Quote from: SosthenesThat's "Let it ride", IIRC.

Ya, fixed the typo.

QuoteOnce again, elevating GM tips to mechanics...

...as opposed to having to go through the pain of learning mechanics as given suck turds in a lot of situations and then making a house rule to replace rules. So, you know, flexible mechanics that provide the room to GMs (and players) to work to start with. :pundit:

QuoteD20 let's you move one quarter your speed for each climb roll, but nobody will use that for mountaineering.

Nobody? You mean people that make up house rules to address the shortcomings in the actual rules, right?  Mountaineering isn't even the problem, it usually happens well before you are climbing a mountain. Pacing isn't even the biggest thing it solves, it's the compounding of probabilities over multiple rolls.

QuoteThe frequency of skill check increases the more action happens, so in a combat situation rolls for each part of the movement might apply. BW has quite a lot of rolling in combat, too.

Depends on which combat option you go with. Which is the entire point.... the point NOT being whether this rule system or that rule system rocks out or not. I was just using it as an example of what you can do to improve pacing.

"Let it ride" is about as flexible as "one check per round". A decent GM should learn about the frequency of checks. When to roll is one of the primary skills one should develop...

Quote from: SosthenesWhen to roll is one of the primary skills one should develop...

THAT is was my point. I was using an example in actual rules.

Quote"Let it ride" is about as flexible as "one check per round". A decent GM should learn about the frequency of checks.

Er, not exactly, no. Because there is still flexibility in the definition of the conditions for retest. So if the backside of the wall turns out to be different than the frontside, but that wasn't evident initially, it can trigger a retest. Or you can continue to Let It Ride..........but I think this is starting to really derail the thread.....we do agree on my actual point I was making.

EDIT: Or maybe it's not so much a derail yet, let me try turn it back some.....  You retest when it matters, when the hassle of rolling the dice is outweighed by the interest in what the dice have to say.  So the reason for rolling the dice isn't nessasarily something with a specific number hung on it. It is a trigger condition more tuned in with what the GM and players see as important in the situation they are playing in.

One of the best GMs that I know uses several interesting techinques:

1) Nothing is "written in stone" until the players write it.  He will give them very generic descriptions.  For instance, an Inn.  One of the players says, "I jump from the 2nd story balcony onto the wagonwheel chandelier and then out through the plate glass window to escape!" This has created several things in the world: A) there is a plate glass window in the front of the Inn, B) there is a wagon wheel chandelier, C) there is a 2nd story balcony.  The GM then makes him make a roll for his ability to do this (it could be one roll for the whole effort, or the effort may be broken down to A) Jump from balcony to chandelier, B) balance on chandelier, C) jump from chandelier through front window, D) rolling with the impact and to avoid damage).  

2) Interpretation vs deciding.  Dice rolls are not so much "final statements" as they are "interpretive elements."  I've seen him use "failed" rolls to further the action as opposed to stopping the action ("you missed").  Much like Han Solo stepping on the twig set off a whole series of events that ultimately culminated in the destruction of the Death Star, rather than a failed Stealth roll and the statement, "You failed" ending the action.

3) Eliminating the pointless.  Middle of the firefight, he says: "You have a choice, stay here, fight and die or make a tactical retreat."  Two of us chose to tactically retreat.  A third chose to stand his ground.  "Let me see your character sheet," he said.  It was handed over, he put it in his book and turned to us and said, "Okay, as you retreat, you hear the dying screams of your former companion, urging even more speed into your tired limbs..."  When the third player protested, the GM said, simply, "You had your choice.  You made it.  It's time for you to create a new character who has more common sense and can realize he's outmatched rather than fight a pointless battle."  (He was nice enough to roll back the clock to let the third player make a different choice, by the way.)

Joe, I like your interviewing technique to see what the players want and to work to give them fulfillment of their interests (mixed in with the determination of a good personality fit, as well).  

Unfortunately, I usually have little opportunity to feel out players before they begin.  This past week, I had someone who is accustomed to playing a Brujah vampire in a very action-packed Vampire LARP join into a thoughtful, careful and surreptious commando-styled Star Wars game...  Yeah.  I should've done some more personality checks ahead of time...  

Quote from: Vellorian3) Eliminating the pointless.  Middle of the firefight, he says: "You have a choice, stay here, fight and die or make a tactical retreat."  Two of us chose to tactically retreat.  A third chose to stand his ground.  "Let me see your character sheet," he said.  It was handed over, he put it in his book and turned to us and said, "Okay, as you retreat, you hear the dying screams of your former companion, urging even more speed into your tired limbs..."  When the third player protested, the GM said, simply, "You had your choice.  You made it.  It's time for you to create a new character who has more common sense and can realize he's outmatched rather than fight a pointless battle."  (He was nice enough to roll back the clock to let the third player make a different choice, by the way.)

I see some good in there for sure. Eliminating the pointless is like my pacing suggestion above. He was also very upfront about stay and die. However I think he might have missed something, depending a LOT on the situation. What was that third guy's goal?  Was he going Klingon, wanting to die in glorious battle? Would it have been cool to have his character get slashed up to bits and bites? Or was the battle really that hopeless? I'm really, really good at see through odds on the fly and I'd still not trust myself to not let the dice roll even if the odds are slim (and meeting statless uber NPCs just doesn't do it for me). But just make sure to have it happen quick as possible.

It really sounds like the 3rd guy didn't get what he expected, a bit of miscommunication. Which of course makes the rollback all that much better a decision.

Quote2) Interpretation vs deciding.  Dice rolls are not so much "final statements" as they are "interpretive elements."  I've seen him use "failed" rolls to further the action as opposed to stopping the action ("you missed").  Much like Han Solo stepping on the twig set off a whole series of events that ultimately culminated in the destruction of the Death Star, rather than a failed Stealth roll and the statement, "You failed" ending the action.

I'm getting behind that!  A common used rule of thumb is don't build in a single point of failure to an adventure. But you shouldn't confuse a single point of failure with a single point of plot turn. The world turning on a single die roll can still be very cool if both results are cool.

QuoteUnfortunately, I usually have little opportunity to feel out players before they begin.  This past week, I had someone who is accustomed to playing a Brujah vampire in a very action-packed Vampire LARP join into a thoughtful, careful and surreptious commando-styled Star Wars game...  Yeah.  I should've done some more personality checks ahead of time...  

Didn't go well, huh? :/  That is one thing that you'll see running through a lot of the suggestions here. The requirement of time and understanding to know your players.

Quote from: VellorianOne of the best GMs that I know uses several interesting techinques:


3) Eliminating the pointless.  Middle of the firefight, he says: "You have a choice, stay here, fight and die or make a tactical retreat."  Two of us chose to tactically retreat.  A third chose to stand his ground.  "Let me see your character sheet," he said.  It was handed over, he put it in his book and turned to us and said, "Okay, as you retreat, you hear the dying screams of your former companion, urging even more speed into your tired limbs..."  When the third player protested, the GM said, simply, "You had your choice.  You made it.  It's time for you to create a new character who has more common sense and can realize he's outmatched rather than fight a pointless battle."  (He was nice enough to roll back the clock to let the third player make a different choice, by the way.)

I would have been grossly upset had I been the third player.  To me that smacks of railroading of the highest order.  Sure, my character will probably die a horrible death, and often has, but it is in the struggle against the impossible that we find our greatest stories of heroism.  Maybe his dice would have been incredibly hot that night, maybe he would have changed his mind after another round or two and made a fighting retreat, maybe some other event would have occured. But simply taking his sheet and 'killing him'? Bullshit of the highest order.

That said, I can understand that asking the other two players to 'sit it out' while he does whatever the fuck it is he was planning to do isn't too fair either, but then they did chose to sit it out, didn't they?:cool:

Quote from: blakkieWhat was that third guy's goal?  Was he going Klingon, wanting to die in glorious battle? Would it have been cool to have his character get slashed up to bits and bites? Or was the battle really that hopeless?

In discussions after the fact, he said the thought "all combats can be won" because that was his experience with other GMs.  They'd just keep the combat going, throw pointless and meaningless (my terms, not his) foes at them, to keep earning experience until the GM ran out of enemies.  The GM I was describing is the kind who gives his NPCs tactics and strategies, not just tossing a bunch of brutes at the PCs.  

Quote from: blakkieDidn't go well, huh? :/  That is one thing that you'll see running through a lot of the suggestions here. The requirement of time and understanding to know your players.

Let's put it this way: the PCs captured someone who was more than willing to talk, more than willing to give information, was giving the information freely and the Brujah-style player went off the deep end, started screaming and yelling and ultimately put a gun to the head of the informant, drew back the hammer and fired a round into the wall beside the informant because he "thought they might be lying, and it was the only way to be sure."  Despite the fact that he had a critical success on his "Detect Lies" roll and had been told - unequivocally - that the informant was not lying.

I honestly think that the player really didn't know of any other way to play, than to be over-the-top, melodramatic and violent.  He had no concept of subtlety.  The intent was to keep the informant as a double agent, the result was someone who fled for his life the moment he was released, never to be heard from by either side.

Quote from: SpikeI would have been grossly upset had I been the third player.  To me that smacks of railroading of the highest order.

I have a different perspective.  For that firefight to have continued would have been the player railroading the other players and GM.

QuoteSure, my character will probably die a horrible death, and often has, but it is in the struggle against the impossible that we find our greatest stories of heroism.

That struggle is best told in a story, not with two hours of dicing to flesh out the mechanics of every single point of the struggle.  "You struggled in battle, but were ultimately defeated by overwhelming odds" is plenty enough.

QuoteMaybe his dice would have been incredibly hot that night, maybe he would have changed his mind after another round or two and made a fighting retreat, maybe some other event would have occured. But simply taking his sheet and 'killing him'? Bullshit of the highest order.

As you were not there, you have no real foothold to call it "bullshit," other than your own preconception of the events based upon a couple of brief lines to make a specific point from which you have tangented.

No, his rolls would not have made a difference, any more than shooting a pop-gun at a tank would have stopped it.  

QuoteThat said, I can understand that asking the other two players to 'sit it out' while he does whatever the fuck it is he was planning to do isn't too fair either, but then they did chose to sit it out, didn't they?:cool:

You and I are of two opposite mindsets.  For me, combat is only there to heighten the tension of the story.  It should be as brief as possible to resolve the conflict so the story can continue.  It seems to me (based largely on your response to this, but also from other posts of yours) that combat is of much more importance to you, perhaps even being a significant point of the gaming experience.

You and I would never fair well in a party together.  My character would kill yours in his sleep and pin it on any other combat-mongers in the group so they didn't get us needlessly killed to feed their need for the adrenaline rush.  

(You should watch Navy Seals and pay close attention to Charlie Sheen's character.)

Quote from: VellorianIn discussions after the fact, he said the thought "all combats can be won" because that was his experience with other GMs.

Bolded, FTW!

But yeah, not being used to running into over-your-head potential combat opponents can lead to problems like that. Very common effect when someone that's spent most of their gaming in dungeons ends up in a city heavy adventure.  With the freedom comes danger since dungeons are usually (but not always) level tuned. I'd still be inclined to let the dice roll and have it play out a bit. If he really was that outclassed and it was going to be quick. Just to avoid having the player feel like he was riding the steel rails, but YMMV. *shrug*

QuoteI have a different perspective. For that firefight to have continued would have been the player railroading the other players and GM.

Ya, that flipside definately is a valid concern too. It can be hard line to navigate, between letting a player drag the game around and dragging the player around.

You getting to know the players. The players getting to know you and each other. And a common understanding of setting and rules. A commonality I see in both those stories (and the later story is painfully funny because of boner moves I've seen and occationally perpetrated in SR ).

Quote from: VellorianYou and I are of two opposite mindsets.  For me, combat is only there to heighten the tension of the story.  It should be as brief as possible to resolve the conflict so the story can continue.  It seems to me (based largely on your response to this, but also from other posts of yours) that combat is of much more importance to you, perhaps even being a significant point of the gaming experience.

I was able to gather that from the tone of you post all together.  I have had GM's that spoke as you do. Often this lead to frustrated parties lost in the woods and starving to death because we could never get to town to reprovision ourselves, or stuck living a provincial life, unable to progress because we weren't 'allowed' to go to a major city.  While I am not suggesting your games are equally frustrating to your players it should be noted that different players have different wants at the table. Trying to get everyone to agree to 'no combat' or some such is extremely limiting and slightly pointless.

As for your later comment about murdering my character in his sleep to prevent my 'getting your party killed' or some such...

Wow. Aside from the huge numbers of assumption you make about my characters, the sheer arrogance of that decision just cost you a shitload of respect in my book. I've been on the receiving end of in party murder a few times for a variety of reasons*, I've also watched parties I was GM'ing pull shit like that and it NEVER makes for a good game for anyone involved.  


* my most favorite death has to be from the vampire player who's character had delusions of being Gambit from the X-men with shades of Highlander thrown in. I belive his actual excuse was that he and another player were planning to 'go over to teh Sabbat' and they thought I was too much a loyal lapdog of the prince. This was in the first (and only for me) game session so...  As I recall I was beheaded from behind without making a single roll... My second favorite was the time I was killed the day I missed a game by a bomb in the toilet because the players thought I was the mysterious assassin gunning for them...?  These events caused me to quit gaming for a few years eventually.

Quote from: VellorianNo, his rolls would not have made a difference, any more than shooting a pop-gun at a tank would have stopped it.

I do have a question about this, why was he there? What was his purpose?

I only ask because sometimes this flags a problem NPC.  My rule of thumb, any NPCs that are cooler or more kickass than the PCs should be in the background. PCs that constantly are coming up against or even just running into such people are often in a campaign suffering from the GM World Tour syndrome. It's a variation on the railroad where the PCs can go where they want, but they are so insignificant in the scheme of things that their actions are at best secondary and at worst meaningless.

Even in a world like Shadowrun where the tone and theme is the little guy ground down by the big, bad world this is important to keep in mind. Especially in dystopian type world like Shadowrun where the dirty, cheap, and unsutble way to drive that home is to switch into World Tour mode and then claim it is 'gritty'.  Yes the 6th world is a big, bad dangerous place. Yes you are the little guy (usually) and there are always bigger fish than you swimming around. But when the bigger fish come out of the background and take over the game, well that just sucks (IMO) because now I'm reading a story and not playing a game.

Quote from: SpikeI was able to gather that from the tone of you post all together.  I have had GM's that spoke as you do. Often this lead to frustrated parties lost in the woods and starving to death because we could never get to town to reprovision ourselves, or stuck living a provincial life, unable to progress because we weren't 'allowed' to go to a major city.  While I am not suggesting your games are equally frustrating to your players it should be noted that different players have different wants at the table. Trying to get everyone to agree to 'no combat' or some such is extremely limiting and slightly pointless.

Just in the interest of fostering the conversation, allow me to continue along this train of thought...

It seems that you have equated the concept of "combat = excitement" and "non-combat = boring."  

I would have a major problem with indecisive groups who spent their time in the woods and never "did" anything.  As a GM, I'd motivate them.  I'd move them quickly (even if I had to say, "Fastforward two weeks...").  

My favorite game is one that involves no combat at all, but constant action.  The players are always on their toes, always on the run or chasing something.  They are in a state of constant adrenaline, but they don't have to "clear leather" or draw weapons to maintain that state of action.

Also, based on what you said, it seems that you're a bit stuck in the mindset of killing something to gain experience.  This is a mindset that I abhor.  Setting and achieving goals gains experience.  A PC should gain as much (if not more!) experience learning how to drive away the massive Krayt dragon as he could from killing the beast.  Killing it just makes for a smelly carcass.  Learning how to drive it away is a skill that could be taught to communities so they don't need a local hero to constantly kill the damn things!

QuoteAs for your later comment about murdering my character in his sleep to prevent my 'getting your party killed' or some such...

Wow. Aside from the huge numbers of assumption you make about my characters, the sheer arrogance of that decision just cost you a shitload of respect in my book.

1) I have been known to kill quite a number of combat mongers who tended to drag our group into needless combat.  If we were playing together, what great wonderous abilities do you think you'd offer to preclude me from increasing the share of wealth while reducing the risk factor?

2) Somehow you have this preconception that your respect is of value to me.  I'm not sure where you arrived at this conclusion, but please disregard it.  For one thing, my character is a completely different persona than my self.  

3) I'm not sure what assumptions you think I've made, since you've confirmed all that I've stated...

QuoteI've been on the receiving end of in party murder a few times for a variety of reasons*, I've also watched parties I was GM'ing pull shit like that and it NEVER makes for a good game for anyone involved.

I have only once been on the receiving end of party murder.  Mull that one over.  

If it's happened to you "a few times," have you considered that perhaps your risky, annoying and murdurous ways may have caused your fellow party members to realize your character is a liability?  

The only time my PC has ever been killed (or attempted to be killed) by another player was the time that we neglectfully nominated the psychotic (unknown to us) criminal mastermind (unknown to us) as the "watch" for the night.  He murdered everyone in the party while we were sleeping to keep all the treasure and fame for himself.  

...and the whole group laughed and joked about it for years afterwards!  

Quote from: blakkieI do have a question about this, why was he there? What was his purpose?

I only ask because sometimes this flags a problem NPC.  

The PCs had flubbed up.  Badly.  We had set off silent alarms.  The full weight of the corporate security was focused upon us.  Armored vehicles.  Combat assault troops.  Snipers.  

We had flak vests and pistols.

In the best of situations, we could have fired 3 x 4 x 15 bullets (we each had 4 clips).  If 50% of them hit (wildly high numbers for a firefight), they would have just flattened against armor.  

The GM was really trying to save us by providing an "out" and presuming our PCs would be smart enough to realize it.

Quote from: VellorianThe PCs had flubbed up.  Badly.  We had set off silent alarms. ........The GM was really trying to save us by providing an "out" and presuming our PCs would be smart enough to realize it.

Ok, that's making a lot more sense.

Quote from: VellorianJust in the interest of fostering the conversation, allow me to continue along this train of thought...

It seems that you have equated the concept of "combat = excitement" and "non-combat = boring."  

I would have a major problem with indecisive groups who spent their time in the woods and never "did" anything.  As a GM, I'd motivate them.  I'd move them quickly (even if I had to say, "Fastforward two weeks...").  

My favorite game is one that involves no combat at all, but constant action.  The players are always on their toes, always on the run or chasing something.  They are in a state of constant adrenaline, but they don't have to "clear leather" or draw weapons to maintain that state of action.

Also, based on what you said, it seems that you're a bit stuck in the mindset of killing something to gain experience.  This is a mindset that I abhor.  Setting and achieving goals gains experience.  A PC should gain as much (if not more!) experience learning how to drive away the massive Krayt dragon as he could from killing the beast.  Killing it just makes for a smelly carcass.  Learning how to drive it away is a skill that could be taught to communities so they don't need a local hero to constantly kill the damn things!



1) I have been known to kill quite a number of combat mongers who tended to drag our group into needless combat.  If we were playing together, what great wonderous abilities do you think you'd offer to preclude me from increasing the share of wealth while reducing the risk factor?

2) Somehow you have this preconception that your respect is of value to me.  I'm not sure where you arrived at this conclusion, but please disregard it.  For one thing, my character is a completely different persona than my self.  

3) I'm not sure what assumptions you think I've made, since you've confirmed all that I've stated...



I have only once been on the receiving end of party murder.  Mull that one over.  

If it's happened to you "a few times," have you considered that perhaps your risky, annoying and murdurous ways may have caused your fellow party members to realize your character is a liability?  

The only time my PC has ever been killed (or attempted to be killed) by another player was the time that we neglectfully nominated the psychotic (unknown to us) criminal mastermind (unknown to us) as the "watch" for the night.  He murdered everyone in the party while we were sleeping to keep all the treasure and fame for himself.  

...and the whole group laughed and joked about it for years afterwards!  

Again with the assumptions.   I haven't enjoyed a game that used 'kills for xp' for years. I will play D&D, because it's easier to find players for D&D, I also favor more lethal combat systems for play, as they make you think about your combat or risk death and dismemberment from every fight.   Regardless.

I don't give a rats ass if you care about my respect.  My respect for you is more personal to me than you. I could have clarified that earlier, and should have. All it means is that I'm less likely to waste my time responding you your posts unless you ask for me specifically in some fashion. No loss to you, I'm sure.

As for your characters being murdered less often, I have to suggest that I have a much more nomadic lifestyle than you do, thus I have played with a wider range of assholes than you have.  Given that the two samples of being murdered I mentioned both happened after the first game session, and my tendency to be a more quite 'utility player' for a few games (sit back and watch and figure out my character) leads me to suspect that I was just playing with assholes more than 'I'm some sort of crazy psycho who will butcher us all'.  


I merely comment that your 'idolized GM' has habits that don't ring high on my list of 'good GM habits'. NPC's with perfect knowledge of the party, fiat character deaths, single point of failure games.  Giving the NPC's perfect knowledge isn't playing tactical by any means, its using out of character knowledge.