[GloriousRuse]

I am considering running a campaign where instead of being hand a series of narrow tactical objectives, each as a separate run, the players are hired as to achieve large overarching goals and then decide on their own sub-objectives (to an extent. For example instead of "yo, you got a run - blast Humanis mcHumanister in the face" or "steal me this important humanis data at this place" , it becomes a long term set up with an objective like "make Humanis Seattle politically non-viable by the next election cycle." You could probably think of other examples, such as ensuring a certain company was vulnerable to hostile take-over during Q2 2073, etc. , etc.

Initial thoughts?

Challenges?

Recommendations? 

[Reaver]

It can be done, and is rewarding when it happens. But there is a host of things that can go wrong, but the are entirely group dependant.

The first is choice paralysis: they have so many ideas and options, they have no idea what they should or can do.... Some groups need to be given specific goals to move forward.


An other is interest fatigue. Because the door is wide open on their choices, they go off on a tangent and not after the objective...


But you know your group best, if they can handle it, I say fly at it!

(I use a similiar method myself. Usually only the first 8 or so runs are scripted. After that, everything is player generated - from backstories, interactions, roleplay and any bites I get on any Redd Herrings I through out there.)

[Tecumseh]

It will come to no surprise to Glorious that I would be a big fan of a campaign like this. That said, it's success is far more dependent on the type of players you have than a traditional campaign is. This sort of campaign takes a lot of responsibility off the GM and puts it on the players. Some players revel in the possibilities while others freeze, immobilized by choice paralysis like Reaver says.

Different players want different things out of a game. Some love thinking abstractly and strategically, and they would love this. Others just want some simple escapism where they get to pretend they are criminals for a few hours but don't want to think too hard about who they need to shoot in the face nor why. This would not be the best campaign for them. Knowing what your players enjoy and what they are capable of will tell you if this is a good choice or not.

The other big component is the game format. I don't think this would work well for play-by-post because PbP games are too drawn out as it is. A campaign like this would take multiple calendar years. An in-person campaign would be more suitable as far as discussing things openly and quickly and building consensus in minutes rather than days or weeks.

Depending on how much detail you want to get into for each objective, this campaign might be a good candidate for Shadowrun Anarchy. (Since the rules are not widely available yet, this is speculation on my part.) That could reinforce the decentralized nature of the campaign (i.e. the GM is just another spoke on the wheel, not the hub) and speed the resolution of the individual objectives so that you don't get bogged down in the nitty gritty of each and every step of the process. Unless, of course, that's what you and your players want and enjoy.

[Spooky]

This is how I run my campaigns. Currently, I am doing a series of runs that don't really look connected, but the same three megas are hiring them to sabotage the others in prep for a seattle wide corp war. So they knock out one corps military base, then get hired by that corp to take out the satellite comm station of the corp that first hired them. And so on. At the end, the runners will be squarely under the VLH (Very Large Hammer) of Doom for instigating the war in the first place, leading to either end of campaign or setting change, as decided by players.

[GloriousRuse]

Tec! You're alive and have time to browse SR boards! I take it this means all is well with you and yours. 

Anyhow, the big thing I'm hearing from you guys is that this inherently is a long and involved process. I wonder if it would be possible - and tec, given your 2+ year ganger campaign, you would know - to shift a lot of the group decision making onto "off days" so that game day is execution? That might go a long way to mitigating burning playing time up with intra-group politics discussion.

[Spooky]

That depends on what your players want. If they are good with making group decisions away from the table (via text or email or whatever), then go for it. My players don't operate that way, part of the fun for them is making the plan at the table. So make sure your players want to make decisions off-table before instituting it.

[Reaver]

Agreed Spooky,

Some groups are great at using texting and emails between games to get things moving for the game night.
Other groups, don't even talk until game night!

My table doesn't really have "downtime" as you think of it. After the run is done, its time to lay low..... Which we play out! Because SOOO much can happen during this time especially if you include hooks generated by the players themselves into your considerations. (and ALL players give you hooks! Be it in their negative qualities, their back story, or even just their in game actions). Does that alcoholic teammate slip out for a beer and get spotted? Does that old enemy of the character start spreading money around to track them down? Does that dependant of the character get threatened and abused by people looking for the Character? Does a contact call and need help RIGHT FRAGGIN NOW!??

These, and many more things can happen during the "downtime" if you play it out, instead of just saying" Well you lay low for 6 days"

And it's these types of things that take the game from being a series of runs (and only runs) into something more. While the group is "taking a break" from running so the Rigger can learn Aircraft mechanics, maybe the Sammy's best friend has gotten in trouble with the mob -AGAIN- and needs they Sammy's help? Maybe the Mage, that's been a bit of a dick to his spirits, gets a visit from a Free Spirit looking to "talk" to the mage about the way he treats his spirits?

Maybe the Running scene is in a slow period and there are no jobs (or maybe they just fucked up bad enough, that no fixer will give them a job!) So now they have to figure out a way to generate money? (like, robbing a medical transport to sell the drugs and goods to a black market contact? Or raiding a Corporate data haven for paydata?)

If you play through the "downtimes", you actually open up a lot of doors for other activities that create the feeling of a more fleshed out world then just:

Go on run. Shoot shit. Sell stuff. hand wave downtime. Go on run. Shoot shit. Sell stuff. Hand wave downtime Rise, wash, repeat.


the trick is getting to mesh and flow well so that people still have the time to heal up if they need it, get the new gear they want, and learn the new skills they want. And THAT is where the good GMs at freeform game mastering shine! It takes someone who can adlib and assemble multiple different leads and threads into one giant picture. It's not something every GM can do well.

[GloriousRuse]

Its not so much against downtime as it is wondering how much broad picture strategizing needs to be done at the table. Because if one player thinks the best way to stop stuffer shack form acquiring too much market share in bellevue is a good PR campaign, and the other thinks it's "blow up every stuffer shack that opens", that argument on even what to do can eat half a night.

In the case of Tec's two year ganger game, i recall we picked a lot of questionable "strategic" goals because they go the night rolling.

[Reaver]

Its not so much against downtime as it is wondering how much broad picture strategizing needs to be done at the table. Because if one player thinks the best way to stop stuffer shack form acquiring too much market share in bellevue is a good PR campaign, and the other thinks it's "blow up every stuffer shack that opens", that argument on even what to do can eat half a night.

In the case of Tec's two year ganger game, i recall we picked a lot of questionable "strategic" goals because they go the night rolling.

yea, that's called "Choice paralysis".

So many options that you can not make a choice. It's one of the first things we talked about in the thread.... And yes it really can "ruin" an entire game night, If you let it....
How you can over come it is a different question as there is no clear right way. Some place a time limit on the planning phase, some use the vote system. some don't try to control it, as they find it's part of the fun! You just have to find a system that works for your table and roll with it.