Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Gamemasters' Lounge => Topic started by: TimmyTheNerd on <10-16-12/2030:10>
-
So, my players have me worried about how to handle the campaign I was planning for Seattle (Since I'm a first time GM and they're new players, figured it made sense to use Seattle).
Player A: Elf. Only focussed on Agi and Log. Made a sniper/mechanic type care, taking Archery, Long Arms, Armorer and Automotive Mech.
Player B: Elf. A more rounded character, using Bod, Agi, Rea and Str.His character is a ground vehicle pilot skilled in close combat and archery.
Player C: Human. Focussed on Logic and Willpower, raised Str by one point. His character is a Magician with a Mentor spirit.
We've done Skills, Attributes and Qualities. All that is left is Resources. Still, none of them took any hacking or stealth skills. All of them have decided to focuss on a full frontal assault type character. Should I have them remake characters or use the sample ones? How much will their characters affect the campaign?
-
Depends on how much you want to show them the weaknesses of their character. You could either create some adventures that lean more toward their playing style with these characters and use what skills they didn't take to showcase an NPC that's helping them out or really lay in them with opportunities that are only solved with the skills they don't have (Chances are they won't take or be offered those jobs anyway). That way they see how useful those skills are and might rethink where their karma is going or what character they'll play next when they eventually take the long dirt nap of character death. But as the GM you do have the right to veto any character you disapprove of so it's really up to you.
-
They built the characters they felt they'd enjoy. Build the campaign around what they CAN do. While it can be okay to take them out of a "comfort zone" of their ability on RARE occasions, the missions they go on should be ones that the skills they do have are sufficient. For those who claim this isn't "realistic", the simple fact is the Fixer's job is to match the job to the team, and a good Fixer knows the skill sets of all the teams he deals with and will not bring a job that a team does not have the skills for to that team.
While you can "veto" a character or characters, this is a power that can (and quite often is) very easily be abused, so I advise to ignore it entirely.
-
Give them some introductory runs wherein the Stealth and/or hacking aspect would make the job a bit easier. Not impossible, but easier.
After a session or five, put them in a situation where frontal attack will not work. I personally ran into a situation where the Runners, of their own doing, managed to get a high Threat Response team from KE sent after them. Their Mohawks stopped being pink after that run.
-
Give them some introductory runs wherein the Stealth and/or hacking aspect would make the job a bit easier. Not impossible, but easier.
After a session or five, put them in a situation where frontal attack will not work. I personally ran into a situation where the Runners, of their own doing, managed to get a high Threat Response team from KE sent after them. Their Mohawks stopped being pink after that run.
This is trying to lead the OP to believe that his players are wanting to have fun "wrong". They are not.
-
well, if I understand the stats they have from your posting, you will be challenged in several areas... the first being not killing them off right away....
I would sugest using the "kids gloves" approach to the first few runs until your players have a better understanding of the rules, setting, system and style of Shadowrun.... The lack of a hacker type is not that big of a deal... in my experience the Matrix only really appeals to a small percentage of players so most GMs I know kinda just gloss over it, or assign an NPC team hacker to fil the role.
Now that you have seen the characters tehy have built, you can take a step back and design your runs with their skillset in mind. Sadly it sounds like they have kinda pigeonholed themselves into combat,destruction,wetwork and mayhem missions so plan those types for them. these are usually straight runs, usually for underworld gangs/mafia/yakuza/triad/Vory johnsons and Corps looking to put the squeeze on rivals.
IF your players seem to get bored of these types, you could have them try their hands at protection runs... but without a high perception or other intutive skils these could be a little harder on the players. IF they start expressing an interest in more "trenchcoat" play... sublty sugest they spend their karma on "sneaky" aspects of the game (infeltration, shadowing, disguise, etc)
-
The players and GM should agree on what sort of campaign that want to run. If the players want lots of combat, you can give that to them (I run a fairly mohawk campaign myself, it's pretty fun), while still requiring some stealth. You should discuss with your players the kind of campaign you want to run, and reconcile that with what your players want to be doing.
Basically, there are two major ways to run your campaign: like a heist movie (lots of stealth and social interaction, police are good at forensics work) or like an action movie (lots of shooting and driving, police are too incompetent to find the characters). Both are perfectly fun and acceptable. It sounds like your player want to play the latter. Unless you are dead set on the former, it shouldn't be a problem.
Edit: A cool thing you can do with 'action movie' games is give the players a NPC hacker/team coordinator who watches cameras and can take care of the hacking stuff, which seems appropriate, seeing your lack of hacker.
Edit Deux: Shadowrun only has to be as realistic or cinematic as you and your players want it to be. Do what you think will be the most fun.
-
Give them some introductory runs wherein the Stealth and/or hacking aspect would make the job a bit easier. Not impossible, but easier.
After a session or five, put them in a situation where frontal attack will not work. I personally ran into a situation where the Runners, of their own doing, managed to get a high Threat Response team from KE sent after them. Their Mohawks stopped being pink after that run.
I really don't agree with this approach per se. The players made characters they are interested in, providing the GM is still keen, then its really a matter of customising the missions to suit the characters.
A bit of magic, a high speed chase, maybe the opportunity to provide cover with a sniper rifle..... So... how about an extration mission? Or a bounty hunter mission? or providing protection to a sensative courier that needs to travel into go gang territory in the barrens? There are adventures which will still be shadowruns which don't require break and enter or hacking. Also, hacking can be outsourced, as it often was in previous editions.
I wouldn't feel comfortable making a player get into hacking if they had no interest in this side of shadowrun.
Also, new GM and new Players? Things will change once they start playing the game. So my advice would be to allow the players the ability to change their characters a bit after the first run, or heck after the every run for the first five runs or something like that.
Once they start to play, things will come out naturally, without being forced, simply by the players own play style. The GM doesn't need to force these things. If the player wants to be stealthy and they lack the skills, they will want to redo their character and thats cool. Making a player be stealthy when they arn't interested? Thats less cool. In my opinion anyways.
-
I think I like that suggestion Black. I'm use to GMing/DMing DnD and Pathfinder, it has clear roles in classes. First time doing something with Shadowrun's level of player customization
I was actually planning on the first few runs being against some Halloweeners. I played the Shadowrun Genesis game and I remember the Halloweeners and how they were normally in starting missions.
-
This is trying to lead the OP to believe that his players are wanting to have fun "wrong". They are not.
There's a difference between the "Wrong way to have fun" and "Unaware of alternatives"
The group, as stated, comes form D&D, where the entire scope of your character is defined by the amount of numbers you can generate in combat. Their tabletop "conditioning" tells them that they all have to be combat monsters, else they're 'worthless'.
SR provides a setting wherein the full frontal combat approach is not always the end all be all. The players, being D&D players may not fully grasp this concept. That is why giving them the knowledge and tools (Runs that can go easier with Stealth/Hacking) to explore this 'new' concept is a better idea than simply sticking with what is known.
Of course, if all they want to do is throw sixes, and that's it, then by all means. I'm just pointing out that there is a greater depth than what the group in question may be used to, and giving them sight of it can't be a bad thing.
-
Give them lots of action missions. It's clearly what they expect, and it can be lots of fun. When they get to resources, make sure at least one of them has a hacker contact and run that aspect in the background. Later on maybe have an enemy hacker mess with their ware as an unusual challenge.
Or, if you're insistent on running a stealth / intrigue game, have a conversation with the players ASAP!
-
Something I did with a group when we had down time was create A-Team-like missions that required planning and execution with a few well placed GM monkey wrenches thrown in the mix. They all had action and they all let every character shine. Maybe you can take some inspiration from some of the old school sources and craft some missions that let the players plan and play the way they want to. Once you do and you throw in some monkey wrenches of your own I think your players will see where they may need to improve or focus or perhaps they simply enjoy what they're doing and keep at it. I think my point here is that whatever missions you dig up for your players make them ambiguous enough that they still have to think about how they're going to accomplish their task instead of feeling that when the bullets and blades start doing their thing that everything will work out in the end.
-
My suggestion is to make them aware of all the possibilities involved in Shadowrun campaigns, may it be in problem solving (some are easier to solve with different skills), type of jobs that can be offered and the like, before you continue your preperations. Ask them if they still want to play these characters as they are. If they do, DO NOT PUNISH THEM for creating characters they like. That would be just lame. If they do play these characters, these guidelines may help you in dealing with them.
-Fixers choose jobs best suited for the team.
-Put obstacle more easily dealt with either social skills or stealth based skills but do not ever make them impossible without them. Optional objectives are another matter tho.
-They want action, give them action.
-These jobs are fairly suited for your team (some with maybe just a few skills acquired with karma), without too much difficulties: Package transport and delivery, VIP protection and escort, Vermin extermination (do not underestimate the size of the rats in Redmond), Thug/Intimidation, even Smuggling if they have in either smarts or social skills what they lack in stealth skills.
-With good preparation and good equipment, they can do things they wouldn't be able to normally.
-They, or the Fixer, can hire outside help if needed (see pre-made NPCs or you can make your own.)
That should cover what I had to say to help you on your first Shadowrun Campaign.
-
A few things to keep in mind, anyone that uses a gun well (AGI based) can easily splash a single point of infiltration and be decent. Especially if they spring for Camo clothing (or color changing clothing with a camo pattern) or Ruthenium Polymer Coating.
Also, keep in mind that mages can do all sorts of nasty tricks as well. Spirits with Concealment do a wonderful job helping even clumsy runners not get noticed. Improved Invisibility can work wonders as well. Of course there is always Physical Mask to look like a security guard and even Alter Memory to make other Security Guards think that you're their best buddy/ies on the security force (or their boss).
As others have said, figure out how you want to run the campaign, and only force them to remake the campaign if you don't think you can or that you'll enjoy running a full frontal assault pink mohawk style game.
Some people are against forcing players to make character that fit your game style, but the GM has to have fun too and running a campaign that you don't like is not fun for any GM. If they don't want to play a stealthy spy style campaign and that's all that you really feel up to running, I suggest finding another game or letting one of them try the reins at running the game.
As others have said as well, a hacker can easily be produced as an NPC hired by the fixer as well if the job requires it (wonderful approach since he can likely often stay in the van and let the rest of the team install a wireless tap or relays for him to bounce off of into the site.
If a stealth approach is needed, the fixer can always hire a B&E specialist to assist the team as well. If they get tired of having to split their pay with NPCs, they will pick up the skills to cover other areas as well.
-
I'd agree that forcing or punishing the players for their style choice is a bad idea. Your primary job with new players is to make sure they are lifelong Shadowrun addicts. This probaly won't be the last campaign you run, if you don't scare the players off of this system. It can actually be good not to get bogged down on the more complex rule systems such as hacking at fist anyway with new players.
The suggestions for subtly introducing more aspects of the game as it goes along are good ones. You may also consider asking the players if they'd be interested in switching campaigns every week or whatever. For example running the action game every two weeks, and the alternate stealthy campaign on the off weeks. On the stealth game weeks you could give them pre designed characters or let them design and make suggestions. Just ask them if it's something they are willing to do and explain you are trying to introduce them to another fun side of the game.
Vehicle combat was something I wanted to see more of, so I just slowly introduced it into the game over many months. It worked out well that way, as the rules would have bogged down play if I had just tossed it in fully right away.
-
Looking at the archetypes (I have the SR4 book, so the anniversary book might be slightly different), the only characters with any hacking skills are the hacker and the technomancer. The only characters with infiltration are the covert ops specialist, street samurai, and street shaman.
So don't think that lacking two niche skills instantly consigns the PCs into a narrow role as mere thugs. There are lots of jobs other than breaking into the facility to steal the maguffin. They can be bodyguards, urban mercs who get hired to teach the local gang a lesson, bounty hunters, paracritter hunters, highway bandits, smugglers, investigators, guerilla fighters, you name it.
Even muscle work can have a variety, considering how many people need a bit of leverage or insurance when they are doing dangerous jobs or consorting with dangerous company. They can be babysitting a spoiled sim star, helping a corporate shark get a leg up on his competition, be overwatch at a meet between two underworld factions, be chasing a delinquent high roller who made of with some of the Don's cred, all kinds of things.
-
...smugglers... ...guerilla fighters...
Actually, you'd need some half-decent stealth skills to avoid border patrols and other customs-type security, as well as to properly recon the enemy and set up ambushes. Probably also Disguise or Sleight-Of-Hand to hide smuggling compartments and booby-traps.
Otherwise, though, pretty much spot on.
-
(Thread necro, sorry!)
I give PCs at my table some free Skills, including Computer 2 and Data Search 2, to give them a way into doing minor tech stuff if they want it without charging them any points. That might work for your group too.
-
Have occasions where the pcs need to use the skills you know they have in situations that aren't absolutely critical. Therefore if by defaulting they don't succeed they suffer only minor consequences and it should clue into them that they need to spend early karma on some glaring holes in their characters
-
Have occasions where the pcs need to use the skills you know they have in situations that aren't absolutely critical. Therefore if by defaulting they don't succeed they suffer only minor consequences and it should clue into them that they need to spend early karma on some glaring holes in their characters
And what if their character idea doesn't include all of those skills YOU consider "glaring holes" to not be there? This is tantamount to railroading, IMO.
-
Railroading is them having to use fairly common skills in the game of shadowrun? If that was the case as a player I would never have to take combat skills and I could sit triumphantly back and tell the dm he could never attack me as I didn't build any combat skills into my character.
Besides shadowrun characters aren't a finished work at the time of creation. Epic shadowrunners will have picked up and learned skills along the way and evolved into the character they have begun.
-
Railroading is them having to use fairly common skills in the game of shadowrun? If that was the case as a player I would never have to take combat skills and I could sit triumphantly back and tell the dm he could never attack me as I didn't build any combat skills into my character.
Besides shadowrun characters aren't a finished work at the time of creation. Epic shadowrunners will have picked up and learned skills along the way and evolved into the character they have begun.
It can be inferred by the phrasing of your first post that the intent is to attempt to force the players to take certain skills. This by definition is railroading, as it is an endeavor to impose one's own idea of "proper character creation/growth/development" upon one's players.
-
Railroading is them having to use fairly common skills in the game of shadowrun? If that was the case as a player I would never have to take combat skills and I could sit triumphantly back and tell the dm he could never attack me as I didn't build any combat skills into my character.
Besides shadowrun characters aren't a finished work at the time of creation. Epic shadowrunners will have picked up and learned skills along the way and evolved into the character they have begun.
Hey, nice straw-man there. Must have put a lot of work into it.
Go read the Skill Ratings Table in SR4A, on p199. Rating 0 is what an average person on the street with no special knowledge beyond "what everyone knows" has. You don't get Rating 1 until you actually put effort into developing a skill... such as someone taking a seminar on how to Make Friends and Influence People, or reading Commlinks For Dummies.
So, yes, forcing someone to take above Rank 0, which indicates that they've spent time and energy focusing on developing it above Joe Average level, is railroading.
-
Its no more railroading than balancing a game expecting 22 dice firearms pools. Its just a game style issue. This is another case where I don't honestly see your objection JAD. Why do you have such a big problem with anyone who wants to play the game differently than you do?
-
Its no more railroading than balancing a game expecting 22 dice firearms pools. Its just a game style issue. This is another case where I don't honestly see your objection JAD. Why do you have such a big problem with anyone who wants to play the game differently than you do?
If I see something that looks like railroading to me, then I'm going to point it out in hopes that a person will learn.
-
Its no more railroading than balancing a game expecting 22 dice firearms pools. Its just a game style issue. This is another case where I don't honestly see your objection JAD. Why do you have such a big problem with anyone who wants to play the game differently than you do?
If I see something that looks like railroading to me, then I'm going to point it out in hopes that a person will learn.
How is a different playstyle than yours railroading?
I get it. You like big dicepools and min/maxed characters and hyper action. That's fine. Why do you respond to a thread where the OP is asking "how do I broaden the experience in my game" with "don't because if you don't play like me you're wrong."
-
Have occasions where the pcs need to use the skills you know they have in situations that aren't absolutely critical. Therefore if by defaulting they don't succeed they suffer only minor consequences and it should clue into them that they need to spend early karma on some glaring holes in their characters
No. In some cases this makes a little sense....
I recently had a couple of new players to SR join my table. Cause I was busy, I broke my own cardinal rule and didn't help them build their characters. (I did give them a quick once over before the game began... But I missed something...)
The first scene that a brought them in to the game, the group asked them to shadow a mark on his pickup route....
Now I determined that since the pickup route that in the downtown core, during the day there would be alot of people going about their lives.... So they wouldn't need to make a 'shadowing' roll. They would however need to make periodic perception (2) tests to keep him in sight...
....
Neither had perception, thus had to default! So they ended up with 3 dice each..... Needless to say they lost the mark pretty quickly.
Was this a game ending situation? No. The party pushed back their time table, assigned 2 other players to do the shadowing, and the newbies found out how important 'perception' skill can be, thus giving them an idea of what should be raised with karma in the future.
-
Its no more railroading than balancing a game expecting 22 dice firearms pools. Its just a game style issue. This is another case where I don't honestly see your objection JAD. Why do you have such a big problem with anyone who wants to play the game differently than you do?
If I see something that looks like railroading to me, then I'm going to point it out in hopes that a person will learn.
How is a different playstyle than yours railroading?
I get it. You like big dicepools and min/maxed characters and hyper action. That's fine. Why do you respond to a thread where the OP is asking "how do I broaden the experience in my game" with "don't because if you don't play like me you're wrong."
This is what happens when you jump in to a portion of a conversation without fully reading. The railroading comes from the poster that basically said to put the PCs into a whole lot of situations their skills don't cover to force them into buying those skills. THAT is railroading, plain and simple. Learn to read more than the last post or two before sticking your nose in and insulting people over something you obviously have no idea about.
Have occasions where the pcs need to use the skills you know they have in situations that aren't absolutely critical. Therefore if by defaulting they don't succeed they suffer only minor consequences and it should clue into them that they need to spend early karma on some glaring holes in their characters
No. In some cases this makes a little sense....
I recently had a couple of new players to SR join my table. Cause I was busy, I broke my own cardinal rule and didn't help them build their characters. (I did give them a quick once over before the game began... But I missed something...)
The first scene that a brought them in to the game, the group asked them to shadow a mark on his pickup route....
Now I determined that since the pickup route that in the downtown core, during the day there would be alot of people going about their lives.... So they wouldn't need to make a 'shadowing' roll. They would however need to make periodic perception (2) tests to keep him in sight...
....
Neither had perception, thus had to default! So they ended up with 3 dice each..... Needless to say they lost the mark pretty quickly.
Was this a game ending situation? No. The party pushed back their time table, assigned 2 other players to do the shadowing, and the newbies found out how important 'perception' skill can be, thus giving them an idea of what should be raised with karma in the future.
This is different, as it was a natural development and not some contrived circumstance like 1Red13 was suggesting to do. (Not to mention that it dealt with a skill that is more general in nature.) The problem comes when the GM arbitrarily starts trying to make the Street Sam hack or pull Face work just to "teach them a lesson for not taking the skills".
-
This is what happens when you jump in to a portion of a conversation without fully reading. The railroading comes from the poster that basically said to put the PCs into a whole lot of situations their skills don't cover to force them into buying those skills. THAT is railroading, plain and simple. Learn to read more than the last post or two before sticking your nose in and insulting people over something you obviously have no idea about.
One, at no point have I insulted you in this thread.
Two, how is putting players in low stakes situations where non combat skills would be useful any more railroading than putting them in a situation where they have to have 20+ dice in their combat skills to succeed? This is pure and simple an example of what I was talking about in the other thread. GM comes in with a question about his game and by post 3 the OP is being told that his play style is wrong. By post 5 the only poster actually trying to answer the OPs question is being insulted by Guns.
And then you jump in to accuse the poster who suggested adding some low stakes content that would encourage the players to expand their skill set of railroading.
Get over it. Some people like to play the game differently than you and Guns do. Its not absolutely necessary that the two of you bully them into silence whenever they ask for help.
I recommend that you go back and read the thread.
-
This is what happens when you jump in to a portion of a conversation without fully reading. The railroading comes from the poster that basically said to put the PCs into a whole lot of situations their skills don't cover to force them into buying those skills. THAT is railroading, plain and simple. Learn to read more than the last post or two before sticking your nose in and insulting people over something you obviously have no idea about.
One, at no point have I insulted you in this thread.
Two, how is putting players in low stakes situations where non combat skills would be useful any more railroading than putting them in a situation where they have to have 20+ dice in their combat skills to succeed? This is pure and simple an example of what I was talking about in the other thread. GM comes in with a question about his game and by post 3 the OP is being told that his play style is wrong. By post 5 the only poster actually trying to answer the OPs question is being insulted by Guns.
And then you jump in to accuse the poster who suggested adding some low stakes content that would encourage the players to expand their skill set of railroading.
Get over it. Some people like to play the game differently than you and Guns do. Its not absolutely necessary that the two of you bully them into silence whenever they ask for help.
I recommend that you go back and read the thread.
You insulted people by making a claim that we only care about dice pool. This is untrue, and since you don't know either of us, I'd suggest you step down from the vitriol spewing.
The supposed suggestion is in fact railroading because of the intent implied by his own words of claiming "glaring holes". This states that the intent would be to force players into taking skills that they may not have ever intended on taking. How is this NOT railroading?
-
Its no more railroading than balancing a game expecting 22 dice firearms pools. Its just a game style issue. This is another case where I don't honestly see your objection JAD. Why do you have such a big problem with anyone who wants to play the game differently than you do?
First off, I'll freely admit that I misread the first sentence of the post... I thought it said "having to have" not "having to use" when I first read it.
That said, any time you force a player to do anything to, for, with, or involving their characters, that's railroading. If the player wants their character to be rather mediocre in social situations... which is exactly what Charisma 2-3, Social 0 is... and you throwing Face-level social characters at them to punish... excuse me, "encourage"... them, that's you putting on the conductor's hat.
As for what "problem" is with some people's style of play...
In a single, unified universe the power-scale that goes all the way from Joe Blow on the street, with 2-4 dice in most things, and 6... maybe 8... in their area of expertise, all the way up to guys like Ares Firewatch operatives, who are going to be using every trick in the book and will give even Prime Runners a seriously bad day.
People who are "clued in," like Fixers, have a fairly good idea where you sit on the totem pole, and you'll get jobs (and pay) according to your spot in the pecking order. Your job as a GM is to fit the campaign to what the players bring, and make sure they're all on the same page, whatever that page is. It's not to "encourage" them to build the characters you want them to have.
You want a 10-12 DP game? Cool by me. Just don't act like they're going to be infiltrating Ares Regional HQ to steal prototype blueprints for the Predator VII with those skill levels, or that the guy with Charisma 3 and no social skills is a freakish loser sitting in a corner by himself.
Why? Because that's not how the freakin' universe works according to published material.
--- --- ---
Secondly, dude, you pretty consistently come off like a raging jerk when you post about something you don't like. It makes it VERY hard to stay civil with you.
-
This is what happens when you jump in to a portion of a conversation without fully reading. The railroading comes from the poster that basically said to put the PCs into a whole lot of situations their skills don't cover to force them into buying those skills. THAT is railroading, plain and simple. Learn to read more than the last post or two before sticking your nose in and insulting people over something you obviously have no idea about.
One, at no point have I insulted you in this thread.
Two, how is putting players in low stakes situations where non combat skills would be useful any more railroading than putting them in a situation where they have to have 20+ dice in their combat skills to succeed? This is pure and simple an example of what I was talking about in the other thread. GM comes in with a question about his game and by post 3 the OP is being told that his play style is wrong. By post 5 the only poster actually trying to answer the OPs question is being insulted by Guns.
And then you jump in to accuse the poster who suggested adding some low stakes content that would encourage the players to expand their skill set of railroading.
Get over it. Some people like to play the game differently than you and Guns do. Its not absolutely necessary that the two of you bully them into silence whenever they ask for help.
I recommend that you go back and read the thread.
You insulted people by making a claim that we only care about dice pool. This is untrue, and since you don't know either of us, I'd suggest you step down from the vitriol spewing.
The supposed suggestion is in fact railroading because of the intent implied by his own words of claiming "glaring holes". This states that the intent would be to force players into taking skills that they may not have ever intended on taking. How is this NOT railroading?
You inserted an "only" there. Go reread my post. Actually, go reread the thread again, the vitriol seems to be coming largely from your side here.
It's not railroading because a) the suggested approach was to slowly introduce low stakes elements that would encourage the broadened skill base and b) because the GM has a right to run a game that interests him. Railroading would be making a mandate or introducing have this skill or die events.
The fact of the matter is that, and again revue the thread, no one has suggested taking away the players choices in chargen or in advancement. Any GM will, by the nature of the process, favor certain types of games and sessions. Why is that natural process "railroading" when it doesn't agree with your play style?
[slipped]
By that definition you're attempting to railroad every GM who posts a question anywhere on this board into your play style. In fact this post is a good example.
As for me coming off like a jerk. I'm sorry if you feel that way, but if I were you I'd go back and reread this thread. You were the one who started making personal attacks. You were the one who started playing the if I shout louder I win game and you were the one who didn't take the time to read what I was posting.
-
A GM can prefer something all he wants, but it's his job to make sure the players have fun first and foremost. Of course he should have fun too, but if he has to sacrifice a bit for the majority (which the players are), so be it. Trying to force the players into building the characters the GM wants is simply ridiculous. I'm honestly starting to think you're only defending this because you disagreed with JAD and myself in that other thread...
-
A GM can prefer something all he wants, but it's his job to make sure the players have fun first and foremost. Of course he should have fun too, but if he has to sacrifice a bit for the majority (which the players are), so be it. Trying to force the players into building the characters the GM wants is simply ridiculous. I'm honestly starting to think you're only defending this because you disagreed with JAD and myself in that other thread...
No, I'm defending this because the idea that gently showing characters the breadth of the universe in the hope that they'll take the bait and get involved in a game that the GM finds more appealing is railroading is ludicrous.
There is a crossover, as this is the type of behavior I was talking about in the other thread, but I'm disagreeing with you because I disagree with the position you're taking. What's more, I'd appreciate it if the two of you would drop the innuendo and personal attack. I disagree with you. I think people ought to be able to play the game in a way that they find satisfying and that if a GM wants advice on how to run a style of game they find interesting that they should be allowed to ask without getting shouted down.
-
A GM can prefer something all he wants, but it's his job to make sure the players have fun first and foremost. Of course he should have fun too, but if he has to sacrifice a bit for the majority (which the players are), so be it. Trying to force the players into building the characters the GM wants is simply ridiculous. I'm honestly starting to think you're only defending this because you disagreed with JAD and myself in that other thread...
No, I'm defending this because the idea that gently showing characters the breadth of the universe in the hope that they'll take the bait and get involved in a game that the GM finds more appealing is railroading is ludicrous.
There is a crossover, as this is the type of behavior I was talking about in the other thread, but I'm disagreeing with you because I disagree with the position you're taking. What's more, I'd appreciate it if the two of you would drop the innuendo and personal attack. I disagree with you. I think people ought to be able to play the game in a way that they find satisfying and that if a GM wants advice on how to run a style of game they find interesting that they should be allowed to ask without getting shouted down.
And we don't believe that GMs should be getting advised to try to force their players into fitting their mold. Again, the players are the majority in a given group/game, so what they want should be what goes. A good GM will adapt and still be able to have fun without forcing 'encouraging' their players into specific paths.
-
A GM can prefer something all he wants, but it's his job to make sure the players have fun first and foremost. Of course he should have fun too, but if he has to sacrifice a bit for the majority (which the players are), so be it. Trying to force the players into building the characters the GM wants is simply ridiculous. I'm honestly starting to think you're only defending this because you disagreed with JAD and myself in that other thread...
No, I'm defending this because the idea that gently showing characters the breadth of the universe in the hope that they'll take the bait and get involved in a game that the GM finds more appealing is railroading is ludicrous.
There is a crossover, as this is the type of behavior I was talking about in the other thread, but I'm disagreeing with you because I disagree with the position you're taking. What's more, I'd appreciate it if the two of you would drop the innuendo and personal attack. I disagree with you. I think people ought to be able to play the game in a way that they find satisfying and that if a GM wants advice on how to run a style of game they find interesting that they should be allowed to ask without getting shouted down.
And we don't believe that GMs should be getting advised to try to force their players into fitting their mold. Again, the players are the majority in a given group/game, so what they want should be what goes. A good GM will adapt and still be able to have fun without forcing 'encouraging' their players into specific paths.
Except that the advice here wasn't coercive. A first time GM with first time players asked for some advice and got a fairly gentle recommendation that he show his players some other facets of the game rather than vetoing or otherwise limiting their character creation options. It is in fact the responsibility of a good GM to show the characters the world they are living in so that the can find the parts of it they like.
-
I don't entirely disagree with showing players what is important in the game world, but personally, I think if a skill is important, or a negative quality or low Attribute is a weakness, then situations illustrating that should occur naturally in the game. I can see the merit in a bit of railroading, if the GM knows that a certain skill is important in his/her game, and wants to demonstrate that to the player before the lack results in a more catastrophic failure. I still think things like that are better addressed when the GM first audits the character sheet, though.
-
I don't entirely disagree with showing players what is important in the game world, but personally, I think if a skill is important, or a negative quality or low Attribute is a weakness, then situations illustrating that should occur naturally in the game. I can see the merit in a bit of railroading, if the GM knows that a certain skill is important in his/her game, and wants to demonstrate that to the player before the lack results in a more catastrophic failure. I still think things like that are better addressed when the GM first audits the character sheet, though.
Could possibly work if being REALLY careful, but it is a slippery slope. Personally, I stay off that slope and if no one in the party has skills in that particular area, I either don't have that area be necessary or I have an NPC take care of it. But I believe an individual game should be built entirely around what the characters CAN do.
-
I don't entirely disagree with showing players what is important in the game world, but personally, I think if a skill is important, or a negative quality or low Attribute is a weakness, then situations illustrating that should occur naturally in the game. I can see the merit in a bit of railroading, if the GM knows that a certain skill is important in his/her game, and wants to demonstrate that to the player before the lack results in a more catastrophic failure. I still think things like that are better addressed when the GM first audits the character sheet, though.
Could possibly work if being REALLY careful, but it is a slippery slope. Personally, I stay off that slope and if no one in the party has skills in that particular area, I either don't have that area be necessary or I have an NPC take care of it. But I believe an individual game should be built entirely around what the characters CAN do.
I would prefer, if I really thought it important, to just talk to the players at character creation. Now, I would rather craft adventures around what the players want to do, and if I and the players are really that different in expectations, then that's that.
I guess there is only one example I can think of easily, and that's Perception. I like every character to have the perception skill. But I would tell them, not put them in situations were perception is essential. This actually came up in a recent game. I had a new player who took the Weapon Specialist from the core book... who doesn't have perception. It was just to get her into the game and I didn't check out the character sheet first (after all it was a template... oops) So of course it comes up when they get ambushed by a sniper whose on a roof top, at night, in the pouring rain. So I fugded the test and gave her an even chance.
Now, if no one wants to play a hacker, or a face or a mage, then that should be cool. We can all work around those limitations, one way or the other. Deckers and Mages can be hired, and you can just roleplay the 'face' scenes, giving bonuses (or not even rolling dice) for cool stuff. Or they could pink mowhawk the face scene... whatever floats your player's boat.
Essentialy, we work with the players, to customise the game for them. If we think they should have a skill, we just tell them. Seems pretty straight forward to me, but maybe thats just how I do things.
-
Ahh, Perception...possibly the most easily forgotten skill...
-
You know, I think having unorthodox groups is a lot of fun. Sometimes players will take interest in certain skills the group lacks and their character will develop into something far from what they planned originally. Forcing players into rigid roles is not as fun imo. It can be really rewarding when players need to improvise and the GM gets to be really creative and pose unique challenges.
-
Can't we all just get along?
Look, here's the deal, there are different GMs out there with different styles. I for one like to make my Missions ambiguous so my players can use their own skills to accomplish a task but in no way will I completely cater a mission ONLY to the player skills. If you as a player choose not to take skills like Perception or choose to Min/Max your character into a cybernetic melee prodigy, that's fine but don't get mad when you're asked to make a Perception roll and you fail because you had to default. To me that isn't "Rail-Roading by the GM" that's keeping the players on their toes and keeping the game from become a stale episode of "Which T-1000 character will blow things up the fastest".
But here's the kicker: You don't have to agree with anyone about how to GM correctly. If your playing style is very different from the way your GM is running things and you aren't having a great time, fine, but you now have a choice: Leave the game or adapt. It's that simple. Cuz I mean unless your GM is dropping far more dice on you than any two of your fellow players combined on a regular basis (which you should find fishy) than they are doing it for a reason and not to completely ruin your game.
That's just my two cents and you are free to disagree.
-
Might I suggest making Surprise rolls Stealth+Initiative instead of Initiative(IE you are more likely to surprise someone if they are less aware of your prescence and stealth can in fact be made up of unconscious factors), and having the Sniper make extended Stealth rolls to find a good hiding spot(for when s/he wants to snipe something) and making guards make extended perception rolls with a threshold of your snipers successes to locate him/her
As for the magician, if they have spirits with Concealment, they render the rest of that basically moot.
Why?
Force 6 spirit with Concealment can lower Perception rolls against up to 6 of them by 6 points.
so.... Yeah. It's not even like it boosts their stealth, it lowers perception rolls.
...That might be something you don't mention to those players. ;)
-
Might I suggest making Surprise rolls Stealth+Initiative instead of Initiative(IE you are more likely to surprise someone if they are less aware of your prescence and stealth can in fact be made up of unconscious factors), and having the Sniper make extended Stealth rolls to find a good hiding spot(for when s/he wants to snipe something) and making guards make extended perception rolls with a threshold of your snipers successes to locate him/her
As for the magician, if they have spirits with Concealment, they render the rest of that basically moot.
Why?
Force 6 spirit with Concealment can lower Perception rolls against up to 6 of them by 6 points.
so.... Yeah. It's not even like it boosts their stealth, it lowers perception rolls.
...That might be something you don't mention to those players. ;)
I'd consider someone who has successfully ghosted up onto their target (aka, beat the target at Stealth vs Perception) to be attacking from Ambush. That gives them an automatic +6 on that first "Surprise" initiative test, plus immunity to "losing" the Surprise test.
-
Isn't it fair to say that by not taking a certain skill, a player is either accepting that their character isn't very good at it, or that they forgot about it / didn't realise it might be important.
Just because a character isn't designed to be good at something doesn't mean they shouldn't be challenged to try it. Surely that's part of the point of playing - striving to overcome difficult circumstances. These sorts of tests and situations shouldn't be critical mission success / fail - unless the team's screwed up and they're doing it because the specialist is a gonna.
If you choose to build a character who isn't good at a commonly used skill - presumably things like perception and etiquette and maybe to a slightly lesser extent the likes of con, infiltration, data search, computer use etc - then presumably you're accepting that that character is going to fall foul of those skills at various points and that's part of the fun.
It's then the player's choice to decide whether they are going to improve the character so they don't suck at it any more, or they're going to continue to take the consequences. It's only really railroading if you're forcing them to have to build a character that is good at that stuff. Or you're forcing them to build a character that has one specialism, but be competent - or even good - at another specialism. Clearly that's bad as is repeatedly punishing players for mistakes or character choice.
Challenging players where they are weak, rather than focusing their play solely on their strengths isn't though.
Not that this is anything particularly helpful for the actual original problem.
-
I think gholfodder put it as well as it can possibly be put.
-
Ghoulfodder, that was a well made comment regarding skill choices at first level and how to challenge players. I've saved a copy of your comment as a reminder towards myself reguarding being a specialist and being well-rounded.
+1 to you.
-
Thank you both.