot them "if they provoke you" during their action.
Now, while I think that MOST of the time there are better ways to resolve the concept of "held actions" than using turn order shifteroos, sure there are times when something like "spend a Minor to allow your Attack to be Anytime instead of Initiative" might be perfectly appropriate. Should that be a blanket rule you can do anytime without respect to specific contexts? I'm not sure, but again who knows what the upcoming combat book will institute.
-
You are absolutely correct. I don't think I would have any problem with the current lack of delay action if initiative was only called for when combatants actually had contact rather than sudo contact, like knowing the NPCs are on the other side of the wall.
And maybe it is an issue that I think would only effect me in Missions play as I will have a different GM at most tables and I can not garauntee that the GM I am sitting with will drop the time stop at a point that will punish my Sam for having a good initiative. Which is why I think there needs to be a rule even though we shouldn't have to have a rule.
That or we should move this to a missions discussion on writing into modules a short paragraph guideline for dropping people into combat only once contact has actually been made. Even with the current suprise rules if you use ambush then those that have weaker reactions will not walk around the corner until you have already lost your initiative.
In my personally games I am going to have a Overwatch Minor action that I will allow people to use the following and just hope something similar comes along latter.
Overwatch (A)
If an opponent uses the move minor action during the first round of combat and stays outside of Close attack range, you may go out of Initiative order and make an Attack action as long as you have both a Minor and a Major Action still available in this round (because you either are after the attacking player in Initiative order or you deferred some of your actions). This counts as your Attack Major Action for the player turn. If you’re already out of Major Actions this round, you’re drek out of luck. This cannot be used with melee weapons.
-
Well the joust is handled by the rules fairly well. The one with initiative moves in and attacks as normal the other party uses an intercept action. In a sporting event style actual joust I'd probably just fast track it with an opposed test treating it like any other opposed athletic test like arm wresting or something. But combat biking is a ongoing fight so I'd use the above attack/intercept system. Move from full cover attack move into full cover can get really hinky in a turn based system if you don't have held actions.
I can't think of a reason why deferring your actions to a later initiative count or a readied action system hurts the game. I can see a lot of reasons why not having it hurts the game though.
-
You hear a weird squishy sound as something heavy hits the outside of your motel room door. “Sticky Bomb” comes to mind so you grab your pistol.
4A: After the door blows in, you shoot the first guy who runs through the door. Full dice pool.
5E: After the door blows in, you shoot the first guy who runs through the door (with -1 to your dice pool).
6W: After the door blows in, the first guy to run through the door shoots you.
RAW
-
You hear a weird squishy sound as something heavy hits the outside of your motel room door. “Sticky Bomb” comes to mind so you grab your pistol.
4A: After the door blows in, you shoot the first guy who runs through the door. Full dice pool.
5E: After the door blows in, you shoot the first guy who runs through the door (with -1 to your dice pool).
6W: After the door blows in, the first guy to run through the door shoots you.
RAW
If you're not IN combat, you shouldn't be in initiative order. Ergo, if you don't plan on shooting immediately when you heard the weird sound, you're not rolling initiative. Only when you intend to shoot when you see that the door's been breached do you even roll initiative (and potentially surprise). And naturally, then whoever wins shoots first.
-
This might be a good thing to put in a FAQ
Q. When do you roll initiative to start a combat?
A. When at least two sides of a conflict are able to see each other or when one side of a conflict tries to ambush the another. Basically don't roll for initiative untill both sides can actual have a combat.
Obviously you would word it better, cause I think mine is crap. :)
-
If you're not IN combat, you shouldn't be in initiative order. Ergo, if you don't plan on shooting immediately when you heard the weird sound, you're not rolling initiative. Only when you intend to shoot when you see that the door's been breached do you even roll initiative (and potentially surprise). And naturally, then whoever wins shoots first.
In my example I left out most of the rolls: surprise, initiative, and so on. But I’ve never played as you describe. For all the teams I’ve been on, the initiative roll would happen when the loud, strange thump came from the door. Some magician might get a Physical Barrier or Reinforce spell up before the door-busting explosive goes off. Some Street Sam might Ready a Firearm, Extend it’s folding stock, turn off the safety, activate the laser sight, and choose 3-round bursts before the door explodes inward. In 4A, 5E, and 6W, the fast characters could all fire grenades and spells through the busted-open door before the slow attackers ever appeared in the doorway. By its only in 6W that the defenders are unable to shoot first when the enemy appears in the doorway.
-
If you're not IN combat, you shouldn't be in initiative order. Ergo, if you don't plan on shooting immediately when you heard the weird sound, you're not rolling initiative. Only when you intend to shoot when you see that the door's been breached do you even roll initiative (and potentially surprise). And naturally, then whoever wins shoots first.
... I’ve never played as you describe...
... By its only in 6W that the defenders are unable to shoot first when the enemy appears in the doorway...
Well if you play the way I'm describing, whoever wins initiative gets to shoot first. There IS no "wasted action" before the NPCs barge in because combat hasn't started yet.
Seems to me like that's the way you're SUPPOSED to play.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/hxjKisQY14l658t0IFV2GNN-2umNOZ4ZZXtGqCQ_jUod2FfyHkkucy-K3pYas0KuuhZtyI7JGCQfo6uzbYGMiMB7cXStR5oN08qCPYOk17iP-x0ZM_Jb8gjhj9xlFuL2RseVci646wivfqx8czhVzoGnM6wIetuy3gs)
-
You're not. I agree that init should be rolled when it matters. Until the enemy enters the room it is not necessary to know the order of events just the time runners have to prep. Assuming there is no way to attack each other from outside the room it doesn't make sense to roll init until at least one baddy is in.
That doesn't do anything to the other situations though. Like what if the 1st baddy is killed and you have no one to shoot cuz ur faster than the rest. It's not like a huge problem or anything. Minor obstacle, easy to house rule or work around. Still feels like there should have been a rule for it...
-
Ok, here is why I say there doesn't need to be a "mechanic" for it.
Roll initiative (this is after surprise and ambush factors are dealt with)
Player A goes... takes out the only target
Player B ... well crap I don't have a target. Asks GM can I wait until a target presents itself, knowing more is coming? Gm: yes ... or chooses to do something that doesn't require a target.
1st bad comes through the door .. Player B takes his action
Simple as that .. no special actions or mechanisms involved
Edit: just want to add that in 40 years of gaming over many many different systems this is the way I've always done it and never even looked up or used any given system "rules for deferred actions". The faster players should not be penalized because slower targets can't keep up.
-
I have to agree with Banshee, there isn't really a need in most games for a specific held action rule. If you've won initiative that means you're fractions of a second quicker than the other side and you get to shoot first. If that means you need to wait an eyeblink for someone to pop through the door, so be it.
Turn based games (which is every game I have ever played) all have the same issues trying to simulate multiple parties acting simultaneously. The way I see it, the folks coming through the door are trying to shoot the folks in the room and the folks in the room are trying to shoot the folks coming through the door. Initiative is the mechanic used to determine who gets to resolve their shot first. Everyone is theoretically moving around at the same time, so it's not like someone is actually just standing around for 2 seconds. They're all moving/reacting/grabbing weapons, checking corners, lining up shots... all at the same time. Initiative order tells you who's combat action is resolved first.
-
I agree with Banshee's sentiment and handling of the desired mechanic, but I am also in the camp that would prefer a hard rule for it, primarily to detract from the hardnosed GM's that won't allow it since there is no rule for it. This is less of a concern for home play, but I guarantee it will come up (and be denied) at conventions with Missions.
-
No amount of rules will prevent GMs from being jerks. GMs being jerks is a problem that isn't solved by putting the rulebook over their heads.
But, still, I'd be surprised if the combat expansion book does NOT cover this sort of thing. (along with suppressive fire, which is what *I* found to be an annoying omission in the CRB)
-
I agree GMs need to provide some mechanism for waiting characters to act with a firearm/spell before, during or after an NPCs movement. I prefer the mechanism to be in the book, like 4A and 5E had, so I can have a more consistent play experience as I roam the country dropping in on games in San Diego, Colorado Springs, Austin, Columbus, Indianapolis, and so on. A way is already provided for melee combat to interrupt an NPCs movement. I look forward to future books, errata, or SRM FAQs to provide a standard for Firearms/Spells too.
-
So let me get this straight...
You guys think we NEED a rule that says you can your turn at anytime as long as it is on or after your initiative?
Because that's all we are talking about here .. there is no need for special interrupt actions that just take away action economy because you are too fast.
The only "interrupt" actions we have and are likely to see are defensive
-
You don't really need rules for how far a person can walk either. But they made it into the book anyway.
-
Yeah, but maybe my point is being missed.
Are you willing to give up an action (which in my opinion is a precious commodity in 6e) just to say "nah, I can wait and go here in just a second"
-
You guys think we NEED a rule that says you can your turn at anytime as long as it is on or after your initiative?
Yes. Delayed/Reserved/Held Action of some sort.
“I hold off shooting my grenade launcher till the mage gets the kids out of the blast area.
“I walk 2 steps and point my pistol at the doorway, waiting for a target to appear.
“I point my pistol at the gang and yell ‘Run Away!’, but I reserve pulling the trigger.
A simple, easy mechanism that all GMs can handle the same way, doesn’t require GMs to search the books for something that isn’t there, and doesn’t take up 40 posts on a forum.
That’s my 2 cents. Others may disagree. Thanks for asking.
-
Yeah, but maybe my point is being missed.
Are you willing to give up an action (which in my opinion is a precious commodity in 6e) just to say "nah, I can wait and go here in just a second"
That's not clearer. Go where in a second? Give up what action to do what?
EDIT: you mean like a readied action?
-
Yeah, but maybe my point is being missed.
Are you willing to give up an action (which in my opinion is a precious commodity in 6e) just to say "nah, I can wait and go here in just a second"
That's not clearer. Go where in a second? Give up what action to do what?
EDIT: you mean like a readied action?
Exactly... do you want to have to use a minor action just so you can say I'm going to use my major action 1.5 seconds after my initiative when "X" event happens?
Or would you rather just leave like it is and go whenever you need to as long as it is not before your initiative
-
I would like to have one for the sake of constancy at various tables, yes. Or some sort of FAQ to give guidance to STs so we can have a more consistent existence.
-
But there are so many ways to resolve a deferred actuon, just in this thread alone. Which kinda proves my point that the book should have put one forth. Then GMs could use it or not and players would know what to expect without even having to ask.
Is that necessary? No. But it would make for better game design or book writing or whatever.
-
Yeah, but maybe my point is being missed.
Are you willing to give up an action (which in my opinion is a precious commodity in 6e) just to say "nah, I can wait and go here in just a second"
That's not clearer. Go where in a second? Give up what action to do what?
EDIT: you mean like a readied action?
Exactly... do you want to have to use a minor action just so you can say I'm going to use my major action 1.5 seconds after my initiative when "X" event happens?
Or would you rather just leave like it is and go whenever you need to as long as it is not before your initiative
If my choice was depend on the whims of the DM or have a rule that costs a minor action I'd take the rule. It is a role playing GAME. games have rules.
-
No amount of rules will prevent GMs from being jerks. GMs being jerks is a problem that isn't solved by putting the rulebook over their heads.
I totally agree. However, there are other types too. For example I know many "by the book" GMs, who are not jerks, but are sticklers for the rules. My experience is those are the second most common GMs, after the "Who cares, lets just have fun." GMs. This has been particularly true for both my Missions and PFS play.
If my choice was depend on the whims of the DM or have a rule that costs a minor action I'd take the rule. It is a role playing GAME. games have rules.
Pretty much this.
-
I had mentioned something like this earlier, but I think there are two purposes for initiative in many games, and they don't really sit well together.
* Initiative determines the order in which people take their turns
* Initiative determines who has the, well, initiative in the fight. Who has the upper hand, who has a better control of the situation.
In the very strict sense of "I can take my first action before anyone else", the first use of initiative also works for the 2nd. But for any other type of "controlling the fight", the first use of initiative conflicts with the second. The examples provided by RulesLawyer are great:
“I hold off shooting my grenade launcher till the mage gets the kids out of the blast area.
“I walk 2 steps and point my pistol at the doorway, waiting for a target to appear.
“I point my pistol at the gang and yell ‘Run Away!’, but I reserve pulling the trigger.
All of these are cases where initiative FEELS like it should mean "I have more control over what happens in the fight" but when only used as a turn order mechanism it doesn't actually give you that control.
Lots of ways to get around this, if you feel it needs to be gotten around. In a game like SR 6E, some kind of deferral of action is probably best. Its the one rule that could allow for all of the examples above.
-
If my choice was depend on the whims of the DM or have a rule that costs a minor action I'd take the rule. It is a role playing GAME. games have rules.
Pretty much this.
You see, I've never had such bad GM's so frequently that I feel this strongly. But I still agree with Lormyr and others that this should be in the rules. I don't think it has anything to do with GM whim or how good they are. It has to do with the rules explaining themselves. Several folks on this thread have indicated that the GM is somehow supposed to know when they should be flexible on all this, but how? The last time I played Shadowrun was back in 1E, so "how it was done in 5E" is meaningless to me. If you read the current rules text, other than some general "rules zero"-y text, there is nothing in the initiative sections I can see that indicates that a GM should somehow be flexible in the way Banshee described in an earlier post. So how does a GM know they should be, especially a new GM?
The rules should explain themselves when they expect you to not follow them, or there should be a rule.
-
You see, I've never had such bad GM's so frequently that I feel this strongly. But I still agree with Lormyr and others that this should be in the rules. I don't think it has anything to do with GM whim or how good they are. It has to do with the rules explaining themselves.
That is a good way of putting it.
Out of personal curiosity, may I ask what area of the world you live in, and how extensive your convention play has been? I am always interested in learning what sort of random GMs people tend to encounter geographically.
-
You see, I've never had such bad GM's so frequently that I feel this strongly. But I still agree with Lormyr and others that this should be in the rules. I don't think it has anything to do with GM whim or how good they are. It has to do with the rules explaining themselves.
That is a good way of putting it.
Out of personal curiosity, may I ask what area of the world you live in, and how extensive your convention play has been? I am always interested in learning what sort of random GMs people tend to encounter geographically.
Happy to answer that. I've lived in Hamilton Ontario since early 2005, but I"m originally from Indiana. I've played a LOT of convention games, but a lot of that is because I've gone to GenCon every year (except once to Origins) SINCE 2005, mostly to visit with old Indiana friends. I've also done my best to go to regional conventions here in Ontario as well; formerly Hammercon and Pandemonium, more recently Breakout. I like playing and running convention games a lot, but I've also been pretty deep in the indie-RPG scene (e.g. Games On Demand at GenCon) over the past 15 years. I played one 4E Missions game at GenCon (I think it was 4E) but that is the only Shadowrun I have played since like 1992.
I've played with a LOT of GMs at conventions, and I would break them down like this:
10% - super awesome. The reasons they were awesome might be all over the map, depending on the game, but I walked away thinking that person was at least as good a GM as I am, and in most cases far far better than I would be at the game I was playing.
60% - good. I enjoyed myself. The GM knew the rules, knew the game, did their job well, and was friendly. I was glad I spent 2-4 hours with them. There may have been problems with the game itself; I might have even hated the game. But that was just a mismatch between me and the game, and not the GM's fault.
20% - bad. A waste of time. Again the reasons are all over the map, depending on game and circumstance. Often the GM was just very inexperienced. But many GM's were just bad; they didn't grasp even the basic universal principles of GM'ing, like paying attention to your players or making sure "screen-time" is as evenly assigned as possible. Some were actual jerks.
10% - laughably awesomely bad. So bad that you still tell the story with your friends years later. So bad you remember individual moments of the experience like it was yesterday. So bad that after the fact, when you tell yourself "I should have just left the table" you reply "Yeah, but then I wouldn't have this awesome story of how bad it was to tell". This is almost universally a GM who a) has no idea how to even GM at all and b) THINKS they are a super awesome GM. That is a toxic combination.
EDIT: I'm probably overestimating the last category by proportion. Those sessions loom so large in memory that its hard to accurately assess their frequency.
EDIT2: I'd say at least half of the bad games I played were in cases where a GM had been "roped in" to run something with little preparation because someone else dropped out, or where a game company was clearly taking anyone with a pulse to make sure they filled X tables at GenCon. This is why I made a comment in a different thread on this issue; this is IMO the WORST THING a game company trying to make a good impressions can do.
-
As an afterthought; that one Missions game I played was a lot of fun! Pretty straightforward scenario, a lot of action, I played a fun pre-gen. At the time the rules (4E?) were not my thing, but it was still a good time and the GM had the skillz.
The GM was a physically large guy (as in tall and wide and muscular) wearing one of those "utility kilts" and either a Flogging Molly or Dropkick Murphys concert t-shirt. He seemed like a regular feature of the scene from his easy rapport with the other people in the Shadowrun room at GenCon, so I suspect at least someone here might know who he was (or even BE him!)
-
Thanks for sharing that Skalchemist!
7/10 games being good is awesome, and I am glad that has been your convention experience! Mine has not been so fortunate, but my sample size might also be small compared to many die hards. We're talking like 10 Marcons, 5 Cincicons, 12 Origins, 6 Gencons, ish. Mine has been about 50/50 on good or decent vs. bad.
I personally differentiate bad game from bad GM though. A bad game is one that was either not prepared well, written badly, or where the GM didn't know the rules very well.
A bad GM to me only has one definition, and that is someone who is some combination of antagonistic, unfair, punitive for you playing/character building what they consider "wrong", or ones that want to "teach you a lesson". I have run into a LOT of teach you a lesson sorts at cons. It was happening frequently enough that I finally just quite going to them - why pay for that experience when I get the fun version with home games and Missions game days for free?
Edit: How do you find the quality and attitude of gamers in Canada vs. the states?
-
A bad GM to me only has one definition, and that is someone who is some combination of antagonistic, unfair, punitive for you playing/character building what they consider "wrong", or ones that want to "teach you a lesson". I have run into a LOT of teach you a lesson sorts at cons. It was happening frequently enough that I finally just quite going to them - why pay for that experience when I get the fun version with home games and Missions game days for free?
Edit: How do you find the quality and attitude of gamers in Canada vs. the states?
Fortunately, that exact form of bad GM'ing has been almost non-existent for me. I can actually only think of one case out of what by this point must be 100's of convention games I have played where that attitude was present; one of my very few D&D sessions at a convention.
I HAVE seen that in non-convention based public gaming, like when I spent some time doing Living Greyhawk and was desperate for gaming after I had moved to Canada. The connection between Living Greyhawk and Missions makes me wonder if that is something that is particularly associated with Organized Play GM's?
My circle of gamers in Indiana was so much smaller than the one I have now, so it is hard for me to answer that last question. I can only say that in my opinion the Golden Horseshoe area of Ontario (e.g. Niagara Falls around the end of Lake Ontario to the bedroom communities east of Toronto) is a veritable paradise of all types of gaming, not just role-playing. You can't throw a brick without hitting a gamer that is fun to play games with, as far as I can tell. Board/card games, LARPS, indie RPGs, old-school renaissance D&D, even just bog standard D&D 5E, you name it, there are cool people playing it within a 45 minute drive from my house nearly every weekend.
-
If my choice was depend on the whims of the DM or have a rule that costs a minor action I'd take the rule. It is a role playing GAME. games have rules.
Pretty much this.
You see, I've never had such bad GM's so frequently that I feel this strongly. But I still agree with Lormyr and others that this should be in the rules. I don't think it has anything to do with GM whim or how good they are. It has to do with the rules explaining themselves. Several folks on this thread have indicated that the GM is somehow supposed to know when they should be flexible on all this, but how? The last time I played Shadowrun was back in 1E, so "how it was done in 5E" is meaningless to me. If you read the current rules text, other than some general "rules zero"-y text, there is nothing in the initiative sections I can see that indicates that a GM should somehow be flexible in the way Banshee described in an earlier post. So how does a GM know they should be, especially a new GM?
The rules should explain themselves when they expect you to not follow them, or there should be a rule.
That's a good way of putting it. I wasn't trying to use the word whim to indicate the DM was being mean or capricious. It's just they are making a quick call on the spot, even good GMs and experienced can be inconsistent or make bad/weird calls when there is nothing in the rules to help you.