Reading some old posts about games I have interest, I found this. I totally agree with Justin Alexander points here. But I have a small caveat, that I will present after the quote:

Quote from: Justin AlexanderBut there is a reason for this [Shadowrun being primarily railroad based]

 From Day 1 Shadowrun has featured an incomplete game structure featuring the "Mr. Johnson" job structure:

- You get hired by "Mr. Johnson".
- You do some legwork.
- You perform the run.
- "Mr. Johnson" will probably try to screw you.

 Game structures like this are incredibly powerful even when they're incomplete (and a lot of the most popular games in the history of the industry feature some sort of unifying game structure). But this structure is] incomplete and, like most incomplete game structures, the gaps in the middle tend to get filled up with railroading (because most GMs don't know how to prep anything except a railroad).

 This problem is exacerbated in Shadowrun, IMO, because the entire concept of the "run" is inherently constraining. It might be different if a structure was given by which the PCs could seek out, choose, and (most importantly) define their own jobs. But building a robust structure for that which doesn't feature an obscene prep load for the GM is really, really tough. (I've tried.) And, in any case, it's certainly never been done. Which means that Shadowrun is literally a game about Mr. Johnson telling the PCs what they're going to do and then the PCs doing that thing.

 The railroad is right in the title.

 With that being said, I think Shadowrun could certainly benefit from a lot more non-linear design in its scenarios.

The caveat being Blades in the Dark, the only game I've seen that provide the exact structure Justin Alexander suggests, with the group taking strategic decisions that influence what next missions will be like, the targets and the way they will unfold, among others. So it seems such structure was indeed created in some point.

My question, then, is: What other similar structures and ideas are there that mission-based games like Shadowrun could benefit from? I don't believe things develop in a vacuum, so there are other games out there with similar ideas to Blades, I'm sure. Or, I'm sure people will have created their own ideas with this goal in mind.

Let's talk about this?

You can be given a mission task plus starting situation without any scene by scene railroading.

The mission is the mission. How the characters go about it is their decision. It's not 100% open, unless, of course, the players are determining the mission, as well. But it does allow leeway within a context.

Yeah, I don't really get it. Define the job (in this context, what does the employer want achieved?), detail the situation, let the players go crazy. Done.

If a mission-based campaign ends up with railroad missions, it's not because it's a mission-based campaign, it's because the designer is using railroad design techniques when detailing the missions.

Add optional side missions that can unlock under the right circumstances.

My players want missions. Hell, they'd probably be happy with railroads if I would write them.

We played more Star Wars than Shadowrun, partly because we got sick of the "Mr Johnson tries to screw the PCs" part of it. Still very mission focused, "go to place X, do thing Y."  What keeps it interesting instead of a railroad is allowing the players to decide how the get to place X and how they do thing Y. Shadowrun always seemed to want to define a narrow path, any step off of which resulte in for the PCs.

Look at Star Wars: A New Hope. The first significant mission is "get the plans to Alderaan". Obi-wan hires Han and Chewie for a ride. The Death Star is an unexpected complication. Luke and Han could have waited behind like Obi-wan said, while he went off and disabled the tractor beam. Instead being antsy PC types they decided to go rescue the princess.

Or look at Die Hard, John McLain's mission is to take down the terrorists in Nakatomi Plaza so he can spend Christmas with his family. The movie shows how he chooses to do this. He could have made any number of different choices, which would have led to different outcomes. He could have tried to sneak out of the building for example.

Yeah, you definitely need mechanical structures in place, preferably using some form of meta-mechanic because God knows no Shadowrun GM ever:

• Suggested PCs actually use their Contacts.
• Used PC successes and failures to impact their reputation in the setting.
• Had locations where PCs could access Shadowland and access a wide variety of Johnsons and Fixers.
• Had PCs with lots of contacts and good reputation try to become Fixers and Johnsons of their own.
• Had PCs hire other Runners and Mercs for a job that got personal or was a little over their head. (You know like in 2XS, possibly the most famous Shadowrun novel.)

Yeah, no one ever did that. :rolleyes:

Oh did I say no one ever did that, I meant people did that in every Shadowrun campaign I've ever run or played in.

Jesus Wept.

"Jesus wept" is a little hyperbolic for a minor point about a niche RPG, don't you think.

I mean good lord, it's a roleplaying campaign.  Is there someone in the setting doing that? Is it possible?  Then yes, of course PCs might want to do it, and should be able to at least attempt it.  Running a megacorp, running for President or calling down the next Great Ghost Dance might be a little ridiculous, but coming up with your own jobs?  I think that one's doable without help from the game designer.

...and no it's not Hyperbole, this thread literally makes Baby Jesus Cry.

But in none of your examples are the PCs coming up with their own missions unless you're advocating collaborative world-building between the GM and players.

Quote from: Voros;1013622But in none of your examples are the PCs coming up with their own missions unless you're advocating collaborative world-building between the GM and players.

Choosing your own work, following your own goals, being your own johnson and hiring other runners - that's not coming up with your own missions?

• PCs decide they want to help one of their Contacts get out from under the thumb of a local Yakuza lieutenant - own mission.
• They see the new trid ads for the Predator III and decide to hijack a shipment to outfit themselves and sell the rest - own mission.
• Get rid of a fucker they all hate, once and for all and make the fucker's own people do it through an elaborate sting - own mission.

How is this even controversial?  How did anyone ever play Shadowrun and not have players doing stuff like this?  It's absolutely unfathomable.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1013623Choosing your own work, following your own goals, being your own johnson and hiring other runners - that's not coming up with your own missions?

• PCs decide they want to help one of their Contacts get out from under the thumb of a local Yakuza lieutenant - own mission.
• They see the new trid ads for the Predator III and decide to hijack a shipment to outfit themselves and sell the rest - own mission.
• Get rid of a fucker they all hate, once and for all and make the fucker's own people do it through an elaborate sting - own mission.

How is this even controversial?  How did anyone ever play Shadowrun and not have players doing stuff like this?  It's absolutely unfathomable.

Also... How the hell is "I go out and look for jobs/work/missions." a railroad?

Quote from: DavetheLost;1013604Shadowrun always seemed to want to define a narrow path, any step off of which resulte in for the PCs.

If the designer/GM defines HOW the PCs do the mission, then that is a linear adventure or railroad.
If the designer/GM assigns the mission and details the start situation, but leaves open what the PCs do to achieve mission, that is not.

Eg: G1 Steading of the Hill Giant Chief details the steading and how it reacts to intrusion; not a railroad. I've not played Shadowrun, but I recall the Arasaka Tower assault in the Cyberpunk RPG was similar, detailing the tower & its inhabitants reaction, not railroading the adventure scene by scene to reproduce the short story preceding it.

Huh.. I thought it was clear in the OP I was referring to the macro-structure, not the operational one/the missions.

Once you're inside the missions, sure, it's as open as the GM let it be, but outside of it - what kind of missions to chose? Against what targets? How if affects your Rep? How it affects relationship with factions? How it affects heat from authorities? Etc.

Quote from: Itachi;1013766What kind of missions to chose?

Ones that you think you can handle, that pay enough, that the group or leader wants to do...How is this difficult?

Quote from: Itachi;1013766Against what targets?

If it's business, do you necessarily care?  If it's personal, you have your answer.  Do you think your team is hot enough to go after a AAA Mega?  You feel like finding out if the rumors about Azzie sec mages are true?  Roleplay your PC, stop thinking ABOUT them, and start thinking AS them.  It gets really easy.

Quote from: Itachi;1013766How it affects your Rep?

Did you succeed or fail?  Was it a Grade-A clusterfuck or were you in and out like ninjas?  Did you kill people, corp, cops, civilians?  Who are the enemies of your enemies, and who are their friends?

Quote from: Itachi;1013766How it affects relationship with factions? How it affects heat from authorities? Etc.

Who are the enemies of your enemies, and who are their friends?  If you were NPC X and this just happened, how would you react?  Roleplay the PCs, stop thinking ABOUT them, and start thinking AS them.  It gets really easy.

Running Shadowrun or Cyberpunk 2020 can be time-consuming prep-wise, but any World-in-Motion type campaign can be.  The key is perspective.

You want to have mechanical structures in place to support the GM, but the more mechanical structures the designer puts in place to support the "Constructs of Shadowruns and Shadowrunners" the more meta the play becomes.

Wanting your metagame is fine, but claiming that without it you're somehow being railroaded is just silly.

No one ever said GMing was easy.