Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Debbie Giesbrecht <Debbie_Giesbrecht@**.CHIRON.COM>
Subject: roleplaying
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 10:10:59 PST
I am an experienced GM, though not in Shadowrun. Maybe I can give you
some advice about getting players to roleplay more. It is a difficult
task especially if they've never done it before.

Character backgrounds are important. If a character is just stats on
a paper, than that's all its going to be. It sounds like their
backgrounds are detailed, but no loose ends to be manipulated either.
It hasn't been pointed out to the players that these "loose ends" can
be helpful to their characters as well. That brother who was
separated at birth could now be a powerful ally as well as a risk.
Sure, he could be kidnapped and held for ransome, but he could also
have friends in high places or be a powerful shadowrunner himself.

I've also tended to notice that powergamers tend to feel that there is
an advesarial role with their GM. It's us against him kind of thing.
Players need to understand that the GM is their friend in the game.
Sure, he can be deadly and create nasty situations for the characters,
but that is why gaming is fun. Getting out of those bad situations
(or not, as the case may be) is what gets talked about and remembered.
Nobody cares when they upgraded from Wired Reflexes 2 to 3. They
remember that time they were pinned in a crossfire and it seemed
hopeless....

Good luck,

Debbie
Message no. 2
From: Stuart Marsh <sam10@***.AC.UK>
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 14:23:06 +0000
I have a problem with my players in the group. They all talk to each other
as players, and don't talk to each other as there characters, how can I get
them to actual be there characters more?

Cinder
Message no. 3
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Roleplaying
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 13:01:35 -0500
On Wed, 1 Feb 1995, Stuart Marsh (aka Cinder) wrote:

> I have a problem with my players in the group. They all talk to each other
> as players, and don't talk to each other as there characters, how can I get
> them to actual be there characters more?

This one can be difficult. I guess it all depends on the players
in question. Many times it suffices to remind them during role-playing
sessions that they should conduct themselves in character. Also, set an
example. The NPC's should also be in character, not just "Yeah, OK, two
Ingram Smartguns, comin' up."
Maybe at the beginning of every session, have them go over their
answer to the "twenty questions" they answered in character creation.
This serves to refresh their memories as to why the character is the way
it is.
Another good thing to remind them of is accents. They can go a
long way toward getting people to think and act in character. If your
character is from Ireland, he should talk like he's from Ireland. If's
he's a drek-kicked Rastafarian ganger, well... you get the idea.
Once the players get started, it will get easier for them. They
will find they can slip into character much more quickly and
convincingly. I have one player (male) who plays a female "femme-fatale"
type physical adept. Some of his subtle gestures and facial expressions
are perfect. But it was hard for him at first.

Marc ("Jah love, mon." --Charlatan)
Message no. 4
From: Jeff Norrell <norrell@*******.ME.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Roleplaying
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 12:38:11 +0600
I've had that problem myself... I also had the problem about them wanting to discuss every
option... Normally not a problem... But when they've got an assault cannon pointed at 'em
you would think they'd react a little quicker...

My players like to split up their characters and cover more territory so when they refused
to communicate only it their characters could communicate, I started sending various
players out of the room. Most of them don't mind. They like the supense that builds as I
look at them and say something like...
"As you round the corner you hear the distinct sound of a shotgun being racked...
Standing in front of you has to be the biggest damn troll you've ever seen..." Then
I'll look at my watch and say..."Well... This should be a good stopping place so I
can work with the other players for awhile... <evil grin>"

Hope some of this helps...

Jeff
Message no. 5
From: Jason Larke <jlarke@**.ITD.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Roleplaying
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 13:54:16 -0500
>>>>> On Wed, 01 Feb 1995 13:01:35 EST, Marc A Renouf
>>>>> <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU> said:

MAR> On Wed, 1 Feb 1995, Stuart Marsh (aka Cinder) wrote:
>> I have a problem with my players in the group. They all
>> talk to each other as players, and don't talk to each
>> other as there characters, how can I get them to actual
>> be there characters more?

MAR> This one can be difficult. I guess it all
MAR> depends on the players in question. Many times it
MAR> suffices to remind them during role-playing sessions
MAR> that they should conduct themselves in character.

Let me stick in one brief defense of out-of-character
conversation. If two characters are talking about personal
things, or getting to know each other, or involved in
conflict, I try my best to play *hard* in character.

But there are also times when it's faster and quicker to get
things hashed out player-to-player, like a mission plan that
everyone has to agree on. It would be better for the
role-playing experience if we didn't, sure, but it would
also take much longer, and when you are on a fixed budget of
gaming hours per week, you might want to make these
compromises.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jason Larke- jlarke@*****.edu- sysadmin, philosophy guy, and Rush fan |
| "I drink the blood of my enemies," Hawk said, and smiled his happy grin. |
|I don't speak for ITD-LSA, U-M, or the international communist conspiracy.|
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 6
From: Erik S Jameson <esj@***.UUG.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Roleplaying
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 15:27:11 -0700
On Wed, 1 Feb 1995, Stuart Marsh wrote:

> I have a problem with my players in the group. They all talk to each other
> as players, and don't talk to each other as there characters, how can I get
> them to actual be there characters more?
>
> Cinder
>
We USE TO have that problem. What it took was a couple of things. First
of all, a firm GM to say "Hey, you aren't in the same place, you don't
have a radio, so you can't tell him anything." And that was final.

We also have a tendency to make jokes and smart-ass comments. Sometimes,
it was the Player making the comment, but it was taken that the Character
hasd said it, which led to a number of problems for the character. "But
I didn't mean for Joe Killer my samurai to say "Fuck me with a chainsaw!
That was me!" "Ooops, I wan't sure. You better have Joe Killer call
DocWagon and see if they have a special on attaching limbs."

So now, we are very carefull about what is said "IN" character and what
is said "OUT" of character. We learned that the character can sometimes
pay for the player's mistakes.

Erik, a.k.a. the Whistler
"Take me to Grip!"
Message no. 7
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Roleplaying
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 12:21:24 +0100
>I've had that problem myself... I also had the problem about them wanting
to discuss
>every option... Normally not a problem... But when they've got an assault
cannon
>pointed at 'em you would think they'd react a little quicker...

Start counting down if they take too long, or impose a time limit for each
combat phase. For instance, you could take a small hourglass and if the
player doesn't make up his mind before it runs out, he's out of luck and the
character does what the player last said. Which could, of course, be nothing
at all.


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Just cause you don't like it don't mean it ain't no good
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?
Message no. 8
From: Stefan Struck <struck@******.INFORMATIK.UNI-BONN.DE>
Subject: Re: Roleplaying
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 12:39:58 +0100
Erik wrote:
>
> We also have a tendency to make jokes and smart-ass comments. Sometimes,
> it was the Player making the comment, but it was taken that the Character
> hasd said it, which led to a number of problems for the character. "But
> I didn't mean for Joe Killer my samurai to say "Fuck me with a chainsaw!
> That was me!" "Ooops, I wan't sure. You better have Joe Killer call
> DocWagon and see if they have a special on attaching limbs."
>
We have the "NPC-rule" in my campaign. When a NPC is present s/he hears
everything the players say. Deals with "he's such a ..." comments when
dealing with Johnsons and powerful beings.
bye,
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: struck@****.informatik.uni-bonn.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 9
From: Stefan Struck <struck@******.INFORMATIK.UNI-BONN.DE>
Subject: Re: Roleplaying
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 12:45:11 +0100
Marc wrote:
> Another good thing to remind them of is accents. They can go a
> long way toward getting people to think and act in character. If your
> character is from Ireland, he should talk like he's from Ireland. If's
> he's a drek-kicked Rastafarian ganger, well... you get the idea.
This can be really (!!!) annoying. I once had a character in by campaign
who plays a super-duper-macho mage coming from atzlan. He spoke his
accent all the time and tends to sing a little song now and than. Yes,
he was acting in character and I gave him karma points for that, but
it was very hard (for everyone) 8)
bye,
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: struck@****.informatik.uni-bonn.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 10
From: Jan-bart van Beek <flake@***.NL>
Subject: Re: roleplaying (fwd)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 15:45:13 +0100
This one should have arrived yesterday, but the server screwed it up.


I know that problem and believe me , you cannot solve it.
Not without some drastic involvement from the GM's side.

One of the most importAnt things to remember is to keep the game fun for
the players. And remember talking about the reality/game-reality paradox
is part of the fun
Players are not actors (it would be nice if they were though) and you
cannot expect them to be that. Not if they really want to.

But one way of archieving better role-playing is creating special
situations that are ideal for role-playing. Like conversations with big
and well-develloped NPC's like Mr. Johnson. If you want your players to
behave lke actors then you must be an actor and a darn good one too.

Another thing that helps is the settig of atmosphere and mood, details.
Discribe the setting like the players are reading a book, and feel free
to tell them how they are reacting to simple cue's like rain getting in
their eyes based on what you know a character would do. Sometimes it's
good to act for the player.

I remember a situation we had a long time ago. We just got ourselves a
new player who was thrilled by the idea of real roleplaying, which in his
eyes was discribbing every little thing his character did. Unfortunatly
it took him about an hour to discribe how he was slowly breaking down the
camping site (it was an ad&d campaign) ,it was so irritating for the
other players. Good role-playing can only be done in relativly small
groups with experienced people who now when it's appropriate for them to
act and when it's breaking down the game. Yopu simply cannot have 7
people all wanting complete attention while their characters are doing
some role-playing action. It's too chaotic and it slows the game down
aside from frustrating the players.

Example: The characters are meeting with an important contact in the
harbors, it's in seattle so the wheather is probably bad.

Discribe how the rain falls in the waters of the harbor. discribe how
they see a dark-coloured limousine pull up from a small alley. Discibe
how one of the characters lights a sigaret in the palm of his hand.
Discribe how another one is checking the magazine of his browning and the
third is murmering something about that bloody rain ruining his 2000 yen
suit.

You can't expect players to do that because they don't know the
situation, you do, so tell them what their charater experiences

If you do it right and your players like they will pick it up fairly
quickly. But you have to show them or else their haracters will probably
stay 2-dimensional.

Another trick is isolating players from the rest, this will help in
thinking what their characters is gonna do, instead of having the intire
goup tell them what to do. This works especially well in the case of a
private telephone call from a contact or a private meet.

hope this will help.


--------------------------------------------------------------
| Beware of what you ask for you may recieve it |
--------------------------------------------------------------

**** The Cornflake Killer Strikes again ****
Message no. 11
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 12:05:27 +0200
>What I am about to say is thus: role-playing is even worse than acting in
>that we play things we haven't even the shadiest chance of ever having a real
>clue about.

That's IMHO the fun in roleplaying in the first place -- doing things you
never would have a chance to do in real life. Would you ever get an
opportunity to sneak into a building, get discovered by a guard, splatter
his brains all over a wall, and then get away with it? The first two aren't
hard, the other two are pretty much impossible for most of us, I would imagine.
Or for instance crawl into a dark dungeon infested with creatures that'd
like to kill me. I'd be scared out of my mind, I can tell you that, but the
neat thing is my character isn't.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I'll live through this even if it kills me
GC3.0: GAT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial Shadowrun
Guru :)
Message no. 12
From: Andre' Selmer <031SEA@******.WITS.AC.ZA>
Subject: Re: Roleplaying
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 13:12:04 +0200
:->>What I am about to say is thus: role-playing is even worse than acting in
:->>that we play things we haven't even the shadiest chance of ever having a rea
:->l
:->>clue about.
:->
:->That's IMHO the fun in roleplaying in the first place -- doing things you
:->never would have a chance to do in real life. Would you ever get an
:->opportunity to sneak into a building, get discovered by a guard, splatter
:->his brains all over a wall, and then get away with it? The first two aren't
:->hard, the other two are pretty much impossible for most of us, I would imagin

It's not hard to think of the perfect crime. Its' just difficult
to enact it.

:->e.
:->Or for instance crawl into a dark dungeon infested with creatures that'd
:->like to kill me. I'd be scared out of my mind, I can tell you that, but the
:->neat thing is my character isn't.

If you've been playing your character for six odd years and
you're sneaking your way through a dungeon, I am sure that you are a
tad nervous. After all one lucky swipe (and an unkind GM) and six
years get throw in the bin. Of course, the character can be as brave
as a lion, but there is the fact that most Role Players ignore and
that is that the characters that they generate are usually
reflections of part of themselves...

Still in a game, you don't have to go through a six month
training course.
PLAYER: Well Jim is going to take that para-military training
course.
GM: It'll take 6 months game time
PLAYER: The others are in hospital for that long anyway.
GM: Okay. Six months later....
(provding no interuptions) <grin>


Andre'
<031SEA@******.WITS.AC.ZA>

Its time for a new sig, when I think of one I'll append it.
-Andre'

Boom Boom Shake the Room !
-Phoenix, Pyromanical Hermetic Mage of Seattle 2053
Message no. 13
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 09:25:04 -0600
Here's a somewhat amusing thought.

Roleplaying is when your imaginary freind interacts with other people's
imaginary friends.

And to build on that.

A munchkin is a person who is his own imaginary friend.

:)

-David
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 14
From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Roleplaying
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:54:20 -0400
On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, David Buehrer wrote:

->Here's a somewhat amusing thought.
->
->Roleplaying is when your imaginary freind interacts with other people's
->imaginary friends.
->
->And to build on that.
->
->A munchkin is a person who is his own imaginary friend.

Very funny... although I dare not ask how you thought of it. ]:-)
I still like that one fellow's quote about "let me get this straight,
you're married, have two kids, and every weekend you sit down with your
friends and make believe?" or somesuch (can't remember the precise
words).

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 15
From: GRANITE <granite@**.NET>
Subject: Re: Roleplaying
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 14:30:28 -0700
> Very funny... although I dare not ask how you thought of it. ]:-)

His imaginary friend told him so ;)
--------------------------------GRANITE
"Rock Steady"
===============================================
Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serenity Prayer
===============================================
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Kosh
What is best in life?
To Crush Your Enemies,
See Them Driven Before You,
And To Hear The Lamentation Of Their Women. -Conan
I Am The LAW! -JD
Jamais Arriere
Message no. 16
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Roleplaying
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 14:57:20 -0600
For the mere cost of a Thaum, GRANITE wrote:
/
/ > Very funny... although I dare not ask how you thought of it. ]:-)
/
/ His imaginary friend told him so ;)

Hm? What'd you say Lao? Oh, all right.

Lao says that he could kick your imaginary friend's ass any day of
the week.

;)

Seriously though, I was talking to my brother and somehow the
revelation that a PC is just about the equivalent of an imaginary
friend just came up :)

-David
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 17
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Roleplaying
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 21:40:26 EDT
In a message dated 10/1/1998 10:24:59 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG writes:

> Here's a somewhat amusing thought.
> Roleplaying is when your imaginary freind interacts with other people's
> imaginary friends.
> And to build on that.
> A munchkin is a person who is his own imaginary friend.
> :)

David, how about I send you an imaginary gun to give to the munchkin's best
friend and tell him that the other guy is the better guy ???

-K ;)
Message no. 18
From: Dave Mowbray dave_mowbray@*****.com
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 11:45:14 -0500
Sorry folks... I've haven't been paying too much attention recently, but a
sentiment which alarms me seems to be growing here. Everyone keeps saying,
"Well, I don't allow characters like THAT in MY campaigns... (typically
referring to street sams)."
Well, news flash for you all... the games called roleplaying games were
created to allow people to have FUN playing someone they aren't. Whether
this is the insightful mage or information specialist or the Troll street
sam DOESN'T MATTER. The point is that you have FUN. Many of you seem to
have lost sight of that. All this whining about, "We must roleplay! People
who like to kill things aren't role players!" Give me a break!!! Are you
telling me that you are going to make people play characters they don't
enjoy for the sake of "roleplaying"? Are you such a pathetic GM that you
can't handle more than one type of character in your campaign? News flash
people, most of us aren't killers in IRL, most of can't do what are
character does... hence we ROLEPLAY... give ourselves the chance to play
something other than what we are. Who the hell are you to judge what your
players want to play is right or wrong? And if you think playing a street
sam doesn't involve role playing, think again!!! Just ask Strago about Hans
and Frans, two trolls played in a campaign of his. So it may be silly, so
what? Do "real" roleplayers not do silly things? Remember, it's supposed
to be FUN for EVERYONE involved, be they street sams or whatever. Remember,
as a GM it is your obligation to not only have campaigns your players will
enjoy, but to try and help them with any "roleplaying" issues they may have.

Sorry about the rant, but I mean, c'mon people!!!
-Dave
Message no. 19
From: Frank Bek iceman1@****.nl
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 18:24:18 +0100
Dave,

IMHO your abolutely right. in my group (4 palyers, nl. a decker, a combat
mage, a detective and a rocker) I alow any player to play the roll he wants.
I try to make the plot fit in with the characters. So far, i have no
complains from the players (only when I mow them down if they charge a LS
raod blockade with guns blazing). So I am with you on your mail..

Frank "the Mailman"

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Mowbray [mailto:dave_mowbray@*****.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 5:45 PM
To: shadowRN@*********. org (E-mail)
Subject: Roleplaying


Sorry folks... I've haven't been paying too much attention recently, but a
sentiment which alarms me seems to be growing here. Everyone keeps saying,
"Well, I don't allow characters like THAT in MY campaigns... (typically
referring to street sams)."
Well, news flash for you all... the games called roleplaying games were
created to allow people to have FUN playing someone they aren't. Whether
this is the insightful mage or information specialist or the Troll street
sam DOESN'T MATTER. The point is that you have FUN. Many of you seem to
have lost sight of that. All this whining about, "We must roleplay! People
who like to kill things aren't role players!" Give me a break!!! Are you
telling me that you are going to make people play characters they don't
enjoy for the sake of "roleplaying"? Are you such a pathetic GM that you
can't handle more than one type of character in your campaign? News flash
people, most of us aren't killers in IRL, most of can't do what are
character does... hence we ROLEPLAY... give ourselves the chance to play
something other than what we are. Who the hell are you to judge what your
players want to play is right or wrong? And if you think playing a street
sam doesn't involve role playing, think again!!! Just ask Strago about Hans
and Frans, two trolls played in a campaign of his. So it may be silly, so
what? Do "real" roleplayers not do silly things? Remember, it's supposed
to be FUN for EVERYONE involved, be they street sams or whatever. Remember,
as a GM it is your obligation to not only have campaigns your players will
enjoy, but to try and help them with any "roleplaying" issues they may have.

Sorry about the rant, but I mean, c'mon people!!!
-Dave
Message no. 20
From: Lars Ericson lericson@****.edu
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 11:58:19 -0600
Frank Bek wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> IMHO your abolutely right. in my group (4 palyers, nl. a decker, a combat
> mage, a detective and a rocker) I alow any player to play the roll he wants.
> I try to make the plot fit in with the characters. So far, i have no
> complains from the players (only when I mow them down if they charge a LS
> raod blockade with guns blazing). So I am with you on your mail..
>
> Frank "the Mailman"

Your message to the shadowrn listed prompted for a receipt. You probably
don't want to be getting hundreds of receipts flooding your mailbox. You
probably want to turn off the receipt return option when posting to
newsgroups.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Lars Ericson: Professional Vagabond
Smalley Research Group, Rice University
E-Mail: lericson@****.edu
WWW: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lericson/

Life is like a Wankel Engine. In between the emptiness of boredom and
despair, and the compression of stress in one's life, there's that one
spark of enjoyment that keeps you going.
Message no. 21
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 13:07:25 -0500
From: "Lars Ericson" <lericson@****.edu>


> Frank Bek wrote:
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > IMHO your abolutely right. in my group (4 palyers, nl. a decker, a
combat
> > mage, a detective and a rocker) I alow any player to play the roll he
wants.
> > I try to make the plot fit in with the characters. So far, i have no
> > complains from the players (only when I mow them down if they charge a
LS
> > raod blockade with guns blazing). So I am with you on your mail..
> >
> > Frank "the Mailman"
>
> Your message to the shadowrn listed prompted for a receipt. You probably
> don't want to be getting hundreds of receipts flooding your mailbox. You
> probably want to turn off the receipt return option when posting to
> newsgroups.

Please.
Message no. 22
From: Strago strago@***.com
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 14:43:27 -0500
What was that? It said something about the sender asking the recipient to send
something back! I didn't like it! I didn't understand it! Could someone tell him
to turn that off?

Frank Bek wrote:

> Dave,
>
> IMHO your abolutely right. in my group (4 palyers, nl. a decker, a combat
> mage, a detective and a rocker) I alow any player to play the roll he wants.
> I try to make the plot fit in with the characters. So far, i have no
> complains from the players (only when I mow them down if they charge a LS
> raod blockade with guns blazing). So I am with you on your mail..
>
> Frank "the Mailman"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Mowbray [mailto:dave_mowbray@*****.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 5:45 PM
> To: shadowRN@*********. org (E-mail)
> Subject: Roleplaying
>
> Sorry folks... I've haven't been paying too much attention recently, but a
> sentiment which alarms me seems to be growing here. Everyone keeps saying,
> "Well, I don't allow characters like THAT in MY campaigns... (typically
> referring to street sams)."
> Well, news flash for you all... the games called roleplaying games were
> created to allow people to have FUN playing someone they aren't. Whether
> this is the insightful mage or information specialist or the Troll street
> sam DOESN'T MATTER. The point is that you have FUN. Many of you seem to
> have lost sight of that. All this whining about, "We must roleplay! People
> who like to kill things aren't role players!" Give me a break!!! Are you
> telling me that you are going to make people play characters they don't
> enjoy for the sake of "roleplaying"? Are you such a pathetic GM that you
> can't handle more than one type of character in your campaign? News flash
> people, most of us aren't killers in IRL, most of can't do what are
> character does... hence we ROLEPLAY... give ourselves the chance to play
> something other than what we are. Who the hell are you to judge what your
> players want to play is right or wrong? And if you think playing a street
> sam doesn't involve role playing, think again!!! Just ask Strago about Hans
> and Frans, two trolls played in a campaign of his. So it may be silly, so
> what? Do "real" roleplayers not do silly things? Remember, it's supposed
> to be FUN for EVERYONE involved, be they street sams or whatever. Remember,
> as a GM it is your obligation to not only have campaigns your players will
> enjoy, but to try and help them with any "roleplaying" issues they may
have.
>
> Sorry about the rant, but I mean, c'mon people!!!
> -Dave
Message no. 23
From: Strago strago@***.com
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 14:53:04 -0500
Dave Mowbray wrote:

> <SNIP> And if you think playing a street
> sam doesn't involve role playing, think again!!! Just ask Strago about Hans
> and Frans, two trolls played in a campaign of his. So it may be silly, so
> what? Do "real" roleplayers not do silly things? Remember, it's supposed
> to be FUN for EVERYONE involved, be they street sams or whatever. Remember,
> as a GM it is your obligation to not only have campaigns your players will
> enjoy, but to try and help them with any "roleplaying" issues they may
have.
>
> Sorry about the rant, but I mean, c'mon people!!!
> -Dave

I snipped most of this to tell everyone of Hans and Frans, two wacked out psycho
trolls with personality disorders to the highest degree. Well, multiple
personality disorders. They either thought they were Scottish, Klingon or (was
it Swedish? I don't remember) and had outfits and weapons suiting each. They
killed an elf because one of the players, disgusted, told them to find some
Romulans and an elf was what came up on my random roll (they thought it was
exasperation, it was fear on my part) and stupid them thought he was Romulan.
They don't know who's Hans and who's Frans, all they know is that Mama (who they
fear) loved Hans better so both want to be Hans. Funny game, but WRONG!
Message no. 24
From: Paul Gettle RunnerPaul@*****.com
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 15:24:49 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 02:53 PM 12/1/99 -0500, Strago wrote:
:I snipped most of this to tell everyone of Hans and Frans, two
:wacked out psycho trolls with personality disorders to the highest
:degree.

Oddly enough, in our games here, we had our own Hans and Frans. Two
Austrian brothers who were riggers (some of the more expensive rigger
toys can actually be affordable if you have two rigger characters and
allow for co-ownership). The real kicker is that their street names
were Mario and Luigi.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>;

iQCVAwUBOEWECKPbvUVI86rNAQFwSgP/UvIJhpsn8iW3D2SkiPkqJhN47miLbz4A
JIyvA6jy0mrwnshiB7HAnPB7REIp1HEc//VRhXJg8nxj1nrRwhts9Fk/O/pTTXD3
+xaM6bsK76I9XQdM2aPYhI3fdhSFesRscryC2vg44wfyOLktFYJEJYfuksWMZiIX
wKddkS4Kw/M=yTz5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344
Message no. 25
From: Justin Berman jberman@*****.com
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 15:50:19 -0500
<big ol'e snippy do>
>Sorry about the rant, but I mean, c'mon people!!!
>-Dave

Dave cudo's to you for saying what others didn't have the nerve to. Right
on my brotha' right on!
-Necron
Message no. 26
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 16:54:18 -0500
From: "Justin Berman" <jberman@*****.com>
> <big ol'e snippy do>
> >Sorry about the rant, but I mean, c'mon people!!!
> >-Dave
>
> Dave cudo's to you for saying what others didn't have the nerve to. Right
> on my brotha' right on!

Perhaps it is not an issue of nerve, but rather the simple fact that not
everyone agrees. You also should keep in mind that this is the, what, fifth
time we've had this exact conversation, in as many weeks? Most people are
just sick of talking about it, of repeating themselves.

One thing I think you'll find plently of here is nerve.
Message no. 27
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 16:54:18 -0500
From: "Dave Mowbray" <dave_mowbray@*****.com>


> Sorry folks... I've haven't been paying too much attention recently, but a
> sentiment which alarms me seems to be growing here. Everyone keeps
saying,
> "Well, I don't allow characters like THAT in MY campaigns... (typically
> referring to street sams)."

This doesn't really apply to me, so I'll let it go at this; ignore them if
you don't like it. You'd be amazed--or not--at the amount of stuff I have to
ignore when I'm here, or else risk expulsion by speaking my mind in
a...rude...fashion.

> Well, news flash for you all... the games called roleplaying games were
> created to allow people to have FUN playing someone they aren't. Whether
> this is the insightful mage or information specialist or the Troll street
> sam DOESN'T MATTER. The point is that you have FUN. Many of you seem to
> have lost sight of that.

And, at the risk of repeating myself:

I have not lost sight of the reason roleplaying *games* were created. But I
think you may not be aware, or care, what *roleplaying* was developed for.
Your point is fun; mine is learning, strengthening, and developing the
skills of creative problem solving and logical thought, as well as enhancing
the natural acting and "becoming" abilities of my players and myself, our
tactical abilities, and our general mental abilities. Sure, we have fun, but
that's not the point, not for us.

> All this whining about, "We must roleplay! People
> who like to kill things aren't role players!" Give me a break!!! Are you
> telling me that you are going to make people play characters they don't
> enjoy for the sake of "roleplaying"?

We do it all the time; but I don't *make* them play characters they don't
enjoy. They choose to, so that they may perceive the universe through a set
of eyes they would not normally have. And that makes them *very* good
roleplayers, for choosing a difficult character idea. I *hate* playing the
Pedestrian contact, but I do it a lot, for the challenge. And yes, I enjoy
the challenge, but not in the way I think you're talking about.

See, we don't get to pick what we're like in real life; it would be
rediculous to say it's realistic to always play the same character in SR. I
even occasionally force my players to play a particular character, to
reflect this fact of real life.

> Are you such a pathetic GM that you
> can't handle more than one type of character in your campaign? News flash
> people, most of us aren't killers in IRL, most of can't do what are
> character does... hence we ROLEPLAY... give ourselves the chance to play
> something other than what we are.

And here we agree; but we do it for different reasons.

> Who the hell are you to judge what your
> players want to play is right or wrong? And if you think playing a street
> sam doesn't involve role playing, think again!!! Just ask Strago about
Hans
> and Frans, two trolls played in a campaign of his. So it may be silly, so
> what?

Yes, and I will be the first to point out that it takes work to be silly; I
myself have a very difficult time doing it. But if it's in character, you do
it. *That* is roleplaying. Yes, sometimes we make intentionally unlikely
characters--like Hans and Frans--to challenge ourselves. And to laugh a
little.

> Do "real" roleplayers not do silly things?

Heh. Nope. Seriously. Never. Not once. Heh.

> Remember, it's supposed
> to be FUN for EVERYONE involved, be they street sams or whatever.

Stop making blanket statements!

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I'm one extreme of the roleplaying
world, and that not many people here roleplay for anything resembling the
reasons I do. But don't generalise like that! A lot of people here play
silly, munchie, *FUN* games. And I play...well, my games. But everyone else
falls in-between, and you should remember that. Sometimes, they let fun take
the driver's seat, and do silly things, and blow up Vashon Island, and have
fun. But sometimes, they let it take a backseat to realism and logical
extrapolation on the reality of Shadowrun within the framework of that
fictional world.

> Remember,
> as a GM it is your obligation to not only have campaigns your players will
> enjoy, but to try and help them with any "roleplaying" issues they may
have.

No. Again, you may feel that that is *your* obligation. It isn't mine. And
it won't be.

> Sorry about the rant, but I mean, c'mon people!!!

I understand, Dave, I really do. I rant about this, too. But when I get
really intense about it, I remember all the people I know who roleplay the
same way you do, and enjoy it, and say, "hey, it's a game; relax!" I
remember that not everyone is like me. And I let it go.

See, I'm not trying to convince you, with this message, that you're wrong;
I'm only trying to explain that other people are right as well.
Message no. 28
From: Zebulin Magby zebulingod@*****.com
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 11:07:08 -0800 (PST)
Dave,

I respect your opinions. That said, I am not sure if you have ever played with
someone who creates a character who is not so much a good "concept" as generally
having a lot of plusses. I _don't_ have a problem with people who kill in my game.
They can kill all they want as long as they aren't psychopathic or whatever. (In my
game, in others, <shrug> their rules.) I _do_ have a problem with someone who
creates a character who has _AT_LEAST_ 8D6 Initiative,a Reaction of _AT_LEAST_20_,
and a Quickness of more than 10. It's not that they did it once or twice or even
three times. Nope, they do it _every_single_time_. To them, the game isn't about
playing in character, it isn't about taking a weakness to offset any of the
outrageous power they have, it isn't about ROLL-playing. To them, the whole game is
about how to get the fastest, best, unbeatable, indestructible everything for their
character they can without any negatives. But it's not even that. Have you ever
heard of min/maxing? It's the method by which people don't choose a character
concept and then build their character to suit, but they take as much money as
possible and buy as many plusses as possible and take a few negatives as possible.

If their character gets hurt, they complain, saying the GM wasn't being fair or that
their character wouldn't have have gotten hurt. They get offended by anyone saying
that they don't ROLEplay. They take offense when you look over their character and
say "Ho hum, not another
Ex-Military-Super-Elite-Combat-Speed-Gun-Demolitions-Specialist." because that's all
they play.

I do _NOT_ have a problem with this type of character _IF_ it comes with a
well-thought up character concept. But someone who doesn't come up with a concept,
builds their character based on minimizing their negatives and maximizing their
bonuses, and then doesn't ROLLplay at all _IS_ someone that I do have a problem
with.

I'm sorry about the rant. I am not singling any single person out here (with the
exception of our groups very own power-gamer). I just felt that I should respond to
your post because I didn't see that you understood the distinction. If I was
mistaken, I apologise.

Zebulin
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com
Message no. 29
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 08:29:17 -0500
Quote the message you're replying to, Zebulin! And read the FAQ! Thank you!

From: "Zebulin Magby" <zebulingod@*****.com>


> <snip>
> game, in others, <shrug> their rules.) I _do_ have a problem with someone
who
> creates a character who has _AT_LEAST_ 8D6 Initiative,a Reaction of
_AT_LEAST_20_,
> and a Quickness of more than 10. It's not that they did it once or twice
or even
> three times. Nope, they do it _every_single_time_. To them, the game isn't
about
> playing in character, it isn't about taking a weakness to offset any of
the
> outrageous power they have, it isn't about ROLL-playing. To them, the
whole game is
> about how to get the fastest, best, unbeatable, indestructible everything
for their
> character they can without any negatives. But it's not even that. Have you
ever

Penis envy, plain and simple.
Message no. 30
From: Frank Pelletier (Trinity) fpelletier@******.usherb.ca
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 11:12:42 -0500
"abortion_engine" <abortion_engine@*******.com> once wrote

(snipped the high-powered munchie rant, which I agree 100% with)

>
> Penis envy, plain and simple.
>

Boy, you really did outdo yourself this time, neh? That's a whole lotta
brainpower at work right there, AE.

Anyways, the fact of the matter is, I feel the same way Zeb does. I feel
the same way most true roleplayers do. Actually, there is a reason the term
"Munchkin" was invented, why we got terms like "Mounty Haul" campaigns
and,
at least in french, "Gros Bill", why KotDT exists. People resent
high-powered characters. Not because they're more powerful than me, but
because frankly, they suck. You see, high-powered characters seldom come
with high-intensity roleplaying. For most high-end users, it's only a
matter of cramming the most cyberware/getting the most spells/programming
the best proggies/driving the best car, and getting such insane skills that
it's not even fun to watch. I've played with a character who was maybe
considered "high-powered". I think I did a great job of using his stats
just like they are: Stats. He was a coward at heart, and when someone
punched him in the face, he didn't use his 20+4d6 ini to start kicking ass.
No, he took it, he cowered down. He was a bastard (yeah, he's dead), a
backstabber, a powerhouse with vulnerabilities and liabilities. He was fun
to play, and I hope I did play him well, because he deserved it.

I played with Barbie, even. The summum of munchie characters, you say. A
legend. But the times I played with her, she didn't play it that way. What
use are stats when you're roleplaying? None whatsoever.

To take your analogy, sure he could have a 12-inch dick. Impressive porn
star. But he'd hurt the girls, and he can't do anything else but fuck hard.
I'd rather have 7 inches, and hands, and a mouth, and my whole body. More
tools, so to speak. Guess who gets the girls.

Trinity
---------------------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
fpelletier@******.usherb.ca
"Tout les matins du monde sont sans retour" - Marin Marais

Trin on the Undernet and EFNet
Message no. 31
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 11:38:10 -0500
From: "Frank Pelletier (Trinity)"

> "abortion_engine" <abortion_engine@*******.com> once wrote
>
> (snipped the high-powered munchie rant, which I agree 100% with)
> >
> > Penis envy, plain and simple.
> >
> Boy, you really did outdo yourself this time, neh? That's a whole lotta
> brainpower at work right there, AE.

Hey, I had to spend a lot of time at college to learn to use those
complicated terms and use them in my expert, professional opinion. :)
Message no. 32
From: Dave Mowbray dave_mowbray@*****.com
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 17:15:55 -0500
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shadowrn-admin@*********.org
> [mailto:shadowrn-admin@*********.org]On Behalf Of Frank Pelletier
> (Trinity)
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 11:13 AM
> To: shadowrn@*********.org
> Subject: Re: Roleplaying
>
<snip>
>
> Anyways, the fact of the matter is, I feel the same way Zeb
> does. I feel
> the same way most true roleplayers do.

Honestly, I resent that remark and I feel that you and many others confuse
"real role-playing" with cerebral games. Just because I have a "high
powered character" does *not* mean that I do not role-play. The flip side
of that coin is that just because I have a "weak" character does not mean I
am role-playing. Remember, ultimately, it is the GM who decides the power
of ANY character.

>Actually, there is a reason the term
> "Munchkin" was invented, why we got terms like "Mounty Haul"
> campaigns and,
> at least in french, "Gros Bill", why KotDT exists. People resent
> high-powered characters. Not because they're more powerful
> than me, but
> because frankly, they suck.

I am well aware of munchkinism, and, as Strago will confirm, have one major
munchkin in my game. The question is, does the character make the player a
muchkin or vice versa. I firmly believe that the player defines whether or
not the character is a munchkin. You also seem to ignore the fact that many
a munchkin is a role-player just waiting to happen. Yeah, ok, so they can
do lots of stuff... so what? As a GM you can make them explain their
actions or make out of game comments in game. etc. It's really very easy to
maintain game balance despite super-powerful characters, especially since
the players of these characters tend to think with nothing more than their
stats sometimes. Believe me, after seeing his precious street sam get
wasted for doing stupid things even the most hardcore munchkin will begin to
think about his actions. Thinking also happens to be a large step towards
becoming a better role-player because your players begin to really pay
attention and think about the situations they are in. From there it is
relatively easy to get them to think, "What would my character do in this
situation?" What you appear to see as something to be thrown away, I see as
something to be nurtured into something more.
Admittedly, there are irredeamable munchkins, but is it worth discouraging
those who could be more just because you don't like their character?

>You see, high-powered characters seldom come
> with high-intensity roleplaying. For most high-end users, it's only a
> matter of cramming the most cyberware/getting the most
> spells/programming
> the best proggies/driving the best car, and getting such
> insane skills that
> it's not even fun to watch.

What isn't fun to watch? The look of happiness on their faces as the defeat
something big and bad? I've also found that, once you give them a "victory"
like that, the players settle down and are much more willing to listen and
to role-play.

>I've played with a character who was maybe
> considered "high-powered". I think I did a great job of
> using his stats
> just like they are: Stats. He was a coward at heart, and when someone
> punched him in the face, he didn't use his 20+4d6 ini to
> start kicking ass.

Well, whoop-te-ding... I find myself thinking that this would be a damn
easy character to play. Whenever something happens you just run away.
Don't you think it's harder to risk losing the character you worked hard to
create that it is to run away? I do.

> No, he took it, he cowered down. He was a bastard (yeah,
> he's dead), a
> backstabber, a powerhouse with vulnerabilities and
> liabilities. He was fun
> to play, and I hope I did play him well, because he deserved it.
>
> I played with Barbie, even. The summum of munchie
> characters, you say. A
> legend. But the times I played with her, she didn't play it
> that way. What
> use are stats when you're roleplaying? None whatsoever.

On the contrary, stats are very important when you're role-playing,
otherwise you may as well not even bother with them. How smart is your
character? Well, gee, I guess the Intelligence attribute tells us that...
How big is he? Huh, sounds like body to me... If you just want to make
everything up, you really have no need for a game system... It's
role-playing within your stats that's difficult, especially for mental
tasks.

> To take your analogy, sure he could have a 12-inch dick.
> Impressive porn
> star. But he'd hurt the girls, and he can't do anything else
> but fuck hard.
> I'd rather have 7 inches, and hands, and a mouth, and my
> whole body. More
> tools, so to speak. Guess who gets the girls.

I don't recall making this analogy, but you might be refering to another
post by someone else...
-Dave

P.S. Gridsec, sorry about the disjointed nature of this message, but I felt
it was best to respond point-by-point.
Message no. 33
From: Shane Hyde chaff.editor@*****.net.nz
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 99 11:22:44 +1300
Didn't we all start out as munchkins when we were 13 and found D&D for
the first time and waded through swathes of Kobolds and goblins?

Dave is right about Munchkinism and IMO it is important as a tool to get
to understand the system, the game world and the way things work.

Sure, munchkins piss me off too, but when you give them a good cub
stomping by the Troll they were trying to out-do, or that the corp team
toasts their asses they soon learn.

I supposed being a good GM is about training your munchkins.

Shane
Message no. 34
From: Shane Hyde chaff.editor@*****.net.nz
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 99 11:07:08 +1300
>To take your analogy, sure he could have a 12-inch dick. Impressive porn
>star. But he'd hurt the girls, and he can't do anything else but fuck hard.
>I'd rather have 7 inches, and hands, and a mouth, and my whole body. More
>tools, so to speak. Guess who gets the girls.

Hear, hear!
Message no. 35
From: Zebulin Magby zebulingod@*****.com
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 17:18:04 -0800 (PST)
Dave Mowbray wrote:

><snip>
>
> Anyways, the fact of the matter is, I feel the same way Zeb
> does. I feel
> the same way most true roleplayers do.

"Honestly, I resent that remark and I feel that you and many others confuse
'real role-playing' with cerebral games. Just because I have a 'high
powered character' does *not* mean that I do not role-play. The flip side
of that coin is that just because I have a 'weak' character does not mean I
am role-playing. Remember, ultimately, it is the GM who decides the power
of ANY character."


You are right, of course, that high powered characters can be roleplayed. However,
it takes a ROLEplayer to play them that way. In my example, the person isn't a
ROLEplayer but a ROLLplayer. He has even begun referring to our current game as the
"buckets-o-dice" game. And I _do_ think it requires more roleplaying to play a
weak
character than a strong one.


"It's really very easy to maintain game balance despite super-powerful characters,
especially since the players of these characters tend to think with nothing more
than their stats sometimes. Believe me, after seeing his precious street sam get
wasted for doing stupid things even the most hardcore munchkin will begin to
think about his actions."


I disagree with this statement. As I have found in the past, 'wasting' his character
has only pissed him off. We are currently playing in the Arcology and so I don't
mind him being _as_ munchkinous as he is since it helps extend the groups lifespan,
but so far he has just decided that when a problem beat him he would just come back
with more armor, weapons, explosives, etc without thinking about _why_ the problem
was beating him.


"Thinking also happens to be a large step towards becoming a better role-player
because your players begin to really pay attention and think about the situations
they are in. From there it is relatively easy to get them to think, 'What would my
character do in this situation?'"


See my above comment.


"What you appear to see as something to be thrown away, I see as something to be
nurtured into something more. Admittedly, there are irredeamable munchkins, but is
it worth discouraging those who could be more just because you don't like their
character?"


Again, reference my above comment. I don't mind a character who is built to be big
and strong and fast. I *DO* mind that same character who was only put together based
on stats, has no background, and who will only be played to roll a lot of dice.


"What isn't fun to watch? The look of happiness on their faces as the defeat
something big and bad? I've also found that, once you give them a "victory"
like that, the players settle down and are much more willing to listen and
to role-play."


Nope.


"Don't you think it's harder to risk losing the character you worked hard to
create that it is to run away? I do."


Define 'hard to create.' Are there difficulties you face when writing? Perhaps
whilst seeing the paper? Other than physical difficulties, the only 'hard to create'
characters I have seen were created by those gamers that were trying to use the
system, to twist it to their advantage. I also do not find it as hard to lose a
character that was just created as it is to lose a character I have developed
through ROLEplaying over the length of a campaign. A character might take me an hour
to finish up (including background), but I have no attachment to that character
until he's gone through some storyline a bit.


"On the contrary, stats are very important when you're role-playing,
otherwise you may as well not even bother with them. How smart is your
character? Well, gee, I guess the Intelligence attribute tells us that...
How big is he? Huh, sounds like body to me..."


I do not think that was what he meant. Some people use their stats to determine how
their character should be played. Someone with a Charisma or Willpower of 1 might
have problems dealing with people or be easily swayed. Others just compare their
character sheets to other players and then try to find ways to make their stats
better. Their stats only matter when trying to figure out how much junk they can
carry or when it comes to calculating other stats. To one of my players, he used to
only view Willpower as "part of my Combat Pool calculation." He doesn't buy a
cerebral booster for the increase to his perception, he only wants the extra
reaction so he can react faster than everyone else.

I don't know if any of this makes sense as I have a head cold at the moment, but I
hope I am getting my point across.

Zebulin

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com
Message no. 36
From: Zebulin Magby zebulingod@*****.com
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 17:22:17 -0800 (PST)
Shane Hyde wrote:

"Dave is right about Munchkinism and IMO it is important as a tool to get
to understand the system, the game world and the way things work.

Sure, munchkins piss me off too, but when you give them a good cub
stomping by the Troll they were trying to out-do, or that the corp team
toasts their asses they soon learn.

I supposed being a good GM is about training your munchkins."

I don't think you have to be a munchkin to understand the system. See my previous
post to see why giving the munchkin a good "cub-stomping" won't work. Funny, I
thought the point of being a GM was to tell a story, to create a world that would
immerse your players into their characters. If what you say is true, then I don't
want to GM anymore and would like all my loney back for all the books I ever bought
cause someone lied to me! ;)

Zebulin

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com
Message no. 37
From: Mike & Linda Frankl mlfrankl@***.com
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 22:13:29 -0500
Zebulin wrote:
> I supposed being a good GM is about training your munchkins."

True, but there is a world of difference between a 13 year old munchkin and
a 25 year old munchkin. Once has a chance to improve with maturity, but
chances are the other is beyond help.

;)

Smilin' Jack

"You can't fix stupid..."
Message no. 38
From: Patrick Goodman remo@***.net
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 21:32:14 -0600
From: Mike & Linda Frankl
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 9:13 PM

> > I supposed being a good GM is about training your munchkins."
>
> True, but there is a world of difference between a 13 year old
> munchkin and a 25 year old munchkin. Once has a chance to improve
> with maturity, but chances are the other is beyond help.

Yeah, but who's to say which is which? I've seen it go both ways.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 39
From: Kama kama@*******.net
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:53:42 -0500 (EST)
On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Zebulin Magby wrote:

> Dave Mowbray wrote:
>
> "Don't you think it's harder to risk losing the character you worked hard to
> create that it is to run away? I do."
>
>
> Define 'hard to create.' Are there difficulties you face when writing? Perhaps
> whilst seeing the paper? Other than physical difficulties, the only 'hard to create'
> characters I have seen were created by those gamers that were trying to use the
> system, to twist it to their advantage. I also do not find it as hard to lose a
> character that was just created as it is to lose a character I have developed
> through ROLEplaying over the length of a campaign. A character might take me an hour
> to finish up (including background), but I have no attachment to that character
> until he's gone through some storyline a bit.
>

Interesting. I find that I do get very attached to characters, even
before we have played them for any length of time. In fact, that is one of
the GM's biggest compalints about me as a gamer . . . by the time I have
finished creating a character, I'm quite personally involved with them. As
a result I have almost no interest when he says "I find a new game, lets
run a one shot and try them out."

I suppose part of the problem is that I always create "real" characters,
with life histories inlcuding who their friends were when they were a kid
and what their favorite food is. As a result, by the time I am finsihed it
kind of feels like I now this person and I hate getting to play the
character for an hour or two - then never having a chance to find out
"what happens next". My GM sees it differently. He is content to
occasionally make up a character with little to know background for
"testing out the rules" then, if the game works and he likes it he'll
round out the character or create a new one with a developed background. I
can't do that. My gm has accepted this little character flaw in me (he has
to - he married me) but he still finds it peculiar and doesn't really
understand it.

Which, leads me to my question . . . how weird am I? (wait - don't answer
that. Let me rephrase.) How soon do characters become important to other
people? When you have finshed writing up their histories? When you paly
them for the first time? When you have gone through a few sessions? a year
of playing them?

Kama
Guardian of the dice bag from hell
Message no. 40
From: Lars Ericson lericson@****.edu
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 09:09:25 -0600
Kama wrote:

> Which, leads me to my question . . . how weird am I? (wait - don't answer
> that. Let me rephrase.) How soon do characters become important to other
> people? When you have finshed writing up their histories? When you paly
> them for the first time? When you have gone through a few sessions? a year
> of playing them?

I can sympathize wholely. Before I even write down a single stat I have
an image of the character usually in several dramatic situations (tense
negotiations, sneaking about, dramatic combat secnarios). By the time
I'm ready to play, I have a solid idea of the character, at least a
brief written out background (1 page), and descriptions of all the
contacts and how he knows them. I think it makes the game more realistic
and more fun since I'm not about to try something stupid in game. On the
downside, because I develop a protective nature towards the character, I
am hesitant to make the character weak in combat, or to sacrifice some
of the solid abilities for untested ones (spells, phys ad abilities,
cyberware). Still it makes the character creation process a fun part of
the game, not an annoying prologue to the fun part.


--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Lars Ericson: Professional Vagabond
Smalley Research Group, Rice University
E-Mail: lericson@****.edu
WWW: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lericson/

Life is like a Wankel Engine. In between the emptiness of boredom and
despair, and the compression of stress in one's life, there's that one
spark of enjoyment that keeps you going.
Message no. 41
From: Twist0059@***.com Twist0059@***.com
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:20:44 EST
In a message dated 12/3/99 9:54:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, kama@*******.net
writes:

> Which, leads me to my question . . . how weird am I? (wait - don't answer
> that. Let me rephrase.) How soon do characters become important to other
> people? When you have finshed writing up their histories? When you paly
> them for the first time? When you have gone through a few sessions? a year
> of playing them?


Once the history is done. (That's actually where I start, since I find it
increasingly difficult to make stat characters and then come up with the
details. It's so much easier to make the character, and then just plug in
his stats. It eliminates all those munchkin tendancies.)


There is an interesting character type I've seen some players use, and have
become more and more frightened by it. That of the player who makes every
character just stats on top of the same attitude, his own. These players get
incredibly obnoxious when anything bad happens to the character, or they fail
at any success test. I wouldn't call them munchkins exactly, but more
"ego-roleplayers". Munchkins always want to win, for pure power gaming.
Ego-roleplayers take it as a personal insult when they fail (they infact seem
incapable of seperating player and character, since both are one and the
same), and bring these long rambling IC arguments into the game that border
on debating sessions.

I wouldn't say these people "aren't roleplaying" (the definition of
roleplaying seems a hot bed of arguments as to the "right way" and the
"wrong
way"), but I would comment that they are certainly unpleasant to game with.

All of which is to say, I believe it is crucial at the very least to make
sure we are true to the character, and not our own reactions. I bring up
ego-gamers because they screw over characterization regularly in favor of
satisfying said ego and getting revenge for any believed insult.

Thus, I have to agree with the sentiment that it's important to be true to
the character. While risking a character's death is a difficult thing, it is
more difficult to be true to the character, I believe. Thus the "role" in
roleplaying. What makes me angry at ego-roleplayers is that they go directly
against the experience of playing out a role, and look to the game mechanics
to fulfill some personal desire for power and control.


For those looking to lighten up on the related topic of munchkins, there is a
book coming out from SJ Games called, IIRC, "The Munchkin's Guide To
Roleplaying". It looks hysterical.






-Twist
"We've never backed away from evil incarnate before, Peter, why this?"
"Evil incarnate can't sue, Frank."
Message no. 42
From: Wildfire Wildfire@*************.com
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 10:38:53 -0500
Kama wrote:

> Which, leads me to my question . . . how weird am I? (wait - don't answer
> that. Let me rephrase.) How soon do characters become important to other
> people? When you have finshed writing up their histories? When you paly
> them for the first time? When you have gone through a few sessions? a year
> of playing them?
>
> Kama
> Guardian of the dice bag from hell

HAHAHAHAHA! Okay, that was good. I feel better now. You're not weird according to me.
I get the constant complaint from my GMs that my characters have done more in my head than
they could ever possibly do in a campaign. Before any character I make ever starts in a
game, they have complete detailed histories, friends, contacts, favorite colors. I'm
attached to my characters before we ever even get to creating STATS for them. That's
partly my fault as I refuse to even look at skills and attributes until I have a sketch of
the character and a background, but my one-shot character for a game while I was on
vacation has just as much background as my PC of 4 years of weekly playing. Hell,
whenever I get into an SR3 game , probably sometime this spring, I'm going to make a zen
archer. She's already got a name, a sketch, a family, and an almost complete background.
I'm pretty attached to her and we haven't even decided when we're playing yet. :-)

Wildfire (sometimes with a DC)
Terminally Behind SOTA
---
www.nexusgate.freeservers.com/Shadowrun
Play with the Target Number Calculator! SR2 implemented only.
Message no. 43
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 11:24:27 -0500 (EST)
On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Shane Hyde wrote:

> I supposed being a good GM is about training your munchkins.

Amen to that, but it's easier said than done sometimes. I ran a
campaign back in college that was decidedly dark and foreboding. It had a
pretty high turnover rate. Why? Because a number of the players thought
that big guns and high initiatives were the way to succeed at a run. When
planning a run, they would often sit around arguing, only to put into
effect a plan that amounted to "rush in, kill everyone, and take what we
want." Quite a few of them lacked subtlety (though there were a few
notable exceptions).
Anyway, a number of the players got upset that their characters
were dying in droves, and their response was always to make a bigger,
badder, faster character with more guns and cyberware. And they wondered
why they *kept* dying in droves. It wasn't until I pointed out to them
that the longest lived character in the campaign was the decker (who had
no firearms skill and didn't even own a gun) that they began to see. They
looked at all the characters that were "old hands" and realized that the
people who stayed out of combat lived the longest and were most
successful. That's when the nature of the campaign began to change, and
they started to get things done and live longer.
And they started to roleplay. A lot. Some of those same players
are still playing in my game now that we're out of college, and they're
radically different than when they first started. Radically better.
They're more careful, they make better plans, and they have more
in-character interaction. They also enjoy the game more, because their
characters have depth and development. But it took a long time to get
them to break out of their munchkinous molds.

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.html.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.html.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@****.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@******.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://shadowrun.html.com/hlair/faqindex.php3>;
Message no. 44
From: Starrngr@***.com Starrngr@***.com
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 12:03:01 EST
In a message dated 12/3/1999 6:54:36 AM Pacific Standard Time,
kama@*******.net writes:

> Which, leads me to my question . . . how weird am I? (wait - don't answer
> that. Let me rephrase.) How soon do characters become important to other
> people? When you have finshed writing up their histories? When you paly
> them for the first time? When you have gone through a few sessions? a year
> of playing them?

In general, I apear to be the wierd one on the list. I start with only the
vaugest of ideas, such as a single personality quirk or what type of
charecter I want, and then procceed from there to Stats, skills, gear, and
then background. The charecter doesnt really start fleshing out into a
person until after the first to third run, as the interactions with other
charecters start to make his personality much clearer.

Case in point: "Howlin Mad" Murddock, the charecter mentioned in my sig,
started out as just that: A rigger with the name Howlin Mad... Even with
his background in place, he really didnt become a 'person' until after he had
finished his first run in the game he was in, And now is a passibly well
developed person with a semi-grasp on reality, as filtered through Anime. He
came from CFS, and has developed into a Hawaiian shirt wearing, Beach music
listening wise-guy with a pithy Anime or TV based quote for (almost) every
occasion.

I cant neccecerily say he is my favorite charecter, though, as another
charecter I made for K's PBeM is catching up fast... But again, most of
Shane's personality (or lack therof) is being developed during play. Think
of Kane from Kung Fu, only as a troll. So, he tends to keep a straight face,
always tried to remain calm and unperturbed, but he does have a wicked sense
of humor that pops up from time to time. (For example, he set up a
recognition password that consisted of a bad Star Wars pun)

I have other charecters, but they havent been played as much... If I knew
going into a game that survivability was low, I would use one of them instead
of HM or Shane, since I'm not as attached to them.

--
Starrngr -- Ranger HQ
HTTP://home.talkcity.com/TheSanitarium/Da_Muck/

"You wear a Hawaiian shirt and bring your music on a RUN? No wonder they
call you Howling Mad..." -- Rabid the Pysad.
Message no. 45
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 18:54:27 +0100
According to Kama, at 9:53 on 3 Dec 99, the word on the street was...

[snip what I wish my players would do for once...]
> Which, leads me to my question . . . how weird am I? (wait - don't answer
> that. Let me rephrase.)

Caught yourself just in time, there ;)

> How soon do characters become important to other people? When you have
> finshed writing up their histories? When you paly them for the first
> time? When you have gone through a few sessions? a year of playing them?

After a few sessions I get to the point where I feel a bit bad if the
character dies. But that tends to pass quickly enough when I put my energy
into making a new character, so I guess I don't get too attached to
characters (or to people IRL, actually). Mostly, my regrets about dead
characters are that I can't develop the things I had been working on --
like my last SR character, who was hard on his way to becoming a drug
addict; I wanted to see how that would unfold, but he got chopped up by an
ant spirit before things got that far.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
When you've seen how big the world is, how can you make do with this?
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) 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. 46
From: Dave Mowbray dave_mowbray@*****.com
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:21:58 -0500
Zebulin wrote:
<snip> Define 'hard to create.' Are there difficulties you face when
> writing? Perhaps
> whilst seeing the paper? Other than physical difficulties,
> the only 'hard to create'
> characters I have seen were created by those gamers that were
> trying to use the
> system, to twist it to their advantage. I also do not find it
> as hard to lose a
> character that was just created as it is to lose a character
> I have developed
> through ROLEplaying over the length of a campaign. A
> character might take me an hour
> to finish up (including background), but I have no attachment
> to that character
> until he's gone through some storyline a bit.

As several other posts have by now indicated, it is not easy to just whip up
a background and history for your character. Once I begin to do that, I
begin to invest myself in the character, and try and tailor the stats and
skills to my concept of the characters background. A well thought-out
character is the best kind to role-play IMHO because you have motivations
for your actions and feelings. Mind you, these can change or appear during
the course of the game, but they should also be present at creation. Why is
your character a shadow runner? Money, fame, family, blackmail, fun? This
sort of motivation really affects how the character is played. Have you
ever done that Zebulin?
-Dave
Message no. 47
From: Zebulin Magby zebulingod@*****.com
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 12:56:45 -0800 (PST)
Dave Mowbray wrote:

"As several other posts have by now indicated, it is not easy to just whip up
a background and history for your character. Once I begin to do that, I
begin to invest myself in the character, and try and tailor the stats and
skills to my concept of the characters background. A well thought-out
character is the best kind to role-play IMHO because you have motivations
for your actions and feelings. Mind you, these can change or appear during
the course of the game, but they should also be present at creation. Why is
your character a shadow runner? Money, fame, family, blackmail, fun? This
sort of motivation really affects how the character is played. Have you
ever done that Zebulin?"

Every character so far actually. In fact, the current character that I am playing is
based off of an idea I came up with 8 years ago. Namely, "What would happen if my
friends and I woke up, and it was 2054 (in the Shadowrun timeline)?" Other
characters I play always start out as a concept of what the character should be
like, before going into stats and what not.

Zebulin

PS: Deckers can be fun to play, especially in Renraku...



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com
Message no. 48
From: Steve Collins einan@*********.net
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 99 20:23:34 -0500
On 12/2/99 10:13 pm, Mike & Linda Frankl said:

>Zebulin wrote:
>> I supposed being a good GM is about training your munchkins."
>
>True, but there is a world of difference between a 13 year old munchkin and
>a 25 year old munchkin. Once has a chance to improve with maturity, but
>chances are the other is beyond help.
>
>;)
>
>Smilin' Jack
>
>"You can't fix stupid..."


Or the 40 Year Old Munchkin. I once GM'ed a player who was put on
Probation in the RPGA gor cheating in Living City. His living city
character was a 9th level Cleric, 9th level Mage, 4th level Thief. He had
more experience that a character who had played in every single Living
city adventure ever published could have had (including ones only run in
Australia) and Magic Items that had never been allowed into any Living
City Game. What did he do in my SR game? Well at one point in time the
Street Sam's player (a bit of a power gamer but not a munchkin by any
stretch) and complained that he couldn't possibly compete with the
party's "Decker" (Our Munchkin) in any type of combat and could I please
review the character sheet. So I took a look at it and found 25 essence
(no that's not a typo) worth of Cyberware written on the sheet and
another 12 body worth of Bioware. He had spent approximately 5 million
nuyen more than I had given out to the entire party in the course of the
campaign. He had almost 30 more Karma than I had awarded his character,
and several other discrepancies. What do you do with a player like that I
couldn't kick him out of the game because we played at his house and
nobody else had a suitable alternative, not to mention he was a friend
and a pretty good guy outside of that one problem. Oh yeah he can't claim
inexperience because he had several of the original Chainmail books and
had been playing since 1978.

Steve
Message no. 49
From: lomion lomion@*********.org
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 17:54:18 -0800
>
>Or the 40 Year Old Munchkin. I once GM'ed a player who was put on
>Probation in the RPGA gor cheating in Living City. His living city
>character was a 9th level Cleric, 9th level Mage, 4th level Thief. He had
>more experience that a character who had played in every single Living
>city adventure ever published could have had (including ones only run in
>Australia) and Magic Items that had never been allowed into any Living
>City Game.



Ahh living city, i used to enjoy that before they became anal on the rules
and disallowed any of the unique stuff.

Remind me of the Blending Torpedo from Living City..he was a Canadian with
all sorts of magic items like displacer cloak, boots of speed gauntlets of
dexterity...etc

heh

--lomion
Message no. 50
From: Scott W iscottw@*****.nb.ca
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 01:06:06 -0400
"And now, a Channel 6 editorial reply to Kama."
] Which, leads me to my question . . . how weird am I? (wait - don't answer
] that. Let me rephrase.) How soon do characters become important to other
] people? When you have finshed writing up their histories? When you paly
] them for the first time? When you have gone through a few sessions? a year
] of playing them?

I _never_ get to play (except in a PBEM, soon. Yay, Doc'!), so my
characters don't get much karma :) I get lots of time to think about
their lives and histories, though. Usually the characters that turn out
to be interesting and important often find their way into stories that
I write (I can think of four, and yeah, they're the protagonists. Sue
me :) I think this is a great ending place for "forcibly retired"
characters, as you can flesh them out in ways that your GM never
thought of; really explore their lives.

-Boondocker
Message no. 51
From: Requiem req@*********.com
Subject: Roleplaying
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 1999 10:48:16 -0800
>Kama wrote:
>
>> Which, leads me to my question . . . how weird am I? (wait - don't answer
>> that. Let me rephrase.) How soon do characters become important to other
>> people? When you have finshed writing up their histories? When you paly
>> them for the first time? When you have gone through a few sessions? a year
>> of playing them?

Sometimes, when I'm creating a character, something about it really jumps
out at me, and I go into author mode, sit down, and churn out a detailed
12-page diary or something of the sort. Sometimes I'm just making a
one-shot, or a character I've very little interest in, and then I just
answer the 20-questions or whatever.

As I've become more experinced at role-playing I've gone further and
further toward that first extreme; since I run now and haven't been a
player in two-three years, I don't get quite as much of a chance to craft
great characters and really get to know them. IMO, that's one of the major
downsides of GMing - sure your NPCs change and grow, but they're changing
and growing in response to events you've set in motion, and it's just not
the same.

-Req
0o-----------------------------------o0o---------------------------------o0
When Fate taps you on the shoulder, you'd best pay
attention. Unfortunately, she has the blasted habit of
tapping you on the opposite shoulder, so that when you
turn around she's actually on your other side, giggling
like a schoolgirl. I *hate* that.
-Harlequin
0o-----------------------------------o0o---------------------------------o0

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Roleplaying, 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!