| From: | Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.umich.edu> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Marc's Ubiquitous and Recurring Rant |
| Date: | Mon, 20 May 1996 15:00:20 -0400 (EDT) |
would like to air a few arguments, points, and observations. For those
of you offended by the tone of Bob's post, rest assured, this one will be
much more mild. Please be aware that these are merely my own views on
the issue, NOT "thou shalt play SR *this* way only, heathen scum!" As
always, I am open to counter-argument, criticism, and outright flameage
(that last included for Mr. Broadwater ;) ;).
So first, I too will tell you a little bit about myself. I also
am 23 years old, and a resident of Ann Arbor, MI, where I attend the
graduate program of the University of Michigan's College of Engineering.
I have been playing Shadowrun since it came out ('89 I think, but I'm
getting senile, so I could be off about that). I've been role-playing in
general for 14 years now, and I freely admit that I went through the
typical gamer phases (Monty Haul, Munchkinesque, Rules Purist, etc.)
Now, I think I have outgrown the bad parts of that progression and have
settled on a style I am far more happy with and enjoy much more. Thus,
knowing this, some of my rant will make more sense.
As much as TopCat's post was on how to *play* the game, mine is
on how to *run* it. I have been GM'ing as long as I have been playing,
and probably have more experience running games than I do playing them.
Again, please do not take this post as a personal slam on anyone, or a
"holier than thou" sermon. This is merely a set of observations based on
what has worked and what hasn't over the course of over a decade of
gaming.
First, I'd like to talk about the difference between realistic
versus cinematic gaming. Both are perfectly legitimate, perfectly
justified, and both can be thoroughly enjoyable. The choice between them
is merely dependant on what the GM and players are looking for in a
campaign.
Cinematic campaigns have lots of excellent opportunities for
heroic actions, large, sweeping plots, epic struggles, and gut-wrenching
crises. In return for this ability to entertain and amuse on a grand
scale, they give up common sense (for lack of a better term, I know it
sounds harsh). They allow the players to accomplish things that at times
can be downright unreasonable, all for the sake of the overall enjoyment
of the game. As I said, this is perfectly legitimate.
Realistic games, on the other hand, ground the players more
firmly in reality (after the initial suspension of disbelief necessary
for playing the game in the first place is made). They compromise the
epic nature for "grit," and generally give the players a clearer frame of
reference. By and large (uh, oh, generalization warning) realistic
campaigns have a higher level of detail merely because they GM and
players have a wider pool of applicable real-world experience to draw
analogies from. I know how to fire a gun. I know small unit tactics. I
have a criminal mind. I am an engineer. On the other hand, I don't know
how to run a multi-national megecorp and duel with dragons and immortal
elves. Thus is the trade-off made. The other drawback that seems to
affect more realistic games is a higher character mortality rate. This
can be viewed as both good or bad depending. Nobody likes to lose a
favorite character, but losing that character allows you to go on to
something new, or maybe allow you to try out a character idea you've been
toying with for a while.
Having made this explanation and established the legitimacy of
both types of games, I'll say that my game is dark, ugly, and full of
thoroughly treacherous realism. The players are concerned more with
staying alive and making a buck (or accomplishing some other personal
goal) than they are about changing the face of the planet. That's not to
say they haven't affected world events on occasion, just that it's not an
everyday occurrence. This gives me quite a large frame of reference
when deicding what will hapen within the setting itself. Having established
this, most the remainder of this post will deal with elements of "realism"
within a game setting (though you may want to check out the last bit).
Let me start by saying that if you make a few small
modifications, SRII can be a *very* good model of real-life situations,
especially where combat is concerned. As I have said on numerous
previous occasions on my years on this list, the key is remembering the
target number modifiers. If you keep these very important aspects in
mind, you will very soon find that combat will not be over in less than a
second, the PC's will not roll over any opposition, and ammo expenditures
will skyrocket. You will probably also find that your players will plan
more extensively so as to avoid the chaos and danger inherent in combat
situations, thus leading to more creative gaming. When you figure that
the average target number is around a 10 (when movement, visibility,
cover, range, and other modifiers are taken into account), you will see a
lot more misses, a lot more spent clips, and a lot more intense thought
beyond, "I shoot the guard." Target number modifiers apply to magic too,
which is often the most forgotten set of rules in the book and makes
magic alot less "all-powerful" in combat. I get sick of people saying,
"my sammie whips ass in combat," when they think the normal target number
is a 2. If all you remember is the -2 for the smartlink, of *course*
you're gonna whip ass.
I will, however, make the caveat that a few things need to be
changed. These are mainly the auto-fire rules, the staging capability of
grenades, and the mechanics behind called shots. I have time-tested
fixes for all of these problems, but I won't go into them here.
Second, I'd like to make an observation on setting. Anyone can
create an incredibly detailed, well-developed setting, filled with
wonderful NPC's, locations, and organizations. All it takes is a little
work. On the other hand, not everyone is willing to throw that whole
creation out the window to simulate the shifting, ever-changing nature of
the world we live in. I don't mean to insult anyone's game here, but
every game I've been in that had a truly *good* GM was an evolving,
dynamic setting, capable of changing in ways totally unrelated to the
players' actions. Stagnation breeds familiarity, and familiarity breeds
contempt. Keeping the campaign fresh by throwing in new developments
(technologically, socially, politically, and globally) can keep player
interest from going the way of the dodo. I've seen GM's who were very
good role-players of NPC's, and with well-thought-out worlds, and capable
of thinking up interesting, challening runs lose players through boredom.
Third, let your players go. Too many times have I seen games
where the players are railroaded into taking runs that are arbitrary,
linear, or just plain stupid simply because the GM was incapable of
coming up with a run on the fly and had no alternative if the players
actually thought it through enough to turn down a run. I've actually
given players survival Karma for TURNING DOWN a run that was nigh unto
suicidal. Sometimes I throw those in just to test the players. If they
turn them down, fine. I can go with something else. Similarly, if the
players want to do something totally independant ("Hey, let's rob a
bank!") then so be it. The joy of realism is that I have a host of
real-world examples to draw from. Do not tie your players to a single
plotline, as it will ultimately make them feel like they have less
freedom to decide the future of their characters than they are
comfortable with. My one big gripe against epic campaigns is that there
is very often little room for deviation from the plot.
On the other hand, do not thoroughly pander to your players.
While their entertainment should be your ultimate goal, the campaign is
as much yours as theirs. Not everyone does this, but sometimes players
will push you just to see what they can get away with. If you give in to
every player demand, you will very soon find yourself sliding down the
long spiral towards the dreaded number-crunching munchkin campaign where
the PC's are unstoppable and the goons are ludicrous. Keep things
reasonable, and do not hesitate to say "no" to your player(s).
Do, however, listen to them. If *all* of your players are crying
"unfair," they're probably right. Don't be so stiff that you lose
players because you are too unforgiving. Try to achieve that happy
medium where everyone enjoys the game.
Most of the previous stuff is common sense, but it's sometimes
surprising how many players and GM's don't stop to think about it. Bob
is also correct in that the dice should be used as an aid to role-playing,
especially where social skills are concerned. And if the player is
playing a character that is quite skilled at something the player knows
nothing about, encourage the player to do a little research. You can
learn a lot from role-playing ("Hey, I didn't play D&D for all those
years and not learn a little something about courage!" - The X Files). It
sounds stupid but it's true in that you can pick up new skills and
information from gaming.
Finally, on the relative power of archtypes, I have only this to
say. The entire argument is ludicrous. Those of you that have been on
the list for a while, you've seen (probably repeatedly) my "wimpy
archtypes" post brought on by a similar argument several years ago. The
point is the same now as it was then. No archtype is "more powerful"
than another because they are often times good at totally different
things. Similarly, no archtype is any easier to role-play than another.
Stats do not make the character. Careful thought on the part of the
player is the *only* thing that can make a consistent, believable,
well-played character.
In short (not that this post is), these are my perceptions on
gaming in general and SRII in specific. I'm not trying to insult anyone
or belittle anyone's game. I know what works for me and for my players.
If it helps at all, know that I have been running a continuous campaign
for five years now. Though few of the original characters remain, and
while there have been strange, subtle, and sweeping changes in the
setting, the players have always been entertained (and they were a tough
crowd, let me tell ya). Mission accomplished.
Finally, any criticism, questions, insults, or choruses of "Amen,
brother" can be sent to me via private e-mail, or posted to the list if
you feel the subject would benefit from open discussion. Thanks for your
time and bandwidth.
Marc
