Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Long Range Game Designs [was: Re: We Don't Need No Stinkin'
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 23:08:12 -0400
In a message dated 97-07-16 21:11:28 EDT, topcat@***.NET (TopCat) writes:

>
> I also fit the characters to the campaign beforehand. That solves a lot
of
> problems from th start. If you're setting out to play a detective
campaign,
> the troll mercenary with a heavy machinegun on a gyromount and enough
> cyberware to make him effectively unhurtable isn't going to gel with the
> setting. Nor will the super-detection mage that sees all and knows all.
> He'll take away a great deal of fun form the other players by solving
> everything himself. Balance must be maintained.
>
>
Okay, with this paragraph a very distinct question has arisen to me. How
many people out there have a game scenario/series that is "neverending"? By
that I mean that they don't just "get an idea" and design the idea then have
everyone make the characters. After the idea is over, the characters are put
aside.

I mean the games with no end-game in sight. I have a campaign line that has
been in existence, in one form or another, for over 6 years now. It's seen
nearly 34 players (yeah, I sat down and counted all of these) and I don't
know how many different characters (that may be 50% again the above number).
There are 4 players that are still here (talk about -CORE-) and they can
handle nearly fragging anything, and even with a hint of style from time to
time (wondering what definition of style they use however).

Talking about "Detective Games" or "Combat Games" or "Artifact
Games" has
just made me realize that the characters I've had around me, both my own and
others, might be really close to damn unique. The character of my own (there
have been 4 GM's to the line btw) I mentioned a while back with 3000+ game
hours is a case in point. Mike (Airwisp on rec.games.) has had 4 characters
in the list. Duncan has joined the list (Howdy Goose!!), and there are
plenty more.

-Keith (who is really wondering if the definition of -Power- is well and
truly understood)
Message no. 2
From: TopCat <topcat@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Long Range Game Designs [was: Re: We Don't Need No Stinkin'
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 16:58:30 -0500
At 11:08 PM 7/16/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Okay, with this paragraph a very distinct question has arisen to me. How
>many people out there have a game scenario/series that is "neverending"? By
>that I mean that they don't just "get an idea" and design the idea then have
>everyone make the characters. After the idea is over, the characters are put
>aside.

All of mine are like this... I create a (very) simple campaign basis and go
from there, pretty much allowing the characters to do as they wish and take
the campaign with them. Why play a game where the GM says "you do this"
when you could play one where the GM says "now what do you do?". The
characters are never put aside.

Now this sounds like I am borderline absurdly flexible in what I'll let into
my game. Remember that I set the game, then have the characters made to fit
it, then let it play out.

If you make the characters before teh setting, you can have continuity and
association problems (why would an ex-Wildcat hang out with an ex-SEAL and a
mage from Tir Tairngire). You can also run into power-level problems (Troll
Tank and GBD join a group of gangers...ugh).

Design the campaign, work with the players to get the characters to mesh,
then go from there... formula for a perfect campaign.
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net
Message no. 3
From: Mike Loseke <mike@******.VERINET.COM>
Subject: Re: Long Range Game Designs [was: Re: We Don't Need No Stinkin'
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 16:20:01 -0600
Quoth TopCat:
>
> At 11:08 PM 7/16/97 -0400, you wrote:
> >Okay, with this paragraph a very distinct question has arisen to me. How
> >many people out there have a game scenario/series that is
"neverending"? By
> >that I mean that they don't just "get an idea" and design the idea then
have
> >everyone make the characters. After the idea is over, the characters are put
> >aside.
>
> All of mine are like this... I create a (very) simple campaign basis and go
> from there, pretty much allowing the characters to do as they wish and take
> the campaign with them. Why play a game where the GM says "you do this"
> when you could play one where the GM says "now what do you do?". The
> characters are never put aside.

This is exactly the approach that we have always taken, especially with
Shadowrun. The setting lends itself more to this type of setup than
many other game settings. It also encourages the players to think more,
and since this is a mental game anyway, thinking is good.

> Now this sounds like I am borderline absurdly flexible in what I'll let into
> my game. Remember that I set the game, then have the characters made to fit
> it, then let it play out.

Do you make all of the characters yourself to fit the campaign, or do you
give some guidelines for the players to use?

> If you make the characters before teh setting, you can have continuity and
> association problems (why would an ex-Wildcat hang out with an ex-SEAL and a
> mage from Tir Tairngire). You can also run into power-level problems (Troll
> Tank and GBD join a group of gangers...ugh).

I'll share what we did on our newest campaign. The GM (Travis this time)
announced that he would be running a campaign and told us what the
specific limitations were, as well as which optional/house rules we
should pay close attention to while creating our characters. He did
not specify what type of characters we should make. He didn't even know
what kind of characters we would be using until he had already outlined
the first two scenarios we would be put through. The task put before us
(the players) was simple: make a group of characters that already had
a relationship as a group, that also worked well together, and come up
with detailed backgrounds, both personal and group.

We came up with a refreshing mix: 2 hermetic mages, 1 PhysAd, 1 rigger,
a decker (who's now an NPC), a face-man and 2 B&E types. Note, we do
not have a single street sam or merc. We've put some 20 hours into this
campaign so far and the group is working like a finely tuned machine.
It promises to be one of the more enjoyable campaigns too, if we can
keep it going and not be disturbed by too many spouses too often...

In our group experience, doing things this way has always been the best
method when starting a campaign. We've experimented with the GM handing
out pre-made characters for the players to use and that didn't last
too long. In fact, only one character made it out of that campaign
to play in one or two more (Cherry, the psycho gang chick...).

--
|
Mike Loseke | You never know how fluffy poodles are,
mike@*******.com | until you step in one.
|
Message no. 4
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Long Range Game Designs [was: Re: We Don't Need No Stinkin'
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 22:16:43 -0400
In a message dated 97-07-17 20:35:23 EDT, mike@******.VERINET.COM (Mike
Loseke) writes:

>
> > Now this sounds like I am borderline absurdly flexible in what I'll let
> into
> > my game. Remember that I set the game, then have the characters made to

> fit
> > it, then let it play out.
>
> Do you make all of the characters yourself to fit the campaign, or do you
> give some guidelines for the players to use?
>
>
I think this part of the discussion is what I was personally stuck on. The
way that TC first mentioned (It was you wasn't it? damn but long threads can
get tricky), it sounded like TC was being, as mentioned elsewhere "fascist".
But after the better definition, TC's game didn't sound all that different
from the one's here in their origins.
-Keith
Message no. 5
From: TopCat <topcat@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Long Range Game Designs [was: Re: We Don't Need No Stinkin'
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:19:46 -0500
At 04:20 PM 7/17/97 -0600, Mike wrote:
>This is exactly the approach that we have always taken, especially with
>Shadowrun. The setting lends itself more to this type of setup than
>many other game settings. It also encourages the players to think more,
>and since this is a mental game anyway, thinking is good.

Agreed :)

>> Now this sounds like I am borderline absurdly flexible in what I'll let into
>> my game. Remember that I set the game, then have the characters made to fit
>> it, then let it play out.

>Do you make all of the characters yourself to fit the campaign, or do you
>give some guidelines for the players to use?

Hell no! I'm too lazy to do that. I guess it could be said that I give
guidelines though it's more me giving help in chargen.

>> If you make the characters before teh setting, you can have continuity and
>> association problems (why would an ex-Wildcat hang out with an ex-SEAL and a
>> mage from Tir Tairngire). You can also run into power-level problems (Troll
>> Tank and GBD join a group of gangers...ugh).

> I'll share what we did on our newest campaign. The GM (Travis this time)
>announced that he would be running a campaign and told us what the
>specific limitations were, as well as which optional/house rules we
>should pay close attention to while creating our characters. He did
>not specify what type of characters we should make.
>[snip]
> We came up with a refreshing mix: 2 hermetic mages, 1 PhysAd, 1 rigger,
>a decker (who's now an NPC), a face-man and 2 B&E types. Note, we do
>not have a single street sam or merc. We've put some 20 hours into this
>campaign so far and the group is working like a finely tuned machine.
>It promises to be one of the more enjoyable campaigns too, if we can
>keep it going and not be disturbed by too many spouses too often...

Sounds good to me. The GM gave the players a level to be at and rules to
know. I assume that he also gave basic campaign information (e.g. B&E team,
Lone Star undercover, gangers, organized crime, whatever). That's all I
did. I run it at a "realistic" level where it's bad to be noticed and
things that are tough are *tough*. The city was chosen beforehand, as was
the number of chargen points. I didn't tell anyone what to make, nor would
I have done that. I helped almost everyone make their characters, though
that was because I was asked to do so.

>In our group experience, doing things this way has always been the best
>method when starting a campaign. We've experimented with the GM handing
>out pre-made characters for the players to use and that didn't last
>too long. In fact, only one character made it out of that campaign
>to play in one or two more (Cherry, the psycho gang chick...).

I'll never hand out premades for a campaign. I do it at conventions all the
time though, because not doing so there *will* cause all manner of
headaches. ("I play a first edition physad" is something all GMs love to
hear...)
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Long Range Game Designs [was: Re: We Don't Need No Stinkin\, 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!