Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: snicker@*********.net (snicker@*********.net)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:16:38 +0000
I'd like to ask the GMs out there what the most "munchkin" things they've seen
tried by players, and how they've responded.

I'll give an example from several years ago:
I had a player who was known for his munchkin-style of play, create a new character (for a
new campaign), and he decided to play a rigger who was paralyed from the waist down (rode
around in a "rigged" wheelchair). His character stayed in the van at all times,
and he had spent all of his resources (and some of the other players) on drones. Dozens
of drones. Armoured, armed and fully-rigged drones.
Never having had a Rigger in my group before, I was not aware of the power levels I was
dealing with. Some of these things had vehicle armour, which made standard weapons pretty
much useless, and the few drones that did get destroyed were rather easily replaced or
repaired. The flying drones were the worst - spoiling ambushes and pretty much wiping out
any opposition before I had any chance for response.

I try very hard in my gaming not to "react" to players actions by throwing more
nasty stuff just because they out-thought me. But this guy damned near ruined the
campaign - not because he was blowing away all the enemies - but because no one else was
getting a chance to shine. I don't remember what I did to resolve that - but I know that
character ended up killing that particular game.

So what munchkin stuff have you had to deal with?

Snicker
Message no. 2
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:25:26 +0200
According to snicker@*********.net, on 21-8-06 19:16 the word on the
street was...

> I had a player who was known for his munchkin-style of play, create
> a new character (for a new campaign), and he decided to play a
> rigger who was paralyed from the waist down (rode around in a
> "rigged" wheelchair). His character stayed in the van at all times,
> and he had spent all of his resources (and some of the other
> players) on drones. Dozens of drones. Armoured, armed and
> fully-rigged drones.

Sounds like someone wanted to play Mr. Ng ...

I made a character somewhat like this myself several years ago, though
he wasn't paralyzed or anything. My idea was more that I'd play a rigger
who stayed in his well-armored and outfitted van for safety, using
drones and mechanical arms to do stuff outside. This caused problems
mainly in that the other players became very reluctant to leave the
safety of the van as well ... Any time it looked like someone would have
to do something outside, they almost started drawing straws to see who
had to go :)

But to stay somewhat OT, I must say that the van and drones are nowhere
near as munchkin as spending other people's money on stuff that only
this character can use :)

> The flying drones were the worst - spoiling ambushes and pretty
> much wiping out any opposition before I had any chance for response.

Yes, flying drones can be really nasty. If the target doesn't spot it
(and the chance of that can be very small) it will probably kill with a
single shot or burst. At least, given a smart rigger :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Executives can use it without reading manuals, which is sort
of our test of ease-of-use." --Steve Jobs
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 3
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:48:40 -0300
On 8/21/06, snicker@*********.net <snicker@*********.net> wrote:
> I try very hard in my gaming not to "react" to players actions by throwing
more nasty stuff just because they out-thought me. But this guy damned near ruined the
campaign - not because he was blowing away all the enemies - but because no one else was
getting a chance to shine. I don't remember what I did to resolve that - but I know that
character ended up killing that particular game.

A character like that is probably a sign that the player wants a
campaign involving lots of vehicular warfare. He's pretty much going
to blow through any opposition that doesn't use similar tactics, and
hiring him for anything /less/ than vehicular warfare is overkill and
a waste of money on the part of the Johnson.

I'd ask the other players if they also want that type of game. In your
case, it was likely that they did, since they contributed their own
resources to the drone army. If they do, just start a game where
everybody is a rigger inside an armored van, and the action occurs
mostly through the drones. It would probably be some sort of mercenary
campaign full of battles in interesting terrain, in which case it
would be okay to have your players be riggers inside tanks or APCs
commanding an army of heavier drones, facing similar opposition.

Another idea would be a more "surreal" game where the players play the
/drones/, with the rigger being a NPC in Captain's Chair mode giving
them general orders :).


--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
Message no. 4
From: weberm@*******.net (Michael Weber)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:00:23 -0400
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:

>Yes, flying drones can be really nasty. If the target doesn't spot it
>(and the chance of that can be very small) it will probably kill with a
>single shot or burst. At least, given a smart rigger :)

Just how big are drones, anyway? If they're that small they'd have trouble carrying
heavvy weaponry.

A player of mine wanted to send in drones as scouts into the basement of the Amber
Gel factory (heh), but I decided that they wouldn't be able to negotiate the narrow
one meter wide stairs leading into it.
Message no. 5
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:16:07 -0600
On 8/21/06, snicker@*********.net <snicker@*********.net> wrote:
> I'd like to ask the GMs out there what the most "munchkin" things they've
seen tried by players, and how they've responded.

In Fantasy Hero I made a character that had two forms. In it's
priamry form it was a lump of flesh hated by everyone in the universe.
I used the disadvantage points I gained from that one the Shapechange
power to turn the lump of flesh into a nigh invulnerable tank.

Also in Fantasy Hero a fellow player made a character that was an
item, so in addition to the disads he got (couldn't move, etc) he got
the 1/2 cost advantage when buying all of his powers. He sunk
everything into Mind Control and when the party found him he took
control of the first PC that picked him up and ended up playing the
warrior paladin with a godawful sword (the player who started with the
paladin had to make another character).

--
-Graht
Message no. 6
From: ceadawg@*****.com (Russ Myrick)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:19:34 -0500
On 8/21/06, Michael Weber <weberm@*******.net> wrote:Just how big are
drones, anyway? If they're that small they'd have trouble carrying

> heavvy weaponry.
>
> A player of mine wanted to send in drones as scouts into the basement of
> the Amber
> Gel factory (heh), but I decided that they wouldn't be able to negotiate
> the narrow
> one meter wide stairs leading into it.
>
> Some of the drones described in the game are about the size of a soccer
ball. RL military drones are now down to that size for most recon and
forward fire control uses. There is one the German Army just demonstrated
last month, at AAW6, that is about the size of a pack of cigarettes until it
is deployed. It has a self inflating helium balloon made of some
transparent mylar type film. Very hard to spot. They claim the telemetry
link is 2.5km LOS for full audio & thermographic/video imaging. If they're
like the US military that range is likely understated by at least half.
Message no. 7
From: leisuree@*****.com (Edward D Leisure III)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:23:31 -0400
snicker@*********.net wrote:
> So what munchkin stuff have you had to deal with?
>
> Snicker
Also take into account any collateral damage to private property
incurred by smashing through obstacles with drones. Also, don't be
reluctant to change the game to fight him. It's perfectly reasonable
for people to protect against such a thing, especially if he's got a
reputation for his "force" of drones. The operation all sounds really
high profile to me, and I can't really see how this character operates
anonymously - so hes bound to make enemies. This is usually how I fix
"munchkins". Defeat them in game with ther own reputations. The
players aren't stupid and know whats going on. People don't have fun
when one player outshines - nobody has a problem when its dealt with,
except maybe the munchkin player, but it's a challenge (one I sometimes
appreciate) to combat munchkin-ism.

Even with A priority resources, after buying your van and vcr, you don't
have much left for drones, you (the gm) HAD to help create this beast.
I've been there myself with the same character concept, but never had
the nuyen to build the army.

Really, the worst sort of munchkin new character I've seen was the
aspected sorcerer with the best power foci they can afford who rolled
something like 14 dice on a manabolt. (i don't remember the specifics,
it was years ago)
Message no. 8
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:33:34 -0300
On 8/21/06, Edward D Leisure III <leisuree@*****.com> wrote:
>
This is usually how I fix
> "munchkins". Defeat them in game with ther own reputations. The
> players aren't stupid and know whats going on. People don't have fun
> when one player outshines - nobody has a problem when its dealt with,
> except maybe the munchkin player, but it's a challenge (one I sometimes
> appreciate) to combat munchkin-ism.

I don't understand this mindset. Why not just talk to the player and
explain that he's ruining the fun for the rest of the group, or even
just for you? Unless the whole /point/ of your game is to have a
"munchkin contest" where the GM and players constantly try to one-up
the "enemy", dealing with it this way is just not worth the cost in
fun.

--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
Message no. 9
From: leisuree@*****.com (Edward D Leisure III)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:53:15 -0400
> I don't understand this mindset. Why not just talk to the player and
> explain that he's ruining the fun for the rest of the group, or even
> just for you? Unless the whole /point/ of your game is to have a
> "munchkin contest" where the GM and players constantly try to one-up
> the "enemy", dealing with it this way is just not worth the cost in
> fun.
>
This particular player doesn't understand how what he does it hurting
the game, but hes a friend of all of us, and we don't want to boot him.
In most cases, I believe munchkin issues are best dealt with on a case
by case basis - unless of course you are being selective in your
players, but that's a luxury I didn't have when this particular game was
being played. My game was not so combat-oriented, so the other players
still enjoyed the game. It a question of style.
Message no. 10
From: grant.woodward@*****.com (Grant Woodward)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:56:06 -0400
On 8/21/06, snicker@*********.net <snicker@*********.net> wrote:
>
> I try very hard in my gaming not to "react" to players actions by throwing
> more nasty stuff just because they out-thought me. But this guy damned near
> ruined the campaign - not because he was blowing away all the enemies - but
> because no one else was getting a chance to shine. I don't remember what I
> did to resolve that - but I know that character ended up killing that
> particular game.
>
> So what munchkin stuff have you had to deal with?
>
> Snicker
>
>
>
My first SR game suffered from a similarly dominant pair of players -- a
driving-focused rigger who managed to afford (or con the GM into) an
armor-plated RV that eventually ended up with a well-disguised, top-mounted
heavy turret; and an absurdly over-powered troll who was to Mr. T what T was
to Murdock, only much faster. Since their characters ended up working a day
job together as a semi-legit front, they pretty quickly began to handle the
missions the GM sent us on almost single-handedly.

Rather than buff up our meat targets (which would have left characters like
my eagle shaman well behind), our GM took some steps that I thought were
fairly clever, and which were certainly effective. To get around the RV's
firepower and relative safety, he simply moved our harder targets to places
the RV couldn't go -- boardrooms, secluded bunkers, the Ork Underground, and
so on and so forth. When we were out and about, or hurrying away from a run
gone bad, a simple traffic jam (that was probably our own fault from
earlier) nearly forced us to abandon the RV entirely.

He also increased our focus on diplomacy and problem-solving -- logic
puzzles, conspiracies to uncover, and people to meet in places where brute
force just wasn't a good idea. My eagle shaman had taken two rather
significant flaws that he capitalized on nicely, Amnesia and Hunted, which
meant that I had some very nasty people after me, and I hadn't a clue who
they were or why they wanted me. With a minimum of two groups of people --
my "old friends" and whomever we'd most recently pissed off -- after our
heads, secrecy, surveillance and tact became surprisingly important. It was
very hard to figure out who was trying to kill us at any given time, which
meant we could very rarely make a preemptive strike without plenty of
legwork ahead of time.

After we had started "hiding" behind the troll/tank combo and had settled
down nicely, we suddenly ran into a problem that I think a lot of GMs
neglect to use because it's (a) complicated, and (b) is called "cheap" by a
lot of players. As our notoriety increased, Lone Star and other security
organizations became a real concern, especially away from our primary
safehouse. Even that eventually was flagged as "suspicious" by LS, and we
were forced to spread out and start using the RV. And when our GM threw in a
"Clean Up Seattle's Slums" campaign -- a joint operation involving Lone
Star, Seattle's police department, and a Cross task force (that particular
corp had pushed for it as a "community-conscious" PR move) -- the troll's
tendency towards random violence was fairly well reined in. Of course, we
had a couple of runs for other corps embarassing C.A.T., so it's not like it
was entirely bad for business... but it wasn't always business where the
smash-and-grab technique would have any chance of working.

I will say, though, that while controlling overpowered or over-protected
characters is important, constantly countering them is both unrealistic and
unfair. After all, all these techniques and gear work like that for a
reason, and not every enemy will have prepared for a troll who can
single-handedly slaughter an entire goon squad or in your case, air cover. A
little creativity on the GM's part, though, will find times and places for
those tactics to be simply inappropriate.
Message no. 11
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:10:07 +0200
According to Michael Weber, on 21-8-06 20:00 the word on the street was...

> Just how big are drones, anyway? If they're that small they'd
> have trouble carrying heavvy weaponry.

It depends, but the only real limiting factor is the drone's Load and CF
ratings. If those are enough to mount a firmpoint with a sniper rifle or
a hardpoint with an HMG, you're in business.

> A player of mine wanted to send in drones as scouts into the
> basement of the Amber Gel factory (heh) but I decided that they
> wouldn't be able to negotiate the narrow one meter wide stairs
> leading into it.

TBH, there are enough drones that would fit those stairs, but if I were
to GM that adventure (and it looks like I will again sometime within the
next couple of months) I'd find a way to disallow that, too ;)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Executives can use it without reading manuals, which is sort
of our test of ease-of-use." --Steve Jobs
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 12
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:18:14 +0200
According to Edward D Leisure III, on 21-8-06 20:23 the word on the
street was...

> Really, the worst sort of munchkin new character I've seen was the
> aspected sorcerer with the best power foci they can afford who rolled
> something like 14 dice on a manabolt. (i don't remember the specifics,
> it was years ago)

A player in one of my campaigns once had a physad that did much the same
thing. IIRC it went something like Armed Combat at 6 and then specialize
in the weapon his character was going to be using, giving him 8 dice
(this was SRII). Then add Improved Ability (Armed Combat) at 6, and a
rating 6 weapon focus (in SRII, physads got Force Points like any other
magician, but could really only spend them on weapon foci). That gave
him 20 dice to roll for a basic melee attack, plus up to 8 Combat Pool
dice if he felt like it.

This was the most min-maxing player I've had in my games. I wouldn't
call him a munchkin, but he was pretty good at choosing what he wanted
his characters to do, and then squeezing the most ability he could from
the rules. Another of his characters was a super-healer shaman, using
the Cow totem from NERPS: ShadowLore that gave +3 dice to Health spells.
He had the added luck of a never-empty medkit -- despite rolling a D6
for it _every_time_ he used it (which was often), I think it took him at
least a year of playing about once a week before he finally rolled a 1.
He must have made at least a hundred rolls for the thing, and I can't
remember he ever did it where we couldn't see it ... (And no, he used
random dice, owned by me.)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Executives can use it without reading manuals, which is sort
of our test of ease-of-use." --Steve Jobs
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 13
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:24:54 -0300
On 8/21/06, Grant Woodward <grant.woodward@*****.com> wrote:
> I will say, though, that while controlling overpowered or over-protected
> characters is important, constantly countering them is both unrealistic and
> unfair. After all, all these techniques and gear work like that for a
> reason, and not every enemy will have prepared for a troll who can
> single-handedly slaughter an entire goon squad or in your case, air cover. A
> little creativity on the GM's part, though, will find times and places for
> those tactics to be simply inappropriate.

The best tactic, IMO, is to make up runs with an even mix of scenes
where each member of the group has his chance to shine. If a player
makes a character as specialized in combat as that troll, it probably
means he /really/ wants to take part in a lot of over-the-top,
action-movie fights. Magicians want a chance to be all mystical, and
hackers want to crack codes and mess around with other people's
computers. If every once in a while each of them gets a chance to save
the rest of the group's asses by using their unique skills, the
players will be happy and satisfied with the game.

Violence is not the answer to everything, magic is not all-powerful
and not every computer is there to be hacked. But if you let each of
these guys go all out once in a while, they won't complain about the
times when someone else has the answer.

--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
Message no. 14
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
> I don't understand this mindset. Why not just talk to the player
> and
> explain that he's ruining the fun for the rest of the group, or
> even
> just for you? Unless the whole /point/ of your game is to have a
> "munchkin contest" where the GM and players constantly try to
> one-up
> the "enemy", dealing with it this way is just not worth the cost in
> fun.

This is a nice theory, but I have had more than one player reject
this approach completelty. I've been told, to my face, "the game is
about what the players want, and I want this character". Never mind
that the rest of the group did /not/ want that character.

[The solution here turned out to be easy enough. The rest of the
team killed the brute after the brute liquidated an innocent
bystander to an extraction run. Left him dead for the cops, and
planted a criminal record into his spiffy fake SIN.]

The point is, reason does not always work with munchkins.

However, what does almost always work with munchkins is the innate
balance of the game world (provided the GM has done their best to
maintain this particular factor). A drone network is not invisible.
In fact, in terms of signal intelligence, a large drone force makes a
pretty good sized footprint. Even encrypted, the noise is there.
And any corp facility is going to be a bit wary of a heavy footprint
in the area painted by their own security W-LAN. Triangulation can
pretty quickly pin down a broadcast source, and your average corp has
more resources to throw at sensor-assisted weapons than a
shadowrunner. Further, corporate security forces don't violate any
laws by running security grades of ECM, ECCM, and
Encryption/Decryption on their networks. Apply this sort of response
to your munchkin rigger, and pretty soon they are only good for a
distraction while the rest of the team does the actual run.

======Korishinzo
--A few nuyen from the sidelines.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 15
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:52:53 -0300
On 8/21/06, Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com> wrote:
>
> The point is, reason does not always work with munchkins.

If a player truly can't cooperate with the rest of the group, or
balance his fun against everyone else's, (gently) tell him to take a
walk. Finding another player, or even teaching a newbie to play, is
much less painful than getting into an arms race.

--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
Message no. 16
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:07:05 -0600
> snicker@*********.net wrote:
> > So what munchkin stuff have you had to deal with?

Oh yeah, there was also the character I made during the SR3 playtest
that started play with a force 26 spirit foci. Course, that was
specifically to find things that were broken in the rules... <eptg>

The most pain in the ass munchkin I've ever had to deal with went out
of his way to only read the part of a rule that benefited him. Every
time he said he could do something because the rules said so I had to
open the rulebook and read the *entire* rule to him. Then he would
sit there with a "that can't be right" look on his face. And he did
this *repeatedly*. Shoulda nuked his ass from orbit...

<stuffs the memories of the munchkin from hell back in the box>

Hey look, flowers!

--
-Graht
Message no. 17
From: jeremie.bouillon@****.fr (Jérémie Bouillon)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 00:06:07 +0200
snicker@*********.net wrote:
> So what munchkin stuff have you had to deal with?

A mage with a Ally Force 5, whop wanted the Ally to have a physical form
of a one-way-view sphere. He wanted the Ally to be around him, not
visible and so immune to magic and most things, and yet covered by 10
point of hardened armor.

I ruled this would have been impossible, he can't materialize that
precisely and above all a spirit is always dual so the mage couldn't
spellcast "through" him.

The "trade off" is a physical form of a huge kimono and mask, all in
one, covering almost all of his body (but it take time to put on).
However, it's still a major cover against spell, and 10 point of
hardened armor.

Not found about it, but (in SR3) I couldn't find anything against it. A
kimono is certainly much more simpler than a moving motorcycle (thanks
Dowd, grmbl).

On the day to day, I find the magic way too powerful. Well used, it tend
to render useless all (but technical, and not all) physical "talent" and
equipement. Who need Interrogation, Con or Climbing, and gear, when
Mental Probe, COntrol Thoughts and Levitation are so much powerful?
Message no. 18
From: grendel@*****.org (Grendel)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:34:33 -0700
On Aug 21, 2006, at 10:16 AM, snicker@*********.net wrote:

> I'd like to ask the GMs out there what the most "munchkin" things
> they've seen tried by players, and how they've responded.
>
> I'll give an example from several years ago:
> I had a player who was known for his munchkin-style of play, create
> a new character (for a new campaign), and he decided to play a
> rigger who was paralyed from the waist down (rode around in a
> "rigged" wheelchair). His character stayed in the van at all
> times, and he had spent all of his resources (and some of the other
> players) on drones. Dozens of drones. Armoured, armed and fully-
> rigged drones.
> Never having had a Rigger in my group before, I was not aware of
> the power levels I was dealing with. Some of these things had
> vehicle armour, which made standard weapons pretty much useless,
> and the few drones that did get destroyed were rather easily
> replaced or repaired. The flying drones were the worst - spoiling
> ambushes and pretty much wiping out any opposition before I had any
> chance for response.
>
> I try very hard in my gaming not to "react" to players actions by
> throwing more nasty stuff just because they out-thought me. But
> this guy damned near ruined the campaign - not because he was
> blowing away all the enemies - but because no one else was getting
> a chance to shine. I don't remember what I did to resolve that -
> but I know that character ended up killing that particular game.
>
> So what munchkin stuff have you had to deal with?
>
> Snicker

I know that you didn't specifically ask for ways to deal with this
character, but since riggers are near and dear to my heart I thought
I'd offer some constructive comments. Take them as you will.

The easiest way to deal with a rigger who has an arsenal of vehicles
and drones is to force him to pay upkeep. Remember that
customizations which increase the price of a vehicle also increase
its upkeep. It's not unusual to see upkeep in the ten thousand nuyen
range per month.

Other considerations are enemy riggers and electronic warfare.
Jamming and infiltration are two of the best ways to convince
overeager riggers that they're much better off keeping a low
profile. Also, corporations own the airspace over their facilities
up to an altitude of four or five thousand meters. A non-corporate
drone transiting that airspace can be engaged and destroyed thanks to
corporate extraterritoriality.

The meanest thing you can do to riggers is to employ Silencer AARM or
Jabberwocky missiles. The Silencers are very effective when used in
conjunction with electronic warfare.

As for munchkin players in general, I've found that it is less
instructive to 'beat them at their own game' than it is to expose the
weaknesses of their characters. Min-maxed characters tend to be very
narrow in focus, and thus effective only in a limited number of
scenarios. A couple of game sessions spent waiting in the van or
safehouse while the more well rounded characters operate often tends
to change the attitude of a munchkin player.

Grendel

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
The essence of life is struggle, and its goal is domination. There
may be deeper meanings and higher aspirations, but they exist solely
within the mind of man. The meaning of life is war.

---The Way and The Power
Lovret
Message no. 19
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
> Not found about it, but (in SR3) I couldn't find anything against
> it. A
> kimono is certainly much more simpler than a moving motorcycle
> (thanks
> Dowd, grmbl).

I believe the motocycle ally spirit is a Stephen Kenson abomination,
and I have specifically disallowed this in my own games. I did,
however, allow an ally spirit that looked like the model of
motorcycle with no moving parts. It used the Movement power to hover
and glide about. The mage had a lot of very high TN bike rolls to
stay mounted in tricky maneuvers, because the spirit did not have to
comply with gyroscopic forces that are inherent to the operation of a
motocycle.

======Korishinzo
--Be evil. Be consistant. The good players will come back.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 20
From: jeremie.bouillon@****.fr (Jérémie_Bouillon)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 07:50:46 +0200
Ice Heart wrote:
> I believe the motocycle ally spirit is a Stephen Kenson abomination,
> and I have specifically disallowed this in my own games. I did,
> however, allow an ally spirit that looked like the model of
> motorcycle with no moving parts. It used the Movement power to hover
> and glide about. The mage had a lot of very high TN bike rolls to
> stay mounted in tricky maneuvers, because the spirit did not have to
> comply with gyroscopic forces that are inherent to the operation of a
> motocycle.

It was in Burning Bright iirc, so it's all Tom Dowd. Difficult to be
more canon than that.

However, it's not even the point in my game, it's more about the—at
least—+6 cover from spells and 10 hardened armor for 1 karma point.
Message no. 21
From: zmjett@***.net (zmjett@***.net)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 02:24:59 -0400
Jérémie Bouillon wrote:

> Ice Heart wrote:
>
>> I believe the motocycle ally spirit is a Stephen Kenson abomination,
>> and I have specifically disallowed this in my own games. I did,
>> however, allow an ally spirit that looked like the model of
>> motorcycle with no moving parts. It used the Movement power to hover
>> and glide about. The mage had a lot of very high TN bike rolls to
>> stay mounted in tricky maneuvers, because the spirit did not have to
>> comply with gyroscopic forces that are inherent to the operation of a
>> motocycle.
>
>
> It was in Burning Bright iirc, so it's all Tom Dowd. Difficult to be
> more canon than that.
>
Nope. The ally spirit in Burning Bright was the Indian guy,
Seeks-the-Moon. I remember this because Burning Bright is probably my
favorite SR novel next to Nigel Findley's stuff. The motorcycle ally
spirit was Steve Kenson's books (Tommy Talon). It was named Aracos. I
remember this because those were my LEAST favorite books, and my pile of
paperbacks to go to the used bookstore is right next to my computer. :P

--VMis
Message no. 22
From: zmjett@***.net (zmjett@***.net)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 02:33:29 -0400
snicker@*********.net wrote:

>I'd like to ask the GMs out there what the most "munchkin" things they've
seen tried by players, and how they've responded.
>
>I'll give an example from several years ago:
>I had a player who was known for his munchkin-style of play, create a new character
(for a new campaign), and he decided to play a rigger who was paralyed from the waist down
(rode around in a "rigged" wheelchair). His character stayed in the van at all
times, and he had spent all of his resources (and some of the other players) on drones.
Dozens of drones. Armoured, armed and fully-rigged drones.
>Never having had a Rigger in my group before, I was not aware of the power levels I
was dealing with. Some of these things had vehicle armour, which made standard weapons
pretty much useless, and the few drones that did get destroyed were rather easily replaced
or repaired. The flying drones were the worst - spoiling ambushes and pretty much wiping
out any opposition before I had any chance for response.
>
>I try very hard in my gaming not to "react" to players actions by throwing
more nasty stuff just because they out-thought me. But this guy damned near ruined the
campaign - not because he was blowing away all the enemies - but because no one else was
getting a chance to shine. I don't remember what I did to resolve that - but I know that
character ended up killing that particular game.
>
>So what munchkin stuff have you had to deal with?
>
>Snicker
>
>
>

I once had a player playing a rigger with an anthroform drone. I was
running a version of the California Ghost House, except with more booby
traps (the owner of the house had made a pact with bug spirits and was
trying to protect himself when he realized just what he'd done). I was
fairly new to GMing at the time and not very familiar with rigging, so
like Snicker, I had no idea what I was letting myself in for or even if,
in fact, that the player had gone by the rules when he made his prized
humanoid drone. Apparently he'd sunk enough money and special stuff into
it that it even looked human, not just like a loosely human-shaped metal
thing. The drone was playing Polish Minesweeper and setting off all the
traps, and of course applying hardening and such, none of them bothered
him, just ripped up his synthskin a bit.

After about an hour of this, the other players were bored and
complaining. The character in question was also being really, really
smug and mouthy, so I lost my temper and said, "You're looking for
traps? Congratulations. You found one. It's a 50 foot wellshaft with
smooth concrete walls."

The rigger and drone failed the reaction test. :P Problem solved.

--VMis
Message no. 23
From: westiex@*****.com (Craig West)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:24:22 +1000
Michael Weber wrote:

>Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Yes, flying drones can be really nasty. If the target doesn't spot it
>>(and the chance of that can be very small) it will probably kill with a
>>single shot or burst. At least, given a smart rigger :)
>>
>>
>
>Just how big are drones, anyway? If they're that small they'd have trouble carrying
>heavvy weaponry.
>
>A player of mine wanted to send in drones as scouts into the basement of the Amber
>Gel factory (heh), but I decided that they wouldn't be able to negotiate the narrow
>one meter wide stairs leading into it.
>
>
>
>
Body



Weight



Nominal value



Size

0



0-5 kg



2 kg



Hand held drones

1



5-75 kg



20 kg



Toaster to dwarf sized drones

2



75-300 kg



150 kg



Human to troll sized drones, motorcycles

3



300-750 kg



500 kg



Automobiles, motorboats under 30ft, large fixed wing drones

4



750 kg - 2.5tons



1.5 tons



Pickup trucks, SUVs, light trucks, single engine aircraft
standard helicopters

5



2.5-7.5 tons



4 tons



Med trucks, small yatchs (30 to 50 ft)

6



7.5-20 tons



12 tons



Tracktors, Hvy trucks, Lear jets, twin engine aircraft,T-Birds

7



20-30 tons



25 tons



APCs, fighter aircraft, cargo helicopters

8



30-45 tons



35 tons



Zepplins, large yatchs (50-100ft), light tanks

9



45-60 tons



50 tons



Passenger Airlines


Craig.
Message no. 24
From: westiex@*****.com (Craig West)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:26:58 +1000
Michael Weber wrote:

>Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Yes, flying drones can be really nasty. If the target doesn't spot it
>>(and the chance of that can be very small) it will probably kill with a
>>single shot or burst. At least, given a smart rigger :)
>>
>>
>
>Just how big are drones, anyway? If they're that small they'd have trouble carrying
>heavvy weaponry.
>
>A player of mine wanted to send in drones as scouts into the basement of the Amber
>Gel factory (heh), but I decided that they wouldn't be able to negotiate the narrow
>one meter wide stairs leading into it.
>
>
>
>
Apparently, one must first copy tables into a text document, then post
into an email.

Body Weight Nominal value Size
0 0-5 kg 2 kg Hand held drones
1 5-75 kg 20 kg Toaster to dwarf sized drones
2 75-300 kg 150 kg Human to troll sized drones, motorcycles
3 300-750 kg 500 kg Automobiles, motorboats under 30ft, large
fixed wing drones
4 750 kg - 2.5tons 1.5 tons Pickup trucks, SUVs, light trucks,
single engine aircraftstandard helicopters
5 2.5-7.5 tons 4 tons Med trucks, small yatchs (30 to 50 ft)
6 7.5-20 tons 12 tons Tracktors, Hvy trucks, Lear jets, twin
engine aircraft,T-Birds
7 20-30 tons 25 tons APCs, fighter aircraft, cargo helicopters
8 30-45 tons 35 tons Zepplins, large yatchs (50-100ft), light
tanks
9 45-60 tons 50 tons Passenger Airlines

My apologies.
Craig.
Message no. 25
From: marc.renouf@******.com (Renouf, Marc A.)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:30:57 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com
> [mailto:shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com] On Behalf Of
> Jérémie Bouillon
>
> However, it's not even the point in my game, it's more about the-at
> least-+6 cover from spells and 10 hardened armor for 1 karma point.

Perhaps, but there's an easy answer - enemy mages/physads targeting the ally spirit
rather than the munchkin mage. Even gunfire directed at the mage is hitting the ally
spirit, and while spirits have Immunity to Normal Weapons, a high enough power level is
going to hurt the spirit quite a bit. One well placed sniper shot is going to destroy
that ally utterly. Which means that the mage has essentially wasted an initiation.

Marc
Message no. 26
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:04:39 +0000
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 09:18:14PM +0200, Gurth wrote:
>
> A player in one of my campaigns once had a physad that did much the same
> thing. IIRC it went something like Armed Combat at 6 and then specialize
> in the weapon his character was going to be using, giving him 8 dice
> (this was SRII). Then add Improved Ability (Armed Combat) at 6, and a
> rating 6 weapon focus (in SRII, physads got Force Points like any other
> magician, but could really only spend them on weapon foci). That gave
> him 20 dice to roll for a basic melee attack, plus up to 8 Combat Pool
> dice if he felt like it.
>

Heh, I knew a player for whom pretty much every character he ever played was some variant
on this concept. He really liked the melee combat, I guess...I wouldn't exactly call him
a munchkin, though, since no matter how good you are at melee it can be of limited utility
when everyone else has guns. He had to be pretty clever about trying to get into
situations where he could actually use his melee combat skills.

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 27
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:23:09 +0200
According to David Kettler, on 22-8-06 20:04 the word on the street was...

> Heh, I knew a player for whom pretty much every character he ever
> played was some variant on this concept. He really liked the
> melee combat, I guess...

This player didn't so much do variations on a particular concept, as try
to get the maximum out of whatever it was he wanted to play (which,
admittedly, were usually magicians).

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Executives can use it without reading manuals, which is sort
of our test of ease-of-use." --Steve Jobs
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 28
From: reynardsurface@*****.com (Pace)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 13:28:51 -0700
As a few have said, focus on the players' weakness. If you always attack
their strengths, of course they'll blow your opposition away. Have the world
react to the troll carrying a halberd down the street.

A lot of people seem to leave the "shadow" out of things. Heavy weapons are
great, but have very limited application. Of course, sammies always hate
running with my characters, who tend to focus on misdirection and social
engineering to execute covert ops. People click their tongue at characters
that go on missions without weapons or armor, but I find that the best
defense is not getting shot at.
Message no. 29
From: snicker@*********.net (snicker@*********.net)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:31:45 +0000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bira [mailto:u.alberton@*****.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 07:24 PM
> To: 'Shadowrun Discussion'
> Subject: Re: Degenerate players and tactics
>
> On 8/21/06, Grant Woodward <grant.woodward@*****.com> wrote:
> > I will say, though, that while controlling overpowered or over-protected
> > characters is important, constantly countering them is both unrealistic and
> > unfair. After all, all these techniques and gear work like that for a
> > reason, and not every enemy will have prepared for a troll who can
> > single-handedly slaughter an entire goon squad or in your case, air cover. A
> > little creativity on the GM's part, though, will find times and places for
> > those tactics to be simply inappropriate.
>
> The best tactic, IMO, is to make up runs with an even mix of scenes
> where each member of the group has his chance to shine. If a player
> makes a character as specialized in combat as that troll, it probably
> means he /really/ wants to take part in a lot of over-the-top,
> action-movie fights. Magicians want a chance to be all mystical, and
> hackers want to crack codes and mess around with other people's
> computers. If every once in a while each of them gets a chance to save
> the rest of the group's asses by using their unique skills, the
> players will be happy and satisfied with the game.
>
> Violence is not the answer to everything, magic is not all-powerful
> and not every computer is there to be hacked. But if you let each of
> these guys go all out once in a while, they won't complain about the
> times when someone else has the answer.

This is quite possibly the best answer I've ever seen. I *try* to run my games this way,
it doesn't always work, but I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Snicker
Message no. 30
From: snicker@*********.net (snicker@*********.net)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 21:18:01 +0000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grendel [mailto:grendel@*****.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:34 AM
> To: 'Shadowrun Discussion'
> Subject: Re: Degenerate players and tactics
>
>
> On Aug 21, 2006, at 10:16 AM, snicker@*********.net wrote:
>
> > I'd like to ask the GMs out there what the most "munchkin" things
> > they've seen tried by players, and how they've responded.
> >
> > I'll give an example from several years ago:
> > I had a player who was known for his munchkin-style of play, create
> > a new character (for a new campaign), and he decided to play a
> > rigger who was paralyed from the waist down (rode around in a
> > "rigged" wheelchair). His character stayed in the van at all
> > times, and he had spent all of his resources (and some of the other
> > players) on drones. Dozens of drones. Armoured, armed and fully-
> > rigged drones.
> > Never having had a Rigger in my group before, I was not aware of
> > the power levels I was dealing with. Some of these things had
> > vehicle armour, which made standard weapons pretty much useless,
> > and the few drones that did get destroyed were rather easily
> > replaced or repaired. The flying drones were the worst - spoiling
> > ambushes and pretty much wiping out any opposition before I had any
> > chance for response.
> >
> > I try very hard in my gaming not to "react" to players actions by
> > throwing more nasty stuff just because they out-thought me. But
> > this guy damned near ruined the campaign - not because he was
> > blowing away all the enemies - but because no one else was getting
> > a chance to shine. I don't remember what I did to resolve that -
> > but I know that character ended up killing that particular game.
> >
> > So what munchkin stuff have you had to deal with?
> >
> > Snicker
>
> I know that you didn't specifically ask for ways to deal with this
> character, but since riggers are near and dear to my heart I thought
> I'd offer some constructive comments. Take them as you will.
>
> The easiest way to deal with a rigger who has an arsenal of vehicles
> and drones is to force him to pay upkeep. Remember that
> customizations which increase the price of a vehicle also increase
> its upkeep. It's not unusual to see upkeep in the ten thousand nuyen
> range per month.
>
> Other considerations are enemy riggers and electronic warfare.
> Jamming and infiltration are two of the best ways to convince
> overeager riggers that they're much better off keeping a low
> profile. Also, corporations own the airspace over their facilities
> up to an altitude of four or five thousand meters. A non-corporate
> drone transiting that airspace can be engaged and destroyed thanks to
> corporate extraterritoriality.
>
> The meanest thing you can do to riggers is to employ Silencer AARM or
> Jabberwocky missiles. The Silencers are very effective when used in
> conjunction with electronic warfare.
>
> As for munchkin players in general, I've found that it is less
> instructive to 'beat them at their own game' than it is to expose the
> weaknesses of their characters. Min-maxed characters tend to be very
> narrow in focus, and thus effective only in a limited number of
> scenarios. A couple of game sessions spent waiting in the van or
> safehouse while the more well rounded characters operate often tends
> to change the attitude of a munchkin player.
>
> Grendel

Grendel - thanks for the suggestions. Although that character (and player) are long gone,
it's good to have the info for the next Rigger-munchkin. ECM... That would be the best
toy I didn't think about. The increase in target numbers alone probably would have made
the difference. (He spent all his priority on money, so he sucked at everything else).

Snicker
Message no. 31
From: caseless@*****.com (Stephen Allee)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 02:08:44 +0430
I echo the earlier comments about using upkeep costs to limit munchkin
riggers. IIRC, it is something like 2% of the drone / vehicle cost each
month. And, you can let them run a few game sessions of heavy combat with
their drones. And make them track ammo use. Very few things get as expensive
as bulk purchase of ammo. Especially if it is unique and/or difficult to
find. The likelihood of finding a few thousand rounds of HMG ammo on the
streets of Seattle is pretty small. Not to mention any of the other neat
toys that riggers tend to use. To up the expense, try using gangers as
opposition. Arm them with heavy crossbows and disposeable rocket launchers.
And combat drugs. I think Zebulingod has the drug cocktail list and cost
somewhere.

After two or three missions like that, the rigger will be so far in the hole
that he will be selling his toys to buy a cup of soycaf. And probably be
pretty close to tears. He'll either cave to the economic pressure and stop
with the swath of destruction routine or create a new character. Or go
totally mercenary and insist on ammo reimbursement as part of the mission
contracts or a larger share of the reward from the group.
Message no. 32
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:11:59 +0200
According to Pace, on 22-8-06 22:28 the word on the street was...

> As a few have said, focus on the players' weakness. If you always attack
> their strengths, of course they'll blow your opposition away. Have the
> world react to the troll carrying a halberd down the street.

IMHO there's a difference between focusing on the PCs' weaknesses, and
just letting the world behave in a realistic manner. People running away
and Lone Star shooting first and asking questions later is pretty
realistic when there's a troll with a halberd walking down the street;
equipping every corporate security guard with military armor because
your PCs tend to carry assault rifles with APDS ammo isn't, IMHO.

> People click their tongue at characters
> that go on missions without weapons or armor, but I find that the best
> defense is not getting shot at.

Good thing my players aren't on this list, because I've been trying to
get that mentality out of their heads. I much prefer the "old school"
style of playing SR, the one you can see in the early FASA adventures:
solving most problems through violence.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Executives can use it without reading manuals, which is sort
of our test of ease-of-use." --Steve Jobs
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 33
From: reynardsurface@*****.com (Pace)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:28:34 -0700
On 8/23/06, Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
>
> According to Pace, on 22-8-06 22:28 the word on the street was...
>
> IMHO there's a difference between focusing on the PCs' weaknesses, and
> just letting the world behave in a realistic manner. People running away
> and Lone Star shooting first and asking questions later is pretty
> realistic when there's a troll with a halberd walking down the street;
> equipping every corporate security guard with military armor because
> your PCs tend to carry assault rifles with APDS ammo isn't, IMHO.


Agreed. I think of weaknesses in terms of not having any non-combat skills
to speak of, or not thinking critically. I've run games in which a pneumatic
door closer caused the biggest sweat-fest. Me and my players generally avoid
combat, because it's fairly old-hat to all of us (SR3 game, natch)

> People click their tongue at characters
> > that go on missions without weapons or armor, but I find that the best
> > defense is not getting shot at.
>
> Good thing my players aren't on this list, because I've been trying to
> get that mentality out of their heads. I much prefer the "old school"
> style of playing SR, the one you can see in the early FASA adventures:
> solving most problems through violence.


I dunno. that just doesn't make sense to me. You're trying your damnedest
not to get caught, so you.... leave a trail of bodies and blood in your
efforts to steal the milk from the stuffer shack? Nah. Brute force tactics
are way too easy to manage in SR, and nothings ever that easy. It's not a
Shadowrun till you've been f-ed twice.
Message no. 34
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:07:24 -0300
On 8/23/06, Pace <reynardsurface@*****.com> wrote:
> I dunno. that just doesn't make sense to me. You're trying your damnedest
> not to get caught, so you.... leave a trail of bodies and blood in your
> efforts to steal the milk from the stuffer shack? Nah. Brute force tactics
> are way too easy to manage in SR, and nothings ever that easy. It's not a
> Shadowrun till you've been f-ed twice.
>

For all the talk about realism, to me it's pretty clear that SR was
always supposed to play like an action movie, which means crazy car
chases and shootouts where lead and blood fly in amazing quantities.
They aren't supposed to happen when you're stealing milk from the
Stuffer Shack, but that's not exactly a proper shadowrun.

You /can/ play it "stealthy and stressful", but that's not the One
True Way and it doesn't seem to be particularly enforced in the
published adventures I've seen.

--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
Message no. 35
From: jeremie.bouillon@****.fr (Jérémie_Bouillon)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 18:30:02 +0200
Bira wrote:
> You /can/ play it "stealthy and stressful", but that's not the One
> True Way and it doesn't seem to be particularly enforced in the
> published adventures I've seen.

Even if that's the case (and there's a lot about non violence way of
doing things covered in published adventure, so I'm not sure that's the
case), Hollywood fantasy (read: movies) can be quite non violent. All
the heist genre for example, can be quite close to a shadowrun, and most
of these movies have little violence (non-existent compared to the usual
Hollywood thing).

--
http://shadowrun.fr
Message no. 36
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 18:31:53 +0200
According to Pace, on 23-8-06 17:28 the word on the street was...

> I dunno. that just doesn't make sense to me. You're trying your damnedest
> not to get caught, so you.... leave a trail of bodies and blood in your
> efforts to steal the milk from the stuffer shack?

It's a different mentality -- of both the players and the game world.
SR, as it has been presented by FASA and FanPro over the past ten years
or so, has moved toward a world in which violence is seen as a lot less
acceptable than it was in the beginning of the setting. Your reply is a
good illustration of that, IMHO: you're saying "You're trying your
damnedest not to get caught" as if the only way to do that is to be
undetected -- which is the way SR books represent it. "A good run is one
where you get in, find what you came for, and leave without being
detected", and all that. Whereas you can also not be caught if you use
enough violence :)

Not that I'm saying all problems should be solved by shooting them. But
what I am saying is that the kind of game I prefer, is one where
shooting is not the very last option that we really don't want to use
unless the GM forces us into that corner ... (Which was pretty much the
case in the last SR campaign I was in -- it's kind of amazing nobody
gave their characters a Phobia: Violence flaw ;) I want players to see
violence as just another option, just like sneaking in, bribing people,
doing a Matrix run, or any other way of solving a run that they can
think of. If they discard it because other options are more likely to
get results, fine. If they discard it because of the dogma that violence
is the final resort, I don't agree.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Executives can use it without reading manuals, which is sort
of our test of ease-of-use." --Steve Jobs
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 37
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 18:34:43 +0200
According to Bira, on 23-8-06 18:07 the word on the street was...

> For all the talk about realism, to me it's pretty clear that SR was
> always supposed to play like an action movie, which means crazy car
> chases and shootouts where lead and blood fly in amazing quantities.

My point exactly, but you probably put it more clearly :) The way I see
it, most of the "problem" comes from the change in attitude when Mike
Mulvihill became line developer -- you can clearly see the difference in
the setting before and after. Now I'm not saying he made all the wrong
choices, because he did a good job overall, but I do feel that
discouraging of the violent option is one I don't agree with.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Executives can use it without reading manuals, which is sort
of our test of ease-of-use." --Steve Jobs
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 38
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:00:58 -0300
On 8/23/06, Jérémie Bouillon <jeremie.bouillon@****.fr> wrote:
> Bira wrote:
> > You /can/ play it "stealthy and stressful", but that's not the One
> > True Way and it doesn't seem to be particularly enforced in the
> > published adventures I've seen.
>
> Even if that's the case (and there's a lot about non violence way of
> doing things covered in published adventure, so I'm not sure that's the
> case), Hollywood fantasy (read: movies) can be quite non violent. All
> the heist genre for example, can be quite close to a shadowrun, and most
> of these movies have little violence (non-existent compared to the usual
> Hollywood thing).

The thing is, I think Shadowrun takes more from /action/ movies than
from /heist/ movies. I mean, this is a game with lovingly detailed
lists of guns, a combat system about twice as extensive as the one for
non-violent skill tests, and, up until very recently, a system for
modelling exciting car chases that was so absurdly detailed that it
actually made them boring.

Even the "standard run", which is sneaking into a secure research lab
and stealing a secret project, kind of assumes the group will be
discovered halfway through and will have to fight its way out. Or that
the Jonhson will turn out to be a double-crossing traitor, and the
/actual/ adventure is fighting all the gunmen he'll sic on the group
and finding a way to get even.

In the published adventures, not every problem must be solved through
violence, but if a fight does start it's not "game over", contrary to
what many GMs think. And every one of them seems to have at least one
big battle scripted in, which usually can't be avoided through stealth
or social skills.



--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
Message no. 39
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:09:32 +0200
According to Bira, on 23-8-06 19:00 the word on the street was...

> In the published adventures, not every problem must be solved through
> violence, but if a fight does start it's not "game over", contrary to
> what many GMs think.

Heh, I had _players_ who thought that way ... I can't remember the
number of times someone in the group suggested they try starting a
firefight, I found myself thinking "Yep, that plan would most likely
work fine", only to see it get overruled by most of the others, who
thought that a firefight was going to mean certain death for all
concerned. *sigh*

_That's_ why I'm trying to teach the current group (which only includes
one player from that particular campaign) to not rule out violence right
from the start :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Executives can use it without reading manuals, which is sort
of our test of ease-of-use." --Steve Jobs
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 40
From: zebulingod@*****.com (zebulingod)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:34:46 -0700
Stephen Allee wrote:
#
<snip>
#HMG ammo on the streets of Seattle is pretty small. Not to
#mention any of the other neat toys that riggers tend to use.
#To up the expense, try using gangers as opposition. Arm them
#with heavy crossbows and disposeable rocket launchers.
#And combat drugs. I think Zebulingod has the drug cocktail
#list and cost somewhere.
#

Ah, yes, the juiced troll gangers on the combat drug cocktail. *happy sigh*
Who needs a missile when they can just tear the door off the
truck/rv/armored box?

#After two or three missions like that, the rigger will be so
#far in the hole that he will be selling his toys to buy a cup
#of soycaf. And probably be pretty close to tears. He'll either
#cave to the economic pressure and stop with the swath of
#destruction routine or create a new character. Or go totally
#mercenary and insist on ammo reimbursement as part of the
#mission contracts or a larger share of the reward from the group.
#

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that's actually happened a couple of times, no?
And, if I remember correctly, you were usually the one shooting first? d:

Zebulin
Message no. 41
From: jeremie.bouillon@****.fr (Jérémie_Bouillon)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:58:37 +0200
Bira wrote:
> The thing is, I think Shadowrun takes more from /action/ movies than
> from /heist/ movies. I mean, this is a game with lovingly detailed
> lists of guns, a combat system about twice as extensive as the one for
> non-violent skill tests, and, up until very recently, a system for
> modelling exciting car chases that was so absurdly detailed that it
> actually made them boring.

That was much later on. SR1 didn't got that. Harlequin to take a example
of very first products by SR creators, had a lot of violence yes, but a
lot of things without violence too. Yes, SR is/was a "manly" game. But
most rpg are.

> In the published adventures, not every problem must be solved through
> violence, but if a fight does start it's not "game over", contrary to
> what many GMs think. And every one of them seems to have at least one
> big battle scripted in, which usually can't be avoided through stealth
> or social skills.

Yup, that's also what many players want. And until SR4 (and maybe,
still) the system was wrongly made to do so... someone put a gun to your
head, your first reaction is to turn around and open fire, not put your
hands up.

However that doesn't mean one can't develop other aspects in his game,
especially when demonstrating to a boring gamekiller munchkin that being
combat invulnerable is not the answer to everything. As stated again and
again in the SR universe by the way, there alwas has been this dichotomy
between the rules, some aspect of published adventure, and the
background description&shadowtalks.
Message no. 42
From: reynardsurface@*****.com (Pace)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:06:30 -0700
<Previous discussion snipped for brevity>

For the record, I'm not against violence as an option. In fact, even in some
of my sneaky super-stealth plans, large explosions occur (misdirection). I'm
merely stating a point of view that I felt was applicable when talking about
combat munchkins.

If your games are geared to be solved with bloodfests and a lack of followup
on said bloodfests, then you really shouldn't complain when your players
build characters that can breeze through these problems. I personally enjoy
building characters that seem fairly invincible in pure dice terms, but with
story-based flaws that challenge their development as a character, rather
than their number-crunching expertise.
Message no. 43
From: reynardsurface@*****.com (Pace)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:10:12 -0700
On 8/23/06, Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
>
> Heh, I had _players_ who thought that way ... I can't remember the
> number of times someone in the group suggested they try starting a
> firefight, I found myself thinking "Yep, that plan would most likely
> work fine", only to see it get overruled by most of the others, who
> thought that a firefight was going to mean certain death for all
> concerned. *sigh*
>
> _That's_ why I'm trying to teach the current group (which only includes
> one player from that particular campaign) to not rule out violence right
> from the start :)
>


Heh. Try this sometime: In their recon/legwork, reveal that the facility
they're going into is surrounded entirely by 30 meters of well-maintained,
unadorned lawn at about 1" grass height. I have had conjecture arise that
there was a multi-trillion dollar monofibre grid intended to slice the feet
off of intruders, among other things.

Sometimes a lawn is just a lawn
Message no. 44
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:20:40 +0200
According to Pace, on 23-8-06 20:10 the word on the street was...

> Heh. Try this sometime: In their recon/legwork, reveal that the facility
> they're going into is surrounded entirely by 30 meters of well-maintained,
> unadorned lawn at about 1" grass height. I have had conjecture arise that
> there was a multi-trillion dollar monofibre grid intended to slice the feet
> off of intruders, among other things.

I think that if I'd pulled that trick with that group, they'd never even
have contemplated going in. They'd have tried every other thing they
could think of (most likely visiting someone who works there at home,
preferably a manager) in order to avoid having to go into what's
"clearly" a death trap.

Trouble was that most of their alternative plans had rather major flaws
that I didn't even need to be an evil GM to exploit. The strange thing
is that these flaws had a tendency to turn into a shoot-out that the
players would come out of alive, and usually with wounds that weren't
too bad (and/or could be easily healed with judiciously-applied first
aid and magic) but they never seemed to get the message that they could
actually _win_ most firefights if they wanted to ...

> Sometimes a lawn is just a lawn

All SR players -- or maybe make that "all RPGers" -- would assume that
it isn't, though ...

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Executives can use it without reading manuals, which is sort
of our test of ease-of-use." --Steve Jobs
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 45
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:20:58 -0300
On 8/23/06, Jérémie Bouillon <jeremie.bouillon@****.fr> wrote:
> Bira wrote:
> That was much later on. SR1 didn't got that. Harlequin to take a example
> of very first products by SR creators, had a lot of violence yes, but a
> lot of things without violence too. Yes, SR is/was a "manly" game. But
> most rpg are.

The lovingly detailed list of guns was probably there since the very
beginning. Or did SR1 just have stats for generic guns ("Light
Pistol", "Heavy Pistol", "SMG", etc.) as opposed to several
models in
each category, plus several types of ammo and accessories, all of
which were added to in subsequent books?

As I've already said, the game isn't /all/ about combat. But combat is
supposed to play a significant role in SR. You can play it
differently, but I think it's wrong to say someone is playing the game
wrong just because they like combat.

>
> Yup, that's also what many players want. And until SR4 (and maybe,
> still) the system was wrongly made to do so... someone put a gun to your
> head, your first reaction is to turn around and open fire, not put your
> hands up.

I didn't quite understand what you're saying here, maybe because
neither of us speaks English as a native language. Would you care to
clarify it a bit?


> However that doesn't mean one can't develop other aspects in his game,
> especially when demonstrating to a boring gamekiller munchkin that being
> combat invulnerable is not the answer to everything. As stated again and
> again in the SR universe by the way, there alwas has been this dichotomy
> between the rules, some aspect of published adventure, and the
> background description&shadowtalks.

I don't see much of a dichotomy, except between what's in the books
and what some players/GMs bring into the game. Maybe I haven't been
reading it closely enough, since I'm going mostly by the published
adventures I've read from the current and past editions.

And the way to deal with a "gamekiller munchkin" is to talk to the
player outside of the game. He will either come around to your point
of view and will correct his behavior, or he will look for another
group that suits his playstyle better.

A "gamekiller", in my opinion, is just someone with a different play
style than the rest of the group. The friction caused by these
differences is what dimnishes the fun for everyone.

If the group prefers stealthy games where firing a shot means everyone
is dead, and there's this guy who likes building armored Trolls with
no Stealth skill and a collection of assault shotguns, then he's the
problem.

If all players like to play combat-optimized characters in a game of
cinematic action, and the GM wants a roleplay-heavy, deep-immersion
game, then the problem is with the GM, not with the group.

--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
Message no. 46
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:28:48 +0200
According to Bira, on 23-8-06 20:20 the word on the street was...

> The lovingly detailed list of guns was probably there since the very
> beginning. Or did SR1 just have stats for generic guns ("Light
> Pistol", "Heavy Pistol", "SMG", etc.) as opposed to several
models in
> each category, plus several types of ammo and accessories, all of
> which were added to in subsequent books?

No, all the guns in SRII and most of the ones in SR3 were already in the
SR1 main rulebook.

>> Yup, that's also what many players want. And until SR4 (and maybe,
>> still) the system was wrongly made to do so... someone put a gun to your
>> head, your first reaction is to turn around and open fire, not put your
>> hands up.
>
> I didn't quite understand what you're saying here, maybe because
> neither of us speaks English as a native language. Would you care to
> clarify it a bit?

He means that in SR, you can put a pistol to someone's head and pull the
trigger, and it's not going to kill the target. So, if someone does that
to you, you can say that your action is to draw your own weapon and
shoot your attacker, instead of submitting to his will.


--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Executives can use it without reading manuals, which is sort
of our test of ease-of-use." --Steve Jobs
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 47
From: anders@**********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:48:36 -0700
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:28:48 +0200
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
>> No, all the guns in SRII and most of the ones in SR3 were already in the
> SR1 main rulebook.
>
>
>
> He means that in SR, you can put a pistol to someone's head and pull the
> trigger, and it's not going to kill the target. So, if someone does that to
> you, you can say that your action is to draw your own weapon and shoot your
> attacker, instead of submitting to his will.
>
>
> --
> Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
> "Executives can use it without reading manuals, which is sort
> of our test of ease-of-use." --Steve Jobs
> -> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
> -> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-
>
> GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
> M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
> Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998


Hey Gurth, when does Plastic Warriors upgrade to SR4?
--Anders
Message no. 48
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:18:36 +0000
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:31:53PM +0200, Gurth wrote:
>
> It's a different mentality -- of both the players and the game world.
> SR, as it has been presented by FASA and FanPro over the past ten years
> or so, has moved toward a world in which violence is seen as a lot less
> acceptable than it was in the beginning of the setting. Your reply is a
> good illustration of that, IMHO: you're saying "You're trying your
> damnedest not to get caught" as if the only way to do that is to be
> undetected -- which is the way SR books represent it. "A good run is one
> where you get in, find what you came for, and leave without being
> detected", and all that. Whereas you can also not be caught if you use
> enough violence :)
>

I don't know...the way I see it, you are trying your damndest not to get get, which
usually translates into not being detected. Let's face it: The corps have more resources
than you. They can call in backup. If you make a big enough scene you might find some
grainy picture of yourself on every trid in the nation and all your contacts wanting
nothing to do with you. In general, it is better to do things quiet-like if possible.

Combat is twofold, in my opinion. When planning you shouldn't reject it out of hand, but
you should try to limit its duration and scope. Silenced weapons to take out patrolling
guards rather than semi-auto grenade launchers to take out everything in sight. The other
purpose of combat is for when things go bad, and they usually do at some point. I have
the fortune (heh) of being part of a group with a lot of new players, who are mostly
well-intentioned but very often screw things up (like that time somebody had his spirit
using concealment on a van and forgot to drop it before merging in traffic on the
freeway...). We get into combat a lot even without the GM trying to screw us. But on our
last run we managed to come up with a good plan and stick to it the whole way through.
Not a single bullet was fired the entire run and it was one of the most satisfying runs
we've had in a long time. Of course if things always went so well it might get a little
dull. That's why a good GM will throw in the occasional plot twist. But it's still a
really nice feeling when every once in a while things actually go as planned (otherwise,
what's the point in planning?).

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 49
From: leisuree@*****.com (Edward D Leisure III)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 23:45:47 -0400
Gurth wrote:
> Heh, I had _players_ who thought that way ... I can't remember the
> number of times someone in the group suggested they try starting a
> firefight, I found myself thinking "Yep, that plan would most likely
> work fine", only to see it get overruled by most of the others, who
> thought that a firefight was going to mean certain death for all
> concerned. *sigh*
>
> _That's_ why I'm trying to teach the current group (which only
> includes one player from that particular campaign) to not rule out
> violence right from the start :)
>

Heh, I once had the exact opposite problem with one of my groups. All
but one of my players were converts from D20 games and began with a
no-research/legwork mentality along with a very hardcore hack and slash
style. While after a few sessions, they came around to a happy balance
and understanding the importance of operating "in the shadows", it was
one of the most fun campaigns I ever ran/participated in.
Message no. 50
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
I do not think the point of this thread began as an attack on a
combat capable character, or an attempt to say SR should be less
combat-oriented.

This thread started as a complaint about one player sitting down and
squeezing a patently ridiculous character out of the numbers. They
then dominated the flow fo the game, bullying every mission towards
combat, and bullying the GM into unrealistic escalation to keep up
with their body count.

Combat is a part of Shadowrun, and I tell new players that every
character should be combat capable, but not dependant. In fact, I
tell every player (new or old) that they need to have some
combination of the following skills at a rating of 2-4 (SR3,2,1):

Pistols
Stealth
Etiquette
Unarmed Combat

Assuming a generic background (street ganger, disenfranchised
corporate, former cop, etc), there would no reasonalbe way for them
to avoid at least rudientary knowledge in these areas.

And that is the real problem with a munchkin/twink. They almost
universally do /not/ think about how and why the character exists.
My Shadowrun games start out built around the backgrounds, contacts,
and enemies of the PCs. I take down a list of edges and flaws along
with notes of their backstory. Some combat-monkey without three
synapses to rub together won't fly. The key word is balance.
Fortunately, I have been blessed in recent years with a couple of
long-time players who know my games well enough to help with peer
pressure.

Balance as a guiding principle allows the GM to ask a very simple
question for any and every aspect of a proposed character. Why? Why
would a mage who can stack 18 dice into a spell be running with
second-rate paramilitary criminals? Mages are rare, and someone that
good would likely be working for someone. That is not to say that a
good player can't come up with a reason for the character to be a
shadowrunner. Universally, in my experience, anyone who can come up
with a good reason for a twink character to exist, also does not make
them. Anyone who spends hours looking for loopholes, contradictions,
and every possible min-maxed mathematical advantage they can squeeze
from the rules is at a loss to provide any reasonable history or
personality for their monstrosity.

And maybe it is a factor of getting old... but I have come to realize
that their is one person at the gaming table who gets forgotten a
little often when the equation of fun is raised. The GM. If I am
not having any fun running the game, it is going to die. So maybe
don't frag with me... if I say I want stronger motivation for a drone
fleet and a tank in the hands of a supposed entry level
shadowrunner... go come up with one.

The real equalizer for Han Solo and his uber slick smuggling vessel
was a price on his head and everyone from cantina lowlifes to
registered Imperial bounty-hunters watching out for him. A flaw.
Hunted. Made drawing attention to himself a /really/ bad idea.
Shadowrun is, like most any game, constructed to enforce balance.
That means any twinked character has weaknesses. Exploit them. If
the player forgets about them, or stops allowing for them, exploit
them to brutal levels.

======Korishinzo
--Wack-a-munchkin, the new game of stress relief from the creators of
Happy Fun ball. Large wooden mallet included. Some disassembly
encouraged.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 51
From: ivan.upton@****.ca (Ivan Upton)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 00:00:24 -0600
Gurth wrote:
> According to Michael Weber, on 21-8-06 20:00 the word on the street
> was...
>
>> Just how big are drones, anyway? If they're that small they'd
>> have trouble carrying heavvy weaponry.
>
> It depends, but the only real limiting factor is the drone's Load and
> CF ratings. If those are enough to mount a firmpoint with a sniper
> rifle or a hardpoint with an HMG, you're in business.
>
>> A player of mine wanted to send in drones as scouts into the
>> basement of the Amber Gel factory (heh) but I decided that they
> > wouldn't be able to negotiate the narrow one meter wide stairs
>> leading into it.
>
> TBH, there are enough drones that would fit those stairs, but if I
> were to GM that adventure (and it looks like I will again sometime
> within the next couple of months) I'd find a way to disallow that, too ;)
>
if I recall correctly, the contracts that the characters sign are for
the characters going into the basement, and not drones ;)
Message no. 52
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:20:42 +0200
According to Ivan Upton, on 25-8-06 08:00 the word on the street was...

> if I recall correctly, the contracts that the characters sign are for
> the characters going into the basement, and not drones ;)

Last time I played that adventure (with someone else GMing), what ended
up happening was that, after the players figured they were in too big a
mess to get themselves out, they activated someone's DocWagon wristband
and threw it deep into the building :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Executives can use it without reading manuals, which is sort
of our test of ease-of-use." --Steve Jobs
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 53
From: weberm@*******.net (Ubiquitous)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 08:15:02 -0400
At 09:10 PM 8/21/2006 +0200, you wrote:
>According to Michael Weber, on 21-8-06 20:00 the word on the street was...

>> A player of mine wanted to send in drones as scouts into the
>> basement of the Amber Gel factory (heh) but I decided that they
>> wouldn't be able to negotiate the narrow one meter wide stairs
>> leading into it.
>
>TBH, there are enough drones that would fit those stairs, but if I were
>to GM that adventure (and it looks like I will again sometime within the
>next couple of months) I'd find a way to disallow that, too ;)

Would spirits register to a drone?
--
"Ted, sweetheart...somebody's left a wicker basket with a little baby in it
on our front doorstep."
"Just leave it out there on the stoop, honey. The cats'll get it."
- Red Meat http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/
Message no. 54
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 09:37:18 -0300
On 9/2/06, Ubiquitous <weberm@*******.net> wrote:

> Would spirits register to a drone?

If they're materialized, I'm pretty sure they would. Otherwise, they wouldn't.

--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
Message no. 55
From: weberm@*******.net (Ubiquitous)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 09:50:02 -0400
At 09:18 PM 8/21/2006 +0200, Gurth wrote:

>A player in one of my campaigns once had a physad that did much the same
>thing. IIRC it went something like Armed Combat at 6 and then specialize
>in the weapon his character was going to be using, giving him 8 dice
>(this was SRII). Then add Improved Ability (Armed Combat) at 6, and a
>rating 6 weapon focus (in SRII, physads got Force Points like any other
>magician, but could really only spend them on weapon foci). That gave
>him 20 dice to roll for a basic melee attack, plus up to 8 Combat Pool
>dice if he felt like it.

My players tend to min-max too, but that means they have weaknesses that
can be exploited. I think I told you about the sorcerer who started with
a force 5 Power Focus who pissed off a dragon. Alas, he now considers the
sorcerer to be "hopelessly crippled", so it's getting retired, even though
the party recovered the same item from a Yazuza mage in the same adventure.

I'll probably bring him back as an NPC later. :-)

--
"Ted, sweetheart...somebody's left a wicker basket with a little baby in it
on our front doorstep."
"Just leave it out there on the stoop, honey. The cats'll get it."
- Red Meat http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/
Message no. 56
From: weberm@*******.net (Ubiquitous)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 09:53:56 -0400
At 02:07 PM 8/21/2006 -0600, Graht wrote:


>The most pain in the ass munchkin I've ever had to deal with went out
>of his way to only read the part of a rule that benefited him. Every
>time he said he could do something because the rules said so I had to
>open the rulebook and read the *entire* rule to him. Then he would
>sit there with a "that can't be right" look on his face. And he did
>this *repeatedly*. Shoulda nuked his ass from orbit...

Was his name "Dave", perchance, and did he debate the rules which turned out
to be a huge waste of time because he rolled too poorly to do it in the first
place?

Hmm, I ended up making him so upset that he left mid-game, never to return.


--
"Ted, sweetheart...somebody's left a wicker basket with a little baby in it
on our front doorstep."
"Just leave it out there on the stoop, honey. The cats'll get it."
- Red Meat http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/
Message no. 57
From: weberm@*******.net (Ubiquitous)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 09:58:15 -0400
At 05:34 PM 8/21/2006 -0700, Grendel wrote:

>As for munchkin players in general, I've found that it is less
>instructive to 'beat them at their own game' than it is to expose the
>weaknesses of their characters. Min-maxed characters tend to be very
>narrow in focus, and thus effective only in a limited number of
>scenarios. A couple of game sessions spent waiting in the van or
>safehouse while the more well rounded characters operate often tends
>to change the attitude of a munchkin player.

One of my beginning players was like that. He kept swapping our chars for
new min-maxed ones that were designed to be optimal for the previous night's
session. He eventually got tired of never advancing and stuck to a
more-rounded
character.

--
"Ted, sweetheart...somebody's left a wicker basket with a little baby in it
on our front doorstep."
"Just leave it out there on the stoop, honey. The cats'll get it."
- Red Meat http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/
Message no. 58
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 08:03:51 -0600
On 9/2/06, Ubiquitous <weberm@*******.net> wrote:
> At 02:07 PM 8/21/2006 -0600, Graht wrote:
>
> >The most pain in the ass munchkin I've ever had to deal with went out
> >of his way to only read the part of a rule that benefited him. Every
> >time he said he could do something because the rules said so I had to
> >open the rulebook and read the *entire* rule to him. Then he would
> >sit there with a "that can't be right" look on his face. And he did
> >this *repeatedly*. Shoulda nuked his ass from orbit...
>
> Was his name "Dave", perchance, and did he debate the rules which turned
out
> to be a huge waste of time because he rolled too poorly to do it in the first
> place?

..yeah.. Last name started with an L.

> Hmm, I ended up making him so upset that he left mid-game, never to return.

If it's the same Dave you did a much better job getting rid of him
then we did. Our problem was that his wife (at the time, don't know
if he's still married to her) was a great roleplayer/gamer so we took
it easy on him.

--
-Graht
Message no. 59
From: weberm@*******.net (Ubiquitous)
Subject: Degenerate players and tactics
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:46:25 -0400
At 08:03 AM 9/2/2006 -0600, you wrote:
>On 9/2/06, Ubiquitous <weberm@*******.net> wrote:
>> At 02:07 PM 8/21/2006 -0600, Graht wrote:

>> >The most pain in the ass munchkin I've ever had to deal with went out
>> >of his way to only read the part of a rule that benefited him. Every
>> >time he said he could do something because the rules said so I had to
>> >open the rulebook and read the *entire* rule to him. Then he would
>> >sit there with a "that can't be right" look on his face. And he
did
>> >this *repeatedly*. Shoulda nuked his ass from orbit...
>>
>> Was his name "Dave", perchance, and did he debate the rules which
turned
>> out to be a huge waste of time because he rolled too poorly to do it in
>> the first place?
>
>..yeah.. Last name started with an L.

I forgot his last name now.

>> Hmm, I ended up making him so upset that he left mid-game, never to return.
>
>If it's the same Dave you did a much better job getting rid of him
>then we did. Our problem was that his wife (at the time, don't know
>if he's still married to her) was a great roleplayer/gamer so we took
>it easy on him.

He was still in FSU at the time and taking "women's studies" classes for
some stupid reason. I assume he was trying to pick up chicks, but that's not
the place to go, ha ha.
--
"Ted, sweetheart...somebody's left a wicker basket with a little baby in it
on our front doorstep."
"Just leave it out there on the stoop, honey. The cats'll get it."
- Red Meat http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Degenerate players and tactics, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!