Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 21:05:04 +0200
At 2:36 Uhr 12.05.96, TopCat wrote:
>Herein lies one of the keys of successful shadowrunning and game enjoyment.
>The players, gamemaster, and characters must combine to create truly
>entertaining runs. The death of several minor campaigns occurred almost
>immediately after the groups decided to take a run for which they weren't
>suited for (stealth ops for the combat team, combat ops for the stealth
>team, riggers without vehicles or drones in the jungle, etc...). The runs
>sucked, but would've been great if the right teams had gone on them. Since
>then we've realized that this must nearly always be the case...why?
Hm, on the other hand a GM _can_ use runs that are not suited for a group,
no, that are _barely_ suited for the team, to a) raise desires in the team
("I KNEW I should have bought that <whatever>") and b) point out
weaknesses
of the team.

If carefully applied, this can improve a team (not, of course, if the whole
team is whiped out...:-).

Sascha

--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 2
From: wilsonpj@******.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU (Peter)
Subject: Re: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 00:52:29 -0600
Sascha wrote:

>Hm, on the other hand a GM _can_ use runs that are not suited for a group,
>no, that are _barely_ suited for the team, to a) raise desires in the team
>("I KNEW I should have bought that <whatever>") and b) point out
weaknesses
>of the team.
>
>If carefully applied, this can improve a team (not, of course, if the whole
>team is whiped out...:-).
>

You can also craft runs to work on personality development, or otherwise
make the players think about their characters in a new way. My friend was
playing an extremely violent ork shark shaman who was working himself
toward the point where his _friends_ would have to kill him for their own
safety, both from his increasing rages and the groups he _needlesly_
attacked. (I'm talking about finding and killing a Lone Star detective
because he polite enough on the phone)

He, and a sea druid fried of his, were informed of a whaling opperation off
the coast of CFS. They might have ignored this but were also told that the
whales are scentient (sp?) and magically active. After all was said and
done, he had spared the lives of the coast guard officers who's boat he
borrowed, turned down payment for the run (well almost, he said he would
have done it for nothing), and become more circumspect about his place in
the universe.

Afterward the player accused me of setting out to make his character into a
good guy. True I set up the situation, but he decided how the PC would
play it. Give them opporotunities for growth, and your characters may
surprise you.

Piatro
Message no. 3
From: TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject: Re: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 16:55:30 -0500
At 09:05 PM 5/12/96 +0200, Sascha wrote:
>At 2:36 Uhr 12.05.96, TopCat wrote:
>>Herein lies one of the keys of successful shadowrunning and game enjoyment.
>>The players, gamemaster, and characters must combine to create truly
>>entertaining runs. The death of several minor campaigns occurred almost
>>immediately after the groups decided to take a run for which they weren't
>>suited for (stealth ops for the combat team, combat ops for the stealth
>>team, riggers without vehicles or drones in the jungle, etc...). The runs
>>sucked, but would've been great if the right teams had gone on them. Since
>>then we've realized that this must nearly always be the case...why?

>Hm, on the other hand a GM _can_ use runs that are not suited for a group,
>no, that are _barely_ suited for the team, to a) raise desires in the team
>("I KNEW I should have bought that <whatever>") and b) point out
weaknesses
>of the team.
>If carefully applied, this can improve a team (not, of course, if the whole
>team is whiped out...:-).

I disagree here on the basis that no runner team worth the title would
accept a run that they aren't qualified for unless the reward just blew them
away. If they do, then they're signing their own death warrants. I've
awarded karma to groups in the past because they turned down runs (survival
karma point).

Just because the GM has a new run he wants to try out doesn't mean the tema
has to be the victims of his machinations. Too many runners say "OK" when
the Johnson makes his first offer. Too many more go into runs that they
aren't suited for. Why? Hell if I know. Wish someone could explain it to me.

-------------------------------------
"I was thinking of the immortal words
of Socrates, who said: I drank what?"
-- Real Genius
-------------------------------------
TopCat at the bottom...
Message no. 4
From: dhinkley@***.org
Subject: Re: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 15:17:23 -0700 (PDT)
On Mon, 13 May 1996, TopCat <topcat@******.net> wrote:

>
>Just because the GM has a new run he wants to try out doesn't mean the tema
>has to be the victims of his machinations. Too many runners say "OK" when
>the Johnson makes his first offer. Too many more go into runs that they
>aren't suited for. Why? Hell if I know. Wish someone could explain it to me.

Because often it is literatly the only game in town. And some times
anygame is better then none. Is this good GMing, not at all. Does this make for
good role-playing, seldom. Is it better then no game, possibly yes.

From a character stand point it may be the best job available (if you
survive of course) characters with limited reputaions get a limited choice of
jobs.

And from the GM point, how many have a couple of runs in the can just
incase the PCs elect not to accept the Johnsons offer. Or are not prepared for a
serious negoation session.

A important point to remember about rolepaying games is that the players
options are limited by the GM and the GM's options are limited by the players.
And to this mix add a rule set (incompletely read and/or studied) and stir.

David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org
Message no. 5
From: brett@***.orst.edu (Brett Barksdale)
Subject: Re: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date: Mon, 13 May 96 15:30:44 PDT
> And from the GM point, how many have a couple of runs in the can just
>incase the PCs elect not to accept the Johnsons offer. Or are not prepared for a
>serious negoation session.

For the SR game I run, I always make sure I have, at least, three runs "in
the can" (so to speak). This is in addition to a bunch of unfinished
business (the PC's or the NPC's :-) that is always out there that
they like to work on instead of looking for work, sometimes.

It seems to me that with a genre like Shadowrun, only having "one
game in town" is a *terrible* way to go. Players have got to have
the ability (and to realize it) to say 'no' to a bad-sounding
run if they don't want it. And they need to know that it's not
a choice of 'do this nasty, fatal run' or 'don't play tonight'.
That would just suck...

- Brett
Message no. 6
From: Tom Pendergrast <pendergr@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 16:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
> >Hm, on the other hand a GM _can_ use runs that are not suited for a group,
> >no, that are _barely_ suited for the team, to a) raise desires in the team
> >("I KNEW I should have bought that <whatever>") and b) point out
weaknesses
> >of the team.
> >
> >If carefully applied, this can improve a team (not, of course, if the whole
> >team is whiped out...:-).

One thing alot of people seem to everlook is that the players can
'create' their own runs... that is, instead of reacting to things that
the GM does, the GM reacts to the things the player does. WE do this
quite often at home. My char, Max, would frequently (usually wen the
other players weren't there) go oof and look for, or do things, that were
related to the series of 'runs we were in. Like the other day, after we
got back from a 'run in Germany, Max became concerned for one of the
families that he met there (with good reason). So I called up a 'friend'
of mine that could get Max back into the country, and then I flew there,
and had kind of a solo 'run...it wan't really much of a 'Shadowrun', as I
didn't do alot of illegal/quasilegal stuff, but I did end up finding out
about a group of vampires that had been stalking various person in some
of the outlying areas, (there more to that too...), so I came back with
the rest of my team, and took care of them... sorry, I've rambled just a
bit, but the point is, one of the best ways to craft 'runs to the
players, is to have them do stuff themselves.


---Tom---
Message no. 7
From: TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject: Re: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 18:59:28 -0500
>>Just because the GM has a new run he wants to try out doesn't mean the tema
>>has to be the victims of his machinations. Too many runners say "OK"
when
>>the Johnson makes his first offer. Too many more go into runs that they
>>aren't suited for. Why? Hell if I know. Wish someone could explain it
to me.

> From a character stand point it may be the best job available (if you
>survive of course) characters with limited reputaions get a limited choice of
>jobs.

Exactly, and what fixer would set up a bunch of newbies on a top-level
infiltration? One that didn't much care for his link to the hiring entity.
So they're going to get piddly little jobs til their talents are judged and
their natural tendencies recognized.

> And from the GM point, how many have a couple of runs in the can just
>incase the PCs elect not to accept the Johnsons offer. Or are not prepared
for a
>serious negoation session.

I have 10 cases fully prepared that the detective campaign has yet to see.
In the early days, thre was one run and one run only and that's what we'd be
doing, but that sucked. Shortly thereafter, we started having at the very
least a choice of two.


-------------------------------------
"I was thinking of the immortal words
of Socrates, who said: I drank what?"
-- Real Genius
-------------------------------------
TopCat at the bottom...
Message no. 8
From: TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject: Re: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 18:59:31 -0500
>[snipped "players can go on their own runs"]

Which is nice for those runners who'll do work for no reward aside from the
fuzzy warm feeling in their bellies at the end of the day. Most runners'd
go broke doing just one of those. Make it a regular happening and he's well
on his way to the organ banks to get rid of that "spare" kidney. Lifestyle
isn't cheap in SR. Neither is equipment. Unless the character is rich
enough that he doesn't have to work anymore, he'd have to be out of his mind
to do that sort of thing. Realistically speaking anyways.

-------------------------------------
"I was thinking of the immortal words
of Socrates, who said: I drank what?"
-- Real Genius
-------------------------------------
TopCat at the bottom...
Message no. 9
From: "Andre' Selmer" <031ANDRE@******.wits.ac.za>
Subject: Re: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 10:18:53 GMT + 2:00
@ >[snipped "players can go on their own runs"]
@
@ Which is nice for those runners who'll do work for no reward aside from the
@ fuzzy warm feeling in their bellies at the end of the day. Most runners'd
@ go broke doing just one of those. Make it a regular happening and he's well
@ on his way to the organ banks to get rid of that "spare" kidney. Lifestyle
@ isn't cheap in SR. Neither is equipment. Unless the character is rich
@ enough that he doesn't have to work anymore, he'd have to be out of his mind
@ to do that sort of thing. Realistically speaking anyways.

It ain't always for that nice warm fuzzy feeling. Our characters
went on a series of runs (about 8 I think) without getting paid for
them. All these runs where to accomplish was to save our assets, a
restarant, our merc group and the orc underground where from the said
mercs originated.





Andre'

-- We exist because you want us to, because you are
|__|__ afraid to fact the facts. We are what you fear
/\ /\ \ in the deep recesses of your soul, yourselves.
|\ /\ /| | It is there in the shadows of your soul and those
|/ \/ \| | of the street that we exist. Through the use of
\/__\/ might, magic, cunning, blood, sweat and tears we
protect you from your fears, from youselves, from
others and keep your utopia, not ours, intact.
Message no. 10
From: "Paolo Marcucci" <paolo@*********.it>
Subject: RE: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 17:39:02 +0200
> Just because the GM has a new run he wants to try out doesn't mean the
tema
> has to be the victims of his machinations. Too many runners say "OK"
when
> the Johnson makes his first offer. Too many more go into runs that they
> aren't suited for. Why? Hell if I know. Wish someone could explain it
to me.

We ara a group of mixed players/gm, and we alternate us in running
adventures.

Typical scenario (actually happened yesterday evening)
-----------------------------------------------------------
GM: "Ok, the girl you had to bodyguard is dead (hellblast :)"
Player: "Uh... well..."
GM (closing the master screen): "So, let's look at the karma awards..."
Player: "But, we have to find out who killed her"
GM: "Why? There's no one to pay you anymore"
Player: "Yes, but I don't have my adventure ready now!"
GM:" Oh... well... "

Hope you all understand what I mean...:)

Paolo
Message no. 11
From: TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject: RE: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 15:27:19 -0500
>Typical scenario (actually happened yesterday evening)
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>GM: "Ok, the girl you had to bodyguard is dead (hellblast :)"
>Player: "Uh... well..."
>GM (closing the master screen): "So, let's look at the karma awards..."
>Player: "But, we have to find out who killed her"
>GM: "Why? There's no one to pay you anymore"
>Player: "Yes, but I don't have my adventure ready now!"
>GM:" Oh... well... "

If the character wanted to find out what happened, then he could. Get
vengeance, make a name for himself. There could also be serious cash reward
if you can find someone willing to pay you to find out and/or take care of
the culprit. Which is what I'd do in that situation. There's money out
there for the taking, you just gotta know where to look. No-one ever said
you couldn't do the same job for two (or more) Johnsons either. Or even do
one job while doing the other. If you have to break into an installation,
then you might as well find out who's willing to pay for what from that
installation. If you can get it along the way, there's more cash.

That's how I work this stuff...

-------------------------------------
"I was thinking of the immortal words
of Socrates, who said: I drank what?"
-- Real Genius
-------------------------------------
TopCat at the bottom...
Message no. 12
From: TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject: Re: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 15:27:16 -0500
>@ Which is nice for those runners who'll do work for no reward aside from the
>@ fuzzy warm feeling in their bellies at the end of the day. Most runners'd
>@ go broke doing just one of those. Make it a regular happening and he's well
>@ on his way to the organ banks to get rid of that "spare" kidney.
Lifestyle
>@ isn't cheap in SR. Neither is equipment. Unless the character is rich
>@ enough that he doesn't have to work anymore, he'd have to be out of his mind
>@ to do that sort of thing. Realistically speaking anyways.

> It ain't always for that nice warm fuzzy feeling. Our characters
>went on a series of runs (about 8 I think) without getting paid for
>them. All these runs where to accomplish was to save our assets, a
>restarant, our merc group and the orc underground where from the said
>mercs originated.

Which they probably wouldn't have been doing if they hadn't screwed up
somewhere else pretty badly. I subscribe heavily to personal
responsibility, whereby everything that a person does or becomes is due to
their choice of actions or lack thereof. If my character was responsible
for getting his assets attacked, or his group, or an entire community, then
he'd deal with it in a variety of ways (most likely by getting some
reconstructive surgery and moving south). Burn the bridges and start anew.

Wasn't in _Heat_ where DeNiro said that you should always be able to pick up
and leave wherever you are within 5 minutes? That is how I view
shadowrunners. You have to be able to do that or you _will_ end up
dead/imprisoned/worse.

-------------------------------------
"I was thinking of the immortal words
of Socrates, who said: I drank what?"
-- Real Genius
-------------------------------------
TopCat at the bottom...
Message no. 13
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 10:46:09 +0200
At 22:27 Uhr 14.05.96, TopCat wrote:
>Wasn't in _Heat_ where DeNiro said that you should always be able to pick up
>and leave wherever you are within 5 minutes? That is how I view
>shadowrunners. You have to be able to do that or you _will_ end up
>dead/imprisoned/worse.

If that's how you see 'shadowrunners' (I suppose you mean ALL of them, by
your statement) why do you bother with a 'history' for this character, and
motivations, and... all that what we call 'background'?

To me it sounds as if you'd be unable to play different characters while
you follow this iron-cast principle. Never thought about a Sam as Charrette
described Ghost, with strong bindings to his communities? Never thought
of playing a Ganger who is _still_ with his gang, even while 'running?

I know it's an oversimplification to call all warriors/samurai the same, but
with your last statement you give oil to the flames... And you reminded me
of some of the 'Born-Warriors' I used to game with...
*grab asbestos suit*

Sascha

--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 14
From: "Dr. Bolthy von Schotz" <bolthy@**.com>
Subject: Re: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 13:47:45 -0500 (CDT)
On Wed, 15 May 1996, Sascha Pabst wrote:

> At 22:27 Uhr 14.05.96, TopCat wrote:
> >Wasn't in _Heat_ where DeNiro said that you should always be able to pick up
> >and leave wherever you are within 5 minutes? That is how I view
> >shadowrunners. You have to be able to do that or you _will_ end up
> >dead/imprisoned/worse.
>
> If that's how you see 'shadowrunners' (I suppose you mean ALL of them, by
> your statement) why do you bother with a 'history' for this character, and
> motivations, and... all that what we call 'background'?
>
> To me it sounds as if you'd be unable to play different characters while
> you follow this iron-cast principle. Never thought about a Sam as Charrette
> described Ghost, with strong bindings to his communities? Never thought
> of playing a Ganger who is _still_ with his gang, even while 'running?
>
> I know it's an oversimplification to call all warriors/samurai the same, but
> with your last statement you give oil to the flames... And you reminded me
> of some of the 'Born-Warriors' I used to game with...
> *grab asbestos suit*


I think the simplest answer is that: How did your character get to the
point where hehas to be on the run all the time... I know that with
characters like the ones in our group, we've gotten pretty lazy. Had
some juicy runs, kept a low profile, and are just generally pretty secure
in where we are... I have the feeling that that can change pretty quickly
when Big Bad Corporate Wolf decides to blow our doors in. =P


|\ /\ |\ | |\
|/ \/ | \ |\ | \
|\ /\ | |/ \ |
|/ / \ | | \|

http://weber.u.washington.edu/~bolthy
"Remember: Heaven is Blue. Tomorrow, the world."
-Head of the Blue Meanies
Message no. 15
From: TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject: Re: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 00:22:25 -0500
At 10:46 AM 5/15/96 +0200, Sascha wrote:
>>Wasn't in _Heat_ where DeNiro said that you should always be able to pick up
>>and leave wherever you are within 5 minutes? That is how I view
>>shadowrunners. You have to be able to do that or you _will_ end up
>>dead/imprisoned/worse.

>If that's how you see 'shadowrunners' (I suppose you mean ALL of them, by
>your statement) why do you bother with a 'history' for this character, and
>motivations, and... all that what we call 'background'?

Because one aspect does not a character make. If it does to you, then
you've missed the boat on roleplaying.

>To me it sounds as if you'd be unable to play different characters while
>you follow this iron-cast principle. Never thought about a Sam as Charrette
>described Ghost, with strong bindings to his communities? Never thought
>of playing a Ganger who is _still_ with his gang, even while 'running?

Personally, I think Charrette is the worst author FASA has. However, it
could be said in his defense that he might've been forced to write the
Secrets of Power trilogy as he did because it laid the groundwork for the EI
and introduced several of SR's major players. It still doesn't explain his
fourth book, the books he had published by an outside source, or his most
recent book.

I would never play a runner such as Ghost because I find the ideas behind
that character ludicrous. First off, he's loaded in 'ware. How'd he get it
or the money for it? Dunno. Ok. Second he left the NAN for the city of
Seattle. Why? He felt like it. Ok. Personality of Ghost? What's
personality? Ok. He's stuck with the gang because the author needed extras
and the Indians needed representation in a tough, cool way.

I've played characters that were involved in gangs. Vagabond was a member,
but left to start out as a runner. Brutal still has contacts in his old
gang, but his time is likewise more involved in shadowrunning than piddly
ganger affairs. Everything is a stepping stone towards a goal, every single
one of my characters has a goal. Once that goal is attained, then he's
retired (from play at least). A character without goals is a sheet of
numbers and nothing more. If that goal is to be shot at and looked upon as
street trash til the day you die, then more power to you.

>I know it's an oversimplification to call all warriors/samurai the same, but
>with your last statement you give oil to the flames... And you reminded me
>of some of the 'Born-Warriors' I used to game with...
>*grab asbestos suit*

Just because I like to be able to get out of town if something goes
terribly, horridly wrong I'm a stereotypical samurai player? If I were
stereotypical I'd polish my spurs while cutting deals with Johnsons. I'd
flaunt my ability regularly by trashing any punk with the slightest hint of
attitude. I'd carry a katana, have wired reflexes 2, a smartlink (for a
Smartgun, of course, Predator too), cybereyes with thermographic and flare
comp mods, and I'd have have a Dirty Harry personality chip hardwired into me.

None of my characters fit that bill. TopCat might've been said to when he
started out, except that he didn't have wired or carry a katana, had double
sets of hand razors and smartlinks, and only attacked those who attacked
him. Personality-wise, he was a scared little kid who found himself in the
big leagues and eventually became competent enough to handle it. His shadow
of attitude was just there to keep him from getting eaten up alive by the
rest of the street monsters. Check out Baptism by Fire on Paolo's page for
a bit of TopCat.

I still find it funny though, just because I play my characters as able to
move on 5 minutes notice (and leave everything they couldn't take with them
behind), that I am suddenly the stereotypical samurai. Or even that this
ability of my characters is the only aspect of roleplaying that matters.
The more strings you have, the easier it is for the puppetmasters to make
you do what they want. If you can cut those strings and run, you're smart,
you'll live longer, and you'll do it on your terms. If I have to be
stereotypical, I guess stereotypically smart would be the way to go. I
didn't realize there were others out there who also played like this though,
so how could it be a stereotype?

-------------------------------------
"I was thinking of the immortal words
of Socrates, who said: I drank what?"
-- Real Genius
-------------------------------------
TopCat at the bottom...
Message no. 16
From: "Andre' Selmer" <031ANDRE@******.wits.ac.za>
Subject: Re: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 09:54:01 GMT + 2:00
@ On Wed, 15 May 1996, Sascha Pabst wrote:
@
@ > At 22:27 Uhr 14.05.96, TopCat wrote:
@ > >Wasn't in _Heat_ where DeNiro said that you should always be able to pick
@ up
@ > >and leave wherever you are within 5 minutes? That is how I view
@ > >shadowrunners. You have to be able to do that or you _will_ end up
@ > >dead/imprisoned/worse.

One option that I can recommend to all players is the use of
multiple (and some redunent) backups. My character spent a few nuyen
to set up a sieries of backup ways to get out of town. After a few
months of nothing happening another couple where set up etc. The
advantage is that the chances are that any one looking for you will
bump into your most recently placed backup, while you are hotailing
it for one of your previously established ones.

Our characters have a bolt hole in the middle Seattle, that we
where extremely careful to advoid. This den was established several
years in our characters past. Recently one when we where bolting one
of the characters remembered. Probably one of the best 150,000=Y=
ever spent.

Andre'

-- We exist because you want us to, because you are
|__|__ afraid to fact the facts. We are what you fear
/\ /\ \ in the deep recesses of your soul, yourselves.
|\ /\ /| | It is there in the shadows of your soul and those
|/ \/ \| | of the street that we exist. Through the use of
\/__\/ might, magic, cunning, blood, sweat and tears we
protect you from your fears, from youselves, from
others and keep your utopia, not ours, intact.
Message no. 17
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
Subject: Re: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date: Thu, 16 May 96 19:25:33 +1030
>I would never play a runner such as Ghost because I find the ideas behind
>that character ludicrous. First off, he's loaded in 'ware. How'd he get it
>or the money for it? Dunno. Ok. Second he left the NAN for the city of
>Seattle. Why? He felt like it.
Um... no. He left the NAN like all the other tribals left in the UCAS and
CAS did. They (or in Ghost's case, probably his parents) weren't accepted
there. Also, Ghost expressed doubts about the leadership of the NAN, and
he's got a mission which he felt needed to be done in an urban area.

> Ok. Personality of Ghost? What's
>personality? Ok. He's stuck with the gang because the author needed extras
>and the Indians needed representation in a tough, cool way.


--
Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 18
From: melchar@****.darkside.com (Melchar)
Subject: Re: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date: Wed, 15 May 96 17:12:56 PDT
> For the SR game I run, I always make sure I have, at least, three runs "in
> the can" (so to speak). This is in addition to a bunch of unfinished
> business (the PC's or the NPC's :-) that is always out there that
> they like to work on instead of looking for work, sometimes.
>
> It seems to me that with a genre like Shadowrun, only having "one
> game in town" is a *terrible* way to go. Players have got to have
> the ability (and to realize it) to say 'no' to a bad-sounding
> run if they don't want it. And they need to know that it's not
> a choice of 'do this nasty, fatal run' or 'don't play tonight'.
> That would just suck...

Agreed, agreed. I learned several decades ago that gamers won't jump
the way the ref wants 'em on command. :) Being a frustrated skald at
heart, I coped then with a starting off-the-cuff adventure that hooked
them in and eventually ran for a few months. Since then I've always had
at _least_ half a dozen options for the players to check out in all the
games I ref. It adds verasimilitude to the world the PCs live in to have
options before them -- and when they hear (occasionally) about someone
else undertaking a 'run that they refused and either did well/or tanked
-- it adds more layers of realism. In my book, realism is good.
Message no. 19
From: "Mark Steedman" <M.J.Steedman@***.rgu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 13:21:53 GMT
> From: melchar@****.darkside.com (Melchar)

> > For the SR game I run, I always make sure I have, at least, three runs "in
> > the can" (so to speak).
Sounds good but that is a lot of commitment, although not so bad if
you can be sure of the game running in the mid term.

> > This is in addition to a bunch of unfinished
> > business (the PC's or the NPC's :-) that is always out there that
> > they like to work on instead of looking for work, sometimes.
Helps. I find this possible is more established games where you have
time to build up known opponents etc. If you can do it from the start
good on you.

> >
> > It seems to me that with a genre like Shadowrun, only having "one
> > game in town" is a *terrible* way to go. Players have got to have
> > the ability (and to realize it) to say 'no' to a bad-sounding
> > run if they don't want it. And they need to know that it's not
> > a choice of 'do this nasty, fatal run' or 'don't play tonight'.
> > That would just suck...
>
> Agreed, agreed.
Yes but expecting more than one 'top rated run' ready to go might be
a bit much, depends on the GM but it does really suck if its 'do this
or go home' some sort of backup is required even if its more sprawl
stuff (not just forever pulling out the spral sites book, that does
not last long, useful though it can be at times)
Players with characters with their own agends help lots here.

> I learned several decades ago that gamers won't jump
> the way the ref wants 'em on command. :)
expecting such things tends to be unpopular, do it very much and lack
of players is a fairly sure result.

> Being a frustrated skald at
> heart, I coped then with a starting off-the-cuff adventure that hooked
> them in and eventually ran for a few months. Since then I've always had
> at _least_ half a dozen options for the players to check out in all the
> games I ref. It adds verasimilitude to the world the PCs live in to have
> options before them -- and when they hear (occasionally) about someone
> else undertaking a 'run that they refused and either did well/or tanked
> -- it adds more layers of realism. In my book, realism is good.
>
Yes.

I have only 'forced' players to do things on the odd occasion and
they allways have the option to so no and take the consequences thw
two examples i can remember.
1) DE, well you can turn Mr Juraez down if you want to :), but by
that stage the players have littele choice.
2) Atzlan, well they should not have gone on so much about never
going, Dunkelzahn 'suggested' to them that they might like to take a
visit (and made sure he was present when he did)
But thats out of some 20 odd months of a campain and in both cases
they could have said no, though turning down a great dragon while
within breath weapon range could have had decidedly unpleasant
consequences (although clever runners can say yes /pray they are not
being detect lied and then just jump say the Tir Taingire rather than
Atzlan boarder.)

Mark
Message no. 20
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 15:25:54 +0200
At 7:22 Uhr 16.05.96, TopCat wrote:
>Personally, I think Charrette is the worst author FASA has.
Charette was just an example, I did not inted to say "Hey, if you don't
follow his line, you are bad!". I did think that was obvious...

>I would never play a runner such as Ghost because I find the ideas behind
>that character ludicrous. First off, he's loaded in 'ware. How'd he get it
>or the money for it? Dunno. Ok.
Guess you did not read the Charrette-books? Ghost DID Shadowruns, you know?

>>I know it's an oversimplification to call all warriors/samurai the same, but
>>with your last statement you give oil to the flames... And you reminded me
>>of some of the 'Born-Warriors' I used to game with...
>>*grab asbestos suit*
>
>Just because I like to be able to get out of town if something goes
>terribly, horridly wrong I'm a stereotypical samurai player?
No... just when you insist characters' prime intend for shadowrunning HAS to
be a financial, I'd call you a "stereotypical samurai player". Just when
you imply anyone who doesn't follow your 'cash first" philosophy is a bad
shadowrunner I call you stereotypical at all. And only then I start to disagree
with you. Of course I WOULDN'T disagree characters COULD have these
motivations, but why do you have to insist these are the only possible
motivations?

>Check out Baptism by Fire on Paolo's page for
>a bit of TopCat.
I did, and I did like it. As I said: It is not that I disagree with on
the character per se, but I disagree on your statement 'one gotta leave
the shadows once one has enough money because that's all that's count'.
Hey, I know you didn't say these words, but that was what you said.

>I still find it funny though, just because I play my characters as able to
>move on 5 minutes notice (and leave everything they couldn't take with them
>behind), that I am suddenly the stereotypical samurai. Or even that this
>ability of my characters is the only aspect of roleplaying that matters.
That's what you said.

Sascha

--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 21
From: TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject: Re: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 11:36:27 -0500
>[snippin' done]

>I think the simplest answer is that: How did your character get to the
>point where hehas to be on the run all the time... I know that with
>characters like the ones in our group, we've gotten pretty lazy. Had
>some juicy runs, kept a low profile, and are just generally pretty secure
>in where we are... I have the feeling that that can change pretty quickly
>when Big Bad Corporate Wolf decides to blow our doors in. =P

There's always someone who knows where you've been or what you did. If the
GM never brings this into play, then you're easier off for it. We love to
bring up old matters (oft forgotten) in ways that can be dangerous to one's
health.

So what did I (as a character, mind you) do to bring this upon myself? I
became a shadowrunner. If you don't believe that this would make anyone
paranoid, most likely in the extreme, then maybe give a life of crime a try
sometime. Even the littlest crimes can bring a nasty sense of paranoia and
other assorted fears. So there's that.

The only time we HAD to pack up and go cost our characters hundreds of
thousands of nuyen. The whole team left Seattle for Denver, bought new
ID's, left all their old equipment (almost all of which was traded for
ID's), and had to pretty much start over. Why? Well, we messed up a run
and we knew that the Johnson knew it. Wasn't our fault, we were beat to it
by another team (mean ol' GM) who proceeded to thrash us during their exit.
The target still got blown up (not by us, though) so we still got paid.
Problem was that the other team escaped with info that was supposed to be
destroyed. A few sessions later, a plague started up in the Barrens. A
little fact-finding led us to the info that the place "we destroyed" was
working on exactly such a plague. So we scrammed. A few of us even opted
for cosmetic surgery. Paranoia pays off! :)

-------------------------------------
"I was thinking of the immortal words
of Socrates, who said: I drank what?"
-- Real Genius
-------------------------------------
TopCat at the bottom...
Message no. 22
From: TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject: Re: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 13:08:32 -0500
>>I would never play a runner such as Ghost because I find the ideas behind
>>that character ludicrous. First off, he's loaded in 'ware. How'd he get it
>>or the money for it? Dunno. Ok. Second he left the NAN for the city of
>>Seattle. Why? He felt like it.

>Um... no. He left the NAN like all the other tribals left in the UCAS and
>CAS did. They (or in Ghost's case, probably his parents) weren't accepted
>there. Also, Ghost expressed doubts about the leadership of the NAN, and
>he's got a mission which he felt needed to be done in an urban area.

I didn't get that at all from the trilogy (which I finished again last week,
hoping I could find some redeeming value in my previous purchase). From
what I read, it seemed that he was just the series' tough street samurai.
When you look at what you replied, even you agree that he felt like it (I
couldn't find reference to him leaving based on doubts about NAN
leadership). He did say that he felt he had a mission in the city, which is
fine, but what is it? Undefined.

Also, based on what I've read in the various supplements and novels,
Amerinds of all sorts were welcomed back into the NAN when it formed. The
only prejudice mentioned is that towards non-Amerinds who stayed in NAN
territory.

Ghost _is_ the hideous stereotype that all street samurai fight to avoid.

-------------------------------------
"I was thinking of the immortal words
of Socrates, who said: I drank what?"
-- Real Genius
-------------------------------------
TopCat at the bottom...
Message no. 23
From: TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject: Re: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 13:08:35 -0500
>>Personally, I think Charrette is the worst author FASA has.
>Charette was just an example, I did not inted to say "Hey, if you don't
>follow his line, you are bad!". I did think that was obvious...

I was just making an opening statement that I felt would be relevant to my
words...

>>I would never play a runner such as Ghost because I find the ideas behind
>>that character ludicrous. First off, he's loaded in 'ware. How'd he get it
>>or the money for it? Dunno. Ok.
>Guess you did not read the Charrette-books? Ghost DID Shadowruns, you know?

Sure he did, but there was no why to it or background on it. He was the
samurai-ganger-Amerind and he did things because he had something to do in
the city. Which was? Undefined.

>>Just because I like to be able to get out of town if something goes
>>terribly, horridly wrong I'm a stereotypical samurai player?
>No... just when you insist characters' prime intend for shadowrunning HAS to
>be a financial, I'd call you a "stereotypical samurai player". Just when
>you imply anyone who doesn't follow your 'cash first" philosophy is a bad
>shadowrunner I call you stereotypical at all. And only then I start to disagree
>with you. Of course I WOULDN'T disagree characters COULD have these
>motivations, but why do you have to insist these are the only possible
>motivations?

I wasn't speaking from a "cash first" perspective, I know you read the full
message so I wonder why you say this? I was speaking of being able to drop
every single tie you have in order to preserve your life.

Something that has endlessly bugged me since I showed up on the list is the
fact that so many people don't really realize what shadowrunning is: a life
of big-time crime. This isn't a liquor store hold up or a pound of green
trading hands, this is assault on other nations (corps are
extraterratorial). This is data-theft on a mega-nuyen scale. This is
altering the economies of the world.

Now, I know that few if any of the people on this list have ever done a
crime more serious than underage drinking, substance abuse, or speeding. So
I don't expect most of you to know what a life of crime is really like. Do
I know what it's like? In some ways, yes. Crime's sort of a hobby of mine
(forensics and psychology). Do I know everything about it? Hell no. Do I
know anyone who's done shadowrun-level crimes? Nope. But I know how
incredibly paranoid people WAY below that level are. I also know that none
of these people do what they do because of a warm feeling they might get in
their bellies knowing that they've saved the world from (as perceived by
them) corporate/political hell. They do it for money, they do it to
survive, they do it because it's all they know. If they were able to do
something else, they would in a heartbeat. If/when they can get out, they do.

Many shadowrunners are fully capable of doing something else. Something
that would have a far greater effect on their goals than shadowrunning and
they choose not to. So that gets to me. I can't see the "why" in it.
Perhaps it's because I spend so much time looking at the real that I can't
see playing something unreal.

>I did, and I did like it. As I said: It is not that I disagree with on
>the character per se, but I disagree on your statement 'one gotta leave
>the shadows once one has enough money because that's all that's count'.
>Hey, I know you didn't say these words, but that was what you said.

Exactly, I didn't say those words. You perceived that as the only possible
meaning for what I did say. So I will say my words again, maybe they'll get
through...

Once you achieve your goals, then you move on. If those goals can be
achieved through a more effective manner, use that manner. If what you do
now is the best you can do to bring about your goals, then fair enough. My
character's goals are usually some form of retirement in the light.

TopCat just wanted to find his father's killer. Vagabond ended up going
back to college after a bit of a scare. Brutal is on his way to being a
cyberneticist. TopCat never reached his goal and I still write about what
he's doing. Vagabond may yet be played again after he gets out of college.
Brutal finally became good enough to apprentice with a street doc. Brutal
will never end up in the light, but he's happily retired, having achieved
his goal. TopCat may never, I don't know. Vagabond is back in the light.

All retired, all needed cash and experience, two even met their goals. What
happened to them along the way affected them all, sometimes for the better.
I don't base characters on money, I base them on goals. In case you've been
on a reality break for a while, a good 99.9999999999% or more of goals
require some form of compensation. Money fits that bill nicely more often
than not.

>>I still find it funny though, just because I play my characters as able to
>>move on 5 minutes notice (and leave everything they couldn't take with them
>>behind), that I am suddenly the stereotypical samurai. Or even that this
>>ability of my characters is the only aspect of roleplaying that matters.
>That's what you said.

What I said (quite clearly, mind you) was that no self-respecting
shadowrunner would tie himself down to any situation. Mostly due to
paranoia, the rest due to intelligence. It is stupid in the extreme to have
those kinds of ties when you live a life a crime. You will end up
dead/imprisoned/worse because of them. Maybe you won't end up that way, but
your ties (be they family, friends, whatever) will. Someone will always
have something to hang over your head, and that is the worst possible thing
that any shadowrunner can face.

This bit of intelligence is not the whole of roleplaying. It will factor
into roleplaying, making decisions to form a tie will be harder and that can
be roleplayed very well. My characters have ties, but they can be broken,
some might have to be hellishly roleplayed in order to do so (Vagabond would
have a rough time giving up his girlfriend and college, he might not even be
able to do it). Every character is going to have ties, life does that to
you. But you _should_ be able to drop things if you intend to stick with a
life of crime (which Vagabond is no longer a part of). Working toward the
ability to have those ties is a very good goal to have.



-------------------------------------
"I was thinking of the immortal words
of Socrates, who said: I drank what?"
-- Real Genius
-------------------------------------
TopCat at the bottom...

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...), 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.