Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Shane Courtrille <hardware@*****.com>
Subject: GM Question
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 21:49:13 -0700
Just a question to all the GM's out there, but how many of you actually play
a character in your adventures. Any comments for or against it?

I personally try to stay away from it, as I am not a GM that likes to
preplan ALOT so alot of my stuff is on the fly and I don't have time to
worry about a character.

Owl
Shane Courtrille
hardware@*****.com
http://www.oanet.com/homepage/hardware/index.htm (Check it out...)
___ ___ ___ ___ ___
<*,*> <*,*> <x,x> <*,*> (o,o)
[`-'] [`S'] >>>>>>> =^`-'^= {`"'}
-"-"- -"-"- <<<<<<< "
" -"-"-
Owl Super Owl RoadKill Owl Flying Owl ME!!!
Message no. 2
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: GM Question
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 11:42:02 +0100
Shane Courtrille said on 11 Jan 96...

> Just a question to all the GM's out there, but how many of you actually play
> a character in your adventures. Any comments for or against it?

(Didn't we have this just last week?) Anyway, I have played a character in
my own campaign since I started playing SR about 3 1/2 years ago. IMHO the
important thing to remember is to keep your own character in the
background and make him/her the kind that goes along with most of the
things the other players come up with. Also, when they get very stuck you
can use your char to give them a hint (maybe totally in the wrong
direction, but it can be just enough to get them moving again).
I'd only advise playing a character yourself if you've only got one or two
players, BTW.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It ranks right up there with finding money on the street.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(----) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 3
From: oukami@**.rr.com (Patrick Bierlein)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 21:50:02 -0400
OK, I'm coming out of lurk mode for this... hehehe, always had fun
getting info from people but never had anything really to bring up. ^_^
Well, as of this past weekend that looks to be changing since my gaming
group decided that our current GM needed a break from non-stop 7th Seas
role playing and I got volunteered (guess 12 years in the Navy still
hasn't prepared me for such tactics... :) ) to run some 3rd edition SR.

Anyway, I haven't played since 1st edition even though I've tried to
keep my collection of books up to date so this may sound off key a bit
and so I apologize.

We semi-finished creating characters for our new group this past
weekend. It's not a bad turn out for the most part (IMHO) and we ended
up with a Troll merc, Human Sniper/Weapon's Expert, Human Musical Adept
Mage (uses magic for entertaining), Elven Decker, Elven Full Mage, and a
Gnome Rigger/Tech wiz.

My question is that out side the Troll, a couple of the characters were
able to use their attribute points to basically max out all of their
attributes to 6 (before racial modifiers), though two of the three were
the humans (the other was the gnome), to me it seems a little off
balance for that. Is it just me, since it's been so long since I played
the game and are just used to the way other systems do character
generation, or is this normal?

I guess I'm trying to get a consensus from anyone willing to share on if
this is normal or not. In the past I made a Mage that was lacking in
everything except for Intelligence and Willpower (Quickness maybe, but
he was an Elf). I look at these maxed out attributes and it doesn't feel
right. It's probably just me, but any help in setting my mind at ease
that this isn't going to be a "Hulk Smash!!" type run because my players
are so powerful would be a help. ^_^

Thanks, look forward to throwing my troubles in to everyone's laps as
things pick up. ^_^

Oukami
Message no. 4
From: papasm@***.net (Michael Papas)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 19:11:56 -0700
-----Original Message-----
From: shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com
[mailto:shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com] On Behalf Of Patrick
Bierlein
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 6:50 PM
To: Shadowrun Discussion
Subject: GM Question

OK, I'm coming out of lurk mode for this... hehehe, always had fun
getting info from people but never had anything really to bring up. ^_^
Well, as of this past weekend that looks to be changing since my gaming
group decided that our current GM needed a break from non-stop 7th Seas
role playing and I got volunteered (guess 12 years in the Navy still
hasn't prepared me for such tactics... :) ) to run some 3rd edition SR.

>> Congratulations!

Anyway, I haven't played since 1st edition even though I've tried to
keep my collection of books up to date so this may sound off key a bit
and so I apologize.

We semi-finished creating characters for our new group this past
weekend. It's not a bad turn out for the most part (IMHO) and we ended
up with a Troll merc, Human Sniper/Weapon's Expert, Human Musical Adept
Mage (uses magic for entertaining), Elven Decker, Elven Full Mage, and a
Gnome Rigger/Tech wiz.

>> Neat looking group, you should have a lot of fun with those.

My question is that out side the Troll, a couple of the characters were
able to use their attribute points to basically max out all of their
attributes to 6 (before racial modifiers), though two of the three were
the humans (the other was the gnome), to me it seems a little off
balance for that. Is it just me, since it's been so long since I played
the game and are just used to the way other systems do character
generation, or is this normal?

>> First question: Which character generation system are you using?
The one in the main book (priority system) or the one in the players
guide (point build)?

>> I ask because if you are using the priority system, even with
Priority A on Attributes (30 points, if I recall correctly; I do not
have the books in front of me), there is no way to get a 6 on all of
their attributes. So I would cry foul.

>> If you are using the point build system, then they should be taking a
hit in other areas to accommodate their 'perfection of mind and body'.

I guess I'm trying to get a consensus from anyone willing to share on if
this is normal or not. In the past I made a Mage that was lacking in
everything except for Intelligence and Willpower (Quickness maybe, but
he was an Elf). I look at these maxed out attributes and it doesn't feel
right. It's probably just me, but any help in setting my mind at ease
that this isn't going to be a "Hulk Smash!!" type run because my players
are so powerful would be a help. ^_^

Thanks, look forward to throwing my troubles in to everyone's laps as
things pick up. ^_^

Oukami
Message no. 5
From: oukami@**.rr.com (Patrick Bierlein)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 22:49:08 -0400
Michael Papas wrote:

<Snip>

>> My question is that out side the Troll, a couple of the characters were
>> able to use their attribute points to basically max out all of their
>> attributes to 6 (before racial modifiers), though two of the three were
>> the humans (the other was the gnome), to me it seems a little off
>> balance for that. Is it just me, since it's been so long since I played
>> the game and are just used to the way other systems do character
>> generation, or is this normal?
>>
>>
>First question: Which character generation system are you using?
>
> The one in the main book (priority system) or the one in the players
> guide (point build)?
>
>
>I ask because if you are using the priority system, even with
>
> Priority A on Attributes (30 points, if I recall correctly; I do not
> have the books in front of me), there is no way to get a 6 on all of
> their attributes. So I would cry foul.

Pin Pon!!
Thanks.

<points at self <--- N00b!! ^_^>

God I feel like an idiot. I wonder if I read the wrong info or if I'm
mis-interpretating what was told me. Either way it's a load off my mind
since your right and after looking at the info in the book I must have
messed something up. OK, back to the drawing board and books. ^_^

It's good to have an other's perspective, helps you find something you
blatantly missed the first go around.

Oukami
Message no. 6
From: rpufky1@*********.rr.com (Richard R. Pufky)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 23:14:07 -0400
Hoi,

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 21:50:02 -0400, Patrick Bierlein wrote:
> My question is that out side the Troll, a couple of the characters were
> able to use their attribute points to basically max out all of their
> attributes to 6 (before racial modifiers), though two of the three

Depending on which priority they took, they might get more attribute points than they used
to. Attribute and Skill points have raised slightly over the years. For Attributes, the
max has remained the samve from SRII to SR3, but the other priorities have gained 3
points.

Similar gains have happened throughout the Skill priorities.

Brennor
--
Check out the pictures of my baby girl!
http://brennor.dyndns.org/Daphne/
Message no. 7
From: failhelm@*****.com (failhelm@*****.com)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 21:12:31 -0700
>>On Monday, August 02, 2004 5:50 PM Oukami wrote
>>Subject: GM Question
>>
>>My question is that out side the Troll, a couple of the characters were
able to use their attribute points to basically >>max out all of their
attributes to 6 (before racial modifiers), though two of the three were the
humans (the other was >>the gnome), to me it seems a little off balance for
that. Is it just me, since it's been so long since I played the game >>and
are just used to the way other systems do character generation, or is this
normal?
>>
>>Thanks, look forward to throwing my troubles in to everyone's laps as
things pick up. ^_^
>>
>>Oukami

I would agree that it is odd looking. If you are using the Point System from
the Companion I recommend a 40 Point limit on attributes, it creates an
average of about 3.5. I did this because I expect my players to raise their
stats and don't stop them, but don't want super hero players starting out.
The text recomends a 60 point maximum, but I find that the average is around
4 or 4.5 - which for me is to high. However, it should be stressed that I
run LONG term campaings, going for 10+ game years if the characters can
survive.

I also only give them 110 points for Cargen. The characters created some
very powerful characters regardless, by being creative and smarter.

Failhelm
Message no. 8
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 21:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
--- Patrick Bierlein <oukami@**.rr.com> wrote:

> OK, I'm coming out of lurk mode for this... [SNIP]
> ...I got volunteered (guess 12 years in the Navy still hasn't >
prepared me for such tactics... :) ) to run some 3rd edition
> SR.

Welcome back! :)

[SNIP group description]

A good mix from the sound of it. Watch out for the musician mage...
I sense a tricky illusionist type just waiting to introduce you and
the themselves (the hard way) to the still-convoluted world of SR
metaphysics. :)

[SNIP stat stuff]

Someone did their math wrong. Priority System char gen grants 30
points for attributes at priority A. That is, at most, a 5 in each
attribute. Personally, I use the Build Point system from the SR
Companion for char gen. I cap attribute purchasing at one-half the
total build points for the game. In a standard 120-point char gen
scenario, that is 60 points (which is the same effective range of
attribute levels as Priority A -- straight 5's).

Lately, I have been pushing games in the 90-100 BP range, and like
them better. I find that most players, especially those new to the
game, do better when they have less options to juggle. They tend to
build a tighter core concept and stick to it, creating a sorts of
room for branching out once they begin play.

Tell you players that the opposition their characters face will tend
to be scaled to their level of ability. The beefier the character's
seem, the less likely it is some weak group of punk gangers will jump
them, and the more likely it is that some real hard cases will hassle
them. :)

> Thanks, look forward to throwing my troubles in to everyone's laps
> as things pick up. ^_^

This list seems to have a lot of laps... ;) ...so dump your
troubles in the mix, we need posting grist.

======Korishinzo
--just don't use all my advice... your players might mutiny




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 9
From: oukami@**.rr.com (Patrick Bierlein)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 00:58:25 -0400
Ice Heart wrote:
> --- Patrick Bierlein <oukami@**.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>OK, I'm coming out of lurk mode for this... [SNIP]
>>...I got volunteered (guess 12 years in the Navy still hasn't >
>
> prepared me for such tactics... :) ) to run some 3rd edition
>
>>SR.
>
>
> Welcome back! :)
>
> [SNIP group description]
>
> A good mix from the sound of it. Watch out for the musician mage...
> I sense a tricky illusionist type just waiting to introduce you and
> the themselves (the hard way) to the still-convoluted world of SR
> metaphysics. :)

OK, you piqued my interest in this. I was already thrown that the person
wanted to make her character a "Songstress" type character (I had a
laugh cause I dug out my old SR1 hardback remembering they had the
"Rocker" archetype back then), but now I'm sort of confused with this
"still-convoluted world of SR metaphysics" you're mentioning. :)

<Snip>

Hmmmm... thanks for the tips. I'm actually rethinking my original plan
and possibly going to have everyone redo their characters next gaming
session. It might throw the planned game off, but after looking at the
BeCKS and BP systems, I'm thinking I'm going to gear it towards them
after doing some reading. Both seem to give a little more flexibility
than the Priority system. I'll just have to see.

Oukami
Message no. 10
From: datwinkdaddy@*******.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 00:13:44 -0500
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 00:58:25 -0400, Patrick Bierlein <oukami@**.rr.com>
wrote:

> Hmmmm... thanks for the tips. I'm actually rethinking my original plan
> and possibly going to have everyone redo their characters next gaming
> session. It might throw the planned game off, but after looking at the
> BeCKS and BP systems, I'm thinking I'm going to gear it towards them
> after doing some reading. Both seem to give a little more flexibility
> than the Priority system. I'll just have to see.

Just my two cents, but if they aren't that experienced with SR, stick to
the priority system. The others can take ages to do all the math for.
Although, the NSRCG takes a lot of hassle [math] out of it [alternate
generation systems] if everyone can access it.

Plus, after you get a few runs under their belts, they'll never leave SR.
;)

--
Da Twink Daddy
ICQ: 514984; YM: DaTwinkDaddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
Message no. 11
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 07:24:22 +0200
Le 3 août 2004, à 07:13, Da Twink Daddy a écrit :

> Just my two cents, but if they aren't that experienced with SR, stick
> to the priority system. The others can take ages to do all the math
> for. Although, the NSRCG takes a lot of hassle [math] out of it
> [alternate generation systems] if everyone can access it.

I don't like the priority system, but I'll second that. While BeCKS is
by far the most flexible (and self-balancing) system out there (thus
the one I use for all of my chars), it's also the most complex.
For newbie players, you should use either the priority system, or the
sum-to-10 system (the latter is especially recommended if someone wants
to create a mundane human -- vanilla priorities screw those big time).

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 12
From: bandwidthoracle@*********.net (Bandwidth oracle)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 23:43:10 -0600
I have no clue how other GM's handle this, but my players and I use a
modified point system. For everything but attributes it's exactly like
the point system.
With attributes everyone starts off with a three in everything, if you
want to raise something, you have to lower something else.
So if you want to raise an attribute to a five, that means having one
attribute that is a one, or two attributes that are two, and so on.
We have found it creates very balanced characters, because it tends to
limit what people can afford as far as skills.
I don't actually know if there are any weaknesses in it, but it's
worked for us.
On Aug 2, 2004, at 7:50 PM, Patrick Bierlein wrote:

> OK, I'm coming out of lurk mode for this... hehehe, always had fun
> getting info from people but never had anything really to bring up.
> ^_^
> Well, as of this past weekend that looks to be changing since my
> gaming group decided that our current GM needed a break from non-stop
> 7th Seas role playing and I got volunteered (guess 12 years in the
> Navy still hasn't prepared me for such tactics... :) ) to run some 3rd
> edition SR.
>
> Anyway, I haven't played since 1st edition even though I've tried to
> keep my collection of books up to date so this may sound off key a bit
> and so I apologize.
>
> We semi-finished creating characters for our new group this past
> weekend. It's not a bad turn out for the most part (IMHO) and we ended
> up with a Troll merc, Human Sniper/Weapon's Expert, Human Musical
> Adept Mage (uses magic for entertaining), Elven Decker, Elven Full
> Mage, and a Gnome Rigger/Tech wiz.
>
> My question is that out side the Troll, a couple of the characters
> were able to use their attribute points to basically max out all of
> their attributes to 6 (before racial modifiers), though two of the
> three were the humans (the other was the gnome), to me it seems a
> little off balance for that. Is it just me, since it's been so long
> since I played the game and are just used to the way other systems do
> character generation, or is this normal?
>
> I guess I'm trying to get a consensus from anyone willing to share on
> if this is normal or not. In the past I made a Mage that was lacking
> in everything except for Intelligence and Willpower (Quickness maybe,
> but he was an Elf). I look at these maxed out attributes and it
> doesn't feel right. It's probably just me, but any help in setting my
> mind at ease that this isn't going to be a "Hulk Smash!!" type run
> because my players are so powerful would be a help. ^_^
>
> Thanks, look forward to throwing my troubles in to everyone's laps as
> things pick up. ^_^
>
> Oukami
>
Message no. 13
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 08:17:52 +0200
Le 3 août 2004, à 07:43, Bandwidth oracle a écrit :

> I have no clue how other GM's handle this, but my players and I use a
> modified point system. For everything but attributes it's exactly like
> the point system.
> With attributes everyone starts off with a three in everything, if
> you want to raise something, you have to lower something else.
> So if you want to raise an attribute to a five, that means having one
> attribute that is a one, or two attributes that are two, and so on.
> We have found it creates very balanced characters, because it tends
> to limit what people can afford as far as skills.
> I don't actually know if there are any weaknesses in it, but it's
> worked for us.

Well, basically that means everyone has to take priority E for
attributes, right? I feel this probably results in really underpowered
and overspecialized characters: if you want to be a capable
spellcaster, you'll need a high Willpower, so unless you want to die
from being coughed at you probably won't raise your Quickness,
Intelligence or Strength too in order to have something other than
magic to rely on. Not to mention it completely screws characters that
need high levels of 2 or more attributes (Deckers, Street Sams, most
full mages to name but a few)...
Then again I've never tried this (my characters usually have average
attributes and a boatload of skills), so I may be wrong. Could you give
us a few examples of characters created with this?

-- Wild_Cat
(Jack of no trades, master of all :p )
Message no. 14
From: bandwidthoracle@*********.net (Bandwidth oracle)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 00:48:43 -0600
Hmm...No wonder all the deckers in my campaign have come to such
untimely ends. =)
We came up with it to solve two problems, first, it solves the problem
of "My character learns fast", where it's easy and cheap to learn
because the attributes are high.
(it was a bigger and weirder problem than it sound like it would be).
The second problem it addressed is it prevents the "My character is a
race car driving, ex special ops, body-building decker" that we ran
into with the point system.
Our games where really low power, so that is maybe why we didn't run
into more problems with it.

I see what you mean about overspecialization though, so far it's been
the best for anti-munchkin creation, but I haven't looked at BECKS. If
you really want characters I can ask one of my players to lend me
theirs, but it'll take a bit. Any suggestions would be great.
Thank you for analyzing it for me.
-Bandwidthoracle
On Aug 3, 2004, at 12:17 AM, Max Noel wrote:
> Well, basically that means everyone has to take priority E for
> attributes, right? I feel this probably results in really underpowered
> and overspecialized characters: if you want to be a capable
> spellcaster, you'll need a high Willpower, so unless you want to die
> from being coughed at you probably won't raise your Quickness,
> Intelligence or Strength too in order to have something other than
> magic to rely on. Not to mention it completely screws characters that
> need high levels of 2 or more attributes (Deckers, Street Sams, most
> full mages to name but a few)...
> Then again I've never tried this (my characters usually have average
> attributes and a boatload of skills), so I may be wrong. Could you
> give us a few examples of characters created with this?
>
> -- Wild_Cat
> (Jack of no trades, master of all :p )
Message no. 15
From: sinabian@*******.com (James Mick)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 08:01:42 -0400
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://warthog.dumpshock.com/pipermail/shadowrn/attachments/7a4dac79/attachment.htm
Message no. 16
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 14:51:32 +0200
According to Patrick Bierlein, on Tuesday 03 August 2004 03:50 the word on
the street was...

> My question is that out side the Troll, a couple of the characters were
> able to use their attribute points to basically max out all of their
> attributes to 6 (before racial modifiers), though two of the three were
> the humans (the other was the gnome), to me it seems a little off
> balance for that. Is it just me, since it's been so long since I played
> the game and are just used to the way other systems do character
> generation, or is this normal?

This is fairly normal. Characters will want to have above-average stats
(and good body armor), because otherwise they'll end up dead quite a
lot... The SR character generation system balances things pretty well: my
experience is that characters either end up with good attributes and
skills but no money, or low attributes and skills but the money to buy a
few extra points in those low attributes and skills. In the end, things
will usually work out well enough.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? 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. 17
From: d_hyde@***.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 08:08:02 -0500
> Both seem to give a little more flexibility than the Priority system.
> I'll just have to see.
>
more flexibility yes, however, don't forget that with flexibility comes
potential for abuse, more than once I've seen a player try to give
their character multiple instances of the "exceptional attribute" and
"additional attribute point" edges, one per physical attribute, and
then take as much cyber and bio as they can cram into their bodies in
order to try to become more efficient combat monsters....even though
I've told them that combat in my games is going to be next to
nonexistent unless they start it, and when that happens that they're
guaranteed to be hospitalized when it's over, even if they
won...(trying to purge the munchkinism from the group) I agree with
the people that've said that a story beforehand is good, I make all of
my players come up with a complete background for the character,
essentially something that if we were going to go to a freeform RPG
they'd be able to play the character, and from there I'll sit down with
them and make out their character sheets.....the only exception to this
is when I really trust the player not to "munch" out their character
and then I'll let them make out their own sheet after getting the story
to me and me calling that good.

Derek
Message no. 18
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 20:03:58 +0200
According to Derek Hyde, on Tuesday 03 August 2004 15:08 the word on the
street was...

> more flexibility yes, however, don't forget that with flexibility comes
> potential for abuse, more than once I've seen a player try to give
> their character multiple instances of the "exceptional attribute" and
> "additional attribute point" edges, one per physical attribute, and
> then take as much cyber and bio as they can cram into their bodies in
> order to try to become more efficient combat monsters....

OTOH, the points system is not good if you want to be a metahuman magician.
My last character started out using the building points system, but when I
couldn't get him the way I wanted him to be, I plugged the numbers I
already had into the priority system and ended up with more attribute or
skill points and/or money (I don't remember which exactly) to spend.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? 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. 19
From: james@****.uow.edu.au (James Niall Zealey)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 09:56:18 +1000
> Derek Hyde <d_hyde@***.com>

> ...as much cyber and bio as they can cram into their bodies in order
> to try to become more efficient combat monsters....even though I've told
> them that combat in my games is going to be next to nonexistent unless
> they start it, and when that happens that they're guaranteed to be
> hospitalized when it's over, even if they won...(trying to purge the
> munchkinism from the group)

This approach doesn't work. If combat is difficult, and hospitalization
is extremely likely, then obviously ANY character in the game had better
be hella tough and unstoppable in combat, or we'll all die, even if that
character's concept is the likeable face.

Noone's going to produce a combat weak character, because they know
it'll drop dead in the first fight.

In fact, recently, one of my players dropped their
dikote-polearm-equipped one-dimensional combat-monster troll character
in exchange for a pacifist medic. Why? Because he found the character's
abilities made combat too easy, and the player enjoys combat.
Message no. 20
From: d_hyde@***.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 19:03:02 -0500
On Aug 3, 2004, at 6:56 PM, James Niall Zealey wrote:
> This approach doesn't work. If combat is difficult, and
> hospitalization is extremely likely, then obviously ANY character in
> the game had better be hella tough and unstoppable in combat, or we'll
> all die, even if that character's concept is the likeable face.
>
> Noone's going to produce a combat weak character, because they know
> it'll drop dead in the first fight.
>
> In fact, recently, one of my players dropped their
> dikote-polearm-equipped one-dimensional combat-monster troll character
> in exchange for a pacifist medic. Why? Because he found the
> character's abilities made combat too easy, and the player enjoys
> combat.
>
>
>
no no, I said that hospitalization was likely if THEY started it, if
I'm planning on there being a fight it's fair, they don't get their
tails handed to them....if they start picking fights they get
hospitalized.....
Message no. 21
From: snicker@*********.net (Snicker)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 20:35:24 -0500
Just as a kind of general answer, using the priority method of character
generation has always worked for most of my players. Interestingly enough,
in my current group, everyone who assigned more priority to skills is
kvetching about needing more abilities (notably intelligence for perception
checks, and strength for the weak physad), while those who are high on
abilities wish they could hit something besides the side of a barn ;)

It's a balancing act.

*snicker*
Message no. 22
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 10:13:49 +0200
According to Derek Hyde, on Wednesday 04 August 2004 02:03 the word on the
street was...

> no no, I said that hospitalization was likely if THEY started it, if
> I'm planning on there being a fight it's fair, they don't get their
> tails handed to them....if they start picking fights they get
> hospitalized.....

That's kind of an upside-down way of doing things, isn't it? I would assume
the NPC bad guys start fights because they want the players out of the
picture, and so don't care about it being a fair fight; of course, I know
that the GM will want the fight to be reasonably fair so that the players
stand a good chance of coming out on top, but IMHO as a GM it's not a
great idea to do things like you describe. I normally go for opposition
that's realistic for the situation, not for opposition that's intended to
achieve a certain effect on the players (except for the goals the NPCs
have in the fight, of course).

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? 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. 23
From: marc.renouf@******.com (Renouf, Marc A)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 10:44:32 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: james@****.uow.edu.au [mailto:james@****.uow.edu.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 7:56 PM
>
> > Derek Hyde <d_hyde@***.com>
> >
> > ...even though I've told
> > them that combat in my games is going to be next to
> > nonexistent unless they start it, and when that happens
> > that they're guaranteed to be hospitalized when it's
> > over, even if they won...(trying to purge the
> > munchkinism from the group)
>
> This approach doesn't work. If combat is difficult, and
> hospitalization
> is extremely likely, then obviously ANY character in the game
> had better
> be hella tough and unstoppable in combat, or we'll all die,
> even if that
> character's concept is the likeable face.
>
> Noone's going to produce a combat weak character, because they know
> it'll drop dead in the first fight.

Actually, I've found that it *does* work, it just takes time for
players to "get the hint." In my old campaign, it was the same thing, one
munchkinous combat monster after another, each trying to be badder than the
last. The players tried all the different methods (massive Body, massive
Initiative, massive gun skills, etc) to come up with the "baddest
motherfooker in the valley," so to speak. And they always failed, usually
after a very short stint in the game, and usually in a horrible, grisly, and
more-or-less senseless fashion.
Then one of the worst offenders in the campaign asked me a simple
question: "which character in the campaign is the oldest?"
I replied, "White Noise (the decker). He's been around since the
campaign started four years ago."
Which led him to decry: "The decker?!? His initiative sucks! He
doesn't even have much of a Firearms skill! How did he survive all this
time?"
and I dropped the hammer: "Because he scrupulously avoids combat.
Because he's not an idiot."

And so one of my worst munchkin offenders came back with a character
who was a special police investigator looking for a shadowy underworld
character. He had virtually no combat skills, but was very perceptive,
specialized in interrogation, and was a great *character*. The campaign
ended two years later with him still going strong, and he and I both had a
blast because we could do more than roll for initiative.
And for the rest of the combat-heavy players, it was a domino
effect. Once one of them cracked the code (combat monster = short-lived
character), the rest of them followed suit. What's ironic is that in the
current campaign, the party is actually a little too light on combat
capability. But the characters are great, and they too avoid combat if at
all possible.

Marc
Message no. 24
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 08:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
> no no, I said that hospitalization was likely if THEY started it,
> if I'm planning on there being a fight it's fair, they don't get
> their
>
> tails handed to them....if they start picking fights they get
> hospitalized.....

Hmmm... this is a dangerous approach. Among other things, it
encourages your players to be passive, waiting for everything o come
to them. Bad. Combat should not be something you, as the GM, plan
on happening too often. Combat should happen as naturally as
anything else. NPCs get into fights for a reason. You, as the GM,
should know what those reasons are, even if the players don't ever
find out. If NPC gangers attack the PCs rather randomly, and it is a
fair fight, why would it not be a fair fight when the PCs attack some
NPC gangers rather randomly? A good gameworld operates on the "good
for the goose, good for the gander" principle. Everyone has access
to the same motivations, whims, toys, and idiosyncracies. If NPCs
can commit random acts of violence, so can PCs. If PCs can go on
vengeance missions, so can NPCs. If the bad guy can get an Great
Dragon ATG, so can the PCs. If the PCs can all sport the latest in
smartgun tech, so can the NPCs. Now, there is some work involved for
both the PCs and the NPCs to have these toys, develop these
motivations, etc. The players should be clear on what it took for
their PC to be where they are, in terms of equipment and personality.
You, as the GM, have a responsibility to think about what it took
for the NPCs to be where they are at, in those same terms. It does
not have to be a full 20 Questions and 6 page backstory for each
random grunt and ganger. But, you should have a feel for what makes
each NPC in a given situation unique. If they had to scrimp and save
for 10 years to get their spiffy chromed up body, they are going to
avoid risking excessive damage to it. If, OTOH, big brother corp
dropped the chrome in a month ago, they might care so much. They
might be more motivated to not lose the job they have spent 10 years
working their way into, so that the corp would spring for the new
chrome. I do roughly zero prep for game sessions, even when I
anticipate combat. What I do is keep a lot of paper handy, and jot
down notes as things progress. As an NPC gets more time in the
spotlight, I note more things about them. Whenever I roll dice for
that NPC, a stat gets "set in stone" as it were. Until then, stats
are amorphous. That is not to say that the NPC is suddenly god-like
because he/she got attacked. I adhere fairly strictly to the concept
of averages. The majority of NPCs have average stats for their race.
If anything is above average, something else is lower. If I want a
ganger to have a 7 STR, I jot down Musc Aug in my notes. If I want a
talismonger to be a real genius, I note Cereb Boost for her, or
indicate some low phys stats. Very loose, fast stat generation that
is fair to the PCs. The average NPC in my games is a roughly 80-90
BP character, heavily invested in skills over attributes/resources.
Attributes tend to be 3-4 for humans (average for race). Skills tend
to be in the 2-4 range, with one area of extra emphasis at a 5-6.
Gear/chrome/etc tends to be somewhere between 50K and 100K. This is
true whether it the NPCs or the PCs who start the fight. Where I
penalize players for starting a lot of fights is the rep of the
characters. Johnsons get squeamish around the overtly violent. Cops
start itching to arrest someone. Gangers are either skittish or
aggressive depending on their numbers, attitudes, and what chip they
are on (tough guy gangers pick more fights, business oriented gangers
clam up and back away). Contacts and potential contacts treat
violence mongers with more caution, less trust. And so on.
Arbitrarily punishing players for being the aggressors is unfair and
will often backfire. After all, NPCs who act as the aggressor get a
fair fight, why not the PCs? Better to punish the combat monsters
with their own predilictions. They tend to get in more and more
combat, as those who don't want it avoid known violent types. More
and more, the runs are wetwork and demo. More and more, the rough
types with an attitude wade in, while the social types recoil and
retreat. Less chances to talk, more violence. Guards stop
surrendering. No one backs down from potential confrontations if
they think they stand a chance against the PCs. Violence begets
violence, and the laws of statistics make the outcome inevitable.
Eventually, the dice will fall wrong for that character, and he'll
die. I never fudge dice on behalf of combat monsters. Ever. If
random chance kills the character, so be it. They rolled the dice
too much, wore out their luck. The wheel of karma came around and
ran them over.

I prefer to offer alternatives to combat as much as possible. It is
a rare individual that craves hot lead flying around them at
ballistic speed, or fist fights with armored kung fu experts. Guards
and gangers are not stupid. They know runners are well equipped and
skilled, at least somewhat. They may posture, but a timely bribe or
a wise retreat can difuse many situations. Yes, the guards want to
do their job. Few, however, want to die doing it. Yes the gangers
want their turf clear of interlopers. Many, however, want to live on
their turf tomorrow. Cops want suspects and prisoners, not corpses,
more often than not. And so on. For every opportunity to fire a gun
or hit someone, there is usually an opportunity (perhaps hidden) to
use other, non-combat skills. The outcome of deciding on one or the
other should not be arbitrary ("You started it, so you are fragged;
they started it, you have a fighting chance"). The outcome should be
logical, consistant, and realistic within the parameters of the game.
PCs who pick a fight with the Ladies Bingo brigade should win. May
frag their rep and get marker all over their armor, but they should
not be hospitalized. Likewise, players who taunt a dragon into
teaching them a lesson do NOT have a fair fight on their hands, even
if the dragon throws the first "punch". Punishing In Character
decisions, however bad they may be, in an unrealistic fashion will
reinforce unrealistic play and unbalanced characters. The penalty
for stupidity should be the same for PCs and NPCs, and likewise the
rewards for smarts. Continuity is all... consistency is supreme...
equilibrium is everything. Run a balanced game, and the imbalance
created by a combat monster will correct itself. If you have a group
with 3 "face" types and one combat-happy munchkin, you may be soon
fielding notes that say -next turn, I roll a grenade under him and
dive for cover- or the like. The face types will get sick of
fighting and the combat monster will have all the combat to
themself... possibly even attacked by their own team mates to
eliminate the threat they represent.

======Korishinzo
--helping munchkins kill themselves since 1982 :>




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 25
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 08:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
> And for the rest of the combat-heavy players, it was a domino
> effect. Once one of them cracked the code (combat monster > short-lived
character), the rest of them followed suit. What's
> ironic is that in the current campaign, the party is actually a
> little too light on combat capability. But the characters are
> great, and they too avoid combat if at all possible.

My current table top game has been running since last summer. 32
game sessions at 6-9 hours each. 10 combat scenarios, only one of
which ran more than 3 Turns (9 seconds). Why? When random violence
breaks out near the PCs, they group up quickly and organize a
tactical exit from the area, not wade in like idiots. When violence
is expected, they stay in careful radio contact and move in
cautiously. They strike hard, fast, and at least attempt to make it
surgical (limit the collateral damage). If stealth can see them
through, they use it and keep their weapons holstered. If fast talk
and some nuyen will carry the day, the face steps up and the rest
shut up.

Team configuration:

Blur
Human adept who started out a spoiled brat who loved shooting people
who he considered inferior. 100 karma and 2 initiations later, he
does not carry a gun, always tries to knock out rather than kill, and
feels guilty when violence happens because of him.

Gremlin
Human sorcerer who tries to break equipment rather than people if at
all possible. Big on stealth and range. Tries to make all apparent
weapons non-functional, then starts talking.

Ridge
Human ex-ganger who is trying to learn the "shadowrunner" thing.
Prefers tazers, narcoject weapons, and clubs. Tries to avoid
fighting unless he has a clear advantage and can end it quickly, with
minimal damage on both sides.

Jade
Human drone rigger with overdeveloped sense of the bottom line.
Thinks of combat in terms of nuyen expended versus nuyen gained.
Would rather fly away than fight unless getting paid to fight. Will
often spend actions calculating cost-benefit of a given course of
action. Finds missiles and rockets to be a waste of money.

Eagle Eye
Dwarf sniper with higher Negotiations(Fast Talk) skill than Rifles.
Keeps forgetting to talk and falls back on guns. Spends many battles
he starts thoroughly unconscious. Blur has Distance Strike, a very
subtle touch, and gets easily annoyed by Eagle Eye. Player thinks
there a lot of mages with stun spells out to get him. :p

Slide
Human rich-kid turned runner living on Borrowed Time (incurable
cancer). Impulsive daredevil given to stupid stunts for the hell of
it. Media contacts and knowledges for days. High charisma,
etiquette, negotiations, etc. Tends to talk guards into a drolling
stupor, then gets electrocuted trying to jump the fence anyway.

Vlad
Human decker and S&M/B&D/adult entertainment/prostitution
afficianado. Bit of a freak with a Dracula fetish. Excellent
mid-level decker. Attends college during the day, and avoids combat
like the plague. Huge network of contacts in every corner of the sex
trade. Absolutely spectacular at leg work.

Most of these players have been with me for a while (my father and my
brother among them). They have gone through many combat oriented
characters. Lately, they have all taken to carrying stun weapons and
stun spells. Disguise, stealth, and spells serve to keep
descriptions of them vague. They are gaining a rep for not killing.
They are starting to get more complicated, lucrative jobs like
extractions and the like. For some of them, these are the first
characters they have had last longer than three sessions. The
message is clear, combat is a good way to die. Not because I kill
them. Statistics kill them. Every bullet in the air increases the
odds they catch one. Every bullet caught increases the odds they
don't make it home. One of my little budding geniuses announced the
other day, "you know, in Mission Impossible there is almost no
combat, but it is still pretty exciting".

It would bring tears to my eyes, if I wasn't such a cold hearted
slitch. I settled for an icy half-smile and gave him an extra point
of karma without explanation at the end of the session.

======Korishinzo
--balance is all



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 26
From: cmd_jackryan@***.net (Phillip Gawlowski)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 15:35:51 +0200
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 10:44:32 -0400, Renouf, Marc A <marc.renouf@******.com>
wrote:

> And so one of my worst munchkin offenders came back with a character
> who was a special police investigator looking for a shadowy underworld
> character. He had virtually no combat skills, but was very perceptive,
> specialized in interrogation, and was a great *character*. The campaign
> ended two years later with him still going strong, and he and I both had
> a blast because we could do more than roll for initiative.

Currently, I play a former Special Forces soldier gone Freelance (after
trouble with his first civilian employer), with loads of weapons and
intrusion skills, but light on the social / knowledge side of the sixth
World.
He's an PhysAd and is able to handle a gang single handed, should there be
the need. And that is the point: There has to be need. He is amred to the
teeth with Light and Heavy Pistols, a shotgun, an assault rifle, an LMG
and some LAWs and MAWs. BUT there has to be a need to deploy this kind of
firepower for him.
He knows his business, and is starting to make a life on the streets of
Seattle, improving his hobbies (He owns a chopper, and is able to fly it,
he collects RPGs from the 20th century), and his social abilities.
HE could be a munchkin character, but he isn't, although he shoots to
kill, he is glad not to shoot.

> What's ironic is that in the current campaign, the party is actually
> a little too light on combat capability. But the characters are great,
> and they too avoid combat if at all possible.

So what is the problem? If the group does fine by avoiding combat, there
is no point in wasting ressources on combat and related skills.

--
Phillip Gawlowski
Bastard GameMaster From Hell (Der Meister) and General Idiot

"Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting twice."
- Col. Jeff Cooper, USMC (Ret.), regarding combat handgun training
Message no. 27
From: marc.renouf@******.com (Renouf, Marc A)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 10:49:19 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cmd_jackryan@***.net [mailto:cmd_jackryan@***.net]
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 9:36 AM
>
> > What's ironic is that in the current campaign, the party is actually
> > a little too light on combat capability. But the
> > characters are great,
> > and they too avoid combat if at all possible.
>
> So what is the problem? If the group does fine by avoiding
> combat, there
> is no point in wasting ressources on combat and related skills.

That's just the point: there *is* no problem. I vastly prefer the
current group of characters to the nastiest brood of tooled-up munchkins.
When I say "a little too light," I mean that in the situations where they
can't (or don't) manage to avoid combat, they almost don't have the manpower
or firepower to be able to pull out of it effectively. But in the end, this
just trains them to be better at avoiding bullet-play.

Marc
Message no. 28
From: cougar@***.rr.com (Robert Blackberg)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 11:18:04 -0400
Renouf, Marc A wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: cmd_jackryan@***.net [mailto:cmd_jackryan@***.net]
>>Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 9:36 AM
>>
>>
>>>What's ironic is that in the current campaign, the party is actually
>>>a little too light on combat capability. But the
>>>characters are great,
>>>and they too avoid combat if at all possible.
>>
>>So what is the problem? If the group does fine by avoiding
>>combat, there
>>is no point in wasting ressources on combat and related skills.
>
>
> That's just the point: there *is* no problem. I vastly prefer the
> current group of characters to the nastiest brood of tooled-up munchkins.
> When I say "a little too light," I mean that in the situations where they
> can't (or don't) manage to avoid combat, they almost don't have the manpower
> or firepower to be able to pull out of it effectively. But in the end, this
> just trains them to be better at avoiding bullet-play.
>
> Marc
>

I just have one question for the list at large, doesn't anyone consider
combat "fun?" In my group, we look forward to the fights. It gets the
blood pumping and the excitement level rises. Sure your character can be
killed, but it's just a game.

It seems like I hear a lot these days about "combat-free" games, and I
just want to say for the record as a GM and as a player, I dig the fights.

In case anyone is wondering, I also dig the roleplaying too. I like
in-depth characterization of my PCs, and deep, meaningfull motives in my
NPCs. It's just that if someone came to me and asked if I'd be
interested in playing Shadowrun without any combat, I'd take a pass.

Please take this post in the non-judgemental way it's intended.

Thanks for listening.

Robert
Message no. 29
From: frakkle@****.com (Derek Bryan)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 11:22:45 -0400
> I just have one question for the list at large, doesn't anyone consider
> combat "fun?" In my group, we look forward to the fights. It gets the
> blood pumping and the excitement level rises. Sure your character can be
> killed, but it's just a game.
>
> It seems like I hear a lot these days about "combat-free" games, and I
> just want to say for the record as a GM and as a player, I dig the fights.
>
> In case anyone is wondering, I also dig the roleplaying too. I like
> in-depth characterization of my PCs, and deep, meaningfull motives in my
> NPCs. It's just that if someone came to me and asked if I'd be
> interested in playing Shadowrun without any combat, I'd take a pass.
>
> Please take this post in the non-judgemental way it's intended.
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> Robert

Me and my group love the fights as well.
Actually I silently use their average charisma attribute and intimidate
skills to determine when exactly the opposition breaks down and tries to
flee.

I'd say half the runs they go on involve fighting of some sort, even if it's
covert/stealthy/subdual.
Message no. 30
From: anders@**********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 08:46:32 -0700
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 11:22:45 -0400
"Derek Bryan" <frakkle@****.com> wrote:
> > I just have one question for the list at large, doesn't anyone consider
> > combat "fun?" In my group, we look forward to the fights. It gets the
> > blood pumping and the excitement level rises. Sure your character can be
> > killed, but it's just a game.

I usually include a 'fight scene' as part of the adventure. My current
players all seem to enjoy the occassional senseless battle, and this is after
all just polite entertainment. And it fills out the afternoon for relatively
little planning.
--Anders
Message no. 31
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 09:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
> I just have one question for the list at large, doesn't anyone
> consider combat "fun?" In my group, we look forward to the fights.
> It gets the blood pumping and the excitement level rises. Sure your
> character can be killed, but it's just a game.
>
> It seems like I hear a lot these days about "combat-free" games,
> and I just want to say for the record as a GM and as a player, I
> dig the fights.

I love a good, exhilerating combat. Many of my players do too. The
problem is that I run very realistic, consequence-oriented,
cause-effect games. A large volume of combat would come about for a
reason, and would in turn generate new ripples. My players have
learned that however "fun" SR combat is, it is not healthy activity
for flesh-and-blood runners. I came up with a solution years ago.
It actually developed when I was playtesting combat in SR1, trying to
derive some house rules to patch rules problems. Thus, I was making
average, middle-of-the-road characters and running numerous combat
scenarios. It made sense to recruit a few of my players to help,
taking some of the book-keeping off my hands, and giving me someone
to talk to. We had a lot of fun. Metaphysical light bulbs sparked
to life over various heads in the room, and eventually a formal
sub-game developed. We called it: Combat Night. I've talked about
it on the list before. It comes to mind because I am prepping to run
one this weekend. Our game is at a lull, the players burned out
mentally from too many missed clues and partial failures. A big part
of that burnout is that half the group just are not getting SR combat
or a general grasp of tactics. So, Combat Night.

Combat Night is a bit of work for the GM, requiring as much prep in a
week as I normally put into six months of gaming. I draw up (well,
download and edit...) maps and generate a pile of two dozen
well-balanced, fully equipped PC archtypes. I plot out a series of
scenarios, usually along the lines of FPS objective games (infiltrate
and set/defend switches A,B, and C; retrieve/plant the
flag/briefcase/etc; or assassinate/protect target X). Player
handouts include:
a printout of the Free, Simple, and Complex Actions
a printout of all House Rules in effect for the evening
plenty of blank paper
dice and pencils
pre-generated characters

With big groups, I will sometimes pit them against each other, but
more often I just run a team of NPCs as opposition. Rules are
strictly enforced, such as actions used up to communicate or observe
details about surroundings. Out-of-character, off-topic chatter is
sternly discouraged during each scenario. Most scenarios run around
1 to 1.5 hours, and we'll play for about 8 hours.

At the end of the night, a very satisfied group of off-duty
shadowrunners walks out of the arcade/logs off the Matrix/leaves the
paintball range. They slip back into character, discussing the night
as if it were all a game-within-the-game. I award karma based on how
each player conducted themself, in the following categories:

Demonstrated improving understanding/use of combat system: 1-4
Demonstrated improving communication skills: 1-4
Each maneuver/decision revealing creative use of the rules: 1
Each case of "in character" cleverness: 1
(These differ slightly. One rewards efficient/clever use of
actions/movement/modifiers, while the other rewards efficient/clever
use of terrain/cover/equipment.)
Each slip "out of character" during an active scenario: -1

Most players earn between 4 and 8 karma for a Combat Night. The very
creative players can earn 10 or 12 points, while some poor few earn
little or no karma. Whatever the case, I let them spend the karma to
buy/improve any related knowledge or social skills. Common
expenditures after a combat night are Small Unit Tactics, Leadership,
and Background Knowledges for Athletics, Stealth, and various weapon
skills. If the scenario was taking place in a paintball arena, I
allow them to raise/buy the actual Active skills. This is generally
discourage, however, since Combat Nights are meant to be a downtime
taining exercise, and primarily an act of leisure. Few players
complain, having just been shown a number of ways to employ Knowledge
skills they had not thought of.

I encourage anyone who likes combat to use this approach a few times.
They are fun, and you don't have to throw crazy
military/critter/gang-brawl runs at your PCs to experience all the
facets of SR combat. There is no need to explain why the characters
are fighting a dragon, taking on Azzie special forces, or engaged in
an all out block war. It's a "sim" and the PCs are just playing a
scenario. You can even cheat on the prep time, saying the game/sim
allows custom char-gen to map the simulcra to the user as much as
possible. In an age of simsense, this is very plausible. We play
certain console games now where you can make the character look very
much like yourself (Tiger Woods 2004 anyone?). All ammo/gear/etc
that gets used is virtual, and any damage is simulated.

======Korishinzo
--yes, combat is fun... not always reasonable, but usually fun :)



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 32
From: msde_shadowrn@*****.com (Mark S)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 09:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
--- Robert Blackberg <cougar@***.rr.com> wrote:
> I just have one question for the list at large, doesn't anyone
> consider
> combat "fun?" In my group, we look forward to the fights. It gets the
> blood pumping and the excitement level rises. Sure your character can
> be killed, but it's just a game.
>
> It seems like I hear a lot these days about "combat-free" games, and
> I just want to say for the record as a GM and as a player, I dig the
> fights.

I tend to analyze combat as a puzzle that needs to be solved.
Shadowrun as a combat system is no longer a new puzzle to me, so I
don't have much interest in it. I tend to come up wtih a character
concept, optimize whatever points I have left, and then try not to get
into combat.

Several years ago, I came to the conclusion that computer games were a
more interesting form of combat than a 4 hour long firefight that lasts
a couple of in-game minutes.

I do still enjoy the occasional combat, as it hopefully leads quickly
and directly to the conclusion of a run or a plot thread. In general
though, I'd rather spend the time doing more interesting stuff than
rolling lots of dice repeatedly.

Mark




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 33
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 20:20:05 +0200
According to Robert Blackberg, on Thursday 05 August 2004 17:18 the word on
the street was...

> It seems like I hear a lot these days about "combat-free" games, and I
> just want to say for the record as a GM and as a player, I dig the
> fights.

I agree -- all the planning and sneaking around and investigating and
thinking about what you've found out is fun and all, but shooting up some
bad guys is often a lot more satisfying :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? 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. 34
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: GM Question
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 12:26:31 -0600
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 11:18:04 -0400, Robert Blackberg <cougar@***.rr.com> wrote:
>
> I just have one question for the list at large, doesn't anyone consider
> combat "fun?" In my group, we look forward to the fights. It gets the
> blood pumping and the excitement level rises. Sure your character can be
> killed, but it's just a game.

The group I play with considers "conflict" fun. That isn't always
combat (but sometimes is). Whether it's roleplaying conflict,
physical (combat) conflict, skill type conflicts, or conflict with a
puzzle or mystery.

--
-Graht

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about GM Question, 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!