Hacker Chronicles 2/HACKER2.BIN/1133.SR_GMING.TXT

Text File | 1993-01-07 | 19KB | 295 lines

                    Game Mastering cyberpunk games
                 Shadowrunning as a game; what to do?

     I hadn't thought this was a terribly hard problem, but events as of
late have altered this assumption.  Since it's a wonderful subject to
speak on, and will help me lay out some basic guidelines for game
mastering, I thought I'd put this together and see what comes of it.  In
all likelihood, those who motivated me to this degree will respond in
force to this article.  I welcome that, and the reactions of anyone else
who has a response to this, to please contact me and we'll hash it out.
     Now, Game Mastering in general, is an artform with a bit of science
and a whole lot of showman tossed in for good measure.  You have to hold
mystical concepts such as "Game Balance" in hand as well as realism,
fun, drama, excitement and player enjoyment.  All work together to make
a whole game, and any sour parts leave you with a lacking final product.
     I had thought there were only two types of game masters, but I have
been proven wrong in this assumption; there are now atleast three that I
can identify.  I'm sure I'll continue to detect subcategories and new
categories as the years pass and I continue to observe, but for now I
see only three.
     The first is the easiest to spot; the Munchkin Game Master.  A Game
Master that rolls dice only, that does combat only, who doesn't have
personalities and life in anything or anyone the characters encounter
through their travels through his world.  These types of Game Masters
also tend to be very overbearing in their control of the game, telling
characters what they can and can't do, what will and won't work, and so
forth.
     The second is the most dangerous, in my opinion, because they
masquerade at the surface as the third type.  Think of them as a bit of
Munchkin Game Master combined with a lot of Roleplaying Game Master.
They are generally good roleplayers, but will take one of two courses.
Either total roleplaying with an almost total ignorance of dice or
random factors at all, to the point of making combat exceedingly rare;
or they control the game with a Hitler type grip in their arbitrary
decision making on nearly all aspects of the game.
     The third is what I strive to be, whether or not I've actually made
it to this level, I don't know, but I do try. This is the Game Master
that roleplays very well and can handle life and personality in the
game, but also has a very solid place for numbers in the game.  The
characters are allowed control over their characters to a realistic
degree; they take whatever actions they choose but pay any and all
retilatory penalties that may arise from provoking responses from
within the game world.
     Munchkin Game Masters are annoying and unsatsisfying to play under,
but mostly harmless (just like humans, according to The Hitchhiker's
Guide), because they're easy to recognize, and even manipulate with
careful planning and wording.  You can anticipate some of the bone headed
stunts they'll pull on you, or outrageous things they'll subject you to,
and prepare accordingly.
     I'll use a Game Master that those who have gamed with my group will
recognize by deed alone, for his "exploits" as a Game Master are
legendary in our humorous folklore.  He gamed through some AD&D with
them, but most of the truly ridiculous events occurred during his
attempts at Shadowrun campaigns.  These are some examples of what a
Munchkin Game Master will do or allow to happen, what he will rule, and
the things that will come to pass despite the player's best efforts.
     The first was that every enemy the players encountered was one of
two things; either a huge troll with a large number of fellow trolls
assisting him, or some paranimal such as ghouls, vampires and so forth.
Never ordinary humans, metahumans, never highly skilled or barely
walking opponents, security guards or anything else.  It was always one
of two things.
     But there's more, yes much more.  These huge trolls would rarely be
in armor better than a 3/2 or 4/3 rating, and never packed weapons
higher than heavy pistols.  They always stood flat footed to shoot it
out with the players, and tactics was something that was a non-existant
dream.
     And yes, we have more.  In one of these battlezone campaigns, in
which this Game Master had given the players a HOVERCRAFT to cruise
around on downtown Seattle streets with, he stuck them into a graveyard.
Yes, a Halloween graveyard, right in the middle of Seattle.  Perhaps not
too unusual, for there surely is atleast one, but this was a LARGE one,
complete with rolling hills and fog and crypts and everything.  Very
unrealistic to have in the middle of a Metroplex.
     And it gets better.  The one intelligent player in the bunch, a
bunch of munchkins run by a munchkining Game Master, natch, decides that
he just doesn't like this idea.  So he calls Mr. Johnson and asks to
move the meet to anywhere else that the suit desires.  But our wonderful
Game Master here hates this idea, and Mr. J tells our intrepid player
that if he doesn't get his runner ork butt down to that graveyard and
wait for contact, not only will he not get paid, but a corporate hit
team will be sent out to see about securing his silence.
     So the Game Master now has all of his victims at the graveyard, and
he throws his ghouls at them.  Being munchkins, one of the samurai has
pulled his Vindicator outta the Hovercraft, and levels to rip off a
standard burst.  The Game Master decides that the recoil of this weapon
is just so incredible that not only did the samurai miss, but that his
burst went into the ceiling (recoil kicking the barrels up at the
ceiling from a 0 degree horizontal position before the rounds left the
barrels).
     My response to this has always been to stick a sight on the end of
the stock and look through that, line up, then fire as you twist your
head to the side.  The recoil of the gun would swing it 90 degrees up
and make it horizontal when the rounds left, but I never got the chance
to try this one on him.
     This is a fair assessment, I think, of the typical stuff that a
munchkin Game Master will do.  The game will be combat heavy with
obscene numbers of unusual opposition and outrageous displays of
hardware.  And not only that, but the rulings will be anything to frag
the players over, and help the Game Master's monster of the minute
inflict some damage before going down.
     Moving on, we get to the second, and most dangerous, Game Master
type.  I call this the most dangerous because it really is hard to spot.
Often, you won't know that the Game Master is controlling the game so
totally until several sessions pass, when you start seeing everything
that you want to do or try that isn't in line with the Game Master's
planned course of action always failing.
     These Game Masters seem to mean well, but I find them only
endlessly annoying, so I have trouble even giving credit for good
intentions.  They're generally good roleplayers, and will give lively
games, but their games lack that flair that better Game Master's games
will.  Events will flow in a manner dictated by the Game Master, the
players will rarely get to alter this order by their own actions or
individual thoughts and initiative.
     Also a usual faucet is the near lack of combat, and near lack of
*serious* hardware of any kind.  This is not just weapons, but armor,
ammunition, drugs, cyberware, vehicles and contacts.  The Game Master
will arbitarly make the acquisition of said items totally impossible
merely because he doesn't like them or because he thinks they're so hard
to get that the players won't have a chance to obtain them.
     This is where I differ most strongly.  Yes they are Role Playing
Games, and I do love to role play.  But if you sat down without the
intention of some combat here and there, why are you playing a game such
as Shadowrun, or other cyberpunk genere game?  If you want combatless
games, play either a very specific Horror Genere game like Chill (TM by
whoever makes it) or start a Theater Group that writes, acts and directs
it's own original productions; because without the combat, that's
effectively what you have.
     Cyberpunk is not about *pure* roleplaying.  Yes, to have not only a
real character, but a real *cyberpunk* character, you have to have some
heavy roleplaying there.  You have to give that personality, that drive,
that flair and will to live and do great things into the character, but
combat is there too.  Cyberpunk is a genere where danger and intrigue
lurk behind every dumpster, every corporate boardroom, every orbital
station.  It is impossible to play a cyberpunk character that can not
handle himself in combat, or can't avoid combat.
     Life on the streets is hard and rough, only the strong survive.
The things that shadowrunners or other mercenary elements do are
dangerous, and as a result, they will know how to not only obtain
"heavy" hardware, but will actually have it too.  They won't use it
except when there's not only no other choice, but also when it's needed,
but they'll have the access regardless.
     A cyberpunk game with weapons limited by Game Master decision to
nothing heavier than a Heavy Pistol is not only unrealistic, but boring.
Unrealistic because either the opposition will run around with similar
weapons and you'll not have the higher level of technology that the
established oppressors are supposed to have; or because they'll have
that higher technology, and you will quite literally not have a leg to
stand on in even a brief, passing skirmish.
     I have "preached" on the style of combat and tactics that are
required of the "top level" shadowrunners and cyberpunk gamers before; I
don't think I need to go into one of my wonderful tactical discussions
here.  But I will touch on the base issue here, as I see it.  Game
balance.
     The only reason I can think of for a Game Master deciding to be so
overbearing in his rulership of the game, aside from being a total ass,
is that he wants a game balance there.  My response, my only response
and the only correct response that I've seen, is that game balance
pretty much takes care of itself in situations like this.
     If players want to run around with Assault Rifles loading military
specification ammunition loads such as Armor Piercing Depleted Sabot or
Explosive Tipped, let them.  They'll pay through the nose for such
things, and won't have much oppoturnity to use them regardless.  The
high cost helps keep things on an even keel; they know it's a major
purchase and won't have them profusely, and will not have that money
available for other mischevious deeds that they could get into.
     Further, you can't exactly lug around an Assault Rifle, Light
Machine Gun, Minigun or even an Assault Cannon or Rocket Launcher, with
you all the time; to say nothing of armored suits and combat vehicles.
It takes time, effort and planning to be able to use your wonderful
toys; gamers that have the ability to effect this preparation and
forethought should not be denied their chance.
     Then there are other things to consider.  Opponents will be using
these little toys too, but they'll have them in much higher numbers.  It
won't be two of five runners with military specification ammunition
loaded in military specification weapons, it'll be five of five troopers
in this squad with that stuff.
     And the game balance item again.  Well, somethings are flat
ridiculous to obtain normally through payments to the black market.
You'll have to obtain them yourself, and that can be very dear in price
indeed.  To be brief, on a recent run with the sole purpose of obtaining
some very exclusive military specification ammunition, we ended up in a
running gun battle down a major interstate and lost a rigged vehicle and
a close commrade went down (healed later, thankfully) under a hail of
gunfire from a pissed convoy guard.  All for one hundred rounds of this
ammunition.  I think the game balance is intact.
     There is a basic premise that I use in Game Mastering, one that I
think holds true not only in life itself, but in all realistic and fun
games.  Let the chips fall where they may.  If the players decide that
they need to assassinate the President of the UCAS and extract some data
from his private office, let them try.
     That's right, I said allow them the try. If they want to do it, let
them take their best shot.  Draw up stats as needed and prepare your
defenses (FAIR defenses, appropriate to the target), and then see what
happens.  Off the hip, I'd say this type of action would result in
something minor, like all hell breaking loose, but so be it.  Let them
try it, let them get scragged over if that's what happens, and loose one
or more characters.  Let them loose valuable equipment and armorment,
get tagged for arrest or termination, and generally wreak havoc on your
quiet little game world.  Even let them succeed if they merit such a
result through their planning, execution and just plain luck of the
dice.
     But that's what they wanted.  In real life, if I decided that I
wanted to assassinate the President, what would stop me?  If I could
manage to get weapons and support and so forth, I'd have to beat only
the formidable agents of the Secret Service.  But I could make the
attempt; why then, should gamers be denied some action they want to try?
It's unrealistic, unfun and unfair for Game Masters to flatly tell
gamers, or flatly weight a "die roll" to give the result that the Game
Master wants, that they can't do something.
     Now, this may be a very extreme example, but extremes are good for
illustrating points.  Take the same logic that you use for a mediocre
event and apply it to an extreme, and suddenly you can see if it holds
up or not.  That's what happens here.
     The Game Master's job is not to rule the players, rule the world or
run the game.  His job, his only job and only motivation, is to be the
"computer" that monitors the mechanics and behind the scenes work, who
gives life to the NPCs and powers that the players will encounter.
Sure, most Game Masters have fun because they're part of the session and
are hobnobbing with their friends throughout it all; but they're not the
focus, they're the judge.
     Since my job is to see what happens as a result of the characters,
I don't sit and disallow actions that they choose to make.  So what if I
know that they'll never succeed at something, or will totally blow my
plot out of the water?  In the former, let them take their chances;
they're either stupid or desperate; either way, that's what learning and
gaming are all about.  In the later, perhaps I didn't set my game and
plot up well enough if there's holes big enough for gamers to totally
wreck everything through.
     Especially in cyberpunk.  I can't count the number of times that I,
as a player, have come up with this approach or that approach that my
Game Master had never thought of a player trying.  What would have been
the result of my creative and original genius under this second type of
Game Master?  All for naught, that's what; and what fun is that?
     Taking it the other way, some of the best games I've ever run were
when the players totally flat footed me with their actions, with their
approaches and thoughts on the subject(s) at hand.  If I'd flatly
refused to let their original ideas atleast go into action, what would
have happened?  They'd've been very uncreative because they would soon
get the sense of me pushing and prodding them into the areas that I
choose for them; and I would've been very bored because I would have
known what was going to happen next the entire game.
     Now, I feel that I must add a bit of clarification to all of this.
I'm not saying let the players get *away* with anything, I'm merely
saying let them *try* anything.  Run the game and the world as it should
be run.  If what they attempt works according to the rules and settings,
then it works.  If it doesn't work, then it doesn't work.  In either
case, the players have only themselves to blame for their success and/or
failure.
     This not only gets you off the "hook", so to speak, from a player
that might become upset over events like the loss of a favorite
character; but gives them that realistic feeling of "I'm in control".
     In real life, you are in control of your own decisions.  You may
have pressures on you to make certain ones, and you may face penalities
if you make certain ones, but you are always in control of the decision.
Go to work or not; if you do, you get paid.  If you don't, you don't get
paid; but you don't have some oppressive master in the sky telling you
that you *will* go to work.
     Punch that asshole that cut you off in the grocery aisle or not?
Do and a fight could erupt, you could get arrested, sued, or even walk
scot free if you get away or knock him so flat he can't see straight
enough to *get* you in trouble.  Don't and stew for a while, but avoid
the possible results.  But it was your choice.
     Same for games.  You should be able to do whatever you want with
your character, but you should likewise have to pay the consequences
that arise if things go askew.  And said consequences should be fair.
In life, you have a general idea of what will generally happen if you do
this, don't do that, and so forth.  So to in games, if you do something,
and the Game Master has a standard ruling about it; he should perhaps
give you a warning before you do it about the risk-benefit ratio,
allowing you to weigh them off.
     It's not fair for him to sit smugly and let you do something,
especially if you think it's gonna be covered in such a fashion, and
then rule against you in another manner that totally scrags your
character over.  You should get a bit of a warning, have a bit of
knowledge about what may and may not happen.  In this manner you can
accurately take risks, avoid terrible risks and perhaps pass along so-so
risks in that greatest of cyberpunk toys; sub-contracting.
     So the moral of the story, if I can remember what it is.  Game
Mastering, despite the jokes and funny names, is not playing God.  Your
job is not to inflict your whims and desires, dreams and goals, on the
players.  No matter how badly you want a campaign to go in a certain
direction, you do not get your wish simply because you want it.
     If the players are refusing to go where you need/want them to, if
they've circumvented all of your preparations to make it happen, if
things are just not working out, let it ride.  The game moves on, and
you'll learn from the experience of not planning throughly enough for
either your players' desires or characters' abilities, or both.  And
it'll give you good experience in improvising, recouping your campaign
through good reaction on the part of the necessary NPCs to get things
back under way later.
     The final word is this.  Game Masters moderate, not dictate.  Let
the players run the show and everyone will see the fun that occurs.
Give it a shot, you might be surprised.