From:	"Mark Steedman" <M.J.Steedman@***.rgu.ac.uk>
Subject:	Re: Gamemaster and Teams (was: Quickened ...)
Date:	Thu, 16 May 1996 13:21:53 GMT

> From: melchar@****.darkside.com (Melchar)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark